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

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 12^th May 2008 Council resolved that –

The Group Manager Corporate Services bring forward a detailed report to the Ordinary Meeting of 10^th 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.

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 Site	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 Site

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 12.11

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.11

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

DESCRIPTION Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 14. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE DA/971/2007 - Submitted 9 November 2007

APPLICANT/S Defence Housing Authority

OWNERS Defence Housing Authority

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 971/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed Lot 14.

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. 971/2007 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 length of the southern boundary and shall be planted a minimum distance of 3 metres to the boundary. The landscaping shall be of an Acmena smithii var. minor species with a height of 3 metres and spaced 1.5 metres apart to provide a vegetative corridor and enhance natural screening. Amended Landscape Plans reflecting this requirement shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

ii) A fixed louvered privacy screen shall be attached along the southern elevation of the patio located on the southern side of the dwelling. The privacy screen shall have a height of 1.8 metres above the finished floor level of the patio. Details of the screen are to be provided with the Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of the PCA.

iii) Structural certification from a practising structural engineer is to be submitted with the construction certificate, indicating that the underground OSD tank has been designed to withstand the anticipated loads of the driveway.

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

BACKGROUND

1. Development Application No. 993/2004, which granted consent for tree removal and community title subdivision into 27 lots comprising of 1 common lot (containing a private road reserve) and 26 residential lots, earthworks and stormwater works, was approved under delegation on 2 September 2005. As works associated with the subdivision have yet to be completed, the subdivision has yet to be registered with the Land Titles Office.

2. Development Application No. 993/2004/A granted consent to modify the original consent, which included correcting references to the number of lots approved in Conditions 8 and 22, the addition of approved plan numbers to Condition 1 and correction of wording on Condition 10. The matter was determined under delegation on 25 November 2005.

3. Development Application No. 993/2004/B granted consent to modify the original consent, which included changing the pad levels of lots 2 to 12. The matter was determined under delegation on 1 November 2006

4. Thirteen applications have been made to Council for dual occupancy developments on the lots created by DA/993/2004. Of these 13 applications, five have been approved under delegation. These five applications 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 14 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 western side of the internal road within the subdivision. Proposed lot 14 is irregular in shape, with a frontage to the new road of 13.98 metres, a depth of approximately 41 metres and a total site area of 832m2. The site slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 2 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 and contains several mature trees along the south western corner of the site.

PROPOSAL

9. Development Application No. 971/2007 seeks approval for the following:

9.1 Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 14.

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 900mm of cut is proposed

9.4 1.8 metre high lapped and capped timber boundary fence to the rear and side elevations

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 23 November 2007 and 7 December 2007. In response, five individual submissions and one petition with 21 signatures were received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

Overshadowing

13. 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

14. The southern side of the proposed dwelling has the potential for overlooking given the fall of the subject site to Paul Street properties. To address this issue, a 1.8 metre high louvered privacy screen to the southern side of the patio will be required as a condition of consent. The first floor windows at the southern side of the dwelling service a bathroom and WC which are considered to be of low domestic use, having a minimal impact on privacy. In addition landscaping is to be provided as a condition of consent along the length of the southern boundary with a minimum distance of 3 metres from the boundary. 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.

15. It is considered that the request for a louvered privacy screen and landscaping are appropriate responses to address privacy and overlooking. In combination with a southern side setback ranging between 5.9 to 14 metres, 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.

Increase traffic volume and parking demands

16. 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

17. The pad levels for the site were approved under DA/993/2004. It is noted that the site was not affected by DA/993/2004/B to modify pad levels. The southern pad was originally approved at RL 39.40. The proposed ground floor level is RL 39.88, which is approximately 480mm above the pad level height. 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 and landscaping treatment. In addition the dwelling is setback between the range of 5.9 to 14 metres to the southern side boundary to maximise building separation and reduce potential privacy and bulk impacts. Therefore the proposed privacy measures will suitably address the privacy concerns in relation to the increase in pad level heights approved under DA/993/2004.

Bulk and scale

18. 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 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 0.25:1, 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.

Stormwater Management

19. The stormwater management system for the site was approved under DA/993/2004. The system includes several on site detention tanks capable of storing stormwater captured on site. In addition drainage swales located on the southern boundary of the subdivision have been constructed to minimise surface water runoff over downstream properties located along Paul Street. The system has been designed by Hydraulic Engineers and has been supported by Councils Drainage Engineer.

20. The subject site will provide a 5000 litre underground rainwater tank as per BASIX requirements to accommodate stormwater runoff from the dwelling. Discharge from the tank will be directed to an existing stormwater disposal outlet on site. A drainage swale is proposed on the southern boundary to collect surface runoff from the site. The drainage system will ensure the appropriate management of stormwater and will minimise stormwater runoff to neighbouring properties. An extraordinary condition will be imposed to ensure that the existing OSD system is structurally adequate to support the anticipated load of the driveway. Access to the OSD system will not be affected by location of the driveway.

On-site Meeting

21. 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.

22. 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

23. 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.

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 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

27. 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.

28. 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

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

30. 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

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

32. 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

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

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

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

36. 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

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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

41. The proposed rear setback is 8.8 metres or 24% of site depth, which is a shortfall of approximately 2.3m of PDCP 2005 requirements. The shortfall will not affect the amenity of surrounding properties given that the site adjoins St Patrick’s Marist College to the rear and responds effectively to slope conditions. The non compliance with the rear setback does not exacerbate the bulk and scale of the dwelling given the provision of a landscape corridor to the southern side of the site and a first storey which is stepped in from the rear building line by 8 metres. 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 12.12

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.12

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

DESCRIPTION Construction of a two storey dual occupancy with torrens title subdivision on proposed lot 23. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE DA/1021/2007 - Submitted 23 November 2007

APPLICANT/S Defence Housing Authority

OWNERS Defence Housing Authority

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 1021/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dual occupancy with torrens title subdivision on proposed Lot 23.

The application has been referred to Council due to receipt of a petition containing 21 signatures.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant a deferred commencement consent to Development Application No. 1021/2007 subject to standard conditions. 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.

(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 23 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 dual occupancy is to be located to the northern side of the internal road within the subdivision. Proposed lot 23 is irregular in shape, with a frontage to the new road of 24.168 metres, a depth of approximately 34 metres and a total site area of 937m2. The site slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 4 metres from the northern boundary to the southern boundary. The site is currently vacant and contains several mature trees on the western side of the site.

PROPOSAL

9. Development Application No. 1021/2007 seeks approval for the following:

9.1 Proposed construction of a two (2) storey attached dual occupancy and Torrens title subdivision of proposed Lot 23.

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 1000mm of cut is proposed

9.4 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 dual occupancies 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 to 14 December 2007. In response, three individual submissions and one petition with 21 signatures were received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

Overshadowing

13. The proposed dwelling is approximately between 50 to 200 metres from any of the objector’s property. Given the distance, the proposed dwelling on Lot 23 is not expected to create any adverse overshadowing impacts on objector’s properties.

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

14. The proposed dwelling is setback significantly from any of the objector’s property, being located approximately 50 to 200 metres away. Due to the extensive distance of the proposed dwelling from properties fronting Paul Street, the proposal would not result in a loss of privacy for adjoining properties or create opportunities for overlooking.

Increase traffic volume and parking demands

15. The approved subdivision proposes an internal road which will provide direct access to each lot within the subdivision via Dorahy Street. Each proposed dwelling will provide 2 parking spaces for occupants of the dwelling which is in accordance with Council requirements. In addition, visitor parking bays have been provided within the subdivision to limit on-street parking on Dorahy Street. It is considered that the proposal will sufficiently cater for parking demands of future residents.

Additional comment was provided by 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

16. The pad levels for the site were approved under DA/993/2004. Proposed lot 23 was not affected by the subsequent Section 96 approval for the modification of pad levels which affected Lots 2-12.

Bulk and scale

17. The proposed development is designed in accordance with Councils Development Control Plan 2005. The dwelling addresses the site conditions and forms an appropriate building envelope for the site. The development proposes a maximum of 1000mm of excavation and 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 0.38:1, which is below the maximum FSR of 0.6:1 permitted for dual occupancies. 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

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

19. In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 29 March 2008 commencing at 1:30pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Borger (chair), Councillor Chedid, Councillor Finn, Councillor Brown, Danielle Woods – Team Leader Development and Certification, James McBride – Development and Certification Officer, Denise Fernandez – Development Assessment Officer, up to 50 residents, the applicant and a representative of the owner. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

Density & Consistency with Previous Approval

20. Concern was raised in regards to the inconsistency of the collective DA’s lodged at Council with the original approved subdivision application. Concern was raised that the intensity of the development had been increased to accommodate duplexes on the southern side of the subdivision which had not been shown on the original subdivision approval. Residents were also concerned 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.

21. The representative from the Defence Housing Authority presented the residents with the approved indicative building footprint plan and explained that the development applications lodged with Council are consistent with the building envelopes approved on the original subdivision. As a result, Council has conducted further investigations comparing building footprints per the approved subdivision plan and the proposed developments and applications lodged with Council. The investigation 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

22. Concern was raised for the loss of privacy as a result of increased pad levels per DA/993/2004/B. Residents stated that during the consultation period, support was given to the initial plans by the Defence Housing Authority (DHA). However, given the increase in pad heights, the increase in the density of the development and the two storey height of the dwellings on the southern side, residents are no longer supportive of the proposal due to the adverse impacts on their privacy.

23. Council requested that the representative of DHA justify the necessity to increase the pad levels on the southern side of the subdivision. The representative for DHA explained that the pad levels were modified due to a design error resulting in driveway grades that were non compliant with Australian Standards. The representative for the applicant, Jansen Homes, stated that appropriate measures have been implemented to alleviate privacy impacts on properties that front Paul Street. These measures include the provision of privacy screens to the rear patios and obscured glazing on first floor windows to the rear of the proposed dwellings. Residents expressed their disapproval for the rationale suggesting the measures taken to limit the opportunities for overlooking were insufficient.

DA Lodgement process

24. Residents raised concerns in regards to the application process with a focus on the reasons for lodging each application for the individual lots separately. Residents queried Council staff and the applicant as to reasons for not lodging the developments proposed on 16 Dorahy Street as a whole.

25. Council advised that 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

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

27. Council staff clarified that Council controls require a minimum of 3 hours of solar access to adjoining properties on the 21 June. It was noted that the minimum requirement of solar access has been achieved by the proposed developments.

Traffic

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

29. A resident clarified that during the Land and Environment Court hearing for DA/209/2003 for a proposed 61 lot subdivision, whilst the application was refused, the issue of an increase in traffic generated by the proposed development was not considered to be detrimental to the locality.

Section 96 – Pad Levels and Notification

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

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

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

33. In regards to the notification procedure of the S96 to modify pad levels, a perusal of Council records revealed that the modification of the S96 application was consistent with the notification of the original subdivision application as per the Notification Development Control Plan.

ISSUES

Cross Ventilation

34. The portion of the dual occupancy has a ceiling height of 2.4m which does not comply with the minimum 2.7m requirement of Section 4.3.4 ‘Solar Access and Cross Ventilation’ of DCP 2005.

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

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

37. The proposed dual occupancy is a BASIX affected development and the 2.7m minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect. There are no other potential impacts associated with the proposed floor to ceiling height of 2.4m.

Impact on Trees

38. Lot 23 contains several mature trees to be retained along the western side of the site.

39. The application was referred to Council’s Tree Management Officer to determine whether the development would have an impact on the condition of the trees.

40. Council’s Tree Management Officer requested the submission of an aborist report due to concerns raised in relation to the close proximity of proposed work and the affect excavation, below ground services and built structures will have on trees on the subject site and adjoining properties.

41. The applicant submitted an aborist report detailing tree protection measures dated 1 May 2008.

42. Councils Tree Management Officer has reviewed the aborist report and has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

James McBride

Development & Certification Officer

Attachments:

1View	Plans & Elevations	4 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Numerical Compliance Table	1 Page
4View	Subdivision Plan of Approved Development & Subject Site	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 Site

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 12.13

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.13

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

DESCRIPTION Construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed lot 27. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE DA/1111/2007 - Submitted

APPLICANT/S Defence Housing Authority

OWNERS Defence Housing Authority

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 1111/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of a two storey dwelling on proposed Lot 27.

The application has been referred to Council due to receipt of a petition containing 21 signatures.

RECOMMENDATION

a) That Council grant a deferred commencement consent to Development Application No. 1111/2007 subject to standard conditions. 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.

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

BACKGROUND

1. Development Application No. 993/2004, which granted consent for tree removal and community title subdivision into 27 lots comprising of 1 common lot (containing a private road reserve) and 26 residential lots, earthworks and stormwater works, was approved under delegation on 2 September 2005. As works associated with the subdivision have yet to be completed, the subdivision has yet to be registered with the Land Titles Office.

2. Development Application No. 993/2004/A granted consent to modify the original consent, which included correcting references to the number of lots approved in Conditions 8 and 22, the addition of approved plan numbers to Condition 1 and correction of wording on Condition 10. The matter was determined under delegation on 25 November 2005.

3. Development Application No. 993/2004/B granted consent to modify the original consent, which included changing the pad levels of lots 2 to 12. The matter was determined under delegation on 1 November 2006

4. Thirteen applications have been made to Council for dual occupancy developments on the lots created by DA/993/2004. Of these 13 applications, five have been approved under delegation. These five applications 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 27 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 northern side of the internal road within the subdivision. Proposed lot 27 is irregular in shape, with a frontage to the new road of 22.25 metres, a depth of approximately 38 metres and a total site area of 755m2. The site slopes from north to south with a total fall of approximately 4 metres from the northern boundary to the southern boundary. The site is currently vacant and contains several mature trees on the northern side of the site.

PROPOSAL

9. Development Application No. 1111/2007 seeks approval for the following:

9.1 Construction of a two (2) storey dwelling on proposed Lot 27.

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 900mm of cut is proposed

9.4 1.8 metre high lapped and capped timber boundary fence to Dorahy Street

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, two individual submissions and one petition with 21 signatures were received. The issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

Overshadowing

13. The proposed dwelling is approximately between 50 to 200 metres from any of the objector’s property. Given the distance, the proposed dwelling on Lot 27 is not expected to create any adverse overshadowing impacts on objector’s properties.

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

14. The proposed dwelling is setback significantly from any of the objector’s property, being located approximately 50 to 200 metres away. Due to the extensive distance of the proposed dwelling from properties fronting Paul Street, the proposal would not result in a loss of privacy for adjoining properties or create opportunities for overlooking.

Increase traffic volume and parking demands

15. The approved subdivision proposes an internal road which will provide direct access to each lot within the subdivision via Dorahy Street. Each proposed dwelling will provide 2 parking spaces for occupants of the dwelling which is in accordance with Council requirements. In addition, visitor parking bays have been provided within the subdivision to limit on-street parking on Dorahy Street. It is considered that the proposal will sufficiently cater for parking demands of future residents.

Additional comment was provided by 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

16. The pad levels for the site were approved under DA/993/2004. Proposed lot 27 was not affected by the subsequent Section 96 approval for the modification of pad levels which affected Lots 2-12.

Bulk and scale

17. The proposed development is designed in accordance with Councils Development Control Plan 2005. The dwelling addresses the site conditions and forms an appropriate building envelope for the site. The development proposes a maximum of 900mm 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 0.32:1, which is below the maximum FSR permitted for dwelling houses which is 0.5:1. The development provides sufficient setbacks and in conjunction with landscaping, will minimise the perceived bulk & scale of the dwelling when viewed from neighbouring properties.

On-site Meeting

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

19. In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 29 March 2008 commencing at 1:30pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Borger (chair), Councillor Chedid, Councillor Finn, Councillor Brown, Danielle Woods – Team Leader Development and Certification, James McBride – Development and Certification Officer, Denise Fernandez – Development Assessment Officer, up to 50 residents, the applicant and a representative of the owner. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

Density & Consistency with Previous Approval

20. Concern was raised in regards to the inconsistency of the collective DA’s lodged at Council with the original approved subdivision application. Concern was raised that the intensity of the development had been increased to accommodate duplexes on the southern side of the subdivision which had not been shown on the original subdivision approval. Residents were also concerned 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.

21. The representative from the Defence Housing Authority presented the residents with the approved indicative building footprint plan and explained that the development applications lodged with Council are consistent with the building envelopes approved on the original subdivision. As a result, Council has conducted further investigations comparing building footprints per the approved subdivision plan and the proposed developments and applications lodged with Council. The investigation 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

22. Concern was raised for the loss of privacy as a result of increased pad levels per DA/993/2004/B. Residents stated that during the consultation period, support was given to the initial plans by the Defence Housing Authority (DHA). However, given the increase in pad heights, the increase in the density of the development and the two storey height of the dwellings on the southern side, residents are no longer supportive of the proposal due to the adverse impacts on their privacy.

23. Council requested that the representative of DHA justify the necessity to increase the pad levels on the southern side of the subdivision. The representative for DHA explained that the pad levels were modified due to a design error resulting in driveway grades that were non compliant with Australian Standards. The representative for the applicant, Jansen Homes, stated that appropriate measures have been implemented to alleviate privacy impacts on properties that front Paul Street. These measures include the provision of privacy screens to the rear patios and obscured glazing on first floor windows to the rear of the proposed dwellings. Residents expressed their disapproval for the rationale suggesting the measures taken to limit the opportunities for overlooking were insufficient.

DA Lodgement process

24. Residents raised concerns in regards to the application process with a focus on the reasons for lodging each application for the individual lots separately. Residents queried Council staff and the applicant as to reasons for not lodging the developments proposed on 16 Dorahy Street as a whole.

25. Council advised that 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

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

27. Council staff clarified that Council controls require a minimum of 3 hours of solar access to adjoining properties on the 21 June. It was noted that the minimum requirement of solar access has been achieved by the proposed developments.

Traffic

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

29. A resident clarified that during the Land and Environment Court hearing for DA/209/2003 for a proposed 61 lot subdivision, whilst the application was refused, the issue of an increase in traffic generated by the proposed development was not considered to be detrimental to the locality.

Section 96 – Pad Levels and Notification

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

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

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

33. In regards to the notification procedure of the S96 to modify pad levels, a perusal of Council records revealed that the modification of the S96 application was consistent with the notification of the original subdivision application as per the Notification Development Control Plan.

ISSUES

Cross Ventilation

34. A portion of the dwelling has a ceiling height of 2.4m which does not comply with the minimum 2.7m requirement of Section 4.3.4 ‘Solar Access and Cross Ventilation’ of DCP 2005.

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

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

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

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 12.14

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.14

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

DESCRIPTION Change of use to a dance studio and school. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE DA/545/2007 - submitted 18 July 2007

APPLICANT/S Carlingford School of Dance

OWNERS Mr P K & Mr S K Mak

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application 545/2007 which seeks approval to use a vacant shop at 4/5-9 Gibbons Street as a dance studio and school.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 545/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary condition.

1. The applicant is to ensure that the dance studio/school is to operate within the specified times and dates from Tuesday 4pm to 7:15pm, Wednesday 3:45pm to 9:15pm, Wednesday 3:45pm to 9:15pm Thursday 4:00pm to 7:15pm and Friday 4:15pm to 7:15pm.

Reason: To ensure there is no nuisance to adjoining residents.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site is located within a group of local shops, comprising a beauty salon, hairdresser, physiotherapists and Pilates class studio. Adjoining and opposing this site are residential dwellings and a park (Walter Brown Reserve).

PROPOSAL

2. Details of the proposed development are as follows:

2.1 Change of use from a shop to a dance studio/school.

2.2 Installation of a noise isolation floor to reduce impact noise.

2.3 Installation of a Boral Masonry wall acoustic system (BDF) to the common wall between the studio and the beauty salon.

2.4 The application sought approval for classes to be conducted from 3.45 pm to 9.15pm on Tuesday to Friday with no classes on the weekend. Ballet is the main form of dance with classical music being played from a CD player. There will be 2 teachers present with a maximum of 16 students at any one time.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

3. The site is zoned Neighbourhood Business 3(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001.The proposed use satisfies the definition of both commercial and or educational establishment under LEP 2001, both of which are permitted land uses in the 3(b) zone. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Neighbourhood Business 3(b) Zone.

ON-SITE MEETING

4. Council resolved at its meeting of 9 July 2007 that a site meeting be held where there are more than five submissions received in respect of an application. In accordance with the above resolution an on site meeting was held on 15 November 2007. In attendance were Danielle Woods Team Leader Development and Certification, Michael Carter Senior Development and Certification Officer and a number of local residents.

5. The following issues were raised at the on site meeting.

Noise

6. The residents raised issues with the noise from music, dancing, parents talking outside the studio and vehicles coming and going. The dance studio is already operating so the impact can be readily assessed during its operation. Classes operate from 3.15pm to 9.15pm. The studio does not operate in school holidays and children are dropped off after school and collected after classes. The applicant is aware of the concerns and has installed a floor consisting of yellow tongue floor boards laid over hardwood battens which sit on shearflex sound and vibration material with Regupal QT 4010-5.15 rubber shock pads. The floor consists of 15mm tongue and grooved plywood as well as 12mm weathertex on top of which is Tarkett Dansflor vinyl. The wall between the Beauticians was given an Acoustic upgrade system BDF with two layers of soundcheck Gyprock fixed to metal furrings and sandwiched with Rockwool. The noise from the dancing and music has been controlled by the acoustic material installed. As far as talking outside the studio this can occur with anyone visiting the shopping centre and does not constitute an undue acoustic impact on the residential amenity.

7. The treatment that has been used to reduce noise is based on industry accepted principles and considering the classes are predominantly for ballet and the music is classical, the system according to the installer Martin O’Neill of STM Studio Supplies, will achieve a satisfactory sound reduction and noise impact result.

Traffic, Safety and Parking.

8. The residents have concerns with children being dropped off and collected especially in winter where it gets dark earlier in the evening. The residents stated that parents were parking on the street and allowing their children to run over to the studio amongst other moving vehicles. The applicant has handed out flyers to parents requesting them not to park in Parkham Road but in the parking bays provided. A further flyer will be given to parents reiterating this concern. The residents raised concerns with parking in Parkham Road on both sides which effectively reduces the road to one lane.

9. There is a children’s playground opposite the group of shops which is well patronised and similar concerns apply. Parents have been advised by the applicant to not park in Parkham Road however to use the designated parking bays or parallel park in Gibbons Street.

Traffic Headlights

10. There is concern from one resident that in winter there is constant headlight glare from parents dropping off their children and parking in the marked bays.

11. These are designated parking spaces to accommodate parking demand associated with the group of shops and their use to approximately 9:30pm by customers of the dance school would not have impacts on residential amenity beyond that which could be reasonably associated with their use by customers of any commercial business activity.

Toilet Facilities

12. There are only two toilets, male and female for the whole of the shops which are located in the loading bay area. The dance studio/school rules are that children under 12 are to be accompanied by an adult when using the toilet facilities and the maximum number of students at any class is not more than 16 students under Dance Association recommendations.

13. The provision of toilets off the premises is compliant with the Building Code of Australia which requires a minimum of one water closet pan per 20 persons of each sex for a school which is more than adequate in this situation.

14. There was some positive input from some nearby residents in that they used the facility for their children and were pleased it was in walking distance. They were also pleased that the studio provided a chance for children to exercise under supervision and created a family atmosphere for the neighbourhood.

15. The applicant was advised by Council’s Team Leader at the on site meeting to submit a management plan of the site, in particular the use as a dance studio/school. The plan is to include;

- parking arrangements with parents.

- children’s safety

- limiting the hours of the classes, in particular Thursday nights.

- increasing the breaks between the large classes to ensure minimal overlap with traffic movements.

16. The meeting concluded at 8:30pm.

CONSULTATION

17. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP the application was advertised to surrounding properties from 8 August 2007 to 29 August 2007. In response 9 submissions were received.

18. A further notification occurred as a result of the on site meeting. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, owners of surrounding properties were re-notified 27 February and 19 March 2008. In response, one submission was received. The issues raised in the submissions are discussed below.

Parking

19. The residents are concerned that there is a limited amount of off street parking available (15 spaces) within the surrounds of the shops. Parents dropping off and collecting their children are parking illegally and sometimes blocking driveways and double parking. There are sufficient parking spaces available for the proposed activity and initiating a 10 minute break between classes will also assist in alleviating congestion during class changeovers.

