NOTICE OF Regulatory Council MEETING

 

 

 

The Meeting of Parramatta City Council will be held in the Council Chamber, Fourth Floor, 2 Civic Place, Parramatta on Monday, 12 May 2008 at 6:45pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sue Coleman

Acting General Manager

 

 

 Parramatta – the leading city at the heart of Sydney

 

30 Darcy Street Parramatta NSW 2150

PO Box 32 Parramatta

 

Phone 02 9806 5050 Fax 02 9806 5917 DX 8279 Parramatta

ABN 49 907 174 773  www.parracity.nsw.gov.au

 

“Think Before You Print”



COUNCIL CHAMBERS

 

 

Clr Paul Barber, Lord Mayor – Caroline Chisholm Ward

Sue Coleman, Acting General Manager - Parramatta City Council

 

 

 

 

Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services

 

 

 

Assistant Minutes Clerk – Michael Wearne

 

 

Stephen Kerr –  Group Manager Corporate

 

 

 

Minutes Clerk – Grant Davies

 

Marcelo Occhuizzi –Acting Group Manager Outcomes & Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clr Omar Jamal – Arthur Philip Ward

 

 

Clr Lorraine Wearne - Lachlan Macquarie Ward

 

Clr Anita Brown – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward

 

 

Clr John Chedid – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward

 

Clr David Borger – Macarthur Ward Elizabeth

 

 

Clr Andrew Wilson – Lachlan Macquarie Ward

 

Clr Paul Garrard – Woodville Ward

 

 

Clr Tony Issa, OAM – Woodville Ward

 

Clr Julia Finn – Arthur Philip Ward

 

 

Clr Brain Prudames – Caroline Chisholm Ward

 

Clr Chris Worthington – Caroline Chisholm Ward

Clr Pierre Esber, Deputy Lord Mayor  Lachlan Macquarie Ward

Clr Maureen Walsh – Wooville Ward

Clr Chiang Lim – Arthur Phillip Ward

Text Box:   Press

 

Staff

 

 

Staff

 

GALLERY

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM                                                         SUBJECT                                              PAGE NO

 

1        CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council - 28 April 2008

2        APOLOGIES

3        DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4        MINUTES OF THE LORD MAYOR

5        PETITIONS

6        PUBLIC FORUM

7        RESCISSION MOTIONS

8        City Leadership and Management

8.1     Adoption of the Draft Management Plan 2008/09 - 2011/12 for Public Exhibition

9        Regulatory Reports

9.1     17-19 Hassall Street Parramatta - Proposed Easement  

10      DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION

11      DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REFERRED FOR ON-SITE MEETINGS

12      DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD

13      Reports - Domestic Applications

13.1   330 Church Street, Parramatta
(Lot 101 DP 1031459, EASE 1043441, Lot 3 DP 788637, Lot 2 DP 788637) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

13.2   3 McArdle Street, Ermington (Lot 3 DP 36752) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

13.3   5 McArdle Street, Ermington
(Lot 4 DP 36752) (
Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

13.4   122 The Trongate Granville (crn Charles Streets) (Lots 5A & 6A DP 159581) ( Woodville Ward)

14      Reports - Development Applications

14.1   47 Barnetts Road, Winston Hills
(Lot 7 DP 221156) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

14.2   92 Bettington Road, Oatlands
(
Lot 1 DP 22016 and Lot D DP 32351)
(Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.3   14 New York Street, Granville
(Lot A DP 318121) (Woodville)

14.4   28 - 30 Carson Street, Dundas
(Lots 4 and 5 DP 31560) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.5   29-31 Garnet Street Merrylands

14.6   3-11 Shirley Street, Rosehill (Lot 2 DP 864567) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.7   70 Ross Street North Parramatta
( Lot 1 DP 778857) (Elixabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.8   15 Gilbert Street, North Parramatta
(
Lot 59 DP 4858) (Arthur Phillip)

14.9   Section 82A Review DA/545/2005 18 Dobson Crescent Dundas

14.10  184-186 Windsor Road and 16 Weemala Street, Winston Hills
(Lot 1 DP 205332,
Lot 2 DP 944363 & Lot 24 DP 230957) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

14.11  66 Ross Street, Parramatta
(Lot A DP 159275) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

14.12  35 Elder Road, Dundas
(Lot 5 DP 30193) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.13  Epping RSL Club, 45-47 Rawson Street, Epping
(
Lot 101 DP 838314) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

14.14  7 Lomond Crescent, WINSTON HILLS
(Lots 775 & 778 DP 235162) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

14.15  16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 2)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur)

14.16  16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 3)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.17  16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 4)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.18  Lot 24, 16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.19  Lot 25, 16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.20  16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 26) (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

14.21  253 Church Street, Parramatta
(
Lot B DP 380256) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

15      Notices of Motion

15.1   Length of Time for Validity of a Development Application

15.2   Consultants Employed by Council

15.3   Recruitment of Council Staff through Consultants

15.4   Congratulations to the Sydney Turf Club (STC) on the Golden Slipper   

16      QUESTION TIME

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER         8.1

SUBJECT                   Adoption of the Draft Management Plan 2008/09 - 2011/12 for Public Exhibition

REFERENCE            F2007/00392 - D00926151

REPORT OF              Group Manager Corporate Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

Adoption of the Draft Management Plan 2008/09 – 2011/12 for Public Exhibition

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council approve the placing of the Draft Management Plan 2008/09 – 2011/12, Proposed Schedule of Fees and Charges 2008/09 and Pricing Policy 2008/09, as attached to this report, on public exhibition for 28 days subject to the Draft Management Plan being amended to provide for funding the following Projects from Section 94 contributions in lieu of revenue funding by the amounts shown for each of the following projects respectively:

 

Project

000

Library Materials RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) system

$500

Pavillion Improvement Program

$85

Sportsground Program

$95

Playground Replacement Program

$20

Parks Program

$42

Local Bike Facilities

$163

Total

$905

 

 

(b)   Further, that the amount of $905,000 noted in the above recommendation be used to reduce borrowings proposed in 2008/09 from $2,927,000 to $2,022,000 and the Draft Management Plan be amended accordingly, prior to exhibition.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Pursuant to section 402 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council is required to prepare a Draft Management Plan each year. The Local Government Act and Regulations set out the matters that must be included within the draft Plan.

 

Over the past 5 months, the development process of the draft Management Plan has included a series of workshops for Councillors to consider Council’s current and forecast financial position, to develop operational and budgetary strategies and to review and determine priorities for future services and projects expenditure. The seven Program Panels have also met to review the purposes, objectives, proposed projects, performance measures and targets for each Program.

 

The Draft Management Plan is now presented to Council for determination. Once determined it will be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days from 14 May to 11 June 2008. The exhibition period will be advertised and comments on the draft Plan invited from the community. Copies of the draft Plan will be available at Council’s libraries and the Customer Contact Centre. A copy will also be placed on Council’s website. A public forum is also planned for 20 May 2008 to discuss the draft Management Plan with members of the Residents’ Panel and the general community.

 

Following the exhibition period it is proposed to bring the Plan back to Council on 23 June to consider any submissions from the community and to formally adopt the Management Plan for 2008/09 to 2011/12.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

Presentation format

 

The Draft Management Plan has been prepared in the same format as last year based on Council’s seven Program areas. Each Program section includes details of the Program’s purpose, objectives, service activities, project highlights, proposed income and expenditure on services and projects and the Program’s performance measures and targets. The second section of the Draft Plan sets out details of the draft 2008/09 Budget, forward financial estimates for 2009/10 to 2011/12, proposed rates and annual charges for 2008/09 and the proposed income and expenditure from these proposed rates and charges. Other required statutory information is also contained in this second section. The schedule of proposed Fees and Charges and Pricing Policy for 2008/09 is contained under separate cover.

 

Performance Measures and Targets

 

As noted above, the Program Panels have reviewed performance measures and targets previously, and some new measures are included as a result of this process.  We have also included for the first time reporting frequencies for these measures.

 

2008/09 Budget and Forward Estimates

 

The 2008/09 Budget has proposed a balanced budget in terms of the operating result for 2008/09. Revenue from continuing operations will match operating expenditure, including interest on loans and depreciation. General rates income has been increased by 3.2% in line with the State Government’s permissible maximum increase. The Domestic Waste Management Charge has been increased by 4%. The Stormwater Management Service Charge has not been increased.

 

Council is required to revalue its assets to fair value commencing with land, buildings, plant and equipment at June 2008 and roads, bridges, footpaths and drainage infrastructure assets as at June 2009. This revaluation exercise has not yet been completed but will have ramifications for future depreciation costs.   Pending the completion of these revaluations, an estimate of the impact, of about $1 million has been included in the 2008/09 Budget for increased depreciation on buildings, plant and equipment. The forward estimates 2009/10 to 2011/12 include this impact but do not include any impact from a revaluation of roads, bridges, footpaths and drainage assets. The increase in depreciation expense in those years takes into consideration only the effect of new capital expenditure. The operating result for the forward estimates period shows a deteriorating position primarily due to the following factors:

 

·    impact of increased depreciation

·    employee costs increasing faster than income

·    the reduction of special rates income in 2010/11 due to the finalisation of the ten year special rate variation that was approved in 2000/01 and

·    Some Civic Place commitments resulting from the Development Agreement. These commitments are restricted to the three years of the forward estimates and the costs are forecast to be recouped through project cash flows in future years.

 

The Resources Advisory Committee has been formed to examine means by which Council can address the unfavourable trend in the operating result and achieve the objective of sustaining a balanced operating result in future years. 

 

Projects

 

The draft Management Plan proposed expenditure of $30.105 million on Projects in 2008/09. A detailed list of the Projects is contained at page 77 to 82 of the Draft Management Plan. The Draft Management Plan shows Projects expenditure to be funded by general revenue funding of $9.4 million from the Services Budget and the balance from special rates, loans, reserves, grants and section 94 contributions. These projects and associated funding sources were advised to Councillors following the Projects Prioritisation Workshop on March 27.

 

Section 94 contributions

 

Recent changes to the Section 94 Plan have meant that Council has greater flexibility in how it can expend Section 94 contributions. A review of these changes and of proposed Projects shows that of the $9.4 million of general revenue currently proposed to fund Projects in the 2008/09 budget, $905,000 could instead be funded from Section 94 Reserves. Using Section 94 funds to fund the following project expenditure would free up General Revenue funds totalling $905,000:

 

 

Project

000

Library Materials RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) system

$500

Pavillion  Improvement Program

$85

Sportsground Program

$95

Playground Replacement Program

$20

Parks Program

$42

Local Bike Facilities

$163

Total

$905

 

These general revenue funds could be used to fund Projects previously funded from loans. Council could then reduce its borrowings in 2008/09 by $905,000 and reduce future debt servicing costs. Such an action utilising the additional funding from section 94 is recommended, with the relevant projects identified in the recommendations of this report.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

The Draft Management Plan has been developed through collaboration between Councillors and staff in a series of Workshops and Program Panel meetings. Feedback obtained through the Residents’ Panel and general community input has also been taken into consideration.

 

The exhibition of the Draft Plan for 28 days together with the planned public forum will give the community the opportunity to make their views known to Council prior to the Plan being adopted by Council on 23 June.

 

Stephen Kerr

Group Manager – Corporate Services

1 May 2008

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Draft Management Plan 2008/09 – 2011/12

110 Pages

 

2View

Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2008/09

120 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Draft Management Plan 2008/09 – 2011/12

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 1

 

 

 

Adoption of the Draft Management Plan 2008/09 - 2011/12 for Public Exhibition

 

 

 

Draft Management Plan 2008/09 – 2011/12

 

110 Pages

 

 PLEASE NOTE:-

 

tHIS COLOUR A4 ATTACHMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO COUNCILLORS AND SENIOR STAFF ONLY UNDER separate COVER.

 

iF YOU REQUIRE A COPY OF THIS ATTACHMENT, PLEASE CONTACT GRANT DAVIES ON 9806 5314 OR MICHAEL WEARNE ON 9806 5325

 


Attachment 2

Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2008/09

 

 

 

 

 

Placeholder for Attachment 2

 

 

 

Adoption of the Draft Management Plan 2008/09 - 2011/12 for Public Exhibition

 

 

 

Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2008/09

 

120 Pages

 

PLEASE NOTE:-

 

tHIS COLOUR A4 ATTACHMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO COUNCILLORS AND SENIOR STAFF ONLY UNDER separate COVER.

 

iF YOU REQUIRE A COPY OF THIS ATTACHMENT, PLEASE CONTACT GRANT DAVIES ON 9806 5314 OR MICHAEL WEARNE ON 9806 5325

 

  


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER         9.1

SUBJECT                   17-19 Hassall Street Parramatta - Proposed Easement

REFERENCE            DA/787/2004 - D00925453

REPORT OF              Property Program Manager       

 

PURPOSE:

 

The report seeks a resolution of the Council to create an easement in favour of the adjoining development to allow an encroachment of shop awning and an electricity substation over the Council land (Lot 2 DP 632003) at Charles Street Parramatta.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council resolve to create an easement over the Council land (Lot 2 DP 632003) as shown on the plan at Attachment 3 in favour of 17-19 Hassall Street Parramatta (Lot 100 DP 1123072) with the condition that the easement at Council’s sole discretion shall cease and be extinguished when the Council land is dedicated for public road use.

 

(b)     Further, that the Lord Mayor and General Manager be authorised to execute under seal the linen plan and Section 88B instrument for creation of the easement.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      The subject development at the south eastern corner of Hassall Street and Charles Street is a 9 storey residential / commercial building with DA/787/2004 approved on 30 March 2005 and amended on 8 February 2007.

 

2.      The building work for the development is almost completed and the developer is seeking to register a strata title plan for the development at the Land and Property Information of the Department of Lands.  The strata title plan has been rejected due to the shop awning along Charles Street being taken as an encroachment over Lot 2 DP 632003 owned by the Council for Charles St extension.

 

3.      The survey for the strata title plan has also revealed a minor encroachment of 0.05 metre for the electricity substation onto the Council land behind the concrete panel sound barrier.

 

4.      A detailed submission and a location plan are at Attachments 1 and 2.

 

ISSUES / OPTIONS / CONSEQUENCES

 

5.      The road on Lot 2 DP 632003 being an extension of Charles Street has been built with pavement, line markings, road signs and kerb and gutter though for the time being it is only open for north bound traffic pending completion of an intersection at Charles Street, Parkes Street and Wigram Street. 

 

6.      The Council's Development Services Unit in approving DA/787/2004 had taken Lot 2 DP 632003 as public road and approved among others an awning for the shop and fire exit over and to this section of road.  Such has created difficulties for the developer, as Lot 2 DP 632003 though being accepted for public road use in approving the DA has not been legally dedicated as public road hence the awning is taken as an encroachment over the Council land.

 

7.      For information, the Council land Lot 2 DP 632003 is classified operational in Council’s Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.28.  Accordingly, Council is free to dispose of the land including creation of interests in manners it sees fit.

 

8.      Council has the option of dedicating Lot 2 DP 632003 for public road use now to allow the shop awning.  This is not preferred, as Council on 25 February 2008 (DSU 40/2008) agreed in principle to lease / license the closed portion of Charles Street on Lot 2 DP 632003 to the RTA for a bus layover.  The Council’s solicitors Storey & Gough have confirmed that such leasing / licensing arrangement with the RTA would be upset if the land were to be dedicated for public road use now.  For reference, the Council report (DSU 40/2008) and resolution are at Reference Material.

 

9.      Council has also the option to create an easement for the shop awning over Lot 2 DP 632003 on the basis that Lot 2 DP 632003 is a privately owned lot of the Council. 

 

10.    This option is recommended, as the shop awning through no fault of the developer has become an encroachment over the Council land due to the Council not able to dedicate the land in time for public road use. 

 

11.    The minor encroachment of the electricity substation of approximately 0.33 sq m is normally tolerated for the life of the structure.  The encroachment mainly the brick foundation is not obstructive, as it sits behind the concrete panel sound barrier erected along the pavement.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

12.    The Council’s Infrastructure Unit, Capital Projects Unit and Traffic and Transport Unit have been consulted and have no objections to the proposed easement over the Council land.

 

 

 

 

Kwok Leung                                                      Paul Burne

Property Program Manager                         Acting Strategic Asset Manager

 

Attachments:

1View

Attachments 1 to 3

3 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council report (DSU 40/2008) and resolution


Attachment 1

Attachments 1 to 3

 



  


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         13.1

SUBJECT                   330 Church Street, Parramatta
(Lot 101 DP 1031459, EASE 1043441, Lot 3 DP 788637, Lot 2 DP 788637) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Fitout of Shop G21 and use of Shops G13, G14, G15 & G21 for the purpose of a restaurant, associated cooking classes and retailing of associated goods. Location Map - Attachment 3

REFERENCE            DA/69/2008 - Submitted 5 February 2008

APPLICANT/S           Sydney Technical Institute

OWNERS                    Riverbank Trustee Pty Limited & Sandhurst Trustees Limited

REPORT OF              Senior Development Assessment Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 69/2008 which seeks approval to the  fitout of Shop G21 and the use of Shops G13, G14, G15 & G21 for the purpose of a restaurant, ancillary cooking classes and retailing of associated goods.

 

This application is being referred to Council as the subject site is listed as an item of heritage significance under Parramatta City Centre Plan LEP.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 69/2008 subject to standard conditions.

 

 

SITE AND LOCALITY

 

1.         The subject site is known as 330 Church Street, Parramatta and is located on the eastern side of Church Street between Phillip Street and the Parramatta River. The site is irregular in shape and has an area of approximately 6764m². The site has a main frontage to Church Street. 

                                                                                  

2.         The site contains a multi storey shopping centre within the former David Jones department store building. The site is surrounded by retail, commercial, a carpark and residential development. The Parramatta River adjoins the site to the north.

 

BACKGROUND

 

3.         A number of development applications have been received for the site and the shops within the shopping centre.

 

4.         Development Application DA/1410/2004 dated 10 February 2005 approved an application to carry out alterations and additions to Shops G14 and G15 to change the use to a restaurant and erect advertising signage and awnings.

 

 

PROPOSAL

 

5.         Approval is sought to use Shops G13, G14, G15 and G21 within the existing shopping centre and carry out the following:

 

Shops G13 and G14

These shops have previous approval for a restaurant (DA/1410/2004) which operated between noon to 10pm Sundays and Thursdays and noon to 11pm Fridays and Saturdays. It is proposed to continue the use of these premises as a restaurant, however extend the hours of operation from 7am to 11:30pm Mondays to Sundays. Cooking classes will also be held within the restaurant.

 

Shop G15

This shop is to be fitted out and used as a retail cooking shop with a display area for cooking videos, utensils, cook books and uniforms used in the hospitality industry.

 

Shop G21

This shop is to be fitted out and primarily used for student cooking classes for theory work, with a small retail area at the front of the shop.

 

Shops G15 and G21 will operate during the core operating hours of the shopping centre, being 8am to 9pm Mondays to Sundays. All shops will be used in conjunction with each other. 

 

6.         The proposed restaurant will specialise in Asian cuisine. Ancillary “one off” cooking lessons will be available to the public. Formal cooking classes will be held for hospitality students wanting to enter the hospitality industry with the long term ambition of becoming qualified chefs. A maximum of 10-15 employees will be on site at any one time.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta City Centre Plan Local Environmental Plan 2007

 

7.         The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use under PLEP 2007 and the use for a restaurant, retail outlet and educational establishment is permissible with consent. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone.

 

8.         The site is identified in Schedule 5 of PLEP 2007 as a heritage item. The site contains the former David Jones building. The significance of this Inter War department store building is that it is a substantial commercial building which makes a notable contribution to the townscape.

 

9.         The heritage provisions of PLEP 2007 seek to conserve existing significant fabrics and settings associated with the heritage significance of heritage items and to ensure that any development does not adversely affect the heritage significance of heritage items and their settings.

 

Parramatta City Centre Plan Development Control Plan

 

10.       The provisions of the Parramatta City Centre Plan DCP have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal achieves compliance with the requirements of the DCP and is also consistent with the aims and objectives of the DCP.

 

CONSULTATION

 

11.       In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised and notified to adjoining property owners/occupiers between 5 March and 26 March 2008. No submissions were received.

 

ISSUES

 

Heritage

 

12.       The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment as the site is listed as a heritage item in Schedule 5 of PLEP 2007. The site contains the former David Jones building. The significance of this Inter War department store building is that it is a substantial commercial building which makes a notable contribution to the townscape. The comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor are as follows:

 

“Having reviewed the application, I deem the impact of works on the heritage fabric to be negligible given that it includes only the renewal of fitout and change of use of the existing shops in the building.  Both proposed new uses are deemed "light" on fabric in that they do not require any permanent changes to the structure.”

 

13.      Accordingly, there are no objections to the proposed development on heritage grounds.

 

Other Issues

 

14.      Shops G13 and G14 have previous approval for a restaurant (DA/1410/2004) which operated between noon to 10pm Sundays and Thursdays and noon to 11pm Fridays and Saturdays. An acoustic report was submitted at that time demonstrating that the proposed use would not impact upon the amenity of the residential properties across Parramatta River (from the terrace area of the restaurant). No noise complaints have been received to date with respect to the operation of that restaurant. It is proposed to continue the use of these shops as a restaurant, however extend the hours of operation to 7am to 11:30pm Mondays to Sundays. The earlier opening hours are unlikely to impact on the amenity of the residents as the terrace area will not be used at this time. The restaurant will primarily be used for cooking classes in the morning. The outdoor terrace area which faces the residential properties across the Parramatta River will not be used after 11pm at night.

 

15.      The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer who raises no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of standard health and amenity conditions.

 

16.      There are no other undue impacts relative to noise or privacy associated with the proposed development.

 

 

 

Kate Lafferty

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Table of Compliance

1 Page

 

2View

Plans

3 Pages

 

3View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Table of Compliance

 

 


Attachment 2

Plans

 



 


Attachment 3

Locality Map

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         13.2

SUBJECT                   3 McArdle Street, Ermington (Lot 3 DP 36752) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Change of use from dwelling house to boarding house. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE            DA/435/2007 - Submitted 12 June 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mr Z J Chen

OWNERS                    Mr Z J Chen

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 435/2007 which seeks approval for the change of use from dwelling house to boarding house.

 

The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 435/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

 

1) The site management plan submitted with the application, is to be made available to adjoining properties prior to the occupation of the boarding house. The site management plan must include the contact details, a phone number of the site manager and suitable contact hours. In the event that a complaint is made where an activity has occurred that is inconsistent with the site management plan, the site manager is to respond and rectify the problem in accordance with the site management plan. A register/record of the complaints is to be kept by the site manager to assist if future concerns are to be investigated by Council.

 

2) The maximum number of lodgers permitted to reside within the dwelling must not exceed five (5) at any one time as each lodger is to be allocated individual bedrooms.

 

3) As there is a change in the building use (classification), the building must comply with the Category 1 fire safety provision applicable to the proposed new use.

 

Note:     The obligation under this subclause to comply with the Category 1 fire safety provision may require building work to be carried out even though none is proposed or required in the relevant development consent.  In this clause, Category 1 fire safety provision has the same meaning as it has in Part 7B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations. In this regard you are required to comply with provisions of the Building Code of Australia 2007 part 3.7.2.4 & 3.7.2.5. All bedrooms are required to be fitted with a smoke alarm which activates a system of lighting to assist with the evacuation of occupants. In addition a fire extinguisher or fire blanket must be provided within the kitchen.

 

4) The boarding house must provide 2 off-street parking spaces on the subject site.

 

5) The use of the premises shall comply in all respects with the definition of ‘boarding house’ as provided in the Dictionary to Clause 10 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, vis-à-vis:

 

“boarding house means a building or part of a building let in lodgings or a hostel which provides lodgers with a principal place of residence, but does not include backpackers accommodation, a guest house, serviced apartment, or (in the Table to Clause 16) any other building defined in this dictionary”.

 

That any advertising of the premises shall clearly state that the premises provides a principal place of residence and tariffs shall not be depicted on a daily basis.

 

6) A 24-hours phone number shall be supplied to each occupant so that contact may be made with the manager.

 

7) The manager shall ensure that a notice is placed near the entrance to the property in a visible position to the public advising of his name and contact number.

 

8) The premises shall require licensing pursuant to the Youth and Community Services Act 1973 should two or more occupants be diagnosed as having a disability.

 

9) That each occupant shall be furnished with a set of house rules and a copy of this consent and that no variation shall be permitted without the further approval of Council.

 

10) That the manager shall maintain a computer record and hard copy logbook of all residents with details of their names, length of stay, number of persons in each room, and that such record shall be submitted to Council annually.

 

11) All residents in the boarding house are to sign a lease or licence agreeing to comply with the boarding house rules, with the length of the lease to be determined by the management on the explicit understanding that accommodation is not to be provided on a temporary basis to persons on recreational pursuits. The length of lease considered appropriate is to be not less than 3 months.

 

12) The manager, upon signing of the lease or licence agreement, shall provide boarders with a key to their individual room and common areas.

 

13) Additional house rules shall be prepared by the manager of the premises and furnished to Council, in relation to such matters as the keeping of pets, noise, cleaning of outdoor areas and general use of outdoor areas.

 

14) The individual rooms and common areas are to be maintained in a clean and tidy state and individual’s rubbish is to be placed in the appropriate receptacles.

 

15) No fire, candles or naked flames are permitted within individual rooms

 

16) The kitchen shall be made available for residents 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and the applicant shall ensure that basic facilities in good working order are provided, including, but not limited to:

 

·         a large refrigerator;

·         a regular and a microwave oven;

·         dishwashing facilities;

·         waste disposal;

·         personal hygiene (soap, paper towels and the like);

·         food storage space;

·         a bench top for food preparation.

 

17) Doors to the kitchen and common areas are to be clear glazed.

 

18) Dining shall be encouraged within the common areas, so as not to isolate residents.

 

19) The door to a fully enclosed sanitary compartment  must open outwards or slide or be readily removable from the outside of the compartment, unless there is a clear space of at least 1.2 metres between the closet pan within the sanitary compartment and the nearest part of the doorway.

 

 

20) The boarding house is to be used as a principal place of residence for  long term residents and is not to be used for tourist purposes such as a private hotel or backpacker hostel.

 

21) A copy of the house rules shall be placed in prominent locations on the site, including in all communal areas, behind doors in bedrooms, and upon the rear façade of the dwelling, in order to familiarise residents of the boarding house with acceptable activities.

 

22) In addition to the above, the applicant shall also ensure that each room is  provided with the following basic facilities:

 

·        Wardrobe;

·        Mirror;

·        Table & Chair;

·        Small bar fridge;

·        A night light or other approved illumination device for each bed;

·        Coffee and tea making facilities;

·        Microwave oven (no other cooking facilities to be provided in the      bedrooms);

·        Waste container;

·        An approved latching device on the door;

·        Curtains, blinds or similar privacy device;

·        A phone line.

 

       All room furnishings shall be detailed in the Plan of Management.

 

23) The premises shall comply with fire safety regulations pertinent to a Class 1b building, being a boarding house with 12 or fewer occupants.

 

24) The applicant/developer shall contact Council’s Waste Unit to discuss the provision of a 240 litre bin for the collection of waste and the provision of a 240 litre bin for recycling. Services over and above the frequency and volume provided by Council shall require a private contracting service.

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      Development Application No. 435/2007 for the change of use from a dwelling house to a boarding house was lodged 12 June 2007 for 3 & 5 McArdle Street Ermington.

 

2.      Application was notified from 22 June 2007 to 6 July 2007. Five (5) submissions were received.

 

3.      An additional information letter was sent to the applicant on 25 July 2007 requesting a separate development application be lodged for 5 McArdle Street Ermington, given that the proposed use was to be located over two separate allotments.

 

4.      DA/435/2007 has been modified to assess the proposed use at 3 McArdle Street, Ermington

 

5.      Comments received from Councils Environmental Health Unit on 27 August 2007.

 

6.      Comments received from Councils Traffic Unit on 3 September 2007

 

7.      A further additional information letter was sent to the applicant on 16 October 2007 requesting a BASIX certificate

 

8.      Information submitted to Council on 12 December 2007

 

9.      An on site meeting was held on 8 March 2008 attended by Councillors, residents, the applicant and council staff

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

10.    The subject site is located on the western side of McArdle Street and is an irregular shaped allotment that contains a single storey dwelling. The dwelling comprises of 5 bedrooms and shared facilities including a kitchen, laundry and bathroom. The site has a frontage of 13.71 metres and a depth ranging from 41 metres to 41.76 metres. The development pattern within McArdle Street consists of a mixture of single detached dwellings, multi unit dwellings and residential flat buildings. Development surrounding the site also includes a variety of local shops and a primary school.

 

PROPOSAL

 

11.       Development Application No. 435/2007 seeks approval for the following:

 

11.1       Change of use from a single storey dwelling house to a boarding house comprising of 5 bedrooms with shared facilities including a kitchen, laundry and bathroom.

 

11.2       The proposed boarding house will accommodate 5 lodgers

 

11.3       No construction work is proposed to the existing dwelling, including no internal layout changes from the existing dwelling floor plan.

 

11.4       Tandem/stacked parking will be provided on site for two cars.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

12.       The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and boarding houses are permissible within the Residential 2(b) zone with the consent of Council. The proposed use satisfies the definition of a boarding house and is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

13.       The provisions of PDCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

14.       In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 22 June to 6 July 2007. In response, five submissions were received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

The proposed use will affect traffic movement and parking within the street

 

15.      The proposed change of use from a dwelling house to a boarding house capable of accommodating 5 lodgers will in the worse case scenario require off street parking for 5 lodgers. The comments received from Council’s Traffic Engineer states that 2 off street parking spaces are required on site in accordance with Council’s parking provisions. Two on site spaces will be required as a condition of consent. Therefore the existing site conditions will suitably manage the proposed use in regard to on-street parking.

 

 

 

Proposed use will generate excessive noise

 

16.    The site management plan submitted with the development application outlines terms and conditions for the lodgers of the boarding house in relation to noise and curfews. The site management plan will also include the contact details of the site manager and in the event that lodgers create excessive noise, the residents will have the ability to contact the site manager to address the problem. However it is considered that the use will have a minimal impact on noise levels within the area and will be consistent with a residential use.

 

Proposed use will compromise fire safety

 

17.    Council’s Senior Building Surveyor has inspected the subject site and requires that smoke alarms be interconnected with the lighting system in accordance with provisions of the Building Code of Australia 2007 part 3.7.2.4 & 3.7.2.5. Therefore all bedrooms are required to be fitted with a smoke alarm which activates a system of lighting to assist with the evacuation of occupants, ensuring the building provides adequate fire safety measures.

 

Management of the site will not be enforced

 

18.      A site management plan has been submitted with the application. The site management plan addresses the following issues:

 

§ Management of communal facilities

§ Noise control & curfews

§ Management of waste

§ Parking

§ House rules

§ Proposed maximum number of residents

 

A site management plan will be distributed to adjoining residents and in the event of an activity occurring that is inconsistent with the site management plan, the site manager can be contacted in order to address the problem. It is considered that the site management plan is suitable for the proposed use.

 

 

On-site Meeting

 

19.       Council at its meeting on 9 July 2007 resolved that all development applications with 5 or more objections be subject to an on-site meeting prior to them being considered at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

 

20.      An on-site meeting was on Saturday 8 March 2008 commencing at 11:30am. The on site meeting also dealt with Development Application No. 632/2007 which is seeking consent for the same use at 5 McArdle Street. Present at the meeting were Councillor Chedid, Councillor Wilson, Team Leader Danielle Woods, Assessment Planner James McBride, 5 residents and the applicant. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Traffic

 

21.      Several adjoining neighbours were concerned about traffic movement and access within McArdle Street. In particular concern was raised in relation to the generation of additional on street parking and the impact on egress through the bend on McArdle Street. A resident raised issues with parking on an unnamed laneway which runs parallel to Bartlett Street in proximity to the subject site. The resident was concerned that the proposal would exacerbate parking within the laneway.

 

22.      In response to this concern Council advised the residents present, that the lodgers, generally are students, and are not likely to own vehicles. Furthermore it was advised that the traffic unit supported the proposal subject to a condition which required the applicant to enforce off street parking in a tandem arrangement. In addition Council resolved that a service request be made on behalf of a resident to assess the parking regulations on the unnamed laneway. A service request was created (CRM 383300).

 

Notification

 

23.      The residents raised concern in regard to the notification of the on site meeting for 3 McArdle Street.

 

24.      In response it appears that since there are 2 development applications running concurrently for No. 3 and No. 5 for the same use, residents were unsure that the on site meeting related to both development applications. In addition all neighbours were notified of both development applications in accordance with the Notification DCP.

 

Site Management

 

25.      The residents were concerned about the management of the site and enforcement, in particular residents were concerned about noise generation and the lack of care in relation to tidiness and behaviour of lodgers.

 

26.      In comment the attending residents were advised that a site management plan was submitted by the applicant which addressed these issues and a copy of the plan with the contact details of the site manager would be available to all adjoining residents through the imposition of a condition. The residents were satisfied with the resolution. A condition will be imposed requiring the applicant to distribute a site management plan with contact details to adjoining residents

 

REFERRALS

 

27.      The application was referred to Councils Environmental Health Officer who has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the incorporation of conditions

 

28.      The application was referred to Councils Traffic Engineer who has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the incorporation of conditions.

 

CUMALATIVE IMPACT

 

29.       The proposed use of 3 & 5 McArdle Street as boarding houses will not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties. Each dwelling will accommodate a maximum of 5 lodgers and in conjunction with the implementation of the site management plan will not give rise to undue acoustic, privacy or traffic impacts. In addition each dwelling contains a significant area of communal private open space and is adequately separated from adjoining properties.

 

 

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

1 May 2008

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans

1 Page

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

3View

Site Management Plan

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Plans

 

 


Attachment 2

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 3

Site Management Plan

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         13.3

SUBJECT                   5 McArdle Street, Ermington
(Lot 4 DP 36752) (
Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Change of use from dwelling house to boarding house. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE            DA/632/2007 - Submitted 14 August 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mr Z J Chen

OWNERS                    Mr Z J Chen

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 632/2007 which seeks approval for the change of use from a dwelling house to a boarding house.

 

The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 632/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

 

1) The site management plan submitted with the application, is to be made available to adjoining properties prior to the occupation of the boarding house. The site management plan must include the contact details, a phone number of the site manager and suitable contact hours. In the event that a complaint is made where an activity has occurred that is inconsistent with the site management plan, the site manager is to respond and rectify the problem in accordance with the site management plan. A register/record of the complaints is to be kept by the site manager to assist if future concerns are to be investigated by Council.

 

2) The maximum number of lodgers permitted to reside within the dwelling must not exceed five (5) at any one time as each lodger is to be allocated individual bedrooms.

 

 

3) As there is a change in the building use (classification), the building must comply with the Category 1 fire safety provision applicable to the proposed new use.

 

Note:     The obligation under this subclause to comply with the Category 1 fire safety provision may require building work to be carried out even though none is proposed or required in the relevant development consent.  In this clause, Category 1 fire safety provision has the same meaning as it has in Part 7B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations. In this regard you are required to comply with provisions of the Building Code of Australia 2007 part 3.7.2.4 & 3.7.2.5. All bedrooms are required to be fitted with a smoke alarm which activates a system of lighting to assist with the evacuation of occupants. In addition a fire extinguisher or fire blanket must be provided within the kitchen.

 

4) The boarding house must provide 2 off-street parking spaces on the subject site.

 

5) The use of the premises shall comply in all respects with the definition of ‘boarding house’ as provided in the Dictionary to Clause 10 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, vis-à-vis:

 

“boarding house means a building or part of a building let in lodgings or a hostel which provides lodgers with a principal place of residence, but does not include backpackers accommodation, a guest house, serviced apartment, or (in the Table to Clause 16) any other building defined in this dictionary”.

 

 

That any advertising of the premises shall clearly state that the premises provides a principal place of residence and tariffs shall not be depicted on a daily basis.

 

 

6) A 24-hours phone number shall be supplied to each occupant so that contact may be made with the manager.

 

7) The manager shall ensure that a notice is placed near the entrance to the property in a visible position to the public advising of his name and contact number.

 

8) The premises shall require licensing pursuant to the Youth and Community Services Act 1973 should two or more occupants be diagnosed as having a disability.

 

9) That each occupant shall be furnished with a set of house rules and a copy of this consent and that no variation shall be permitted without the further approval of Council.

 

10) That the manager shall maintain a computer record and hard copy logbook of all residents with details of their names, length of stay, number of persons in each room, and that such record shall be submitted to Council annually.

 

 

11) All residents in the boarding house are to sign a lease or licence agreeing to comply with the boarding house rules, with the length of the lease to be determined by the management on the explicit understanding that accommodation is not to be provided on a temporary basis to persons on recreational pursuits. The length of lease considered appropriate is to be not less than 3 months.

 

 

12) The manager, upon signing of the lease or licence agreement, shall provide boarders with a key to their individual room and common areas.

 

 

13) Additional house rules shall be prepared by the manager of the premises and furnished to Council, in relation to such matters as the keeping of pets, noise, cleaning of outdoor areas and general use of outdoor areas.

 

 

14) The individual rooms and common areas are to be maintained in a clean and tidy state and individual’s rubbish is to be placed in the appropriate receptacles.

 

15) No fire, candles or naked flames are permitted within individual rooms

 

16) The kitchen shall be made available for residents 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and the applicant shall ensure that basic facilities in good working order are provided, including, but not limited to:

 

·         a large refrigerator;

·         a regular and a microwave oven;

·         dishwashing facilities;

·         waste disposal;

·         personal hygiene (soap, paper towels and the like);

·         food storage space;

·         a bench top for food preparation.

 

17) Doors to the kitchen and common areas are to be clear glazed.

 

18) Dining shall be encouraged within the common areas, so as not to isolate residents.

 

19) The door to a fully enclosed sanitary compartment  must open outwards or slide or be readily removable from the outside of the compartment, unless there is a clear space of at least 1.2 metres between the closet pan within the sanitary compartment and the nearest part of the doorway.

