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 Tuesday, 10 June 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 Brian 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

 10 June 2008

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM                                                         SUBJECT                                              PAGE NO

 

1        CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council - 26 May 2008

2        APOLOGIES

3        DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4        Minutes of Lord Mayor  

5        PUBLIC FORUM

6        PETITIONS  

7        City Leadership and Management

7.1     Loan Borrowing.

7.2     Consultants Employed by Council

8        Regulatory Reports

8.1     Length of Time for the Validity of a Development Application        

9        DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION

10      DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REFERRED FOR ON-SITE MEETINGS

11      DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD

12      Reports - Domestic Applications

12.1   325 Church Street, PARRAMATTA  NSW  2150. (LOT 1 DP 784451) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

12.2   19 Garland Avenue, EPPING  NSW  2121. (Lot C DP 378599) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

12.3   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Proposed Lot 2) (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.4   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Proposed Lot 3). (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.5   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Proposed Lot 4). (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.6   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 5). (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.7   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 6) (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.8   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 7) (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.9   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 8) (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.10  16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 9) (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.11  16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 14). (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.12  16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 23). (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.13  16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 27). (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.14  4/5-9 Gibbons Street Oatlands. (Lot 1 DP 633434) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.15  122 The Trongate Granville (crn Charles Streets) (Lots 5A & 6A DP 159581) (Woodville Ward)

13      Reports - Development Applications

13.1   2B Fleet Street, North Parramatta. (Arthur Phillip Ward)

13.2   76-78 Macquarie Street and 25 Smith Street, PARRAMATTA. (Lot 1 DP 128445 Lot 2 232067 Pt Lot 3 DP 558386 Pt Lot 1 DP 232067 Lot 1 DP 1098507) (Arthur Philip Ward)

13.3   12 Milton Avenue, Eastwood. (Lot 79 DP 7004) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

13.4   18/12 Dellwood Street, South Granville. (Lot 18 SP 43874) (Woodville Ward)

13.5   356-358 Woodville Road, Guildford

13.6   126 Merrylands Road, Merrylands. (Lots 1, 2, and 3 DP 9814) (Woodville Ward)

13.7   21-23 Gladstone Street, North Parramatta (Lot 1 and 2 DP 11644). (Arthur Phillip Ward)

13.8   1/25 Smith Street, Parramatta. (Lot 1 DP 1098507) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

13.9   40-44 Alice Street, Harris Park. (Lot 2 DP 540350, Lot 1 DP 345140, Lot 2 DP 345140) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

13.10  1 Wyuna Place, Oatlands
(
Lot 13 DP 31813) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

13.11  7 Lomond Crescent, WINSTON HILLS. (Lots 775 & 778 DP 253162) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

13.12  Parramatta Stadium 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta (Lots 951 to 965 in DP 42643)

14      Notices of Motion

14.1   Use of Portion of Adshel Contract for Arts Program

14.2   Epping Town Centre Study

14.3   Council Providing Insurance to all Non-Commerial Community Fairs in the LGA

14.4   Concept Plan for New Amenities Building at Granville Park   

15      QUESTION TIME

 

 

 


Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 7.1

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER         7.1

SUBJECT                   Loan Borrowing.

REFERENCE            F2004/05857 - D00950265

REPORT OF              Manager - Finance       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To obtain approval for the taking up of the 2007/08 new loan funds of $2,798,000.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council receives and notes the Manager Finance’s Report No.

 

(b)       That Council borrow an amount of $2,798,000 in accordance with the adopted Management Plan 2007/08 – 2010/11.

 

(d)       That the Lord Mayor and General Manager be given delegated authority to determine and accept the most financially advantageous loan offer received following the obtaining of appropriate quotations from lending institutions.

 

(e)       That the Lord Mayor and General Manager be given delegated authority to complete all necessary loan documents and that the Common Seal be applied if required to those documents.

 

(f)         Further, that Councillors be advised of the terms of the loan once the loan funds have been drawn down.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.         The Council’s Loan Borrowing Program as adopted in the 2007/08 – 2010/11 Management Plan provided for Council to take up loan funds of $2,798,000 for its 2007/08 regular borrowing program.

 

2.         Council’s Strategic Financial Management Advisor, Spectra Financial Services, as part of their annual retainer, have been engaged to seek competitive quotes from financial institutions to provide the loan funds of $2,798,000.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

3.         Following discussions with Spectra Financial Services on the most prudent approach to be taken in this new borrowing of $2,798,000, it was agreed that Spectra should seek proposals from major trading banks for the following two options –

 

Option 1 – 15 year loan period fully amortised, with the first two years at a fixed interest rate and with the balance of 13 years at a floating rate or fixed rate to be re-negotiated at the end of the first two (2) years of the loan.

 

Option 2 – 7 year loan period, at a fixed interest rate, amortising to a balloon repayment of $1.4 million at the end of the 7 years. The balance of $1.4 million would be the subject of a new loan if needed. The terms of the new loan would be negotiated when the balance becomes due.

 

Both options would involve equal semi annual payments comprising principal and interest.

 

4.         These options were chosen because they provide some certainty in Council’s    debt servicing costs in the short to medium term. The options also provide for   flexibility in re-negotiating the terms after the fixed interest rate period.   

 

5.         Quotations are being sought based on the above options and it is proposed that the most financially advantageous loan offer for Council be accepted on the day the loan is taken up. It is planned that the loan funds will be drawn down on 27 June 2008.

 

6.         As interest rates vary on a day to day basis, and in order to make a valid comparison, it will be necessary to seek pricing for a specific day close to the drawdown date. It is therefore necessary for Council to delegate to the Mayor and the Acting General Manager the authority to select the most financially advantageous offer for Council.

 

7.         The new loan borrowing of $2,798,000 is incorporated in Council’s budget, the forward expenditure estimates and forecast debt position within the 2008/09 – 2011/12 Draft Management Plan on the assumption that the loan is repaid over a 15 year period. The debt servicing of this loan and existing loans will maintain Council’s debt service ratio below the Loan Policy’s objective of less than 8%.

 

8.         All Councillors will be further advised of the terms of the loan once the loan funds have been drawn down.

 

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

9.         Advise has been sought from Council’s Strategic Financial Management Advisor, Spectra Financial Services.

 

10.      The loan funds must be taken up prior to 30 June 2008 in accordance with Council’s Management Plan.

 

 

 

Jenny Fett

Manager Finance

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 7.2

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER         7.2

SUBJECT                   Consultants Employed by Council

REFERENCE            F2004/06760 - D00950252

REPORT OF              Group Manager Corporate Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To provide Council with the information it requested on the employment of Consultants during the past two (2) years.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note this Report.

 

 

BACKGROUND

1.         At its meeting on 12th May 2008 Council resolved that –

 

The Group Manager Corporate Services bring forward a detailed report to the Ordinary Meeting of 10th June 2008 or earlier, relating to the following matters:-

 

1.   An itemised list of all Consultants employed by Council during the past two (2) years, excluding those employed to assist in the recruiting 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.

 

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

2.         The compilation of the information requested by Council is a significant exercise involving the extraction of data from the financial systems showing the costs, followed then by the various sections of Council reviewing the financial data and providing the information as to the reasons for the engagement and the time taken to complete each consultancy.  To compile the non-financial information it has often been necessary to go back to source documents such as invoices and contracts to verify the nature of the consultancy and the time involved. Reliance has had to be placed on the accuracy of the information contained within Council’s systems in compiling the information. Due to the period covered, in some cases the staff responsible for administering a contract have left Council and the time involved in compiling the information has been lengthened as a result.

 

3.         Due to the magnitude of the task all of the requested information has not been completed in time for distribution with this Business Paper. The complete information will be distributed at the earliest opportunity.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

4.         Staff within the relevant areas of Council have been consulted as to the activities of the consultants dealt with in this report.

 

 

 

Stephen Kerr

Group Manager Corporate Services

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL  


Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 8.1

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER         8.1

SUBJECT                   Length of Time for the Validity of a Development Application

REFERENCE            F2005/01043 - D00950328

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services

PREVIOUS ITEMS             15.1 - Length of Time for Validity of a Development Application - Regulatory Council - 12 May 2008      

 

PURPOSE:

 

To provide Councillors with information on the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and associated regulations relating to lapsing of development consents.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council maintain its current practice of issuing development consents that lapse 5 years after the date in which it operates as prescribed in section 95(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1       Council at its meeting of 12 May 2008 considered a Notice of Motion tabled by Councillor Worthington and resolved the following:

 

(a)       That the Manager Development Services bring forward a detailed report to the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on 10 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.