20. Carlingford School of Dance clients were issued with a letter from the principal Suzanne Atkins requesting them to park in allotted parking spaces or use Gibbons Street (next to Walter Brown Park). Parents were also requested not to park in Parkham Road especially in front of number 2 Parkham Road. Clients have also been requested to reverse into car spaces during the drop off or pick up after 6pm to assist with car headlights not be orientated into adjoining properties, which has been incorporated into the management plan.

Class Times/Traffic Generation

21. There is concern by the residents that there are too many children arriving and being collected at the same time causing traffic concerns.

22. In response to this concern class times and sizes have been adjusted to allow a 10 minute break between classes, in cases where there are more than 10 students enrolled in a class, to minimise car parking concerns, in particular the overlap between classes.

Class days

23. Residents are concerned that the number of classes and times will impact on their amenity, in particular noise generated from the use.

24. The number of classes has been reduced from the original proposal which nominated Monday to Saturday, with the new days Tuesday to Friday only. There will be no classes on weekends and during school holidays. The earliest class will be at 3.45pm and the latest on a Wednesday to 9.15pm rather than a Thursday evening which may conflict with the operating hours of other shops within the complex. It is considered that the last class at 9.15pm would have a minimal impact on the operating hours of other shops. Furthermore the physical separation between the shops and the concerned residents provides a buffer to minimise the impacts on the residents.

Noise from the use and parents collecting children

25. The residents are concerned with parents standing on the footpath and talking, including the noise from children playing before and after the classes. In addition, they are concerned that the music and noise generated from the studio will impact on their amenity.

26. The floor of the studio has been fitted with a floor dampening system designed by Embelton, as well as a Boral Masonry Acoustic upgrade system BDF consisting of 2 layers of 13mm “soundchek“ gyprock fixed to metal “furrings“ and “sandwiching“ Rockwool bats between itself and the masonry to reduce potential noise impacts. In this regard the acoustic treatment currently installed in the studio is considered to suitably address the noise impact emitted from the use.

27. The shops are available for general public use and the action of other users is not the responsibility of the Dance Studio. Council cannot regulate the behaviour of parents and children associated with the dance studio. However the applicant has instructed the parents to be mindful of the residents within the area and discourage them from congregating on the footpath area. Furthermore the classical music that is played is through a small CD player of modest amplification to keep sound to a minimum.

Toilet Facilities

28. Residents are concerned that there are only 2 toilets available (male and female) for the students as well as the shops.

29. The Building Code of Australia requires a minimum of one water closet pan per 20 persons for each sex which is more than adequate in this situation. Children are not permitted to use toilet facilities unless accompanied by a teacher. All junior classes (children 12 and under) have two teachers in the room. The toilet facilities are adequate in number and location pursuant to the BCA 2008 for the number of students as well as shop employees. All classes are pre-enrolled and casual enrolments are not accepted so therefore numbers of children are known in advance. In addition the toilets are located and accessed internally from the dance studio thereby minimising the impact on the residents as no external access is required.

Traffic & Safety

30. The residents are concerned that there is a safety issue with vehicles dropping off and collecting children, in particular in the evening. The objectors stated that parents are parking in Gibbons Street and Parkham Roads and allowing their children to run to the studio amongst moving vehicles.

31. The Principal of the studio/school has handed out flyers to parents requesting them not to park in Parkham Road but in the parking bays provided if available. This issue of safety and traffic will be continually reinstated to the parents to ensure the site, in particular the studio, is adequately managed. There is opportunity for parking within the nominated spaces provided in conjunction with the group of shops. The DA did not require a Traffic referral as the site contains off-street parking and the movement of vehicles is consistent, however advice from Traffic and Transport was sought. The advice received raised no objections based on the assessment of the traffic parking generations within the specified times of the day which are considered to be low for the existing traffic on both Parkham Road and Gibbons Street.

In summary/Conclusion

32. The dance studio/school provides a safe environment for students to study dance. It encourages vital exercise and a positive activity for young children. The studio is only used in the afternoon and evening,4 days per week and not during school holidays or on the weekend. The Carlingford School of Dance has been in operation since 1986 and has hired various halls over this period including Parramatta and Granville Town Halls, Dundas and Ermington Community Centres. The dance studio is a permissible use under the Neighbourhood Business 3(b) Zone and the concerns raised by the residents have been suitably addressed with the submission of the management plan and imposition restricting the hours and days of operation.

Michael Carter

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Floor Plan	1 Page
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Management Plan	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Floor Plan

Attachment 2

Locality Map

Attachment 3

Management Plan

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 12.15

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.15

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

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

REFERENCE DA/603/2007 - Submitted 7 August 2007

APPLICANT/S Mrs A Khoury

OWNERS Mrs A Khoury

REPORT OF 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. 1603/2007 which seeks approval for the construction of alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising of an awning, enclosed toilet and ensuite, addition of a sliding gate to the fence fronting Charles Street, and the installation of windows and door to the northern elevation.

RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

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

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

3. The external sliding door facing Charles Street which provided access to the hairdressers shop is not approved. Amended plans showing the removal of the door are to be prepared prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

Reason: To ensure that the use of the existing shop complies with previous development consents and protects the amenity of the area.

(b) Further, that the 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 alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising of an awning, enclosed toilet and ensuite, addition of a sliding gate to the fence fronting Charles Street, and the installation of windows and door to the northern elevation. At this meeting the following was resolved;

(a) “That consideration of this matter be deferred to the next Council Meeting (Regulatory) to enable plans to be amended to reflect the current application i.e. removal of sliding door.

(b) Further, that a list be included with future reports of any non compliances existing at the subject premises.

2. In response to part (a) of the resolution, discussions between staff and the applicant were held. The applicant on 28 May 2008 indicated that amended plans would not be submitted as they had advised Council in writing their previous instructions in an email sent to Council’s Development on 1 May 2008, they raised no objection to the deletion of the sliding door to the hairdressers shop from the plans submitted via a condition of consent.

2.1 The deletion of an external sliding door is a minor change to the application and can be dealt with as a condition of consent as recommended in this report.

3. In response to part (b) of the resolution, Council’s Development Control Officer inspected the subject site on 28 May 2008. The following written comments were made:

This premise appears to be functioning as one household, as there are no areas within the dwelling that seem to be deliberately separated from the main dwelling and all rooms, living areas etc appear to be utilised as a family household.

At the time of inspection there was a teenage male present at the premise and he gave us internal access to the dwelling and was quite open in showing us through the house. While we carried out the inspection, another young male arrived at the premise, followed shortly after by another male, who identified himself as the owner of the premise.

We had a set of drawings of the floor plan and elevations, relating to DA/603/2007 and as we walked through the existing dwelling the layout did match what was shown on the plans as existing. The proposed work as outlined in the DA/603/2007 plans has not commenced to date. However, on the lower level of the existing dwelling, where the plans identify a “utility room” there is a sink that is external to the “utility room”. We did not gain access to the “utility room” as the teenage male that was showing us through the premise said there were people in there and he did not want to disturb them. When I questioned who the people were he said they were family members and they were resting. There is no bar in the Master Bedroom, as shown on the DA/603/2007 plans.

3.1 Therefore as a result of the site inspection by Council’s Development Control Officer, no non-compliances were identified on the subject site at the time of inspection.

APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION

4. As stated above, the applicant advised on 28 May 2008 that the plans as submitted are to be marked in red to reflect the deletion of the sliding door to the hairdressers shop. To submit a full set of amended plans is not warranted, given the minor change to the plans and the applicant’s previous instructions to delete the sliding door in an email dated 1 May 2008 to Council Development Assessment Officer.

5. Therefore as the plans are to be amended (in red), the application is referred back to Council for determination.

Danielle Woods

Team Leader

Development & Certification Services

Attachments:

1View	Email from applicant deleting sliding door.	1 Page
2View	Amended plan marked in red deleting sliding door.	1 Page
3View	Previous report from 12 May 2008 and attachments	15 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Email from applicant deleting sliding door.

Attachment 2

Amended plan marked in red deleting sliding door.

Attachment 3

Previous report from 12 May 2008 and attachments

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.4

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

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

REFERENCE DA/603/2007 - Submitted 7 August 2007

APPLICANT/S Mrs A Khoury

OWNERS Mrs A Khoury

REPORT OF Development Assessment Officer

PURPOSE:

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

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

RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

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

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area

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

SITE & LOCALITY

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

PROPOSAL

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

2.1. Construction of an awning

2.2. Installation of an ensuite and additional toilet

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

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

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

STATUTORY CONTROLS

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

CONSULTATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noise due to the size of the awning

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

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

Existing easement

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

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

- Right of Footway

- Easement to Permit Encroaching Structures to Remain Variable Width

- Positive Covenant to allow existing fencing to remain

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

Potential dual occupancy

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

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

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

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

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

Work hours

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

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

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

ON SITE MEETING

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

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

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

Traffic/speeding motorists and Parking

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

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

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

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

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

Dividing Fences

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

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

Potential dual occupancy

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

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

Existing Easement on the subject site

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

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

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

Noise impacts from the awning

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

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

Site coverage

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

Notification of the meeting

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

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

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

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

Nicholas Clarke

Development Assessment Officer

1 May 2008

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Application history	1 Page
3View	Plans and elevations	4 Pages
4	On-Site Meeting Summary	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 3

Previous report from 12 May 2008 and attachments

Attachment 3

Previous report from 12 May 2008 and attachments

Attachment 3

Previous report from 12 May 2008 and attachments

Attachment 3

Previous report from 12 May 2008 and attachments

M E M O

Folder Number: DA/685/2006

To	File	Date	22/4/08 5.00pm
From	Danielle Woods	Through	Mark Leotta
Subject	Proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising of an awning, installation of an ensuite and additional toilet, sliding gate within the existing brick fence, installation of new windows and door along the northern elevation. In addition the applicant proposes alterations to the existing hairdressing shop to incorporate a sliding door along the northern elevation for access to Charles street.
Property	122 The Trongate Granville

Present at the meeting were:

Councillors:, Clr Gerrad(chairperson), Clr Walsh

Apologies: Clr Worthington

Present-Residents, Applicant, Owner

Council staff- Danielle Woods.-Team Leader

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

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

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

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

ISSUES

Traffic/speeding motorists and Parking

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

Comment

In response to these issues the following comments were made:

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

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

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

Dividing Fences

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

Comment

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

Potential dual occupancy

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

Comment

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

Existing Easement on the subject site

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

Comment

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

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

Noise impacts from the awning

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

Comment

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

Site coverage

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

Notification of the meeting

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

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

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

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

For the information of the file

Danielle Woods

Team Leader- Development and Certification

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 13.1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.1

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

DESCRIPTION Further report - Development Application No. 713/2007 that seeks approval for the demolition of a two storey hostel (hospital) and construction of a three storey hostel in two separate buildings.

REFERENCE DA/713/2007 - Submitted 6 September 2007

APPLICANT/S Resitech (Department of Housing)

OWNERS NSW Land & Housing Corporation

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PREVIOUS ITEMS 10.12 - 2B Fleet Street, North Parramatta (Arthur Phillip Ward) - Regulatory Council - 14 April 2008

PURPOSE:

To provide Councillors with a response to the resolution of Council, dated 14 April 2008, where the application was deferred, and to determine Development Application No. 713/2007 for the demolition of a 2 storey hostel and construction of a new three storey hostel in two detached buildings.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That, subject to the consent of the Department of Housing or the Minister and in accordance with Part 116C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the application be approved subject to standard, and the following extraordinary, conditions:

1. Cameras (CCTV) are to be installed allowing a view of all entry and exit points from both buildings and the carparking area. The cameras are to monitor activities 24 hours per day and digital technology shall be utilised. The control area shall be strategically placed within the building in order to maximise surveillance opportunities. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the Surveillance and Privacy Act are adhered to.

Reason: For safety purposes and crime detection.

2. Security access or swipe cards are to be used for all secure areas within the premises.

Reason: For the safety of staff.

3. A monitored intruder alarm system shall be installed upon the premises and shall be designed to the Australian Standard (Domestic & Commercial Alarm Systems). Movement detection devices (with lights) shall be strategically located around the premises.

Reason: To enhance safety.

4. Materials used for external areas, including seats and amenities, shall be constructed of materials which are not easily susceptible to accidental damage or vandalism.

Reason: To improve the amenity of the site.

5. Windows and frames shall be of solid construction, with windows fitted with a key operated lock set to restrict unauthorised access. Glass shall be reinforced by applying shatter-resistant film or installing laminated glass.

Reason: For security purposes.

6. All lighting on the site shall be designed to ensure no adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential area by light overspill. Lighting shall comply with Australian Standard 4282-1997: Control of the Intrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.

Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

7. The design of the facility must permit effective, appropriate, safe and dignified use by all people, including those with disabilities and must be in accordance with:

- NSW Health Facility Guidelines, in particular Part B – Design for Access, Mobility, OH&S and Security.

- DDS32 Improved Access for Health Care Facilities.

- AS1428

- The Building Code of Australia

- Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992

- NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

Reason: To ensure equity.

8. An operational management plan in one complete document shall be prepared prior to the use commencing and submitted to Council to form part of this consent, addressing such matters as:

- minimisation of anti-social behaviour

- visitor and staff safety

- site security

- noise management

- lighting

- procedures when the premises is fully occupied

- fire safety

Reason: To promote the safety for residents, visitors and staff.

9. At any time, the hostel is limited to a maximum of 48 adults (some flexibility should be provided for accompanied children) for accommodation purposes.

Reason: To comply with the terms of this consent.

10. A notice is to be permanently affixed in a public location that is readable from a public footpath, specifying a contact telephone number of the manager/ supervisor on duty.

Reason: To advise the public of an appropriate contact number in the event of an incident.

11. The existing footpath adjacent to the site in Fleet Street shall be extended to the gap in the stone wall in Fleet Street at no cost to Council, but in accordance with Council’s specifications. No structures are to be erected on the land between the site’s western boundary and the heritage-listed stone wall, nor between the northern boundary and the same wall in Albert Street without the prior approval of Council and owner’s consent being obtained.

Reason: To improve pedestrian access.

12. The BBQ area and courtyard located adjacent to the southern boundary of the site shall be limited in use to daylight hours only and no earlier than 7.00am.

Reason: In order to avoid impact on the amenity of adjoining residents.

13. Heavy vehicles using the service driveway shall be restricted to the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm, Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays.

Reason: In order to avoid impact on the amenity of adjoining residents.

14. The service driveway shall have a lockable gate in order to restrict access to this area to staff and contractors only. Details to be submitted to Council prior to work commencing.

Reason: For safety and to avoid adverse impacts on adjoining residents.

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

BACKGROUND

1. This development application was deferred by Council at its meeting of 14 April 2008, in accordance with the following resolution:

“That consideration of the application be deferred pending a redesign of the proposal to address the impact on the courtyard and privacy of the adjoining nursing home.”

2. Following discussions with Council’s Senior Development Assessment Officer, the applicant responded to Council’s resolution by way of its letter dated 12 May 2008 and accompanying shadow diagrams illustrating the impact of the development upon the courtyard of the nursing home. No design changes have been made to the proposal. A copy of the applicant’s submission is provided at Attachment 1.

ISSUES

Overshadowing

3. Concerns are raised that the proposal will result in unacceptable levels of solar access to the courtyard of the nursing home to the south of the site.

4. The application was accompanied by shadow diagrams which demonstrate that there would be some overshadowing of the nursing home to the south of the site during various stages of the day at a varying extent depending on the time of day and year. The shadow diagrams identify overshadowing of the private open space of the nursing home will occur during morning hours. It is considered that the levels of solar access to adjoining properties, including the courtyard of the adjoining nursing home, is acceptable and the extent of overshadowing is not sufficient to warrant refusal or further modification of the proposal. It is noted that parts of the nursing home’s courtyard area will receive greater than 3 hours sunlight even at the winter solstice. This courtyard extends approximately 9.5 metres into the site and Block B (three storeys) on the development site would have a setback of six metres from the southern boundary.

5. The more detailed shadow diagrams confirm that the overshadowing impact of the new development to the nursing home would not be unreasonable and that sufficient sunlight would be afforded to residents of the nursing home throughout the year.

Privacy

6. Privacy is not considered to be an issue in this proposal, it is proposed to plant 8 native trees and 24 shrubs adjacent to the southern boundary of the site, in addition to the existing vegetation in this area.

7. It is also noted that proposed Building B will have a setback of 6 metres from the side boundary, that the courtyard of the nursing home extends 9.5 metres into the site and that the service lane and BBQ facility adjacent to the southern boundary have time-specific conditions imposed in order to reduce aural privacy impacts on the residents of the nursing home.

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Resitech submission dated 12 May 2008 in response to Council's resolution.	3 Pages
2View	Manager Development Services Report 14 April 2008	25 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Resitech submission dated 12 May 2008 in response to Council's resolution.

Attachment 2

Manager Development Services Report 14 April 2008

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 13.2

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.2

SUBJECT 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)

DESCRIPTION Section 96 (AA) modification of DA/688/2005 for the construction of an 9-storey commercial development. Modifications include the removal of two outward-opening doors onto the terrace located on Level 2 and the installation of a new external folding door on Level 2. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE DA/688/2005/C - Submitted: 8 April 2008

APPLICANT/S Paragon Project Management

OWNERS Smith Street Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine an application to modify development consent DA/688/2005. This consent granted approval to demolish the existing heritage listed façade of Exeter Manor and construct a commercial building comprising 8 levels over basement car parking for 51 vehicles. The modifications proposed in this current application include the removal of two outward-opening doors onto the terrace located on Level 2 and the installation of a new external folding door on Level 2.

The application has been referred to Council as the building is located over the convict-constructed drain which traverses Parramatta from Church Street to the Parramatta River. This drain is listed as an item of Environmental Heritage in Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007.

RECOMMENDATION

That, Council grant consent to modify Development Consent No. 688/2005 dated 2 February 2006 in the following manner:

1. Condition No.1 is modified to read as follows:

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

Drawing No	Dated
A950 (Revision A). South Facing Elevation Level 2 - Facade	February 2008
SK02 (Revision D). Sketch Plan Level 2	October 2007

No construction works (including excavation) shall be undertaken prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

Note: Further information on Construction Certificates can be obtained by contacting Customer Service on 9806 5602.

Reason: To ensure the work is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is known as 76-78 Macquarie Street and 25 Smith Street, Parramatta. It comprises Lot 1 DP 128445, Lot 2 DP 232067, Pt Lot 3 DP 558386 and Lot 1 DP 1098507. The development is located on the corner of Smith and Macquarie Streets and contains remnants of a heritage convict drain located on the north- western corner of the site. Construction of the 9 storey building was completed in Late 2007. The site has an area of 2171m2 and is generally rectangular in shape.

BACKGROUND

2. The Land and Environment Court on 2 February 2006 granted consent to DA No. 688/2005 for the demolition of the remaining façade of Exeter Manor and the construction of a commercial office building, including ground floor retail over a basement car park.

3. Section 96 (AA) modification (688/2005/A) was lodged with Council on 13 November 2006 to modify DA/688/2005 to include revised plans, to modify Condition No. 59 to allow work hours to begin at 7.00am instead of 8.00am and the deletion of Condition No. 6. This modification was approved on 11 December 2006 at the Regulatory Meeting of Council.

4. Section 96 (AA) modification (688/2995/B) was lodged with Council on 6 June 2007 to modify DA/688/2005 to include increasing the number of bicycle racks along Macquarie Lane, the addition of external steps to the café tenancy, the addition of a handrail to the roof perimeter and a building maintenance unit support rail to the roof. The modification was approved on 13 August 2007 at the Regulatory Meeting of Council.

5. Development Consent 949/2007 approved the alterations to the commercial building including the internal fit-out of levels 1-8, the installation of a new generator on the roof and the fit-out of the ground floor lobby on 17 January 2008 under the Lord Mayoral Christmas delegation.

PROPOSAL

6. The Section 96(AA) modification seeks approval to modify the consent by removing two outward-opening doors onto the terrace located on level 2 and installation of a new external folding door to improve use and facilitate easier access to the Level 2 terrace.

7. It is noted that the changes have already been made to the building.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

8. Section 96(AA) of the EP&A Act allows applicants to make an application to modify a development consent issued by the Land and Environment Court. It also states that a consent authority must be satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted.

9. The proposed modifications to remove two outward-opening doors onto the terrace located on level 2 and installation of a new external folding door to allow improve use and facilitate easier access to the Level 2 terrace will result in substantially the same development as that originally approved and can be dealt with pursuant to Section 96 AA of the Act.

10. Council as part of a Section 96 modification can grant approval for works that have been already been carried out.

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

11. The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use under Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007. Commercial buildings are permissible development within this zone. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the mixed use zone which encourages commercial and retail development, and integrates residential development to encourage public transport patronage.

CONSULTATION

12. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 23 April 2008 and 7 May 2008. No submissions were received.

REASONS FOR MODIFICATIONS

13. The proposed modification to remove two outward-opening doors onto the Level 2 terrace and installation of a new external folding door is required to improve access to the Level 2 terrace.

ISSUES

Heritage and Conservation

14. The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment as a portion of the site contains the remnants of a convict drain listed as a heritage item of local significance in schedule 6 of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.28. The comments from Council’s Heritage Advisor include:

“The proposal affects part of the second floor of the new building, and would thus have no impact on the heritage values of the place”.

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

16. There are no other issues associated with the proposal.

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Plans and Elevations	2 Pages
2View	Location Plan	1 Page
3View	History of Section 96 Modification	1 Page
4View	Previous Manager Development Services Report (DSU 9/2008)	3 Pages
5View	Previous Manager Development Services Report (DSU 155/2007)	5 Pages
6View	Previous Manager Development Services Report (DSU219/2006)	5 Pages
7View	Previous Manager Development Services Report (DSU 132/2005)	4 Pages
8View	Previous Manager Development Services Report (DSU 118/2005)	10 Pages
9View	Copy of Land and Environment Consent No. 11250 of 2005	29 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Plans and Elevations

Attachment 2

Location Plan

Attachment 3

History of Section 96 Modification

History of Development Application DA/688/2005/C – 76 – 78 Macquarie Street and 25 Smith Street, Parramatta

8 April 2008 Development Application No. 688/2005/C lodged

23 April to 7 May 2008 Notification of Modification Application

Attachment 4

Previous Manager Development Services Report (DSU 9/2008)

Attachment 5

Previous Manager Development Services Report (DSU 155/2007)

Attachment 6

Previous Manager Development Services Report (DSU219/2006)

Attachment 7

Previous Manager Development Services Report (DSU 132/2005)

Attachment 8

Previous Manager Development Services Report (DSU 118/2005)

Attachment 9

Copy of Land and Environment Consent No. 11250 of 2005

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 13.3

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.3

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

DESCRIPTION A Section 82A Review of Determination to review the determination (refusal) of DA/202/2006 for demolition, tree removal, construction of a two storey dual occupancy with Torrens Title subdivision. (Location Map - Attachment 3)

REFERENCE DA/202/2006 - 20 March 2006

APPLICANT/S Mr K C Lam and Ms W Y Ko

OWNERS Mr K C Lam and Ms W Y Ko

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To review Council’s determination of Development Application No. 202/2006 pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The development application seeks approval for demolition, tree removal, construction of an attached two storey dual occupancy and Torrens Title subdivision.

This application has been referred to Council for determination, in accordance with Council delegations as the original development application was refused on 21 March 2007 under delegated authority.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council change the previous determination and grant consent to Development Application No. 202/2006, subject to standard conditions.

2. Further that, the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site is known as 12 Milton Avenue, Eastwood (Lot 79 DP 7004) and has a site area of 1012sqm and a frontage to Milton Avenue of 20.115 metres. The site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling. The locality consists of single and two storey dwellings.

BACKGROUND

2. Development Application No. 202/2006 which sought consent for demolition, tree removal and construction of an attached two storey dual occupancy and subdivision, was refused under Delegated Authority on 21 March 2007, for the following reasons:

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

(i) Inconsistent ground levels and retaining wall levels provided on plans. Retaining walls are shown 12 metres above finished floor levels

(ii) Inconsistent landscape details in regards to tree removal

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

(a) does not enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area

(b) compromises the amenity of the surrounding residential area

Particulars

(i) The stepping of the dwellings makes the design appear disjointed and not uniform

(ii) The blank first floor northern elevation does not contribute or respond to the existing streetscape. The bulk of the side elevation is excessive with no articulation provided

3. The proposal fails to comply with the aims and objectives of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 including:

i. Building design and appearance (Part 4.2.3 & 4.2.4)

ii. Streetscape and building siting (Part 4.2)

Particulars

(i) The proposed retaining wall in the centre and sides of the driveway and the front and side boundaries is inconsistent with the existing streetscape of the surrounding area. The number of retaining walls within the front setback is excessive causing an undesirable visual impact on the streetscape

4. The character, scale, size and design of the proposed development is not in keeping with the established and likely future character of the locality.