 

 

20) The boarding house is to be used as a principal place of residence for  long term residents and is not to be used for tourist purposes such as a private hotel or backpacker hostel.

 

21) A copy of the house rules shall be placed in prominent locations on the site, including in all communal areas, behind doors in bedrooms, and upon the rear façade of the dwelling, in order to familiarise residents of the boarding house with acceptable activities .

 

 

22) In addition to the above, the applicant shall also ensure that each room is  provided with the following basic facilities:

 

·        Wardrobe;

·        Mirror;

·        Table & Chair;

·        Small bar fridge;

·        A night light or other approved illumination device for each bed;

·        Coffee and tea making facilities;

·        Microwave oven (no other cooking facilities to be provided in the      bedrooms);

·        Waste container;

·        An approved latching device on the door;

·        Curtains, blinds or similar privacy device;

·        A phone line.

 

       All room furnishings shall be detailed in the Plan of Management.

 

23) The premises shall comply with fire safety regulations pertinent to a Class 1b building, being a boarding house with 12 or fewer occupants.

 

24) The applicant/developer shall contact Council’s Waste Unit to discuss the provision of a 240 litre bin for the collection of waste and the provision of a 240 litre bin for recycling. Services over and above the frequency and volume provided by Council shall require a private contracting service.

 

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      Development Application No. 632/2007 for the change of use from an existing five bedroom dwelling house to a boarding house was lodged on 14 August 2007

 

2.      Application was advertised from 5 September to 26 September 2007 with a site sign being erected. Five (5) submissions & 1 petition with 6 signatures were received.

 

3.      Comments received from Councils Environmental Health Unit on 27 August 2007.

 

4.      Comments received from Councils Traffic Unit on 3 September 2007

 

5.      An on-site meeting held on 8 March 2008 attended by Councillors, residents, applicant and council staff

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

6.      The subject site is located on the western side of McArdle Street and is an irregular shaped allotment that contains a single storey dwelling. The dwelling contains 5 bedrooms and shared facilities including a kitchen, laundry and bathroom. The site has a frontage of 14.04 metres and a depth ranging from 41 metres to 49 metres. Development within McArdle Street consists of a mixture of single detached dwellings, multi unit dwellings and residential flat buildings. The development pattern surrounding the site also includes a variety of local shops and a primary school.

 

PROPOSAL

 

7.         Development Application No. 632/2007 seeks approval for the following:

 

7.1         Change of use from a single storey dwelling house to a boarding house comprising of 5 bedrooms with shared facilities including a kitchen, laundry and bathroom.

 

7.2         The proposed boarding house will accommodate 5 lodgers

 

7.3         No construction work is proposed to the existing dwelling, including no internal layout changes from the existing dwelling floor plan.

 

7.4         Tandem/stacked parking will be provided on site for two cars.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

8.         The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and boarding houses are permissible within the Residential 2(b) zone with the consent of Council. The proposed use satisfies the definition of a boarding house and is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

9.         The provisions of PDCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

10.       The proposal was advertised between 22 June to 6 July 2007. In response, four submissions & 1 petition with 6 signatures were received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

The proposed use will affect traffic movement and parking within the street

 

11.      The proposed change of use from a dwelling house to a boarding house capable of accommodating 5 lodgers will in the worse case scenario require off street parking for 5 lodgers. The comments received from Council’s Traffic Engineer states that 2 off street parking spaces are required on site in accordance with Council’s parking provisions. Two on site spaces will be required as a condition of consent. Therefore the existing site conditions will suitably manage the proposed use in regard to on-street parking.

 

 

Proposed use will generate excessive noise

 

12.      The site management plan submitted with the development application outlines terms and conditions for the lodgers of the boarding house in relation to noise and curfews. The site management plan will also include the contact details of the site manager and in the event that lodgers create excessive noise, the residents will have the ability to contact the site manager to address the problem. However it is considered that the use will have a minimal impact on noise levels within the area and will be consistent with a residential use.

 

 

Proposed use will compromise fire safety

 

13.    Council’s Senior Building Surveyor has inspected the subject site and requires that smoke alarms be interconnected with the lighting system in accordance with provisions of the Building Code of Australia 2007 part 3.7.2.4 & 3.7.2.5. Therefore all bedrooms are required to be fitted with a smoke alarm which activates a system of lighting to assist with the evacuation of occupants, ensuring the building provides adequate fire safety measures.

 

 

Management of the site will not be enforced

 

14.      A site management plan has been submitted with the application. The site management plan addresses the following issues:

 

§ Management of communal facilities

§ Noise control & curfews

§ Management of waste

§ Parking

§ House rules

§ Proposed maximum number of residents

 

A site management plan will be distributed to adjoining residents and in the event of an activity occurring that is inconsistent with the site management plan, the site manager can be contacted in order to address the problem. It is considered that the site management plan is suitable for the proposed use.

 

 

On-site Meeting

 

15.       Council at its meeting on 9 July 2007 resolved that all development applications with 5 or more objections be subject to an on-site meeting prior to them being considered at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

 

16.      An on-site meeting was on Saturday 8 March 2008 commencing at 11:30am. The on site meeting also dealt with Development Application No. 435/2007 which is seeking consent for the same use at 3 McArdle Street. Present at the meeting were Councillor Chedid, Councillor Wilson, Team Leader Danielle Woods, Assessment Planner James McBride, 5 residents and the applicant. The following issues were discussed at the meeting. 

 

Traffic

 

17.      Several adjoining neighbours were concerned about traffic movement and access within McArdle Street. In particular concern was raised in relation to the generation of additional on street parking and the impact on egress through the bend on McArdle Street. A resident raised issues with parking on an unnamed laneway which runs parallel to Bartlett Street in proximity to the subject site. The resident was concerned that the proposal would exacerbate parking within the laneway.

 

18.      In response to this concern Council advised the residents present, that the lodgers, generally are students, and are not likely to own vehicles. Furthermore it was advised that the traffic unit supported the proposal subject to a condition which required the applicant to enforce off street parking in a tandem arrangement. In addition Council resolved that a service request be made on behalf of a resident to assess the parking regulations on the unnamed laneway. A service request was created (CRM 383300).

 

 

Notification

 

 

19.      The residents raised concern in regard to the notification of the on site meeting for 3 McArdle Street.

 

 

20.      In response it appears that since there are 2 development applications running concurrently for No. 3 and No. 5 for the same use, residents were unsure that the on site meeting related to both development applications. In addition all neighbours were notified of both development applications in accordance with the Notification DCP.

 

 

Site Management

 

21.      The residents were concerned about the management of the site and enforcement, in particular noised generated and the lack of care by lodgers having regard to the site conditions.

 

 

22.      In comment the attending residents were advised that a site management plan was submitted by the applicant which addressed these issues and a copy of the plan with the contact details of the site manager would be available to all adjoining residents through the imposition of a condition. The residents were satisfied with the resolution. A condition will be imposed requiring the applicant to distribute a site management plan with contact details to adjoining residents

 

REFERRALS

 

23.      The application was referred to Councils Environmental Health Officer who has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the incorporation of conditions

 

24.      The application was referred to Councils Traffic Engineer who has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the incorporation of conditions.

 

 

CUMALATIVE IMPACT

 

25.       The proposed use of 3 & 5 McArdle Street as boarding houses will not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties. Each dwelling will accommodate a maximum of 5 lodgers and in conjunction with the implementation of the site management plan will not give rise to undue acoustic, privacy or traffic impacts. In addition each dwelling contains a significant area of communal private open space and is adequately separated from adjoining properties.

 

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

30 April 2008

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans

1 Page

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

3View

Site Management Plan

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Plans

 

 


Attachment 2

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 3

Site Management Plan

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         13.4

SUBJECT                   122 The Trongate Granville (crn Charles Streets) (Lots 5A & 6A DP 159581) ( Woodville Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising construction of an awning, enclosed toilet and ensuite, addition of a sliding gate to the fence fronting Charles Street and installation of windows and door to the northern elevation.

REFERENCE            DA/603/2007 - Submitted 7 August 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mrs A Khoury

OWNERS                    Mrs A Khoury

REPORT OF              Development Assessment Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

1.         To determine Development Application No. 603/2007 which seeks consent for the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising construction of an awning, enclosed toilet and ensuite, addition of a sliding gate to the fence fronting Charles Street and installation of windows and door to the northern elevation; and to provide a summary of the issues discussed at the onsite meeting held on 22 April 2008.

 

2.         The application has been referred to Council due to four submissions received during the notification period.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council grant consent to Development Application No.603/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

                  

1. The main bedroom located on the upper level of the dwelling is not to be used as a separate dwelling as defined in Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2001. In this regard the sink located in the bedroom is to be removed, as indicated in red on the approved plans.

Reason:        To ensure the room is not used as a separate dwelling 

 

2. The 2 new first floor bathroom windows located along the southern elevation of the dwelling are to be frosted/opaque glass. Details are to be submitted to the satisfaction of the nominated PCA prior to release of the Construction Certificate.

              Reason:        To protect the amenity of the area

 

(b)     Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.         The subject site is located on the western side of The Trongate. The site is rectangular in shape, has a frontage of 20.4m, a depth of 30.6m, and an area of 624m². A two storey dwelling house with an attached shop is currently located on the site. Development Consent 137/2003 was granted on 6 June 2003 to the fitout and use of the existing premises as a hair dressing salon in conjunction with the existing residence. Approval to the use of the property as a hairdressing salon was granted pursuant to cl43(2) of PLEP2001.

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.         The applicant is seeking approval for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising of the following:

2.1. Construction of an awning

2.2. Installation of an ensuite and additional toilet

2.3. Installation of a sliding gate within the existing brick fence along the northern boundary (Charles Street frontage)

2.4. Installation of new windows and door on the northern elevation

 

The original application proposed alterations to the existing hairdressing salon to incorporate a sliding door along the northern elevation for access to Charles Street. However, as a result of the on-site meeting, written correspondence from the applicant has been received 1 May 2008 requesting the withdrawal of the proposed sliding door along the northern elevation servicing the hairdresser salon. The plans are to be amended accordingly, in red, to reflect this written request.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

3.         The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The proposed alterations are permissible with development consent.

 

CONSULTATION

 

4.         The application was notified to adjoining property owners/occupiers between 24 September 2007 and 8 October 2007.  A petition with 12 signatories and three additional submissions were received.

 

5.         A request for additional information was sent on 18 October 2007 requesting additional details regarding the deep soil zone, easement and further information on the changes which could result in a granny flat being created. As a result of the additional information submitted by the applicant, a further petition was received dated 2 November 2007 signed by 11 persons withdrawing their objection. Therefore there are 3 submissions and one signatory objecting to the proposed development. Issues raised in the submissions are discussed below. 

 

Traffic issues due to the proposed sliding door to the northern elevation of the hairdressers and the awning at the rear of the dwelling

 

6.         Concern is raised over the potential increase in traffic which may arise from additional customers visiting the salon. Of particular concern to the residents is the proposed sliding door on the northern (Charles Street) elevation of the hairdressing salon and the rear awning which residents feel will increase the number of customers.

 

7.         The sliding door will provide access to an existing shop and does not increase the floor area of the hairdresser shop. Accordingly the proposed sliding door will not increase traffic generation or on-street parking demand beyond that which is already associated with the site.

 

8.         The size of the hairdressing salon will not increase thereby there is no likelihood that the number of customers is to increase.

 

Noise due to the size of the awning

 

9.         Concern is raised regarding the size of the awning located within the rear area of the site and the potential for noise to increase in the rear yard area.

 

10.      The applicant has modified the plans and reduced the size of the awning to minimise impacts on the adjoining neighbours. In addition the proposed awning is to be used for residential purpose associated with the dwelling and not the hairdresser shop and noise levels expected are those associated with the residential use of the rear yard.

 

Existing easement

 

11.      Concern is raised over an existing easement between 122 The Trongate and 2 Charles Street.

 

12.      The following Easements and Positive Covenant apply to these parcels of land:

- Right of Footway

- Easement to Permit Encroaching Structures to Remain Variable Width

- Positive Covenant to allow existing fencing to remain

Issues between the property owners regarding easements are private matters as stated in the Instrument setting out the terms of the easements and positive covenant created pursuant to Section 88b of the Conveyancing Act 1919. These documents state the only people allowed to release, verify or modify Easements and Positive Covenant are the owners of 122 The Trongate. Notwithstanding this, the proposed awning will be located approximately 4metres from the existing easement, and as such the proposed development will have no impact on the existing easement.

 

Potential dual occupancy

 

13.      Concern is raised that the proposed internal works to the dwelling may result in an unauthorised dual occupancy.

 

14.      A condition of consent will be placed on the consent to ensure that the main bedroom located on the upper level of the dwelling is not used as a separate dwelling. The deletion of the bar area as required in a condition of consent will reduce the opportunity to utilise the area as a separate occupancy.

 

Incorrect details and issues regarding previous unauthorised works not noted on plans

 

15.      Concern is raised that the plans sent out during the notification period do not accurately represent the existing dwelling and that previous unauthorised works (construction of bathrooms) are not clearly detailed.

 

16.      The plans submitted with the DA and those notified provide the required level of detail, and are sufficient to enable a full and proper assessment of the application to be made. Whilst it is acknowledged that works to the bathroom had commenced, upon compliance investigating the matter, they ceased work and lodged a Development Application.

 

Work hours

 

17.      Concern is raised that the proposed works may be constructed during evening hours

 

18.      A standard condition of consent will limit construction work, between the hours of 7.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Saturday, with no works on Sundays or public holidays.

 

19.      The proposal is compliant with all relevant controls under DCP2005 and will have no undue impacts on adjoining sites or surrounding environment.

 

ON SITE MEETING

 

20.      Council, at its meeting of 14 April 2008, resolved that consideration of this matter be deferred for an on-site meeting with interested Councillors, the applicant and objectors to be held on Tuesday 22 April 2008 at 5.00 pm.

 

21.      In accordance with the above resolution an on site meeting was held on Tuesday 22 April 2008, commencing at 5.00pm.

 

22.      Present at the meeting were Clr Gerrad (chairperson), Clr Walsh, 6 residents, the owner and Danielle Woods (Team Leader Development and Certification). The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Traffic/speeding motorists and Parking

 

23.      The residents raised concerns that the existing area and feeder streets experience heavy traffic delays and speeding motorists including inadequate parking being available on the street .The proposed sliding door to the existing hairdresser  will generate additional customers and increase parking within Charles street

 

24.      In response to these issues the following comments were made:

           The report submitted to Council indicates the intention of the door is to provide access for female customer wanting to utilise the shop and therefore would have a minimal increase in traffic or parking.

The issue of speeding needs to be considered at a community level and contact is to be made with the local Police and Council for investigation.

Further to this response and the difficulty with the AVO in place, an inspection of the existing shop and the perusal of the approved plans for the Hairdresser shop including comments from the lease of the existing shop, revealed that the intention of the applicant is to possibly create an additional shop within the existing hairdressers, which is not consistent with the previous approval nor permissible.

 

Dividing Fences

 

25.    The resident at No 2 Charles raised concerns in regard to the location of the existing colorbond fence and could it be removed if it is encroaching on their land.

 

26.    The Councillors advised that dividing fences are private matters not Council matters, and as such to remove portion of fencing would require a survey by a registered surveyor and discussions with the relevant parties. If they need further assistance due to the history and the AVO, it was suggested that seek legal advice and mediation with the court.

 

Potential dual occupancy

 

27.      Concern is raised that the proposed internal works to the dwelling may result in an unauthorised dual occupancy.

 

28.      A condition of consent will be placed on the consent to ensure that the main bedroom located on the upper level of the dwelling is not used as a separate dwelling. The deletion of the bar area as required in a condition of consent will reduce the opportunity to utilise the area as a separate occupancy.

 

Existing Easement on the subject site

 

29.    There appears to history at the creation of the subdivision of the land and the purchase of the land at No.2 Charles Street that the easement was not available or known to the purchases before they settled.

 

30.    In response the Clrs advised that the solicitor acting on your behalf with the purchase should have completed all appropriate checks and balances including legal restrictions and easement affecting or burdening the property.

In addition the proposed development in particular the awning is not impacting on the easement as the structure is setback approx. 4 metres to the boundary. Furthermore it was explained that the owner of No. 122 the Trongate has the benefit of the easement, and any further enquiries should be directed to legal representations, not Council.

 

Noise impacts from the awning

 

31.     The residents are concerned that the awning roof being colourbond will transfer noise to their dwelling.

 

32.     The proposed awning is not inconsistent with surrounding development or materials of construction utilised on neighbouring properties and given the setback from the boundary should have a minimal impact on the neighbour’s amenity. Drainage will be connected to the existing drainage system.

 

Site coverage

 

33.    Clr Walsh raised the issue of site coverage, in which it was resolved that the report discusses numerical compliances. The applicant provided comment that the amended plans reduced the size of the awning to provide additional grass areas.

 

Notification of the meeting

 

34.     Residents raised that they were not all notified of the onsite meeting, in which the Council resolution for the onsite meeting was explained ,in that only the applicant and objectors are to be advised of the meeting, therefore if no submissions were raised than these residents were not formally invited to the meeting.

 

35.     Meeting closed with all issues being summarised at 6.20pm with the residents, applicant and Clrs being advised that they will be notified in writing of the date in which the DA will be further presented at a Council meeting.

 

36.   Further to the site meeting and a perusal of the previous approval it was discussed that the intention of the applicant is too possible provide an additional shop within an existing shop. Therefore the assessing officer was advised to request an explanation of the intended use and the need for the additional sliding door.

 

37.    1/5/08 the applicant advised via email to delete the additional sliding door to the hairdressers which is further discussed in the report to Council.

 

 

Nicholas Clarke

Development Assessment Officer

1 May 2008

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

2View

Application history

1 Page

 

3View

Plans and elevations

4 Pages

 

4

On-Site Meeting Summary

4 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 2

Application history

 

 


Attachment 3

Plans and elevations

 




 


Attachment 4

On-Site Meeting Summary

 

 

 

M E M O

 

 

 

Folder Number:  DA/685/2006

 

 

 

To

File

 

Date

22/4/08

 5.00pm

From

Danielle Woods

Through

Mark Leotta

Subject

 

Proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising of an awning, installation of an ensuite and additional toilet, sliding gate within the existing brick fence, installation of new windows and door along the northern elevation. In addition the applicant proposes alterations to the existing hairdressing shop to incorporate a sliding door along the northern elevation for access to Charles street.

Property

 

122 The Trongate Granville

 

Present at the meeting were:

 

Councillors:,   Clr Gerrad(chairperson), Clr Walsh   

Apologies: Clr Worthington

 

 

Present-Residents, Applicant, Owner

Council staff- Danielle Woods.-Team Leader

 

Prior to the formal commencement of the on site meeting the existing neighborhood disputes in regard to the AVO orders that are currently in place between the owner of the subject site and the adjoining neighbour were discussed.

Therefore the issue of the physical location to hold the onsite meeting was resolved, with the most appropriate management being to discus all issues with the neighbours on the opposite side of the street and then relay the issues to the applicant across the street.

 

The site meeting opened with the proposal description being identified including the amendments made to address issues raised by Council staff and residents.

The following issues were discussed which have either been answered on the site meeting or warrant further explanation/clarification.

 

 

ISSUES

 

Traffic/speeding motorists and Parking

 

The residents raised concerns that the existing area and feeder streets experience heavy traffic delays and speeding motorists including inadequate parking being available on the street .The proposed sliding door to the existing hairdresser  will generate additional customers and increase parking within Charles street

 

Comment

In response to these issues the following comments were made:

The report submitted to Council indicates the intention of the door is to provide access for female customer wanting to utilise the shop and therefore would have a minimal increase in traffic or parking.

The issue of speeding needs to be considered at a community level and contact is to be made with the local Police and Council for investigation.

Further to this response and the difficulty with the AVO in place, an inspection of the existing shop and the perusal of the approved plans for the Hairdresser shop including comments from the lease of the existing shop, revealed that the intention of the applicant is to possibly create an additional shop within the existing hairdressers, which is not consistent with the previous approval nor permissible.

 

Dividing Fences

 

The resident at No 2 Charles raised concerns in regard to the location of the existing colorbond fence and could it be removed if it is encroaching on their land.

Comment

 

The Councillors advised that dividing fences are private matters not Council matters, and as such to remove portion of fencing would require a survey by a registered surveyor and discussions with the relevant parties. If they need further assistance due to the history and the AVO, it was suggested that seek legal advice and mediation with the court.

 

Potential dual occupancy

 

Concern is raised that the proposed internal works to the dwelling may result in an unauthorised dual occupancy.

 

Comment

A condition of consent will be placed on the consent to ensure that the main bedroom located on the upper level of the dwelling is not used as a separate dwelling. The deletion of the bar area as required in a condition of consent will reduce the opportunity to utilise the area as a separate occupancy.

 

Existing Easement on the subject site

 

There appears to history at the creation of the subdivision of the land and the purchase of the land at No.2 Charles Street that the easement was not available or known to the purchases before they settled.

 

Comment

In response the Clrs advised that the solicitor acting on your behalf with the purchase should have completed all appropriate checks and balances including legal restrictions and easement affecting or burdening the property.

In addition the proposed development in particular the awning is not impacting on the easement as the structure is setback approx. 4 metres to the boundary. Furthermore it was explained that the owner of No. 122 the Trongate has the benefit of the easement, and any further enquiries should be directed to legal representations, not Council.

 

Noise impacts from the awning

 

The residents are concerned that the awning roof being colourbond will transfer noise to their dwelling.

 

Comment

The proposed awning is not inconsistent with surrounding development or materials of construction utilised on neighbouring properties and given the setback from the boundary should have a minimal impact on the neighbour’s amenity. Drainage will be connected to the existing drainage system.

 

Site coverage

Clr Walsh raised the issue of site coverage, in which it was resolved that the report discusses numerical compliances. The applicant provided comment that the amended plans reduced the size of the awning to provide additional grass areas.

 

Notification of the meeting

 

Residents raised that they were not all notified of the onsite meeting, in which the Council resolution for the onsite meeting was explained ,in that only the applicant and objectors are to be advised of the meeting, therefore if no submissions were raised than these residents were not formally invited to the meeting.

 

Meeting closed with all issues being summarised at 6.20pm with the residents, applicant and Clrs being advised that they will be notified in writing of the date in which the DA will be further presented at a Council meeting.

 

Further to the site meeting and a perusal of the previous approval it was discussed that the intention of the applicant is too possible provide an additional shop within an existing shop. Therefore the assessing officer was advised to request an explanation of the intended use and the need for the additional sliding door.

 

1/5/08 the applicant advised via email to delete the additional sliding door to the hairdressers which is further discussed in the report to Council.

 

 

For the information of the file

 

 

 

Danielle Woods

Team Leader- Development and Certification

 

 

 

 

Blank page


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.1

SUBJECT                   47 Barnetts Road, Winston Hills
(Lot 7 DP 221156) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a detached double garage located at the rear of a heritage listed site.
Location Map - (Attachment 3)

REFERENCE            DA/1088/2007 - 18 December 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mr B J Fitzgerald

OWNERS                    Mr A A Root and Mrs A A Root

REPORT OF              Senior Development and Certification Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No 1008/2007 which seeks approval to construct a detached double garage located at the rear of a heritage listed site.

 

The application has been referred to Council as the subject site is listed as an item of heritage significance (Inv 041 in Schedule 1) under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approve Development Application No 1008/2007 subject to standard conditions of consent.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The subject site is legally identified as Lot 7 in DP 221156 and is located on the southern side of Barnetts Road, Winston Hills. The site is located in the Winston Hills Special Character Area.

 

2.      The site is rectangular in shape having a 15.24m frontage to Barnetts Road, and a side boundary dimension of 39.014m. The area of the site is 594.57m2.

 

3.      The site currently comprises a single dwelling that is identified as being of heritage significance in the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). It is listed as Item 041 in Schedule 1 – Heritage items of State or Regional significance of the PLEP 1996, and is known as ‘Byrock’.

 

4.      Surrounding development comprises of residential dwellings of differing architectural styles and ages.

 

 

PROPOSAL

 

5.      The proposal is for the construction of a detached double garage to be located at the rear of the site.

 

5.1    The garage is proposed to have dimensions of 6m x 7m resulting in a total area of 42m2.

 

5.2    The garage is proposed to be constructed of steel with a concrete slab.

 

5.3    The proposal also involves an extension of the existing driveway on site to be located in front of the new garage.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

PARRAMATTA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2001 (PLEP 2001)

 

6.         The site is zoned Residential 2(a) under the provisions of PLEP 2001. The proposed garage is permissible within this zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

 

PARRAMATTA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

 

7.         The site is identified in Schedule 1 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) as a heritage item (Inv No 041). The site contains a single dwelling and is known as ‘Byrock’.

 

8.         The development is consistent with the objectives of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) which seek to conserve existing significant fabrics and settings associated with the heritage significance of heritage items and to ensure that any development does not adversely affect the heritage significance of heritage items and their settings.

 

PARRAMATTA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN – 2005

 

9.         The provisions of the Parramatta Development Control Plan– 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan and achieves compliance with the requirements of the DCP.

 

PARRAMATTA HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN – 2001

 

10.      The provisions of the Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan– 2001 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal achieves compliance with the requirements of the DCP and is also consistent with the general principles of the plan.

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

11.       In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified to adjoining property owners/occupiers between 21 January 2008 and 4 February 2008. No submissions were received in response to the notification period.

 

12.      In addition Council’s Heritage Committee was notified of the proposal with no response received during the fourteen (14) day notification period.

 

ISSUES

 

Heritage

 

13.      The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment, as the site is listed as a heritage item in Schedule 1 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). The comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor include:

 

14.      “I am of opinion that the proposed addition of a double garage is acceptable in heritage terms.  The garage will be located to the rear of the house, on lower grounds, and partly obscured behind the house.  The design of the garage is relatively simple, and will not compete with the house in visual terms.  The proposal includes extending the existing driveway but this modification is minor from the heritage perspective.

 

I thus have no objection to the application.”

 

15.      In addition to the above, it is noted that the proposed garage is to be constructed of steel in a ‘classic cream’ colour. These external finishes are considered to be compatible and sympathetic with the existing dwelling on the site.

 

16.      Accordingly there are no objections to the proposal on heritage grounds.

 

Stormwater Disposal

 

17.      The subject site slopes to the rear and as such Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposal and has no objections subject to the imposition of a condition requiring that stormwater from the garage be connected to a rainwater tank with the overflow being directed to absorption trenches.

 

18.      Details of the pits/trenches are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority, being Council, prior to works commencing on site.

 

Trees

 

19.      The proposal does not require the removal of any trees on the site.

 

20.      The proposed garage is considered to be of a sufficient distance away from the roots of the existing tree located at the rear of the site.

 

21.      There are no other undue impacts relative to noise, privacy, shadowing or bulk associated with the proposed development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maya Sarwary

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Compliance Table

1 Page

 

2View

Plans and Elevations

2 Pages

 

3View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Compliance Table

 

 


Attachment 2

Plans and Elevations

 


 


Attachment 3

Locality Map

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.2

SUBJECT                   92 Bettington Road, Oatlands
(
Lot 1 DP 22016 and Lot D DP 32351)
(Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Section 96 (AA) modification to an approved 56 place childcare centre. The modifications include changes to deferred commencement condition 1b to allow the roundabout that is required to be constructed at the intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street to potentially be constructed at no cost to both Baulkham Hills Shire Council and Parramatta City Council.

REFERENCE            DA/491/2006/A - Submitted: 3 March 2008

APPLICANT/S           Mr J Bechara

OWNERS                    Mr T Bechara

REPORT OF              Development Assessment Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine an application to modify Development Application No. 491/2006, approved by the Land and Environment Court (Appeal No: 10737 of 2006), by modifying condition 1(b) of the deferred commencement consent under Section 96 (AA) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

The application has been referred to Council as the development is a child care centre and for the number of submissions received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council modify Development Consent DA/491/2006 issued by the Land and Environment Court dated 13 February 2007, in the following manner:

 

1.      Condition 1(b) is amended to read as follows:

 

1(b)  A Planning Agreement be entered into pursuant to Section 93F-93L of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 between the applicant, Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hill Shire Council in terms whereof the applicant, in order to facilitate the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Ellis Street and Bettington Road, Oatlands, is to pay whichever is the lower of either a $40,000 contribution to both Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council (total contribution $80,000) or a contribution in equal shares to Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council of half of the cost of construction of the roundabout including design and survey costs, or alternatively, an agreement between the Applicant and Baulkham Hills Shire Council for the construction, to the reasonable satisfaction of Baulkham Hills Shire Council, of the said roundabout at no cost to Baulkham Hills Shire Council or Parramatta City Council, and whereby construction shall commence no later than 12 months from the date of the said agreement and be completed within 18 months of the date of the said agreement.

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The site is known as 92 Bettington Road, Oatlands and the legal description is Lot 1 DP 22016 and Lot D DP 32351. The subject site is located on the southern side of Bettington Road on the boundary of the Parramatta Local Government Area which abuts Baulkham Hills Shire Council. The site is irregular in shape and measures 971sqm in area with a frontage of 21.285m to Bettington Road and depths of 48.62m and 48.59m respectively. Existing improvements on the site include a single storey detached residential dwelling.

 

2.      The site adjoining to the east is the Oatlands Golf Club and sites adjoining to the north, south and west predominately contain single detached residential dwelling houses. Surrounding development comprises similar scale single and two storey residential dwellings.

 

BACKGROUND

 

3.      Development Application No. 468/2005 for demolition and construction of a 2 storey child care centre for up to 75 children with basement car parking was refused by Council staff on 18 November 2005. The application received 23 individual submissions and 1 petition containing 186 signatures objecting to the proposed development during the notification and advertising period.

 

4.      The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal against Council’s deemed refusal of the application in the Land and Environment Court (Appeal No: 11262 of 2005) where the appeal was dismissed and the application was accordingly refused.

 

5.      Development Application No. 491/2006 for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a 2 storey childcare centre (for 64 children) over basement parking was refused by Council staff on 14 September 2006. The application received 31 submissions of objections during the notification and advertising period.

 

6.      The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal against Council’s deemed refusal of the application in the Land and Environment Court on 22 August 2006 (Appeal No: 10737 of 2006) which included a reduction in the number of children from 64 to 56, a reduction in the number of car parking spaces, an amended layout of the car park area and a mandatory contribution to the provision of a roundabout in Bettington Road. The appeal was upheld and the application was accordingly approved by way of deferred commencement subject to conditions. Condition 1b of the deferred commencement reads:

 

6.1.   “A Planning Agreement be entered into pursuant to Section 93F-93L of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 between the applicant, Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hill Shire Council in terms whereof the applicant, in order to facilitate the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Ellis Street and Bettington Road, Oatlands, is to pay whichever is the lower of either a $40,000 contribution to both Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council (total contribution $80,000) or a contribution in equal shares to Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council of half of the cost of construction of the roundabout including design and survey costs.”

 

7.      The proposed roundabout was considered by the Parramatta Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 12 November 2007. A copy of the report is attachment 3. At the meeting, it was resolved:

 

7.1.   ‘That Council approve the proposed roundabout at the intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street, Oatlands subject to statutory advertising being undertaken by Baulkham Hills Shire Council.’

 

7.2.   It is noted that Baulkham Hills Shire Council notified affected properties within their LGA and the Oatlands Golf Course in the Parramatta LGA between 21 December 2007 and 31 January 2008. No submissions were received. It is also noted that Baulkham Hills Shire Council will be responsible for the design of the roundabout due to an existing arrangement that exists between Baulkham Hills Shire Council and Parramatta City Council to take turns in designing roundabouts and other traffic calming devices on common boundaries.

 

PROPOSAL

 

8.      Pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 (AA) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the applicant has lodged an application to modify the deferred commencement consent issued by the Land and Environment Court (the subject application). The application seeks to modify condition 1(b) to allow the construction of the required roundabout to be fully funded by the applicant and at potentially no cost to both Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council.

 

9.      Consent is sought to modify Development Consent DA/491/2006 dated 13 February 2007 by modifying condition 1(b) of the deferred commencement consent to read:

 

9.1.   A Planning Agreement be entered into pursuant to Section 93F-93L of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 between the applicant, Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hill Shire Council in terms whereof the applicant, in order to facilitate the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Ellis Street and Bettington Road, Oatlands, is to pay whichever is the lower of either a $40,000 contribution to both Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council (total contribution $80,000) or a contribution in equal shares to Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council of half of the cost of construction of the roundabout including design and survey costs, or alternatively, an agreement between the Applicant and Baulkham Hills Shire Council for the construction, to the reasonable satisfaction of Baulkham Hills Shire Council, of the said roundabout at no cost to Baulkham Hills Shire Council or Parramatta City Council, and whereby construction shall commence no later than 12 months from the date of the said agreement and be completed within 18 months of the date of the said agreement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

10.    Section 96 AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 allows applicants to make an application to modify consents granted by the Land and Environment Court. It also states that a consent authority must be satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for consent was originally granted.

 

11.    The proposed modification is to condition 1(b) of the deferred commencement consent which involves additional wording at the end of the condition to potentially allow the applicant to construct the required roundabout at the intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street at full cost with no contributions by both Parramatta City and Baulkham Hills Shire Councils. The proposed modification will result in substantially the same development as that originally approved and can be dealt with pursuant to S96 AA of the EP&A Act.

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

12.    The site is zoned 2A Residential pursuant to the zoning provisions of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. PLEP 2001 does not incorporate any minimum development standards for the proposed modification and accordingly, the proposal is consistent with the objectives of PLEP 2001.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

13.    The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005.

 

Parramatta Child Care Centres Development Control Plan 2007

 

14.    The development was approved prior to the Child Care Centres DCP coming into effect and this Section 96 modification application does not alter the approved children numbers or car parking as approved by the Land and Environment Court. Given this, the provisions of the Child Care Centres DCP are not considered relevant.

 

CONSULTATION

 

15.    In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was advertised between 26 March and 9 April 2008. In response, one submission was received. The issues raised in the submission are discussed below.

 

Proposed Roundabout Construction

 

16.    Concern was raised over the construction of a roundabout for a private commercial premises.

 

17.    The construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street was imposed as a condition of consent by the Land and Environment Court. The application seeks to modify condition 1(b) of the deferred commencement consent issued by the Court to potentially allow the roundabout to be constructed at full cost by the applicant with no contribution from both Parramatta City and Baulkham Hills Shire Council’s. The decision to construct a roundabout as part of the development as a child care centre was a decision made by the Land and Environment Court.

 

PROPOSED MODIFICATION

 

18.    In December 2007, the following comments were provided by Council’s Traffic and Transport Services Manager for the proposed roundabout construction:

 

18.1. A roundabout at the intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street, Oatlands was initially proposed in the late 1990's as part of more extensive works on Bettington Road. This scheme was jointly developed by Baulkham Hills Shire Council and Parramatta Council. The file indicates that some Councillors were aware of the proposal however, no works were formally approved at this time. The scheme became the basis for funding applications and as a result the southern half of the works have been installed. These works include median islands on bends and 2 roundabouts. Some of the works have benefited the residents of one Council more than the other, however all works have had an equal contribution from each Council.

 

18.2. The proposed roundabout at the intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street, Oatlands is likely to give a greater benefit to residents of Baulkham Hills Shire Council. However, the greatest single beneficiary will be Oatlands Golf Club. Residents on Bettington Road will benefit from reduced traffic speeds. This will ensure it is safer to cross the road and enter or exit from driveways.

 

18.3. The developer has offered to fully fund the design and construction of the roundabout. On this basis, it is recommended that the roundabout be approved. It is intended that Baulkham Hills Shire Council undertake the design and statutory advertising for the roundabout.

 

19.    It is noted that previous roundabout constructions have generally cost approximately $120,000. Condition 1(b), as imposed by the Land and Environment Court, could potentially result in Parramatta Council providing additional funding for the construction of the roundabout, if design and construction costs exceeded $80,000. It is further noted that the proposed modification to condition 1(b) is not likely to result in any traffic impacts and the roundabout construction has been supported by the Parramatta Traffic Committee. It is considered reasonable to accept the applicants’ suggestion to pay for the cost of construction of the roundabout.

 

ON-SITE MEETING

 

20.    In accordance with Council’s resolution, an on-site meeting is scheduled for the proposed development on 3 May 2008 as the development is for a child care centre and a submission has been received.

 

21.    At the time of preparing this report, the on-site meeting has not been held. As a result, the issues raised at the on-site meeting will be provided to Councillor’s in a further memo prior to the Council meeting of 12 May 2008.

 

 

 

 

Ali Hammoud

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

2View

Schedule of Changes

1 Page

 

3View

Report to Parramatta Council Traffic Committee Regarding Roundabout at the Intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street, Oatlands

4 Pages

 

4View

Concept Plan for the Proposed Roundabout at the Intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street, Oatlands

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 2

Schedule of Changes

 

 

 


Attachment 3

Report to Parramatta Council Traffic Committee Regarding Roundabout at the Intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street, Oatlands

 




 

 


Attachment 4

Concept Plan for the Proposed Roundabout at the Intersection of Bettington Road and Ellis Street, Oatlands

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.3

SUBJECT                   14 New York Street, Granville
(Lot A DP 318121) (Woodville)

DESCRIPTION          Alterations and additions to an existing heritage listed dwelling. Location Map - Attachment 3

REFERENCE            DA/99/2008 - Submitted 18 February 2008

APPLICANT/S           Mr G Maalouf and Mrs L Maalouf

OWNERS                    Mr G Maalouf and Mrs L Maalouf

REPORT OF              Senior Development and Certification Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No 99/2008 which seeks approval to carry out alterations and additions to a heritage listed dwelling, including the construction of a garage.

 

The application has been referred to Council as the subject site is listed as an item of heritage significance (Inv No 404 in Schedule 2) under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council grant consent to Development Application No/99/2008 subject to standard conditions of consent.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The subject site legally identified as Lot A in DP 318121 and is located on the southern side of New York Street in Granville.