 

(b)       Further that a copy of the resolution of Council to increase the validity time for a development application from 3 to 5 years be provided to Councillors.

 

REPORT

 

2       The period in which a development consent lapses is prescribed in section 95 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (referred herein as ‘the Act’).

 

3       Section 95(1) of the Act prescribes that a development consent lapses 5 years after the date from which it operates.  Despite this provision, section 95(2) of the Act allows a consent authority to reduce the 5 year period when granting development consent, except in the case of staged development.

 

4       If a consent authority invokes such a reduction as allowed in section 95(2), such a reduction shall not be made so as to cause a development consent to demolish a building or to subdivide land to lapse within 2 years after the date from which the consent operates [refer to section 95(3)]. This means the minimum period in which a development consent can be granted is 2 years.

 

5       Section 95A(1) of the Act prescribes that if when granting a development consent, the consent authority reduces the period in which the consent lapses to less than 5 years, the applicant or any other person entitled to act on the consent may apply to the consent authority, before the period expires, for an extension of 1 year.

 

6       In the event that a request is made for an extension of 1 year, section 95A(2) of the Act allows a consent authority to grant an extension for a 1 year period if it is satisfied that the applicant has shown good cause.

 

7       Clause 114 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 specifies how an application to extend the time to commence development must be made which is:

 

(a)     in writing, and

(b)     must identify the development consent to which it relates, and

(c)     must indicate why the consent authority should extend the time.

 

8       If a consent authority grants a 1 year extension under section 95A it commences to run from the later of the following:

 

(a)     the date on which the consent would have lapsed but for the extension,

(b)     the date in which the consent authority granted the extension or, if the court has allowed the extension in determining an appeal, the date on which the Court.

 

9       The full extracts of Sections 95 and 95A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Clause 114 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 can be found in Attachment 1.

 

Development consents issued by Parramatta Council

 

10     Development consents that are issued by Parramatta Council lapse 5 years after the date from which they operate as prescribed in section 95 of the Act. The issuing of development consents that are valid for 5 years has been standard practice at Parramatta for at least the last 8 years. A search of the resolutions of Council and other records could not establish that Parramatta Council has in the recent past (ie. within the last 10 years) issued development consents which reduce the standard 5 year lapsing period.

 

11     It is noted that the large majority of consent authorities within the Sydney metropolitan area issue development consents for a 5 year period, however there are a small number which reduce the period to 2 years. It is not known why these consent authorities have reduced the standard lapsing period to less than 5 years.

 

Advantages of reducing consent periods

 

12     An advantage of reducing the lapsing period to a period of 2 years is that it may reduce the number of speculative developers who submit development applications where they do not have finance approved to commence construction activity within a short period. It is often the case that development sites where applications have been made by speculative developers are left vacant for extended periods or fall into disrepair. 

 

13     In recent years development applications lodged by speculative developers has fallen largely due to the introduction of Design Review Panel and the introduction of clearer guidelines as to the quality and extent of documentation required to be submitted with applications to obtain development consent.  This has meant that developers who may not have the ability to obtain funds to carry out the project are less likely to spend money on obtaining a development consent.

 

14     Whilst potentially reducing the number of speculative development applications lodged, there is also the related risk that developers will physically commence building, engineering or construction work relating to the site to ‘activate’ the development consent under section 95(4) of the Act. 

 

15     The extent of work required to satisfy the ‘physical commencement’ provision of the Act is small, and may result in a large number of development sites being partially commenced so as to preserve a development consent. There are numerous examples of these sites in the Parramatta LGA with the property located at 140 Marsden Street, Parramatta being the most infamous of these. In that case a Court ruling established that the laying of foundations beneath ground level constituted ‘physical commencement’ as defined in the Act.

 

16     The placement of appropriate conditions on development consents which remind property owners of their obligations in ensuring that their properties are not dilapidated not unsafe or unhealthy, together with appropriate enforcement and investigations into such matters may help to address this problem.

 

Disadvantages of reducing consent periods 

 

17     Discussions with staff who have worked in Councils where the consent period is reduced to less than 5 years has identified that that there are often a large number of applicants who seek the 1 year extension to the development consent. This results in additional administration demands being placed on development assessment staff who are required to administer the written requests and ‘assess and make a determination’ on whether the request for a 1 year extension should be granted.

 

18     In the case of Parramatta this could result in approximately 1,500 requests for an extension of time being sought in any one year.  It is noted that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 does not prescribe a fee for this service and accordingly the costs in providing this service can not be funded from fees.

 

19     Section 95A(2) of the Act allows a consent authority to grant an extension if satisfied that the applicant has shown good cause. ‘Good cause’ is not defined in the Act and would be difficult to test. The subjectiveness of the test needed to be applied in assessing such requests could lead to inconsistent application and an increase in appeals to the Land and Environment Court by applicants who are dissatisfied with Council’s decision to not grant an extension. This may adversely impact on Council’s legal budget.

 

20     There is also a related increase to corruption risks resulting from the discretionary nature of administering the provisions of section 95A(2) and no clear way in which to test what is a ‘good cause’. This added to the risk that applicants often do not realise that the consent period has been reduced to less than 5 years and not seeking an extension to the consent period prior to the lapsing of the consent increases corruption risks. It is noted that the way in which the granting of 1 year extensions to development consents was administered by Randwick Council and behaviours of applicants in requesting these extensions formed part of an investigation by the ICAC in the mid 1990s.

 

21     The certainty of development consents being issued for a 5 year period, with no statutory opportunity for an extension to be granted clearly reduces the corruption risks.

 

CONCLUSION

 

22     Whilst there are clearly some advantages in reducing the period in which development consents lapse to less than 5 years, it is not considered that the advantages out weight the disadvantages which have been described in this report. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council maintain its current practice of issuing development consents that lapse 5 years after the date in which it operates as prescribed in section 95(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

 

Louise Kerr

Manager Development Services

29 May 2008

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Notice of Motion 28 May 2008 re Length of Time for Validity of a Development Application

1 Page

 

2View

Section 95, 95A and Clause 114 of EP&A Act 1979

3 Pages

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

Length of Time for Validity of a Development Application

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER         15.1

SUBJECT                   Length of Time for Validity of a Development Application

REFERENCE            F2005/01043 - D00923706

REPORT OF              Councillor C E Worthington       

 

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.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

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.

 

 

 

 

 


Attachment 2

Section 95, 95A and Clause 114 of EP&A Act 1979

 



       


Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 12.1

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.1

SUBJECT                   325 Church Street, PARRAMATTA  NSW  2150. (LOT 1 DP 784451) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION          To fit out and use the existing premises as a Cafe/ Restaurant, and installation of a non-illuminated under awning sign. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE            DA/17/2008 - Submitted 9 January 2008

APPLICANT/S           Design Cubicle Pty Ltd

OWNERS                    Appwam Pty Ltd

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 17/2008 which seeks approval to fit out and use the existing premises as a café/restaurant, and installation of a non-illuminated under awning sign (2400mm x 300mm)  presenting to Church Street.

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination as the site is a

heritage item of local significance under Schedule 5 of the Parramatta City

Centre LEP 2007.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council grant consent to Development Application No.17/2008 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions.

 

1.      Hours of operation are limited to 8am to 10.30pm Sunday, Monday, Tuesday,          Wednesday, and 8am to 12am Thursday, Friday, Saturday.

          Reason:   To protect the amenity of the area.

 

2.      No entertainment is permitted on the premises which would render the    premises a Place of Public Entertainment (POPE), and for which separate      development consent is required by Council and is not conferred under the     approval of DA/17/2008.

         

          Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

         

3.      The supply and/or sale of alcohol is prohibited on the premises prior to   separate consent being obtained from the Liquor Administration Board (LAB).