5. The proposal is considered to be an unsatisfactory design response to the site’s constraints.

6. That granting consent to the proposal would not be in the public interest as the building will not be designed to respond to the existing character of the area or the site constraints.

3. An application to review the above determination pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, was lodged with Council on 25 September 2007.

4. The Section 82A Review was accompanied by amended plans that substantially address the reasons for refusal.

THE PROPOSAL

5. Approval is sought for demolition, tree removal and construction of an attached two storey dual occupancy and Torrens Title subdivision.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Section 82A Review of Determination

6. The application is substantially the same development as previously assessed. Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 allows an applicant within 12 months of the date of determination to have the decision reviewed. Amendments to the proposal have been made to the proposal to address the reasons for refusal. An assessment of the Section 82A Review application against the reasons for refusal of the original DA is provided below.

Survey Plan

7. The Section 82A Review was submitted with a revised survey plan and landscape details outlining the trees to be removed. The submitted plans indicate the ridge height of the dual occupancy as RL 94.986, with the adjoining single storey dwellings having a ridge heights of RL 91.6 (No. 10 Milton Avenue) and RL 94.4 (No. 14 Milton Avenue). It is considered the height of the dual occupancy is compatible with the adjoining dwellings.

Retaining Walls

8. Retaining walls are proposed along the side boundaries. The retaining wall along the western property boundary achieves a maximum height of RL 88.29, approximately 30mm above existing natural ground level. The retaining wall along the eastern property boundary achieves a maximum height of RL 86.99, approximately 40mm above existing natural ground level. The retaining walls are located within the subject property and are considered to be appropriate. In addition, the proposal seeks approval for retaining walls along the front and side boundaries. The maximum height of the retaining walls is 40mm above natural ground level. It is not considered the provision of retaining walls will result in an undesirable streetscape appearance.

Tree removal

9. Revised plans were submitted clearly indicating removal of 8 existing trees. The plans have been reviewed by Council’s Landscape Tree Management Officer who raises no objections to the removal of these trees as the trees are in poor health and show signs of decay. Appropriate replacement planting comprising additional trees in the rear yard of each dwelling is proposed to compensate the loss of existing trees in the rear yard, species including Brush Box or Blueberry Ash.

Streetscape

10. The plans submitted with the Section 82A Review have been revised to provide further articulation and stepping of the side elevations to increase side setbacks. Additional windows have been provided on the northern elevation to delete the appearance of blank walls. The amendments to the proposal are satisfactory and the proposal satisfies the zone objectives.

Zoning

11. The site is zoned 2A Residential, dual occupancy developments are permissible with consent. The existing character of the area is undergoing change with new or recent development in the form of two storey dwellings and dual occupancies being constructed which integrate into the locality. It is also noted that a child care centre has been recently approved at No. 14 Union Street which intersects with Milton Avenue. It is considered approval of the dual occupancy will integrate into the existing and desired streetscape.

Numerical Controls

12. The proposal achieves full numerical compliance with the provisions of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 for dual occupancy development. The amendments made to the proposal enhance the architectural design of the development. The proposal has been designed taking into consideration the constraints of the site.

Public Interest

13. The proposal is considered to be compatible with the desired and existing streetscape. It is therefore considered approval will be in the public interest.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

14. The site is zoned 2A Residential under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and dual occupancy developments are permissible in the zone with the consent of Council. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001 and there are no numerical non-compliances arising from the proposal.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

15. The relevant provisions of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal achieves compliance with all numerical controls for dual occupancy development and with the objectives of the Plan.

CONSULTATION

16. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, owners of surrounding properties and previous objectors were given notice of the application between 19 October 2007 and 2 November 2007. A total of 5 written submissions were received.

17. The submissions raised the following issues:

The proposal is not consistent with the streetscape including the height of the dual occupancy and the federation style dwellings

18. The site is zoned 2A Residential and dual occupancy developments are permissible with consent. The current application achieves full numerical compliance with the applicable controls of PLEP 2001 and PDCP 2005. The modifications to the proposal enhance the architectural merit of the development. The proposal has been appropriately designed and is consistent with the existing and desired streetscape.

Concerns the development will impact upon the heritage dwellings in the street

19. Milton Street has three properties listed as items of heritage significance under Schedule 2 of PELP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). These properties are No.s 18, 27 and 29. The construction of a dual occupancy will not impact upon these heritage dwellings as the proposal has been designed in consideration of the existing streetscape character.

Concerns regarding loss of trees

20. The proposal seeks approval for the removal of 8 existing trees. The plans have been reviewed by Council’s Landscape Tree Management Officer who raises no objections to the removal of these trees as the trees are in poor health and show signs of decay. Appropriate replacement planting is proposed to compensate for the loss of existing trees in the rear yard with provision of an additional tree in each yard being either a Brush Box, Blueberry Ash.

Concerns regarding the lack of sunlight to adjoining properties

21. Shadow diagrams including elevational shadow diagrams for No. 14 Milton Avenue were submitted with the application. The diagrams clearly demonstrate that the private open space areas of the dual occupancy receive sufficient solar access and in addition, sufficient solar access is provided to the adjoining properties.

Privacy to adjoining properties will be impeded

22. The applicant has amended the design to provide timber privacy screening to the first floor balconies that face Milton Avenue and ground floor rear patios. It is noted the ground floor rear patios exceed natural ground level by 30mm. Sufficient privacy screening is provided and through careful window placement there will be minimal privacy impacts on the adjoining properties.

The proposal will increase traffic, noise and on street parking in the area

23. Concerns are raised the proposal will increase the traffic in the area. The proposal is for the construction of a dual occupancy, resulting in one additional dwelling above the existing situation. Dual occupancies are permissible forms of development in the locality and the development will not result in a significant increase in traffic in the locality.

Concerns the details submitted are not adequate including information on retaining walls, and survey details

24. Retaining walls are proposed along the side boundaries. The retaining wall along the western property boundary achieves a maximum height of RL 88.29, approximately 30mm above existing natural ground level. The retaining wall along the eastern property boundary achieves a maximum height of RL 86.99, approximately 40mm above existing natural ground level. The retaining walls are located within the subject property and are considered to be appropriate.

The proposal is an overdevelopment

25. The site is zoned 2A Residential and dual occupancy development is a permissible form of development subject to consent. The current proposal achieves full numerical compliance with all applicable controls of dual occupancy development, including floor space ratio, setbacks and landscaping. It is considered the proposal has been designed taking into considered the site constraints and the existing streetscape. It is not considered the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

The location of the driveway is not suitable

26. The driveway is centrally located on the site, providing vehicular access to both dwellings. In this regard the driveway is not immediately adjoining neighbouring properties. The design of the development is consistent with other approvals in the area for dual occupancy development. The driveway achieves compliance with AS2890.1 for car manoeuvring and sight distances and sufficient landscaping is provided to minimise the visual appearance of hard surfaces when viewed from the street.

Concerns the proposal does not comply with Clause 38(1) (b) of PLEP 2001

27. Clause 38(1) (b) states “where the lot is not a battleaxe allotment, it has a minimum area of 550 square metres and a minimum width of 15 metres at the front alignment of the building”. Clause 38(1) (b) is not relevant to the subject application. The clause provides the minimum allotment size and frontage requirements for residential dwellings, not dual occupancy development. It is noted the development achieves compliance with the minimum allotment size for dual occupancy development under Clause 38(3) of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 being 1012sqm.

Concerns regarding the architectural design

28. The proposal has been modified to respond to the reasons for refusal, including modifying the roof design, articulation of the development and modifying levels to ensure a more sympathetic design. Whilst it is acknowledged this would be the first dual occupancy development in the immediate vicinity, the character of the area consists of single and two storey dwellings of varying design and scale and the 2A Residential zone allows dual occupancy development.

Concerns the proposal fails to achieve compliance with PDCP 2005

29. The proposal achieves full numerical compliance with the relevant controls for dual occupancy development as contained in PLEP 2001 and PDCP 2005. The proposal is considered to have a high level of architectural merit and provides sufficient on-site parking.

ON SITE MEETING

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

31. In accordance with the above resolution, an on-site meeting was held on 8 March 2008. Present at the meeting were Councillors Andrew Wilson (Chairperson), Councillor John Chedid, Danielle Woods Team Leader Development and Certification, 10 residents, the applicant and owner. The following issues were discussed:

Survey Plans

32. Concerns were raised that the submitted survey plans are not provided indicating Australian Height Datum (AHD) levels. Following the on-site meeting, a survey plan was submitted with AHD levels. It is considered the survey plan submitted is satisfactory.

Retaining walls

33. Concerns were raised insufficient details of the retaining walls had been submitted. Following the on-site meeting further details for the retaining walls were requested and subsequently submitted by the applicant. The retaining walls achieve a maximum height of 40mm above natural ground level and will be of brick construction consistent in colour with the dwelling to ensure compatibility.

Streetscape

34. The proposal has been modified to respond to the reasons for refusal, including modifying the roof design, articulation of the development and modifying levels to ensure a more sympathetic design. Whilst it is acknowledged this would be the first dual occupancy development in the immediate vicinity, the character of the area consists of single and two storey dwellings of varying design and scale and the 2A Residential zone allows dual occupancy development.

Solar access

35. Concerns were raised regarding the impacts the development will have on the solar access to No. 14 Milton Avenue. Following the on-site meeting, additional elevational shadow diagrams were requested and submitted. The diagrams clearly indicate a minimum of 3 hours solar access will be provided to the living areas and private open space areas of No. 14 Milton Avenue. The provisions of solar access are considered satisfactory.

Privacy

36. Concerns were raised that the proposal will impede on the privacy of adjoining properties. It was agreed at the on-site meeting that the first floor street facing balconies and rear ground floor patios would be provided with screening. Following the meeting amended plans were submitted indicating that privacy screening would be provided along the side elevations of the first floor balconies and ground floor patios.

Fencing

37. Concerns were raised regarding the replacement of existing boundary fencing. The applicant proposes to provide a 1.8m lapped and capped timber fence along the property boundaries and between the private open spaces of the dwellings.

Design

38. Concerns were raised regarding the design of the dual occupancy and it was suggested that a single storey design with attic would integrate better into the streetscape. The proposal is two storey in height which complies with Council’s controls. Articulation has been provided to the development and it is considered the proposal integrates into the existing streetscape.

Heritage

39. Concerns were raised regarding the limited development potential for heritage listed developments within the street. Milton Avenue has three properties listed as heritage items under Schedule 2 of the PLEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). All three properties (No.s 18, 27 and 29) are sufficiently separated from the subject site and approval of the dual occupancy will not result in any adverse impacts on the heritage listed sites in the street. It is considered the design of the dual occupancy will successfully integrate into the current streetscape.

Traffic

40. Concerns are raised the proposal will increase the traffic in the area. The proposal is for the construction of a dual occupancy, resulting in one additional dwelling over the existing situation. Dual occupancies are permissible forms of development in the locality. It is not considered the increase of one dwelling on the subject will significantly increase the current traffic volumes in Milton Avenue.

Permissibility

41. Concerns are raised the zoning allows dual occupancy development and will lead to the existing streetscape being altered. It was advised that dual occupancies are permissible forms of development and are subject to approval. Development Applications are required to address all applicable controls and are required to integrate into the existing and desired streetscape.

Sara Matthews

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Table of Compliance	2 Pages
2View	Plans and elevations	4 Pages
3View	Location map	1 Page
4View	History of Development Application	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Table of Compliance

Attachment 2

Plans and elevations

Attachment 3

Location map

Attachment 4

History of Development Application

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 13.4

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.4

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

DESCRIPTION To fit out and use the existing premises as a takeaway food and refreshment shop, including the installation of a non-illuminated under awning sign. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/31/2008 - Submitted 16 January 2008

APPLICANT/S Mr T H Lam

OWNERS Mr T H Lam

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PurPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 31/2008 which seeks approval to fit out and use of the existing premises as a takeaway food and refreshment shop, including the installation of a non-illuminated under awning sign presenting to Dellwood Street.

The application has been referred to Council for determination as the site, known as Dellwood Shopping Centre, is a Heritage item in Schedule 1 of the Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 31/2008 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary condition.

1. No indoor or outdoor dining is approved under this consent.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site is known as Unit 18, 12 Dellwood Street, South Granville (Lots 1-19 SP 43874). The subject site is located on the southern side of Dellwood Street. The subject premises is located within the Heritage listed Dellwood Shopping Centre.

2. The premises is part of a two storey integrated small business/residential building complex comprising of several attached small businesses on the ground floor; including a Newsagency, Liquor Shop, Grocery Supermarket, Take-away shop, Chemist, Post office, Bakery, Butcher, Dentist, and residential units on the first floor. The site is surrounded by multi-unit housing, single storey residential dwelling houses, and public open space.

PROPOSAL

3. The application seeks approval for the following works:

3.1 To use the premises as a takeaway food and refreshment shop, including the sale of coffee and cakes.

3.2 Internal fitout of the premises fir the proposed use as a food shop.

3.3 Installation of a non-illuminated under awning sign (500mm height x 5500mm width) presenting to Dellwood Street. The wording of the sign is “Dellwood Café takeaway”.

3.4 The proposed business will require a maximum of three (3) employees, and operate seven (7) days a week (7:00am to 6:00pm, Monday to Friday, 7:00am to 4:00pm, Saturday and 9:00am to 4:00pm, Sunday).

BACKGROUND

4. Development Consent No.144/2000, was granted on 22 May 2000, for the use of the premises for the purpose of a bakery.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

5. The site is zoned Neighbourhood Business 3(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The proposed use is defined as a shop under LEP 2001, and is consistent with the objectives of the Neighbourhood Business 3(b) Zone. Furthermore, the proposed works are permitted with consent in the zone.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

6. The property is listed as a Heritage item under Schedule 1 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (PLEP) 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) and satisfies the relevant objectives of the LEP.

Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 2001

7. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 2001.

CONSULTATION

8. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the application was advertised to surrounding properties from the 30 January 2008 to 20 February 2008. In response, two submissions were received. The issues raised in the submission are discussed below.

Impact of the proposal on the economic viability of existing commercial development surrounding the site

9. Concern is raised regarding the suitability of the proposal for the locality, and its potential impact on the economic viability of existing commercial development surrounding the subject site.

The site is located within the 3(b) Neighbourhood Business Zone under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The proposal has been assessed against the objectives of the zone and it is considered that the proposed use of the existing premises as a takeaway food and refreshment shop meets the zone objectives. More specifically, the proposed development will:

9.1 provide small-scale commercial development which does not adversely affect the adjoining residential amenity;

9.2 encourage the provision of a range of retail and commercial activities which serve the surrounding neighbourhood;

9.3 encourage alterations, additions or redevelopment which acknowledges the scale, form and character of existing buildings;

9.4 ensure that development within the local centres does not detract from the economic viability of major commercial centres and;

9.5 contribute to a range of community facilities to be provided to serve the needs of residents, workers and visitors in the residential neighbourhood.

It is considered that the objectives of the zone have been met, and the proposal will not impact on the diverse character of the existing surrounding commercial development. Furthermore, the proposed takeaway food and refreshment shop is considered to be suitable for the locality by retaining the form, character and scale of existing development surrounding the site, whilst meeting the primary objectives of encouraging a diverse range of commercial activities which will serve the needs of the community surrounding the neighbourhood.

The proposal is of a similar scale and nature to the existing surrounding commercial development and meets the objectives of all matters of consideration under Section 79c of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Concern regarding the impact of the proposal against parking facilities existing on site.

10. Concern is raised regarding the impact of the proposal on the existing parking facilities on site. The proposal is for a takeaway food and refreshment shop which does not include any indoor and/or outdoor dining facilities as seating arrangements have not been included in the plans submitted to Council. Further to this, the proposal does not seek to increase the gross floor area on site which would potentially accommodate additional customers. The nature of the proposed development is considered to accommodate customers for a short period of time (approx. 15mins) as the shop will offer fast food and take away refreshments such as cakes and coffee. Therefore, it is considered that the nature and extent of the proposal is consistent with the existing surrounding commercial development which share on street parking on Dellwood Street (approx. 9 spaces outside the complex and 9 spaces on the street opposite to the shopping complex. Therefore the proposed use will not adversely impact on the existing parking facilities in a manner which is unreasonable for surrounding commercial and/or residential development.

ISSUES

Heritage

11. Council’s Heritage advisor has assessed the application and advised that the proposed works will not adversely affect the Heritage values of the site, given that the shop has been substantially modified in recent years and features no elements of significance.

The comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor include:

‘The place has been identified in Schedule 1 of the Parramatta Heritage DCP 2001. The current proposal is for fitout, change of use and new signage. The key aspect of significance of the place is that it is the “first group of shops planned and built for the Housing Commission” (Statement of Significance).

The proposal affects the shopfront, interior and rear area of one of the ground floor shops. The shop has been substantially modified and features no elements of readily apparent significance. The proposal also includes limited rear additions to the shop, generally replacing the current additions clad in light material with a more permanent fabric. The shopfront proposed to be modified does not appear to be the original 1948 shopfront, but a replacement from the recent decades.

Therefore, in my opinion, the impact of the proposal on the heritage values of the place is acceptable.’

Health

12. The Development Application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health

Officer who has no objection to the proposal subject to standard conditions of consent.

Signage

13. The proposed signage is considered to be compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of the area, and provides effective communication for its locality. The signage is of appropriate design and finish. Furthermore, to ensure the signage integrates with the heritage item and neighbourhood character, an extraordinary condition will require details such as materials of construction and nominated colours.

Parking

14. The proposed takeaway food and refreshment shop will not include any indoor and/or outdoor dining facilities as seating arrangements have not been included in the plans submitted to Council. Further to this, the proposal does not seek to increase the gross floor area on site which would potentially accommodate additional customers. There is sufficient on-street parking in the vicinity of the premises. Parking demand generated by an activity of this nature and scale in this location will have no additional impact on on-street parking or traffic flows and safety.

Noise

15. The proposed change of use to a takeaway food and refreshment shop 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 a commercial zone, the noise emitted from the takeaway shop will be consistent with the surrounding development and not create undue noise impacts on the surrounding residential development. Furthermore, the proposed hours of operation are consistent with the operating hours of existing commercial development surrounding the site and are suitable for the locality.

16. The proposed change of use will have a minimal impact on the amenity of the area and satisfies the objectives of the Neighbourhood Business 3(b) Zone.

Lina Debabneh

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Plan and Signage Details	2 Pages
3View	History of Development Application	1 Page
4View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Locality Map

Attachment 2

Plan and Signage Details

Attachment 3

History of Development Application

Attachment 4

Heritage Inventory Sheet

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 13.5

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.5

SUBJECT 356-358 Woodville Road, Guildford

DESCRIPTION Demolition of two dwelling houses and construction of a three storey residential flat building containing 14 units over one level of basement carparking for 21 cars

REFERENCE DA/661/2007 -

APPLICANT/S Mr Peter Tannous

OWNERS Mr Peter Tannous

REPORT OF Senior Development Assessment Officer

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No.661/2007 which seeks consent for the demolition of two dwelling houses and construction of a three storey residential flat building comprising 14 units over one level of basement parking for 21 cars.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant its consent to DA/661/2007, subject to standard and the following extraordinary conditions.

(i) The applicant shall submit a Vehicle and Pedestrian Traffic Management Plan for the construction and demolition period, to be approved by Council’s Traffic Engineer or the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate. The plans shall provide information relating to parking restrictions, emergency access, pedestrian protection, traffic impacts, traffic routes for heavy vehicles, etc.

Reason: To ensure that suitable management techniques are employed.

(ii) That the construction certificate plans shall include reference and depict a 2.4 metres high timber fence along the full length of the western (rear) boundary of the site, with suitable screen planting of conifers or the like, within the development site. The fence is to be at the expense of the owner of the site.

Reason: To protect privacy.

(iii) Compliance with the acoustical attenuation construction requirements of the Noise Impact Assessment by RSA Acoustics dated August 2007.

Reason: To protect the aural privacy of future occupants.

(iv) That a suitably qualified acoustic consultant is engaged during the construction to ensure that roof / ceiling, external wall and window construction complies with the acoustical attenuation standards specified in the Noise Impact Assessment by RSA Acoustics dated August 2007.

Reason: To protect the aural privacy of future occupants.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is located on the western side of Woodville Road between Mountford Avenue and Guildford Road. The site has a width of approximately 35.4 metres and depth of approximately 40 metres. The site area is 1,410m².

2. The locality has a mix of land uses including detached dwellings, commercial buildings and some mixed use developments.

PROPOSAL

3. Approval is sought for the following:

(i) demolition of two dwelling houses; and

(ii) construction of a three storey residential flat building, comprising 14 units (12 x two bedroom units and 2 x one bedroom units) over a single level of basement carparking to accommodate 21 cars.

BACKGROUND

4. The development application was initially lodged on the basis of a three storey residential flat building containing 15 units.

5. The plans were subsequently required to be amended and the following modifications were made:

- Reducing the number of units from 15 to 14;

- reducing the number of parking spaces from 22 to 21;

- Reconfigured orientation of units;

- Increasing number of units with cross-flow ventilation from 12 to 14;

- Ensuring that all units would receive at least 4 hours of sunlight;

- Relocating the driveway to the southern boundary, allowing a courtyard (terrace) to occupy the northern side of the site;

- Setting the basement back 9 metres from Woodville Road boundary in order to provide soft soil zone in this part of the site.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

SEPP 65 and the Design Review Panel

6. The application was first considered by the Design Review Panel at its meeting of 18 September 2007 and the following comments and responses are provided based upon the assessment against SEPP 65:

7. The calibre of the submission is considered poor. The panel found a number of inconsistencies between the plans and elevations and poor representation of the local context. The panel also found a number of misrepresented facts regarding the proposal in the Statement of Environmental Effects.

8. With regard to the design of the building the panel felt the proposal lacks amenity.

9. With regard to amenity the unit layouts are considered unacceptable due to;

- lack of cross ventilation

- poor orientation of living spaces

- bedrooms and bathrooms in prime positions

10. The setback of the building from Woodville Road is compromised by the encroachment of the basement level into the deep soil planting zone. The intention of the DCP regarding creation of a dense landscape buffer is not met. The car park access ramp utilises prime north facing open space. By switching the driveway to the south the development would be able to incorporate more north facing open space.

11. Overall the panel considers the proposed yield to be too high and the size of the individual units to be too small. By reducing the number of units the applicant will be able to significantly improve the amenity of the development.

12. The panel acknowledges the difficulties presented by Woodville Road including traffic noise and access. The panel considers that a more thorough analysis of the constraints and consideration of different layouts should lead to a better outcome for the site and a more suitable model for future development along the western side of Woodville Road.

13. The application will need to be resubmitted to the panel for reconsideration.

14. The revised development application was referred to the Design Review Panel for reconsideration at its meeting of 4 December 2007, where it concluded that the revised scheme is satisfactory from an urban design point of view, subject to:

- Privacy screens being provided to the edge of the ground floor living room terraces of apartments facing Woodville Road;

- The height of the fence being slightly increased, be made a steel flat palisades and that the brick posts be deleted; and

- The scale of the garbage room being reduced and the door being made solid, possibly using the same flat steel sections as the fence.

15. The recommendations made above, as well as in relation to discussions at the on-site meeting held on 21 February 2008, are reflected in the further amended plans submitted by the applicant on 27 February 2008.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

16. The site is not identified by Council’s records as having any known contaminants present. A search reveals that the site has a lengthy history of residential usage and it is unlikely that there are any substances on the site which would cause harm to humans.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

17. State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 ("BASIX") applies to the proposed development. The development application was accompanied by BASIX Certificate No. 140340M, dated 31 May 2007, committing to environmental sustainability measures.

18. These requirements have been imposed by standard condition prescribed by Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

Local Environmental Plan 2001

19. The site is zoned Mixed Uses 10 under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and residential flat buildings are permissible within the zone, subject to the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the LEP and compliant with the relevant development standards.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

20. The development is subject to the requirements of this Policy with specific provisions relating to residential flat buildings and development within the Mixed Uses zone for Woodville Road. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the DCP and generally achieves numeric compliance with its requirements.

21. There are non-compliances in relation to side setbacks and soft soil area. These are relatively minor and considered acceptable as they do not compromise the objectives of the DCP. The non-compliances are addressed later in this report.