 

2.      The site is essentially rectangular in shape having a 20.115m frontage to New York Street, a 19.9m rear boundary dimension, a western side boundary dimension of 31.18m and an eastern side dimension of 30.055m. The area of the site is 621.5m2.

 

3.      The site currently comprises a single storey weatherboard dwelling and forms part of a group of cottages that are identified as being of heritage significance in the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). There are three (3) sheds and a detached WC also located on the site.

 

4.      Surrounding development comprises of residential dwellings of differing architectural styles and ages.

 

PROPOSAL

 

5.      The proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing heritage listed dwelling, including the following:-

 

5.1    Demolition of an existing ‘lean-to’ addition and outbuildings at the rear of the site;

 

5.2    Demolition of internal walls within the rear of the dwelling in order to ‘open up’ the internal space and reconfigure rooms, including enlarging the existing bathroom, dining room and kitchen;

 

5.3    Construction of a single storey addition at the rear of the dwelling, comprising of a living room, laundry and patio; 

 

5.4    Construction of a detached garage at the rear of the site;

 

5.5    Construction of a new ‘tyre track’ driveway to access the rear garage;

 

5.6    Removal of existing hardstand area and side concrete path along the eastern side of the site, and replacement with turf; and

 

5.7    The proposal also involves the removal of a tree, being a Ficus rubiginosa located at the rear of the property. This tree is less than 5m in height and is therefore exempt from Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

PARRAMATTA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2001 (PLEP 2001)

 

7.         The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under the provisions of PLEP 2001. Alterations and additions to dwelling houses are permissible within this zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

PARRAMATTA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

 

8.         The site is identified in Schedule 2 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) as a heritage item (Inv No 404). The site contains a weatherboard cottage, which forms one of part of a group of cottages with heritage significance, being Nos 12-14, 18-24, and 13 New York Street.

 

9.         The development is consistent with the objectives of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) which seek to conserve existing significant fabrics and settings associated with the heritage significance of heritage items and to ensure that any development does not adversely affect the heritage significance of heritage items and their settings.

 

PARRAMATTA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN – 2005

 

10.      The provisions of the Parramatta Development Control Plan– 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan and achieves compliance with the requirements of the DCP, apart from the rear setback and distribution of deep soil area controls. These non-compliances are discussed later in this report.

 

PARRAMATTA HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN – 2001

 

11.      The provisions of the Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan– 2001 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal achieves compliance with the requirements of the DCP and is also consistent with the general principles of the plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

12.       In accordance with Table 4 of Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised to adjoining property owners/occupiers for a period of twenty-one (21) days, from 5 March until 26 March 2008. The proposal was also advertised in the local newspaper and a site notice was placed on the subject site, in accordance with the DCP. In addition Council’s Heritage Committee was notified of the proposal.

 

13.       No submissions were received in response to the notification of the application.

 

ISSUES

 

Heritage

 

13.      The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment, as the site is listed as a heritage item in Schedule 2 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). The dwelling house forms one of part of a group of cottages with heritage significance, being Nos 12-14, 18-24, and 13 New York Street, Granville, which are all listed as heritage items. The comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor include:

 

14.      “The site is listed as a heritage item, part of the group of cottages at 12-14, 18-24, and 13 New York Street, Granville.  The current proposal is for rear additions only, and has been modified further to my discussions with the designers of the project.

The current form of the proposed additions satisfies the requirements of the Parramatta Heritage DCP 2001.  The proposal does not affect the notable front of the house.  The additions are located to the rear of the existing house, and utilise forms compatible to the original front of the building, including single storey configuration and a skillion roof.  Materials proposed include corrugated iron roofing and weatherboard cladding similar to that of the existing house.  The proposed colour scheme appears suitable.  The garage is detached from the house and located to the rear….

Under these conditions, I would have no objection to the proposal.”

 

15.      Accordingly there are no objections to the proposal on heritage grounds.

 

Rear Setback

 

16.      Parramatta Development Control Plan – 2005 requires that the proposed development be setback a minimum of 9.3m from the rear boundary of the site. The development however, is proposed to be setback 6.7m from the rear boundary.

 

17.      The proposed alterations are generally consistent with the existing dwelling on site in respect of setbacks. Further, the alterations are generally in line with the rear of the adjoining dwelling at No 12 New York Street.

 

18.      In addition to the above, it is noted that, given the heritage significance of the site, a rear extension is the preferred solution as opposed to a first floor addition, or an extension to the side of the dwelling.   The proposed alterations are located behind the dwelling with no modifications made to the front façade of the dwelling, thereby minimising any impact on the streetscape and heritage significance of the dwelling on the site.

 

19.       Given the heritage constraints of the site, and the fact that the development does not unduly impact on the amenity, the adjoining properties or the bulk and scale of the dwelling, the non-compliance with the rear setback is supported.

 

Deep Soil Zone (provision of 50% at rear)

 

20.      Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires that 186m2 of deep soil area be provided on the site with 15% (28m2) of this area being located at the front of the site, and 50% (93m2) being located at the rear.

 

21.      The proposal provides 300.5m2 of deep soil area, with 42m2 provided at the front of the site, and only 42m2 provided at the rear.

 

22.      The heritage constraints of the site, and the preferred option of extending at the rear of the dwelling restricts the amount of area available at the rear for deep soil planting.

 

23.      The proposal however, involves the removal of an existing hardstand area and concrete path located within the eastern side setback of the site, and will be replaced with turf. This results in an additional 168m2 of deep soil area, contributing to the development complying with the overall requirement for deep soil area to be provided on the site, and ensuring that it meets the objectives of the deep soil area control stipulated in the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005.

 

24.      In addition to the above, it is noted that the development provides for 104m2 of private open space area, complying with the minimum 100m2 required by the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005.

 

25.      Given the above, no objection is raised to the development’s non-compliance with the provision of deep soil area located at the rear of the site.

 

26.      There are no other undue impacts relative to noise, privacy, shadowing or bulk associated with the proposed development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maya Sarwary

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Compliance Table

1 Page

 

2View

Plans and Elevations

2 Pages

 

3View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Compliance Table

 

 


Attachment 2

Plans and Elevations

 


 


Attachment 3

Locality Map

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.4

SUBJECT                   28 - 30 Carson Street, Dundas
(Lots 4 and 5 DP 31560) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          A Section 82A Review of Determination to review the determination (refusal) of DA/632/2006 for demolition, tree removal and the construction of 9 townhouses and basement car parking.

REFERENCE            DA/632/2006 - 5 September 2007

APPLICANT/S           Designeffect P/L

OWNERS                    Mr S Xing, Mr L Qi and Mr Y Han

REPORT OF              Senior Development Assessment Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To review Council’s determination of Development Application No. 632/2006 pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The development application seeks approval for demolition, tree removal and construction of 8 townhouses and basement car parking.

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination, in accordance with Council delegations as the original development application was refused on 4 May 2007 under delegated authority.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council uphold the previous determination of refusal of Development Application 632/2006, subject to the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposed development is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the 2B Residential Zone. In this regard, the proposed development does not enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area. In addition, the proposed built form and in particular the proposed building height, bulk, scale and vertical proportions are not sympathetic to the surrounding built environment;

 

2.    The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4) as the roof form has not minimised the appearance of bulk and scale of the building. The proposal does not ensure that the building mass and form reinforces, compliments and enhances the visual character of the street (particularly in relation to the streetscape). The proposed building height does not respond to the topography and shape of the site. In addition, the development has not minimised the extent of shadows that it casts on the private open space and habitable room windows of the adjoining dwellings;

 

3.    The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.3.4), which requires development to provide dwellings within the development site with a minimum of 3 hours sunlight in at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The proposal does not provide townhouses 2 and 3 with a minimum of 3 hours sunlight in at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.3.4 of DCP 2005 have not been satisfied. In this regard, the proposed development will unreasonably diminish sunlight to dwellings within the development site. Further, the proposed development will reduce the amenity of townhouses 2 and 3 for the reason that their private open space areas will not be capable of serving as an extension of the dwelling for relaxation, entertainment and recreation;

 

4.    The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.2.4), which requires development to provide dwellings with a building frontage and entry that has a sense of address and visual interest. The proposal does not provide townhouses 1 – 3 (front row) with a front entry door and pedestrian access pathway. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.2.4 of DCP 2005 have not been satisfied. In this regard, the proposed development does not ensure that the appearance of the building compliments the streetscape character and that an attractive building façade has not been provided to establish identity;

 

5.    The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.4.3), which requires multi unit development with less than 10 dwellings to provide one adaptable dwelling within the development. The proposal does not provide details regarding how disabled access can be provided to one of the townhouses. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.4.3 of DCP 2005 have not been satisfied. In this regard, the proposed development does not promote the design of buildings that are adaptable and flexible in order to suit a disabled resident or visitor;

 

6.    The proposed development will not be in the public interest in that the development will be in contrast to the existing character and desired future character of the area.

 

(b)       Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The subject site is known as 28 – 30 Carson Street Dundas (Lots 4 and 5 DP 31560, has a site area of 1908sqm and a frontage to Carson Street of 46.9 metres. The site is currently occupied by 2 dwellings. The locality generally consists of dwellings and multi unit housing.

 

BACKGROUND

 

2.      Development Application No. 632/2006 which sought consent for the demolition, tree removal and construction of 9 townhouses over basement car parking with strata title subdivision, was refused by Council under Delegated Authority on 4 May 2007 for the following reasons:

 

“1.     The proposed development is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the 2B Residential Zone. In this regard, the proposed development does not enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area. In addition, the proposed built form is not sympathetic to the surrounding built environment. In this regard, the proposed building height, bulk, scale and vertical proportions are not sympathetic to the surrounding built environment;

 

2.      The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 3.1), which requires townhouses to have a minimum rear setback of 15% of the site length. The proposal provides a minimum of 13.6% rear setback. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the general principles for development (contained in Part 4 of DCP 2005) have not been satisfied. In this regard, insufficient space has been set aside for ancillary structures, deep soil areas for existing mature trees and privacy to the adjoining properties. Further, the private open space areas for the rear row of townhouses that are located within the rear setback receive poor solar access;

 

3.         The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 3.1), which requires townhouses to be contained within a building envelope that is determined by projecting a plane at 45o from the ceiling level of the uppermost storey. The proposal provides parts of the front row and rear row of townhouses that project outside of the building envelope. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the general principles for development (contained in Part 4 of DCP 2005) have not been satisfied. In this regard, the roof form has not minimised the appearance of bulk and scale of the building. Also, the proposal does not ensure that the building mass and form reinforces, compliments and enhances the visual character of the street (particularly in relation to the streetscape). Further, the proposed building height does not respond to the topography and shape of the site. In addition, the development has not minimised the extent of shadows that it casts on the private open space and habitable room windows of the adjoining dwellings;

 

4.         The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.1.10), which requires townhouses to have a minimum 3% communal landscaped open space. The proposal provides no areas of communal landscaped open space. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.3.1 (Private and Communal Open Space) have not been satisfied. In this regard, the development does not provide low maintenance communal open space areas for residents that facilitate opportunities for recreational and social activities, passive amenity, landscaping and deep soil planting. Further, any communal open space areas that are provided on site should be designed with an integral role in the development, with uses such as circulation, BBQ or play areas;

 

5.         The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.3.4), which requires development to provide dwellings within the development site with a minimum of 3 hours sunlight in at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The proposal does not provide townhouses 1 – 5 and 7 with a minimum of 3 hours sunlight in at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.3.4 of DCP 2005 have not been satisfied. In this regard, the proposed development will unreasonably diminish sunlight to dwellings within the development site. Further, the proposed development will reduce the amenity of townhouses 1 – 5 and 7 for the reason that their private open space areas will not be capable of serving as an extension of the dwelling for relaxation, entertainment and recreation;

 

6.         The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.2.4), which requires development to provide dwellings with a building frontage and entry that has a sense of address and visual interest. The proposal does not provide townhouses 1 – 4 (front row) with a front entry door and pedestrian access pathway. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.2.4 of DCP 2005 have not been satisfied. In this regard, the proposed development does not ensure that the appearance of the building compliments the streetscape character and that an attractive building façade has been provided that establishes identity;

 

7.      The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.5.1), which requires car parking areas to be located so that they do not visually dominate either the development or the public domain surrounding the development. The proposed central location of the car parking access way increases its visual dominance along the street over the pedestrian entry and overall address of the development. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.5.1 of DCP 2005 have not been satisfied. In this regard, the proposed car parking access way has a detrimental visual impact on the streetscape;

 

8.      The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.4.3), which requires multi unit development with less than 10 dwellings to provide one adaptable dwelling within the development. The proposal does not provide details regarding how disabled access can be provided to one of the townhouses. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.4.3 of DCP 2005 have not been satisfied. In this regard, the proposed development does not promote the design of buildings that are adaptable and flexible in order to suit a disabled resident or visitor;

 

9.      The proposed development does not comply with DCP 2005 (Part 4.1.10), which requires development to conserve significant natural features of the site. The proposal does not retain eight existing trees along the rear boundary. In this regard, the proposal includes retaining walls at the rear of the site with landscaped garden beds that are located within 2.1 metres of the rear boundary. To ensure that the eight existing trees along the rear boundary are retained, and that they survive during construction, it is recommended that the retaining walls be located no closer than 3.3 metres from the rear boundary. The non-compliance is unacceptable for the reason that the objectives of Part 4.1.10 of DCP 2005 have not been satisfied. Specifically, the proposed development does not retain mature vegetation on the site; and

 

10.    The proposed development will not be in the public interest in that the development will be in contrast to the existing character and desired future character of the area.”

 

3.      An application to review the above determination pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, was lodged with Council on 5 September 2007.

 

4.      The Section 82A review is based on revised plans. Revisions include the reduction of the number of units from 9 to 8, relocation of the driveway to the western boundary and minor modifications resulting from the reduction of yield and driveway relocation. The revised plans are considered to be substantially the same as previously assessed.

 

PROPOSAL

 

5.      Approval is sought for demolition of the existing dwellings, tree removal and construction of 8 townhouses and basement car parking.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

6.      The site is zoned 2B Residential under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and multi unit housing is permissible in the zone with the consent of Council. The proposal fails to achieve compliance with the objectives of the zone as the proposal does not enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

7.      The provisions of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal fails to achieve compliance with controls within the DCP, including solar access provision, bulk and scale of the development and provision of disabled access to the site.

 

CONSULTATION

 

8.      In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised and notified to surrounding property owners and previous objectors between 26 September 2007 and 10 October 2007. A total of 13 written submissions were received.

 

9.      The submissions raised the following issues:

 

Concerns the development will adversely impact upon the existing traffic network

 

10.    The proposed vehicular access for the development complies with Australian Standards for Parking Facilities (AS2890.1:2004) for on site parking dimensions. Concerns however are raised by Council’s Traffic Engineer that vehicle access into and from the development site is dangerous due to insufficient sight distance problems and cannot be achieved without changes occurring to the existing street. It is considered existing access and traffic arrangements from Marsden Road will be detrimentally affected if the application is approved.

 

 

 

The proposal is out of character due to the bulk, scale, height of the proposed townhouses and does not respond to the slope of the land

 

11.    It is agreed that the bulk and scale of the proposal when viewed from the street and adjoining properties is excessive. In addition the proposal does not respond to the sloping nature of the site and fails to integrate into the existing and desired streetscape. The front row of dwellings are unnecessarily elevated above natural ground level. The proposal has not been designed to respond to the constraints of the site or the existing streetscape. The excessive bulk and scale of the proposal forms part of the recommended grounds of refusal.

 

The front setbacks are not consistent with the prevailing setbacks

 

12.    Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires the front setback to be between 5 – 9 metres and consistent with the prevailing setbacks. The front setback is 6.5 metres and is considered to be consistent with the existing setbacks within the street.

 

Privacy to adjoining dwellings will be reduced due to height of dwellings and provision of attics

 

13.    The townhouses have not been designed to take into consideration the existing sloping nature of the site, thus resulting in townhouses which are excessively bulky and elevated when viewed from the street. Given this, privacy will be diminished to adjoining properties.

 

The proposal will lead to an increase in on street parking

 

14.    Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires the development to have a minimum of 12 car parking spaces. The proposal provides 15 spaces which is considered sufficient parking for the development and will limit the need for on street parking.

 

Lack of footpaths

 

15.    It is acknowledged the street has limited footpaths. Should approval be granted for the current application, a standard condition would be imposed requiring a footpath to be constructed for the full width of the property.

 

Concerns regarding the stormwater and potential impacts on adjoining properties

 

16.    The applicant submitted Stormwater Concept Plans. These plans have been reviewed by Council’s Drainage Engineers who raised no objections to the proposed on site detention methods and advise that minimal impacts will occur to adjoining properties and the on site detention tank will connect to the existing stormwater pits in Carson Street.

 

Concerns over the loss of existing trees

 

17.    The proposal seeks approval for the removal of 10 trees due to the trees being located within the building platform. Previously the applicant sought approval to remove significant trees within the rear setback. As a result of the Section 82A Review, these significant trees are to be retained. Should approval be granted, no objections are raised to the removal of the trees and it is considered sufficient landscaping is proposed to maintained the existing streetscape.

 

The proposal is not considered to be consistent with Parramatta Development Control Plan

 

18.    The proposal has been assessed against the provisions for multi unit housing as contained in PDCP 2005. The proposal is inconsistent in relation to bulk and scale, solar access and access for all. These issues are incorporated into the reasons for refusal.

 

Property values will be decreased

 

19.    It is also noted that this is not a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Concerns the basement excavation will impact upon adjoining properties

 

20.    If the application was to be approved, standard conditions of consent would be imposed to ensure that a dilapidation report of the neighbouring properties is submitted prior to work commencing in order to document and preserve the existing condition of adjoining properties. A post construction report would also be required to be provided prior to the issue of an occupation certificate. A geotechnical report will also be required to identify any rock beneath the site and the protective measures needed to prevent any damage to the adjoining properties.

 

Concerns the development will overshadow adjoining properties

 

21.    The proposal does not comply with the minimum provision for solar access to private open space areas of the dwellings within the development. In this regard the non compliance with solar access to the private open space of the units is a reason for refusal. The development provides sufficient levels of solar access to adjoining dwellings.

 

Concerns regarding the zoning of the area

 

22.    The site is zoned Residential 2B and multi unit housing is a permissible form of development subject to approval by Council. Multi unit housing is encouraged when the development relates appropriately to the site constraints and is deemed to be consistent with the existing and desired streetscape. In this instance the proposal fails to achieve compliance with the objectives of the zone.

 

On site meeting

 

23.    Council at its meeting of 9 July 2007, resolved that all Section 82A Review of Determinations be subject to a site inspection prior to being determined at a Regulatory meeting.

 

24.    In accordance with the above resolution, an on site meeting was held on 28 February 2008. Present at the meeting were Councillors Lorraine Wearne (Chairperson) and Maureen Walsh, Brad Delapierre Team Leader Development Assessment, 35 residents and 2 representatives of the applicant. The following issues were discussed:

 

Increased Traffic in the area

 

25.    Objectors raised concern that this townhouse development would increase traffic problems in the vicinity of the site. Residents advised that they experience great difficulty accessing Marsden Road from Miller Avenue and that this development may increase accidents in the area. Objectors advised that accessing Marsden Road during the morning and afternoon peaks currently detracts from the residential amenity of the area. The additional traffic generated by this development is unacceptable and concern is raised about the potential for vehicles and pedestrian accidents in local streets if the development is approved, especially taking into account that Carson Street does not have any concrete footpaths.

 

26.    The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer who raises concerns with the proposal in regards to traffic generation and impacts on Carson Street. It is considered existing access and traffic arrangements from Marsden Road will be detrimentally affected if the application is approved.

 

Parking

 

27.    Residents expressed concern that this development will lead to an increase in parking along Carson Street. Residents advised that 12 resident and 3 visitor spaces are inadequate to cater for the demand that the development will generate. Further, taking into account that the parking is within a basement car park and it is difficult to access, residents and visitors are more likely to park in Carson Street.

 

28.    Residents advised that vehicles parking for Lauriston House Reception Centre exacerbate traffic and parking problems in Miller Avenue.

 

29.    Parramatta DCP 2005 requires the development to have a minimum of 12 car on site parking spaces, 15 spaces are provided. It is considered sufficient parking is provided to cater for the development to minimise impacts on street parking. In addition, it is acknowledged at times the surrounding streets may be impacted by functions held at Lauriston House Reception Centre. This is a considered to be a management issue for the reception centre to ensure patrons do not adversely impact on residents.

 

Bulk and Scale

 

30.    Concern was raised that the bulk and scale of the building is excessive and that it is out of character with other buildings in the area.  It was indicated that a development that was all single storey would be compatible with surrounding residences.

 

31.    It is agreed that the bulk and scale of the proposal when viewed from the street and adjoining properties is excessive. The excessive bulk and scale forms part of the recommended grounds of refusal.

 

 

 

Townhouse development in the area

 

32.    Residents advised that the area has enough townhouses and that this development would be another unwanted development in the area.

 

33.    The zoning of 2B Residential allows multi unit housing. The zone objectives encourage multi unit housing where the proposal does not compromise amenity. The current proposal fails to achieve compliance with the objectives of the zone.

 

Driveway Location

 

34.    An objector asked to be advised of the location of the driveway as it was likely to require the removal of endangered vegetation. It was explained that as there is an existing transmission line easement, all trees located adjacent to the boundary with No. 26 Carson Street are able to be retained.

 

35.    Residents on the other side of Carson Street raised concern about headlight glare into their properties from the site. It is not considered the multi unit housing development will generate significant levels of headlight glare resulting in adverse impacts on adjoining properties.

 

36.    Concerns are raised about the location of the driveway with regards to sight distances and the associated impacts on the existing street conditions. In this regard approval of the development would result in adverse impacts on the existing road network.

 

Construction Damage

 

37.    Adjoining property owners raised concerns that their properties may be damaged whilst excavation and construction is occurring.

 

38.    Council’s standard conditions require a dilapidation report to be prepared, both prior to excavation occurring and prior to the occupation of the development for adjoining properties. These standard conditions would be imposed on a development consent notice.

 

Privacy and Overlooking

 

39.    Concern was raised about the opportunity to look into adjoining properties from this development. It was indicated that their level of residential amenity would be reduced.

 

40.    The townhouses have not been designed to take into consideration the constraints of the site including the sloping topography. Given this, it is agreed that privacy will be diminished.

 

Flooding

 

41.    Residents indicated that after periods of heavy rain Carson Street often floods and this development will exacerbate the problem. It was also indicated that water from above is likely to penetrate the basement car park causing damage to goods stored within.

 

42.    It was explained that the provision of on-site detention may reduce flooding within Carson Street after heavy rain. It is noted that Council’s Development Engineer raises no concerns relative to stormwater management, subject to standard conditions of consent.

 

Architectural Appearance

 

43.    Residents indicated that the development lacked architectural merit especially the first floor of townhouse 4, which extends over the driveway to the basement car park.

 

44.    Concerns are raised with regards to the bulk and scale of the development when viewed from the street. In addition the first floor of unit 4 cantilevered over the driveway reiterates the obtrusive nature of the development. It is agreed the design lacks architectural merit. 

 

Contrary to Planning Controls

 

45.    An objector read out the objectives for the Residential 2B zone contained in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan and indicated that it was clear from the reviewing the plans that this development was contrary to these objectives.

 

ISSUES

 

Solar access

 

46.    Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires development to provide dwellings within the development site with a minimum of 3 hours sunlight in at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The proposal does not provide townhouses 2 and 3 with a minimum 3 hours sunlight in at least 50% of the private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

 

47.    This is considered unacceptable as the proposal does not achieve compliance with the objectives for solar access; the design of the multi unit housing development unreasonably diminishes solar access for all dwellings and results in reduced amenity of townhouses 2 and 3 in that their private open space areas will not be capable of serving as an extension for the dwelling for relaxation, entertainment and recreation.

 

Bulk and scale

 

48.    The proposal is not considered to relate appropriately to the existing topography of the site resulting in increased bulk and scale of the first row of townhouses. The first floor level is approximately 1.1 metres above existing natural ground level.

 

49.    The raised grass areas, and access stairs to these areas are not considered to be an appropriate design response given the topography of the site. The stairs at the highest point at 1.5 metres above existing natural ground level.

 

50.    The streetscape appearance is considered to be unsatisfactory. Council’s Urban Designer has reviewed the proposal and provides the following comments:

 

          Overall, it is considered that the proposed townhouse development would result in a poor urban design outcome, with the built form design ignoring the site’s context/characteristics and disregarding the fundamental characteristics of terrace design. The efforts to reduce the bulk, scale and mass of the development are unsuccessful.”

 

51.    It is considered the proposal results in a development which adds bulk and scale to the streetscape and is not in keeping with the existing or desired streetscape.

 

Access and Adaptable housing

 

52.    Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires multi unit development with less than 10 dwellings to provide one adaptable dwelling within the development, in addition all ground floor dwellings in buildings must be visitable by people with a disability. This means that there must be a continuous accessible path of travel from the street and any visitor parking to and from dwellings.

 

53.    The applicant in their submission states “due to the site topography and the provision of steps throughout the development effectively negate full compliance with disabled access requirements, particularly from the street”.

 

54.    The proposal fails to achieve compliance with providing housing for persons with a disability, due to the design of the dwellings and the extensive provision of steps. The proposal is not considered to promote the design of buildings that are adaptable and flexible in order to suit a disabled resident or visitor.

 

Section 82A Review of Application

 

55.    The application is substantially the same as previously assessed. It is considered the reduction of 1 unit can be assessed under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. An assessment of the Section 82A Review application against the outstanding reasons of refusal of the original DA is provided below.

 

56.    The proposed development is inconsistent with the 2B residential zoning objectives as the proposal fails to respond appropriately to the sloping nature of the site. The proposed building height, bulk, scale and vertical proportions are not sympathetic to the surrounding built environment.

 

57.    The proposed development fails to achieve full numerical compliance with solar access to all dwellings, dwellings 2 and 3 do not receive adequate levels of solar access between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. This results in reduced amenity for future residents.

 

58.    The proposed development has not been sufficiently amended in design to provide and promote an active street frontage. The raised grass areas to dwellings 1 through to 4, and associated access stairs to these areas are not considered to be an appropriate design response given the topography of the site. The stairs at the highest point at 1.5 metres above existing natural ground level.

 

59.       Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires multi unit development with less than 10 dwellings to provide one adaptable dwelling within the development, in addition all ground floor dwellings in buildings must be visitable by people with a disability. This means that there must be a continuous accessible path of travel from the street and any visitor parking to and from dwellings.

 

60.       The applicant in their submission states “due to the site topography and the provision of steps throughout the development effectively negate full compliance with disabled access requirements, particularly from the street”.

 

61.      The proposal fails to achieve compliance with providing housing for persons with a disability, due to the design of the dwellings, the extensive provision of steps. The proposal is not considered to promote the design of buildings that are adaptable and flexible in order to suit a disabled resident or visitor.

 

62.      The issues raised in the resident’s submissions remain and have not been adequately resolved though the amendments made in the Section 82A Review of Determination.

 

63.      The proposal is not considered to be in the public interest for the reasons stated above and is not deemed to be compatible with the existing and likely character of the area. The proposal is not considered to meet the objectives of the 2B Residential zone having regard to the matters raised in this report.

 

 

 

 

Sara Matthews

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Table of Compliance

6 Pages

 

2View

Plans and Elevations

7 Pages

 

3View

Locality Plan

1 Page

 

4View

History of DA

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Table of Compliance

 






 


Attachment 2

Plans and Elevations

 







 


Attachment 3

Locality Plan

 

 


Attachment 4

History of DA

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.5

SUBJECT                   29-31 Garnet Street Merrylands

DESCRIPTION          Demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a multi-unit housing development containing 6 dwellings

REFERENCE            DA/755/2007 - Submitted 12 September 2007

APPLICANT/S           Resitech

OWNERS                    NSW Department of Housing

REPORT OF              Senior Development Assessment Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 755/2007 that seeks approval for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a multi unit housing development containing 6 dwellings.

 

This application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Development Application No. 1025/2007 be approved subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions subject to the concurrence of the applicant or the Minister being provided as required by Section 116C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

1.      The Pinus radiata (Monterey Pine) tree located at the front of the site within Lot DP 35056 shall be removed. Two (2) Tristaniopsis laurina (Water Gum) trees shall be planted on the nature strip prior to occupation of the development and maintained until mature.

Reason:   To enhance the streetscape.

 

2.      A revised version of landscape plan drawing No. L-01 prepared by Ray Fuggle and Associates shall be prepared prior to the commencement of construction. The landscape plan shall be revised in accordance with the approved site plan and the development shall be completed in accordance with the revised landscape plan.

Reason:   To ensure that a revised landscape plan is provided.

 

3.      The following engineering requirements are to be shown on the stormwater concept plans:

3.1    Control pit in the on-site detention shall be a high early discharge control pit in accordance with Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust, on-site Stormwater Detention Handbook, in this case Figure 7.10 - 7.11 (3rd edition).

3.2    Provide 5.5m wide vehicular footpath crossing with a transition zone narrowed to the width of the internal driveway.

3.3    Provide minimum 200mm gap beneath dividing fence within the on-site detention area in courtyards of unit 1, unit 2 and unit 3.

3.4    Surrounding retaining wall in the on-site detention shall be water tight.

3.5    No loose mulch within the On-site detention area.

Reason:   To provide efficient civil design

 

 

(b)     Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The site is located on the eastern side of Garnet Street. The site comprises two allotments which each containing a single storey fibro dwelling. The site has a frontage of 32.7m to Garnet Street, depth of 45.7m and overall site area of 1500.48m2. The site has a gradual fall from the rear to the front. Garnet Street is characterised by a mix of single storey and 2 storey dwellings of varying age and styles. A multi unit housing development is located on the south-western corner of Garnet Street and Lavinia Street. The site is within walking distance of several shops located on the corner of Excelsior Street and Constance Street.

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.      The proposal is for the demolition of the existing dwellings and the construction of a multi-unit housing development containing 6 X 2 bedroom dwellings. A central driveway is proposed with vehicular access to each dwelling being provided from this driveway. The four dwellings to the front of the site have a height of 2 storeys and the two dwellings to the rear of the site have a height of one storey. A total of 8 car parking spaces are provided, including 2 visitor spaces.

 

3.      The applicant for the development application is a Crown authority as determined by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Section 166C of the Act states that a consent authority cannot refuse an application by the Crown without the approval of the Minister or impose a condition of consent without the approval of the Minister or the applicant. In this regard the applicant has agreed to the imposition of the non-standard conditions contained in the recommendation.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

4.      The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta LEP 2001 and the proposed development is permissible within the zone, subject to the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of PLEP 2001.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

5.      Parramatta DCP 2005 applies to the subject development. The proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the DCP, the development does not comply with three of the numerical requirements of the DCP being solar access, privacy separation and ceiling height. These non compliances are discussed in the ‘ISSUES’ section of this report.

 

CONSULTATION

 

6.      In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was advertised and notified between 3 October and 24 October 2007. One submission and two petitions, with a total of 20 signatures were received. Amended plans were advertised and notified between 12 March and 2 April 2008. No submissions were received. The matters raised in the submissions are addressed below.

 

Townhouses are too small for families or sole parents

 

7.      Parramatta DCP 2005 does not contain a minimum size for a townhouse. Each of the single storey townhouses has a floor area of 82m2 and the 2 storey townhouses have a floor area of 102m2. In the absence of a minimum floor area requirement in Parramatta DCP 2005, it is useful to refer to the minimum requirements for apartments contained within the Department of Planning’s document the Residential Flat Design Code. This code suggests that the minimum floor area for a 2 bedroom affordable housing unit should be 70m2. The development exceeds this standard with the smallest townhouse being 82m2 and therefore the size of the townhouses is considered acceptable.

 

No areas on site for children to play and children will be forced to play in the street which is not safe

 

8.      Parramatta DCP 2005 requires 10% of the deep soil area on the site to be communal landscaped open space. This control requires 45m2 of communal landscaped open space to be provided in this particular case. A review of the plans indicates that 135m2 of communal landscape open space is provided. The development exceeds the private open space and communal open space requirement of Parramatta DCP 2005.

 

No provision has been made for increases to Medical Services and Schooling

 

9.      This is not a matter relevant to the consideration of this development application. The site is zoned Residential 2(b) and multi-unit housing developments are permissible in this zone.

 

Allowing further medium density housing into the street would result in further difficulties with traffic and parking

 

10.    The development has provided resident and visitor car parking in accordance with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005. As the development complies with the parking requirements, does not exceed the floor space ratio and multi-unit housing is a permissible form of development, the application could not be refused due the potential for increased on street parking. Council’s Traffic Engineer has not raised any concerns with the impact of the development on the efficient operation of Garnet Street.

 

The townhouses are of simple design and not in keeping with the design of the houses in the street

 

11.    Garnet Street is characterised by a mix of dwelling types, including simple single storey fibro cottages and recently constructed 2 storey brick dwellings. The proposed development utilises a face brick wall finish and a skillion roof covered in colorbond. The development will integrate with the streetscape and is considered appropriate for the site and surrounds.

 

The development would result in decreased property values

 

12.    The impact of development on property values is not a matter for consideration pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

On-Site Meeting

 

13.       Council, at its meeting of 9 July 2007, resolved that all applications subject to 5 of more submissions be subject to a site inspection prior to being determined at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

14.       In accordance with the above resolution, an invitation to Councillors, Council officers, the applicant and the objectors was sent in relation to the inspection to be held on Saturday 29 March 2008, commencing at 12.00pm.

 

15.       Present at the site meeting were Councillor Barber (Chairman), Councillor Maureen Walsh, Councillor Omar Jamal, Councillor Anita Brown, Council’s Team Leader Development & Certification, the applicant and 9 residents. The following issues were discussed at the meeting:

 

Children will have to play on the street

 

16.    Residents raised concern that the proposed development does not allow opportunity for children to play within the site without the need to utilise the road. Furthermore, the residents are concerned with speeding vehicles and having children playing in the street would be a potential danger, as the development site has minimal area dedicated as private open space.

 

17.    The proposed private open space and communal open space provision are in accordance with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005. Existing issues with regard to speeding vehicles are not relevant to the assessment of the development application. 

 

Inadequate services within the locality 

 

18.    Residents raised concern that existing services such as schools, medical centres and infrastructure are already at the maximum capacity. In particular the local medical centre will not allow any new patients and existing patients are forced to wait extensive times for appointments, due to the number of customers utilising the service. In addition, the local primary school is also at a capacity with the strands of grades being increased to manage student levels.

 

19.    As the zoning of the site allows multi unit housing developments, these issues do not warrant the refusal of the application. It is noted that the proposal attract a financial contribution under Section 94, which is a local infrastructure levy.

 

Use of air-conditioning systems within the site

 

20.    The residents questioned the ability to provide cooling to the development as the first floor will be hot for the residents.

 

21.    A BASIX certificate was submitted with the application. Appropriately designed eaves and insulation to the walls and ceiling are provided to the development. This will ensure that the dwellings are energy efficient and achieve an appropriate level of thermal comfort.

 

Maintenance of Department of Housing site

 

22.    Residents raised concern that nearby Department of Housing sites are overgrown and require numerous telephone calls to both Council and the DOH before the situation is rectified.

 

23.    This issue is not relevant to the assessment of the development application.

 

Tree Removal

 

24.    Concern was raised that the Pinus radiata tree located within the front setback area of the site should be removed to allow construction of the development and the footpath.

 

25.    Council’s Landscape Officer has reviewed the application and supports removal of the tree because it has a significant surface root system and its health will be affected by the proposed development.

 

Streetscape

 

26.    Residents raised concern that the two storey element presenting to Garnet Street would detract from the streetscape and therefore the design should be modified to single storey.

 

27.    The street comprises a mixture of single storey development and new two storey development. The development is sympathetic to the streetscape and the 2 storey height is permitted by Parramatta DCP 2005.

 

ISSUES

 

Privacy

 

28.    Part 4.3.2 of Parramatta DCP 2005 requires a separation of 12m between habitable rooms within a development site.

 

29.    The separation between the kitchen windows of unit 1 and the dining room window of unit 6 is 9.3m. The separation between the kitchen windows of unit 2 and the dining room window of unit 5 is 9.4m. The separation between the bedroom window of unit 3 and the bedroom window of unit 4 is 11.2m.

 

30.    The non compliance with the 12m requirement is considered acceptable because screening trees are proposed within the planter beds on both sides of the driveway. The screening trees will prevent any significant overlooking between the dwellings within the development site. Further, there are no direct views from high use habitable rooms into another high use habitable room in another unit.

 

Solar Access

 

31.    Part 4.3.4 ‘Solar Access and Cross Ventilation’ of Parramatta DCP 2005 requires that 50% of private open space areas receive 3 hours of solar access on the winter solstice. Part 4.3.1 ‘Private and Communal Open Space’ of DCP 2005 states that the minimum private open space area for multi unit housing is 40m2.

 

32.    The courtyard to unit No. 5 has an area of 53.7m2. The courtyard will receive 18m2 of solar access at 11am, 12m2 at midday and 5m2 at 1pm. For the remainder of the day the entire area of the courtyard will be shaded by the building.

 

33.    The courtyard to unit No. 6 has an area of 53.8m2. The courtyard will receive 1.8m2 of solar access at 11am, 9.7m2 at midday, 9m2 at 1pm, 14m2 at 2pm and 18m2 at 3pm. For the remainder of the day the entire area of the courtyard will be shaded by the building.

 

34.    The living area of each unit within the development has a northerly aspect. Habitable rooms will receive at least 3 hours of solar access as required by the DCP. The solar orientation of the courtyard of units 5 and 6 is not ideal. However, the density of the development is 35% less than the maximum permitted and the courtyards are 32% larger than required. Having regards to the site constraints and the FSR of the proposal, the non compliance with the DCP solar access control is considered acceptable and will not unduly impact on the amenity of future residents.