 

          Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

 

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The subject site is located at 325 Church Street Parramatta (on the northern end of Church Street). The site is part of a two storey building comprising of commercial and retail units. The proposed development is for the ground floor and basement level of the unit. Access to the building is via the entrance presenting to Church Street and to the rear of the site, via the entrance adjoining a Council car park.  The site is surrounded by commercial and retail development including a take away food shop, a Mediterranean restaurant adjacent to the site, and the Brand Smart factory outlet shopping complex located directly opposite the site.

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.      The application seeks approval for the following works:

 

2.1         To use the existing premises as a Café/Restaurant.

 

2.2         Internal fit out of the existing premises on the basement and ground floor to facilitate use as a Café/restaurant.

 

2.3         Installation of a mechanical exhaust air system.

 

2.4         Installation of a non-illuminated under awning sign (2400mm width x 300mm height) presenting to Church Street.

 

2.5         The business proposed to operate with a maximum four (4) employees and cater for a maximum of 132 customers (including indoor and outdoor seating), seven (7) days a week (8:00am – 10:30pm Sunday- Wednesday; and 8am-3am to Thursday-Saturday).

 

2.6         It is noted that Development Consent No. 1735/2003 granted approval to outdoor dining in front of this building. The approved outdoor dining area is 21.06m² (3.9m x 5.4m) for 12 tables, 48 chairs, 4 advertising borders and 42 temporary umbrellas. The applicant is intending to use the approved outdoor dining area with this approved use.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

3.      Development Application 14454/1992 was approved on 17 August 1992 for the use of the premises as an Indian Restaurant.

 

3.1         Development Application 115/1998 was approved on 13 November 1998 for the use of the basement area of the existing building for the purpose of dining.

 

3.2         Development Application 1735/2003 was approved on 15 December 2003 for the provision of outdoor dining adjacent to this site.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

 

4.         The site is located upon land within Zone B4 Mixed Use and under the provisions of the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 the use of the premises as a restaurant with associated signage is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development is considered to satisfy the relevant zone objectives.

 

CONSULTATION

 

5.         In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, owners and occupiers of surrounding properties were given notice of the application from January 2008 to February 2008. No submissions were received.

 

6.        Amended plans were requested on 4 February to clarify the intended use of the property. It was advised that all plans submitted to Council were to be labelled to correctly indicate the intended uses and services proposed to be provided on the premises.

 

6.1           Revised plans were submitted to Council on 9 April which suitably addressed the concerns raised regarding the use of the site and services proposed to be provided.

 

6.2           The amended plans were re-notified in accordance with Council’s Notification DCP for a period of 14 days from the April 2008 to May 2008. No submissions were received.

 

ISSUES

 

Heritage

 

7.         The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment as the building is listed as a Heritage Item of local significance under schedule 5 of the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007.

 

7.1       Council’s Heritage Advisor has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions of consent, given that the proposed works will not impact upon elements of Heritage significance.  

 

7.2       The comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor include:

 

‘The current application is for the fit-out of an existing shop at 325 Church Street, Parramatta.  The application documents explicitly state that no structural elements of the place will be affected.  The application is thus to modify only the existing finishes and previous fit-out, which are all of recent date and little significance.

The DA proposal includes signage, which is a replacement of the existing light-box sign with a new one of approximate dimensions.  The currently proposed sign is thus, in my opinion, within the acceptable limits. 

The current application does not include any changes to the external exhaust system including the chimney and thus any proposed changes will require further development consent.’

 

Noise

 

8.         The proposed use of a restaurant will have minimal impact on the surrounding properties in regard to noise generated from the use of the site. Given the locality of the subject site within the city centre the noise emitted from the restaurant will be consistent with the surrounding development and not create undue noise impacts on both the built and natural environment. Furthermore, the subject site is not located on or adjoining residential development.

 

Health

 

9.         The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer who has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions of consent.

 

Parking

 

10.      The proposed works will not increase the existing floor area, therefore additional car parking provisions are not required under the LEP. Furthermore, the site is located within the Parramatta City Centre which provides for generous car parking (including a Council Car park to the rear of the site) and public transport facilities within close proximity.

 

Signage

 

11.      The proposed signage is considered to be compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of the area. The proposed signage provides effective identification of the business and the nominated materials submitted with the DA respects the heritage significance of the subject site whilst allowing easy identification within the locality.

 

Strategic Analyst, Crime and Corruption Prevention

 

12.      The development application was referred to Council’s Strategic Analyst, Crime and Corruption Prevention Officer as it relates to a land use in which a Liquor License may be obtained from the NSW Licensing Court. The Officer raised concerns regarding the late night trading hours to 3am and has recommended trading hours be reduced to Monday to Thursday, 7 am to 10:30 p.m.  Friday, Saturday & Sunday extended trading to 1 am.

 

12.1       Not withstanding the comments provided by the Strategic Analyst regarding trading hours, it is considered appropriate to reduce the trading hours further than that suggested. Consent is being sought for the use of the site as a restaurant. It is not clear from the application why the applicant is seeking trading hours to 3am for a restaurant use. It is reasonable for the trading hours to be limited to 8am to 10:30pm Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and 8am to 12am Thursday, Friday and Saturday. These trading hours are consistent with the trading hours of other approved restaurants in the vicinity of the site, and are consistent with standard trading hours for restaurant uses.

 

Engineering

 

13.      The development application was referred to Council’s drainage engineer who provided the following comment:

 

There is potential for flood inundation to the rear of the site from the river.

 

As per further investigation the flood levels are:

6.45m AHD for 1 in 20yrs

7.6m AHD for 1 in 100yrs

 

Approximate levels of the carpark in front of the site are 7.42m, as obtained from Council’s Stormwater Catchment management.

It was observed that the finish floor level of the shop is 8 brick layers above the carpark surface (600mm approx.), giving an approximate level of 8.0m AHD.

 

In conclusion, the finish floor level of the shop has enough freeboard above the 1 in 100year flood level and is therefore not affected by flood.

 

13.1    Therefore, Council’s Drainage Engineer has no objection to the proposal subject to standard conditions.

 

Property Management

 

14.      The development application was referred to Council’s property manager who provided the following comment:

 

‘The Outdoor Dining area shown on the plan has already been approved under D/A 1735/2003 = 21.06m2 (3.9m X 5.4m) for (12) tables, (48) chairs, (4) advertising borders and (2) temporary umbrella.’

 

14.1    Therefore, Council’s Property Manager has no objection to the proposal subject to standard conditions and the extraordinary condition that outdoor dining provisions are to be consistent with the conditions imposed under DA/1735/2003.

 

15.      Therefore, the proposed change of use will have a minimal impact on the amenity of the area and satisfies the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use Zone.

 

 

 

Lina Dababneh

Development and Certification Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans and Elevations

3 Pages

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

3View

History of DA

1 Page

 

4View

Heritage Inventory Sheet

2 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Plans and Elevations

 



 


Attachment 2

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 3

History of DA

 

 


Attachment 4

Heritage Inventory Sheet

 


 


Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 12.2

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.2

SUBJECT                   19 Garland Avenue, EPPING  NSW  2121. (Lot C DP 378599) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Demolition of the existing dwelling including ancillary structures, and the construction of a new dwelling. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE            DA/739/2007 - 10 September 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mr S P Ng

OWNERS                    Mr S P Ng

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 739/2007 which seeks consent for the demolition of the existing dwelling including ancillary structures, and the construction of a new 2 storey dwelling.

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No.739/2007 subject to standard conditions

 

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

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.         The subject site is located on the northern side of Garland Avenue. The site is irregular in shape, has a frontage of 15.24m to Garland Avenue, a rear boundary of 17.325, side boundary lengths of 40.845m and 49.075m, and an area of 685.2m². A single storey dwelling with attached carport is currently located on the site.