CONSULTATION

22. In accordance with Councils Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised and notified between 5 and 26 September 2007. Four submissions were received.

23. The amended plans were notified between 25 November and 12 December 2007. Three submissions were received, with a total of seven submissions from five properties being received during both notification periods.

24. Further amendments made to the proposal on 18 January 2008 and 27 February 2008 did not require renotification.

25. The matters raised in the submissions are outlined below:

Health – noise & emissions as a result of residential development adjacent to Woodville Road

26. The NSW State Government and its various authorities and departments have long recognised the air quality of Sydney to be a major issue. The issue is not a new one and these various bodies have, over time, prepared various policy and discussion documents on this matter. Some of these initiatives include the various NSW State of the Environment Reports, and notably the 2003 report on “Atmosphere”, the Clean Air Forums of 2001 and 2004 and the Action for Air Plans of 2002 and 2006. Most recently, the Department of Environment and Climate Change with the Department of Planning, are reportedly combining to prepare policy guidelines for development along main roads in response to this issue. The issue is much wider than individual Councils and requires a broad state wide response.

27. However, there is no current evidence to suggest that the approval of residential properties along main roads has adverse health impacts such to warrant refusal of the application.

28. Council’s Health Surveyor has assessed the proposal and found it to be satisfactory, subject to the following condition:

“Compliance with the acoustical attenuation construction requirements of the

Noise Impact Assessment by RSA Acoustics dated August 2007.

That a suitably qualified acoustic consultant is engaged during the construction to ensure that roof / ceiling, external wall and window

construction complies with the acoustical attenuation standards specified in

the Noise Impact Assessment by RSA Acoustics dated August 2007.”

Increased traffic generation

29. The proposal is compliant with floor space ratio controls and the density and resultant traffic generation is anticipated by the site’s zoning and FSR development standard. Notwithstanding, a residential development of this scale within the existing traffic environment will not have any undue traffic impacts relative to traffic flow and safety. The surrounding road network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic flow generated by the development.

Lack of parking

30. Under the provisions of Parramatta DCP 2005, a minimum of 21 on-site parking spaces are required and are provided. It is considered the proposal achieves compliance with the objectives of Parramatta DCP 2005 and provides sufficient parking on-site to cater for the needs of residents and visitors.

31. Council’s Traffic Engineer has assessed the proposal and found it to be satisfactory.

The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site having regard to existing infrastructure

32. The proposal is for the construction of a three storey residential flat building comprising 14 units. The proposal achieves full compliance with the controls contained in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and generally with those outlined in Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 (other than as explained below). The proposed development is not considered to be an overdevelopment.

33. The applicant will need to satisfy Council or the PCA that relevant utilities that the relevant provision of water, gas, sewer and electricity can be provided, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate. At this stage, there does not appear to be any evidence that the provision of these services cannot be satisfied.

34. Council’s Development Engineer raised no objections to the proposal, subject to standard conditions of consent.

Overshadowing

35. Concerns are raised that the proposal will result in unacceptable levels of solar access to the properties adjacent to the site to the side and to the rear.

36. The application was accompanied by shadow diagrams which demonstrate that there would be no unreasonable overshadowing to No. 360 Woodville Road or properties to the rear on Grassmere Road. The shadow diagrams identify overshadowing of the private open space of the rear properties will occur during earlier morning hours. It is also noted that the properties to the rear will achieve adequate solar access for the remainder of the day. It is considered that the levels of solar access to adjoining properties is acceptable and the extent of overshadowing is not sufficient to warrant refusal or further modification of the proposal.

ON SITE MEETING

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

38. In accordance with the above resolution, an on-site meeting was held on Thursday 21 February 2008 at 6.00pm.

39. Present at the meeting were Councillor Brown (Chairman), five residents, the architect and the Service Manager Development Assessment. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

Waste Management

40. Councillor Brown asked about waste management and whether individual bins or a bulk bin would be utilised for waste collection and whether kerbside collection along Woodville Road was appropriate given how busy this road is. Residents reiterated this concern.

41. The applicant responded by saying that a waste management plan has been submitted with the application for assessment by Council. The applicant also asked whether residents and Council preferred individual bins or a bulk bin. The applicant advised that they would investigate the option of a bulk bin for collection by a private contractor.

42. The development shall provide a bulk bin, in accordance with the requirements of Part 5.2 of Parramatta DCP 2005, namely:

“All garbage from the site is to be collected by private contractors utilising bulk bins with a minimum size of 660 litres”.

43. Council advised that the RTA had been advised of the DA and their comments sought. The RTA, by way of letter dated 15 April 2008 advised that it has no objection to the proposal in terms of waste disposal, subject to a concrete area for standing garbage bins for collection being constructed on the footway area.

44. Council’s Waste Officer assessed the proposal and provided the following comments:

“This development will be subject to a waste audit to ensure that the waste plan submitted is being adhered to.

Council does not supply 120 litre bins and this issue shall be the subject of further discussions with Council’s Waste Department.”

45. The applicant will need to supply and house bins in accordance with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005, as outlined above.

Easement

46. Residents raised concern regarding the location of an inter-allotment drainage easement, the lack of consultation with potentially affected neighbours and impacts of physically establishing the easement.

47. The applicant responded that while they proposed an inter-allotment easement, they would be happy to discuss this with the affected neighbour and suggested solicitor details be exchanged.

48. The applicant also explained that thrust boring could be utilised so as not to require the digging up of the neighbour’s rear yard.

49. According to the Deposited Plan (DP 6425), an easement to drain water exists in the centre of the development site (along the southern boundary of Lot 7), then along the site’s western boundary and then through Lot 102 (being 32 Grassmere Street).

50. All necessary adjustments and costs associated with this development, shall be the responsibility of the owner.

51. Council’s Development Engineer raised no objections to the proposal, subject to standard conditions of consent.

Impacts during construction- traffic

52. Residents raised concern that vehicle access to the site during construction would be problematic as Woodville Road is very busy and clearways are in force along this road and would coincide with construction hours. Concern was also raised that traffic would be diverted through local residential streets and that would create noise and safety problems for residents.

53. The applicant advised that these issues would be dealt with through a traffic management plan required by condition of consent.

54. It was indicated by Council’s Service Manager that if consent is granted, a traffic management plan would be required by a condition of consent and that a traffic management plan must take into account construction traffic routes and construction vehicle parking. A condition to this effect is included in the Recommendation.

On-street parking along Woodville Road in general.

55. The applicant stated that the proposal complies with Council’s on-site car parking requirements and that wider issues of on-street parking along the road were not relevant to the subject DA.

Air pollution

56. Residents raised concern about air pollution from traffic relative to development in general within the Parramatta LGA and inclusive of the subject DA. One resident stated that air quality was referred to the Metropolitan Strategy and needed to be considered under s79C of the EP & A Act 1979.

57. Council’s Service Manager advised the residents that air quality would be considered in the assessment of the DA as it was a matter already raised in one of the submissions received to date and Council has a statutory obligation to consider submissions under s79C of the Act.

Agenda 21

58. Residents asked whether Agenda 21 would be considered in the assessment of the subject DA.

59. Local Agenda 21 (LA21) is a program that provides a framework for implementing sustainable development at the local level. LA21 aims to build upon existing local government strategies and resources (such as Corporate plans, vegetation management plans, and transport strategies) to better integrate environmental, economic and social goals.

60. LA21 was first described in Agenda 21 - the global blueprint for sustainability that was agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 (the Rio Earth Summit). Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 identifies local authorities as the sphere of governance closest to the people, and calls upon all local authorities to consult with their communities and develop and implement a local plan for sustainability - a 'Local Agenda 21'.

61. Council’s Service Manager advised the meeting that general principles of Agenda 21 were incorporated into the EP & A Act 1979 and PLEP 2001, and this was the legislation and environmental planning instrument against which the proposal was legally required to be assessed.

Stormwater and water re-use

62. One resident asked how stormwater would be managed and whether there were any re-use measures incorporated into the design.

63. The applicant explained verbally and diagrammatically how stormwater management would be undertaken, including incorporation of OSD and re-use of water for garden maintenance.

Demolition

64. Residents stated their support for demolition of 358 Woodville Road as the building was unsafe and partially collapsed.

Privacy

65. One resident raised privacy concerns relative to the use of her swimming pool and asked that her rear boundary fencing, being the dividing fence between her property and the subject site, be replaced and increased in height.

66. Another resident, who also shares a rear boundary with the subject site, asked whether the fence could extend the full length of the common boundary.

67. The applicant gave a verbal undertaking to replace the boundary fence along its full length to a height and colour of the residents’ liking. The applicant suggested a fence height of 2.4 metres. The applicant also suggested conifers be used along the boundary as screen planting. The resident agreed to this and the applicant advised that they would incorporate these into the development.

68. Council’s Service Manager advised that boundary fencing above 1.8m requires the consent of Council and that this could be incorporated into the subject DA.

69. The requirement for a 2.4 metre high fence along the length of the rear boundary forms part of the recommended conditions of consent.

Balustrades

70. A resident raised concern in relation to the balcony/balustrade treatment along the western elevation and that the proposed glass balustrades would exacerbate potential privacy impacts. The resident requested a design change to incorporate solid balustrades.

71. The applicant advised that the balustrades could be changed to incorporate frosted/opaque glazing and that in combination with the sliding louvres as currently proposed, would address the resident’s concerns.

72. The resident indicated that this would be preferable.

73. The applicant has amended the plans to depict frosted glass balustrades along the western elevation of the proposed building.

Delivery times/Construction hours

74. Concern was raised in respect of deliveries to the site and construction hours associated with demolition, given traffic flows along Woodville Road and potential noise generation impacting residential properties.

75. The applicant advised that they would expect a condition of consent to be imposed specifying standard construction hours that would also cover delivery times.

76. Council’s standard condition of consent addresses the issue of standard working hours for the site and limit those hours to 7.00am to 6.00pm Mondays to Saturdays. No work is permitted to be carried out on Sundays or public holidays. This condition includes the delivery of material to and from the site.

Outcome of site meeting

77. Council’s Service Manager advised the applicant to amend the proposal in accordance with agreements reached with residents during the course of the on-site meeting to ensure these changes were incorporated into the proposal. These were: confirmation of bulk or individual bins, new rear fencing (height/materials), changes to western elevation balustrade detail and incorporation of conifers into the landscape plan.

78. The applicant indicated that he would forward these changes to Council shortly. These modifications, other than in respect of the rear fence, have been submitted to Council and form part of the recommended approved plans.

79. A condition requiring a 2.4 metre high timber fence for the full length of the rear boundary, with screen planting on the development site, is included as an extraordinary condition of consent.

Landscaping

80. Council’s Landscape Officer has assessed the proposal and found it to be satisfactory, providing the following comments:

“The proposed tree removal on site is acceptable as it involves small trees with a height less than 5 metres and a row of exotic conifers, 5 metres tall, along the rear western boundary.

I support the removal of these trees. However, it is also proposed to remove three trees located on adjoining property along the northern boundary. These trees are on adjoining property, but the survey shows one tree to be on the boundary and two trees within this site.

These trees have significant contribution to the landscape character and ecology of the site and should be retained.”

81. Standard conditions are included in the recommended development consent.

Non-compliances

82. Two non-compliances result from the proposal. These relate to side setbacks and soft soil area.

Side setbacks

83. Parramatta DCP 2005 requires a minimum side setback of 6 metres from the side boundary for residential flat buildings in the Woodville Road Mixed Uses 10 zone.

84. In this instance, the proposal generally complies, other than a very small length of wall along the northern elevation where less than the thickness of the wall protrudes into the setback area, resulting in a side setback of 5.8 metres. The extent of non-compliance is only 200mm or less over a length of 3 metres.

85. The non-compliance is minor and would not result in any discernible impact on the amenity of the property to the north.

Soft soil zone

86. Parramatta DCP 2005 requires a minimum soft soil zone of 40% of the site area, being 564m².

87. As a result of the amendments made to the proposal, in order to improve the amenity of future occupants of the building, the driveway was shifted from the northern side of the building to the south and terraces were introduced where the driveway was previously located.

88. As a result, the extent of soft soil was reduced from the required minimum of 564m² (40% of the site area) to 532m² (or 37.7%). The provided soft soil is still suitable for the site and the non-compliance (32m² or 2.27% of the site area or 5.75% of the required minimum) is not considered to be a significant departure from the controls nominated by the DCP, nor will it manifest into any unreasonable impacts on neighbours or the environment generally.

89. The non-compliance is acceptable, does not result in any unreasonable impacts on the amenity of neighbours and is not sufficient to warrant refusal or modification of the proposal.

Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW

90. The RTA has assessed the proposal and provided the following comments in its letter dated 15 April 2008:

91. “Exercise of Concurrence Function under the Roads Act. The RTA has reviewed the development application and would grant its concurrence under Section 138(2) of the Roads Act, 1993 to the development application, subject to Council’s approval of the development application and the following comments being included in Council’s conditions of development consent:

92. The RTA has no proposal that requires any part of the subject property for road purposes. Therefore, there are no objections to the development proposal on property grounds.”

93. The remaining comments in the RTA submission relate to standard conditions of consent that will be incorporated into the recommended development consent.

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Plans	12 Pages
3View	Numerical Compliance Table	1 Page
4View	History of DA	1 Page
5View	SEPP 65 Panel Notes	4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Locality Map

Attachment 2

Plans

Attachment 3

Numerical Compliance Table

Attachment 4

History of DA

Attachment 5

SEPP 65 Panel Notes

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 13.6

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.6

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

DESCRIPTION Section 96(2) modification to DA961/2004 approved for the construction of a 3 storey mixed use development. The modifications include changes to the facade design, a 10m2 increase in commercial floor area and internal changes to the residential units. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/961/2004/A - Submitted 2 February 2008

APPLICANT/S Sidney Lamb & Associates Pty Ltd

OWNERS Merrylands Property Development Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Senior Development Assessment Officer

PURPOSE:

To determine an application under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Application No. 961/2004 by altering the façade design, increasing the commercial floor space and altering the internal configuration of the residential units.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council modify development consent No. 961/2004 dated 14 August 2006 in the following manner:

Condition No. 1 to be deleted and replaced with the following condition:

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

Drawing N^o	Dated
CC05, Revision H – Basement Plan	28/02/08
CC06, Revision H – Proposed G/F	28/02/08
CC07, Revision H – Proposed 1/F Plan	28/02/08
CC08, Revision H – Proposed 2/F Plan	28/02/08
CC09, Revision H – Roof Plan	28/02/08
CC10, Revision H – Elevations	27/02/08
CC11, Revision H – Elevations	27/02/08
CC14, Revision H – Sections	28/02/08
CC15, Revision H – Sections	28/02/08
CC18, Revision H – External Finishes	7/03/08
CC19, Revision H – External Finishes	7/03/08
Stormwater Drainage (Sediment Control Details) (Rev B) Sheets 1-3	19 July 2004

Document(s)	Dated
Statement of Environmental Effects	Undated
SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement	Undated
Nathers Certificate	24 June 2004
HMB Assessor Certificate	24 June 2004
Acoustic Report	26 July 2004
Waste Management Plan	15 August 2004

No construction works (including excavation) shall be undertaken prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

Note: Further information on Construction Certificates can be obtained by contacting Customer Service on 9806 5602.

Reason: To ensure the work is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is located on the corner of Railway Terrace and Sutherland Lane Merrylands, and is opposite Merrylands train station. The site was previously used as a car sales yard. The site has an irregular configuration with curved frontage to Merrylands Road and Railway Terrace. The surrounding area is characterised by residential dwellings to the south, with commercial buildings and the train station to the north, east and west.

PROPOSAL

2. The amendments include:

2.1 Reconfiguring the internal layout of the ground floor level to increase the commercial floor space of the development by 10m2

2.2 Minor amendments to the configuration of the residential levels including increasing minor changes to the floor area of units 1,2,3, 6, 7 and 9 by reducing the thickness of internal walls and reducing the size of the balcony for units 1 and 6

2.3 Alterations to the external facade to provide a consistent pattern of façade openings on both the first floor level and second floor level

2.4 Increasing the width of a visitor car space in the basement by 600mm

replacing the stairs in the landscaped courtyard with wider, curve shaped stairs

STATUTORY CONTROLS

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

3. The application was referred to the Design Review Panel for comment. The Panel requested amendments to the façade design. Amended plans consistent with advice of the DRP were submitted to Council on 14 March 2008. The development is consistent with the 10 design quality principles of SEPP No. 65.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

4. The site is zoned Centre Business 3(a) and a maximum floor space ratio of 2:1 is permitted for a mixed use development. The development as modified has a floor space ratio of 1.67:1, thus satisfying the floor space ratio control.

ISSUES

5. The proposed modifications do no raise any issues with respect to compliance with the requirements of Parramatta LEP 2001 or Parramatta DCP 2005. The revisions to the façade will enhance the streetscape presentation of the development and the amendments to the landscaped courtyard will improve the internal amenity for future residents. The minor increase to the gross floor area is accomplished by modifying elements located behind the façade so that there is no impact on the bulk and scale of the development.

CONSULTATION

6. The application was advertised from 13 February 2008 to 27 February 2008. One petition signed by nine residents of Albion Avenue was received in response to the notification of the development.

7. The petition raises concerns with existing and potential future parking and traffic issues in the area around Merrylands train station.

8. The proposed changes increase the commercial floor space within the development from 286m2 to 296m2. Parramatta DCP 2005 requires 1 car space to be provided for each 50m2 of floor area. Six parking spaces for the commercial component of the development are provided in accordance with this requirement.

9. Whilst the reconfiguration of the residential uses increases the gross floor area of the development, no increases to the number of bedrooms is proposed. The reconfiguration of the residential units does not require an increase in car parking. The development complies with the residential parking requirements contained within Parramatta DCP 2005.

ON SITE MEETING

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

11. In accordance with the above resolution, an invitation to Councillors, Council officers, the applicant and the objectors was sent in relation to the inspection to be held on 3 May 2008, commencing at 9.00am.

12. Present at the site meeting were Councillor Garrard (Chairman), The Lord Mayor Councillor Barber, Council’s Team Leader Development Assessment, Council’s Senior Development Assessment Officer, the applicant and 3 residents. The following issue was discussed at the meeting:

Parking and Traffic

13. Concerns were raised with regard to the existing traffic and parking problems in the area. Residents advised that commuter parking on the streets surrounding the development site was causing issues as residents had no place to park their cars when they returned to their homes. Residents advised that commuter parking had increased significantly in the last 5 years and that this was due in part to the introduction of metered parking in the Parramatta CBD. Residents suggested that parking restrictions should be introduced to discourage commuter parking. Residents also suggested that this would encourage the turnover of parking which would be of benefit to people shopping in Merrylands whom would only require short term parking. Concerns about pedestrian safety were also raised.

14. Councillor Garrard shared the concerns of the residents and suggested that consideration should be given to a resident parking scheme. Clr Garrard also raised concern that Sutherland Lane may not be suitable for two way traffic.

15. Council staff advised that the modifications to the development involved a minor increase in floor area and the proposed car parking provision complied with the requirements of the Development Control Plan. Council staff advised that the existing traffic and parking issues were a separate issue to the consideration of the proposed amendments.

16. It is noted that the residents have previously sent correspondence to the Traffic and Transport Services Manager regarding issues concerning commuter car parking. Council’s records indicated that the Traffic and Transport Services Manager responded to this correspondence on 8 January 2008. CRM No. 408136 has been created to allow the suggestion of introducing a residents parking scheme and making Sutherland Lane one way to be further considered by Council’s Traffic Section.

Johnathon Goodwill

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Development Application History	1 Page
3View	Design Review Panel Comments	3 Pages
4View	Plans and Elevations	11 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Locality Map

Attachment 2

Development Application History

Attachment 3

Design Review Panel Comments

Attachment 4

Plans and Elevations

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 13.7

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.7

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

DESCRIPTION Demolition and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building over basement carparking with strata subdivision. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE DA/772/2007 - Submitted 18 September 2007

APPLICANT/S Jotan Holdings Pty Ltd

OWNERS Jotan Holdings Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine development application No. 772/2007 which seeks approval for the demolition of the existing dwellings and the construction of a 3 storey residential flat building with basement car parking and strata subdivision.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council approve Development Application No. 772/2007 by the granting of a deferred commencement consent requiring the applicant to provide Council with proof of registration of an easement 1.2m wide for drainage through Lot 56 DP 827500 being Lots 1-8 SP 45514 with the NSW Department of Lands. Upon satisfaction of this matter, an operational consent subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions be issued by Council:

1. Amended plans are to be submitted with the application for the construction certificate. The plans are to demonstrate that at least 10m3 of storage will be provided for each unit within the basement car park.

Reason: To ensure that adequate storage space is provided for the residents of the development.

2. Sensor activated lighting is to be provided to the pathway on the eastern side of the development. The plans submitted with the application for the construction certificate are to be revised to reflect this requirement.

Reason: To ensure that adequate safety is provided to the development.

3. Amended plans are to be submitted with the application for the construction certificate. The plans are to indicate that the height of the wall which separates the front courtyards of units 2 and 3 is a maximum of 1.2m.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes a positive contribution to the streetscape.

4. Amended plans are to be submitted with the application for the construction certificate. The plans are to indicate that the maximum height of the front fence is 1.2m.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes a positive contribution to the streetscape.

5. The provision of disabled access throughout the ground floor level of the development is required and shall be in compliance with the Building Code of Australia Part D3 “Access for People with Disabilities” and Australian Standard AS1428.1 (2001) - Design for Access and Mobility - Part 1 General Requirements for Access - Buildings. A stair ascender is to be provided to the stairs from the basement car park to the ground floor level. This requirement shall be reflected on the Construction Certificate plans.

Reason: To ensure equity of access and appropriate facilities are available for people with disabilities in accordance with Federal legislation.

6. A convex mirror to be installed within the ramp access (one near the entry driveway and one at the bottom of the ramp access) with its height and location adjusted to allow an exiting driver a full view of the driveway in order to see if another vehicle is coming through.

Reason: To provide adequate traffic safety within the development.

7. A contractor with specialist excavation experience must undertake the excavations for the development and a suitably qualified and consulting geotechnical engineer must oversee the excavation procedure. Geotechnical aspects of the development that must be considered include: appropriate excavation methods, machinery and techniques including proper shoring (support) and stabilization of the earth (excavated faces), hydro geological considerations, vibration management and monitoring, and minimal disturbance to the neighbourhood.

Reason: To ensure that excavation work has minimal impact on the amenity of the area.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is on the southern side of Gladstone Street between Sorrell Street and Brickfield Street. The site is compromised of two separate allotments which were created by a subdivision registered in 1922. The site has a frontage of 24.995m, depth of 33.53m and area of 838m2. The site contains 2 fibro dwellings with detached garages. The site falls to the rear.

2. Adjoining the site to the west is a single storey fibro cottage of similar design to the existing cottages located on the site. To the western side of the cottage is an open drainage canal. Adjoining the site to the east is a two storey brick dwelling located on the corner, with frontage to both Gladstone and Brickfield Street. Adjoining the site to the south is a 3 storey residential flat building, the ground floor level of which, contains a semi basement parking area accessed from Brickfield Street. The long axis of the building runs in an east/west direction and the northern elevation has a setback of 4m from the boundary shared with the development site. The first floor level of the building is elevated approximately 1.8m above the natural ground level.

PROPOSAL

3. The proposal is for the demolition of two dwellings, and detached garages, tree removal, and the construction of a 3 storey residential flat building, containing 7 X 2 bedroom units, 2 X 1 bedroom units over a basement car park containing 11 car spaces. Consent to strata subdivide the completed development is also being sought.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX)

4. A BASIX certificate was submitted with the application. The development is consistent with the requirements of the BASIX SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Contaminated Land

5. The site has a history of usage for residential purposes. It is unlikely that the site is contaminated.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings)

6. The application was considered by SEPP 65 Design Review Panel on 6 November 2007. The Panel requested amendments to the development. The applicant submitted amended plans in accordance with the requirements of the Panel on 7 December 2007. The amended plans were considered by the Panel on 22 January 2008. The Panel requested further amendments to the design. The applicant submitted amended plans in accordance with the requirements of the Panel on 21 February 2008. The proposed development is consistent with the requirements of SEPP 65 and is supported by the Panel.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

7. The site is zoned Residential 2(c) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and residential flat buildings are permissible within the Residential 2(c) zone with the consent of Council. The development complies with the maximum floor space ratio control of 0.8:1 and the 3 storey maximum height control. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of PLEP 2001.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

8. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the DCP. Non compliances with the requirements of the plan are discussed in the ‘ISSUES’ section of this report.