 

Ceiling Height

 

35.       The ceiling height of the first floor levels of the two storey units is 2.4m which does not comply with the minimum 2.7m requirement of Section 4.3.4 ‘Solar Access and Cross Ventilation’ of DCP 2005.

 

36.       State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) states that controls within development controls plans which aim to improve the thermal performance of buildings have no effect with regard to BASIX affected developments.

 

37.       The objectives of Section 4.3.4 relate to the thermal performance of buildings, having regard to issues such as thermal comfort, solar access, cross ventilation and overshadowing.

 

38.       The proposed townhouses are a BASIX affected development and the 2.7m minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect.

 

 

Jonathan Goodwill

Senior Development Assessment Officer

30 April 2008

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

2View

Development Application History

1 Page

 

3View

Multi Unit Housing Checksheet

5 Pages

 

4View

Plans and Elevations

5 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Attachment 1

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 2

Development Application History

 

 


Attachment 3

Multi Unit Housing Checksheet

 





 


Attachment 4

Plans and Elevations

 





 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.6

SUBJECT                   3-11 Shirley Street, Rosehill (Lot 2 DP 864567) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of an awning to be located on the second floor of the Capral Aluminium building. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE            DA/86/2008 - Submitted 13 February 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mr D Ferrier

OWNERS                    ING Industrial Custodian Pty Ltd

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No 86/2008 which seeks approval for the construction of an awning to be located over part of the proposed rooftop outdoor area on the Capral Aluminium building.

 

The application has been referred to Council as the property is listed as a heritage item in Schedule 6 Part 2 of the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 86/2008 subject to standard conditions.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The site is located on the corner of Unwin & Shirley Street Rosehill and has an approximate area of 201,600 square metres. The site has been identified as a master plan site under the provisions of SREP 28 and has been identified as a potentially contaminated site and is flood prone. The subject building is located on the north west corner of the site and is two storey in height with a third storey element at the mid section. The building is currently used for commercial purposes and is listed as a heritage item under Schedule 6 Part 2 of SREP 28. Surrounding development comprises of a variety of industrial uses, the Parramatta Speedway & Rosehill Racecourse.

 

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.      Development Application No. 86/2008 seeks approval for the following:

 

2.1         The proposal seeks approval for the construction of an awning which is to be located on the second floor (roof level) of the heritage listed building, opening out from the existing kitchen & tearoom areas.

 

2.2         The proposed roof area of the awning will be 10m x 7.5m, open on two sides and setback from the prominent face of the building.

 

2.3         The proposal will involve the removal of the bitumised felt roofing finish and replace with light weight anti slip tiles to form an outdoor area for the use of office workers of the Capral Aluminium building.

 

2.4         The existing access structure for the air-conditioning system will be remodelled to form a permanent seating area with a revised access hatch.

 

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55

 

3.      The site has been identified as being potentially contaminated due to the previous history, in particular the past industrial uses on the subject site.

 

4.      The proposal will not involve any excavation or soil disturbance of the site as all works are proposed on the second floor level of the building therefore the development application is satisfactory having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under SEPP 55.

 

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28

 

5.      The site is zoned Regional Enterprise & Environmental Protection under the provisions of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta. A portion of the site which abuts Duck Creek is zoned Environmental Protection zone. The Capral Aluminium building is located wholly within the Regional Enterprise zone and will have no impact on the area that is zoned Environmental Protection zone. The proposal is permissible within the zone and is consistent with the applicable standards & objectives set out within Part 8 ‘Camelia Precinct’ of SREP 28.

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

6.      In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between the 25 February 2008 and 10 March 2008. No submissions were received.

 

 

ISSUES

 

Heritage

 

7.      The development application was referred to Councils Heritage Advisor for assessment as the site has been identified as an item of heritage significance in Schedule 5 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2007. The comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor include:

 

          The building is listed as a local item in SREP 28. It comprises of a two-storey building with three storey central portion, facing Unwin and Shirley Streets, near the corner of the two streets.  The proposal is located on the rooftop area, above the second storey, and set back from the street to avoid visibility from the public domain. The impact on fabric is relatively small, in the context of the overall building. The design of the proposal is simple and utilitarian; however, this is acceptable given its low visibility and light character. The spatial organization of the building will not be affected. 

 

          I am thus of opinion that the proposal is acceptable in the context of ongoing use of the building.

 

8.      Accordingly, there are no objections to the proposal on heritage grounds.

 

9.      The rooftop area will be utilised by workers within the Capral Aluminium building and will not give rise to any undue acoustic or privacy impacts.

 

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

30 April 2008

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans

2 Pages

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Plans

 


 


Attachment 2

Locality Map

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.7

SUBJECT                   70 Ross Street North Parramatta
( Lot 1 DP 778857) (Elixabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Section 96(1A) modification to DA No. 1114/2004. The modifications comprise  two additional windows to the dining room along the western elevation of the dwelling (Location Map-Attachment 2).

REFERENCE            DA/1114/2004/B - Submitted 23rd October 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mr N J Tarr

OWNERS                    Mr N J Tarr and Mrs M Morley

REPORT OF              Senior Development and Certification Assessment Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine an application which seeks consent to modify development consent No 1114/2004. It is proposed to install 2 additional windows to the dining room along the western elevation of the dwelling.

 

The application has been referred to Council as the site is listed as a heritage item of local significance in Local Environmental Plan Schedule 2 of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation 1996).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council modify Development Consent DA/1114/2004 dated 27 November 2006 in the following manner.

 

1.    Condition 1 be amended as follows:

 

The development is to be carried out in compliance with  the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:

 

Drawing No 40706-A1A dated July 2004 by Armstrong Home Improvements.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The site is located on the northern side of Ross Street between Brickfield and Buller Streets. The site has a frontage of 15.495m and a depth of 41.76m and a total area of 647m2. The area is characterised by single and two storey residential development and residential flat buildings.

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.      The proposed modification includes the installation of two timber framed windows located in the dining room along the western side of the existing dwelling which are 1.5m high X 600mm wide of timber framed construction.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

3.      Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 allows an applicant to make an application to modify a development consent issued by a consent authority. It also states that a consent authority must be satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates and is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted.

 

4.      The proposed modification seeks approval to modify the consent to install additional windows in the western wall of the dwelling. The proposed modification will result in substantially the same development as that originally approved and can be dealt with pursuant to Section 96(1A) of the Act.

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

5.      The subject site is zoned Residential 2(b) under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. Alterations and additions are permissible within the zone with the consent of Council.

 

Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

 

6.      The subject site is listed as a heritage item under Schedule 2 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996. The heritage item at No. 70 Ross Street comprises of a single storey dwelling house with an attached garage. The proposed development is consistent with the objections of Parramatta LEP 1996.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

7.      The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

CONSULTATION

 

8.      In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 22nd November 2007 and 6th December 2007. No submissions were received.

 

BACKGROUND

 

9.      Development application No 1114/2004 was determined by way of approval on 27/11/2004 for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling. A section 96 (1A) modification was approved on the 14th September 2006 to modify the roof design of the rear additions, from a skillion roof to a pitched roof. In addition the modification also included a construction change from slab on ground to timber floor construction.

 

Heritage

 

10.    The Section 96(1A) modification 1114/2004/B was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for comment as the existing dwelling is identified as a Heritage item in Schedule 2 of Local Environment Plan 1996. The comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor are:

 

Having reviewed the current application and the previously approved application, the addition of two windows to the side elevation would not change the general level of impact of the previously approved works. However the details of these windows need to be carefully assessed. Details of the windows have now been submitted showing them to be the same design and style as the existing windows in the dwelling and to be painted the same colour to match. Council’s Heritage Advisor raises no objections to the windows.’ 

 

11.    Accordingly, there are no objections to the proposal on heritage grounds.

 

12.    There are no undue privacy impacts associated with the additional 2 windows located along the western elevation of the dwelling proposed amendments.

 

 

 

Michael Carter

Senior Development and Certification Officer

30 April 2008

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans and elevations

2 Pages

 

2View

Location Map

1 Page

 

3View

Section 79C report

9 Pages

 

4View

History of Inventory form

1 Page

 

5View

Letter from Heritage Council

2 Pages

 

6View

Statement of Heritage Impact

2 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Plans and elevations

 


 


Attachment 2

Location Map

 

 


Attachment 3

Section 79C report

 









 


Attachment 4

History of Inventory form

 

 


Attachment 5

Letter from Heritage Council

 


 


Attachment 6

Statement of Heritage Impact

 


 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.8

SUBJECT                   15 Gilbert Street, North Parramatta
(
Lot 59 DP 4858) (Arthur Phillip)

DESCRIPTION          Demolition of existing dwelling, tree removal and construction of a two storey dwelling and garage

REFERENCE            DA/506/2007 - Submitted 4 July 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mr Paul Thomas Bosci

OWNERS                    Mr Paul Thomas Bosci

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

1.         To determine Development Application No. 506/2007 which seeks consent for the demolition of the existing dwelling, tree removal and construction of a two storey dwelling with a detached garage

 

2.         The application has been referred to Council due to 7 submissions and a petition with 64 signatures received during the notification period.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No.603/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

 

i) The applicant’s arboricultural service provider is to remove the street tree located in the William Street frontage. 1x Callistemon 'Endeavor' shall be supplied in a 45L container with a setback of 3 metres from the driveway. The tree is to be a minimum height of 1.5 metres at planting and is to be maintained until established. The tree is to be grown and planted in accordance with Natspec – Clarke .R, Specifying Trees: A guide to the assessment of tree quality, 2003.

Reason: To ensure restoration of environmental amenity.

 

ii) Two examples from the following list are to be planted within the site to replace the Eucalyptus grandis (Flooded Gum) and Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) approved for removal under this consent:

Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box)

Tristaniopsis laurina (Water Gum)

Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowwood)

Angophora floribunda (Rough-barked Apple)

Corymbia eximia (Yellow Bloodwood)

Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum)

Hymenosporum flavum (Native Frangipani)

Elaeocarpus reticulatus (Blueberry Ash)

Waterhousia floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pilly)

The trees are to be a minimum height of 1.5 metres at planting and are to be maintained until established. All trees are to be grown and planted in accordance with Natspec – Clarke .R, Specifying Trees: A guide to the assessment of tree quality, 2003.

Reason: To ensure restoration of environmental amenity.

 

iii) All bathroom windows shall be obscured glazing (as marked in red on stamped plans) and the window serving the first floor hallway is to comprise glass blocks (as marked in red on stamped plans).

Reason: to protect the amenity of the area

 

iv) The detached garage is not to be used for habitable or commercial purposes.

Reason: to protect the amenity of the area

 

(b)       Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.         The subject site is located on the southern side of Gilbert Street. The site is rectangular in shape, has a frontage of 10.06m to Gilbert Street, a rear frontage of 10.06m to William Street, a depth of 30.6m, and an area of 554.7m². A single storey weatherboard dwelling is currently located on the site.

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.         The applicant is seeking approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling, tree removal and construction of a two storey dwelling with a detached garage. The following works are proposed:

2.1    Demolition of the existing dwelling

2.2.   Removal of 2 trees at the rear of the site and a street tree on William Street

2.3    Construction of a two storey dwelling fronting Gilbert Street comprising of 4 bedrooms, study, living areas, kitchen, and wet areas

2.4    Construction of a detached 2 car garage fronting William Street having dimensions of 6m x 10m

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

3.         The site is zoned Residential 2(a) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The proposed works are permissible with development consent.

 

CONSULTATION

 

4.         In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application from 13 July 2007 to 27 July 2007. In response 7 submissions and 1 petition with 64 signatures were received.

 

5.         Amended plans have been submitted amending the garage from 8.2metres x 8.2metres to 6metres in width and 10metres in length with additional landscaping. The amendments are considered to be of a minor nature and reduce the impact of the development from originally proposed, therefore renotification was not required. Issues raised in the submissions are discussed below:

 

Compliance with planning controls

 

6.         Concern is raised that the proposed dwelling and garage fail to comply with Parramatta DCP2005

 

7.         An assessment of the proposed development demonstrates compliance with Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005. For full demonstration of the proposed development compared to numerical controls refer to the compliance table attached to this report (Attachment No. 3).

 

Tree removal

 

8.         Concern is raised over the removal of an existing large tree on the site, which is considered to have a significant contribution to the local area.

 

9.         A Eucalyptus grandis (Flooded Gum) is located in the south-eastern corner of the site. This tree is 20 metres tall and is in good condition.

 

10.      Whilst it is acknowledged the gum tree contributes to the local area, it is considered that to retain the tree, a tree protection zone of 7metres is required, resulting in any proposed structure to have a minimum setback of 17m from the southern boundary.

 

11.      As the site is constrained having a 10m width, it is considered that an alternative design proposal of a dwelling with an attached garage fronting Gilbert Street would result in non-compliance with Sections 4.2-Building Elements & 4.5 Movement and Circulation of DCP2005, due to garage dominance when viewed from Gilbert Street.

 

12.      Amended plans have been submitted reducing the original garage width from 8.2m to 6m with additional plantings throughout the site to replace the trees nominated to be removed.

 

Proposed dwelling inconsistent with streetscape

 

13.      Concern is raised that the proposed 2 storey dwelling is out of character with the local area and inconsistent with the existing streetscape.

 

14.      The character of the existing area consists of brick or weatherboard single and double storey dwelling houses along Gilbert Street, with a variety of roof finishes including colorbond and tiles. In addition there are numerous residential flat buildings along William Street with the adjoining multi-unit development being a one and two storey development. Refer to streetscape photos attached to this report (Attachment No. 6)

 

15.      The proposed dwelling has been designed to compliment the streetscape given the external materials and finishes which include ‘Deep-ocean’ roof colour with medium red brick facades. In addition, the side elevations of the dwelling have been stepped to articulate the development, including a double course of brickwork at first floor level to minimise bulk and scale of the development. Furthermore the proposed front setback of the development respects the development pattern within this section of Gilbert Street. Therefore the proposed 2 storey dwelling will not dominate or detract from the streetscape within this section of Gilbert Street.

 

Potential illegal use of the garage

 

16.      Concern is raised that the detached garage fronting William Street has the potential to be used as a dual occupancy

 

17.      Although the plans submitted with the Development Application indicate a detached garage fronting William Street, the internal floor layout does not include a bathroom or cooking facilities. Therefore, the potential to usethis building as a habitable area is significantly reduced. Furthermore a condition of consent will ensure the detached garage is not to be used for habitable or commercial purposes.

 

Privacy and overlooking

 

18.      Concern is raised that the first floor windows of the proposed dwelling will allow overlooking into adjoining properties

 

19.      Plans submitted with the application indicate that the first floor windows of the proposed dwelling are associated with bedrooms, bathrooms, hallway and the stairwell. These rooms are low trafficable areas and there will be minimal opportunities for overlooking into adjoining properties as the bathroom windows are to be obscured glazing and the window serving the first floor hallway is to comprise glass blocks. A condition of consent is attached accordingly.

 

Overshadowing

 

20.      Concern is raised that the 2 storey dwelling will have a significant impact on the existing levels of solar access to private open space and living areas, currently enjoyed by the adjoining properties

 

21.      The shadow diagrams submitted with the Development Application indicate that whilst there will be some loss of solar access to the adjoining properties during the winter months, the amount of solar access they receive satisfies the minimum requirements of 3 hours, in accordance with DCP2005. In this regard No. 13 Gilbert Street, being a 1 and 2 storey brick townhouse development, will receive some overshadowing at 9.00am. However, by midday the shadows cast fall within the subject site, in particular their rear yard. Furthermore, at 3.00pm the adjoining property at No.17 Gilbert Street will receive some overshadowing, however they will receive more than 3 hours throughout the reminder of the day. In addition the proposed detached rear garage will create a similar shadow pattern as the proposed dwelling, in that, adjoining properties will receive adequate solar access during the winter months.

 

Impact on property values

 

22.      Concern is raised the proposed dwelling will have a negative impact on the property values of the local area

 

23.      Council is not in a position under 79C of the EP&A Act to consider valuation of properties with respect to development.

 

Impact on heritage value of the area

 

24.      Concern is raised that as this part of North Parramatta is zoned heritage, the proposal will impact on the heritage value of the area.

 

25.      15 Gilbert Street is currently zoned Residential 2(a) under Parramatta LEP2001 and is not a heritage item or in the vicinity of an item. No special conditions affect the site and therefore the development has been assessed against Council’s single dwelling controls in DCP2005 and LEP2001. It is considered the proposed dwelling and detached garage achieves the aims and objectives of the residential zone stated in LEP2001, but also achieves the minimum requirements in DCP2005.

 

ON SITE MEETING

 

26.       Council, at its meeting of 9 July 2007, resolved that all applications with 5 or more submissions be subject to a site inspection prior to being determined at a Regulatory meeting.

 

27.       In accordance with the above resolution an on site meeting was held on Saturday 29 March 2008, commencing at 10.30am.

 

28.      Present at the meeting were Clr Jamal (Chairperson), Clr Lim, Clr Brown, Clr Wearne and Lord Mayor Barber, approximately 8 residents, 3 representatives of the applicant and Council staff members Danielle Woods and Nicholas Clarke. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Bulk and scale

 

29.      A number of residents expressed concern about the bulk and scale of the proposal being 2 storey in height. It was contended by residents that a 2 storey building is out of character as the majority of dwellings are single storey within the locale.

 

30.      Councillor Lim suggested a streetscape diagram be prepared indicating how the proposed dwelling respects the existing streetscape, and in particular with regard to dwelling heights.

 

31.      The applicant informed the meeting that this request would require additional time and cost for a draftsman to prepare the diagram and explained how the external materials have been chosen to compliment the existing streetscape. In addition the side elevations of the dwelling have been stepped to articulate the design including a double course of brickwork at first floor level to minimise bulk and scale of the development. The request to submit further information was not further discussed at the meeting.

 

Tree removal

 

32.      Each resident that addressed the meeting made mention of the removal of the Eucalyptus grandis (Flooded Gum) and Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) located at the rear of the site. Opinion was divided on whether it was of benefit to remove the tree or not. Several residents expressed concern that the tree was significant to the streetscape and provided a habitat for fauna, whilst those properties adjoining the subject site supported tree removal due to fallen branches on roofs and damage to stormwater drainage lines by the root system of the tree.

 

33.      Councillor Walsh expressed concern over the removal of the tree and the impact on local fauna.

 

34.      In response to these issues the following comments are made:

- That to retain the Eucalyptus grandis (Flooded Gum) a tree protection zone of 7metres is required, resulting in any proposed structure having a minimum setback of 17m from the southern boundary, thereby inhibiting the use of the rear of site for private open space.

- That the landscape plan proposes replacement plantings for those trees to be removed.

- That Council’s landscape officer supports the proposal subject to conditions of consent.

 

Overdevelopment

 

35.      Residents raised concern that the proposed two storey dwelling and detached garage is an overdevelopment of the site.

 

36.      An assessment of the proposed development demonstrates compliance with Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005. For full demonstration of the proposed development compared to numerical controls refer to the compliance table attached to this report (Attachment No. 3).

 

Privacy and overlooking

 

37.      Concern was raised that the proposed dwelling’s first floor will allow overlooking into adjoining properties

 

38.      The applicant explained all bathroom windows would be obscured glazing and the window in the first floor hallway is proposed to be glass blocks to maintain privacy to adjoining properties.

 

Overshadowing

 

39.      Concern is raised that the 2 storey dwelling will have significant impact on the existing levels of solar access currently enjoyed by the adjoining properties.

 

40.      Councillor Walsh requested further details as to how the proposal impacts solar access on the single storey portion of the multi-unit development at 6 William Street (also known as 13 Gilbert Street) and the validity of the diagrams submitted. 

 

41.      In response to these issues the following comments are made:

- The shadow diagrams submitted with the Development Application indicate that whilst there will be some loss of solar access to the adjoining properties during the winter months, the amount of solar access they receive satisfies the minimum requirements of 3 hours, in accordance with DCP2005. In this regard No. 13 Gilbert Street, being a 1 and 2 storey brick townhouse development, will receive some overshadowing at 9.00am. However, by midday the shadows cast fall within the subject site, in particular their rear yard. Furthermore, at 3.00pm the adjoining property at No.17 Gilbert Street will receive some overshadowing, however they will receive more than 3 hours throughout the reminder of the day. In addition the proposed detached rear garage will create a similar shadow pattern as the proposed dwelling, in that, adjoining properties will receive adequate solar access during the winter months.

 

42.      The validity and accuracy of the diagrams are considered sufficiently accurate to evaluate assessment of the development application.

 

ISSUES

 

Landscaping

 

43.      A Eucalyptus grandis (Flooded Gum) and Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) are located in the south-eastern corner of the site and are proposed to be removed. Whilst it is acknowledged these trees contribute to the local area, it is considered that to retain the trees, a tree protection zone would result in any proposed structure to have a minimum setback of 17m from the southern boundary.

 

44.      As the site is constrained having a 10m width, it is considered that an alternative design proposal of a dwelling with an attached garage fronting Gilbert Street would result in non-compliance with Sections 4.2-Building Elements & 4.5 Movement and Circulation of DCP2005, due to garage dominance when viewed from Gilbert Street.

 

45.      Council’s Landscape Tree Management Officer raises no objection to tree removal subject to the following conditions:

i) The applicant’s arboricultural service provider is to remove the street tree located in the William Street frontage. 1x Callistemon 'Endeavor' shall be supplied in a 45L container with a setback of 3 metres from the driveway. The tree is to be a minimum height of 1.5 metres at planting and is to be maintained until established. The tree is to be grown and planted in accordance with Natspec – Clarke .R, Specifying Trees: A guide to the assessment of tree quality, 2003.

Reason: To ensure restoration of environmental amenity.

 

ii) Two examples from the following list are to be planted within the site to replace the Eucalyptus grandis (Flooded Gum) and Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) approved for removal under this consent:

Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box)

Tristaniopsis laurina (Water Gum)

Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowwood)

Angophora floribunda (Rough-barked Apple)

Corymbia eximia (Yellow Bloodwood)

Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum)

Hymenosporum flavum (Native Frangipani)

Elaeocarpus reticulatus (Blueberry Ash)

Waterhousia floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pilly)

The trees are to be a minimum height of 1.5 metres at planting and are to be maintained until established. All trees are to be grown and planted in accordance with Natspec – Clarke .R, Specifying Trees: A guide to the assessment of tree quality, 2003.

Reason: To ensure restoration of environmental amenity.

 

 

 

 

Nicholas Clarke

Development Assessment Officer

30 April 2008

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Plan

1 Page

 

2View

Application History

1 Page

 

3View

Numerical Table

1 Page

 

4View

Onsite meeting memo

3 Pages

 

5View

Plans

11 Pages

 

6View

Streetscape Photos

3 Pages

 

7View

Schedule of Finishes

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Locality Plan

 

 


Attachment 2

Application History

 

 


Attachment 3

Numerical Table

 

 


Attachment 4

Onsite meeting memo

 



 


Attachment 5

Plans

 











 


Attachment 6

Streetscape Photos

 



 


Attachment 7

Schedule of Finishes

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.9

SUBJECT                   Section 82A Review DA/545/2005 18 Dobson Crescent Dundas

DESCRIPTION          Demolition of a dwelling house and construction of 4 townhouses over one level of basement carparking.

REFERENCE            DA/545/2005 -  10 October 2007

APPLICANT/S           Construct Corp Pty Ltd

OWNERS                    Y, S & J Park

REPORT OF              Senior Development Assessment Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To review Council’s determination (refusal) of Development Application No. 545/2005 pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. The development application seeks approval to demolish the dwelling house and to construct 4 x 2 storey townhouses over basement level carparking.

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination as the original determination was made at Council Officer level.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council uphold its refusal of Development Application No. 545/2005 and refuse to grant its consent for the demolition of a dwelling house and construction of 4 townhouses over basement level carparking, for the following reasons:

 

1.    That the proposal does not comply with Clause 40 (Floor Space Ratio for development) of Parramatta LEP 2001, that no SEPP 1 objection has been submitted addressing the non-compliance and that the submitted plans are insufficient to be able to determine the floor area of the building.

 

2.    That the proposal does not comply with Clause 39 (Height Limits in Residential Zones) of Parramatta LEP 2001, that no SEPP 1 objection has been submitted addressing the non-compliance and that the submitted plans are insufficient to be able to determine the height of the building.

 

3.    That the proposal fails to satisfy the relevant zone objectives (a) and (b) for the Residential 2B zone as prescribed by Clause 16 of Parramatta LEP 2001 as the proposal:

 

(a)     does not enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area as the proposal fails to maintain prevailing setbacks; and

 

(b)     compromises the amenity of the surrounding residential area as the proposal fails to minimise visual impact and opportunities for overlooking.

 

(c)     is excessive in terms of bulk and scale, as a result of the non -complying height and FSR.

 

4.    That the basement level carparking projection above ground level does not satisfy Parts 4.3.5 and 5.5 of Parramatta DCP 2001 (in relation to basement carparking and soft soil zone).

 

5.    That insufficient information has been submitted with the development application in relation to being able to determine the extent of the soft soil zone provided within the development. Council is unable to determine whether the proposal complies with the minimum requirements of Part 5.5 of Parramatta DCP 2001.

 

6.    That the proposal fails to comply with, or address, the minimum soft soil landscaping area required by Parts 4.4.6 and 5.5 of Parramatta DCP 2001.

 

7.    That the proposal fails to comply with and fails to address the minimum side and rear setback requirements required by Part 5.5 of Parramatta DCP 2001.

 

8.    That granting consent to the proposal would not be in the public interest as the building has not been designed to respond to the existing and future character of the area and fails to satisfy the objectives of Part 4.4 of Parramatta DCP 2001.

 

9.    Matters raised by the objectors and that granting consent to the proposal would not be in the public interest.

 

(b)       Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The site is located on the western side of Dobson Crescent, between Boardman and Marks Street, Dundas. Surrounding development is predominantly residential.

 

2.      The site slopes down from the street to the rear by approximately 7 metres over its depth of 39.32 metres and has a total area of 986.42m²

 

PROPOSAL

 

3.      Approval is sought for the demolition of a dwelling house and the construction of 4 x 2 storey townhouses over basement level carparking for 8 cars.

 

BACKGROUND

 

4.      Development Application No. 545/2005 was refused by Council under delegated authority on 18 May 2007, for the following reasons:

 

“(1)      The proposal fails to comply with the aims and objectives of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2001 including:

 

(i)         Streetscape (4.4.1& 5.5) in that the proposed front setback is not consistent with the prevailing street setback.

 

(ii)        Visual privacy (4.3.1) in that the first floor balconies that face the southern boundary and overlook the private open space of the adjoining property at 20 Dobson Crescent.

 

(2)         That insufficient information has been submitted with the development application to enable Council to undertake an informed and comprehensive assessment of the application, in particular in relation to:

 

            (i)           Schedule of external finishes not submitted

            (ii)          Amended ABSA certificate not submitted for amended design

            (iii)         Spot levels not marked on plans

            (iv)         Amended landscape plan

            (v)          Amended stormwater management not submitted

 

(3)        That the proposal fails to satisfy the relevant zone objectives (a) and (b) for the Residential 2B zone as prescribed by Clause 16 of Parramatta LEP 2001 as the proposal:

 

(a) does not enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area as the proposal fails to maintain prevailing setbacks and

 

(b) compromises the amenity of the surrounding residential area as the proposal fails to minimise visual impact and opportunities for overlooking.

 

(4)       The character, scale, size and design of the proposed development are not in keeping with the established and likely future character of the locality, especially having regards to the reduced front building line.

 

(5)       That granting consent to the proposal would not be in the public interest as the building has not been designed to respond to the existing character of the area.”

 

5.      An application to review the above determination pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, was lodged with Council on 10 October 2007.

 

6.      The additional information and amended plans are included in Attachment 2.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 – Section 82A Review of Determination

 

7.      Under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, an applicant may request Council to review a determination of a development application, other than for designated development, integrated development and state significant development. The proposed development does not fall into any of these categories.

 

8.      The request for review must be made within 12 months after the date of determination and the review must be undertaken in the following manner;

 

-        If the determination was made by a delegate of Council, the review must be undertaken by Council or another delegate of Council who is not subordinate to the delegate who made the original determination, or

-        If the determination was made by full Council, the review must also be undertaken by full Council.

 

9.      Upon making a determination of the Section 82A review application, the following must be undertaken:

 

-        If, upon review. Council grants development consent, or varies the conditions of a development consent, it must endorse on the notice of determination the date from which the consent, or the consent as varied by the review, operates

-        If, upon review, Council changes a determination in any way, the changed determination replaces the earlier determination as from the date of the review.

 

10.    Council’s decision on a Section 82A review may not be further reviewed under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.

 

11.    An assessment of the Section 82A review application is provided below.

 

12.    In accordance with Council’s letter to the applicant, dated 27 March 2008, the information requested and amended plans are insufficient and of unsatisfactory standard to warrant consent being granted to this proposal.

 

13.    The proposal fails to satisfy the objectives of the Residential 2(b) zone in that it:

 

-        fails to enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area;

-        compromises the amenity of the surrounding residential area; and

-        displays a built form out of character with the surrounding built environment.

 

14.    The character, scale, size and design of the proposed development are not in keeping with the established and likely character of the locality, with particular regard to the design and appearance of the proposed building.

 

15.    For the reasons outlined in this report, granting of consent to this proposal would not be in the public interest.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards

 

16.    Additional floor space results from the protrusion of the basement level more than 1.2 metres above the ground, and would constitute non-complying floor space.

 

17.    The basement would protrude approximately 1.65 metres above existing ground level in relation to proposed Unit 3.

 

18.    PLEP 2001 excludes basement carparking from the definition of floor area where such area remains 1.2 metres or less below natural ground level.

 

19.    The applicant has not addressed this issue and has not submitted a SEPP 1 objection to request a variation of the development standard of 0.6:1 for FSR prescribed by Clause 40 of Parramatta LEP 2001. In this regard, the plans are unclear in relation to the extent that the basement would protrude above the ground.

 

20.    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1) provides a mechanism for Council to consider variations to development standards contained in its environmental planning instruments and approve development where otherwise consent cannot be granted. The applicant has not lodged a submission pursuant to the provisions of SEPP 1, objecting to the standard contained in Clause 40(1).

 

21.    The aims and objectives of State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards include:

 

“To provide flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue

of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or necessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.”

 

22.    The objects set down in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) are:

 

“(a) to encourage:

 

(i)      the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

 

(ii)     the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land,”

 

23.    In the absence of a SEPP 1 objection to the FSR development standard prescribed by Clause 40 of PLEP 2001, the proposal cannot lawfully be approved.

 

24.    The protrusion above ground level also constitutes an additional floor, resulting in a three storey development. This thereby contravenes the requirements of Clause 39 of PLEP 2001, where a maximum of two storeys above ground level is permissible for multi-unit housing development.

 

25.    The plans are unclear and the applicant has failed to address this issue.

 

26.    In the absence of a SEPP 1 objection to the height development standard of two storeys prescribed by Clause 39 of PLEP 2001, the proposal cannot lawfully be approved.

 

 

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

27.    The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta LEP 2001 and the proposed development is permissible within the zone, subject to the consent of Council. As demonstrated in this report, the proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of PLEP 2001.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2001

 

28.    Parramatta DCP 2001 applies to the subject development, as the development application was lodged at the time that this DCP was the prevailing planning policy. The proposed development is inconsistent with a number of the numerical controls (see Compliance Table) and is inconsistent with the objectives of the DCP.

 

CONSULTATION

 

29.    In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 31 October and 14 November 2007. Two objections to the proposal were received. The matters raised in the submissions are addressed below.

 

Incorrect depiction of the setback of No.20 Dobson Crescent

 

30.    The plans appear to depict the adjoining property at various setbacks. Council staff have advised the applicant that the plans appear contradictory in a number of aspects. This forms part of the grounds of refusal.

 

Is the FSR proposed permissible?

 

31.    Given that the ceiling of the basement protrudes more than 1.2 metres above existing ground level over parts of the site (particularly in relation to proposed Unit 3), the floor area of the building would exceed 0.6:1. Excluding the basement, the FSR of the proposal would be 0.54:1. 

 

32.    In the absence of a SEPP 1 Objection seeking to have the development standard varied under the circumstances, the excess FSR cannot lawfully be approved.

 

33.    In the absence of more detailed and consistent plans, the extent of floorspace cannot be accurately determined.

 

Plans still show balconies facing southern side

 

34.    The previously proposed balconies have been removed from the plans.

 

Inaccuracies on plans (windows)

 

35.    There are numerous inaccuracies on the plans and these have been highlighted to the applicant. To date, the plans have not been amended. This forms part of the grounds of refusal.

 

 

 

Overshadowing/height

 

36.    Although the extent of additional overshadowing is not considered to be unreasonable, it is more than would otherwise be the case for a development that complies with the maximum height, setback and floorspace controls.

 

37.    From the information submitted, it appears that the ceiling of the basement would protrude 1.65 metres above existing ground level, thereby constituting another storey in the building.

 

38.    Reducing the height of the building to comply with the maximum height limit would improve solar access to adjoining properties.

 

Stormwater

 

39.    Council’s Stormwater Engineer has assessed the proposal and concluded that the development would be satisfactory, subject to conditions of consent.

 

Are front /side (southern) boundary fences being proposed?

 

40.    Details of the proposed fencing to the side and rear boundaries have not been submitted. This forms part of the grounds of refusal.

 

Traffic impacts

 

41.    Council’s Traffic Engineer has advised that the proposed development is not expected to have a significant traffic impact on the road network.

 

Objectors request that the DA be put ‘on-hold’ until all relevant information is supplied.

 

42.    Ample opportunity has been provided for information to be submitted in relation to this proposal. Given that the proposal has now become a reconsideration under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, it is appropriate that the application be refused given the inadequacy and inaccuracy of the information before Council.

 

ISSUES

 

Council’s letter to the applicant, dated 27 March 2008

 

43.    The following matters were raised in Council’s letter to the applicant on 27 March 2007 and remain the outstanding issues with this application. Council’s letter stated the following:

 

44.    “Upon a site with an area of 994m², 30% of the site (or 298.2m² minimum) is required to be soft soil zone, under Parts 4.1 and 5.5 of Parramatta DCP 2001 (the relevant DCP at the time the DA was lodged).

 

45.    It is difficult to determine from the plans whether sufficient area has been provided, as details of the private courtyards has not been provided on the architectural or the landscape plans (materials, depth etc). Detailed calculations, complying with the definitions provided by Parramatta DCP 2001, must be provided in order for Council to be able to determine whether the proposal complies.

 

46.    No details have been provided in relation to access to the landscaped area in the south-western corner of the site on the landscape plan. The landscape plans appears to show a wall around this area with no access. Details of access as well as the proposed wall are required to be submitted. It is noted that the floor plans show some access from proposed Unit 4, but this discrepancy between the plans needs to be rectified. It appears from the plans that Unit 4 may have sole access to the rear open space. Is this the case?

 

Design

 

47.    The appearance of the development is not in keeping with the desired future character of the street. Moreover, the cantilevered parts of the building and the complicated roof form are incompatible with the streetscape and would result in an unsympathetic form of development.

 

48.    The urban design and building element objective is for new development to reinforce more established architectural styles and existing roofscapes. The associated performance criteria requires that development have a coherent plan sympathetic and responsive to existing architectural style including the established roof character. Facade walls need to be sensitively integrated and the proposal fails to achieve this.

 

49.    The proposal is to be revised having regard to the matters outlined in Part 4 of Parramatta DCP 2001 and an accompanying statement addressing the relevant performance criteria, design solutions and controls outlined the DCP.

 

Protrusion above natural ground level

 

50.    Sections of the basement level appear to protrude by more than 1.2 metres above natural ground level. However, again this is difficult to determine as no survey plan has been submitted and the plans show inadequate detail in relation to spot levels.

 

51.    In the absence of a SEPP 1 objection of sufficient standard to warrant a departure from the height control prescribed by Clause 39 of Parramatta LEP 2001, the development cannot be approved.

 

52.    In addition, existing ground level (and RLs) must be shown on the section plans. Having regard to the site conditions and the bulk and scale of the building, at no point is the basement level to protrude greater than 500mm above existing ground level. Plans demonstrating this shall be submitted to Council.

 

53.    The proposal is to be revised having regard to the matters outlined in Parts 4 and 5.5 of Parramatta DCP 2001 and an accompanying statement addressing the relevant performance criteria, design solutions and controls outlined in the DCP.

 

 

 

 

Rear setback

 

54.    The rear setback of the development is required to be a minimum of 15% of the site’s depth, in accordance with Parramatta DCP 2001. Accordingly, the minimum setback is required to be approximately 5.9 metres. The plans indicate that the rear setback to the façade of the building would be 5.2 metres at ground floor level and 4.8 metres at first floor level. Accordingly, the proposal fails to comply with the minimum rear setback requirements of Part 5.5 of Parramatta DCP 2001.

 

55.    The rear setback area is required to be a soft soil zone Part 5.5 of Parramatta DCP 2001).

 

56.    Whilst this may appear to be only a minor non-compliance, the issue has not been addressed in the submission and no justification for the departure has been provided.

 

Side setback

 

57.    The side setback of the development is required to be a minimum of 6 metres in accordance with Part 5.5 of Parramatta DCP 2001, with the northern side setback dedicated as soft soil zone. The plans indicate that the first floor of the building would have a setback of approximately 5.4 metres from the northern boundary. Compliance is achieved adjacent to the southern boundary (at both levels) and at ground floor level adjacent to the northern boundary.

 

58.    The non-compliance relating to the first floor level adjacent to the northern boundary has not been addressed in the submission and no justification for the departure has been provided.

 

59.    The plans do not clearly indicate whether the side setback to the north is to be soft soil zone.

 

Basement layout

 

60.    The basement level plan indicates the manoeuvrability of a vehicle from one space to another, but fails to indicate the ease of access to and from the entrance to the garage. The plans need to demonstrate that vehicles may enter and leave the basement level with a minimum of turning manoeuvres and to comply with the requirements of AS2890.1 for the 85th percentile vehicle.