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.         The applicant is seeking approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling including ancillary structures, and the construction of a new 2 storey dwelling. The following works are proposed:

 

2.1       Demolition of the existing dwelling and carport

 

2.2       Construction of a 2 storey dwelling comprising of 3 bedrooms, kitchen, family/dining room, study and double garage 

 

2.3       Construction of a 1.2m high timber picket front fence

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

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

 

CONSULTATION

 

3.         In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application from 9 October 2007 to 23 October 2007.

 

4.         The applicant sought design amendments at their own accord and submitted amended plans on 22 October 2007 and these were renotified from 23 November 2007 to 7 December 2007. The changes included:

 

4.1       Addition of a pergola over the rear patio on both the eastern and western elevation of the dwelling

4.2       3 windows added to the first floor of the dwelling along the western elevation of the dwelling

4.3       Replacement of the hipped roof with a pitched roof on the rear elevation

4.4       increased sill height to ground floor windows along the eastern elevation of the dwelling

 

5.         In response 6 submissions were received during both notification periods. Issues raised in the submissions are discussed below:

 

Proposal is out of character with existing streetscape

 

6.         Concern is raised regarding the proposed 2 storey dwelling being out of character with the local area and inconsistent with the existing streetscape for the following reasons:

 

6.1       the majority of dwellings within Garland Avenue are single storey in height

6.2       bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling

6.3       the overall design, such as the front façade, garage door, materials and internal void do not fit within the existing streetscape

 

7.         The character of the existing area consists of single and two storey dwelling houses along Garland Ave, being predominantly brick and tile developments. In addition, there is a multi-unit development comprising of 11 units located at No. 11 Garland Ave.

 

8.         The proposed dwelling has been designed to compliment the streetscape given the external materials and finishes, which include terracotta roof tiles with light brown brick facades. In addition, the side elevations of the dwelling have been stepped to articulate the development, including the rear portion of the first floor level to minimise bulk and scale. A Juliet balcony has been incorporated in the design to minimise bulk and scale and provide a ‘balanced’ design to the front façade. In addition, a proposed 1.2m high timber picket front fence continues what is a common element along Garland Ave, and therefore compliments the existing streetscape.

 

9.         The following amendments have been made since the lodgement of the application in order to suitably address issues relating to the streetscape:

9.1       a Juliet balcony has been incorporated to balance the front elevation

9.2       a single highlight window, with a sill height of 1.5m, which is replacing two 900mm x 750mm windows located within the first floor bedroom along the eastern elevation of the dwelling

9.3       reduction in overall height of the dwelling by 350mm

9.4       decreasing the roof pitch from 35degrees to 32degrees

 

10.      Furthermore the proposed front setback of the development respects the development pattern within this section of Garland Ave therefore, the proposed 2 storey dwelling will not dominate or detract from the streetscape within this section of Garland Ave.

 

Epping Conservation Area

 

11.      Concern is raised that this street has been included in the future Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2008 as an extension of the existing Eastwood/ Epping Heritage Conservation Area, and therefore the proposed development should be more sympathetic to existing dwellings.

 

12.      It is noted that Garland Ave has been identified within the future Epping Heritage/Conservation area, however the proposed Local Environmental Plan 2008 has not been placed on public exhibition, and is not therefore a matter for consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

13.      Notwithstanding this, it is considered the proposed dwelling has been designed to compliment the streetscape and the character of the area given the external materials and finishes, which include terracotta roof tiles with light brown brick facades. In this regard the proposed 2 storey dwelling will not dominate or detract from the streetscape within this section of Garland Ave and will suitably address the desired objectives of the identified future conservation areas.

 

Compliance with planning controls

 

14.      Concern is raised that the proposed dwelling fails to comply with Parramatta DCP2005 and Parramatta LEP2001.

 

15.      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.

 

Privacy and overlooking

 

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

 

17.      Plans submitted with the application indicate that the first floor windows of the proposed dwelling are associated with bedrooms and the stairwell. These rooms are low trafficable areas and there will be minimal opportunities for overlooking into adjoining properties as the east elevation comprises of a highlight window with a sill height of 1.5m and the western elevation comprises of 2 windows with a minimal width of 750mm.

 

18.      The Juliet balcony is located to the front of the dwelling and has been incorporated in the architectural design to minimise bulk/ and scale.  Given the size and location of the balcony, there will be minimal opportunity for overlooking.

 

ON-SITE MEETING

 

19.      Council at its meeting on 9 July 2007 resolved that all development application with 5 or more objections be subject to a site inspection prior to determination at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

20.      In accordance with the above resolution an on site meeting was held on Tuesday 18 March 2008, commencing at 6pm.

 

21.      Present at the meeting were Clr Lorraine Wearne (Chairperson), approximately 7 residents, 2 representatives of the applicant and Council staff member Brad Delapierre. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Bulk and Scale

 

22.      Residents expressed concern about the bulk and scale of the proposal and its 2 storey height. It was indicated that a 2 storey building is out of character as the majority of dwellings within Garland Avenue are single storey in nature.

 

23.      The applicant advised that the proposal as submitted was a modest proposal and if a single level dwelling was proposed it would not comply with Council’s rear setback and deep soil controls.

 

24.      The applicant was also asked whether they would consider the following options:

 

24.1    relocating the first floor further back on the site, potentially deleting the portion of the house that contains the cathedral ceiling

24.2    reducing the roof pitch to lower the overall ridge height of the development

24.3    lowering the proposal by reducing floor to ceiling heights, particularly at the front of the site.

 

25.      The applicant indicated that the owner of the property was an architect who was proud of his design that minimises the impact of the development on adjoining properties and he considers it unlikely that he will want to modify the design. Notwithstanding this, the applicant stated that he would liaise with his client on these issues.

 

Heritage

 

26.      Residents advised that this street has been included in the future Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2008 as an extension of the existing Eastwood/ Epping Heritage Conservation Area. Given this it was considered that this development should be more sympathetic to existing dwellings and less like a “McMansion”.

 

27.      Residents advised that this could be achieved by increasing the front setback of the dwelling and providing a verandah that fronted the street.

 

28.      The applicant advised that this development was compatible with adjoining and nearby dwellings.

 

Privacy and Overlooking

 

29.      Objectors raised concern that the development would provide opportunity for overlooking into adjoining properties, from the first floor windows.

 

30.      The plans submitted with the application indicate that the first floor windows of the proposed dwelling are associated with bedrooms and the stairwell 

.

30.1         These rooms are low trafficable areas and there will be minimal opportunities for overlooking into adjoining properties as the east elevation comprises of a highlight window with a sill height of 1.5m and the western elevation comprises of 2 windows with a minimal width of 750mm.

 

Extent of First Floor

 

31.      A Councillor questioned whether the void to the rear of the first floor was capable of being converted to habitable floor area. In this regard the void area is not considered floor area under DCP2005, and the intent of the void area with fixed windows is to allow natural light to the dwelling.  The void is an architectural design and therefore is not considered as usable floor area.

 

Garage Width

 

32.      Concern was raised that the garage door dominates the front façade and may not comply with the controls contained within Council’s Development control Plan.

 

33.      The applicant advised that the garage width complied with Council’s controls and will not detract from the streetscape.

 

Old plans on website

 

34.      Concern was raised that the latest amended plan were not available for viewing on Councils Online Tracking program.  In response to this comment this matter is to be pursued upon return to the office.  In this regard the plans are available online.

 

35.      The meeting concluded at 6:45pm with all parties being advised that a report on the application may be considered at the Council meeting on 12 May 2008.

 

36.    The proposed new 2 storey dwelling satisfies the objectives of the residential 2(a) zone. The modifications have suitably addressed the issues raised by the objectors and the development responds to the character of the area and the surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

Nicholas Clarke

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

2View

Table of Compliance

1 Page

 

3View

Plans, elevations and shadow diagrams

9 Pages

 

4View

On-Site Meeting Memo

3 Pages

 

5View

Application History

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 2

Table of Compliance

 

 


Attachment 3

Plans, elevations and shadow diagrams

 









 


Attachment 4

On-Site Meeting Memo

 



 


Attachment 5

Application History

 

 


Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 12.3

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.3

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Proposed Lot 2) (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 2. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE            DA/1018/2007 - Submitted 23 November 2007

APPLICANT/S           Defence Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defence Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To provide Councillors with a response to the resolution of Council at its meeting on 12 May 2008 and to determine Development Application No. 1018/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed Lot 2.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council grant a deferred commencement consent to Development Application No. 1018/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions.

 

Schedule 1

 

i) An operational consent will be issued once the subdivision approved under DA/993/2004 is registered by the Land and Property Information and evidence of this is submitted to Council.