CONSULTATION

9. In accordance with the requirements of the Notification DCP the application was notified between 10 October 2007 and 31 October 2007. Four submissions were received. The following issues were raised in all submissions:

The height of the building is excessive and is not consistent with the height of other buildings in the area bordered by Gladstone, Sorrell, Isabella and Brickfield Streets.

10. Parramatta LEP 2001 limits the height of residential flat buildings in the Residential 2(c) zone to a maximum of three storeys. The development has a height of 3 storeys in accordance with the requirements of the LEP.

Lights from car headlights will shine into bedroom windows at No. 31 Brickfield Street.

11. A review of the floors plans for No. 31 Brickfield Street indicates that the windows which are opposite the proposed driveway serve kitchens. Given this, it is unlikely that headlights from vehicles would unduly disturb the residents of No. 31 Brickfield Street.

How will the site be drained? The body corporate for No. 31 Brickfield Street has rejected a request for the easement shown on the plans.

12. The stormwater outlet for the development is to be connected to a proposed easement within No. 31 Brickfield Street. It is noted that the submissions from residents of No. 31 Brickfield Street suggest that the body corporate has not agreed to the easement. The lack of consent from the body corporate does not prevent the development application being approved with registration of the easement subject to a deferred commencement condition.

Excavation may undermine No. 31 Brickfield Street. What will Council do to ensure that safety of this building?

13. It is noted that the basement is set back 5.77m from the rear boundary which is shared with No. 31 Brickfield Street. Standard conditions will be imposed requiring the preparation of dilapidation reports prior to the commencement of construction and non standard condition will be imposed to ensure that the excavation is undertaken in an appropriate manner. The issue of damage caused by construction work is a civil matter between the developer/builder and the affected property owner.

The development will landlock No. 25 Gladstone Street and reduce its value by $200,000.

14. The 2 storey dwelling located at No. 25 Gladstone Street is of relatively recent construction. The size and age of the dwelling does not lend itself to re-development. The objectives of the Residential 2(c) zone encourage a range of housing types including single dwellings. The isolation of No. 25 Gladstone Street is not an issue that warrants refusal of the application. The impact of a development on property values is not a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

The existing dwellings on the site are likely to contain asbestos.

15. Standard conditions will be imposed regarding the procedures for the demolition of buildings containing asbestos and the disposal of materials containing asbestos.

The development will reduce solar access to No. 31 Brickfield Street

16. Parramatta DCP 2005 requires that development maintain 3 hours solar access to the habitable rooms of adjoining dwellings. Drawings which show the shadow cast by the development onto the northern façade of No. 31 Brickfield Street have been submitted. An assessment of the drawings indicates that all the apartments within No. 31 Brickfield Street will receive at least 3 hours solar access in accordance with the requirements of DCP 2005.

Waste from demolition should be recycled

17. A waste management plan was submitted with the development application. The waste management plan addresses Council’s requirements and is considered acceptable.

Tree removal should be avoided

18. Whilst tree removal is proposed, the trees to be removed do not make a significant contribution to the landscaped setting of the area. The landscape plan indicates that substantial additional planting is proposed including twenty-one trees that have a mature height of greater than 6m.

An increase in density should not overburden utilities and there should be ample space for children to play

19. Standard conditions will be imposed requiring the development to consult with utility providers prior to the commencement of construction. A communal open space area is provided at the rear of the site.

ISSUES

Deep Soil Area

20. Parramatta DCP 2005 requires that 30% of the site area is a deep soil area. The development provides 242.8m2 of deep soil area which represents 28.9% of the site area. The shortfall in deep soil area is in the order of 8.6m2. Trees to the rear of the site will be retained and the layout of the development allows for a corridor of vegetation at the rear of the block to be maintained.

21. The non compliance with the deep soil area is minor and the development is consistent with the underlying objectives of the deep soil controls.

Landscaped Area

22. The development provides 283.1m2 of landscaped area which represents 33.7% of the site area. The shortfall in landscaped area is in the order of 52.1m2.

23. The DCP states that areas with a dimension of less than 2m are not included as landscaped area. As a result of this control, 57.9m2 of site area which is landscaped has not been included in the landscaped area calculation.

24. The design principle attached to the landscaped area control includes that, ‘Landscaping is to enhance the visual setting and accentuate the design qualities of the built form. Landscaping solutions are to be used to create a screening effect for visually obtrusive land uses or building elements’.

25. A review of the landscape plan indicates that substantial planting is provided adjacent to the boundaries of the site for screening purposes. Planter boxes are provided throughout the site which will improve privacy within the development and enhance the amenity for residents. The soil depth within the planter boxes is a minimum of 1m, thus maximising their ability to sustain vegetation without requiring significant maintenance.

26. The development is consistent with the objectives of the landscaped area control and the variation of the numerical standard is considered acceptable in this instance.

Basement Storage

27. Part 4.5.1 ‘Parking and Vehicular Access’ of Parramatta DCP 2005 requires that each unit be provided with 10m3 of storage space in the basement.

28. The basement plans indicate the location of storage areas but do not provide details regarding the capacity of each storage area. A condition is recommended requiring that amended plans be submitted with the application for construction certificate demonstrating that 10m3 of storage will be provided for each unit within the basement car park.

Safety and Security

29. At their meeting of 22 January 2008 the Design Review Panel requested that adequate path lighting be provided for safety and security purposes. A condition is recommended requiring sensor activated lighting to be provided to the pathway on the eastern side of the development.

Private and Communal Open Space

30. Part 4.3.1 ‘Private and Communal Open Space’, of Parramatta DCP 2005 requires that private open space areas have a minimum dimension of 2m and that private open space within the street setback is not included in the minimum private open space area calculation. The patios to the northern side of units 2 and 3 have an area of 5.78m2 and dimensions of 1.7m by 3.4m. Unit 2 has access to 18.7m2 of the street setback area and unit 3 has access to 32.1m2 of the street setback area. As these areas are located within the street setback they cannot be included in the minimum private open space area calculation.

31. The patios are the principal outdoor living spaces for these units because they have the greatest level of privacy due to the use of privacy screens and planter boxes. The front courtyards adjoining the patios are in full view of the street and will not provide adequate privacy unless high fencing was provided, which would not be suitable in the streetscape.

32. The Residential Flat Design Code suggests that a balcony with a depth of 2m is adequate for a table and two chairs. A condition is recommended requiring the depth of the terraces to be increased to 2m by reducing the size of the planter boxes. This modification will increase the area of the patios to 6.8m2. In combination with the front courtyards, the extended patios will provide adequate private open space to the dwellings. The variation of the 10m2 minimum requirement of the DCP is considered acceptable in this instance.

Fences

33. The front courtyards for units 2 and 3 have been created by dividing the front setback area into two portions with a 1.7m high wall that is perpendicular to the front boundary. A 1.7m high wall located within the front setback area would have a negative impact on the streetscape. A condition is recommended restricting the height of the wall to a maximum of 1.2m.

34. A front fence of masonry and timber slat construction is proposed. Whilst the elevations suggest that the fence has a maximum height of 1.2m, the section drawing indicates that the fence has a height of up to 1.6m. Part 4.2.2 of Parramatta DCP 2005 restricts the height of front fences to a maximum of 1.2m. A condition is recommended restricting the height of the fence to a maximum of 1.2m.

Building Separation

35. Part 4.3.3 of DCP 2005 requires a separation of 12m between habitable rooms/balconies of residential flat buildings. The south facing windows to bedroom 2 on levels 1 and 2 of the development have a separation of 10m from the kitchen and bedroom windows on levels 1 and 2 of the adjoining flat building to the rear at No. 31 Brickfield Street.

36. It is noted that the proposed 5.6m rear setback exceeds the 5m requirement of the DCP and that the setback of the adjoining building from the shared boundary is 4m.

37. It is an accepted planning principle that bedroom windows have lesser potential for privacy impacts than windows to living areas. Privacy in bedrooms is maintained through the use of curtains and blinds. As the development already exceeds the rear setback requirement it is not considered reasonable to require an increase in the setback to comply with the 12m separation control. The bedroom windows would have minimal privacy impact on the adjoining development and the non compliance with the 12m requirement is considered acceptable in this instance.

Site Isolation

38. Part 4.1.11 ‘Site Consolidation and Development on Isolated Sites’ of DCP 2005 requires that development is not to result in the creation of an isolated site that could not be developed in compliance with the relevant planning controls. The development will create two isolated sites which do not comply with the 24m frontage required for a residential flat building.

39. Part 4.1.11 requires applicants to demonstrate that a genuine and reasonable attempt has been made to purchase an isolated site and that where amalgamation with the isolated site is not feasible applicants demonstrate that an, ‘orderly and economic use and development of the separate sites can be achieved’.

40. No. 25 Gladstone Street is located on the eastern side of the development site. A 2 storey brick dwelling is located on the site. The size and age of the dwelling does not lend itself to re-development. The objectives of the Residential 2(c) zone encourage a range of housing types including single dwellings. The retention of the building is consistent with the zone objectives.

41. No. 19 Gladstone Street is located on the western side of the development site. The western boundary of this site adjoins a drainage canal. The site has an area of approximately 417m2 and is of similar dimensions to the allotments which comprise the development site. A single storey 3 bedroom dwelling is located on the site. The approval of the subject development would create an isolated site that is incapable of being amalgamated with another site to satisfy the 24m frontage requirement.

42. The applicant commissioned a valuation of No. 19 Gladstone Street and made an offer to purchase the property. The owner of the property has advised that the property is a long term investment and he does not wish to sell.

43. The applicant has also submitted concept building envelope drawings for a 3 storey flat building on the site. The concept plans propose a building envelope that is neither functional nor makes a positive contribution to the streetscape. The isolated site is unlikely to be suitable for the construction of a residential flat building. However as the owner of the property has refused to sell the property it is considered unreasonable to refuse the application because an isolated site would be created.

44. It is noted that the Residential 2(c) zone permits a variety of uses, including single dwellings and dual occupancy’s. The isolated site would be suitable for the construction of a dwelling. The applicant has made a genuine attempt to avoid the creation of an isolated site and has satisfied the requirements of part 4.1.11.

Housing Diversity and Choice

45. Part 4.4.3 ‘Housing Diversity and Choice’ of DCP 2005 requires that all ground floor dwellings in buildings without a lift must be ‘visitable’ by people with a disability and that there must be a continuous path of travel from the street and any visitor parking to and through the entrance door of affected dwellings.

46. A non standard condition has been included in the recommendation to ensure the proposal complies with the requirements of the DCP.

Excavation

47. The basement car park has a nil setback from the eastern boundary of the site. This boundary is shared with No. 25 Gladstone Street which contains a 2 storey dwelling. Council’s Development Engineer has recommended a condition requiring a Geotechnical Engineer to oversee the excavation process. The condition has been incorporated into the recommendation.

Jonathan Goodwill

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachme

1View	Design Review Panel Reccomendation	3 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Development Application History	1 Page
4View	Residential Flat Building Checksheet	4 Pages
5View	Plans and Elevations	11 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Design Review Panel Reccomendation

Attachment 2

Locality Map

Attachment 3

Development Application History

Attachment 4

Residential Flat Building Checksheet

Attachment 5

Plans and Elevations

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 13.8

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.8

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

DESCRIPTION Fitout and use as a restaurant. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE DA/114/2008 - Submitted 22 February 2008

APPLICANT/S Mr B Bobby

OWNERS Smith Street Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 114/2008 which seeks approval for the fitout and use of an existing premises as a restaurant, including the provision of tables and chairs outside the restaurant.

The application has been referred to Council as the site is listed as a Heritage Item under Schedule 5 of Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 114/2008, subject to standard conditions and the following non standard conditions:

i) The hours of operations being restricted to 6am to midnight, seven days a week. Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

Reason: To minimise the impact on the amenity of the area.

ii) 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.

iii) 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.

iv) Outdoor dining is limited to 12 tables and 26 chairs located wholly within the property boundaries of the subject site. No outdoor dining is permitted on Councils footpath area at any time without further approval from Council.

Reason: To confirm details of the application.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is known as 1/25 Smith Street, Parramatta (Lot 1 DP 1098507) and is located on the eastern side of Smith Street. The site is surrounded by commercial and retail development. The site is part of a recently built commercial and retail development, approved under DA/688/2005.

BACKGROUND

2. DA/688/2005 was for a Section 82A Review of Determination of Development Application 688/2005 for the demolition of the existing heritage listed facade of Exeter Manor and construction of a commercial building comprising 8 levels over basement car parking for 51 vehicles. The application was approved on 2 February 2006.

3. DA/688/2005/A was for a Section 96(A) modification to an approved commercial development including changes to the internal layout, external facade, construction hours and deletion of condition 6. The application was approved on 11 December 2006.

4.

DA/668/2005/B was for a Section 96 modification of DA/688/2005 for the construction of a commercial development. Modifications included addition of external steps to cafe tenancy, handrail to roof perimeter and building maintenance unit support rail to the roof. The application was approved on 13 August 2007.

PROPOSAL

5. The proposal seeks approval for the fitout and use as a restaurant with outdoor dining.

6. The proposed outdoor dining consists of 12 tables and 26 chairs to be located wholly within the boundaries of the subject site and is not located on Councils footpath area.

7. The hours of operation are 6am to midnight, 7 days a week.

8. The proposed use will include 4 employees.

9. No signage is proposed as part of this application.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

10. The site is zoned B3 Commercial Core under the provisions of the City Centre Local Environmental Plan and the proposed use of the tenancy as a restaurant and fitout is permissible within the zone, with the consent of Council.

City Centre Development Control Plan 2007

11. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and controls of the City Centre Development Control Plan.

CONSULTATION

12. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 11 March 2008 and 25 March 2008. No submissions were received.

ISSUES

Heritage

13. The site is listed as an item of local significance under the City Centre Local Environmental Plan.

14. The Development Application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment. The comments from the Heritage Advisor are as follows:

“The place has been substantially redeveloped with elements of significance now reduced to the interpretive panels on the rear wall. No objection is raised to the proposed works.”

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

Environment & Health

16. The Development Application was referred to Council’s Environment and Health Officer for comment due to the fitout and use as a restaurant. No objection was raised to the proposal subject to conditions being incorporated in the consent.

Parking

17. The proposed restaurant is not considered to create additional traffic. There is sufficient on street parking available and the restaurant adjoins a car parking station to the north.

18. There are no other issues associated with this development.

Hours of Operation

19. The proposed hours of operation are 6am to midnight, 7 days a week. The hours of operation are considered satisfactory as there is no residential development in close proximity to the subject site.

Ashleigh Matta

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Plans and elevations	2 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Plans and elevations

Attachment 2

Locality Map

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 13.9

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.9

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

DESCRIPTION Convert and utilise part of a church building for the purposes of a childcare centre for up to 44 children. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE DA/956/2007 - Submitted - 6 November 2007

APPLICANT/S Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd

OWNERS Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 956/2007 which seeks approval for use of part of the church building as a 44 place childcare centre. The application is referred to Council for determination as delegations require childcare centres to be determined at that level.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 956/2007, subject to standard and the following non-standard conditions.

1. The childcare centre shall operate between 7.00am and 6.30pm, Monday to Friday only. An additional 30 minutes at the start and at the conclusion of the day may be used for administrative/staff functions. After-hours events and activities are restricted to four Saturdays per year for such activities as functions associated with the use as a childcare centre and only between the hours of 9.00am and 5.00pm.

Reason: To minimise the impact on the amenity of the area.

2. The childcare centre is to provide for a maximum of 44 places and must cater for a minimum of 5 children in the 0-2 years age group

Reason: To ensure an adequate number of places for 0-2 year olds.

3. Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, written certification from a suitably qualified person is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority, to certify that the proposed development complies with the requirements of the Children’s Services Regulation, 2004 and any other requirements of the Department of Community Services.

Reason: To ensure that the proposal satisfies legislative requirements.

4. The proponent shall ensure that on-site signage includes an after hours contact telephone number.

Reason: For security purposes.

5. A solid fence to a height of 2.3 metres is to be provided along the side (western) boundary of the site between the childcare centre and the adjoining residential flat building, adjacent to the outdoor play area. A plan detailing compliance with this condition is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

Reason: To mitigate noise.

6. At least one parking space shall be marked for use by a disabled person, as part of the total parking provision.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Childcare Centres DCP

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. Other than the school (with a separate campus on the southern side of Alice Street) and the church, the surrounding area is primarily residential, ranging from single storey detached dwelling houses to residential flat buildings of varying height.

2. A concrete-lined stormwater channel is located at the rear of the site. This channel generally follows the alignment of the former Clay Cliff Creek. The lowest floor level of the childcare centre would be sited approximately 4.08 metres above the 1 in 100 year flood level and approximately 8 metres from the edge of the channel.

PROPOSAL

3. It is proposed to convert and utilise part of the ground floor of the Our Lady of Lebanon Church building for the purposes of a 44-place childcare centre. The centre will be operated by the church. It is proposed to operate the facility between the hours of 6.30am and 7.00pm, Mondays to Fridays. The proposed hours of operation include time for setting up at the start of the day, as well as cleaning duties at the end. The applicant also seeks to use the centre on 4 Saturdays per year for ancillary functions/parties, such as at Christmas time and for open days, between 9.00am and 5.00pm.

4. Eleven carparking spaces will be specifically allocated to the weekday operation of the childcare centre, within a facility that currently provides 296 on-site parking spaces.

5. The centre would have an anticipated child age breakdown of 19 in the 3-6 year group, 20 in the 2-3 year group and 5 in the 0-2 year age group.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 28 (Parramatta)

6. The site is zoned Special Uses and is located within the Harris Park Precinct pursuant to SREP 28.

7. Part of the site is subject to the height provisions prescribed by Clause 290(2)(c) of the SREP, which does not nominate a specific height standard, but requires an assessment that a proposal will not dominate the topographical features of the river landscape. The remaining part of the site is subject to a height limit of 11 metres.

8. The building within which the childcare centre will be located is not subject to a floorspace limitation under the SREP, whilst the area of the at-grade carparking area at the front of the site is subject to a maximum FSR of 0.8:1. No development is to take place in the latter part of the site.

9. The site is located within an Area of National Significance and is subject to the provisions of Clause 29N (1) and (2) of the REP, relating to objectives and the impact of development on nearby heritage items and the surrounding area generally. The proposal will have no impact as it will be contained within an existing building and will also utilise existing outdoor areas.

10. Part of the site is flood liable and is subject to the provisions of Clause 76 of the REP. No external works are proposed to the building, other than in relation to landscaping and play equipment. Development in this area will not increase flood risk up or down stream from the site. Furthermore, the site is well fenced off from the open stormwater channel, thereby ensuring the safety of children.

11. Development of the site is permissible on land zoned Special Uses (Church & School), with consent, only where such development is consistent with the land use specified and where the proposal satisfies the following objectives of the Special Uses zone :

11.1 to facilitate certain development on land which is used by public authorities, institutions or organisations to provide community facilities, services, utilities or transport facilities, being the primary use for the land specified on the Harris Park Precinct Zoning Map; and

11.2 to allow other ancillary development which is incidental to the primary use for the land.

12. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of SREP No. 28. The childcare centre provides a community service and is incidental to the primary use of the land for church purposes.

Harris Park DCP

13. The development is subject to the provisions of the Harris Park DCP. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and design controls of the DCP.

Childcare Centre DCP 2005

14. The development is subject to the provisions of the Childcare Centre DCP 2005. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the DCP. A compliance table is included as Attachment 1.

CONSULTATION

15. The proposal was advertised and notified from 21^st November to 12^th December, 2007. The notification generated three submissions objecting to the proposal.

16. The issues raised in the submissions are addressed below.

Increase in noise (children and vehicles, as well as existing noise levels)

17. The development application is sufficiently distant from any nearby residential properties so as not to be likely to result in any adverse acoustic impacts. The development application includes an acoustic assessment of the proposal that concludes that the daytime activities of the childcare centre will not be discernible over the noise levels resulting from the local school.

18. The acoustic report concludes that the design of the proposal does not require any modifications to achieve acoustic compliance.

19. The report also concludes that any new airconditioning condenser unit shall be free of tonal components as defined in the NSW Noise Control Manual and selected for quiet operation.

20. The report also concludes that:

“It is a general misconception that the outdoor areas of childcare centres will produce noise levels similar to those experienced around government school playgrounds and the like. These situations cannot be compared due to the differences in the level of supervision, the difference in objectives, and the difference in childhood development.”

21. Given the location of the property within the grounds of a school and a church, there is no requirement to reduce or limit the hours or numbers involved in outdoor play.

Proximity of other childcare centres to the site

22. Concern has been raised by a local resident that there are other childcare centres located in proximity to the site. The objector does not make any specific comment in relation to why this is an issue.

23. While Council does not have a specific anti-clustering policy in relation to childcare, it is mindful of the cumulative impact (in terms of traffic, parking, noise) where childcare centres are allowed to flourish in particular locations.

24. There are a number of centres located in Harris Park, but perhaps none with the advantages of the subject site in terms of location, facilities, distance from residential properties and on-site carparking. Given the favourable site and locality conditions, refusal of the proposal based on clustering of childcare centres is not warranted as there will be no significant cumulative impact.

25. Other childcare centres located in a 2 kilometre radius are shown on the map at Attachment 3.

Questions what area to be used for external play

26. The outdoor play area is depicted on the landscape plan. The area comprises a mix of the following areas: paved, soft-fall play, soft soil landscape, planter boxes and sand-pits. The outdoor area exceeds 660m² and satisfies the minimum requirements of the CCCDCP and Children’s Services Regulation (2004), which require a minimum outdoor area of about 308m². This area will also incorporate shade structures.

ISSUES

Traffic & parking

27. The applicant has submitted a traffic management plan for the operation of the premises, which includes an assessment of the carparking demand based on the requirements of the Childcare Centres DCP. The report concludes that the 11 spaces to be allocated in accordance with the DCP is satisfactory and will not conflict with the operation of the church. The existing carpark provides 296 spaces.

28. Generally there will be no conflict between the peak drop-off and collection times of the childcare centre and the mass times for the church (which would be essentially on weekends), as well as in relation to the school.

29. The traffic management plan concludes that:

- The site would be a low peak hour traffic generator and the traffic impacts of the development would be minimal and with minimal impact on the surrounding road network.

- Intersections surrounding the proposed development site would continue to operate with a satisfactory level of service in the future.

- The site provides more than ample parking provision for the childcare centre.

30. The development application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for assessment. Her comments are outlined below:

31.

Description	SREP 28/RTA TGD/ AS 2890.1 – 2004 Requirements	Proposal	Comments
Parking Provision	11 parking spaces	11 parking spaces (existing spaces within church site)	Acceptable
Access Arrangement	3.0m–5.5m wide combined entry & exit driveway	Existing separate entry & exit driveway	Satisfactory

32. Parking requirements according to Council’s Child Care Centre (CCC) DCP – adopted by Council on 28 May 2007 & SREP 28 maximum requirements:

- 1 space per 4 children –11 parking spaces required

- 1 disabled parking space per 10 spaces; if parking spaces are less than 10, then at least 1 space must be provided

33. It is noted that the required dimensions for a parking bay according to AS 2890.1-2004 are 2.6m wide x 5.4m long for short term stay parking. As these parking spaces are located within the existing parking area (within the church premises), the dimensions of these spaces are considered acceptable.

34. At least one parking space should be marked for use by a disabled person, as part of the total parking provision, according to Council’s Childcare Centres DCP. A condition to this effect is included in the Recommendation.

35. The operating hours of the proposed child care centre, existing church and the school opposite the church are such that peak periods would be at different times of the day and of the week and are not expected to have a significant traffic impact on the road network.

36. In accordance with Council policy, the proposal was referred to the Traffic Committee for consideration.

37. The Traffic Engineering Advisory Committee considered this proposal at its meeting of 14 April 2008, where it made the following recommendation:

“No objection is raised to the proposal on traffic and parking grounds subject to the following traffic related conditions:

(i) Eleven off-street parking spaces (including 1 disabled parking space) to be provided, permanently marked on the pavement and used accordingly. The disabled parking space dimensions to be 3.8 metres wide x 5.5 metres long in accordance with Council’s requirements.

(ii) The existing separate entry & exit driveways to be used and provided for the proposed childcare centre.

(iii) Traffic facilities, such as; wheel stops, bollards, kerbs, signposting, pavement markings, lighting and speed humps, shall comply with AS2890.1.