 

61.    Access to the basement at the lower end of the driveway is to be widened (to approximately 4.0 metres) along the entry door of the basement with a concrete splay being provided in accordance with AS2890.1:2004 turning template in order to provide a practical entrance for vehicles.

 

62.    To permit access for both vehicles and light vans, the height between the floor and overhead obstruction shall be a minimum of 2.2 metres, in accordance with AS2890.1:2004 clause 5.3. In this case, the difference between RL67.81 and RL65.61 is 2.1 metres and it is not adequate.

 

 

 

63.    In order to prevent vehicles scraping, changes in grade shall be in accordance with AS2890.1:2004 clause 2.5.3. Therefore, a longitudinal section of the proposed driveway shall be prepared in accordance with AS2890.1;2004 and submitted to Council’s Engineer for assessment.

 

64.    The south elevation should also include the entry to the basement level carpark. Currently, the plan omits this component of the elevation.

 

Inconsistencies between plans

 

65.    The plans show varying inequities in relation to the position on the site of the proposed building. The landscape plan, floor plans and elevations each show the rear setback to be different to each other. The plans are required to be amended to rectify this issue.

 

Statement of Environmental Effects

 

66.    The submitted and revised statements of environmental effects are lacking in detail for a development of this scale and do not adequately address the relevant matters for consideration required by Parramatta LEP 2001 and Parramatta DCP 2001, specifically in relation to:

 

-        Privacy

-        Sunlight

-        Building elements

-        Landscaping

-        Setbacks

-        Height

-        Carparking

-        Environmental amenity

 

A full assessment in relation to these matters is required to be submitted.

 

Boundary fencing

 

67.    No details have been provided, either in plan form or a description of any proposed fencing. In particular, no detailed drawings or description has been provided in relation to the boundary wall/fence adjacent to the proposed driveway along the southern boundary.

 

Conclusion

 

68.    It is unlikely that on the basis of the comments made above that a redesign would result in substantially the same development, as required by Section 82A (4)(c) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. On this basis, the proposal would be recommended for refusal, even it was improved to be of an acceptable quality.

 

69.    Accordingly, it is recommended that the Section 82A Review application be withdrawn and a fresh development application be lodged, taking into consideration:

 

-        the reasons for refusal of the original development application, and

-        the issues raised in this letter.

 

70.    The applicant was provided 14 days within which to respond to these matters. To date, no response has been received.

 

On-Site Meeting

 

71.       Council, at its meeting of 9 July 2007, resolved that all Section 82A reviews of determination be subject to a site inspection prior to them being determined at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

72.       In accordance with the above resolution, an invitation to Councillors, Council officers, the applicant and the objectors was sent in relation to the inspection to be held on Tuesday 26 February 2008 commencing at 6.00pm.

 

73.       Present at the site meeting were Councillor Pierre Esber (Chairman) and Councillor Lorraine Wearne, Council’s Team Leader Development Assessment, the applicant and 10 residents. The following issues were discussed at the meeting:

 

Increased Traffic in the area

 

74.    Objectors raised concern that this townhouse development would increase traffic problems in the vicinity of the site. Residents advised that the street carries enough traffic as it is and Council would need to consider introducing a one way street system in the precinct if this development is approved and that the additional traffic generated by this development would be unacceptable. Concern was raised about the potential for vehicles and pedestrian accidents in local streets if the development is approved, especially taking into account that Dobson Crescent does not have any concrete footpaths.

 

75.    Council’s Traffic Engineer has advised that the proposed development is not expected to have a significant traffic impact on the road network.

 

Parking

 

76.    Residents expressed concern that this development will lead to an increase in parking along Dobson Crescent. Residents advised that 8 parking spaces are inadequate to cater for the demand that the development will generate. Further taking into account that the parking is within a basement carpark and it is difficult to access with residents and visitors being more likely to park their vehicles in Dobson Crescent.

 

77.    It was advised by the Council officer that Parramatta DCP 2001 requires a minimum of 7 parking spaces to be provided for the development. The proposal would provide 8 spaces and compliance is achieved.

 

Front Setback

 

78.    Clarification was sought as to whether the front setback of the development was forward of that of adjoining properties. The applicant advised that the setback of the proposed building is slightly forward that of the adjoining properties.

 

79.    The proposal complies with the minimum front setback requirement of Parramatta DCP 2001.

 

Balconies

 

80.    An objector requested clarification as to whether the development had balconies. It was advised that the first floor balconies that the original development contained have been deleted. However, the ground floor was elevated up to 1.8 metres above existing natural ground level and the elevated walkway could provide opportunities for overlooking.

 

81.    Residents were advised that privacy issues are to be addressed in the report to Council. It is noted that refusal of the application is recommended due to the loss of privacy that would occur from the development if approval was recommended.

 

Stormwater Disposal

 

82.    A resident that lives behind the site requested clarification on stormwater disposal. The applicant advised that they were intending to utilise an existing easement through No. 20 Dobson Crescent and Nos. 1 and 3 Mark Street to connect into Council’s drainage network in Boardman Street.

 

83.    Council’s Drainage Engineer has assessed the proposal and concludes that the proposed stormwater disposal is satisfactory, subject to conditions of consent should the DA be approved.

 

Bulk and Scale

 

84.    Residents raised concern that the bulk and scale of the building would be excessive and that it would be out of character with other buildings in the area. Concerns were also raised by residents that the ground floor of the building would project up to 1.8 metres above existing natural ground level. Concern was also expressed that the building was to close to side boundaries. These issues are addressed in this report.

 

85.    Residents were advised that privacy issues are to be addressed in the report to Council. It is noted that refusal of the application is recommended due to the loss of privacy that would occur from the development if approval was recommended.

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

86.    An objector requested to be advised of the floorspace ratio of the development. It was advised by the Council officer that, excluding the basement carpark that may need to be included if it projects more than 1.2 metres above ground level, the floorspace ratio of the development is approximately 0.54:1 which is less than the maximum floorspace ratio of 0.6:1.

 

Townhouse development in the area

 

87.    Residents advised that the area has enough townhouses and that this development would be another unwanted development in the area as a townhouse development was approved in 2005 at 13 Dobson Crescent.

 

88.    Council has had regard to the opinions raised by the objectors but also notes the zoning of the land, which permits townhouse development with Council’s consent.

 

Architectural Appearance

 

89.    Residents indicated that the development lacked architectural merit especially the first floor elements that overhang the ground floor at the front and rear of the site.

 

90.    The Council officer indicated that this issue will be addressed in the report to the Regulatory Committee.

 

Conclusion

 

91.    The meeting concluded at 6:45pm with all parties being advised that the application may be considered at Council’s Regulatory meeting on 14 April 2008.

 

92.    Two residents indicated that they would be away at this time and asked whether the application could be deferred on this basis. It was advised that this Section 82A review was lodged in October last year and Council has an obligation to determine applications in a timely manner.

 

Urban Design

 

93.    The proposal was referred to Council’s Urban Designer for comment. His assessment is outlined below:

 

Building Typology

         

94.    The proposed building typology is a townhouse row, consisting of 4 units. This typology is appropriate when limiting building height, where smaller footprints are desirable, or to reinforce an existing subdivision pattern. The typology type is anticipated given the subdivision and development pattern and relevant planning allowances for townhouse development.  

 

Building Entry

 

95.    Building entrances should provide a desirable residential address and identity that provides clear orientation for the visitor. The front entry does not provide a desirable identity for the development, or relate well to the overall design intent of the front elevation. The entry appears cavern-like, obscure, uninviting and dwarfed by other building elements. This also applies to the entries of Units 2 and 3.

 

96.    It is recommended that a clear aligned path from Dobson Crescent extend to Unit 1’s entry to reinforce its street address and increase visibility of the entry. In addition, it is an unusual decision to have the Unit 4 entry at the rear of the development with regard to visibility and resident safety. It is recommended that this entry be re-orientated to the main access path from Dobson Street that is shared with Units 2 and 3.

 

97.    Concern is raised with regard to the design of the main access path immediately aligned with the basement access driveway. It is recommended a landscape verge sit between the driveway and path to reduce the harsh edge transition, which would also improve the appearance of the access path.  

 

Building Form

 

98.    Good design responds and contributes to its context, both natural and built elements. The design fails to appropriately address the topography/slope of the land. The applicant has sought to step the townhouse units with the fall of the land. However, the building form, horizontal and vertical rhythm, and roof form appears haphazard and untidy on both the northern and southern elevations. The landform could be better expressed through an even building rhythm, sensitive modulation and a gently tiered roof form.

 

99.    The overall design impression of the built form is confused. The design intent of almost any feature or element associated with the development is unclear – and as viewed together, it appears an overall mess. It is considered the development would read poorly from the street, including side views of unit entries, and would do little to improve/contribute to the urban quality of the street.

 

100.  The quantity and arrangement of the boxy projecting rooms and elements on the first floor are particularly unattractive and increase the perceived mass and bulk of the development.

 

101.  This is amplified by the texture/colour variation of the masonry elements resulting in a somewhat heavy appearance – especially the balcony, and transition from ground to first floor. Carefully considered variation of materials and colours to break the perceived bulk of the development is encouraged.

 

Façade Treatment

 

102.  The overall façade treatment is awkward and ill-conceived. Façade quality requires the appropriate composition of building elements, texture materials and colours, reflecting the use, internal design and structure of the development. The composition of the detailing of the building façade has an impact on its apparent scale, proportions, and appearance.

 

103.  The ground floor façade, lines, and expression, do not relate to the first floor alignments and building expression, which confuses the overall appearance. The rhythm, proportions, scale are all amiss, particularly the transition from ground floor to first floor. This is exaggerated by the change in masonry texture/colour, particularly for the projecting elements which make them more distracting.

 

104.  It appears as though the applicant has attempted to provide a typical residential dwelling frontage to Dobson Street. However, the alignment and variation of openings present a less cohesive address.

 

Summary

 

105.  It is considered that the proposed development achieves little in improving the urban quality of the area. The proposed development is an exercise in poor consideration of building lines, form and massing, which is exasperated by material choice, texture/tones and awkward alignment of building elements.

 

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

1 May 2008

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

2View

Plans and Elevations

7 Pages

 

3View

Compliance Table

1 Page

 

4View

History of Development Application

2 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Attachment 1

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 2

Plans and Elevations

 







 


Attachment 3

Compliance Table

 

 


Attachment 4

History of Development Application

 


 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.10

SUBJECT                   184-186 Windsor Road and 16 Weemala Street, Winston Hills
(Lot 1 DP 205332,
Lot 2 DP 944363 & Lot 24 DP 230957) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Demolition of the existing dwelling at No. 16 Weemala Street, boundary adjustments between the properties located at No. 184 and No. 186 Windsor Road and 16 Weemala Street and resubdivision of these 3 allotments to create 4 allotments. (Location Map - Attachment 3)

REFERENCE            DA/1031/2007 - Submitted 27 November 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mr A and Mr R Dabit

OWNERS                    Yard Developments Pty Limited

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 1031/2007, which seeks approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling at No. 16 Weemala Street, boundary adjustments between the properties located at No.184 and No.186 Windsor Rd and 16 Weemala Street and resubdivision of these 3 allotments to create 4 allotments.

 

The application has been referred to Council as 186 Windsor Road (known as ‘Kergunyah’) is listed as a heritage item in Schedule 2 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage & Conservation)

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

a)         That  Development Application No. 1031/2007, which seeks approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling at No. 16 Weemala Street, boundary adjustments between the properties located at No.184 and No.186 Windsor Rd and 16 Weemala Street and resubdivision of these 3 allotments to create 4 allotments, be approved subject to conditions.

 

b)         Furthermore, the RTA has raised no objection to the proposal and has granted concurrence to the development application.

 

c)         Further that, objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.         The proposal involves properties at 16 Weemala Street & 184-186 Windsor Road. The properties have two street frontages with 16 Weemala Street spanning the combined width of 184 & 186 Windsor Road.

 

2.         16 Weemala Street has a frontage of 38.53 metres and a depth of 18.56 metres and comprises a total area of 714 square metres.

 

3.         184 Windsor Road has a frontage of 16.76 metres and a depth of 82.30 metres and comprises a total area of 1404 square metres.

 

4.         186 Windsor Road has a frontage of 21.34 metres and depth of 82.30 metres and comprises a total area of 1752 square metres.

 

5.         The collective site area is 3870 square metres.

 

6.         Each property contains a single dwelling for residential purposes. Several ancillary outbuildings exist on 184 & 186 Windsor Road. The site is surrounded by low density residential development.

 

PROPOSAL

 

7.         The proposal is for the demolition of the existing dwelling at No. 16 Weemala Street, boundary adjustments between the properties located at No.184 and No.186 Windsor Rd and 16 Weemala Street and resubdivision of these 3 allotments to create 4 allotments.

 

Lot A – 724 square metres         184 Windsor Road – 1099 square metres

 

Lot B – 670 square metres         186 Windsor Road – 1380 square metres

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Policy 18 – Public Transport Corridor

 

8.         The front boundary of 184 Windsor Road is affected by a public transport corridor. In accordance with Clause 7 of SREP 18, the application was referred to the Department of Planning. The Department has provided concurrence to the proposal on 24 April 2008.

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

9.         Each property is zoned Residential 2 (a) under the provisions of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The proposal is permissible within the zone & is consistent with the applicable standards & objectives set out in PLEP 2001.

 

10.       The properties at 184 & 186 Windsor Road are partially zoned Transport Reservation 9B. In accordance with Clause 12 of PLEP 2001, the Roads & Traffic Authority is the acquisition authority and concurrence is required by the RTA prior to granting development consent. The RTA has provided concurrence to the proposal on 3 April 2008.

 

11.       The proposal complies with clause 38 of PLEP 2001 ‘Minimum Allotment Sizes’ of 550 square metres.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

12.       The provisions of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the controls & objectives of this plan.

 

13.      The subdivision & boundary adjustment responds sensitively to the topography of the site. The proposal reinforces the established subdivision pattern in the locality and maximises solar access.

 

14.      Future development as a result of the subdivision will more than likely involve the construction of dwelling houses or dual occupancies. The proposed allotment sizes are considered to be appropriate for contemporary development and will suitably address DCP 2005 provisions for building envelopes, private open space, landscaping, solar access, carparking and outlook.

 

15.      The proposal will not adversely compromise the curtilage and private open space requirements of the existing dwellings located at 184 and 186 Windsor Road.

 

CONSULTATION

 

16.       In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between the 14 January and 28 January 2008. One submission was received. The issue raised in the submission is outlined below:

 

The Proposal will Affect Traffic Movement within the Street

 

17.       Concern is raised in relation to the impact on traffic movement within Weemala Street as a result of the proposal.

 

18.       It is considered that the creation of an additional driveway and layback as a result of imminent development will not adversely impede or restrict the movement of vehicles accessing Weemala Street, given that the proposed allotment sizes & width comply with Councils minimum standards for dwelling houses or dual occupancy development and will be consistent with the existing subdivision pattern within the locality. Therefore, the proposal will not adversely impact the flow & egress of vehicular traffic having regard for the attributes of Weemala Street.

 

REFFERALS

 

Roads & Traffic Authority

 

19.       The sites located on Windsor Road are partially zoned Transport Reservation 9B. The acquisition authority for the zone is the RTA. Clause 12(8) of the LEP states that 'a consent authority must not grant consent to the development of land to be acquired by another public authority unless it obtains the concurrence of that other public authority'. The RTA have provided the following comments:

 

            ‘The subject property is partially affected by an RTA road proposal for the widening of Windsor Road, as shown on D.P 236471 and by pink colour on the attached plan. However the RTA would raise no objections on Property grounds to the proposed subdivision’

 

20.       Accordingly, the Roads & Traffic Authority has no objection to the proposal and has granted its concurrence to the development application.

 

Department of Planning

 

21.      The application has been referred to the Department of Planning as a portion of 184 Windsor is affected by a public transport corridor. In accordance with Clause 9 (2) of the Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Policy 18 – Public Transport Corridor, the council shall not grant consent to development unless it obtains the concurrence of the Director. The following comments were provided by the Department of Planning:

 

This concurrence request stems from clause 9 (2) of the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 18 – Public Transport Corridors whereby Council cannot grant consent to the development application without the concurrence of the Director.

 

The Land Management Branch of the Department in administering the activities of the corporation undertakes such concurrence requests.

 

As outlined in the above clause the matters we must consider are as follows:

 

(a) The practicability and cost of carrying out the development for public transport purposes on land in the future, and

 

(b) The cost of acquiring the land.

Given that the development application is seeking only demolition, a boundary adjustment and subdivision of land at the rear of the property the corporation is satisfied that approval of this application will not affect the matters listed above.

 

As such the Department is willing to grant concurrence to DA/1031/2007.

 

22.      Accordingly, the Department of Planning has no objection to the proposal.

 

ISSUES

 

Heritage

 

23.       The development application was referred to Councils Heritage Advisor for assessment as 186 Windsor Road has been identified as a heritage item in Schedule 2 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage & Conservation). The comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor include:

 

            It is advised that the heritage value of the site will not be affected by the proposal.”

 

24.       Accordingly, there are no objections to the proposal on heritage grounds.

 

 

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

30 April 2008

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans

1 Page

 

2View

Numerical Compliance Table

1 Page

 

3View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Plans

 

 


Attachment 2

Numerical Compliance Table

 

 


Attachment 3

Locality Map

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.11

SUBJECT                   66 Ross Street, Parramatta
(Lot A DP 159275) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Alterations and additions to an existing heritage listed dwelling, including partial demolition to the rear of the existing dwelling.
(Locality Map - attachment 2)

REFERENCE            DA/934/2007 - Submitted 2 November 2007

APPLICANT/S           Ms A S L Tan

OWNERS                    Ms A S L Tan

REPORT OF              Development Assessment Officer         

 

 PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 934/2007, which seeks approval for alterations and additions to an existing heritage listed dwelling, including partial demolition to the rear of the existing dwelling.

 

The application is being referred to Council as the site is listed as a Heritage Item under Schedule 1 Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council grant consent to Development Application 934/2007, subject to standard conditions.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The site is known as 66 Ross Street, Parramatta. The site is located on the northern side of Ross Street with a frontage of 5.74m and a total area of 235.2m2. The existing one storey dwelling is a heritage item under Schedule 1 Parramatta LEP 1996. The area is characterised by single and two storey residential development.

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.      The proposal includes the following:

 

2.1    Alterations and additions to an existing heritage listed dwelling, including a bedroom, ensuite and family/living area.

 

2.2    Demolition of part of the heritage item, including the rear pergola area and laundry.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1)

 

3.      An objection under the provisions of SEPP 1 was lodged as the proposed development does not comply with Clause 40 – “Floor Space Ratios for development”. Clause 40 of Parramatta LEP 2001 prescribes that dwellings shall have a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1. In this instance, the proposal departs from this development standard and a floor space ratio of 0.54:1 is proposed. 

 

4.      The subject site has an area of 235sqm and the proposal seeks a variation to the development standard of Clause 40 of PLEP. The SEPP 1 Objection requested a variation to the standard as the subject site has an area of 235.2m2 and the owners wish to extend the existing dwelling. The proposed development is considered to be of a scale which is appropriate for the size of the allotment and is compatible with the surrounding development.

 

5.      The objection under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 is supported for the following reasons:

 

5.1    The development complies with the setback requirements, landscaping, soft soil and overshadowing as set out in PDCP 2005.

 

5.2    The proposed addition will enhance amenity for the residents.

 

5.3    The proposal satisfies the objectives of section 4.2.3 Building form and massing of DCP2005.

 

5.4    The proposal satisfies the objectives of the Residential 2(b) Zone

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

6.      The subject site is zoned Residential 2(b) under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. Alterations and additions are permissible within the zone with the consent of Council.

 

Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

 

7.      The subject site is listed as a heritage item under Schedule 1 Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996. The heritage item at No. 66 Ross Street Parramatta comprises one section of a semi-detached housing. Alterations and additions on heritage items are permissible under the Heritage LEP 1996, with the consent of Council.

 

Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 2001

 

8.      The proposal is consistent with the controls and objectives of the Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 2001.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

9.      The proposal satisfies the objectives of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005. However, there are minor non-compliances, including Clause 4.1.10 Landscaping and Clause 4.3.1 Open space, which are discussed later in this report.

 

CONSULTATION

 

10.    In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 21 November 2007 and 12 December 2007. One submission was received. The objection submitted relates to five Development Applications currently under assessment and therefore the issues raised are general and not specific to this particular DA/934/2007. However, the issues raised are as follows;

 

ISSUES

 

Concern was raised over the demolition, waste production, and non preservation of Heritage

 

11.    The only demolition associated with the development involves the removal of a wall in the laundry and the rear pergola. The heritage office was informed of the application and had no objection to the minor works including the partial demolition. The partial demolition at the rear is considered satisfactory, given that the majority of the dwelling is maintained.

 

12.    A satisfactory waste management plan has been submitted with the application, which identifies that waste generated from the development will be sorted and reused where possible.

 

Concern was raised over tree removal, attack on natural environment and pollution

 

13.    The proposed development does not require the removal of any trees and is not considered to cause a detrimental impact on the natural environment.

 

Concern was raised over the increase in housing, Industrial density, Hours and Amended plans

 

14.    The proposal is for alterations and additions only and does not involve an increase in housing or industrial development.

 

Landscaping

 

15.    Clause 4.1.10 of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 prescribes that a minimum of 40% of the site is to be landscaping. The proposal departs from this standard and a landscaping area of 33% is proposed. 

 

16.    The variation to this standard is supported as the existing dwelling is a heritage item and to retain the existing building including the roofline, rear additions are preferred over first floor additions. Despite the non compliance with the landscaped area an appropriate amount of landscaping will be provided on the site.

 

Open space

 

17.    Clause 4.3.1 of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 prescribes that a minimum of 100m2 of private open space is required to be provided at ground level, behind the building line with minimum dimensions of 6m.

 

18.    The subject site has a total area of 235m2 and a maximum width of 5.74m. The proposed alterations and additions ensure a minimum of 70m2 of private open space, located at the rear, with minimum dimensions of 6m.

 

19.    It would be unreasonable to require 100m2 of private open space, with minimum dimensions of 6m, as it would calculate to be 43% of the total site and the site has a width of 5.74m, less than the minimum 6m width required. The existing dwelling is a heritage item and to retain the existing building including the roofline, rear additions are preferred over first floor additions. 

 

Heritage

 

20.    The Development Application was referred to Councils Heritage Advisor for assessment as the existing dwelling is part of a semi detached house and is identified as a heritage item in Schedule 1 of Local Environmental Plan 1996. The comments of Councils Heritage Advisor are:

 

‘The heritage item at 64-66 Ross Street, North Parramatta comprises two semi-detached houses. 

 

The design of the proposed addition is in keeping with the requirements of the Parramatta Heritage DCP 2001 and generally satisfies the heritage requirements in that the addition is fully to the rear of the house, single storey, lower than the existing house and has a side setback slightly greater than the existing house.  The notable front portion of the house will not be affected by the proposal.  Given the location at the rear, modest scale and setting obscured by the adjoining house at No.62, the proposed addition will not be visible from the street.  The impact of the proposed addition is thus acceptable, and the application is supported.

 

Given that the site is within the area included in the LEP 2001, formal concurrence from the NSW Department of Planning -Heritage Branch is not required.’

 

21.    The proposed colours and materials for the addition are to be a colourbond roof to match the existing roof material and cream cladding to match the existing dwelling. The proposed addition does not overwhelm the existing heritage item as the materials and colour match the existing dwelling and integrates well with the semi-detached housing.

 

Ashleigh Matta

Development Assessment Officer

1 May 2008

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans and elevations

4 Pages

 

2View

Locality map

1 Page

 

3View

History of Development Application

1 Page

 

4View

Heritage Inventory Sheet

1 Page

 

5View

Table of compliance

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Attachment 1

Plans and elevations

 




 


Attachment 2

Locality map

 

 


Attachment 3

History of Development Application

 

 


Attachment 4

Heritage Inventory Sheet

 

 


Attachment 5

Table of compliance

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.12

SUBJECT                   35 Elder Road, Dundas
(Lot 5 DP 30193) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Demolition and construction of an attached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision.

REFERENCE            DA/954/2007 - Submitted 6 November 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mr T W Oh

OWNERS                    Shin Do Pty Ltd

REPORT OF              Development Assessment Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 954/2007 which seeks approval for the demolition and construction of an attached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision.

 

The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant  consent to Development Application No. 954/2007 subject to standard conditions as well as the following extraordinary conditions:

 

1.    The side and rear fencing is to be constructed of timber to a maximum height of 1.8m. Details shall be illustrated on plans submitted with the Construction Certificate.

Reason:   To maintain the heritage significance of the property.

 

2.    The side facing windows of bedroom 3 in both Units are to have a 1.5m high sill height. Details shall be illustrated on plans submitted with the Construction Certificate.

Reason:   To reduce opportunities for overlooking into adjoining properties.

3.    2 x Callistemon ‘Endeavour’ shall be planted on the nature strip. These are to be supplied in 45 Litre containers. All street trees are to be setback 3 metres from any driveway. The trees are to be a minimum height of 1 metre at planting and are to be maintained until established. All trees are to be grown and planted in accordance with Natspec – Clarke .R, Specifying Trees: A guide to the assessment of tree quality, 2003.

Reason:   To ensure restoration of environmental amenity.

 

4.    The proposed dual occupancy shall have timber and timber framed doors and windows (including garage doors) on the front elevation.

Reason:   To reduce the visual impact on adjoining heritage item at 33 Elder Road.

 

5.    The proposed dual occupancy shall utilise dark-coloured external brick walls, corrugated iron roofing in a dark colour, and dark coloured guttering and downpipes.

Reason:   To reduce the visual impact on adjoining heritage item at 33 Elder Road.

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

PROPOSAL

 

1.         Approval is sought for the demolition and the construction of an attached dual occupancy. Torrens title subdivision is also sought to create Lots A and B both having a site area of 325.15 square metres respectively.

 

SITE AND LOCALITY

 

2.         The subject site is located on the eastern side of Elder Road. The site has a width of 15.24 metres, a depth of 42.67 metres and a total site area of 650.3 square metres. The site slopes to the south and contains a single storey building and metal shed. Williams Reserve is located to the rear of the property.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

3.         The site is zoned Residential 2A under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and dual occupancy developments are permissible within the Residential 2A zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

4.         Clause 38(4A) of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 permits the subdivision of lots where approval for a dual occupancy has been obtained.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

5.         The provisions of PDCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal achieves compliance with the numerical requirements of the plan and is also consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

6.         In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 23 November 2007 and 7 December 2007. A total 4 submissions have been received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

The proposal detracts views from the heritage item at 33 Elder Road

 

7.         The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment as the adjoining site (33 Elder Road) is listed as a heritage item of local significance under Schedule 2 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

 

8.         Council’s Heritage Advisor has no objection to the proposal and comments that the proposed setback is equal to that of the heritage item, and that the finished floor level of the proposed building has been lowered to minimize relative height of the proposal compared to the heritage item. When viewed from the street, the overall bulk and volume of the proposed dual occupancy would appear similar to those of the heritage item, which is within acceptable limits.

 

9.         To reduce the visual impact on adjoining heritage item at 33 Elder Road, Council’s Heritage Advisor has advised that the proposed dual occupancy shall have timber and timber framed doors and windows (including garage doors) on the front elevation. In addition, the proposed dual occupancy shall utilise dark-coloured external brick walls, corrugated iron roofing in a dark colour, and dark coloured guttering and downpipes. The applicant has submitted an amended colours and materials schedule that reflect these recommendations.

 

Bulk and Scale, Streetscape and Character of Area

 

10.       Concern has been raised regarding the bulk and scale of the proposal, the impact on the streetscape and that it is not consistent with the character of the area and will set a precedent.

           

11.      The site is zoned 2A Residential and dual occupancy development is permissible with the consent of Council. The Dundas area is currently undergoing change with dual occupancies and multi unit housing being developed. The proposed dual occupancy development is consistent with the future desired character of the area.

 

12.       The proposed development has a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.54:1 and complies with all development standards in PLEP 2001 and PDCP 2005 relating to dual occupancies. It is not considered that the proposal will have adverse bulk, scale and streetscape impacts.

 

Privacy and overlooking

 

13.       Concern is raised over the potential for overlooking into the adjoining properties related impacts on privacy of adjoining residents.

 

14.       The construction of a two storey dual occupancy on the subject site will provide some opportunity for overlooking into the rear of the adjoining properties however, the extent of overlooking into the rear yards from the first floor windows will be limited as these rooms are used as bedrooms and used less frequently than living areas and predominantly at night. All living areas are located on the ground floors with the exception of a small sitting room which is located in the middle of the building with no windows.

 

15.       Despite this it is recommended that a condition of consent requiring the side facing windows of bedroom 3 in both Units, to have a 1.5m high sill height be included on the consent to reduce the likelihood of overlooking into adjoining properties.

 

Rear Setback

 

16.       Concern is raised that the rear of the proposed building extents much further than the current dwelling.

 

17.       PDCP 2005 requires the rear setback of the dual occupancy development to be a minimum of 30% of length of site that is 12.8 metres in this case. The proposed rear setback from the rear verandah is 13.0m. This setback is considered appropriate.

 

Removal of 2 trees at the front of 35 Elder Road

 

18.       Concern is raised regarding the removal of 2 trees located at the front of 35 Elder Road. Concern was particularly raised regarding the removal of the Jacaranda Tree as it is one of only two remaining advanced trees in the front yard.

 

19.       The development application was referred to Councils Landscape Tree Management Officer for assessment. No objections are raised by the Landscape Tree Management Officer to the removal of the Jacaranda and Box Elder trees which are both located within the proposed driveway, and the Sweet Gum and Pencil Pine both located on the eastern boundary.

 

20.       Councils Landscape Tree Management Officer comments that no work should be undertaken within 5.4m of the Jacaranda tree proposed for removal. Considering the construction tolerance of the species and use of a relatively low impact driveway design, this setback could be reduced to a minimum of 3.5m in an attempt to retain this tree. However, attempts to retain this tree will require driveway modification. Relocating the driveway to a point that it is located 3.5m away would still allow for a 1m southern boundary setback. An increase of the curve of the driveway over this short distance may cause difficulty for access and egress to the dual garages. The front set back will have to be compromised to accommodate this design change accordingly, tree removal is supported.

 

21.      The Box Elder is recommended for removal as it is not possible to retain due to its central location and large tree protection area required for its retention located within the proposed building envelope.

 

22.       The Liquidambar and Cypress located on the rear boundary are suppressed by a Camphor laurel located within the adjoining property and are to be removed and replaced.

 

23.      To replace the 4 trees to be removed, 2 x Tristaniopsis laurina trees with a mature height of 6 metres are proposed; one in front of each unit. In addition, a condition of consent has been included for 2 x Callistemon ‘Endeavour’ trees to be planted on the nature strip.

 

Building is asymmetrical

 

24.       Concern is raised that the building is lacking in symmetry.

 

25.      Submitted plans illustrate the front entry to the dwellings to have differing setback and roof design to avoid a mirror image and symmetrical appearance in accordance with Council’s requirements.

 

Solar Access and Overshadowing

 

26.       Concern is raised over the insufficient provision of solar access to the south of the proposed dwelling and the potential for the development to overshadow the adjoining property which will result in a reduction in solar access.

 

27.       The shadow diagrams provided along with a shadow analysis indicate that the windows along the side boundaries of the adjoining property at 37 Elder Road will receive solar access after 3pm at the winter solstice on 21st June. It is probable that the windows along the northern elevation of the adjoining property will see a reduction of solar access, which would in part be due to the particular orientation of the proposed development. Therefore, any two-storey development will have considerable solar impacts on the southern elevations of the proposed building and the northern elevations of the adjoining building. The width of the site is 15.24m with side setbacks for the development being compliant with the DCP requirements at 1.505m. Any increase in the side setbacks would be unreasonable and would considerably restrict the development potential of the site making any development on the site dysfunctional. There is a stepping in the front portion of the first floor by 4m and this reduces the extent of width in overshadowing on the adjoining dwelling. Between 9am and midday the majority of the rear yard of 37 Elder Road will not be overshadows.

 

28.       The development is consistent with the building envelope controls provided in PDCP 2005. Due to the orientation of the east-west site, to achieve the solar access controls of PDCP 2005 the development would require a side setback of approximately 5.5 metres. This would consequently lead to a restricted and dysfunctional development on the subject site.

 

Landscape Plan inadequate

 

29.       Concern is raised that the landscape plan is inadequate, with no room for screening trees, shrubs, and a shortage in numbers and varieties of plantings.

 

30.       The development application was referred to Councils Landscape Tree Management Officer for assessment who has no objection to the proposal subject to standard and non-standard conditions of consent. Non-standard conditions include additional screen planting, ground cover species, underplanting and changes in plant species to increase planting volume. It is considered that the new landscaping will contribute to the landscape setting of the area.

 

Colourbond fencing inappropriate particularly with heritage item adjoining it

 

31.      It is agreed that sheet metal fencing may detract from the setting of the adjoining heritage listed dwelling.

 

32.      Subject to consent being granted by Council, the proposed side and rear fencing is to be conditioned to consist of timber material with a maximum height of 1.8m.

 

No streetscape plan illustrating adjoining properties with ridge levels was notified to adjoining neighbours

 

33.      Section B of Parramatta City Council’s Notification Development Control Plan 2004 provides requirements for the notification of Development Applications for Dual Occupancies. A notification letter is to be sent to adjoining neighbours that includes a site plan and elevations of the building. A streetscape plan illustrating adjoining properties with ridge levels is not required to be notified under the Notification DCP 2004. it is noted that the streetscape plan would have been available at the front counter for public exhibition and viewing throughout the notification period between 23 November 2007 and 7 December 2007.

 

34.      It is noted that the current plans include a streetscape elevation that illustrates the bulk and scale of the development in relation to adjoining properties.

 

Overdevelopment

 

35.       Clause 40(1) of PLEP 2001 restricts the floor space ratio of dual occupancies to a maximum 0.6:1. The proposal has a floor space ratio of 0.54:1 therefore complying with this development standard. In addition, the dwellings are of an appropriate size and height, with sufficient private open space, solar access and separation between buildings in accordance with the provisions of PDCP 2005. In this regard, the proposal achieves satisfactory amenity to future occupants of the site and is not considered to be an overdevelopment.

 

36.       The proposal is for the construction of a dual occupancy development. The proposal achieves full numerical compliance with the controls contained in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005.  It is not considered the proposed townhouses are an overdevelopment.

 

Reduction in the value of property

 

37.      Concern is raised that the proposed development will result in the devaluation of the adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

38.       The potential impact on property values is not identified as a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

Noise of people from the double size doors on the south side of proposed dwelling

 

39.      The proposal would result in 2 dwellings being located on the site. The site area exceeds the minimum lot size requirements for dual occupancies. The private open space areas are in an appropriate location. The submitted shadow diagram indicates that the southern side courtyard area would be overshadowed during the majority of the day. Therefore the predominant private open space areas used would most likely be at the rear and unlikely to have a significant noise impact on adjoining properties.

 

 

 

Sophia Chin

Development Assessment Officer

30 April 2008

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans and elevations

6 Pages

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

3View

History of Development Application

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Plans and elevations

 






 


Attachment 2

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 3

History of Development Application

 

History of Development Application

 

6 November 2007 – Development Application lodged

 

23 November 2007 to 7 December 2007 – Development was notified to surrounding properties.

 

29 November 2007 – Letter sent to the applicant requesting additional information including the provision of a shadow diagram.

 

20 December 2007 – Applicant responded to the additional information requested 29 November 2007.

 

3 March 2008 – Letter sent to the applicant requesting additional information including finished floor levels.

 

25 March 2008 – Applicant responded to the additional information requested 3 March 2008.

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.13

SUBJECT                   Epping RSL Club, 45-47 Rawson Street, Epping
(
Lot 101 DP 838314) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Use of part Epping RSL Club and part of Rawson Street for the Epping Street Fair on Sunday 25 May 2008.

REFERENCE            DA/65/2008 - Submitted 14 February 2008

APPLICANT/S           Epping RSL Sub Branch & Community Club

OWNERS                    Epping RSL Sub Branch & Community Club and Parramatta City Council

REPORT OF              Kerry Gordon Planning Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 95/2008 which seeks approval to use part of Rawson Street and the Epping Club for the Epping Community Street Fair on 25 May 2008.

 

This application is being referred to Council due to Rawson Street being a Council Asset and has been assessed by an independent planning consultant.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Development Application No. 95/2008, be approved, subject to standard conditions and the following special conditions.

 

Restoration of Damage

 

1.         The applicant shall bear the cost of all restoration works to Rawson Street and the nearby lanes used for the event or any street furniture or infrastructure therein, necessary due to damage caused during the event, its setup or its dismantling. The applicant shall advise Council, in writing, of any existing damage to the street, street furniture or infrastructure 5 working days prior to commencement of the event.

Reason:        To ensure that any damage to the street is restored.

 

Cleaning of Rawson Street

 

2.         The applicant shall ensure that Rawson Street and the nearby lanes used for the event are cleaned of all garbage prior to the reopening of the streets at 7pm on 25 May 2008.

Reason:        To ensure that the street is restored to its former state at the end of the event.


Cigarette Butt Receptacles

 

3.         Provision is to be made for cigarette butt receptacles on the site to minimise littering during the event. Cigarette butt receptacles must be removed at the end of the event and prior to reopening of the streets at 1pm on 25 May 2008.

Reason:        To ensure that adequate provision is made for the disposal of cigarette butts and prevent littering of the public domain.

 

Disabled Access

 

4.         Access for people with disabilities within the entertainment and stall areas is to be maintained throughout the event and care is to be taken in the location and erection of the temporary structures, stalls and barricades to ensure current accessible paths are not blocked.

Reason:        To ensure the provision of equitable and dignified access for all people in accordance with disability discrimination legislation and relevant Australian Standards.