 

Schedule 2

 

i) Landscaping is to be provided along the full 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 minimum 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 proposed privacy screen on the rear elevation of the patio shall be extended across to the window that serves the family area on the ground floor of the dwelling. Amended plans reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

iii) The sill height of any window servicing the bathroom, WC and stairwell on the first floor rear elevation is to be raised to a 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.

 

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

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.         At the regulatory Council meeting of 12 May 2008 Council considered a report which recommended approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 2. At this meeting the following was resolved;

 

(a)       “That the items 15, 16 and 17 of Development Applications relating to Lots 2, 3 and 4 of 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas be deferred to the next Council Meeting (Regulatory) and in the meantime, a meeting be held between interested Councillors, 3 representatives of the local residents, the applicant and staff, such meeting to be held on Wednesday 21 May 2008 at 5.30pm in the Council Chambers Building.”

 

2.         A meeting was held between Council staff, the applicant and several residents on 21 May 2008 to discuss the application and Council’s resolution of 12 May 2008. In the meeting, Council staff advised the applicant of concerns raised by objectors and the resolution of Council. The applicant advised Council staff that they would amend the proposal to extend the privacy screen across to the family area window and increase sill heights on first floor windows servicing the stairwell and wet areas to a height of 1.5 metres.

 

 

APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION

 

3.         The applicant has provided a written response to Council in relation to the Council resolution of 12 May 2008

 

4.         The applicant, in a letter dated 27 May 2008, stated that they intend to incorporate additional privacy measures to the rear of the dwellings proposed on lots 2-9. In addition, an amended elevation plan was submitted for lot 2 which shows the privacy screen extending across to the window servicing the family area at the rear (Refer to attachment 1 of this report).

 

5.         As the applicant has addressed privacy concerns, the application is now referred back to Council for determination.

 

 

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

 

Attachments:

1View

Amended Rear Elevation Plan

1 Page

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

3View

Applicants Correspondence dated 27 May 2008

2 Pages

 

4View

Council Report for 12 May 2008 Regulatory Council Meeting

13 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Amended Rear Elevation Plan

 

 


Attachment 2

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 3

Applicants Correspondence dated 27 May 2008

 


 


Attachment 4

Council Report for 12 May 2008 Regulatory Council Meeting

 













 


Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 12.4

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.4

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Proposed 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 provide Councillors with a response to the resolution of Council at its meeting on 12 May 2008 and to determine Development Application No. 1014/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed Lot 3.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

a)      That Council grant a deferred commencement consent to Development Application No. 1014/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions.

 

Schedule 1

 

i) An operational consent will be issued once the subdivision approved under DA/993/2004 is registered by the Land and Property Information and evidence of this is submitted to Council.

 

Schedule 2

 

i) Landscaping is to be provided along the full 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 minimum 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 proposed privacy screen on the rear elevation of the patio shall be extended across to the window that serves the family area on the ground floor of the dwelling. Amended plans reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

iii) The sill height of any window servicing the bathroom, WC and stairwell on the first floor rear elevation is to be raised to a 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.

 

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

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.         At the regulatory Council meeting of 12 May 2008 Council considered a report which recommended approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 2. At this meeting the following was resolved;

 

(a)       “That the items 15, 16 and 17 of Development Applications relating to Lots 2, 3 and 4 of 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas be deferred to the next Council Meeting (Regulatory) and in the meantime, a meeting be held between interested Councillors, 3 representatives of the local residents, the applicant and staff, such meeting to be held on Wednesday 21 May 2008 at 5.30pm in the Council Chambers Building.”

 

2.         A meeting was held between Council staff, the applicant and several residents on 21 May 2008 to discuss the application and Council’s resolution of 12 May 2008. In the meeting, Council staff advised the applicant of concerns raised by objectors and the resolution of Council. The applicant advised Council staff that they would amend the proposal to extend the privacy screen across to the family area window and increase the sill heights on first floor windows servicing the stairwell and wet areas to a height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level.

 

APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION

 

3.         The applicant has provided a written response to Council in relation to the Council resolution of 12 May 2008

 

4.         The applicant, in a letter dated 27 May 2008, stated that they intend to incorporate additional privacy measures to the rear of the dwellings proposed on lots 2-9. These measures to the rear of the dwelling include extending the privacy screen across to the family area window and increasing sill heights on first floor windows servicing the stairwell and wet areas to a height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level.

 

5.         As the applicant has addressed privacy concerns, the application is now referred back to Council for determination.

 

 

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

 

Attachments:

1View

Correspondence by Applicant dated 27 May 2008

2 Pages

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

3View

Council Report for 12 May 2008 Regulotory Council Meeting

14 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Correspondence by Applicant dated 27 May 2008

 


 


Attachment 2

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 3

Council Report for 12 May 2008 Regulotory Council Meeting

 














 


Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 12.5

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.5

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Proposed 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

Defence Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To provide Councillors with a response to the resolution of Council at its meeting on 12 May 2008 and to determine Development Application No. 1017/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed Lot 4.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

a)      That Council grant a deferred commencement consent to Development Application No. 1017/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions.

 

Schedule 1

 

i) An operational consent will be issued once the subdivision approved under DA/993/2004 is registered by the Land and Property Information and evidence of this is submitted to Council.

 

Schedule 2

 

i) Landscaping is to be provided along the full 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 minimum 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 proposed privacy screen on the rear elevation of the patio shall be extended across to the window that serves the family area on the ground floor of the dwelling. Amended plans reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

iii) The sill height of any window servicing the bathroom, WC and stairwell on the first floor rear elevation is to be raised to a 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.

 

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

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.         At the regulatory Council meeting of 12 May 2008 Council considered a report which recommended approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 4. At this meeting the following was resolved;

 

(a)       “That the items 15, 16 and 17 of Development Applications relating to Lots 2, 3 and 4 of 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas be deferred to the next Council Meeting (Regulatory) and in the meantime, a meeting be held between interested Councillors, 3 representatives of the local residents, the applicant and staff, such meeting to be held on Wednesday 21 May 2008 at 5.30pm in the Council Chambers Building.”

 

2.         A meeting was held between Council staff, the applicant and several residents on 21 May 2008 to discuss the application and Council’s resolution of 12 May 2008. In the meeting, Council staff advised the applicant of concerns raised by objectors and the resolution of Council. The applicant advised Council staff that they would amend the proposal to extend the privacy screen across to the family area window and increase the sill heights on first floor windows servicing the stairwell and wet areas to a height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level.

 

 

APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION

 

3.         The applicant has provided a written response to Council in relation to the Council resolution of 12 May 2008

 

4.         The applicant, in a letter dated 27 May 2008, stated that they intend to incorporate additional privacy measures to the rear of the dwellings proposed on lots 2-9. These measures to the rear of the dwelling include extending the privacy screen across to the family area window and increasing sill heights on first floor windows servicing the stairwell and wet areas to a height of 1.5 metres above finished floor level.

 

5.         As the applicant has addressed privacy concerns, the application is now referred back to Council for determination.

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

 

Attachments:

1View

Correspondence by Applicant dated 27 May 2008

2 Pages

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

3View

Council Report for 12 May 2008 Regulatory Meeting

13 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Attachment 1

Correspondence by Applicant dated 27 May 2008

 


 


Attachment 2

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 3

Council Report for 12 May 2008 Regulatory Meeting

 













 


Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 12.6

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.6

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 5). (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 5. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE            DA/1015/2007 - Submitted 23 November 2007

APPLICANT/S           Defence Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defence Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 1015/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed Lot 5.

 

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. 1015/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions.

 

Schedule 1

 

i) An operational consent will be issued once the subdivision approved under DA/993/2004 is registered by the Land and Property Information and evidence of this is submitted to Council.

 

Schedule 2

 

i) Landscaping is to be provided along the full 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 minimum 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 proposed privacy screen on the rear elevation of the patio shall be extended across to the window that serves the family area on the ground floor of the dwelling. Amended plans reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

iii) The sill height of any window servicing the bathroom, WC and stairwell on the first floor rear elevation is to be raised to a 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.

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Council’s 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 relate 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) were 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) were deferred pending a redesign of the proposed dual occupancy development.