(iv) For footpath construction and/or restoration, if required as per final conditions, shall require a Road Occupancy Permit and Road Opening Permit. The applicant shall submit an application for a Road Occupancy Permit through Council’s Traffic & Transport Services and a Road Opening Permit through Council’s Restoration Engineer, prior to carrying out the construction/restoration works.”

38. These are included as standard conditions of consent.

SITE MEETING

39. In accordance with Council’s resolution, an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 23 February 2007 at 9.00am. Present at the site meeting were Councillor Brown (chairperson), Councillor Jamal, Councillor Chedid, with apologies from Councillor Worthington and Councillor Wearne; local residents; the applicant, owner and Council’s Development and Certification Team Leader.

40. The following issues were discussed at the meeting:

Noise from the proposed childcare centre and the existing facilities on the site

41. Residents raised concerns that the existing area adjoins their residential flat building, in particular the carpark area, where noise is often generated after midnight when there has been a function. Residents are concerned that the proposed development will increase the noise, in particular additional noise generated from the childcare centre.

42. The applicant responded that they were not aware of this behaviour after a function and will raise the matter with the caretaker and parishioners. Residents were advised that if the hours of use extend beyond the development consent they are to notify Council for further investigation. In addition, the applicant agreed to provide the residents with a contact number for after hours concerns. The requirement to provide this telephone number is included as an extra-ordinary condition of consent.

43. In addition, it was noted that the proposed childcare centre will be located within the ground floor of the existing development which will ensure noise generated form the use will be contained within the site. The outdoor play area is to be located to the rear of the site, with the outdoor play areas being predominantly orientated towards the drainage channel rather than towards adjoining residential properties.

44. A condition of consent is also included in the Recommendation in relation to installing a 2.3 metres high solid fence between the outdoor playing area and the adjoining residential flat building to the west, to further reduce any acoustic privacy issues. A fence of such height is considered appropriate in terms of both acoustic and visual privacy.

Parking arrangements with the proposed childcare facility in particular drop-off areas.

45. Residents expressed concerns about the arrangements for the drop- off of children using the facility as there are existing parking difficulties associated with the school and the church. In this residents claim that parishioners have parked in the allocated spaces within the neighbouring resident’s site, blocking resident’s vehicles in and requiring the attendance of the police.

46. The applicant responded stating that they are unaware of this situation in regard to parishioners parking within the adjoining site and advised that the site needs to be better managed in regard to parking and noise than it has been done so previously. Residents claimed to have provided their own action to prevent further illegal parking by non-residents, but expressed that the church community be better educated on legal parking arrangements in the locality.

47. It was advised that the proposed childcare centre will not generate additional parking concerns as there is ample parking on the site and the proposed hours of use for the childcare centre will not conflict with the church, in particular mass times, as these services which generate parking are held on weekends, when the childcare is closed.

48. Residents were walked through the parking arrangements during the site inspection, and this did not appear to generate any further concerns.

Does the childcare centre provide a service for the community or is the use isolated to the church community?

49. Residents requested clarification in the management of the childcare centre and if the centre allow the wider community to use the service or is the centre designed for the church community only.

50. In response, the applicant acknowledged that the use is not isolated to the church community and will be outsourced in the management of the childcare through a leasing arrangement, and as such, is a community asset to be utilised by all residents.

51. The meeting closed with all issues being summarised at 9.45am with the objectors, applicant and Councillors being advised that they will be notified in writing of the date in which the DA will be presented to a Council meeting for determination.

No acknowledgement of letter of objection

52. One objector residing at 16/34 Alice Street, raised concern that she had written a letter of objection concerning the proposal and it had not been acknowledged by Council. The resident did advise that she had been notified of the site meeting.

53. An investigation by Council’s administration officers indicates that no objection appears to have been received. All persons who were notified of the development application are automatically informed of the site meeting, irrespective of whether they had lodged a submission. However, it is noted that this objector raised issues of concern to her during the site meeting and that these issues are addressed in this report.

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Plans & Elevations	4 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Childcare centres in the locality map	1 Page
4View	History of Development Application	1 Page
5View	Compliance Table (Childcare Centres DCP)	1 Page
6View	Acoustic Report	18 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Plans & Elevations

Attachment 2

Locality Map

Attachment 3

Childcare centres in the locality map

Attachment 4

History of Development Application

Attachment 5

Compliance Table (Childcare Centres DCP)

Attachment 6

Acoustic Report

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 13.10

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.10

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

DESCRIPTION Demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of an attached two storey dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision.

REFERENCE DA/634/2007 - Submitted: 14 August 2007

APPLICANT/S Mr J Rou

OWNERS Ms R Jia

REPORT OF Development Assessment Officer

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 634/2007 that seeks approval for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of an attached two storey dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision.

This application is being referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 634/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

1. A dilapidation report of the adjoining dwellings, including a photographic survey prepared by a Practising Structural Engineer, must be prepared in respect of the property’s known as 2 Wyuna Place and 5 Bells Road, Oatlands.

A copy of the dilapidation report together with the accompanying photographs shall be given to the above property owners, and a copy lodged with Council prior the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason: To ensure the proposal does not impact on the adjoining properties.

2. The existing colorbond fence along the property boundary shared between 1 Wyuna Place and 5 Bells Road is to remain.

3. Two street trees of the species Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush) are to be planted in 75 litre containers within the nature strip of 1 Wyuna Place, in front of the property and at distances of 3 m from any driveway.

Reason: To enhance the landscape character of the street.

4. The landscape plan submitted with the application (Drawing No. L1 (Rev 3) by Warwick Ralph) is not approved. An amended landscape plan is to be prepared by a qualified landscape architect or landscape designer is to be submitted to the PCA for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

The proposed landscaping is to include a range of indigenous / low water use species of vegetation including grasses / tufted plants, ferns, ground covers / scramblers, shrubs and trees. Suitable species’ may be chosen from Parramatta City Council’s list of indigenous / low water use species which is attached to this consent. The landscape plan is to address landscaping at the front, rear, side and separating boundaries of the site and is to indicate the location of the proposed species to be planted and their respective container sizes. The plan is to contain details of typical planting, staking and specifications.

5. A Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the PCA prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The plan shall detail:-

(a) The proposed method of access to and egress from the site for construction vehicles, including access routes through the Council area and the location and type of temporary vehicular crossing for the purpose of minimising traffic congestion and noise in the area, with no access across public parks or reserves being allowed. In this regard, the laneway behind the row of shops located at the intersection of Bells Road and Wyuna Place is not permitted to be used by construction vehicles and is not to be used for the queuing of construction vehicles associated with the development.

(b) The proposed phases of construction works on the site and the expected duration of each construction phase.

(c) The proposed order in which works on the site will be undertaken, and the method statements on how various stages of construction will be undertaken.

(d) The proposed manner in which adjoining property owners will be kept advised of the timeframes for completion of each phase of the development/construction process.

(e) The proposed method of loading and unloading excavation and construction machinery, excavation and building materials, formwork and the erection of any part of the structure within the site.

(f) The proposed areas within the site to be used for the storage of excavated materials, construction materials and waste containers during the construction period.

(g) The proposed method/device to remove loose material from all vehicles and/or machinery before entering the road reserve, any run-off from the washing down of vehicles shall be directed to the sediment control system within the site.

(h) The proposed method of support to any excavation adjacent to adjoining properties, or the road reserve. The proposed method of support is to be designed and certified by an Accredited Certifier (Structural Engineering), or equivalent.

(i) Proposed protection for Council and adjoining properties.

(j) The location and operation of any on site crane.

(k) The location of any Construction Zone (if required) approved by Council’s Traffic Committee, including a copy of that approval.

Reason: To ensure appropriate measures have been considered for site access, storage and the operation of the site during all phases of the construction process in a manner that respects adjoining owner’s property rights and residential amenity in the locality, without unreasonable inconvenience to the community.

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

PROPOSAL

1. Approval is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of an attached dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision to create two individual lots.

SITE & LOCALITY

2. The site is known as 1 Wyuna Place, Oatlands and the legal description is Lot 13 DP 31813. The subject site is located on the northern side of Wyuna Place with a north to south orientation with a substantial fall from the rear to the front of the site. The site is irregular in shape and measures 910.7sqm in area with a frontage of 22.86m to Wyuna Place and depths of 50.52m and 39.63m respectively. Existing improvements on the site include a single storey detached residential dwelling and a small fibro shed to the rear.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

3. The site is zoned 2A Residential pursuant to the provisions of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and dual occupancy developments are permissible within the 2A Residential zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the provisions of PLEP 2001.

4. Clause 38(4A) of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 permits the subdivision of lots where approval for a dual occupancy has been obtained.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

5. The provisions of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal achieves compliance with the numerical requirements of the plan and is also consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan. A numerical compliance table demonstrating the proposed development’s compliance with PDCP 2005 is attached.

CONSULTATION

6. In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 24 August and 7 September 2007. In response, 2 written submissions and 2 petitions containing a total of 46 signatures were received.

7. The application was amended and further notified between 15 and 29 January 2008. In response to the notification period for the amended plans, 2 further written submissions and 1 petition containing 25 signatures were received. The issues raised in the objector letters and petitions are discussed below.

Traffic and Parking

Concern is raised that inadequate off-street parking is provided for the development.

8. Section 4.5.1 of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires a Dual Occupancy development to provide 2 parking spaces per dwellings where the floor area of the dwelling is greater than 125m² in area. The proposed floor areas of the dwellings are greater than 125m² and therefore 2 parking spaces are required per dwelling. The proposal allows for 2 parking spaces in tandem garage form for each dwelling which is consistent with the requirements of the DCP.

Concern is also raised that the proposed tandem garages will not be used as intended.

9. Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 does not contain any controls restricting tandem garages for Dual Occupancy development.

Concern is raised over the safety of motorists and pedestrians as a result of the increased traffic to Wyuna Place and an increased danger to motorists at the intersection of Wyuna Place and Bells Road. Further concern is raised that Wyuna Place is not wide enough to cater for the development.

10. The proposed development was referred to Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer who raised no objection to the proposal. Furthermore, Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer advised that the development will not have a significant traffic impact on the road network. It is noted that traffic calming devices are proposed to be installed on Bells Road within close proximity to the intersection of Wyuna Place. The traffic calming devices were recommended for approval at the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting of 14 April 2008. Notwithstanding their implementation, the traffic generation associated with one additional dwelling on site will not adversely impact the existing traffic environment.

Concern is raised over the proposed steepness of the driveway and that insufficient manoeuvring space is provided within the front setback of the development.

11. The proposed development was referred to Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer and Development Engineer who considered the driveway gradients and manoeuvring and raised no objection to the development subject to conditions including compliance with AS2890.1-2004.

Concern is raised over on-street parking impacting on emergency vehicle access to Wyuna Place.

12. The proposed development includes 2 garaged parking spaces per dwelling which is consistent with the requirements of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005.

Height, Bulk and Scale and Character of the Area

13. Concern is raised that the height, bulk and scale of the development are excessive and resulting in a development that is inconsistent with the existing character of Wyuna Place and that Parramatta Council should not support Dual Occupancy development in the area.

14. The proposed development has an overall maximum height of 2 storeys and 9m which is consistent with the design standards of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005. The proposal is considered to compliment the existing character of Wyuna Place by limiting the bulk and scale of the building through the articulation and design of the dual occupancy. The proposed development will result in the first dual occupancy development within the immediate locality. However, the development complies with all of Council’s development standards as contained within the LEP and DCP, including the maximum floor space ratio development standard.

Asbestos Removal

15. Concern is raised over the demolition of the existing dwelling and the removal and disposal of asbestos material.

16. Standard conditions will be imposed ensuring the proper handling and disposal of any asbestos material.

Drainage

17. Concern is raised that the proposed development will result in seepage as the site sits on a rock shelf.

18. An on-site stormwater detention system is proposed at the front of the site where the site slopes to which has been supported by Council’s Development Engineer.

Damage to Adjoining Dwellings, Adjoining Laneway and Retaining Wall in Laneway

19. Concern is raised over the potential impacts to and damage that may occur to adjoining property’s, the adjoining laneway and a retaining wall within the laneway during excavation and/or drilling (if required) and construction as the site sits on a rock shelf.

20. Standard conditions of consent will be imposed to ensure minimal disturbance to adjoining dwellings, the laneway and the retaining wall in the laneway. A dilapidation report for the adjoining dwellings is also conditioned to be provided prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Privacy

21. Concern is raised that the proposed first floor street facing balconies are excessively sized which may have an impact on the privacy of adjoining residents and provide opportunity for overlooking.

22. The front balcony to dwelling 1 has an area of 6.5m² and the front balcony to unit 2 has an area of 2.5m². Council’s DCP encourages partial overlooking from adjoining properties to the front yards and to the street of neighbouring properties in order to increase security and natural surveillance. This method is also encouraged by the NSW Police’s Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Safer by Design principles. It is acknowledged that the construction of a two storey dual occupancy on the subject site will provide opportunity for some overlooking into the rear of the adjoining properties through bedroom windows. However, the amount of overlooking into the rear yards from the first floor bedroom windows will be limited as these rooms are used less frequently than living areas and predominantly at night. All living areas are located on the ground floors of the development.

Shadow Diagrams and Overshadowing

23. Concern is raised that shadow diagrams have not been submitted with the application and that the development will overshadow the dwellings on the adjoining properties, reducing solar access to the habitable rooms and creating dampness.

24. The shadow diagrams provided indicate that some overshadowing of the adjoining property to the west at 5 Bells Road is anticipated between the hours of 9am and 12pm at the winter solstice on 21 June and the adjoining property to the east at 2 Wyuna Street between the hours of 12pm and 3pm. However, the dwellings and open space areas of the adjoining properties will receive the minimum 3 hour solar access required between 9am and 3pm at the winter solstice on 21 June as required by DCP 2005.

Replacement Fencing

25. Concern is raised over the replacement of an existing colorbond fence along the property boundary shared with 5 Bells Road with a timber paling fence.

26. A condition is proposed requiring the existing colorbond fence along the property boundary shared with 5 Bells Road to be retained.

Amended Plans are Insufficient

27. Concern is raised that the amended plans have made insufficient changes to address the issues previously raised.

28. The amended plans incorporate changes to the proposal which address previous issues raised by Council relating to the bulk and scale and streetscape appearance of the development. The issues raised by objectors have been addressed in this report and suitable conditions are proposed where appropriate to minimise the impacts of the development on adjoining properties.

ON-SITE MEETING

29. Council at its meeting on 9 July 2007, resolved that a site meeting be held for Development applications where five or more submissions have been received. A total of 4 written submissions and 3 petitions containing a total of 71 signatures were received. In accordance with Council’s resolution, an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 23 February 2008 at 12:00pm. Present at the site meeting were Councillor Brown (Chairperson), Clr Chedid, Ali Hammoud (Development Assessment Officer), Danielle Woods (Team Leader, Development and Certification Team) and approximately 30 residents.

30. The following issues were discussed at the meeting:

Residential Subdivision

31. Concern was raised that the proposed development includes the subdivision of a dual occupancy which is inconsistent with the minimum 1,200m² (600m² per site) allotment size required for a subdivision in Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP).

32. The subdivision of a dual occupancy development is subject to separate design standards which are contained in Section 4.6 parts S.1 and S.2 of the DCP. The minimum total allotment size required for a dual occupancy and subdivision is 600m². The subject site measures 910.7m² which is consistent with the requirements of DCP 2005.

33. Concern was raised that the proposed development is inconsistent with the subdivision controls of Council’s DCP which requires vehicles to leave the site in a forward facing direction.

34. Section 4.6 of DCP 2005 includes design principles for residential subdivision including the abovementioned requirement for vehicles to leave the site in a forward facing direction for battleaxe arrangement subdivisions. This requirement is only required for battleaxe allotments or other subdivisions with access corridors as stated under part P.9 of this section. This design principle is therefore not a requirement for Torrens title subdivisions of dual occupancy development.

Parking, Traffic and Safety

Concern was raised that inadequate and insufficient on-site parking is provided for this proposed development. The proposal includes a dual occupancy with a total of 8 bedrooms and 2 studies which could result in 8 cars and only 2 realistic parking spaces proposed for the whole development.

35. Concern was raised that other developments in the street and area have provided sufficient off street parking and are concerned why this development has not. It was also noted that the shops on Bells Road recently constructed additional off-street parking spaces behind the shops.

36. Section 4.5.1 of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires a Dual Occupancy development to provide 2 parking spaces per dwellings where the floor area of the dwelling is greater than 125m² in area. The proposed floor areas of the dwellings are greater than 125m² and therefore 2 parking spaces are required per dwelling. The proposal allows for 2 parking spaces in tandem garage form for each dwelling which is consistent with the requirements of the DCP.

Concern was raised that the tandem configuration of the garage is impractical and would only be used for 1 parking space and not 2 as proposed.

37. Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 does not contain any controls restricting tandem garages for Dual Occupancy development. The proposed development includes 2 garaged parking spaces per dwelling which is consistent with the requirements of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005.

Concern was raised that the steepness of the driveway does not allow for the parking of motor vehicles which will result in an increase in on-street parking.

38. The proposed development was referred to Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer and Development Engineer who considered the driveway gradients and manoeuvring and raised no objection to the development subject to conditions including compliance with AS2890.1-2004.

39. It was requested to be noted that on-street parking is currently an issue for Wyuna Place which takes an overflow of parking from the adjoining shops on Bells Road. This parking in Wyuna Place reduces safety for pedestrians, motorists and residents. It was further noted that staff members who work at the shops are not permitted by the shop managers to park in front of the shops, as these spaces are reserved for customers, resulting in the staff parking in Wyuna Place.

40. It was advised that the accountant within the row of shops has up to 17 employees at the premises at any one time requiring 17 parking spaces. Furthermore, concern was raised that the development will require the occupants to park on the street causing others to park over and block driveways, which is currently occurring.

41. A service request was lodged for Council to investigate the issue with the number of staff employed at the accountant’s office. Clr Brown advised residents that the issue of parking and blocking over driveways is a legal matter which can be referred to the Police.

Concern was raised that the intersection of Wyuna Place and Bells Road is dangerous and that this development would further increase that danger. It was suggested that if the application is approved, traffic calming devices should be installed and no stopping and standing should be imposed for the first portion of Wyuna Place.

Concern was raised that the safety of children in the street will be impacted with this development as the children currently enjoy playing on the street and in front yards of the properties.

42. The proposed development was referred to Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer who raised no objection to the proposal. Furthermore, Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer advised that the development will not have a significant traffic impact on the road network. It is noted that traffic calming devices are proposed to be installed on Bells Road within close proximity to the intersection of Wyuna Place. The traffic calming devices were recommended for approval at the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting of 14 April 2008. Notwithstanding their implementation, the traffic generation associated with one additional dwelling on site will not adversely impact the existing traffic environment.

Height, Bulk and Scale, Cutting of the Site and Overdevelopment

43. Concern was raised over the bulk and scale of the development and that the height of the building is excessive as the site is positioned higher than street level and this will exacerbate the height and bulk and scale. Concern was also raised that the development presents as a residential flat building due to its excessive height, bulk and scale.

44. Concern was raised that the proposed dual occupancy development is an overdevelopment of the site. Particular concern was raised that there are no other dual occupancy developments in the local area and this is the first proposed for Wyuna Place.

45. Concern was raised that the proposal involves a substantial amount of cutting and are further concerned the excessive cutting of the site is an attempt to reduce the overall building height.

46. The proposed development has an overall maximum height of 2 storeys and 9m which is consistent with the design standards of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005. The proposal is considered to compliment the existing character of Wyuna Place by limiting the bulk and scale of the building through the articulation and design of the dual occupancy. The proposed development will result in the first dual occupancy development within the immediate locality. However, the development complies with all of Council’s development standards as contained within the LEP and DCP including the maximum floor space ratio development standard.

Drilling and Excavation

47. Concern was raised over the potential impacts and damage to adjoining properties which may occur during excavation and/or drilling (if required) as the site sits on a rock shelf.

48. Standard conditions will be imposed relating to this issue to ensure minimal disturbance to adjoining dwellings, the laneway and the retaining wall in the laneway including but not limited to the preparation of dilapidation surveys for adjoining properties.

Privacy and Amenity

49. Concern was raised that the side setback (west elevation) backs onto the rear of the adjoining site at 5 Bells Road and this will decrease privacy and impact on the amenity of the adjoining property.

50. Council’s DCP encourages partial overlooking from adjoining properties in order to increase security and natural surveillance which is a method also encouraged by the NSW Police’s Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Safer by Design principles. It is acknowledged that the construction of a two storey dual occupancy on the subject site will provide opportunity for some overlooking into the rear of the adjoining properties through bedroom windows however, the amount of overlooking into the rear yards from the first floor bedroom windows will be limited as these rooms are used less frequently than living areas and predominantly at night. All living areas are located on the ground floors of the development.

Shadows

51. Concern was raised that no shadow diagrams had been provided for the development.

52. Shadow diagrams were submitted with the application however the shadow lines on the plans were not clearly illustrated on the scanned plans which were placed on Council’s DA Tracking website. The plans were re-scanned at a higher quality and were placed online for public viewing. A hard copy of the shadow diagrams were also provided in the summary notes at the on-site meeting.

53. The shadow diagrams provided indicate that some overshadowing of the adjoining property to the west at 5 Bells Road is anticipated between the hours of 9am and 12pm at the winter solstice on 21 June and the adjoining property to the east at 2 Wyuna Street between the hours of 12pm and 3pm. However, the dwellings and open space areas of the adjoining properties will receive the minimum 3 hour solar access required between 9am and 3pm at the winter solstice on 21 June as required by DCP 2005.

Development Intention

54. Concern was raised that the development is an investment opportunity for the owner who will not occupy the development.

55. This is not a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Site Condition

56. Concern was raised that the site will not be maintained once the development is complete, which will impact on the amenity of the area.

57. A customer request was lodged for Council to investigate the overgrown state of the site. Standard conditions requiring the site and landscaping to be maintained for a minimum 2 year period following construction will be imposed on the consent.

Deep/Soft Soil Zones

58. Concern was raised that the development does not comply with Council’s deep soil zone requirements as the deep soil zone calculations include areas which are rock and not true deep soil. Concern was also raised over whether the on-site stormwater detention basin areas are included in the calculation of deep soil zones.

59. Council’s DCP controls allow areas which are able to be vegetated and naturally drain water into the ground (including detention basins) to be calculated as deep soil zones provided they meet the minimum dimension requirement of 4x4m.

60. The proposed development allows for a deep soil area covering 47% of the site (426.5m²) which consists of areas with minimum dimensions of 4x4m. The proposed deep soil areas consistent with the requirements of DCP 2005.

Weighing of Submissions

61. Concern was raised whether submissions of objection on a proposed development application are able to stop the development or result in a refusal of the application.

62. At the on-site meeting, residents were advised that the notification of a Development Application provides the opportunity for concerned residents to submit concerns in writing for Council staff to assess the impacts of the development in relation to the issues raised. Residents were further advised that submissions do not always warrant the refusal of an application, rather, they provide an opportunity for Council to request the applicant to amend their proposal to address these issues.

Traffic Management during Demolition and Construction

63. Concern was raised over the impacts that the development will have on Wyuna Place with particular concern regarding traffic management. Further concern was raised that plant and machinery involved with the development would use the laneway behind the shops to access and leave Wyuna Place which could cause damage to their properties.

64. A condition will be imposed requiring a traffic management plan to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. Furthermore, the application was referred to Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer for assessment who raised no objection to the proposal. A condition requiring the submission of a construction management plan including restricting plant and machinery from using the laneway to access and leave the site and restricting plant and machinery from queuing in Wyuna Place will be imposed on the consent.

Asbestos Removal during Demolition

65. Residents raised concern over the removal of asbestos during demolition of the existing dwelling on the site.

66. Standard conditions will be imposed ensuring the proper handling and disposal of any asbestos material.

Drainage and Seepage

67. Residents raised concern that the proposed development will result in seepage as the site sits on a rock shelf.

68. An on-site stormwater detention system is proposed at the front of the site to manage stormwater storage and disposal which has been supported by Council’s Development Engineer.

Ali Hammoud

Development Assessment Officer

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Numerical Compliance Table	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	13 Pages
4View	History of Development Application	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Locality Map

Attachment 2

Numerical Compliance Table

Attachment 3

Plans and Elevations

Attachment 4

History of Development Application

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 13.11

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.11

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

DESCRIPTION Further Report - Installation of a mechanical ventilation unit, outdoor seating and extended hours of operation.