 

Toilets

 

5.         Temporary toilets are to be provided prior to the commencement of the event. Access to the accessible toilet within the “Casino” of the Epping Club is to be available to persons attending the event and signage is to be erected in proximity to the temporary toilets providing directions to those toilets for persons with disabilities.

Reason:        To ensure an appropriate provision of toilet facilities for the event.

 

Street Closure

 

6.         The closure of Rawson Street and the identified laneways is to occur only between the hours of 4am and 7pm on 25 May 2008 and only in accordance with the approved Traffic Management Plan: Epping Street Fair 2008.

Reason:        To ensure an appropriate level of safe vehicular access is maintained to the area.

 

Amusement Rides

 

7.         Amusement rides for the event are to be limited to those targeted at small children (such as jumping castles and small children’s rides) and no rides targeted at teenagers or adults are to be provided.

Reason:        To ensure an appropriate level of amenity to surrounding properties.

 

Notification of Event

 

8.         The applicant is to advise the Traffic Department, the NSW Fire Brigade, the NSW Ambulance Service, the SES, affected bus and taxi companies, tourist bus operators, the RTA and all the residences and businesses affected by the proposed road closures of the temporary road closure, and is to provide them with a copy of the detour route map and Traffic Management Plan, a minimum of 2 weeks prior to the event. Copies of the correspondence are to be forwarded to Council.

Reason:        To ensure appropriate knowledge of the road closures for affected bodies.

 

Prior to the event:

 

Information to be Supplied

 

9.         Prior to the event the following information is to be supplied:

(a)   The event organiser is to submit a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) and Traffic Management Plan (TMP) incorporating the entire route to Council and the RTA for acknowledgement.  The TCP should be prepared by a person holding appropriate certification required by the RTA to satisfy the requirements of the relevant Work Cover legislation;

(b)   The event organiser is to submit to Council a copy of its Public Liability Policy in an amount not less than $10,000,000 noting Council and the Roads and Traffic Authority as an interested parties on the Policy and that Policy to cover both on-road and off-road activity;

(c)   The event organiser s to advert the event in the local press stating the (road closure and the detour route) entire route/extent of the event and the traffic impact / delays due to the event two weeks prior to the event; a copy of the proposed advertisement be submitted to Council (indicating the advertising medium);

(d)  
The event organiser is to undertake a letter drop to all affected residents and businesses in the proximity to the event, with that letter advising full details of the event; a copy of the correspondence be submitted to Council.

(e)   The event organiser is to assess the risk and address the suitability of the entire route as part of the risk assessment considering the possible risks for all participants travelling on winding, narrow, uneven gravel roads with steep roadside embankments and sharp bends; This assessment should be carried out by visual inspection of the route / site by the event organiser prior to preparing the TMP and prior to the event;

(f)    The event organiser is to carry out an overall risk assessment for the whole event to identify and assess the potential risks to spectators, participants and road users during the event and designing and implementing a risk elimination or reduction plan in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000; (information for event organisers about managing risk is available on the NSW Sport and Recreation’s web site at http://www.dsr.nsw.gov.au);

(g)   The event organiser is to submit the completed "Special Event - Traffic Final Approval" form to Council;

Reason:        To ensure the safety of the event.

 

Erection of Signage

 

10.       In accordance with the submitted TMP and associated TCP (to be submitted to Council), appropriate advisory signs, including temporary speed restriction signs, shall be placed at the event organiser's expense after all the required approvals are obtained from the relevant authorities, and traffic control devices be placed during the event along the route under the direction of a traffic controller holding appropriate certification required by the RTA.

Reason:        To ensure the safety of the event.

 

Advice of Traffic Measures

 

11.       The Stall owners and the participants be advised of the traffic control (and other) arrangements in place, prior to the commencement of the event

Reason:        To ensure the safety of the event.

 

Erection of Signage

 

12.       In accordance with the submitted TMP and associated TCP (to be submitted to Council), appropriate advisory signs, including temporary speed restriction signs, shall be placed at the event organiser's expense after all the required approvals are obtained from the relevant authorities, and traffic control devices be placed during the event along the route under the direction of a traffic controller holding appropriate certification required by the RTA.

Reason:        To ensure the safety of the event.

 


During Construction or Works:

 

Hours of Erection/Dismantling Structures

 

13.       All works for the erection of temporary structures may only be carried out between the hours of 4.00 am to 10.00 am on 25 May 2008.  All works for the removal of temporary structures may only be carried out between the hours of 4pm to 7pm on 25 May 2008.

Reason:        To protect the amenity of the area.

 

Structural Certification

 

14.       A Qualified practicing structural engineer is required to certify the stage in accordance with section B of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) 2007.

Reason:        To protect the safety of the public.

 

During Event

 

Waste Removal

 

15.       The waste storage areas shall be capable of accommodating all waste arising from the event. All waste is to be removed from the street by 7.00pm on 25 May 2008.

Reason:        To ensure a suitable waste storage facility.

 

Hours of Event

 

16.       The event is to occur only between the hours of 10am and 4pm on 25 May 2008.

Reason:        To minimise the impact on the amenity of the area.

 

Security

 

17.       A minimum of four (4) security staff are to be on the site at all times between the hours of 10am and 4pm on 25 May 2008. The security staff is to ensure that patrons displaying inappropriate behaviour are required to leave the area to ensure the safety and enjoyment of other patrons. At the end of the event, security staff are to ensure patrons leave the site in an orderly manner and in a timely fashion.

Reason:        To minimise the impact on the amenity of the area and ensure the safety of the event.

 

Use of Stage

 

18.       The event management is to ensure that the maximum number of persons on the stage at any one time does not exceed the structural capacity of the stage. The maximum number of persons the stage is designed for is to be clearly displayed at all times in close proximity to the stage entrance points.

Reason:        To ensure the safe use of the temporary stage.

 

Operation of Food Premises

 

19.       The operation of any food business activity in association with the event is to be in accordance with the food safety standards adopted under the NSW Food Act. In complying with the above, the event organiser and all food businesses intending to operate as part of this event shall refer to the NSW Food Authority’s publication “Food handling guidelines for temporary events” (Version 1/06) prior to the setting up of any food stall or placement of any vehicle used to prepare or display food for sale. Any departures from this guide are to be directly negotiated with Council’s nominated Environmental Health Officer and a statement of clearance issued by Council prior to the commencement of the event. Council may undertake inspections of individual food stalls on the day of the event. An inspection fee applies for each stall inspected, and the relevant fee can be viewed on Council’s website. All food businesses and the event organiser shall undertake prior notification of the event to the NSW Food Authority.

Reason:          To ensure a supply of safe and suitable food for the event.

 

Removal of Waste

 

20.       Disposal of wastes arising from the event shall comply with the approved waste management plan. All putrescible waste shall be removed from the site with sufficient frequency to avoid nuisance from pests and odours. The event organiser is to retain receipts for disposal of wastes for auditing purposes by Council’s waste management officer.

Reason:          To ensure provision of adequate waste disposal arrangements.

 

Noise

 

21.       A noise management plan to be provided to Council no less than 7 days prior to the event date. This shall include detail on the measures taken to:

a.         inform the local community of the nature of the event;

b.         restrict direction of noise toward residential premises;

c.         any other noise mitigation measures.

Reason:          To prevent loss of amenity to the community.  

 

Access

 

22.       Access is to be maintained for all businesses, residents and their visitors during the event.

Reason:          To ensure the access is maintained.

 

Traffic Controllers

 

23.       All traffic controllers / marshals operating within the public road network holding appropriate certification required by the RTA

Reason:          To ensure safety.

 

Marshalling Points

 

24.       All roads and marshalling points are to be kept clean and tidy, with all directional signs to be removed immediately on completion of the activity

Reason:          To ensure safety.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.         The site comprises the part of Rawson Street between its intersection with Bridge Street and the lane opposite the Epping Club, together with portions of surrounding lanes and part of the Epping Club at No. 45-47 Rawson Street, Epping, known as Lot 101 DP 838314. The site is surrounded by retail, commercial and church uses.

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.         DA/95/2008 is seeking approval for carrying out a community event, known as the Epping Community Street Fair on Sunday 25 May 2008. The street fair is to be carried out within the Rawson Street road reserve between Bridge Street and the lane opposite the Epping Club and within the Epping Club at 45-47 Rawson Street. The fair is to occur between 10am and 4pm and is estimated to be attended by in the order of 5,000 people. The event will involve of the erection of the following temporary structures and provision of the following services and entertainment:

 

·   Erection of a stage and related equipment include a generator, backstage area for performers and sound desk in Rawson Street near the vehicular entrance to the Epping Club.

·   Erection of 55 stalls for sales of food, wine, educational equipment, arts and crafts and the like and for the dissemination of information from community groups.

·   Provision of entertainment on the stage to include a talent quest to occur between 11am and 3.30pm.

·   Provision of children’s entertainment including face painting, jumping castle, balloon sculpture, competitions and prize giveaways.

 

3.         The event will require the partial closure of Rawson Street between the roundabout at Bridge Street and the lane opposite the Epping Club and parts of nearby lanes. The street will be closed from 4am to 7pm on the day of the event. A traffic management plan has been prepared including the erection of traffic detour signs and the relocation of the taxi rank. Set up will commence at 4.30am involving erection of the stage and ancillary equipment and provision of a generator to provide power to stalls. Portable toilets are to be provided at 6am and located under the verandah of the Epping Club. Stall holders will arrive and commence setup at 7am, including erection of a jumping castle and distribution of garbage bins.

 

4.         The fair will close at 4pm and the store holders will pack up by 5.30pm, including removal of the jumping castle, disconnection of power, removal of portable toilets and removal of signage. The stage will be dismantled and removed at 5.30pm and rubbish will be removed from the street. All temporary signage and street blockages will be removed and the street reopened to traffic at 7pm.

 

5.         The traffic management for the event is to be carried out by an accredited traffic controller company, with accredited personnel in attendance at all times during the street closure.  Traffic is to be detoured along Bridge Street, Midson Road and Carlingford Road. Eastwood Police Traffic Department, the NSW Fire Brigade, the NSW Ambulance Service, affected bus and taxi companies and the RTA are to be informed of the temporary road closure. St Johns First Aiders will be in attendance on the day. Four security personnel are to be employed for the event.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment) 2007

 

6.         SEPP (Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment) sets a series of matters for consideration related to total occupancy, impacts on amenity, hours of use, crime risk, location of structures, provision of toilets, impact on heritage items, duration of occupation of temporary structures and whether any conditions are required in relation to the removal of the structures.

7.         The application has been assessed against these matters and is considered acceptable. Of particular note, the duration of the occupancy of the structures and length of time of the event are limited, appropriate provision is made for toilets and security and an appropriate waste management plan and structures removal timeframe is proposed.

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

8.         The proposed uses are all to occur within the unzoned land, with the exception of the provision of temporary toilets under the verandah of the Epping Club, such use being permissible in the 3(a) zone as ancillary to retail and commercial uses.

 

9.         Clause 49 addresses unzoned land and at sub-clause (1) indicates consent is required for any use of unzoned land, which this application satisfies.

 

10.       The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the zones and having regards to the above, it is considered that the event is consistent with the assessment criteria contained in LEP 2001.

 

Development Control Plan 2005

 

11.       The only relevant provisions of DCP 2005 relate to waste management and accessibility. Clause 4.3.5 addresses waste management and the proposal satisfies the provisions of that clause with a waste management plan prepared which will ensure an appropriate level of recycling occurs at the event. Appropriate arrangement has been made for the removal of garbage and recyclable materials at the end of the event.

 

12.       Clause 4.4.1 addresses accessibility and the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of that clause. Rawson Street currently provides an acceptable level of accessibility, with ramps provided from the footpath to the carriageway at either end of the portion proposed for use and centrally at the pedestrian crossing. A condition of consent is recommended to ensure that such accessible paths of travel are maintained and that structures are erected such that accessible paths of travel are maintained. Accessible toilet facilities are available for use during the event in the “Casino” area of the Epping Club.

 

13.       Having regards to the above, it is considered that the event is consistent with DCP 2005.

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) and Heritage Development Control Plan 2001

 

14.       The event will occur within the vicinity of the heritage item at the corner of Bridge Street and Rawson Street (Church of Christ at 31Bridge Street), which is a locally significant item. Further, the site is in the vicinity of the Epping/Eastwood Conservation Area. The temporary use of the street for the purpose of a street fair is not considered likely to have any impact upon the heritage significance of the item or the conservation area.

 

15.       As such the proposal is consistent with the aims and provisions of LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) and the Heritage DCP 2001.

 

CONSULTATION

 

16.       In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was advertised between 27 February and 19 March 2008. No submissions were received.

 

ISSUES

 

Traffic

 

17.       The event has the potential to disrupt the movement of traffic in the area, however a traffic management plan for the event has been prepared and the operation of the plan will be carried out by qualified traffic controllers. Further, the relevant emergency services, bus and taxi companies are all to be advised of the event and detours put in place.

 

Damage to Council’s Infrastructure

 

18.       The event has the potential to result in some damage to Council’s infrastructure within Rawson Street, however conditions of consent have been recommended requiring immediate repair of damage that may result in danger to the public and repair at the end of the event to other damage.

 


Noise

 

19.       The event is likely to result in a level of nuisance noise due to entertainment, including the talent quest and use of a PA system. Given the non-residential nature of the area, the limited time of the event and the benefits to the community of such events, any adverse noise impacts are considered minor and acceptable.

 

Accessibility

 

20.       In order to ensure accessibility to the event for all residents, conditions of consent have been recommended requiring the retention of accessible paths of travel through the event and to the stalls. Further, a condition requires access to be provided (and signposted) to the accessible toilet in the “Casino” within the Epping Club for the duration of the event.

 

Heritage

 

21.       As has been discussed previously within the report, the street contains a heritage item (corner of Bridge Street and Rawson Street) and is within the vicinity of a conservation area. It is considered that the event will have no significant impact on the heritage significance of either the item or the conservation area.

 

Crowd Behaviour

 

22.       Any large gathering of people raises the potential for problems with crowd behaviour. These concerns are to be addressed by the provision of 4 security guards for the event, which should be adequate to address any minor disturbances that may occur.

 

 

 

Kerry Gordon

Consultant Town Planner

Kerry Gordon Planning Services Pty Ltd

29 April 2008

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Plan

1 Page

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

3View

History of Development Application

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Plan

 

 


Attachment 2

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 3

History of Development Application

 

History of Development Application

 

14 February 2008 – Development Application lodged

 

25 February 2008 – Council sent a letter to applicant requesting an advertising fee of $830.00 required to be paid.

 

27 February 2007 to 19 March 2008 – Application notified to adjoining properties

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.14

SUBJECT                   7 Lomond Crescent, WINSTON HILLS
(Lots 775 & 778 DP 235162) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Installation of a mechanical ventilation unit, outdoor seating and extended hours of operation. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE            DA/720/2007 - Submitted: 3 September 2007

APPLICANT/S           Pizza on Lomond

OWNERS                    Mrs J Salisbury

REPORT OF              Development Assessment Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 720/2007 which seeks approval for the installation of a mechanical ventilation unit, outdoor seating and extended hours of operation for an existing pizza shop.

 

The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 720/2007 subject to standard conditions as well as the following extraordinary conditions:

 

(i)    The days and hours of operations being restricted to the following:

 

                   Monday                    9:00am      to      10:00pm

                   Tuesday                   9:00am      to      10:00pm

                   Wednesday             9:00am      to      10:00pm

                   Thursday                  9:00am      to      10:00pm

                   Friday                       9:00am      to      10:00pm

                   Saturday                  9:00am      to      10:00pm

                   Sunday                     9:00am      to      10:00pm

 

Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

Reason:     To minimise the impact on the amenity of the area.

 

(ii)   Outdoor dining is restricted to a maximum of ten seats. The outdoor dining area is to be used between 9.00am to 10.00pm, Friday to Saturday and 9.00am to 8.00pm Sunday to Thursday including Public Holidays.

Reason:     To protect the amenity of the area.

 

(iii)  Bottles are not to be disposed into the waste bins after 9.30pm each day.

Reason:     To minimise the impact on the amenity of the area

 

(iv)  All deliveries to the premises shall take place between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm and shall take place within the designated loading and unloading area located at the laneway to the rear of the premises.

Reason:     To protect the amenity of the area.

 

(v)   All tables, chairs and other materials shall be from the same family and kept within the allotment boundaries at all times.

Reason:    To provide a consistent appearance and protect the amenity of the area.

 

(vi)  All tables, chairs and other materials shall either be powder coated, polished aluminium, brushed or stainless steel finishes.

Reason:     To maintain the amenity of the area.

 

(vii) No entertainment or music is permitted within the external dining area.

Reason:    To minimise the impact of the development.

 

(b)        Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.         The site is known as 7 Lomond Crescent, Winston Hills. The site is located on the southern side of Lomond Crescent and has a total area of 875.59 square metres and is irregular in shape. The premises is located within a local shopping centre and fronts Lomond Crescent. The immediate area surrounding the subject site is predominantly residential.   

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.         The proposal seeks approval for the installation of mechanical ventilation unit, outdoor dining for ten people and extended hours from 9am to 10pm.

 

BACKGROUND

 

3.         Development Consent No. 607/2006 was issued on 19 September 2006. This consent granted approval to the change of use to a pizza restaurant and a pizza outlet with a maximum internal seat capacity of 15. The approved hours of trading are 4pm to 10pm, 7 days a week.

 

4.         The subject site has been subject to investigations and monitoring by both development control staff and rangers whilst investigations are not relevant matters for consideration in the assessment of the subject Development Application an overview of those investigations is outlined in Attachment 4 to this report. 

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

5.         The site is zoned Neighbourhood Business 3B under the provisions of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The proposed proposal is permissible in the zone and satisfies the objectives of PLEP 2001.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

6.         The provisions of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

7.         In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified for 14 days between 20 September and 10 October 2007. The application was also advertised for a period of 21 days between 20 September and 17 October 2007. In response, four submissions were received. The issues contained in the submissions are outlined below.

 

Outdoor Dining occurring now without Council Approval

 

8.      Council Rangers and development control staff over the last 12 months have investigated this issue and on limited occasions have observed that the applicant has 4 tables and 8 chairs outside the subject premises. It is noted that some of these occasions were prior to the current Development Application being submitted to Council for assessment. The most recent inspection was held on 29 April and no chairs and tables were observed at the front of the site.

 

Excessive Noise

 

9.      The premises currently has approval to operate from 4pm to 10pm and has approval for the provision of indoor dining for 15 customers. This application seeks approval for the provision of 10 chairs outside the premises and extending operating hours to allow the premises to open from 9am to 10pm, 7 days a week. It is considered that the main opportunity for adverse noise generation is from patrons of the outdoor dining area in the evenings. The proposed outdoor dining that accommodates up to 10 chairs and use until 10pm is not considered to have an adverse amenity impact on adjoining properties. It is reasonable for outdoor dining to be restaurants located on commercial land and is it not unreasonable for there to be some non-residential noise associated with the use of local shops.

 

10.    However, it is recommended that the hours in which the outdoor dining area is used should be reduced on Sundays through to Thursdays. It is considered appropriate on these days for the outdoor dining area to be used between 9am to 8pm. It will ensure that the amenity of nearby residents is maintained during weeknights where demand for additional seating capacity is not   great as on weekends.

 

Increased traffic and parking demands

 

11.    The pizza shop provides adequate parking as per Council requirements. The proposal for 10 additional chairs and extended hours is not expected to unduly increase local traffic nor increase parking demands. It is expected that the highest parking generation for the use of the parking spaces would occur when other premises (being a small pool shop and a supermarket) in the shopping centre are closed.

 

Details of ventilation unit not contained in the notification package

 

12.      Details of the ventilation unit were       not included in the notification package sent to adjoining properties as only plans showing the site plan, ground floor plan were sent. However, all other documentation accompanying the application was available for public viewing between the 24 September and 10 October 2007 and also on DA tracking on the PCC website. 

 

 Air Pollution

 

13.      The assessment of the original application for the use of the subject premises for the purposes of a pizza restaurant (DA/607/2006) considered any likely adverse impacts relating to smells and air pollution. Council’s Environment Officer raised no objections to the project at that stage. As part of this current application, Council’s Environment Officer was again required to provide comments. Comments from Council’s Environment Officer raises no objection with the proposed use and imposed conditions of consent. The proposed installation of the mechanical ventilation unit will also ensure that cooking smells are limited. The mechanical ventilation unit is to be designed and installed in accordance with Australian Standards.

 

Increased traffic and parking demands

 

14.      The provision of 10 external seats and the earlier opening hours will not lead to an increase in vehicles parking within the street. It is noted that some objectors have raised concerns about illegally parked vehicles. Council’s Rangers or the NSW Police can fine vehicles that are parked illegally in the future but no nexus can be established between the subject site and illegally parked vehicles. 

 

Mechanical Ventilation

 

15.      Council’s Environment Officer has reviewed the specifications and location of the mechanical ventilation Unit. Comments received from Council’s Environment Officer raises no objections to the installation of the unit. The mechanical ventilation unit will be located to the rear of the premises to ensure that it does not affect the amenity of the area. To ensure minimum noise output, a condition will be placed on the consent for the unit to be installed and designed according to Australian Standards to ensure minimum noise output.

 

ON-SITE MEETING

 

16.       Council at its meeting on 9 July 2007 resolved that all development applications with 5 or more objections be subject to a site inspection prior to them being considered at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

17.       In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was held on Thursday 13 March 2008 commencing at 6.00pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Worthington, the Lord Mayor Barber, Manager of Development Services Louise Kerr, Development Planner Denise Fernandez, 30 residents including adjoining shop owners and the applicant. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

Outdoor Dining - Permissibility

 

18.      Concern was raised in regards to the permissibility and therefore, legality of the outdoor dining. The subject application proposes to establish outdoor dining for 10 people on privately owned land.

 

19.      The applicant stated that when he inquired to Council about his outdoor dining and whether it was approved, the Council officer he had spoken with confirmed its approval.

 

20.      Staff explained that outdoor dining is permissible with Council consent and that while the applicant should not currently have outdoor dining because the external seats does not have consent, Council acknowledges that the applicant has lodged an application to Council for the outdoor dining to remedy the situation.

 

21.      In regards to the comment made by the Council Officer, Council stated that   there might have been some miscommunication over the advice given to the    applicant. The Council officer would have advised that the area proposed for   outdoor dining, whilst not being on Council property, still required consent             from Council. A perusal of Council records did not present any evidence that          this advice was given by the Council officer.

 

Smell / Odour emitted from the pizza shop

 

22.      Concern was raised that the pizza shop was emitting unacceptable odours   which adjoining neighbours found to be offensive.

 

23.      It has been confirmed that during the assessment of the original   application for the use of the premises for a pizza shop, Council’s    Environmental Officers inspected the site and assessed the environmental     impacts of the pizza shop including odours. The result of the assessment did not highlight any undue impacts as a result of the operations of the pizza   shop. Council suggested that if the odour persists, that concerned neighbours     should notify Council when it occurs. Attachment 4 lists the dates which investigations have been carried out.

 

Traffic – Driveways of adjoining properties blocked by cars that visit the pizza shop.

 

24.      Concern was raised that due to the activity generated by the pizza shop that           vehicles have started to block the driveways of adjoining properties because       there is insufficient parking.

 

25.      In response, Council has advised the concerned property owners that during          the original assessment for the use of the premises as a pizza shop, the parking provided on-site was considered adequate to service the customers of   the pizza shop and those that visit the other shop premises. Council advised     that should vehicles continue to block driveways, to notify Council Rangers.

 

Extended Hours

 

26.      Concern was raised for the extended hours and what type of patrons would   visit a pizza shop before 4.00pm.

 

27.      Staff did not comment on this issue and instead stated that this is a       preference proposed by the applicant. Council can only assess the merit of      the extended hours and the impacts involved. Operating at 9.00am would    allow the shop to prepare and open for brunch or lunch. Other pizza shops       within Parramatta operate from 7.00am to provide breakfast pizzas to     customers.

 

Location of the mechanical ventilation unit.  

 

28.      A concerned neighbour raised the issue of the location of the proposed         ventilation unit and that this may have an impact on them in regards to noise      as they are within the vicinity of the pizza shop.

 

29.      Council confirmed that the proposed location was to the rear of the pizza       shop. In addition, Council stated that the subject application was referred to           Council’s Environmental Department for comment in regards to the potential        impacts of the ventilation unit. Comments received from the Environmental             Department consider there to be no adverse impacts as a result of the           installation of the ventilation unit.

 

Excessive Noise from patrons that use outdoor dining

 

30.      Concern was raised that the patrons that use the outdoor dining is generating        noise that is deemed to be excessive. Should the outdoor dining be approved   with extended operating hours, this would have adverse impacts on the living       standards of adjoining neighbours.

 

31.      In contrast, a property owner within the vicinity of the subject premises claimed that they were not being disturbed by the noise from the pizza shop and their property was within closer proximity to that of objectors. 

 

32.      In response, Council does not consider the proposed outdoor dining that       accommodates 10 chairs and operation hours to 10pm as having a      significant effect on adjoining properties. It is reasonable for outdoor dining to be    associated with an approved restaurant and is it reasonable for some non-            residential noise to be associated with the use of local shops. However,        Council will reduce the allowable hours for the outdoor dining on Sunday through to Thursday nights between 9am to 8pm.

 

General support for the pizza shop

 

33.      A number of neighbours and adjoining shop owners voiced their support for the pizza shop and the applicant stating that they have not experienced any       adverse noise impacts or suffered any traffic/parking issues as a result of the       operations of the pizza shop. Residents then advised that a petition of    support was circulating and that it would be forwarded to Council.

 

34.      Council to date has not received the petition of support.

 

 

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

1 May 2008

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Location Plan

1 Page

 

2View

Plans and Elevations

7 Pages

 

3View

History of Development Application

1 Page

 

4View

Overview of Investigations

2 Pages

 

5

Section 79C Report for the use of the subject premises for a pizza shop

9 Pages

 

6

Original Approved Plans per DA/607/2006

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Location Plan

 

 


Attachment 2

Plans and Elevations

 







 


Attachment 3

History of Development Application

 

 


Attachment 4

Overview of Investigations

 


 


Attachment 5

Section 79C Report for the use of the subject premises for a pizza shop

 









 


Attachment 6

Original Approved Plans per DA/607/2006

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.15

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 2)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 2

REFERENCE            DA/1018/2007 - Submitted 23 November 2007

APPLICANT/S           Defence Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defence Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Development and Certification Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 1018/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed Lot 2.

 

The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant a deferred commencement consent to Development Application No. 1018/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

 

i) Landscaping is to be provided along the length of the proposed retaining wall at the rear of the site. The landscaping shall be of an Acmena smithii var. minor species with a height of 3 metres and spaced 1.5 metres apart to provide a vegetative corridor and enhance natural screening. Amended Landscape Plans reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

ii) The sill height of the window servicing the family area on the rear elevation is to be raised to a height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level or obscured to a minimum height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level. Plans reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

An operational consent will be issued once the subdivision subject of DA/993/2004 is registered by the Land and Property Information and evidence of this submitted to Council.

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      Development Application No. 993/2004, which granted consent for tree removal and community title subdivision into 27 lots comprising of 1 common lot (containing a private road reserve) and 26 residential lots, earthworks and stormwater works, was approved under delegation on 2 September 2005. As works associated with the subdivision have yet to be completed, the subdivision has yet to be registered with the Land Titles Office.

 

2.      Development Application No. 993/2004/A granted consent to modify the original consent, which included correcting references to the number of lots approved in Conditions 8 and 22, the addition of approved plan numbers to Condition 1 and correction of wording on Condition 10. The matter was determined under delegation on 25 November 2005.

 

3.      Development Application No. 993/2004/B granted consent to modify the original consent, which included changing the pad levels of lots 2 to 12. The matter was determined under delegation on 1 November 2006.

 

4.      Thirteen applications have been made to Council for dual occupancy developments on the lots created by DA/993/2004. Of these 13 applications, five have been approved under delegation. These five applications relates to Lot 15 (DA/843/2007), Lot 16 (DA/842/2007), Lot 17 (DA/863/2007), Lot 21 (DA/1019/2007) and Lot 22 (DA/1020/2007).

 

5.      At the 14 April 2008 Regulatory Council meeting, applications relating to Lot 18 (DA/710/2007), Lot 19 (DA/711/2007) and Lot 20 (DA/712/2007) was approved while the applications relating to Lot 10 (DA/778/2007), Lot 11 (DA/777/2007), Lot 12 (DA/780/2007) and Lot 13 (DA/779/2007) was deferred pending a redesign of the proposed dual occupancy development.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

6.      The subject site is proposed Lot 2 of a 27 lot subdivision approved under DA/993/2004 at 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas. The overall site initially formed part of the St Patrick’s Marist Brother’s School, located immediately to the north west of the site, and has since been subdivided from the school site.

 

7.      The proposed dwelling is to be located to the south of the internal road within the subdivision.   Proposed lot 2 is irregular in shape, with a frontage to the new road of 20.01 metres, a secondary frontage to Dorahy Street that measures 29.99 metres and a western boundary of 27.60 metres and a total site area of 565m2. The site slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 3.5 metres from the northern boundary to the southern boundary. A grass drainage swale, approximately 2 metres wide runs along the southern boundary of the site. The site is currently vacant with no significant vegetation.

 

PROPOSAL

 

8.         Development Application No. 1018/2007 seeks approval for the following:

 

8.1           Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 2.

 

8.2           The proposed dwelling will comprise of four bedrooms, living area, dining area, kitchen, bathroom, laundry and attached double garage.

 

8.3           A maximum of 600mm of fill and 700 mm of excavation is proposed for the construction of the dwelling with associated retaining walls

 

8.4           A privacy screen is proposed to the rear ground floor patio.

 

8.5           1.8 metre high lapped and capped timber fence facing Dorahy Street

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

9.         The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and dwelling houses are permissible within the Residential 2(b) zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

10.       The provisions of PDCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

11.       In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 30 November 2007 and 14 December 2007. In response, two individual submissions and one petition with 21 signatures was received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

Overshadowing

 

12.   The shadow diagrams submitted with the development application indicate that adjoining properties located on Paul Street would only experience overshadowing from 3pm onwards given the north-south orientation of the site. The Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 stipulates that adjoining properties should receive a minimum of 3 hours of solar access to private open space areas and habitable rooms between 9am to 3pm. In this regard, adjoining properties on Paul Street will receive the minimum requirement of solar access and will not have detrimental amenity impacts.

 

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

 

13.       Amended plans were submitted by the applicant to Council on the 22 January 2007 as a result of a site meeting held between the applicant and surrounding residents to resolve issues in relation to privacy and overlooking. The amended plan included the provision of a louvered privacy screen to the rear patio of the proposed dwelling and increased sill heights to the first floor windows located to the rear. The first floor windows at the rear of the dwelling service bedrooms which are considered to be of low domestic use, having a minimal impact on privacy. The rear window to the family room at ground level is to be modified through a condition of consent to a height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level being a highlight window or obscured to a minimum height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level, to minimise the potential for overlooking to Paul Street properties. In addition landscaping is to be provided as a condition of consent along the length of the rear retaining wall above the drainage swale. The landscaping will be of an Acmena smithii var .minor species with a height of 3 metres and spaced 1.5 metres apart, to encourage a vegetation corridor and natural screening at the rear of the site.

 

14.       It is considered that the measures proposed and the further request for window treatment and landscaping are appropriate responses to address privacy and overlooking. In combination with a rear setback of 8.9 metres and a first floor which is stepped in 5.7 metres from the rear building line, the proposed privacy measures are acceptable and the development will have a minimal impact on the privacy currently enjoyed by the residents in Paul Street. The proposal responds appropriately in design to site levels and the dwellings and associated windows and patios are not unduly elevated so as to afford outlook over properties fronting Paul Street beyond that which could be reasonably expected in a suburban setting and that which is anticipated under the DCP controls.

 

Increase traffic volume and parking demands

 

15.    The approved subdivision proposes an internal road which will provide direct access to each lot within the subdivision via Dorahy Street. Each proposed dwelling will provide 2 parking spaces for occupants of the dwelling which is in accordance with Council requirements. In addition visitor parking bays have been provided within the subdivision to limit on-street parking on Dorahy Street. It is considered that the proposal will sufficiently cater for parking demands of future residents.

 

Additional comment was provided by Councils Traffic Engineer in relation to traffic volume and parking generated collectively from the proposed developments on 16 Dorahy Street. Councils Traffic Engineer has indicated that “…analysis and calculation of the Environmental Capacity (EC), it is considered that the proposed subdivision and the traffic generated by the proposed dwellings (14 dual occupancy dwellings and 11 single dwellings)…will not have significant traffic impact on the road such as Paul and Dorahy Streets”.

 

The proposed development will not adversely affect traffic volume and parking within the locality.

 

Pad Levels

 

16.      The pad levels for the site were approved under DA/993/2004. Proposed Lot 2 was affected by a subsequent section 96 approval (DA/993/2004/B) for the modification of pad levels which also affected lots 3-12. The southern pad was originally approved at RL 41.2. The proposed ground floor level is RL 42.07, which is approximately 870mm above the pad level height. Approximately 500-600mm of additional fill is proposed at the southern portion of the site. It is noted that the northern portion of the pad complies with the level originally approved. The additional fill is considered to be acceptable given the slope of the site and the privacy measures that have been incorporated with the design of the dwelling, in particular a louvered privacy screen to the rear patio, maximised sill heights to windows located at the rear and landscaping treatment. In addition the first storey is stepped in from the rear ground floor elevation by 5.7 metres to maximise building separation and reduce potential privacy and bulk impacts. Therefore the proposed privacy measures will suitably address the concerns to the increase in pad level heights as approved under DA/993/2004/B.

 

Bulk and scale

 

17.      The proposed development is designed in accordance with Councils Development Control Plan 2005. The dwelling addresses the site conditions and forms an appropriate building envelope for the site. The development proposes a maximum of 700mm of excavation and 600mm of fill, to proportionality balance the proposed floor levels on the site. The design of the dwelling is articulated and reflects contemporary design with a mixture of colours and materials. The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 0.44:1, which is below the maximum FSR permitted for dwelling houses which is 0.5:1. The development provides sufficient setbacks in conjunction with landscaping will minimise the perceived bulk & scale of the dwelling when viewed from neighbouring properties.

 

On-site Meeting

 

18.       Council at its meeting on 9 July 2007 resolved that all development applications with 5 or more objections be subject to a site inspection prior to them being considered at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

19.       In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 29 March 2008 commencing at 1:30pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Borger (chair), Councillor Chedid, Councillor Finn, Councillor Brown, Danielle Woods – Team Leader Development and Certification, James McBride – Development and Certification Officer, Denise Fernandez – Development Assessment Officer, up to 50 residents, the applicant and a representative of the owner. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Density & Consistency with Previous Approval

 

20.       Concern was raised in regards to the inconsistency of the collective DA’s lodged at Council with the original approved subdivision application. Concern was raised that the intensity of the development had been increased to accommodate duplexes on the southern side of the subdivision which had not been shown on the original subdivision approval. Residents were also concerned of the lack of consultation regarding the intensity of the development. Residents claimed that they were mislead, since 27 lots were approved, however 40 dwellings have now been proposed.

 

21.       The representative from the Defence Housing Authority presented the residents with the approved indicative building footprint plan and explained that the Development applications lodged with Council are consistent with the building envelopes approved on the original subdivision. As a result, Council has conducted further investigations comparing building footprints per the approved subdivision plan and the proposed developments and applications lodged with Council. The investigation revealed that the building footprints are consistent with the proposed developments on its respective lots. In addition, a perusal of Council records revealed that a condition was placed on the subdivision consent that a works as executed plan is to be issued to ensure levels are consistent with the approved plans.

 

Privacy

 

22.       Concern was raised for the loss of privacy as a result of increased pad levels per Consent No. DA/993/2004/B. Residents stated that during the consultation period, support was given to the initial plans by the Defence Housing Authority (DHA). However, given the increase in pad heights, the increase in the density of the development and the two storey height of the dwellings on the southern side, residents are no longer supportive of the proposal due to the adverse impacts on their privacy.

 

23.      Council requested that the representative of DHA justify the necessity to increase the pad levels on the southern side of the subdivision. The representative for DHA explained that the pad levels were modified due to a design error resulting in driveway grades that were non compliant with Australian Standards. The representative for the applicant, Jansen Homes, stated that appropriate measures have been implemented to alleviate privacy impacts on properties that front Paul Street. These measures include the provision of privacy screens to the rear patios and obscured glazing on first floor windows to the rear of the proposed dwellings. Residents expressed their disapproval for the rationale suggesting the measures taken to limit the opportunities for overlooking were insufficient.

 

DA Lodgement process

 

24.       Residents raised concerns in regards to the application process with a focus on the reasons for lodging each application for the individual lots separately. Residents queried Council staff and the applicant as to reasons for not lodging the developments proposed on 16 Dorahy Street as a whole.

 

25.       Council advised that projects of this size are usually considered as one application. However, the decision to lodge the proposed developments as an individual application rested on the applicant. Council advised residents that issues raised in each application will be assessed individually by Council Officers.

 

Overshadowing

 

26.       Concern was raised in regards to potential for overshadowing on adjoining properties.

 

27.       Council staff clarified that Council controls require a minimum of 3 hours of solar access to adjoining properties on the 21 June. It was added that it is a rare occurrence for Council to refuse an application due to overshadowing impacts. It was noted that the minimum requirement of solar access has been achieved by the proposed developments.  

 

Traffic

 

28.       Residents raised concerns that due to the density of the overall development, that it would result in increased traffic congestion in the area.

 

29.       A resident clarified that during the Land and Environment Court hearing for DA/209/2003 for a proposed 61 lot subdivision, whilst the application was refused, the issue of an increase in traffic generated by the proposed development was not considered to be detrimental to the locality.

 

Section 96 – Pad Levels and Notification

 

30.       Residents raised concerns in regards to the modification application that approved the increase in pad levels.

 

31.       Residents also raised concerns to the notification process of the section 96 application which prevented residents from lodging a submission.