 

6.      At the 12 May 2008 Regulatory Council meeting, applications relating to Lot  24 (DA/1110/2007), Lot 25 (DA/131/2008) and Lot 26 (DA/972/2007) were approved while applications relating to Lot 2 (DA/1018/2007), Lot 3 (DA/1014/2007) and Lot 4 (DA/1017/2007) were deferred for further a meeting between the Applicant, Residents, Councillors and Council staff to be held at Council on Wednesday 21 May 2008.

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

7.         The subject site is proposed Lot 5 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.

 

8.         The proposed dwelling is to be located to the south of the internal road within the subdivision. Proposed lot 5 is irregular in shape, with a frontage to the new road of 19.55 metres, a depth of approximately 28 metres and a total site area of 550m2. The site slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 4 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

 

9.         Development Application No. 1015/2007 seeks approval for the following:

 

9.1           Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 5.

 

9.2           The proposed dwelling will comprise of four bedrooms, living area, dining area, kitchen, bathroom, laundry and attached double garage.

 

9.3           A maximum of 800mm of fill and 1100mm of cut is proposed

 

9.4           A privacy screen is proposed to the rear patio.

 

9.5           900mm retaining wall to the rear of the site

 

9.6           1.8 metre high lapped and capped timber fencing to the rear and side boundaries

 

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

10.       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

 

11.       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

 

12.       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.

 

13.      Amended plans were submitted by the applicant on the 22 January 2008 as a result of a site meeting held between the applicant and surrounding residents to resolve issues in relation to privacy and overlooking. The plan details the provision of a privacy screen to the rear patio of the proposed dwelling and increased sill heights to the first floor windows. The modification to the proposal did not require re-notification.

 

Overshadowing

 

14.   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 more than the minimum requirement of solar access.

 

 

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

 

15.       Amended plans include 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. A condition of consent will require that the louvered privacy screen be extended across to the rear window servicing the family room at ground 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.

 

16.       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 8.2 metres and a first floor which is stepped in 2.9 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

 

17.      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

 

18.      The pad levels for the site were approved under DA/993/2004. Lot 5 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 41.00. The proposed ground floor level is RL 41.82, which is approximately 820mm 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 into the design of the dwelling, in particular a louvered privacy screen to the rear patio, increased 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 2.9 metres to maximise building separation and reduce potential privacy and bulk impacts. Therefore the proposed privacy measures will suitably address the privacy concerns raised in relation to the increase in pad level heights as approved under DA/993/2004/B.

 

Bulk and scale

 

19.      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 800mm 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 0.45:1, which is below the maximum FSR of 0.5:1 permitted for dwelling houses. The development provides sufficient setbacks and in conjunction with landscaping, will minimise the perceived bulk and scale of the dwelling when viewed from neighbouring properties.

 

On-site Meeting

 

20.       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.

 

21.       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

 

22.       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 at the lack of consultation regarding the intensity of the development. Residents claimed that they were mislead, since 27 lots were approved, but 40 dwellings have now been proposed.

 

23.       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 has revealed that the building footprints are consistent with the proposed developments on the respective lots. In addition, a perusal of Council records has 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

 

24.       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.

 

25.      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

 

26.       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.

 

27.       Council advised that the decision to lodge the proposed developments as individual applications rested with the applicant. Council advised residents that issues raised in each application will be assessed individually by Council Officers.

 

Overshadowing

 

28.       Concern was raised in regards to potential for overshadowing on adjoining properties.

 

29.       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

 

30.       Residents raised concerns that due to the density of the overall development, it would result in increased traffic congestion in the area.

 

31.       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

 

32.       Residents raised concerns in regards to the modification application that approved the increase in pad levels.

 

33.       Residents also raised concerns to the notification process of the section 96 application which prevented residents from lodging a submission.

 

34.       Council informed the residents that once an approval to an application is granted, the consent cannot be revoked.

 

35.       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

 

36.    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.

 

37.    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.

 

38.    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.

 

39.    The proposed dwelling is a BASIX affected development for which a BASIX certificate has been provided and the 2.7m minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect. There are no other potential impacts associated with the floor to ceiling height of 2.4 metres.

 

 

Rear Setback

 

40.    The proposed rear setback is 8.2 metres or 29% which is a shortfall of approximately 140mm 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

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans & Elevations

3 Pages

 

2View

Locality 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

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 3

Numerical Compliance Table

 

 


Attachment 4

Subdivision Plan of Approved Development & Subject Lot

 

 


Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 12.7

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.7

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 6) (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 6. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE            DA/1016/2007 - Submitted 23 November 2007

APPLICANT/S           Defence Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defence Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 1016/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed Lot 6.

 

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. 1016/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions.

 

Schedule 1

 

i) An operational consent will be issued once the subdivision approved under DA/993/2004 is registered by the Land and Property Information and evidence of this is submitted to Council.

 

Schedule 2

 

i) Landscaping is to be provided along the full 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 minimum 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 proposed privacy screen on the rear elevation of the patio shall be extended across to the window that serves the family area on the ground floor of the dwelling. Amended plans reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

iii) The sill height of any window servicing the bathroom, WC and stairwell on the first floor rear elevation is to be raised to a 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.

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Council’s 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 relate 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) were 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) were deferred pending a redesign of the proposed dual occupancy development.

 

6.      At the 12 May 2008 Regulatory Council meeting, applications relating to Lot  24 (DA/1110/2007), Lot 25 (DA/131/2008) and Lot 26 (DA/972/2007) were approved while applications relating to Lot 2 (DA/1018/2007), Lot 3 (DA/1014/2007) and Lot 4 (DA/1017/2007) were deferred for further a meeting between the Applicant, Residents, Councillors and Council staff to be held at Council on Wednesday 21 May 2008.

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

7.         The subject site is proposed Lot 6 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.

 

8.         The proposed dwelling is to be located to the south of the internal road within the subdivision. Proposed lot 6 is irregular in shape, with a frontage to the new road of 21.3 metres, a depth of approximately 28 metres and a total site area of 550m2. The site slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 4.5 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

 

9.         Development Application No. 1016/2007 seeks approval for the following:

 

9.1           Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 6.

 

9.2           The proposed dwelling will comprise of four bedrooms, living area, dining area, kitchen, bathroom, laundry and attached double garage.

 

9.3           A maximum of 1000mm of fill and 800mm of cut is proposed

 

9.4           A privacy screen is proposed to the rear patio.

 

9.5           900mm retaining wall to the rear of the site

 

9.6           1.8 metre high lapped and capped timber fencing to the rear and             side boundaries

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

10.       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

 

11.       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

 

12.       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.

 

13.      Amended plans were submitted by the applicant on the 22 January 2008 as a result of a site meeting held between the applicant and surrounding residents to resolve issues in relation to privacy and overlooking. The plan details the provision of a privacy screen to the rear patio of the proposed dwelling and increased sill heights to the first floor windows. The modification to the proposal did not require re-notification.

 

Overshadowing

 

14.   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 more than the minimum requirement of solar access.

 

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

 

15.       Amended plans include 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. A condition of consent will require that the louvered privacy screen be extended across to the rear window servicing the family room at ground 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.

 

16.       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 9.4 metres and a first floor which is stepped in 4.6 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

 

17.      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

 

18.      The pad levels for the site were approved under DA/993/2004. Lot 6 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 42.27. The proposed ground floor level is RL 43.08, 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 into the design of the dwelling, in particular a louvered privacy screen to the rear patio, increased 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 4.6 metres to maximise building separation and reduce potential privacy and bulk impacts. Therefore the proposed privacy measures will suitably address privacy concerns raised in relation to the increase in pad level heights as approved under DA/993/2004/B.

 

Bulk and scale

 

19.      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 800mm of excavation and 1100mm 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 0.45:1, which is below the maximum FSR of 0.5:1 permitted for dwelling houses. The development provides sufficient setbacks and in conjunction with landscaping, will minimise the perceived bulk and scale of the dwelling when viewed from neighbouring properties.

 

On-site Meeting

 

20.       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.

 

21.       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

 

22.       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 at the lack of consultation regarding the intensity of the development. Residents claimed that they were mislead, since 27 lots were approved, but 40 dwellings have now been proposed.

 

23.       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 has revealed that the building footprints are consistent with the proposed developments on the respective lots. In addition, a perusal of Council records has 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

 

24.       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.

 

25.      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 raised sill heights 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

 

26.       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.