REFERENCE DA/720/2007 - Submitted: 3 September 2007

APPLICANT/S Pizza on Lomond

OWNERS Mrs J Salisbury

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To provide Council with the further information as requested in Council’s resolution of May 12 2008 and to determine Development Application No. 720/2007, which seeks approval for the installation of a mechanical ventilation unit, outdoor seating and extended hours of operation for an existing pizza shop.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council determine Development Application No. 720/2007 subject to standard conditions as well as the following extraordinary conditions:

(i) The days and hours of operations being restricted to the following:

Monday 9:00am to 10:00pm

Tuesday 9:00am to 10:00pm

Wednesday 9:00am to 10:00pm

Thursday 9:00am to 10:00pm

Friday 9:00am to 10:00pm

Saturday 9:00am to 10:00pm

Sunday 9:00am to 10:00pm

Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

Reason: To minimise the impact on the amenity of the area.

(ii) Outdoor dining is restricted to a maximum of ten seats. The outdoor dining area is to be used between 9.00am to 10.00pm, Friday to Saturday and 9.00am to 8.00pm Sunday to Thursday including Public Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

(iii) Bottles are not to be disposed into the waste bins after 9.30pm each day.

Reason: To minimise the impact on the amenity of the area

(iv) All deliveries to the premises shall take place between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm and shall take place within the designated loading and unloading area located at the laneway to the rear of the premises.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

(v) All tables, chairs and other materials shall be from the same family and kept within the allotment boundaries at all times.

Reason: To provide a consistent appearance and protect the amenity of the area.

(vi) All tables, chairs and other materials shall either be powder coated, polished aluminum, brushed or stainless steel finishes.

Reason: To maintain the amenity of the area.

(vii) No entertainment or music is permitted within the external dining area.

Reason: To minimise the impact of the development.

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

BACKGROUND

1. At the regulatory meeting of 12 May 2008, Council considered a report which recommended approval of DA/720/2007 which seeks approval to the installation of a mechanical ventilation unit, outdoor seating and extended hours of operation for an existing pizza shop. The following resolution was made by Council:

“a) That consideration of this matter be deferred pending a further report on:-

(1) Why the objectors were not given timely notice of the DA coming to Council: the letter having been dated 08/05/08, posted on 09/05/08 and arriving in today's post;

(2) Why it is not proposed to upgrade the filtration system, rather than an additional outlet being provided, as outlined in the report;

(3) Why the 'No Stopping' provisions have not yet been implemented as agreed to by Council.

(b Further, that in the meantime, all objectors be supplied with a copy of DA Report No. 720/2007 and regular monitoring of the premises be carried out by the Compliance Section of Council and any breaches detected and action taken be reported on when the matter next comes to Council”.

COUNCIL RESPONSE

Delay in notifying objectors of Council meeting

2. Council officers have investigated why there were delays in objectors being notified of the 12 May Regulatory Council meeting.

3. The current procedure for objectors and applicants being notified of an upcoming Regulatory Council meeting is for the letters to be posted no later than the Monday prior to the Council meeting that is a week in advance. This task is completed by the Development Support officers. However, in this particular case the letters were printed on the Thursday afternoon prior to the Council meeting and therefore were not posted until Friday morning. As a result, the objectors did not receive the letters notifying them of the Council meeting until the day of the Council meeting.

4. In being made aware of this issue, changes have been made to the procedure for notifying objectors of a Council meeting. This change involves one development support officer overseeing the distribution of the letters notifying objectors of a Council meeting rather than a number of staff which makes one officer accountable for the service.

Provision of an additional ventilation system instead of upgrading the existing system.

5. Advice has been sought from Council’s Health officer on the question as to “why” it is not proposed to upgrade the filtration system rather than providing a new system. The following comments have been provided:

6. “The installation proposes a commercial kitchen exhaust system to service the kitchen, which is located at the rear wall of the premises, some 10 metres from the exhaust system already installed which services the pizza oven located at the servery.

7. A connection could be made between the new cooking appliance and the existing exhaust hood, but that connection would require likely an upgrade to a larger fan unit, which could cause greater noise output. Discussion with the designer of the system disclosed that a system modified in this way is also unlikely to effectively scavenge exhaust gases. The proposal for a separate system, projecting through the roof above the cooking equipment is a necessarily simpler design, and would require a smaller fan than a combined unit.

8. It is possible to install odour filtering equipment to an exhaust system; however there is no clarification of need for this intervention for the additional cooking use proposed.

9. Odour filtering equipment has not been required to any pizza shops in the past, most of which are located in local/neighbourhood shopping centres such as the one in question.

10. It is considered that the conditions recommended in our report of 7 January 2008 are adequate for the proposal”.

“No Stopping” Provisions

11. In response to the Council resolution regarding the implementation of “No Stopping” provisions, comments were sought from Council’s Traffic Engineer, who has provided the following comments:

12. “The 'No Stopping' signs were due to be installed in early June (2008) and are still on track to be installed at this time”.

Regular Monitoring of the premises be carried out by the Compliance Section

13. Council’s Compliance officers and Rangers have monitored the site on six separate occasions between 23 May and 29 May 2008.

14. Compliance Officers attended the site on 23 May and 26 May between 10:00pm and 10:30pm and noted that there was no outdoor dining activity at this time. Council Rangers also visited the site on 24 May and 25 May on four occasions at 11:40am, 2:20pm, 3:00pm and 4:00pm. In these instances, the premises were closed and no activity associated with the pizza shop was noted.

Copies of Section 79C Report sent to Objectors

15. A copy of the Section 79C report for the subject development application was sent to the objectors on 15 May 2008.

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Previous Report Item 14.4 from Council Meeting of 12/05/08	7 Pages
2View	Attachments for Previous Report Item 14.4 from Council Meeting 12 May 2008	21 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Previous Report Item 14.4 from Council Meeting of 12/05/08

Attachment 2

Attachments for Previous Report Item 14.4 from Council Meeting 12 May 2008

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 13.12

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 13.12

SUBJECT Parramatta Stadium 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta. (Lots 951 to 965 in DP 42643) (Arthur Phillip Ward) (Location Map - Attachment 1)

DESCRIPTION Use of Parramatta Stadium and its immediate surrounds for various additional events, including concerts, music festivals, cultural festivals, children's carnivals and motorcross events.

REFERENCE DA/659/2007 - submitted 17 August 2007

APPLICANT/S Parramatta Stadium Trust

OWNERS The State of New South Wales - Crown Land held in trust and control by the Parramatta Stadium Trust

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 659/2007 which seeks approval for the use of Parramatta Stadium for additional events, including concerts & music festivals, cultural festivals, children’s carnivals and motorcross events (motorbikes). The application is referred to Council for determination due to the number of submissions received.

The development application is a Crown application and is subject to the provisions of Part 5A (Development by the Crown) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

Do not delete this line

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That, subject to the written approval of the Parramatta Stadium Trust or the Minister and in accordance with Section 116C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, that a consent be granted, subject to standard and the following extraordinary conditions.

1. In respect of each non-sporting event to be held on the subject site, the consent holder shall submit a Noise Management Plan for the five submitted categories of events shall be prepared on behalf of the Parramatta Stadium Trust by a suitably qualified acoustic specialist in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Environment & Climate Change and in a similar manner to that prepared by the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust, dated February 2007 (available on its website). The Plan shall establish parameters for noise emissions (including any pyrotechnics), ensure that noise monitoring occurs during events, that sound checks occur and a complaints register is kept. The Plan shall be submitted to Parramatta City Council a minimum of 28 days prior to any non-sporting event (including the motorcross) taking place and approved in writing.

Reason: Having regard to the Protection of the Environment (Noise Control) Regulation 2008 and Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

2. In respect of each non-sporting event to be held on the subject site, the consent holder shall submit a crowd dispersal management plan for each of the five categories of events is to be formulated by the applicant by a suitably qualified event organiser/coordinator/promoter and adhered to at all times. The Plan shall be submitted to Parramatta City Council and the NSW Police Parramatta Local Area Command a minimum of 28 days prior to any non-sporting event (including the motorcross) taking place and approved in writing.

Reason: To ensure that adequate crowd dispersal measures are employed.

3. In respect of each non-sporting event to be held on the subject site, the consent holder shall submit a Construction Management Plan, prepared by a suitably qualified event organiser/coordinator/promoter shall be submitted to Parramatta City Council a minimum of 28 days prior to any events taking place under this consent and approved in writing. The Plan shall detail (but is not limited to):-

(a) The proposed method of access to and egress from the site for construction vehicles, including access routes through the Council area and the location and type of temporary vehicular crossing for the purpose of minimising traffic congestion and noise in the area, with no access across public parks or reserves (other than that land under the responsibility of the Parramatta Stadium Trust) being allowed.

(b) The proposed phases of construction works on the site for events and the expected duration of each construction phase.

(c) The proposed order in which works on the site will be undertaken, and the method statements on how various stages of construction will be undertaken.

(d) The proposed method of loading and unloading construction machinery, excavation and building materials, formwork and the erection of any structure within the site. Wherever possible mobile cranes should be located wholly within the site.

(e) The proposed areas within the site to be used for the storage of temporary construction materials and waste containers during the construction period.

(f) Proposed protection for Council and adjoining properties.

(g) The location and operation of any on site crane.

(h) The location of any temporary loading zone (if required) approved by Council’s Traffic Committee, including a copy of that approval.

Reason: To ensure appropriate measures have been considered for site access, storage and the operation of the site during all phases of the construction process in a manner that respects adjoining owner’s property rights and residential amenity in the locality, without unreasonable inconvenience to the community.

4. In respect of each non-sporting event to be held on the subject site, the consent holder shall submit, a minimum of 28 days prior to the first event taking place, and approved in writing by Parramatta City Council, a completed Waste Management Plan. The Waste Management Plan must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Council’s relevant planning instruments and shall address (but is not limited to) the following: the type of material, the estimated volume, area or weight of each material, the proposed location and method for reuse or recycling, the location and number of ablution facilities and the recycling waste contractor’s details

Reason: To ensure suitable waste storage and disposal measures are employed.

5. A Pedestrian and Traffic Management Plan for any proposed event must be submitted to and approved by Council a minimum of 28 days prior to the first event taking place. It must include details (but is not limited to) of the following:

(a) Proposed ingress and egress of vehicles to and from the site;

(b) Proposed protection of pedestrians adjacent to the site at various stages of events;

(c) Proposed pedestrian management whilst vehicles are entering and leaving the site, and

(d) The Pedestrian and Traffic Management Plan shall be implemented during all events.

Reason: To maintain pedestrian and vehicular safety during construction.

6. That the use of Parramatta Stadium for purposes other than sport shall require the consent of the Minister. Evidence of the Minister’s consent shall be submitted to Council prior to the first non-sporting event taking place.

Reason: To comply with the 1981 decision of the NSW Cabinet for the use of Parramatta Stadium.

7. The acoustic report prepared by Pollution Control Consultancy and Design, dated March 2008, shall be modified to include the kiosk and conference facilities to the northwest of the stadium and that an assessment of the existing background noise be carried out at that location prior to the commencement of any event covered by this consent to determine an acceptable noise limit for that location. Details to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council prior to the first non-sporting event taking place.

Reason: To have regard for the users of this facility.

8. This consent is valid for a period of three years from date of determination. Following this time, if the applicant wishes to continue with the additional uses of the site, an application pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 shall be lodged, at least 3 months prior to the expiration of the three years period, requesting amendment to this condition.

Reason: In order for Council to assess the on-going impacts of the additional uses.

9. In addition to the existing sporting activities approved for Parramatta Stadium, this consent is limited to the following activities, frequencies and times:

Activity	Frequency	Times
Music festivals	Maximum two events per year	10.00am to 8.00pm, weekends. No music festivals to take place on Easter or Christmas public holidays or the day preceding.
Concerts	Maximum six events per year	7.00pm to 11.00pm, Fridays and Saturdays only (or Sundays adjacent to a Monday Public Holiday (except Easter Sunday). No concerts to take place during the Easter or Christmas public holidays or the day preceding.
Cultural festival	One per month	Weekends only, between the hours of 10.00am and 8.00pm, excluding Good Friday and Christmas Day.
Children’s carnivals	One per month	10.00am to 6.00pm any day.
Motorcross	Maximum of one event per year	Friday or Saturday night only to conclude no later than 10.00pm and not during the Easter or Christmas public holidays or the day preceding.

10. A letterbox drop to all residents within a 1km radius of the site advising of the events covered by this consent is to be undertaken by the applicant or event organiser, at least two weeks prior to that event. An outline of the hours of the event and direct contact details of the event coordinator responsible is to be provided to these residents. A copy of the required written notification is also to be forwarded to Council’s Development Services Unit at least seven days prior to the event.

Reason: To keep local residents and Council informed of events covered by this consent.

11. Details of the all events covered by this consent event shall be provided to the Minister for Sport & Recreation, Parramatta City Council, the Parramatta Park Trust and the NSW Police a minimum of 28 days prior to the event taking place, in the form of an Event Management Plan. The detail of the plan shall include an acoustic report, identification of venue, expected attendance, date of event and any preliminary practice sessions or rehearsals, signage, expected duration, traffic & pedestrian management plans, waste management plan and the like. This detail shall also include a telephone number of a person authorised by the Parramatta Stadium Trust to discuss any event management issues during events covered by this consent, as well as Parramatta City Council’s after-hours contact line.

Reason: Having regard to the amenity of neighbours.

12. The applicant and/or organiser shall confer with the NSW Police (Parramatta Local Area Command) regarding the proposed measures to minimise the possibility of any anti-social and criminal behaviour during events and undertaking any additional measures that might be recommended to enhance such security measures.

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory level of security is put in place to minimise the extent of any anti-social behaviour in the locality.

13. The applicant and/or organiser of the events making suitable arrangements for the provision of a free shuttle bus service between the venue and Parramatta Railway Station.

Reason: To ensure that adequate transport services are made available to patrons who do not have access to private transport.

14. The motorcross event is limited to once per year only, with the event to take place on a Friday or Saturday night, or a Sunday night preceding a Monday public holiday. Participant practice sessions for the event shall take place during daylight hours only, no earlier than 8.00am and no later than 5.00pm and not on a Sunday or public holiday and shall not occur on more than one occasion prior to the event. The event shall not take place during the Easter or Christmas public holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

15. Events covered by this consent shall not take place at the same time as sporting events are being held within Parramatta Stadium.

Reason: Having regard to the cumulative impact of events.

16. For all ticketed events, printed information must be distributed through the ticketing agency and/or with the event tickets advising of the limited parking in the area and advising of the available public transport options.

Reason: To encourage the use of public transport to and from events.

17. The Parramatta Stadium Trust shall provide Council with an annual summary report on the type and attendance of events covered by this consent, a summary of any complaints received and any other information relevant to the consideration of the noise impact on residents and other sensitive uses nearby (e.g Parramatta Park).

Reason: To monitor noise levels.

18. The Parramatta Stadium Trust must retain ultimate control of sound caused by any amplification equipment during the events covered by this consent.

Reason: To ensure that noise is suitably controlled.

19. That the event organiser shall obtain a certificate from a Practicing Structural Engineer for all temporary stalls, stages, amusement devices, motorcross jumps (and the like) and any other structure prior to the events covered by this consent and that addresses the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment) 2007 and certifying that:

(i) the design and erection in accordance with AS1170 – Design Loading Code. This certificate is to also indicate that all temporary structures are structurally sound.

(ii) the ground is sufficiently firm to sustain the applied loadings while structures are being used.

(iii) all temporary toilets and associated structures for use by patrons must be certified that they are structurally sound and are in accordance with AS1170 – Design Loading Code and that the ground is sufficiently firm to sustain the applied loadings for the duration of the event.

Reason: To comply with legislative requirements.

20. The events covered by this consent shall be provided with sanitary facilities in accordance with the Building Code of Australia, Part F2 and disabled toilet facilities in accordance with AS1428.

Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of such facilities.

21. The applicant shall ensure that evidence is submitted to Council prior to each event demonstrating public liability insurance to the value of $20 million, indemnifying Council in the event of any damages claim consequential to the carrying out of the activity, in respect of loss, damage, injury or death.

Reason: To protect Council’s interests.

22. The applicant shall provide clean, vermin-proof solid waste bins on the site as follows:

(i) all waste storage bins shall be located so as to support the requirement for clean and healthy conditions. The bins shall be maintained so as to prevent the generation of offensive odours and harbourage of pests and vermin.

(ii) The applicant shall ensure that safe, all-weather access is provided for removal of solid-waste.

(iii) The applicant shall ensure that adequate facilities are provided, and maintained, for the collection, storage and proper disposal of sullage wastewaters generated during events.

Reason: To ensure that suitable waste management occurs.

23. The public address system and all amplified sound equipment shall be installed, operated and maintained so as to prevent “offensive noise”, as defined under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, being detected at nearby sensitive land uses.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the environment.

24. The applicant shall ensure that all premises for the sale of food at the proposed events covered by this consent shall comply with the following requirements:

(i) all food and food service premises shall comply with the requirements of the New South Wales Food Act 2003 and Food Regulations 2004 (incorporating the Food Standards Codes) to the satisfaction of Council’s Environmental Health Officers.

(ii) all food vendors shall hold a current food stall permit issued by Council prior to the sale of food at the venue.

(iii) The applicant and all food vendors shall comply with any reasonable directions issued by an authorised officer of Parramatta City Council.

(iv) All liquid and solid wastes generated by food service premises shall be adequately contained whilst on the site and disposed of so as not to cause any nuisance or harm.

(v) Electricity supplies for all proposed activities associated with the events covered by this consent shall comply with AS3002-19875 “Electrical Installations – Shows and Carnivals”. Adequate and safe electrical supply must be provided to ensure that any food storage appliances are capable of maintaining statutory temperature requirements.

(vi) The operators of any food stall shall comply with all WorkCover Authority safety requirements. All WorkCover Authority documentation shall be complete and available for inspection during events.

Reason: To ensure suitable health levels are maintained.

25. Free access to a safe drinking water supply must be made available to any person attending events covered by this consent. These drinking water points must be clearly signposted, raised to a height of at least 900mm above the ground and maintained in a clean and sanitary condition.

Reason: To ensure an adequate supply of drinking water.

26. All activities associated with the proposal shall comply strictly with WorkCover Authority requirements.

Reason: To promote a safe environment for the events.

27. First aid facilities shall be clearly identified and be located to ensure all-weather access for emergency vehicles.

Reason: To ensure suitable access for medical treatment.

28. Licensed security is to be provided at events at the ratio of 1 security guard for every 200 persons (or part thereof) expected in attendance.

Reason: For crowd control.

29. The security company employed by the applicant/organiser shall be briefed to ensure that regular patrols are undertaken for the surrounding streets and Parramatta Park after the conclusion of all events to ensure proper patron behaviour.

Reason: To mitigate concerns over possible anti-social behaviour.

30. All structures and amusement devices shall be registered with WorkCover as required, and inspection shall be carried out by a certified engineer with satisfactory certificates provided to the Parramatta Stadium Trust no later than on the morning of the event.

Reason: To ensure that WorkCover requirements are met.

31. The applicant is also required to negotiate and liaise with the Parramatta Park Trust in relation to specific noise sensitive events to be held within the Park, such as weddings and to resolve conflicts in dates between potentially conflicting events.

Reason: To ensure that suitable dialogue occurs between the two entities.

32. Once approved in writing, all of the management reports referred to in the above conditions shall be provided on the Parramatta Stadium Trusts website, in order for the public to be able to freely access this information.

Reason: To keep the public informed of management techniques for events.

33. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that all required Liquor Licensing arrangements are established prior to any event, not currently covered by the Trust’s license at Parramatta Stadium, being carried out.

Reason: Legislative requirements.

Advisory Note:

A. That consideration be given by the Minister for Sport & Recreation to forming a Parramatta Park & Environs Major Events Co-ordinating Unit featuring representatives of the Department of Transport, Parramatta Park Trust, Parramatta Stadium Trust, Parramatta City Council, Sydney Buses, the RTA, the NSW Police and the NSW Taxi Council to provide coordination and strategies for major events at Parramatta Stadium.

Reason: To provide for a coordinated approach to the use of Parramatta Stadium into the future.

(b) That the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.

Do not delete this line

SITE HISTORY & LOCALITY

1. Located near the heart of the City of Parramatta, Parramatta Stadium is situated on the banks of the Parramatta River, adjacent to, and part of, the historic Parramatta Park. The Stadium is currently the home ground of the Parramatta Eels Rugby League Club and, until recently, used by the Parramatta Power Soccer Club. The Stadium grew from the ashes of Cumberland Oval, after the Oval Grandstand was burned to the ground by Parramatta Eels supporters, when the Eels won their first major premiership in 1981. The new Stadium was officially opened by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on March 5 1986 and the first game of rugby league played there on 16 March 1986.

2. For a long time Parramatta Stadium has been a key sporting and recreational venue in Sydney. It was used for major concerts and additional sporting events for a period of time before the Sydney Football Stadium was built in 1988. The Stadium has two identical grandstands on either side with seating for 16,000 and seating at either end for a further 4,000. The two hills which used to be situated behind the goals at each end were replaced by seating in early 2003. The stadium also accommodates corporate facilities.

3. To establish the context of the current proposal for events potentially catering for up to 20,000 patrons, the ground record for the former Cumberland Oval was 22,470 set on 26 April, 1971, whilst that of the current stadium is 27,243 set on 17 August 1986. The capacity of the stadium is somewhat less than this now, closer to 20,000, due to formalised seating arrangements at the northern and southern ends of the field.

4. The Cumberland Oval site has been Parramatta’s major outdoor sports and recreation venue since 1847. Cumberland Oval, the predecessor to the current stadium, was a site of great sporting historical significance. The site was first used for horse racing. Various sports were played on the site of the former Cumberland Oval continuously since that time, including use as a speedway venue during the Great Depression and a number of decades after, as well as for boxing matches. Cumberland Oval was used until the last Rugby League match played on it on 30 August 1981.

5. Development Application 48/14/4/5 for the redevelopment of Cumberland Oval and its surrounds was lodged by the Parramatta Sports Club Ltd on 27 July 1981, following earlier years of public debate and other discussions centering on possible options for a more improved sporting venue to replace the dilapidated Cumberland Oval.

6. On 13 November 1978, Council resolved:

“That the application be submitted to the Minister for Lands and the Minister be advised that Council is in favour of the proposal in principle and the Parramatta Leagues Club Limited be advised of the action taken by the Council and Mr B. Wilde, M.P be advised of the action taken.”

7. At its Ordinary Meeting of 14 April 1980, Council resolved that:

“Council reconfirm its support for the construction of a stadium on the site of Cumberland Oval and this opinion be passed to the Minister for Lands and he be requested to bring lease negotiations to a conclusion as rapidly as possible…”

8. Council continued to reaffirm its approval in principle to the new stadium following receipt of further correspondence from the Minister, at its meetings of 22 December 1980 and 2 March 1981.

9. The development application was approved by Council at its meeting of 7 October 1981.

10. The decision of Council to grant development consent was challenged under the former Section 123 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 on administrative grounds. Justice McClelland held that the development consent was null and void, given that Council had failed to give consideration to matters it was bound to take into consideration under the statute. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Land & Environment Court.

11. In 1983 the NSW State Government approved the redevelopment of Cumberland Oval under a separate piece of special legislation, imposing strict environmental controls and effectively reducing the capacity of the stadium from 40,000 to 30,000 (at the time).

Proposal

12. The applicant seeks Council’s consent to use Parramatta Stadium inclusive of its perimeter and approaches, carpark and training field to the south, for additional uses over and above the various codes of ‘football’ currently played at the venue These uses include concerts and music festivals, cultural festivals and children’s carnivals.

13. Following initial notification, the applicant amended the proposal to include the possibility of holding an annual motorcross event. The proposal was subsequently renotified.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Part 5A Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 (Determination of Crown Development Applications)

14. “A consent authority, in respect of a development application made by or on behalf of the Crown, must not:

(a)  refuse its consent to the application, except with the written approval of the Minister, or

(b)  impose a condition of its consent, except with the written approval of the Minister or the applicant.”