 

32.       Council informed the residents that once an approval to an application is granted, the consent cannot be revoked.

 

33.       In regards to the notification procedure of the S96 to modify pad levels, a perusal of Council records revealed that the modification of the S96 application was consistent with the notification of the original subdivision application as per the Notification Development Control Plan.

 

ISSUES

 

Cross Ventilation

 

34.    The portion of the dwelling has a ceiling height of 2.4m which does not comply with the minimum 2.7m requirement of Section 4.3.4 ‘Solar Access and Cross Ventilation’ of DCP 2005.

 

35.    State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) states that controls within development controls plans which aim to improve the thermal performance of     buildings have no effect with regard to BASIX affected developments.

 

36.     The objectives of Section 4.3.4 relate to the thermal performance of buildings           having regard to issues such as thermal comfort, solar access, cross          ventilation and overshadowing.

 

37.    The proposed dwelling is a BASIX affected development and the 2.7m   minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect.

 

 

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

1 May 2008

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans & Elevations

3 Pages

 

2View

Numerical Compliance Table

1 Page

 

3View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

4

Subdivision Plan of Approved Development & Subject Lot

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Plans & Elevations

 



 


Attachment 2

Numerical Compliance Table

 

 


Attachment 3

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 4

Subdivision Plan of Approved Development & Subject Lot

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.16

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 3)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 3. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE            DA/1014/2007 - Submitted 23 November 2007

APPLICANT/S           Defence Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defence Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 1014/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed Lot 3.

 

The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant a deferred commencement consent to Development Application No. 1014/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

 

i) Landscaping is to be provided along the length of the proposed retaining wall at the rear of the site. The landscaping shall be of an Acmena smithii var. minor species with a height of 3 metres and spaced 1.5 metres apart to provide a vegetative corridor and enhance natural screening. Amended Landscape Plans reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

ii) The sill height of the window servicing the family area on the rear elevation is to be raised to a height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level or obscured to a minimum height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level. Plans reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

An operational consent will be issued once the subdivision subject of DA/993/2004 is registered by the Land and Property Information and evidence of this submitted to Council.

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      Development Application No. 993/2004, which granted consent for tree removal and community title subdivision into 27 lots comprising of 1 common lot (containing a private road reserve) and 26 residential lots, earthworks and stormwater works, was approved under delegation on 2 September 2005. As works associated with the subdivision have yet to be completed, the subdivision has yet to be registered with the Land Titles Office.

 

2.      Development Application No. 993/2004/A granted consent to modify the original consent, which included correcting references to the number of lots approved in Conditions 8 and 22, the addition of approved plan numbers to Condition 1 and correction of wording on Condition 10. The matter was determined under delegation on 25 November 2005.

 

3.      Development Application No. 993/2004/B granted consent to modify the original consent, which included changing the pad levels of lots 2 to 12. The matter was determined under delegation on 1 November 2006.

 

4.      Thirteen applications have been made to Council for dual occupancy developments on the lots created by DA/993/2004. Of these 13 applications, five have been approved under delegation. These five applications relates to Lot 15 (DA/843/2007), Lot 16 (DA/842/2007), Lot 17 (DA/863/2007), Lot 21 (DA/1019/2007) and Lot 22 (DA/1020/2007).

 

5.      At the 14 April 2008 Regulatory Council meeting, applications relating to Lot 18 (DA/710/2007), Lot 19 (DA/711/2007) and Lot 20 (DA/712/2007) was approved while the applications relating to Lot 10 (DA/778/2007), Lot 11 (DA/777/2007), Lot 12 (DA/780/2007) and Lot 13 (DA/779/2007) was deferred pending a redesign of the proposed dual occupancy development.

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

6.         The subject site is proposed Lot 3 of a 27 lot subdivision approved under DA/993/2004 at 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas. The overall site initially formed part of the St Patrick’s Marist Brother’s School, located immediately to the north west of the site, and has since been subdivided from the school site.

 

7.         The proposed dwelling is to be located to the south of the internal road within the subdivision. Proposed lot 3 is irregular in shape, with a frontage to the new road of 18.83 metres, a depth of approximately 27.5 metres and a total site area of 550m2. The site slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 3.5 metres from the northern boundary to the southern boundary. A grass drainage swale, approximately 1.6 metres wide runs along the southern boundary of the site. The site is currently vacant with no significant vegetation.

 

PROPOSAL

 

8.         Development Application No. 1014/2007 seeks approval for the following:

 

8.1           Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 3.

 

8.2           The proposed dwelling will comprise of four bedrooms, living area, dining area, kitchen, bathroom, laundry and attached double garage.

 

8.3           A maximum of 800mm of fill and 1000 mm of excavation is proposed for the construction of the dwelling.

 

8.4           A privacy screen is proposed to the rear ground floor patio.

 

8.5           900mm high retaining wall located along the rear of the private open space area.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

9.         The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and dwelling houses are permissible within the Residential 2(b) zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

10.       The provisions of PDCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

11.       In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application from the 30 November 2007 to 14 December 2007. In response, three submissions and 1 petition with 21 signatures was received.

 

Overshadowing

 

12.   The shadow diagrams submitted with the development application indicate that adjoining properties located on Paul Street would only experience overshadowing from 3pm onwards given the north-south orientation of the site. The Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 stipulates that adjoining properties should receive a minimum of 3 hours of solar access to private open space areas and habitable rooms between 9am to 3pm. In this regard, adjoining properties on Paul Street will receive the minimum requirement of solar access and will not have detrimental amenity impacts.

 

 

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

 

13.       Amended plans were submitted by the applicant to Council on the 22 January 2007 as a result of a site meeting held between the applicant and surrounding residents to resolve issues in relation to privacy and overlooking. The amended plan included the provision of a louvered privacy screen to the rear patio of the proposed dwelling and increased sill heights to the first floor windows located to the rear. The first floor windows at the rear of the dwelling service bedrooms which are considered to be of low domestic use, having a minimal impact on privacy. The rear window to the family room at ground level is to be modified through a condition of consent to a height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level being a highlight window or obscured to a minimum height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level, to minimise the potential for overlooking to Paul Street properties. In addition landscaping is to be provided as a condition of consent along the length of the rear retaining wall above the drainage swale. The landscaping will be of an Acmena smithii var .minor species with a height of 3 metres and spaced 1.5 metres apart, to encourage a vegetation corridor and natural screening at the rear of the site.

 

14.       It is considered that the measures proposed and the further request for window treatment and landscaping are appropriate responses to address privacy and overlooking. In combination with a rear setback of 7.4 metres and a first floor which is stepped in 3.2 metres from the rear building line, the proposed privacy measures are acceptable and the development will have a minimal impact on the privacy currently enjoyed by the residents in Paul Street. The proposal responds appropriately in design to site levels and the dwellings and associated windows and patios are not unduly elevated so as to afford outlook over properties fronting Paul Street beyond that which could be reasonably expected in a suburban setting and that which is anticipated under the DCP controls.

 

Increase traffic volume and parking demands

 

15.    The approved subdivision proposes an internal road which will provide direct access to each lot within the subdivision via Dorahy Street. Each proposed dwelling will provide 2 parking spaces for occupants of the dwelling which is in accordance with Council requirements. In addition visitor parking bays have been provided within the subdivision to limit on-street parking on Dorahy Street. It is considered that the proposal will sufficiently cater for parking demands of future residents.

 

Additional comment was provided by Councils Traffic Engineer in relation to traffic volume and parking generated collectively from the proposed developments on 16 Dorahy Street. Councils Traffic Engineer has indicated that “…analysis and calculation of the Environmental Capacity (EC), it is considered that the proposed subdivision and the traffic generated by the proposed dwellings (14 dual occupancy dwellings and 11 single dwellings)…will not have significant traffic impact on the road such as Paul and Dorahy Streets”.

 

The proposed development will not adversely affect traffic volume and parking within the locality.

 

Pad Levels

 

16.    The pad levels for the site were approved under DA/993/2004. Lot 3 was affected by a subsequent section 96 approval (DA/993/2004/B) for the modification of pad levels which also affected lots 2-12. The southern pad was originally approved at RL 40.3. The proposed ground floor level is RL 41.22, which is approximately 920mm above the pad level height. Approximately 800mm of additional fill is proposed at the southern portion of the site. It is noted that the northern portion of the pad complies with the level originally approved. The additional fill is considered to be acceptable given the slope of the site and the privacy measures that have been incorporated with the design of the dwelling, in particular a louvered privacy screen to the rear patio, maximised sill heights to windows located at the rear and landscaping treatment. In addition the first storey is stepped in from the rear ground floor elevation by 3.2 metres to maximise building separation and reduce potential privacy and bulk impacts. Therefore the proposed privacy measures will suitably address the concerns to increase in pad level heights as approved under DA/993/2004/B.

 

Bulk and scale

 

17.      The proposed development is designed in accordance with Councils Development Control Plan 2005. The dwelling addresses the site conditions and forms an appropriate building envelope for the site. The development proposes a maximum of 1000mm of excavation and 800mm of fill, to proportionality balance the proposed floor levels on the site. The design of the dwelling is articulated and reflects contemporary design with a mixture of colours and materials. The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 0.44:1, which is below the maximum FSR permitted for dwelling houses which is 0.5:1. The development provides sufficient setbacks and in conjunction with landscaping will minimise the perceived bulk & scale of the dwelling when viewed from neighbouring properties.

 

On-site Meeting

 

18.       Council at its meeting on 9 July 2007 resolved that all development applications with 5 or more objections be subject to a site inspection prior to them being considered at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

19.       In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 29 March 2008 commencing at 1:30pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Borger (chair), Councillor Chedid, Councillor Finn, Councillor Brown, Danielle Woods – Team Leader Development and Certification, James McBride – Development and Certification Officer, Denise Fernandez – Development Assessment Officer, up to 50 residents, the applicant and a representative of the owner. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Density & Consistency with Previous Approval

 

20.       Concern was raised in regards to the inconsistency of the collective DA’s lodged at Council with the original approved subdivision application. Concern was raised that the intensity of the development had been increased to accommodate duplexes on the southern side of the subdivision which had not been shown on the original subdivision approval. Residents were also concerned of the lack of consultation regarding the intensity of the development. Residents claimed that they were mislead, since 27 lots were approved, however 40 dwellings have now been proposed.

 

21.       The representative from the Defence Housing Authority presented the residents with the approved indicative building footprint plan and explained that the Development applications lodged with Council are consistent with the building envelopes approved on the original subdivision. As a result, Council has conducted further investigations comparing building footprints per the approved subdivision plan and the proposed developments and applications lodged with Council. The investigation revealed that the building footprints are consistent with the proposed developments on its respective lots. In addition, a perusal of Council records revealed that a condition was placed on the subdivision consent that a works as executed plan is to be issued to ensure levels are consistent with the approved plans.

 

Privacy

 

22.       Concern was raised for the loss of privacy as a result of increased pad levels per DA/993/2004/B. Residents stated that during the consultation period, support was given to the initial plans by the Defence Housing Authority (DHA). However, given the increase in pad heights, the increase in the density of the development and the two storey height of the dwellings on the southern side, residents are no longer supportive of the proposal due to the adverse impacts on their privacy.

 

23.      Council requested that the representative of DHA justify the necessity to increase the pad levels on the southern side of the subdivision. The representative for DHA explained that the pad levels were modified due to a design error resulting in driveway grades that were non compliant with Australian Standards. The representative for the applicant, Jansen Homes, stated that appropriate measures have been implemented to alleviate privacy impacts on properties that front Paul Street. These measures include the provision of privacy screens to the rear patios and obscured glazing on first floor windows to the rear of the proposed dwellings. Residents expressed their disapproval for the rationale suggesting the measures taken to limit the opportunities for overlooking were insufficient.

 

DA Lodgement process

 

24.       Residents raised concerns in regards to the application process with a focus on the reasons for lodging each application for the individual lots separately. Residents queried Council staff and the applicant as to reasons for not lodging the developments proposed on 16 Dorahy Street as a whole.

 

25.       Council advised that projects of this size are usually considered as one application. However, the decision to lodge the proposed developments as an individual application rested on the applicant. Council advised residents that issues raised in each application will be assessed individually by Council Officers.

 

Overshadowing

 

26.       Concern was raised in regards to potential for overshadowing on adjoining properties.

 

27.       Council staff clarified that Council controls require a minimum of 3 hours of solar access to adjoining properties on the 21 June. It was added that it is a rare occurrence for Council to refuse an application due to overshadowing impacts. It was noted that the minimum requirement of solar access has been achieved by the proposed developments.

 

Traffic

 

28.       Residents raised concerns that due to the density of the overall development, that it would result in increased traffic congestion in the area.

 

29.       A resident clarified that during the Land and Environment Court hearing for DA/209/2003 for a proposed 61 lot subdivision, whilst the application was refused, the issue of an increase in traffic generated by the proposed development was not considered to be detrimental to the locality.

 

Section 96 – Pad Levels and Notification

 

30.       Residents raised concerns in regards to the modification application that approved the increase in pad levels.

 

31.       Residents also raised concerns to the notification process of the section 96 application which prevented residents from lodging a submission.

 

32.       Council informed the residents that once an approval to an application is granted, the consent cannot be revoked.

 

33.       In regards to the notification procedure of the S96 to modify pad levels, a perusal of Council records revealed that the modification of the S96 application was consistent with the notification of the original subdivision application as per the Notification Development Control Plan.

 

ISSUES

 

Cross Ventilation

 

34.    The portion of the dwelling has a ceiling height of 2.4m which does not comply with the minimum 2.7m requirement of Section 4.3.4 ‘Solar Access and Cross Ventilation’ of DCP 2005.

 

35.    State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) states that controls within development controls plans which aim to improve the thermal performance of buildings have no effect with regard to BASIX affected developments.

 

36.    The objectives of Section 4.3.4 relate to the thermal performance of buildings having regard to issues such as thermal comfort, solar access, cross ventilation and overshadowing.

 

37.    The proposed dwelling is a BASIX affected development and the 2.7m minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect.

 

Rear Setback

 

38.    The proposed rear setback is 7.4 metres or 27% which is a shortfall of approximately 880mm of PDCP 2005 requirements. The shortfall will not affect the amenity of surrounding properties and the dwelling responds effectively to slope conditions given that the first floor is stepped in 3.2 metres from the ground floor elevation. The non compliance with rear setback does not exacerbate the bulk & scale of the dwelling given the provision of a landscape corridor to the rear of the site. Furthermore the proposal does comply with private open space requirements, soft soil and landscaping. The variation is considered to be minor and in this instance can be supported.

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

30 April 2008

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans & Elevations

3 Pages

 

2View

Location Map

1 Page

 

3View

Numerical Compliance Table

1 Page

 

4View

Subdivision Plan of Approved Development & Subject Lot

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Plans & Elevations

 



 


Attachment 2

Location Map

 

 


Attachment 3

Numerical Compliance Table

 

 


Attachment 4

Subdivision Plan of Approved Development & Subject Lot

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.17

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 4)
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 4. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE            DA/1017/2007 - Submitted 23 November 2007

APPLICANT/S           Defence Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defence Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 1017/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed Lot 4.

 

The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant a deferred commencement consent to Development Application No. 1017/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

 

i) Landscaping is to be provided along the length of the proposed retaining wall at the rear of the site. The landscaping shall be of an Acmena smithii var. minor species with a height of 3 metres and spaced 1.5 metres apart to provide a vegetative corridor and enhance natural screening. Amended Landscape Plans reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

ii) The sill height of the window servicing the family area on the rear elevation is to be raised to a height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level or obscured to a minimum height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level. Plans reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

An operational consent will be issued once the subdivision subject of DA/993/2004 is registered by the Land and Property Information and evidence of this submitted to Council.

 

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      Development Application No. 993/2004, which granted consent for tree removal and community title subdivision into 27 lots comprising of 1 common lot (containing a private road reserve) and 26 residential lots, earthworks and stormwater works, was approved under delegation on 2 September 2005. As works associated with the subdivision have yet to be completed, the subdivision has yet to be registered with the Land Titles Office.

 

2.      Development Application No. 993/2004/A granted consent to modify the original consent, which included correcting references to the number of lots approved in Conditions 8 and 22, the addition of approved plan numbers to Condition 1 and correction of wording on Condition 10. The matter was determined under delegation on 25 November 2005.

 

3.      Development Application No. 993/2004/B granted consent to modify the original consent, which included changing the pad levels of lots 2 to 12. The matter was determined under delegation on 1 November 2006

 

4.      Thirteen applications have been made to Council for dual occupancy developments on the lots created by DA/993/2004. Of these 13 applications, five have been approved under delegation. These five applications relates to Lot 15 (DA/843/2007), Lot 16 (DA/842/2007), Lot 17 (DA/863/2007), Lot 21 (DA/1019/2007) and Lot 22 (DA/1020/2007).

 

5.      At the 14 April 2008 Regulatory Council meeting, applications relating to Lot 18 (DA/710/2007), Lot 19 (DA/711/2007) and Lot 20 (DA/712/2007) was approved while the applications relating to Lot 10 (DA/778/2007), Lot 11 (DA/777/2007), Lot 12 (DA/780/2007) and Lot 13 (DA/779/2007) was deferred pending a redesign of the proposed dual occupancy development.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

6.         The subject site is proposed Lot 4 of a 27 lot subdivision approved under DA/993/2004 at 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas. The overall site initially formed part of the St Patrick’s Marist Brother’s School, located immediately to the north west of the site, and has since been subdivided from the school site.

 

7.         The proposed dwelling is to be located to the south of the internal road within the subdivision. Proposed lot 4 is irregular in shape, with a broken frontage to the new road of 21.2 metres, a depth of approximately 28 metres and a total site area of 581m2. The site slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 3.5 metres from the northern boundary to the southern boundary. An interallotment drainage easement dissects the eastern side of the site and an overland flow path is located on the eastern boundary. A grass drainage swale, approximately 1.6 metres wide runs along the southern boundary of the site. The site is currently vacant with no significant vegetation.

 

 

PROPOSAL

 

8.         Development Application No. 1017/2007 seeks approval for the following:

 

8.1           Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 4.

 

8.2           The proposed dwelling will comprise of four bedrooms, living area, dining area, kitchen, bathroom, laundry and attached double garage.

 

8.3           A maximum of 1000mm of fill and 400mm of cut is proposed

 

8.4           A privacy screen is proposed to the rear patio.

 

8.5           900mm retaining wall to the rear of the site

 

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

9.         The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and dwelling houses are permissible within the Residential 2(b) zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

10.       The provisions of PDCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

11.       In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 30 November 2007 and 14 December 2007. In response, two individual submissions and one petition with 21 signatures was received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

Overshadowing

 

12.   The shadow diagrams submitted with the development application indicate that adjoining properties located on Paul Street would only experience overshadowing from 3pm onwards given the north-south orientation of the site. The Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 stipulates that adjoining properties should receive a minimum of 3 hours of solar access to private open space areas and habitable rooms between 9am to 3pm. In this regard, adjoining properties on Paul street will receive the minimum requirement of solar access and will not have a detrimental amenity impacts.

 

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

 

13.       Amended plans were submitted by the applicant to Council on the 22 January 2007 as a result of a site meeting held between the applicant and surrounding residents to resolve issues in relation to privacy and overlooking. The amended plan included the provision of a louvered privacy screen to the rear patio of the proposed dwelling and increased sill heights to the first floor windows located to the rear. The first floor windows at the rear of the dwelling service bedrooms which are considered to be of low domestic use, having a minimal impact on privacy. The rear window to the family room at ground level is to be modified through a condition of consent to a height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level being a highlight window or obscured to a minimum height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level, to minimise the potential for overlooking to Paul Street properties. In addition landscaping is to be provided as a condition of consent along the length of the rear retaining wall above the drainage swale. The landscaping will be of an Acmena smithii var .minor species with a height of 3 metres and spaced 1.5 metres apart, to encourage a vegetation corridor and natural screening at the rear of the site.

 

14.       It is considered that the measures proposed and the further request for window treatment and landscaping are appropriate responses to address privacy and overlooking. In combination with a rear setback of 7.1 metres and a first floor which is stepped in 5 metres from the rear building line, the proposed privacy measures are acceptable and the development will have a minimal impact on the privacy currently enjoyed by the residents in Paul Street. The proposal responds appropriately in design to site levels and the dwellings and associated windows and patios are not unduly elevated so as to afford outlook over properties fronting Paul Street beyond that which could be reasonably expected in a suburban setting and that which is anticipated under the DCP controls.

 

Increase traffic volume and parking demands

 

15.      The approved subdivision proposes an internal road which will provide direct access to each lot within the subdivision via Dorahy Street. Each proposed dwelling will provide 2 parking spaces for occupants of the dwelling which is in accordance with Council requirements. In addition visitor parking bays have been provided within the subdivision to limit on-street parking on Dorahy Street. It is considered that the proposal will sufficiently cater for parking demands of future residents.

 

Additional comment was provided by Councils Traffic Engineer in relation to traffic volume and parking generated collectively from the proposed developments on 16 Dorahy Street. Councils Traffic Engineer has indicated that “…analysis and calculation of the Environmental Capacity (EC), it is considered that the proposed subdivision and the traffic generated by the proposed dwellings (14 dual occupancy dwellings and 11 single dwellings)…will not have significant traffic impact on the road such as Paul and Dorahy Streets”.

 

The proposed development will not adversely affect traffic volume and parking within the locality.

 

Pad Levels

 

16.      The pad levels for the site were approved under DA/993/2004. Lot 4 was affected by a subsequent section 96 approval (DA/993/2004/B) for the modification of pad levels which also affected lots 2-12. The southern pad was originally approved at RL 40.24. The proposed ground floor level is RL 41.05, which is approximately 810mm above the pad level height. It is noted that the northern portion of the pad complies with the level originally approved. The additional fill is considered to be acceptable given the slope of the site and the privacy measures that have been incorporated with the design of the dwelling, in particular a louvered privacy screen to the rear patio, maximised sill heights to windows located at the rear and landscaping treatment. In addition the first storey is stepped in from the rear ground floor elevation by 5 metres to maximise building separation and reduce potential privacy and bulk impacts. Therefore the proposed privacy measures will suitably address the concerns to the increase in pad level heights as approved under DA/993/2004/B.

 

Bulk and scale

 

17.      The proposed development is designed in accordance with Councils Development Control Plan 2005. The dwelling addresses the site conditions and forms an appropriate building envelope for the site. The development proposes a maximum of 400mm of excavation and 1000mm of fill, to achieve consistent floor levels on the site. The design of the dwelling is articulated and reflects contemporary design with a mixture of colours and materials. The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 0.41:1, which is below the maximum FSR permitted for dwelling houses which is 0.5:1. The development provides sufficient setbacks and in conjunction with landscaping will minimise the perceived bulk & scale of the dwelling when viewed from neighbouring properties.

 

On-site Meeting

 

18.       Council at its meeting on 9 July 2007 resolved that all development applications with 5 or more objections be subject to a site inspection prior to them being considered at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

19.       In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 29 March 2008 commencing at 1:30pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Borger (chair), Councillor Chedid, Councillor Finn, Councillor Brown, Danielle Woods – Team Leader Development and Certification, James McBride – Development and Certification Officer, Denise Fernandez – Development Assessment Officer, up to 50 residents, the applicant and a representative of the owner. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Density & Consistency with Previous Approval

 

20.       Concern was raised in regards to the inconsistency of the collective DA’s lodged at Council with the original approved subdivision application. Concern was raised that the intensity of the development had been increased to accommodate duplexes on the southern side of the subdivision which had not been shown on the original subdivision approval. Residents were also concerned of the lack of consultation regarding the intensity of the development. Residents claimed that they were mislead, since 27 lots were approved, however 40 dwellings have now been proposed.

 

21.       The representative from the Defence Housing Authority presented the residents with the approved indicative building footprint plan and explained that the Development applications lodged with Council are consistent with the building envelopes approved on the original subdivision. As a result, Council has conducted further investigations comparing building footprints per the approved subdivision plan and the proposed developments and applications lodged with Council. The investigation revealed that the building footprints are consistent with the proposed developments on its respective lots. In addition, a perusal of Council records revealed that a condition was placed on the subdivision consent that a works as executed plan is to be issued to ensure levels are consistent with the approved plans.

 

Privacy

 

22.       Concern was raised for the loss of privacy as a result of increased pad levels per DA/993/2004/B. Residents stated that during the consultation period, support was given to the initial plans by the Defence Housing Authority (DHA). However, given the increase in pad heights, the increase in the density of the development and the two storey height of the dwellings on the southern side, residents are no longer supportive of the proposal due to the adverse impacts on their privacy.

 

23.      Council requested that the representative of DHA justify the necessity to increase the pad levels on the southern side of the subdivision. The representative for DHA explained that the pad levels were modified due to a design error resulting in driveway grades that were non compliant with Australian Standards. The representative for the applicant, Jansen Homes, stated that appropriate measures have been implemented to alleviate privacy impacts on properties that front Paul Street. These measures include the provision of privacy screens to the rear patios and obscured glazing on first floor windows to the rear of the proposed dwellings. Residents expressed their disapproval for the rationale suggesting the measures taken to limit the opportunities for overlooking were insufficient.

 

DA Lodgement process

 

24.       Residents raised concerns in regards to the application process with a focus on the reasons for lodging each application for the individual lots separately. Residents queried Council staff and the applicant as to reasons for not lodging the developments proposed on 16 Dorahy Street as a whole.

 

25.       Council advised that projects of this size are usually considered as one application. However, the decision to lodge the proposed developments as an individual application rested on the applicant. Council advised residents that issues raised in each application will be assessed individually by Council Officers.

 

Overshadowing

 

26.       Concern was raised in regards to potential for overshadowing on adjoining properties.

 

27.       Council staff clarified that Council controls require a minimum of 3 hours of solar access to adjoining properties on the 21 June. It was added that it is a rare occurrence for Council to refuse an application due to overshadowing impacts. It was noted that the minimum requirement of solar access has been achieved by the proposed developments. 

 

Traffic

 

28.       Residents raised concerns that due to the density of the overall development, that it would result in increased traffic congestion in the area.

 

29.       A resident clarified that during the Land and Environment Court hearing for DA/209/2003 for a proposed 61 lot subdivision, whilst the application was refused, the issue of an increase in traffic generated by the proposed development was not considered to be detrimental to the locality.

 

Section 96 – Pad Levels and Notification

 

30.       Residents raised concerns in regards to the modification application that approved the increase in pad levels.

 

31.       Residents also raised concerns to the notification process of the section 96 application which prevented residents from lodging a submission.

 

32.       Council informed the residents that once an approval to an application is granted, the consent cannot be revoked.

 

33.       In regards to the notification procedure of the S96 to modify pad levels, a perusal of Council records revealed that the modification of the S96 application was consistent with the notification of the original subdivision application as per the Notification Development Control Plan.

 

ISSUES

 

Cross Ventilation

 

34.    The portion of the dwelling has a ceiling height of 2.4m which does not comply with the minimum 2.7m requirement of Section 4.3.4 ‘Solar Access and Cross Ventilation’ of DCP 2005.

 

35.    State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) states that controls within development controls plans which aim to improve the thermal performance of buildings have no effect with regard to BASIX affected developments.

 

36.    The objectives of Section 4.3.4 relate to the thermal performance of buildings having regard to issues such as thermal comfort, solar access, cross         ventilation and overshadowing.

 

37.    The proposed dwelling is a BASIX affected development and the 2.7m minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect.

 

Rear Setback

 

38.    The proposed rear setback is 7.1 metres or 26% which is a shortfall of approximately 1200mm of PDCP 2005 requirements. The shortfall will not affect the amenity of surrounding properties and the dwelling responds effectively to slope conditions given that the first floor is stepped in 5 metres from the rear ground floor elevation. The non compliance with rear setback does not exacerbate the bulk and scale of the dwelling given the provision of a landscape corridor to the rear of the site. Furthermore the proposal does comply with private open space requirements, soft soil and landscaping. The variation is considered to be minor and in this instance can be supported.

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

30 April 2008

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans and Elevations

3 Pages

 

2View

Numerical Compliance Table

1 Page

 

3View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

4View

Subdivision Plan of Approved Development Applications

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Plans and Elevations

 



 


Attachment 2

Numerical Compliance Table

 

 


Attachment 3

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 4

Subdivision Plan of Approved Development Applications

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.18

SUBJECT                   Lot 24, 16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a two-storey Dual Occupancy dwelling with Torrens Title subdivision on proposed Lot 24. (Location Map - Attachment 3)

REFERENCE            DA/1110/2007 - Submitted 24 December 2007

APPLICANT/S           Defence Housing Australia

OWNERS                    Defence Housing Australia

REPORT OF              Development Assessment Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 1110/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of an attached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision on proposed Lot 24.

 

The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

(a)       That Council grant a deferred commencement consent to Development Application No. 1110/2007 subject to standard conditions. An operational consent will be issued once the subdivision subject of DA/993/2004 is registered by the Land and Property Information and evidence of this submitted to Council.

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.         Development Application No. 993/2004, which granted consent for tree removal and community title subdivision into 27, lots comprising of 1 common lot (containing a private road reserve) and 26 residential lots, earthworks and stormwater works, was approved under delegation on 2 September 2005. As works associated with the subdivision have yet to be completed, the subdivision has yet to be registered with the Land Title Office.

 

2.         Development Application No. 993/2004/A granted consent to modify the original consent, which included correcting references to the number of lots approved in Conditions 8 and 22, the addition of approved plan numbers to Condition 1 and correction of wording on Condition 10. The matter was determined under delegation on 25 November 2005.

 

3.         Development Application No. 993/2004/B granted consent to modify the original consent, which included changing the pad levels of lots 2 to 14. The matter was determined under delegation on 1 November 2006.

 

4.         Thirteen applications have been made to Council for dual occupancy developments on the lots created by DA/993/2004. Of these 13 applications, five have been approved under delegation. These five applications relates to Lot 15 (DA/843/2007), Lot 16 (DA/842/2007), Lot 17 (DA/863/2007), Lot 21 (DA/1019/2007) and Lot 22 (DA/1020/2007).

 

5.         At the 14 April 2008 Regulatory Council meeting, applications relating to Lot 18 (DA/710/2007), Lot 19 (DA/711/2007) and Lot 20 (DA/712/2007) was approved while the applications relating to Lot 10 (DA/778/2007), Lot 11 (DA/777/2007), Lot 12 (DA/780/2007) and Lot 13 (DA/779/2007) was deferred pending a redesign of the proposed dual occupancy development.

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

6.         The subject site is proposed Lot 24 of a 27 lot subdivision approved under   DA/993/2004 at 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas. The overall site initially formed part of the St Patrick’s Marist Brother’s School, located immediately to the north of the site, and has since been subdivided from the school site.

 

7.         The proposed dual occupancy development is to occur on proposed Lot 24 of that subdivision which is located on the northern and high side of the new road within the subdivision. Lot 24 is irregular in shape, with a southern frontage to the new road of 18.055 metres, an eastern boundary that measures 27.496 metres and a western boundary of 34.550 metres and a total site area of 613m2. The site generally slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 4 metres from the northern boundary to the southern boundary. The site is currently vacant with no significant vegetation.

 

PROPOSAL

 

8.         Approval is sought for the construction of an attached dual occupancy development. Torrens title subdivision is also sought to create Lot 1 to have an area of 313 square metres and Lot 2 to have an area of 300 square metres.

 

9.         It is noted that Lot 24 was not subject to increased pad levels heights approved in respect of Lots 2 and 11 under DA/993/2004/B.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

10.       The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and dual occupancy developments are permissible within the Residential 2(b) zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

11.       It is noted that, Clause 38(4A) of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 allows the subdivision of lots where approval for a dual occupancy has been obtained.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

12.       The provisions of PDCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan.

 

REFERRALS

 

13.      The proposal was referred to Council’s Drainage Engineer who has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions of consent.

 

14.      The proposal was referred to Council’s Landscape Officer who has no objection subject to conditions of consent.

 

CONSULTATION

 

15.       In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 16 January 2008 and 30 January 2008. A total of three individual submissions and one petition with 21 signatures were received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

Overshadowing

 

16.   The proposed dual occupancy development is approximately between 50 to 200 metres from any of the objector’s property. Given the distance, the proposed dual occupancy on Lot 24 is not expected to create any adverse overshadowing impacts on objector’s properties.

 

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

 

17.   The estimated distance between any objector’s property and the proposed dual occupancy is approximately between 50 to 200 metres. Due to the distance of the proposed dual occupancy, it is unlikely that the proposed development would result in a loss of privacy for adjoining properties or create opportunities for overlooking.

 

Increase traffic volume and parking demands

 

18.       The new subdivision approved on 16 Dorahy Street will have a new internal road to access the site. On-street parking on Dorahy Street will be limited due to the provision of visitor parking bays inside the new subdivision. In addition, each new dwelling is to provide 2 parking spaces to comply with Council requirements and therefore reducing any need to park vehicles on Dorahy Street. It is considered that the local road network has the ability to cater for the additional traffic that will be generated by this dual occupancy development.

 

19.       Additional comment was sought from Council’s traffic engineer to quantify the total effects of multiple dual occupancy developments on 16 Dorahy Street. Council’s traffic engineer has stated that upon the “…analysis and calculation of the Environmental Capacity (EC), it is considered that the proposed subdivision and the traffic generated by the proposed dwellings (14 dual occupancy dwellings and 11 single dwellings)…will not have significant traffic impact on the road such as Paul and Dorahy Streets”.

 

20.       The development on Lot 24 provides 2 on - site parking spaces per dwelling and complies with DCP requirements.

 

Pad Levels

 

21.      The current pad levels in respect of the subject lot were approved under the original subdivision consent. The current development application is for a dual occupancy development and does not vary or propose any further filling. However, it is noted that Council Compliance Officers have visited the site to inspect compliance with the approved pad levels. Council’s Compliance officers have found the pad levels to be in compliance with the approved plans. At the site meeting, residents of Paul Street raised concerns about the pad levels on Lot 2 -14 that back on to their residential properties. As Lot 24 adjoins non-residential land, the issue of pad heights on this allotment will not impact on the residents of Paul Street.

 

22.       It is noted that Lot 24 was not included in the modification application (DA/993/2004/B) to amend pad height levels. The modifications approved under DA/993/2004/B only related to Lots 2-12.

 

Increase in Noise

 

23.       The proposed dual occupancy is located between 50 metres to 200 metres from any objector’s property. Given the distance of the proposed development, it is unlikely that any objector’s properties would be subjected to adverse noise impacts from the proposed dual occupancy on Lot 24.

 

Excessive Height

 

24.       The proposed dual occupancy on Lot 24 is two-storeys with a maximum floor-to-ceiling height of 3.554 metres and the maximum building height at the tallest point is 8.194 metres. Council controls stipulate that the maximum building height of dual occupancy developments are to be 2 storeys with a maximum building height of 9 metres. Therefore, the proposed dual occupancy development complies with Council requirements and is considered to be an appropriate height. Accordingly, there will be no adverse imposition of building bulk upon adjoining properties.

 

Bulk and scale

 

25.       The proposed development considers the site constraints and has addressed these constraints with an appropriate design response. Amended plans show a maximum 800mm excavation into the site, a stepped down garage and articulation to the front façade of the development which all minimise the perception of bulk. The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 0.6:1 which complies with the floor space ratio for dual occupancy development as required in Clause 40 of the PLEP 2001. In addition, the proposed dual occupancy complies with other Council requirements such as articulation, side setbacks and building height which ensure that the proposed dual occupancy does not result in the overdevelopment of the site. Accordingly, the proposed dual occupancy is of an appropriate bulk and scale relative to the size of the site.

 

On-site Meeting

 

26.       Council at its meeting on 9 July 2007 resolved that all development applications with 5 or more objections be subject to a site inspection prior to them being considered at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

27.       In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 29 March 2008 commencing at 1:30pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Borger (chair), Councillor Chedid, Councillor Finn, Councillor Brown, Danielle Woods – Team Leader Development and Certification, James McBride – Development and Certification Officer, Denise Fernandez – Development Assessment Officer, up to 50 residents, the applicant and a representative of the owner. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Density & Consistency with Previous Approval

 

28.       Concern was raised in regards to the inconsistency of the collective DA’s lodged at Council with the original approved subdivision application. Concern was raised that the intensity of the development had been increased to accommodate duplexes on the southern side of the subdivision which had not been shown on the original subdivision approval. Residents were also concerned of the lack of consultation regarding the intensity of the development. Residents claimed that they were mislead, since 27 lots were approved, however 40 dwellings have now been proposed.

                                     

29.       The representative from the Defence Housing Authority presented the residents with the approved indicative building footprint plan and explained that the Development applications lodged with Council are consistent with the building envelopes approved on the original subdivision. As a result, Council has conducted further investigations comparing building footprints per the approved subdivision plan and the proposed developments and applications lodged with Council. The investigation revealed that the building footprints are consistent with the proposed developments on its respective lots. In addition, a perusal of Council records revealed that a condition was placed on the subdivision consent that a works as executed plan is to be issued to ensure levels are consistent with the approved plans. 

 

Privacy

 

30.       Concern was raised for the loss of privacy as a result of increased pad levels per Consent No. DA/993/2004/B. Residents stated that during the consultation period, support was given to the initial plans by the Defence Housing Authority (DHA). However, given the increase in pad heights, the increase in the density of the development and the two storey height of the dwellings on the southern side, residents are no longer supportive of the proposal due to the adverse impacts on their privacy.

 

31.       A Councillor requested that the representative of DHA justify the necessity to increase the pad levels on the southern side of the subdivision. The representative for DHA explained that the pad levels were modified due to a design error resulting in driveway grades that were non compliant with Australian Standards. The representative for the applicant, Jansen Homes, stated that appropriate measures have been implemented to alleviate privacy impacts on properties that front Paul Street. These measures include the provision of a privacy screens to the rear patios and obscured glazing on first floor windows to the rear of the proposed dwellings. Residents expressed their disapproval for the rationale suggesting the measures taken to limit the opportunities for overlooking were insufficient.