 

27.       Council advised that the decision to lodge the proposed developments as individual applications rested with the applicant. Council advised residents that issues raised in each application will be assessed individually by Council Officers.

 

Overshadowing

 

28.       Concern was raised in regards to potential for overshadowing on adjoining properties.

 

29.       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

 

30.       Residents raised concerns that due to the density of the overall development, it would result in increased traffic congestion in the area.

 

31.       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

 

32.       Residents raised concerns in regards to the modification application that approved the increase in pad levels.

 

33.       Residents also raised concerns to the notification process of the section 96 application which prevented residents from lodging a submission.

 

34.       Council informed the residents that once an approval to an application is granted, the consent cannot be revoked.

 

35.       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

 

36.    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.

 

37.    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.

 

38.    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.

 

39.    The proposed dwelling is a BASIX affected development for which a BASIX certificate has been provided and the 2.7m minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect. There are no other potential impacts associated with the floor to ceiling height of 2.4 metres.

 

 

 

 

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans & Elevations

3 Pages

 

2View

Locality 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

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 3

Numerical Compliance Table

 

 


Attachment 4

Subdivision Plan of Approved Development & Subject Lot

 

 


Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 12.8

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.8

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 7) (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 7. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE            DA/10/2008 - Submitted 8 January 2008

APPLICANT/S           Defence Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defence Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 10/2008 which seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed Lot 7.

 

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. 10/2008 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions.

 

Schedule 1

 

i)  An operational consent will be issued once the subdivision approved under DA/993/2004 is registered by the Land and Property Information and evidence of this is submitted to Council.

 

Schedule 2

 

i)  Landscaping is to be provided along the full 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 minimum 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 proposed privacy screen on the rear elevation of the patio shall be extended across to the window that serves the family area on the ground floor of the dwelling. Amended plans reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

iii) The sill height of any window servicing the bathroom, WC and stairwell on the first floor rear elevation is to be raised to a 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.

 

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Council’s 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 relate 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) were 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) were deferred pending a redesign of the proposed dual occupancy development.

 

6.      At the 12 May 2008 Regulatory Council meeting, applications relating to Lot  24 (DA/1110/2007), Lot 25 (DA/131/2008) and Lot 26 (DA/972/2007) were approved while applications relating to Lot 2 (DA/1018/2007), Lot 3 (DA/1014/2007) and Lot 4 (DA/1017/2007) were deferred for further a meeting between the Applicant, Residents, Councillors and Council staff to be held at Council on Wednesday 21 May 2008.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

7.         The subject site is proposed Lot 7 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.

 

8.         The proposed dwelling is to be located to the south of the internal road within the subdivision. Proposed lot 7 is irregular in shape, with a frontage to the new road of 21.61 metres, a depth of approximately 29 metres and a total site area of 550m2. The site slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 3 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

 

9.         Development Application No. 10/2008 seeks approval for the following:

 

9.1           Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 7.

 

9.2           The proposed dwelling will comprise of four bedrooms, living area, dining area, kitchen, bathroom, laundry and attached double garage.

 

9.3           A maximum of 300mm of fill and 700mm of cut is proposed

 

9.4           A privacy screen is proposed to the rear patio.

 

9.5           1.8 metre high lapped and capped timber fencing to the rear and             side boundaries

 

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

10.       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

 

11.       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

 

12.       In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 24 January 2008 to 7 February 2008. In response, seven individual submissions and one petition with 21 signatures was received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

13.      Amended plans were submitted by the applicant on the 22 January 2008 as a result of a site meeting held between the applicant and surrounding residents to resolve issues in relation to privacy and overlooking. The plan details the provision of a privacy screen to the rear patio of the proposed dwelling and increased sill heights to the first floor windows. The modification to the proposal did not require re-notification.

 

 

Overshadowing

 

14.   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 more than the minimum requirement of solar access.

 

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

 

15.       Amended plans include 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. A condition of consent will require that the louvered privacy screen be extended across to the rear window servicing the family room at ground 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.

 

 

16.       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 10.6 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

 

17.      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

 

18.      The pad levels for the site were approved under DA/993/2004. Lot 5 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 43.00. The proposed ground floor level is RL 44.07, which is approximately 1007mm 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 into the design of the dwelling, in particular a louvered privacy screen to the rear patio, increased 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 privacy concerns raised in relation to the increase in pad level heights as approved under DA/993/2004/B.

 

Bulk and scale

 

19.      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 300mm 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 0.44:1, which is below the maximum FSR of 0.5:1 permitted for dwelling houses. The development provides sufficient setbacks and in conjunction with landscaping, will minimise the perceived bulk and scale of the dwelling when viewed from neighbouring properties.

 

On-site Meeting

 

20.       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.

 

21.       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

 

22.       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 at the lack of consultation regarding the intensity of the development. Residents claimed that they were mislead, since 27 lots were approved, but 40 dwellings have now been proposed.

 

23.       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 has revealed that the building footprints are consistent with the proposed developments on the respective lots. In addition, a perusal of Council records has 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

 

24.       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.

 

25.      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

 

26.       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.

 

27.       Council advised that the decision to lodge the proposed developments as individual applications rested with the applicant. Council advised residents that issues raised in each application will be assessed individually by Council Officers.

 

 

Overshadowing

 

28.       Concern was raised in regards to potential for overshadowing on adjoining properties.

 

29.       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

 

30.       Residents raised concerns that due to the density of the overall development, it would result in increased traffic congestion in the area.

 

31.       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

 

32.       Residents raised concerns in regards to the modification application that approved the increase in pad levels.

 

33.       Residents also raised concerns to the notification process of the section 96 application which prevented residents from lodging a submission.

 

34.       Council informed the residents that once an approval to an application is granted, the consent cannot be revoked.

 

35.       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

 

36.    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.

 

37.    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.

 

38.    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.

 

39.    The proposed dwelling is a BASIX affected development for which a BASIX certificate has been provided and the 2.7m minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect. There are no other potential impacts associated with the floor to ceiling height of 2.4 metres.

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans & Elevations

3 Pages

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

3View

Numerical Compliance Table

1 Page

 

4View

Subdivision Plan of Approved Development and 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 and Subject Lot

 

 


Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 12.9

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.9

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 8) (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 8. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE            DA/12/2008 - Submitted 8 January 2008

APPLICANT/S           Defence Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defence Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 12/2008 which seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed Lot 8.

 

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. 12/2008 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions.

 

Schedule 1

 

i) An operational consent will be issued once the subdivision approved under DA/993/2004 is registered by the Land and Property Information and evidence of this is submitted to Council.

 

Schedule 2

 

i) Landscaping is to be provided along the full 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 minimum 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 proposed privacy screen on the rear elevation of the patio shall be extended across to the window that serves the family area on the ground floor of the dwelling. Amended plans reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

iii) The sill height of any window servicing the bathroom, WC and stairwell on the first floor rear elevation is to be raised to a 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.

 

(b)     Further, that objectors be advised of Council’s 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 relate 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) were 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) were deferred pending a redesign of the proposed dual occupancy development.

 

6.      At the 12 May 2008 Regulatory Council meeting, applications relating to Lot  24 (DA/1110/2007), Lot 25 (DA/131/2008) and Lot 26 (DA/972/2007) were approved while applications relating to Lot 2 (DA/1018/2007), Lot 3 (DA/1014/2007) and Lot 4 (DA/1017/2007) were deferred for further a meeting between the Applicant, Residents, Councillors and Council staff to be held at Council on Wednesday 21 May 2008.

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

7.         The subject site is proposed Lot 8 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.

 

8.         The proposed dwelling is to be located to the south of the internal road within the subdivision. Proposed lot 8 is irregular in shape, with a frontage to the new road of 20.34 metres, a depth of approximately 29.5 metres and a total site area of 550m2. The site slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 3 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

 

9.         Development Application No. 12/2008 seeks approval for the following:

 

9.1           Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 8.

 

9.2           The proposed dwelling will comprise of four bedrooms, living area, dining area, kitchen, bathroom, laundry and attached double garage.

 

9.3           A maximum of 200mm of fill and 900mm of cut is proposed

 

9.4           900mm retaining wall to the rear of the site

 

9.5           1.8 metre high lapped and capped timber fencing to the rear and side boundaries

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

10.       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

 

11.       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

 

12.       In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 24 January 2008 to 7 February 2008. In response, six individual submissions and one petition with 21 signatures were received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

13.      Amended plans were submitted by the applicant on the 22 January 2008 as a result of a site meeting held between the applicant and surrounding residents to resolve issues in relation to privacy and overlooking. The plan details the provision of a privacy screen to the rear patio of the proposed dwelling and increased sill heights to the first floor windows. The modification to the proposal did not require re-notification.

 

Overshadowing

 

14.   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 more than the minimum requirement of solar access.

 

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

 

15.       Amended plans include 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. A condition of consent will require that the louvered privacy screen be extended across to the rear window servicing the family room at ground 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.

 

16.       It is considered that the measures proposed and the imposition of conditions for window treatment and landscaping are appropriate responses to address privacy and overlooking. In combination with a rear setback of 10.6 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 dwelling, associated windows and patio 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

 

17.      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 Council’s Traffic Engineer in relation to traffic volume and parking generated collectively from the proposed developments on 16 Dorahy Street. Council’s 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

 

18.      The pad levels for the site were approved under DA/993/2004. Lot 8 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 43.30. The proposed ground floor level is RL 44.08, which is approximately 780mm 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 into the design of the dwelling, in particular a louvered privacy screen to the rear patio, increased 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 privacy concerns raised in relation to the increase in pad level heights as approved under DA/993/2004/B.

 

Bulk and scale

 

19.      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 900mm of excavation and 200mm 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 0.44:1, which is below the maximum FSR of 0.5:1 permitted for dwelling houses. The development provides sufficient setbacks and in conjunction with landscaping, will minimise the perceived bulk and scale of the dwelling when viewed from neighbouring properties.

 

On-site Meeting

 

20.       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.

 

21.       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

 

22.       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 at the lack of consultation regarding the intensity of the development. Residents claimed that they were mislead, since 27 lots were approved, but 40 dwellings have now been proposed.

 

23.       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 has revealed that the building footprints are consistent with the proposed developments on the respective lots. In addition, a perusal of Council records has 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

 

24.       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.

 

25.      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

 

26.       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.

 

27.       Council advised that the decision to lodge the proposed developments as individual applications rested with the applicant. Council advised residents that issues raised in each application will be assessed individually by Council Officers.

 

Overshadowing

 

28.       Concern was raised in regards to potential for overshadowing on adjoining properties.

 

29.       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

 

30.       Residents raised concerns that due to the density of the overall development, it would result in increased traffic congestion in the area.

 

31.       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

 

32.       Residents raised concerns in regards to the modification application that approved the increase in pad levels.

 

33.       Residents also raised concerns to the notification process of the section 96 application which prevented residents from lodging a submission.

 

34.       Council informed the residents that once an approval to an application is granted, the consent cannot be revoked.

 

35.       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

 

36.    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.

 

37.    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.

 

38.    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.

 

39.    The proposed dwelling is a BASIX affected development for which a BASIX certificate has been provided and the 2.7m minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect. There are no other potential impacts associated with the floor to ceiling height of 2.4 metres.

 

 

 

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans & Elevations

3 Pages

 

2View

Locality 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

Locality Map

 

 


Attachment 3

Numerical Compliance Table

 

 


Attachment 4

Subdivision Plan of Approved Development & Subject Lot

 

 


Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 12.10

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.10

SUBJECT                   16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Lot 9) (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 9.

REFERENCE            DA/11/2008 - Submitted 8 January 2008

APPLICANT/S           Defence Housing Authority

OWNERS                    Defence Housing Authority

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No.11/2008 which seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed Lot 9.

 

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. 11/2008 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions.

 

Schedule 1

 

i) An operational consent will be issued once the subdivision approved under DA/993/2004 is registered by the Land and Property Information and evidence of this is submitted to Council.

 

Schedule 2

 

i) Landscaping is to be provided along the full 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 minimum 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 proposed privacy screen on the rear elevation of the patio shall be extended across to the window that serves the family area on the ground floor of the dwelling. Amended plans reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

 

iii) The sill height of any window servicing the bathroom, WC and stairwell on the first floor rear elevation is to be raised to a 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.

 

(b)       Further, that objectors be advised of Council’s 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 relate 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) were 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) were deferred pending a redesign of the proposed dual occupancy development.

 

6.      At the 12 May 2008 Regulatory Council meeting, applications relating to Lot  24 (DA/1110/2007), Lot 25 (DA/131/2008) and Lot 26 (DA/972/2007) were approved while applications relating to Lot 2 (DA/1018/2007), Lot 3 (DA/1014/2007) and Lot 4 (DA/1017/2007) were deferred for further a meeting between the Applicant, Residents, Councillors and Council staff to be held at Council on Wednesday 21 May 2008.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

7.         The subject site is proposed Lot 9 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.

 

8.         The proposed dwelling is to be located to the south of the internal road within the subdivision. Proposed lot 9 is rectangular in shape, with a frontage to the new road of 18.64 metres, a depth of approximately 29.49 metres and a total site area of 550m2. The site slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 3 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

 

9.         Development Application No. 11/2008 seeks approval for the following:

 

9.1           Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 9.

 

9.2           The proposed dwelling will comprise of four bedrooms, living area, dining area, kitchen, bathroom, laundry and attached double garage.

 

9.3           A maximum of 300mm of fill and 500mm of cut is proposed

 

9.4           A louvered privacy screen is proposed to the rear patio.

 

9.5           900mm high retaining wall proposed at the rear

 

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

10.       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

 

11.       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

 

12.       In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 24 January 2008 to 7 February 2008. In response, seven individual submissions and one petition with 21 signatures was received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

13.       Amended plans were submitted by the applicant on the 22 January 2008 as a result of a site meeting held between the applicant and surrounding residents to resolve issues in relation to privacy and overlooking. The plan details the provision of a privacy screen to the rear patio of the proposed dwelling and increased sill heights to the first floor windows. The modification to the proposal did not require re-notification.

 

Overshadowing

 

14.   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 more than the minimum requirement of solar access.

 

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

 

15.       Amended plans include 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. A condition of consent will require that the louvered privacy screen be extended across to the rear window servicing the family room at ground 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.

 

16.       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 9.9 metres and a first floor which is stepped in 3 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 dwelling, associated windows and patio 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

 

17.      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

 

18.      The pad levels for the site were approved under DA/993/2004. Proposed Lot 9 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 43.50. The proposed ground floor level is RL 44.39, which is approximately 890mm 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 into the design of the dwelling, in particular a louvered privacy screen to the rear patio, increased 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 metres to maximise building separation and reduce potential privacy and bulk impacts. Therefore the proposed privacy measures will suitably address the privacy concerns raised in relation to the increase in pad level heights as approved under DA/993/2004/B.

 

 

Bulk and scale

 

19.      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 500mm of excavation and 300mm 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 0.45:1, which is below the maximum FSR of 0.5:1 permitted for dwelling houses. The development provides sufficient setbacks and in conjunction with landscaping, will minimise the perceived bulk and scale of the dwelling when viewed from neighbouring properties.

 

 

On-site Meeting

 

20.       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.

 

21.       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

 

22.       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 at the lack of consultation regarding the intensity of the development. Residents claimed that they were mislead, since 27 lots were approved, but 40 dwellings have now been proposed.

 

23.       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 has revealed that the building footprints are consistent with the proposed developments on the respective lots. In addition, a perusal of Council records has 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

 

24.       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.

 

25.      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

 

26.       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.

 

27.       Council advised that the decision to lodge the proposed developments as individual applications rested with the applicant. Council advised residents that issues raised in each application will be assessed individually by Council Officers.

 

Overshadowing

 

28.       Concern was raised in regards to potential for overshadowing on adjoining properties.

 

29.       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

 

30.       Residents raised concerns that due to the density of the overall development, it would result in increased traffic congestion in the area.

 

31.       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

 

32.       Residents raised concerns in regards to the modification application that approved the increase in pad levels.

 

33.       Residents also raised concerns to the notification process of the section 96 application which prevented residents from lodging a submission.

 

34.       Council informed the residents that once an approval to an application is granted, the consent cannot be revoked.

 

35.       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

 

36.    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.

 

37.    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.

 

38.    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.