 

DA Lodgement process

 

32.       Residents raised concerns in regards to the application process with a focus on the reasons for lodging each application for the individual lots separately. Residents queried Council staff and the applicant as to reasons for not lodging the developments as one application for the entire site.

 

33.       Council staff advised that the decision to lodge the proposed developments individually rested on the applicant. Staff advised residents that issues raised in each application will be assessed individually by Council Officers.

 

Overshadowing

 

34.       Concern was raised in regards to potential for overshadowing on adjoining properties.

 

35.       Council staff clarified that Council controls require a minimum of 3 hours of solar access to adjoining properties on the 21 June. It was noted that the minimum requirement of solar access has been achieved by the proposed developments. 

 

Traffic

 

36.       Residents showed concerns that due to the density of the overall development that it would result in increased traffic congestion in the area. 

 

37.       A resident clarified that during the Land and Environment Court hearing for DA/209/2003 for a proposed 61 lot subdivision, whilst the application was refused, the issue of an increase in traffic generated by the proposed development was not considered to be detrimental to the locality.

 

Section 96 – Pad Levels and Notification

 

38.       Residents raised concerns in regards to the modification application that approved the increase in pad levels including the notification process of the section 96 application which prevented residents from lodging a submission.

 

39.       Staff informed residents that once an approval to an application is granted, the consent can only be revoked in certain circumstances.

 

40.       In regards to the notification procedure of the S96 to modify pad levels, a review of Council records revealed that the modification of the S96 application was consistent with the notification of the original subdivision application as per Council Notification DCP. This included notification of all residential properties in Paul Street that abut the site. As a result of this notification process, two objections were received.

 

ISSUES

 

Ceiling Height

 

41.      The rear portion of the dwellings containing the dining and kitchen has a        ceiling height of 2.4m which does not comply with the minimum 2.7m          requirement of Section 4.3.4 ‘Solar Access and Cross Ventilation’ of DCP      2005.

 

42.      State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) states that controls within         development controls plans which aim to improve the thermal performance of     buildings have no effect with regard to BASIX affected developments.

 

43.       The objectives of Section 4.3.4 relate to the thermal performance of buildings        having regard to issues such as thermal comfort, solar access, cross          ventilation and overshadowing.

 

44.      The proposed dual occupancy is a BASIX affected development and the 2.7m       minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect.

 

Front Setback

 

45.      The front setback proposed varies between 4.961m to 6.326m. The minimum        front setback does not comply with the minimum 5m to 9m requirement of      Section 3.1 ‘Preliminary Building Envelopes’ of DCP 2005.

 

46.       The DCP requires that the setback is “to be consistent with the prevailing setback along the street”. Given that the proposed development will be constructed on a new subdivision, there is no        prevailing street setback. The front setback varies between 4.961m and 6.326m with only a small portion of the proposed development non-complying. In addition, this minor non-compliance is due to the articulation of the building to avoid a mirror image design.

 

47.       The non-compliance will have no impact on street the presentation or compliance with other requirements such as overshadowing, private open space, soft soil and landscaping requirements.   

 

Rear Setback

 

48.       The proposed rear setbacks vary between 8.505 metres and 9.053 metres.               

            PDCP 2005 prescribes a 30% rear setback of the length of the site. The rear setback required for the proposed development varies between 8.248 metres and 10.365 metres. 

 

49.       However, the proposed rear setback is considered to be a minor non-                        

            compliance given that it is a result of the angled nature of the site. The eastern boundary is measured at 27.496 metres and the western boundary is measured at 34.550 metres. Given the proportions of the site and the angled nature of the street, the proposed rear setbacks are considered to be acceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

1 May 2008

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Numerical Compliance Table

2 Pages

 

2View

Plans and Elevations

10 Pages

 

3View

Location Map

1 Page

 

4View

History of Development Application

1 Page

 

5View

Approved Development on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas

1 Page

 

6View

Site Plan

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Numerical Compliance Table

 

 

TABLE OF COMPLIANCE

ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

 

PLEP 2001

 

 

 

 

Site Area

600m2 (min)

613m2

YES

FSR

0.6:1

0.60:1

YES

Subdivision

600m2 (min) - resulting in equal area portions.

Lot 1 = 313m2

Lot 2 = 300m2

YES

Height

2 storey (max)

2 storeys

YES

 

PDCP 2005

 

 

 

 

Frontage

15m

18.055m

YES

Car Parking

1 space - <125m2

2 spaces - >125m2

Lot 1 – 2 spaces provided (1 space in garage, 1 space on driveway).

Lot 2 – 2 spaces provided (1 space in garage, 1 space on driveway).

YES

Car Space Widths

6.3m or 50% (max)

6.0m

YES

Solar Access

3 hours to 50% of private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June (min)

Adjoining properties will receive greater than the 3 hours minimum solar access required to habitable rooms and private open spaces of adjoining properties to the east and west between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

YES

Soft Soil Zone (30%)

183m2 (min)

244.5m2

YES

Private Open Space

100m2 each unit

Lot 1 – 150.85m2

Lot 2 – 100.68m2

YES

Building Line Setback

5-9m

4.965m to 6.325m

NO

 

See report for further comment

Side Setbacks

1.5m (min)

1.750 m and 1.818 m.

 

YES

Floor to Ceiling Height

2.7m & 2.4m

No – 2.4m (minimum)

Yes – 2.4m

 

 

NO

 

See report for further comment

Rear Setback

30% of the length of the site

 

Required - Between 8.248 metres and 10.365 metres

 

Between 8.505 metres and 9.053 metres.

NO

 

See report for further comment

 

 


Attachment 2

Plans and Elevations

 










 


Attachment 3

Location Map

 

 


Attachment 4

History of Development Application

 

History of Development Application

16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 24)

(DA/1110/2007)

 

24 December 2007 – Development Application lodged

 

14 January 2008 – Letter sent to the applicant requesting additional information such as the following:

 

·          Mirror Image – amended plans required to comply with Council requirements

·          Finished Floor Levels – Provide plans which show FFL.

 

16 January 2008 to 30 January 2008 – Development was notified to surrounding properties.

 

30 January 2008Received amened plans

 

27 February 2008Additional plans received

 

29 March 2008On-site meeting held

 

 


Attachment 5

Approved Development on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas

 

 


Attachment 6

Site Plan

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.19

SUBJECT                   Lot 25, 16 Dorahy Street, DUNDAS
(
Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a two-storey dual occupancy development with Torrens Title subdivision on proposed Lot 25. (Location Map - Attachment 3)

REFERENCE            DA/131/2008 - Submitted 28 February 2008

APPLICANT/S           Defence Housing Australia

OWNERS                    Defence Housing Australia

REPORT OF              Development Assessment Officer       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 131/2008 which seeks approval for the construction of an attached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision on Lot 25.

 

The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

(a)       That Council grant a deferred commencement consent to Development Application No. 131/2008 subject to standard conditions. An operational consent will be issued once the subdivision subject of DA/993/2004 is registered by the Land and Property Information and evidence of this submitted to Council.

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.         Development Application No. 993/2004, which granted consent for tree removal and community title subdivision into 27, lots comprising of 1 common lot (containing a private road reserve) and 26 residential lots, earthworks and stormwater works, was approved under delegation on 2 September 2005. As works associated with the subdivision have yet to be completed, the subdivision has yet to be registered with the Land Titles Office.

 

2.         Development Application No. 993/2004/A granted consent to modify the original consent, which included correcting references to the number of lots approved in Conditions 8 and 22, the addition of approved plan numbers to Condition 1 and correction of wording on Condition 10. The matter was determined under delegation on 25 November 2005.

 

3.         Development Application No. 993/2004/B granted consent to modify the original consent, which included changing the pad levels of lots 2 to 14. The matter was determined under delegation on 1 November 2006.

 

4.         Thirteen applications have been made to Council for dual occupancy developments on the lots created by DA/993/2004. Of these 13 applications, five have been approved under delegation. These five applications relates to Lot 15 (DA/843/2007), Lot 16 (DA/842/2007), Lot 17 (DA/863/2007), Lot 21 (DA/1019/2007) and Lot 22 (DA/1020/2007).

 

5.         At the 14 April 2008 Regulatory Council meeting, applications relating to Lot 18 (DA/710/2007), Lot 19 (DA/711/2007) and Lot 20 (DA/712/2007) was approved while the applications relating to Lot 10 (DA/778/2007), Lot 11 (DA/777/2007), Lot 12 (DA/780/2007) and Lot 13 (DA/779/2007) was deferred pending a redesign of the proposed dual occupancy development.

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

6.         The subject site is proposed Lot 25 of a 27 lot subdivision approved under DA/993/2004 at 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas. The overall site initially formed part of the St Patrick’s Marist Brother’s School, located immediately to the north of the site, and has since been subdivided from the school site.

 

7.         The proposed dual occupancy development is to occur on proposed Lot 25 of       that subdivision which is located on the northern and high side of the new        road within the subdivision. Lot 25 is irregular in shape, with a southern         frontage to the new     road of 22.2 metres, an eastern boundary that measures             31.6 metres and a western boundary of 28 metres and a total site area of      600m2. The site generally slopes from north to south with a total fall of   approximately 4.8       metres from the northern boundary to the southern    boundary. The site is currently vacant with no significant vegetation.

 

PROPOSAL

 

8.         Approval is sought for the construction of an attached dual occupancy development. Torrens title subdivision is also sought to create Lot 1 to have an area of 300 square metres and Lot 2 to have an area of 300 square metres.

 

9.         It is noted that Lot 25 was not subject to increased pad level heights approved in respect of Lots 2 to 12 under DA/993/2004/B.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

10.       The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and dual occupancy developments are permissible within the Residential 2(b) zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

11.       It is noted that, Clause 38(4A) of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 allows the subdivision of lots where approval for a dual occupancy has been obtained.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

12.       The provisions of PDCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan.

 

REFERRALS

 

13.      The proposal was referred to Council’s Drainage Engineer who has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions of consent.

 

14.      The proposal was referred to Council’s Landscape Officer who has no objection subject to conditions of consent.

 

CONSULTATION

 

15.       In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 11 March 2008 and 25 March 2008. A total of one individual submission and one petition with 21 signatures were received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

Overshadowing

 

16.   The proposed dual occupancy development is approximately between 50 to 200 metres from any of the objector’s property. Given the distance, the proposed dual occupancy on Lot 25 is not expected to create any adverse overshadowing impacts on objector’s properties.

 

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

 

17.   The estimated distance between any objector’s property and the proposed dual occupancy is approximately between 50 to 200 metres. Due to the distance of the proposed dual occupancy, it is unlikely that the proposed development would result in a loss of privacy for adjoining properties or create opportunities for overlooking.

 

Increase traffic volume and parking demands

 

18.       The new subdivision approved on 16 Dorahy Street will have a new internal road to access the site. On-street parking on Dorahy Street will be limited due to the provision of visitor parking bays inside the new subdivision. In addition, each new dwelling is to provide 2 parking spaces to comply with Council requirements and therefore reducing any need to park vehicles on Dorahy Street. It is considered that the local road network has the ability to cater for the additional traffic that will be generated by this dual occupancy development.

 

19.       Additional comment was sought from Council’s traffic engineer to quantify the total effects of multiple dual occupancy developments on 16 Dorahy Street. Council’s traffic engineer has stated that upon the “…analysis and calculation of the Environmental Capacity (EC), it is considered that the proposed subdivision and the traffic generated by the proposed dwellings (14 dual occupancy dwellings and 11 single dwellings)…will not have significant traffic impact on the road such as Paul and Dorahy Streets”.

 

20.       The development on Lot 25 provides 2 on - site parking spaces per dwelling and complies with DCP requirements.

 

Pad Levels

 

21.       The current pad levels in respect of the subject lot were approved under the original subdivision consent. The current development application is for a dual occupancy development and does not vary or propose any further filling. However, it is noted that Council Compliance Officers have visited the site to inspect compliance with the approved pad levels. Council’s Compliance officers have found the pad levels to be in compliance with the approved plans.

 

22.       It is noted that Lot 25 was not included in the modification application (DA/993/2004/B) to amend pad height levels. The modifications approved under DA/993/2004/B only related to Lots 2-12.

 

Increase in Noise

 

23.       The proposed dual occupancy is located between 50 metres to 200 metres from any objector’s property. Given the distance of the proposed development, it is unlikely that any objector’s properties would be subjected to adverse noise impacts from the proposed dual occupancy on Lot 25.

 

Excessive Height

 

24.       The proposed dual occupancy on Lot 25 is two-storeys with a maximum floor-to-ceiling height of 3.988 metres and the maximum building height at the tallest point is 8.5 metres. Council controls stipulate that the maximum building height of dual occupancy developments are to be 2 storeys with a maximum building height of 9 metres. Therefore, the proposed dual occupancy development complies with Council requirements and is considered to be an appropriate height. Accordingly, there will be no adverse imposition of building bulk upon adjoining properties.

 

Bulk and scale

 

25.       The proposed development considers the site constraints and has addressed these constraints with an appropriate design response. Amended plans show a maximum 1.8m excavation into the site and articulation to the front façade of the development which all minimise the perception of bulk. The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 0.6:1 which complies with the floor space ratio for dual occupancy development as required in Clause 40 of the PLEP 2001. In addition, the proposed dual occupancy complies with other Council requirements such as articulation, side setbacks and building height which ensure that the proposed dual occupancy does not result in the overdevelopment of the site. Accordingly, the proposed dual occupancy is of an appropriate bulk and scale relative to the size of the site.

 

On-site Meeting

 

26.       Council at its meeting on 9 July 2007 resolved that all development applications with 5 or more objections be subject to a site inspection prior to them being considered at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

27.       In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 29 March 2008 commencing at 1:30pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Borger (chair), Councillor Chedid, Councillor Finn, Councillor Brown, Danielle Woods – Team Leader Development and Certification, James McBride – Development and Certification Officer, Denise Fernandez – Development Assessment Officer, up to 50 residents, the applicant and a representative of the owner. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Density & Consistency with Previous Approval

 

28.       Concern was raised in regards to the inconsistency of the collective DA’s lodged at Council with the original approved subdivision application. Concern was raised that the intensity of the development had been increased to accommodate duplexes on the southern side of the subdivision which had not been shown on the original subdivision approval. Residents were also concerned of the lack of consultation regarding the intensity of the development. Residents claimed that they were mislead, since 27 lots were approved, however 40 dwellings have now been proposed.

                                     

29.       The representative from the Defence Housing Authority presented the residents with the approved indicative building footprint plan and explained that the Development applications lodged with Council are consistent with the building envelopes approved on the original subdivision. As a result, Council has conducted further investigations comparing building footprints per the approved subdivision plan and the proposed developments and applications lodged with Council. The investigation revealed that the building footprints are consistent with the proposed developments on its respective lots. In addition, a perusal of Council records revealed that a condition was placed on the subdivision consent that a works as executed plan is to be issued to ensure levels are consistent with the approved plans. 

 

Privacy

 

30.       Concern was raised for the loss of privacy as a result of increased pad levels per Consent No. DA/993/2004/B. Residents stated that during the consultation period, support was given to the initial plans by the Defence Housing Authority (DHA). However, given the increase in pad heights, the increase in the density of the development and the two storey height of the dwellings on the southern side, residents are no longer supportive of the proposal due to the adverse impacts on their privacy.

 

31.       A Councilor requested that the representative of DHA justify the necessity to increase the pad levels on the southern side of the subdivision. The representative for DHA explained that the pad levels were modified due to a design error resulting in driveway grades that were non compliant with Australian Standards. The representative for the applicant, Jansen Homes, stated that appropriate measures have been implemented to alleviate privacy impacts on properties that front Paul Street. These measures include the provision of a privacy screens to the rear patios and obscured glazing on first floor windows to the rear of the proposed dwellings. Residents expressed their disapproval for the rationale suggesting the measures taken to limit the opportunities for overlooking were insufficient.

 

DA Lodgement process

 

32.       Residents raised concerns in regards to the application process with a focus on the reasons for lodging each application for the individual lots separately. Residents queried Council staff and the applicant as to reasons for not lodging the developments as one application for the entire site.

 

33.       Council staff advised that the decision to lodge the proposed developments as a individual application rested on the applicant. Staff advised residents that issues raised in each application will be assessed individually by Council Officers.

 

Overshadowing

 

34.       Concern was raised in regards to potential for overshadowing on adjoining properties.

 

35.       Council staff clarified that Council controls require a minimum of 3 hours of solar access to adjoining properties on the 21 June. It was noted that the minimum requirement of solar access has been achieved by the proposed developments. 

 

Traffic

 

36.       Residents showed concerns that due to the density of the overall development, that it would result in increased traffic congestion in the area. 

 

37.       A resident clarified that during the Land and Environment Court hearing for DA/209/2003 for a proposed 61 lot subdivision, whilst the application was refused, the issue of an increase in traffic generated by the proposed development was not considered to be detrimental to the locality.

 

Section 96 – Pad Levels and Notification

 

38.       Residents raised concerns in regards to the modification application that approved the increase in pad levels including the notification process of the section 96 application which prevented residents from lodging a submission.

 

39.       Staff informed residents that once an approval to an application is granted, the consent can only be revoked in certain circumstances. 

 

40.       In regards to the notification procedure of the S96 to modify pad levels, a review of Council records revealed that the modification of the S96 application was consistent with the notification of the original subdivision application as per Council Notification DCP. This included notification of all residential properties in Paul Street that abut the site. As a result of the notification process, two submissions were received.

 

ISSUES

 

Ceiling Height

 

40.      The rear portion of the dwellings containing the dining and kitchen has a        ceiling height of 2.4m which does not comply with the minimum 2.7m          requirement of Section 4.3.4 ‘Solar Access and Cross Ventilation’ of DCP      2005.

 

41.      State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) states that controls within         development controls plans which aim to improve the thermal performance of     buildings have no effect with regard to BASIX affected developments.

 

42.       The objectives of Section 4.3.4 relate to the thermal performance of buildings        having regard to issues such as thermal comfort, solar access, cross          ventilation and overshadowing.

 

43.      The proposed dual occupancy is a BASIX affected development and the 2.7m       minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect.

 

Rear Setback

 

44.       The proposed rear setbacks vary between 7.139 metres and 7.35 metres. PDCP 2005 prescribes a 30% rear setback of the length of the site. The rear setback required for the proposed development varies between 8.4 metres and 9.3 metres

 

45.       The proposed rear setback is considered to be a minor non- compliance as it is a result of the angled nature of the site. The eastern boundary is measured at 31.6 metres and the western boundary is measured at 28 metres. Given the proportions of the site and the angled nature of the site, the proposed rear setbacks are considered to be acceptable. In addition, this non-compliance ensures that the front setback is consistent with adjoining properties.

 

 

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

1 May 2008

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Numerical Compliance Table

2 Pages

 

2View

Plans and Elevations

10 Pages

 

3View

Location Map

1 Page

 

4View

History of Development Application

1 Page

 

5

Approved Development Applications on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas

1 Page

 

6

Site Plan

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Numerical Compliance Table

 

 

TABLE OF COMPLIANCE

ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

 

PLEP 2001

 

 

 

 

Site Area

600m2 (min)

600m2

YES

FSR

0.6:1

0.60:1

YES

Subdivision

600m2 (min) - resulting in equal area portions.

Lot 1 = 300m2

Lot 2 = 300m2

YES

Height

2 storey (max)

2 storeys

YES

 

PDCP 2005

 

 

 

 

Frontage

15m

22.2m

YES

Car Parking

1 space - <125m2

2 spaces - >125m2

Lot 1 – 2 spaces provided (1 space in garage, 1 space on driveway).

Lot 2 – 2 spaces provided (1 space in garage, 1 space on driveway).

YES

Car Space Widths

6.3m or 50% (max)

6.0m

YES

Solar Access

3 hours to 50% of private open space between 9am and 3pm on 21 June (min)

Adjoining properties will receive greater than the 3 hours minimum solar access required to habitable rooms and private open spaces of adjoining properties to the east and west between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

YES

Soft Soil Zone (30%)

180m2 (min)

264m2

YES

Private Open Space

100m2 each unit

Lot 1 – 108.4m2

Lot 2 – 106.9m2

YES

Building Line Setback

5-9m

5.50 m to 7.998 m

YES

Side Setbacks

1.5m (min)

1.800 m to 1.877 m.

 

YES

Floor to Ceiling Height

2.7m & 2.4m

No – 2.4m (minimum)

Yes – 2.4m

 

 

NO

 

See report for further comment

Rear Setback

30% of the length of the site

 

Required - Between 8.4 metres and 9.3 metres

 

Between 7.139 metres and 7.35 metres.

 

NO

 

See report for further comment

 

 


Attachment 2

Plans and Elevations

 










 


Attachment 3

Location Map

 

 


Attachment 4

History of Development Application

 

History of Development Application

16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 25)

(DA/131/2008)

 

 

28 February 2008 – Development Application lodged

 

11 March 2008 to 25 March 2008 – Development was notified to surrounding properties.

 

29 March 2008On-site meeting held

 

 


Attachment 5

Approved Development Applications on 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas

 

 


Attachment 6

Site Plan

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.20

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 26) (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 26. Location Map - Attachment 2

REFERENCE            DA/972/2007 - Submitted 9 November 2007

APPLICANT/S           Defence Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defence Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Development and Certification Officer       

 

pURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 972/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed Lot 26.

 

The application has been referred to Council due to receipt of petition containing 21 signatures.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant a deferred commencement consent to Development Application No. 972/2007 subject to standard conditions.

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.         Development Application No. 993/2004, which granted consent for tree removal and community title subdivision into 27 lots, comprising of 1 common lot (containing a private road reserve) and 26 residential lots, earthworks and stormwater works, was approved under delegation on 2 September 2005. As works associated with the subdivision have yet to be completed, the subdivision has yet to be registered with the Land Titles Office.

 

2.         Development Application No. 993/2004/A granted consent to modify the original consent, which included correcting references to the number of lots approved in Conditions 8 and 22, the addition of approved plan numbers to Condition 1 and correction of wording on Condition 10. The matter was determined under delegation on 25 November 2005.

 

3.         Development Application No. 993/2004/B granted consent to modify the original consent, which included changing the pad levels of lots 2 to 12. The matter was determined under delegation on 1 November 2006.

 

4.         Thirteen applications have been made to Council for dual occupancy developments on the lots created by DA/993/2004. Of these 13 applications, five have been approved under delegation. These five applications relates to Lot 15 (DA/843/2007), Lot 16 (DA/842/2007), Lot 17 (DA/863/2007), Lot 21 (DA/1019/2007) and Lot 22 (DA/1020/2007).

 

5.         At the 14 April 2008 Regulatory Council meeting, applications relating to Lot 18 (DA/710/2007), Lot 19 (DA/711/2007) and Lot 20 (DA/712/2007) was approved while the applications relating to Lot 10 (DA/778/2007), Lot 11 (DA/777/2007), Lot 12 (DA/780/2007) and Lot 13 (DA/779/2007) was deferred pending a redesign of the proposed dual occupancy development.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

6.      The subject site is proposed Lot 26 of a 27 lot subdivision approved under DA/993/2004 at 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas. The overall site initially formed part of the St Patrick’s Marist Brother’s School, located immediately to the north west of the site, and has since been subdivided from the school site.

 

7.      The proposed dwelling is to be located to the north of the internal road within the subdivision. Proposed lot 26 is irregular in shape, with a southern frontage to the new road of 15.91 metres, an eastern boundary that measures 35.34 metres and a western boundary of 30.88 metres and a total site area of 584m2. The site slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 5 metres from the northern boundary to the southern boundary. The site is currently vacant with no significant vegetation.

 

PROPOSAL

 

8.         Development Application No. 972/2007 seeks approval for the following:

 

8.1           Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 26.

 

8.2           The proposed dwelling will comprise of four bedrooms, living area, dining area, kitchen, bathroom, laundry and attached double garage.

 

8.3           A maximum of 1100mm of fill and 800 mm of cut is proposed for the construction of the dwelling which will require log retaining walls to be located along the boundaries of the site.

 

8.4           This lot is not affected by the increase in pad level heights approved in respect of Lots 2-12 under DA/993/2004.

 

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

9.         The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and dwelling houses are permissible within the Residential 2(b) zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

10.       The provisions of PDCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal achieves compliance with the numerical requirements of the plan and is also consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

11.       In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 22 November 2007 and 6 December 2007. In response, one petition with 21 signatures was received. The issues raised in the petition are outlined below.

 

Overshadowing

 

12.   The proposed dwelling is approximately between 50 to 200 metres from any of the objector’s property. Given the distance, the proposed dwelling on Lot 26 is not expected to create any adverse overshadowing impacts on objector’s properties.

 

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

 

13.   The proposed dwelling is setback significantly from any of the objector’s property, being located approximately 50 to 200 metres away. Due to the extensive distance of the proposed dwelling from properties fronting Paul Street, the proposal would not result in a loss of privacy for adjoining properties or create opportunities for overlooking.

 

 

Increase traffic volume and parking demands

 

14.    The approved subdivision proposes an internal road which will provide direct access to each lot within the subdivision via Dorahy Street. Each proposed          dwelling will provide 2 parking spaces for occupants of the dwelling which is in    accordance with Council requirements. In addition visitor parking bays have           been provided within the subdivision to limit on-street parking on Dorahy         Street. It is considered that the proposal will sufficiently cater for parking   demands of future residents.

 

Additional comment was provided by Councils Traffic Engineer in relation to traffic volume and parking generated collectively from the proposed developments on 16 Dorahy Street. Councils Traffic Engineer has indicated that “…analysis and calculation of the Environmental Capacity (EC), it is considered that the proposed subdivision and the traffic generated by the proposed dwellings (14 dual occupancy dwellings and 11 single dwellings)…will not have significant traffic impact on the road such as Paul and Dorahy Streets”.

 

The proposed development will not adversely affect parking or traffic volume within the locality

 

 

Pad Levels

 

15.    The pad levels for the site were approved under DA/993/2004. Lot 26 was not affected by a subsequent section 96 approval (DA/993/2004/B) for the modification of pad levels affecting Lots 2-12. The approved pad levels will not be varied by the proposed dwelling.

 

 

Bulk and scale

 

16.    The proposed development is designed in accordance with Councils Development Control Plan 2005. The dwelling addresses the site conditions and forms an appropriate building envelope for the site. The development proposes a maximum of 1100mm of excavation and 900mm of fill, to proportionality balance the proposed floor levels on the site. The design of the dwelling is articulated and reflects contemporary design with a mixture of colours and materials. The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 0.42:1, which is below the maximum FSR permitted for dwelling houses which is 0.5:1. The development provides sufficient setbacks and landscaping. Accordingly the proposed dwelling is of an appropriate bulk and scale which effectively considers its locational context. The dwelling will be sited approximately 50 to 200 metres from properties fronting Paul Street.

 

 

On-site Meeting

 

17.       Council at its meeting on 9 July 2007 resolved that all development applications with 5 or more objections be subject to a site inspection prior to them being considered at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

18.       In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 29 March 2008 commencing at 1:30pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Borger (chair), Councillor Chedid, Councillor Finn, Councillor Brown, Danielle Woods – Team Leader Development and Certification, James McBride – Development and Certification Officer, Denise Fernandez – Development Assessment Officer, up to 50 residents, the applicant and a representative of the owner. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Density & Consistency with Previous Approval

 

19.       Concern was raised in regards to the inconsistency of the collective DA’s lodged at Council with the original approved subdivision application. Concern was raised that the intensity of the development had been increased to accommodate duplexes on the southern side of the subdivision which had not been shown on the original subdivision approval. Residents were also concerned of the lack of consultation regarding the intensity of the development. Residents claimed that they were mislead, since 27 lots were approved, however 40 dwellings have now been proposed.

                                     

20.       The representative from the Defence Housing Authority presented the residents with the approved indicative building footprint plan and explained that the Development applications lodged with Council are consistent with the building envelopes approved on the original subdivision. As a result, Council has conducted further investigations comparing building footprints per the approved subdivision plan and the proposed developments and applications lodged with Council. The investigation revealed that the building footprints are consistent with the proposed developments on its respective lots. In addition, a perusal of Council records revealed that a condition was placed on the subdivision consent that a works as executed plan is to be issued to ensure levels are consistent with the approved plans. 

 

Privacy

 

21.       Concern was raised in respect of loss of privacy as a result of increased pad levels per Consent No. DA/993/2004/B. Residents stated that during the consultation period, support was given to the initial plans by the Defence Housing Authority (DHA). However, given the increase in pad heights, the increase in the density of the development and the two storey height of the dwellings on the southern side, residents are no longer supportive of the proposal due to the adverse impacts on their privacy.

 

22.       Council requested that the representative of DHA to justify the necessity to increase the pad levels on the southern side of the subdivision. The representative for DHA explained that the pad levels were modified due to a design error resulting in driveway grades that were non compliant with Australian Standards. The representative for the applicant, Jansen Homes, stated that appropriate measures have been implemented to alleviate privacy impacts on properties that front Paul Street. These measures include the provision of a privacy screens to the rear patios and obscured glazing on first floor windows to the rear of the proposed dwellings. Residents expressed their disapproval for the rationale suggesting the measures taken to limit the opportunities for overlooking were insufficient.

 

DA Lodgement process

 

23.       Residents raised concerns in regards to the application process with a focus on the reasons for lodging each application for the individual lots separately. Residents queried Council staff and the applicant as to reasons for not lodging the developments proposed on 16 Dorahy Street as a whole.

 

24.       Council advised that projects of this size are usually considered as one application. However, the decision to lodge the proposed developments as an individual application rested on the applicant. Council advised residents that issues raised in each application will be assessed individually by Council Officers.

 

Overshadowing

 

25.       Concern was raised in regards to potential for overshadowing on adjoining properties.

 

26.       Council staff clarified that Council controls require a minimum of 3 hours of solar access to adjoining properties on the 21 June. It was added that it is a rare occurrence for Council to refuse an application due to overshadowing impacts. It was noted that the minimum requirement of solar access has been achieved by the proposed developments. 

 

Traffic

 

27.       Residents raised concerns that due to the density of the overall development, that it would result in increased traffic congestion in the area. 

 

28.       A resident clarified that during the Land and Environment Court hearing for DA/209/2003 for a proposed 61 lot subdivision, whilst the application was refused, the issue of an increase in traffic generated by the proposed development was not considered to be detrimental to the locality.

 

Section 96 – Pad Levels and Notification

 

29.       Residents showed concerns in regards to the modification application that approved the increase in pad levels.

 

30.       Residents also raised concerns to the notification process of the section 96 application which prevented residents from lodging a submission.

 

31.       Council informed the residents that once an approval to an application is granted, the consent cannot be revoked.

 

32.       In regards to the notification procedure of the section 96 modification to modify the pad levels, a perusal of Council records revealed that the modification was consistent with the notification of the original subdivision application as per the Notification Development Control Plan.

 

33.      There are no undue privacy, shadowing or bulk and scale impacts associated with the proposal.

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

1 May 2008

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans & Elevations

3 Pages

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

3View

Numerical Compliance Table

1 Page

 

4

Subdivision Plan of Approved Development & Subject Lot

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Plans & Elevations

 



 


Attachment 2

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 3

Numerical Compliance Table

 

 


Attachment 4

Subdivision Plan of Approved Development & Subject Lot

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         14.21

SUBJECT                   253 Church Street, Parramatta
(
Lot B DP 380256) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Internal fitout and change of use to a convenience store.
(Locality map - attachment 3)

REFERENCE            DA/211/2008 - Submitted 1 April 2008

APPLICANT/S           Mr Ibrahim Hamdan

OWNERS                    Syros Investments Pty Ltd

REPORT OF              Student Planner       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 211/2008, which seeks approval for the internal fitout and change of use to a convenience store.

 

The application has been referred to Council as the site is listed as a Heritage Item under Schedule 5 City Centre Local Environmental Plan.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 211/2008, subject to standard conditions.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The site is known as 253 Church Street, Parramatta. The site is located on the western side of Church Street with a frontage of 4.35m. The area is characterised by retail and commercial development.

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.      The proposal includes the following:

         

2.1    Internal fitout and change of use from a jewellery store to convenience store, with internet service.

 

2.2    The proposed hours of operation are Monday to Thursday, 7:00am to 10:00pm, Friday, 7:00am to midnight, Saturday, 8:00am to midnight and Sunday, 8:00am to 10:00pm. 

 

2.3    The proposed works are at ground level with storage and washing facilities located on the first floor. Only the ground floor is accessible to customers.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan

 

3.      The subject site is zoned B4 Mixed Use under the City Centre Local Environmental Plan. The proposed change of use is permissible within the zone with the consent of Council. 

 

City Centre Development Control Plan

 

4.      The proposal satisfies the objectives of the City Centre Development Control Plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

5.      In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 9 April 2008 to 23 April 2008. No submissions were received.

 

ISSUES

 

Heritage

 

6.      The Development Application was referred to Councils Heritage Advisor for assessment as the existing building is listed as a Heritage Item under Schedule 5 of the City Centre Local Environmental Plan. The comments of Councils Heritage Advisor are:

 

“The proposed new use is acceptable, in that it does not impose any undue wear on the fabric of the place. The proposed fitout works specified in the application documents are all reversible.

 

In general, internally illuminated signage on heritage items in the City Centre area is not permissible; however, in this case the proposal is to update the sides of the existing sign to reflect the new business name. In the context of use of the existing sign elements, the proposed modification of signage is thus fully acceptable.

 

In accordance with this the proposal is appropriate and would have no impact on the heritage values of the place or the wider area.”

 

7.      Under the City Centre Development Control Plan, Section 7.2 Signs on heritage Items restricts illuminated signage on heritage items.

 

8.      The existing shop has one awning sign and one illuminated under awning sign. The proposal includes replacing the plastic panel on the under awning sign to read “NSW Convenience Store & Internet” and re painting the awning sign white with red writing “NSW Convenience Store & Internet”.

 

9.      In this regard, the proposed signage is acceptable as it is for the replacement of two existing signs to reflect the updated business use and name.

 

Environment and Health

 

10.    The Development Application was referred to Councils Environment and Health Officer for assessment, and has imposed standard conditions.

 

Hours of Operation

 

11.    The proposed hours of operation are Monday to Thursday, 7:00am to 10:00pm, Friday, 7:00am to midnight, Saturday, 8:00am to midnight and Sunday, 8:00am to 10:00pm. 

 

12.    The convenience store is not considered to cause a disturbance to the adjoining shops within Church Street and the hours of operation are satisfactory considering the location of the convenience store being amongst restaurants and cafes, which have similar hours of operation.

 

 

Ashleigh Matta

Development Assessment Officer

1 May 2008

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans and elevations

4 Pages

 

2View

History of Application

1 Page

 

3View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Plans and elevations

 




 


Attachment 2

History of Application

 

 


Attachment 3

Locality Map

 

  


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER         15.1

SUBJECT                   Length of Time for Validity of a Development Application

REFERENCE            F2005/01043 - D00923706

FROM                          Councillor C E Worthington       

 

To be Moved by Councillor C E Worthington:-

 

That the Manager Development Services bring forward a detailed report to the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on 10th June 2008, relating to the following matter:-

 

1       The pros and cons of reducing from 5 years to 3 years, the length of a time a Development Application is valid.

 

 

Rationale:       Some developers purchase properties on speculation, having no intention of developing same themselves, but to have a DA passed to sell the plan. In some cases, the purchaser may be short of cash and leaves the property in a poor condition until as such time as the market picks up when he/she then decides to demolish and commence building. I believe that if the time frame for the lapse of a DA was put back to three years by PCC as once was the case, then it would be less likely that so many properties would be left in a state of disrepair.

 

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER         15.2

SUBJECT                   Consultants Employed by Council

REFERENCE            F2004/06760 - D00923714

FROM                          Councillor C E Worthington       

 

To be Moved by Councillor C E Worthington:-

 

That the Group Manager Corporate Services bring forward a detailed report, to the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on 10th June 2008, relating to the following matter:-

 

1       An itemised list of all Consultants employed by Council during the past two (2) years, excluding those employed to assist in the recruitment of staff.

 

2       The reason for which they were employed.

 

3       The total cost of each consultancy.

 

4       The time taken to complete each consultancy.

 

 

Rationale:      With a very tight budget, I believe that it is timely that costs associated with the above services be closely scrutinised in order to ascertain where practices and processes can be reviewed in order to save money, without necessarily cutting down on essential services.


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER         15.3

SUBJECT                   Recruitment of Council Staff through Consultants

REFERENCE            F2007/00395 - D00923719

FROM                          Councillor C E Worthington       

 

To be Moved by Councillor C E Worthington:

 

That the Manager Human Resources and the Group Manager Corporate Services bring forward a detailed report to the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on 10th June 2008, relating to the following matter:-

 

1       An itemised list of all Consultants employed by Council to recruit staff during the past two (2) years.

 

2       The number of staff recruited in this time frame.

 

3       The recruitment for which the consultants were employed.

 

4       The cost of each consultancy, including a breakdown in the cost of advertising each position in the various newspapers.

 

5       The time taken to complete each recruitment.

 

6       Whether Council has a negotiated set corporate rate, and size of ads, for when it is recruiting staff.

 

 

Rationale:      With a very tight budget I believe that it is timely that costs associated with the above services be closely scrutinised in order to ascertain where practices and processes can be reviewed in order to save money, without necessarily cutting down on essential services.

 


Regulatory Council

 12 May 2008

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER         15.4

SUBJECT                   Congratulations to the Sydney Turf Club (STC) on the Golden Slipper

REFERENCE            F2005/01920 - D00923786

FROM                          Councillor A A Wilson       

 

To be Moved by Councillor A A Wilson

 

That Parramatta City Council:

 

1       Congratulate the STC on the running of this year’s Golden Slipper.

 

2       Council congratulate the STC on the effectiveness of its promotion of the         Golden Slipper, and

 

3       Call for a report on Council's previous motion at the time of the equine flu         focussed on the concrete actions taken by the Administrative officers     regarding a joint promotion with the STC.