State Environmental Planning Policy (Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment) 2007

15. This SEPP came into force on 28 September 2007.

16. Clause 12 of the SEPP outlines that before granting consent to the erection of a temporary structure, Council must consider the following matters:

(a)  whether the number of persons who may use the structure at any one time should be limited,

(b)  any adverse impact on persons in the vicinity of any noise likely to be caused by the proposed erection or use of the structure and any proposed measures for limiting the impact,

(c)  whether the hours during which the structure is used should be limited,

(d)  any parking or traffic impacts likely to be caused by the erection of the structure or its proposed use,

(e)  the principles for minimising crime risk set out in Part B of the Crime Prevention Guidelines,

(f)   whether the proposed location of the structure is satisfactory in terms of the following:

(i) the proposed distance of the structure from public roads and property boundaries,

(ii)  the location of underground or overhead utilities,

(iii)  vehicular and pedestrian access,

(g)  whether it is necessary to provide toilets and washbasins in association with the use of the structure,

(h)  whether the structure is proposed to be erected on land that comprises, or on which there is:

(i)   an item of environmental heritage that is listed on the State Heritage Register, or that is subject to an interim heritage order, under the Heritage Act 1977, or

(ii)  a place, building, work, tree, relic or Aboriginal object that is described as an item of environmental heritage or as a heritage item in another environmental planning instrument, or

(iii)  land identified as a heritage conservation area, an archaeological site or a place of Aboriginal heritage significance in another environmental planning instrument,

(i)   the duration for which the structure should be permitted to remain on the land concerned,

(j)   whether any conditions should be imposed on the granting of consent in relation to the dismantling or removal of the structure in view of any safety issues.

17. Whilst these matters will be discussed in this report, there is no determinative weight given to them, as the savings provisions of the SEPP (noting that the DA was lodged on 17 August 2007) provide that “any development application lodged before the commencement of this Policy, but not finally determined before that commencement, is to be determined as if this Policy had been exhibited under section 66 of the Act but had not been made.”

18. Given the degree of relevance of the SEPP, the proposal is assessed against the criteria prescribed by Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Local Government Act 1993 (Section 68: What activities, generally, require the approval of the council?

19. Various parts of Section 68 have been repealed since the enactment of SEPP (Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment) 2007, in particular those elements relating to temporary structures and places of public entertainment.

20. Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 defines what activities generally require the approval of Council. A person may carry out an activity specified in the Approvals Table of Section 68 only with the prior approval of Council. The applicant seeks approval of activities as previously listed under Section 68 as follows:

Part A Structures or Places of Public Entertainment

21. It is intended to erect and/or install stages, associated audio and visual equipment, seating, stalls and specialised paraphernalia associated with the motorcross event and concerts to take place in the stadium.

Matters to be taken into consideration by Council in determining whether to approve the installation of a temporary structure on land

22. Whether the temporary structure will be structurally sound and capable of withstanding the loadings likely to arise from its use.

23. To ensure that the stalls, amusement devices, stages etc are erected in a safe and structural manner, a condition is included on the recommended development consent requiring that all temporary structures comply with the structural requirements relevant to the particular structure. All works will need to be certified by a practising Structural Engineer prior to being installed.

24. Whether the temporary structures will contain reasonable provision for the safety of persons proposed to be accommodated in or on the structure, in the event of fire, in particular in relation to egress and have reasonable provision for the prevention or suppression of fire and the prevention of the spread of fire.

25. The proposed structures will need to be installed in an ‘open-air’ nature, thus ensuring that the egress of persons attending the event will be reasonable and not impeded, that it will be designed in a manner for the prevention and suppression of fire and that ample fire extinguishers and fire blankets are provided.

26. The layout of the stalls will need to ensure safe pedestrian access across the venue. Obstacles and obstructions are to be kept to a minimum and the supervision of set-up by the organisers and the Parramatta Stadium Trust must ensure minimal impact on pedestrian movements in the area.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.28 (Parramatta)

27. The stadium and its surrounds were zoned ‘Parramatta Stadium’ at the time of lodgement of the DA, under the prevailing provisions of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 (Parramatta) and located in the Government Precinct.

28. Development for the purposes of recreation areas, cultural or community activities and public entertainment are permissible in the Parramatta Stadium zone, subject to the consent of Council.

29. Subject to a deferred commencement consent and some strict operational conditions, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of SREP No.28.

Parramatta City Centre Plan LEP 2007

30. The savings provisions provided by Clause 8 of Parramatta City Centre Plan LEP 2007 allows the proposal to be determined as if the new planning instrument had been exhibited, but not yet commenced, given that it was lodged prior to 21 December 2007.

31. The site is now zoned RE2 (Private Recreation) under Parramatta City Centre Plan LEP 2007, gazetted on 21 December 2007.

32. Development for the purposes of a ‘Recreation Facility (Major)’ is prohibited. ‘Recreation Facility (Major)’ is defined as

“….a building or place used for large-scale sporting or recreation activities that are attended by large numbers of people whether regularly or periodically, and includes sports stadiums, showgrounds, racecourses and motor racing tracks.”

33. Development applications lodged at the present time may need to be determined on the basis of existing use rights. This doesn’t apply to the current DA, for the reasons outlined above.

34. The prevailing planning instrument that applied to the site when the development application was lodged on 17 August 2007 was SREP 28 (Parramatta). Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 was a draft instrument when the application was lodged. The weight to be given to a draft environmental planning instrument is greater after such an instrument has been gazetted on the basis of its “certainty and imminence”. Notwithstanding “certainty and imminence”, Council may, of course, grant consent to a development which does not comply with the draft instrument (as it was at the time of lodgement of the development application).

35. Despite the savings clause in Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007, its applicable provisions are matters to be taken into consideration. However, the numerical controls and land use controls in the LEP are not to be given determinative weight, but approval of the application should not undermine the purpose or the achievement of the planning approach sought through the implementation of these controls.

36. Notwithstanding the prohibition contained in Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007, it is still considered that the proposal satisfies the objectives of the zone.

Parramatta Stadium Trust Act 1988

37. This Act was assented to on 12 December 1988. In accordance with Clause 4(2)(b), the Parramatta Stadium Trust is a statutory body representing the Crown and was established under this Act. The Trust is subject to the control and direction of the Minister for Sport & Recreation.

38. The objectives of the Trust are to:

“(a)  to care for, control and manage the trust land, and

(b)  to provide and maintain a sporting arena suitable for the conduct of football matches, and

(c)  to permit the use of the trust land for such other sporting, recreational, educational or cultural activities or such exhibitions as the Trust may consider appropriate (whether or not of a commercial nature), and

(d)  to provide such other ancillary facilities as may be required for effectively operating the facilities, and carrying out the activities, referred to in the preceding paragraphs, and

(e)  to encourage, promote and facilitate the use and enjoyment of the trust land by members of the public,

and such other objects, consistent with the use and enjoyment by the public of the trust land, as the Trust considers appropriate.”

39. For the reasons outlined in this report, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objects of the Act.

40. The Act also states at Clause 6 that:

(1) The Trust may do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with, or that are incidental to, the attainment or carrying out of its objects.

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1) and any other provision of this Act by which a power is conferred on the Trust, the Trust has the power:

(a) to use or authorise the use of the whole or any part of the trust land for activities of a sporting, recreational, educational or cultural nature or for the purposes of public entertainment or any public purpose approved by the Minister, and…….

(d) to carry out work or arrange for work to be carried out in connection with the maintenance, development and improvement of the trust land and, in particular, for the purpose of making the trust land suitable for the activities referred to in paragraph (a)….”

41. The proposal is consistent with the powers vested upon the Trust, but does not remove the need to obtain development consent, with the Crown being bound in accordance with Section 6 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and required to obtain such consent under Part 5A of the Act.

Parramatta Park Trust Act 2001

42. This Act was assented to on 30 April 2001.

43. The objectives of the Trust are:

“(a)  to maintain and improve the trust lands, and

(b)  to encourage the use and enjoyment of the trust lands by the public by promoting the recreational, historical, scientific, educational and cultural heritage value of those lands, and

(c)  to ensure the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage values of the trust lands and the protection of the environment within those lands, and

(d)  such other objects, consistent with the functions of the Trust in relation to the trust lands, as the Trust considers appropriate.”

44. For the reasons outlined in this report , the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objects of the Act.

CONSULTATION

45. The proposal was first advertised and notified between 12 September and 3 October 2007. As a result of this, five submissions were received objecting to the proposal.

46. Following this period of consultation, Council wrote to the applicant seeking further information, including

- the type, frequency and volume of events, and

- submission of an acoustic report.

47. The applicant provided the material relating to the types of events on 5 March 2008 and then the acoustic report on 1 May 2008. It was in March that the applicant introduced the potential for a motorcross event to be held on an annual basis.

48. Accordingly, the proposal was required to be re-notified and this took place between 14 and 28 April 2008. This round of notification attracted three submissions, all of these being from those who had previously objected.

49. The matters raised in the submissions are addressed below.

ISSUES

That the current approved use of the stadium site is for a sports stadium

50. It is true that the facility was approved under the 1981 DA as a sports stadium, with ancillary training facilities, carparking, access, landscaping, drainage and other infrastructure, as well as lighting, directional signs, fencing, gates.

51. The Minister for Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr Gordon) advised Parramatta City Council on 14 April 1981 that Cabinet approved the “development of a sports stadium at Cumberland Oval” and that a lease may be entered into so that the Parramatta Sports Club could construct and operate a stadium, subject to a number of conditions. Of relevance, Condition (g) states:

“The oval shall be used for sporting purposes. Any exception to a use for sporting purposes shall be with the express consent of the Minister and subject to any conditions considered appropriate by the Minister.”

52. This was also reiterated in Condition 10 (a)(i)(F) of the consent granted by Parramatta City Council to DA 48/14/4/5 given on 7 October 1981.

53. In addition, Condition (h) of Cabinet’s resolution states:

“Development applications shall be lodged with the Parramatta City Council and processed in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act.”

54. The onus on the applicant to obtain further approval of the Minister to carry out non-sporting events at Parramatta Stadium. Such consent is separate to that required under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.

55. The current development application is a stand alone development application and the critical issue is whether the proposed activities are consistent with the zoning table provided in the prevailing planning instrument and its accompanying objectives.

56. There is no doubt that the activities described by the applicant in the submission comfortably sit within the parameters for development that is permissible in the zone under the SREP.

57. The use of land under the care and control of the Parramatta Stadium Trust may be used for non-sporting purposes, in accordance with Section 7(1) of the Cumberland Oval Act 1981.

58. The applicant will be required to obtain the consent of the Minister prior to the use of the stadium for any purpose other than for sports. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that the applicant has obtained this consent to date.

The acoustic report fails to deal with noise receipt at various locations

59. It is common practice to undertake acoustic assessments at the most sensitive receiver, that usually being a residential property.

60. However, there is no requirement under the Protection of the Environment Operation Act 1997 to only have regard to residential premises. Offensive noise, as defined under the Act, can be received by any person in any location occupied, regardless of the use. ‘Noise sensitive land uses’, as defined under the NSW Industrial Noise Policy, includes residential, churches, schools and recreation areas.

61. The acoustic report does provide some recommendations to monitor and minimise noise emissions from the use of the facility and to undertake measurements at key locations identified at Appendix 2 of the Acoustic Report prepared by Pollution Control Consultancy and Design, dated March 2008.

62. A recommended condition of consent requires that the acoustic report be modified to include the kiosk/conference facilities within Parramatta Park to the northwest of the stadium and that an assessment of the existing background noise be carried at that location prior to the commencement of any event covered by this consent.

Lack of parking in the area/increased traffic

63. This has been a significant concern since consideration for a stadium was made during the 1970s. Assessment of parking and traffic in relation to the use of Parramatta Stadium by Council officers immediately after the opening of the stadium when its capacity greater than what it is presently indicates that the surrounding street system, whilst somewhat stretched, is capable of accommodating the number of vehicles that arrive for a sold-out event.

64. Any venue of this size with events as proposed will have an impact on traffic and parking. However, this can be appropriately managed through a combination of conditions limiting the frequency, times, types of events and managing these through traffic, pedestrian, security and waste management plans.

65. Parramatta Leagues Club also provides a shuttle bus service to embellish the existing parking situation. This, along with existing public transport in the area and confinement of traffic gridlock at the conclusion of events to the area immediately in the vicinity of Parramatta Stadium, ensures that traffic & parking issues are not long term issues.

66. It is also envisaged that a large number of attendees/the public will utilise public transport to arrive at, and depart from, the proposed events.

67. In addition, a condition of consent requires that non-sporting uses governed by this consent are not held concurrently with sporting events scheduled at Parramatta Stadium. An example of this would be that there is not a cultural festival upon Parramatta Stadium Trust land on the same day as an NRL Rugby League fixture being held at the stadium.

Anti-social behaviour

68. The applicant will need to employ the same user-pays Police system that it currently does for NRL Rugby League fixtures and to further enhance this by providing additional security to monitor surrounding streets at the conclusion of events. A condition to this effect is included in the Recommendation.

Lack of crowd control during current events

69. The applicant is required to submit a Crowd Dispersal Management Plan as part of the recommended consent conditions. Before the first event covered by this consent, Council will need to be satisfied that the applicant has adequate measures in place to be able to deal with patrons of proposed events.

A more comprehensive waste management plan is required

70. Such a requirement is included as a condition of consent and must be satisfied prior to the first event taking place.

Lack of information in the submission

71. Whilst mindful of the Parramatta Stadium Trust’s objectives to provide some assurances to the long term viability of the stadium, there is concern that the DA was not accompanied by sufficient background information, nor that any detail had been provided in terms of the management of events other than rugby league games.

72. Accordingly, whilst the general principles are supported, a strictly conditioned consent appears warranted and will enable the applicant to undertake further research into the future management of the stadium and its surrounds as the exact details of the proposed events become known. This will still enable the applicant to have some degree of confidence to be able to approach promoters for future events, but requires specific management techniques to be known and employed prior to those uses taking place.

Issues in the notification process

73. The Parramatta Park Trust was not notified of the DA during the initial notification period commencing 12 September 2007. Although largely separated from the site by the Parramatta River, the Trust is an adjoining owner and was accordingly notified in the second round of notification that commenced on 14 April 2008.

Impacts on the nearby sensitive uses (convent, school and within the park)

74. Council is mindful that the exact detail of future events is not known and specific details cannot be provided by the applicant at this stage. Accordingly, a number of very strict operational conditions are recommended to ensure that adequate safeguards can be implemented prior to any event taking place.

Pedestrian safety

75. A pedestrian management plan will be required to be implemented in relation to each event. The detail of the pedestrian management plan shall be submitted to Council and forms part of the consent conditions.

Concerns are raised regarding proposed motocross events and associated noise impacts

76. More detail of this event will need to be submitted to Council prior to the event occurring. Refer to the recommended conditions of consent.

77. However, it does appear that the applicant is seeking to have a ‘round’ of the Australian National Supercross Championship (motor bikes) to be held at Parramatta, so the event will only be held once per year, most likely in November. No objection is raised, subject to the event taking place only once per year and that appropriate community notification and event management take place in accordance with the recommended conditions of consent.

Concerns regarding impacts on activities at the Old Kings Oval and the swimming complex

78. There will be times when parking will be at a premium for patrons of the swimming pool complex and difficulties will arise.

79. The use of Old Kings Oval for cricket will not be affected as a result of this development application and any subsequent use. This is land under the care, control and management of the Parramatta Park Trust.

80. Parking is only likely to be an issue on a few occasions per season for the users of these facilities, as the concerts will be held at night time and the other events will have staggered arrival of patrons.

81. However, the recommended conditions of consent include submission of a traffic plan to mitigate potential impacts and staggering and limiting the number of additional events that can be held at the stadium and its surrounds.

Concerns are raised regarding the impacts on the heritage significance of the park

82. There are no permanent works proposed in this application and the impacts on the heritage significance of Parramatta Park are likely to be minimal.

83. It is noted that Parramatta Park in general has a lengthy history of sports association and that motor vehicle racing events have previously been held in this location during the 1930s through to the 1950s. Speedway meetings appear to have started on 6 February 1930 (bikes only) and the track closed during the 1958/59 season, with the last recorded meeting researched being 4 April 1959.

84. For these reasons (including an historical association), it is not considered that the additional uses of the stadium and its surrounds will alienate Parramatta Park, nor compromise its historical significance.

A notification process would be required to provide adjoining properties details of specific events. These should be provided in advance of events.

85. It is recommended that an on-going process of community notification be established by the applicant by way of letterbox drop to surrounding properties within 1km of the site, as well as information being supplied to the Department of Transport, Parramatta Park Trust, Parramatta Stadium Trust, Parramatta City Council, Sydney Buses, the RTA, Railcorp, the NSW Police and the NSW Taxi Council.

86. Consultation with the above should assist in crowd and traffic control with individual events. The traffic management plan requires comment from these bodies.

87. Various conditions are included in the recommended development consent to deal with these issues.

NSW Police

The NSW Police was notified of the proposal and made the following comments:

88. “From the information provided and recognition of prior events at Parramatta Stadium, such as rugby league, soccer games etc, Parramatta Stadium and surrounds is suitable for such uses as listed in the development application.

89. The safety of event patrons and staff is paramount. Adequate security levels must be ensured and maintained throughout the events. For paid events, efforts must be made to minimised unauthorised entry along perimeters. Considerations need to be made regarding the use of user-pays police and police force resources for crowd safety, control and conflict response. Suitable medical resources need to be available if required (e.g St John’s) and access points need to be available for emergency access/personnel.

90. Valuables need to be secure and attended at all times, for example cash floats at stalls or items stored in cloak rooms.

91. Alcohol consumption during events needs to be monitored to ensure the responsible service of alcohol and adherence to licensing regulations. Event staff involved with the sale or service of alcohol must be appropriately qualified. Non-alcoholic beverages should be readily available and encouraged.

92. Previous capacity events at Parramatta Stadium and the events of the nature proposed undoubtedly have an adverse impact on the limited parking and local traffic throughout Parramatta. Therefore, considerations may need to be made regarding increased levels of public transport, shuttle buses and user pays police for traffic duties.

93. The proposal is not opposed. However, any proposed events and associated plans need to be brought to the attention of the Events Coordinator at Parramatta Local Area Command as per current procedures.”

94. Conditions to the effect that communication is mandatory with the NSW Police are included in the Recommendation.

SITE MEETING

95. In accordance with Council’s resolution, an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 17 May 2008 at 10.30am. Present at the meeting were Councillor Lim (Chairman), Councillor Jamal, the applicant, representatives of Our Lady of Mercy College (OLMC), Parramatta Park Trust, the Northcote Society and Council’s Development and Certification Team Leader.

96. The following issues were discussed at the meeting:

Impact on the OLMC School, in regard to noise, traffic, parking and the behaviour of patrons

97. Representatives from the school expressed concerns about the stadium holding events that will potentially impact on the school in relation to noise, traffic and the general behaviour of patrons, particularly as the college hours are not consistent with other schools, as they have students, events, HSC study times and parent teacher interviews, at all times of the day including evenings and weekends.

98. Furthermore, the convent is the closest residential development to the stadium, and given the age of the occupants the noise generated from events will, according to the school, interfere with their amenity.

99. The representatives of the school also raised concern with the particular events to be held and suggested that the school be given adequate notice to avoid conflict with the school’s timetable. In addition, the issue of preparation for these events may also impact on the college.

100. The school also alleges experiencing deposited rubbish on its grounds and unacceptable behaviour after an event and is concerned for the safety of students attending the school.

101. Parking within the area is difficult and during events such as football parking is difficult and encourages parking in and around the stadiums ‘feeder’ streets.

102. Conditions of consent require the applicant to provide security and supervision for events in and around the site, as well as preparing a Traffic Management Plan, a Crowd Dispersal Plan, a Noise Management Plan and a number of other environmental management plans that need to be formulated before any event takes place. These management plans, once approved in writing by Council, are to be made available for public viewing on the Parramatta Stadium Trust’s website.

Impact on Parramatta Park and surrounding venues in relation to noise, traffic, parking and patron behaviour

103. A representative of the Parramatta Park Trust raised similar issues to those raised by the school, with the major concern relating to noise and the acoustic report submitted with the application, which appears to not indicate noise readings and assessment taken within the park. Furthermore, the park is utilised for special occasions such as weddings and there is a cafe located within the park. The venue is booked 18 months in advance, and the potential conflict with an event such as a motorcross would impact on the wedding and would leave the wedding party with minimum time to consider other venues.

104. In addition, the park has heritage significance and events such as concerts, would detract from the significance of the heritage item due to excessive noise according to the Parramatta Park Trust.

105. The Trust also requested that the waste management plan should be more detailed and specific to the event being held, as rubbish/ litter will have an impact on the environment and the park amenity. In this regard, the applicant has been requested by way of condition of consent to provide further information prior to any events taking place on the site.

106. Specific conditions have been incorporated in an attempt to address the issues raised by the Parramatta Park Trust.

The Northcote Society raised no objection as they do not operate on weekends and therefore the use would have a minimal impact on their amenity.

107. The Northcote Society is an adjunct of the Rotary Club of Parramatta, formerly known as the "Crippled Children’s Society". Subject to the strict recommended conditions, the proposal is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on this property.

It was suggested by the Parramatta Park Trust that a separate DA be lodged for each event to allow the Trust to comment, in particular in relation to the stage location, parking arrangements, security and noise generated from the event.

108. In response to this comment, the applicant advised that 12 months prior to lodging the application a meeting was held with Council officers to discuss the best way to determine a DA of this nature, as it is unique. It was common ground that the facility should be utilised for events that serve the community.

109. The applicant was advised by Council officers that the best way to consider a DA for the events is via a single DA. The applicant, at the request of the Council officers has submitted more details of the events to be held. However, the difficulty arises that until an approval is granted, the stadium is not in a position to approach promoters, so therefore the information provided is more generic and not event specific.

110. In response to this, conditions are recommended requiring event specific management plans.

111. The applicant expressed concerns with the time that the DA has been with Council and it appears that more issues are emerging. The applicant discussed the stadium’s policies on security, alcohol consumption and waste management during and after an event. In addition they have security and utilise the user-pay system of Police to manage crowds and traffic. The events to be held would also encourage the use of public transport.

108. The applicant was not favourable to lodging a new DA for each event as this causes uncertainty with the promoter, in regard to time frames etc and in the worst case scenario a promoter is engaged and the application is not supported.

109. It was also discussed that if a consent is issued that the conditions have to be legal in content, enforceable and reasonable. Therefore, to condition a DA that adjoining neighbours are to be notified of an event and make comment to Council, is not a condition that Council would impose. The communication would be reliant on the stadium to discuss events with the adjoining properties.

110. Meeting closed with all issues being summarised with the residents, applicant and Councillors being advised that they will be notified in writing of the date in which the DA will be presented to a Council meeting.

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Do not delete this line

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Event Management Plan	18 Pages
3View	Plans & Elevations	9 Pages
4View	Acoustic Report	12 Pages
5View	History of DA	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Attachment 1

Locality Map

Attachment 2

Event Management Plan

Attachment 3

Plans & Elevations

Attachment 4

Acoustic Report

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 13.12

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 14.1

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER 14.1

SUBJECT Use of Portion of Adshel Contract for Arts Program

REFERENCE F2004/08023 - D00944857

FROM Councillor A A Wilson

To be moved by Councillor A A Wilson:-

“(a) That Parramatta City Council prepare a report to examine if it is practical to use the 2.5% of Adshel advertising contractually dedicated to Council for the benefit of Council’s arts program.

(b) Further, that this be liaised between sections to see if this proposal can be harmonised with current negotiations over refurbishment of the Adshel equipment.”

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 14.2

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER 14.2

SUBJECT Epping Town Centre Study

REFERENCE F2008/00404 - D00945753

FROM Councillor A A Wilson

To be Moved by Councillor A A Wilson:-

“(a) That Parramatta City Council advise the Dept of Planning that it will not co-operate in any study that reviews the Epping Conservation area with an intention of allowing increased density.

(b) Further, that Parramatta City Council cease all negotiations regarding the new LEP until an assurance is given that there will be no attempt to substantially alter the character of Epping.”

Comment by Acting Land Use & Transport Planning Manager – Sue Stewart:-

“The boundary of the LEP study area for the Epping Town Centre joint planning work has not yet been determined nor agreed to by the Project Control Group (PCG), which includes Councillor representatives from both Hornsby and Parramatta Councils. A proposed LEP study area boundary has been prepared by the Department of Planning. The Department has been advised that Parramatta City Council has formally resolved that the boundary for the joint planning work on the Parramatta side in relation to the potential growth of the Epping Town Centre should align with the boundary adopted for the work already undertaken by PCC, i.e. the area bounded by Beecroft Rd, Carlingford Rd, Kent St, Bridge St.

It would be appropriate that the Ward Councillors on the PCG raise the issues within the notice of motion at the next PCG meeting, which is expected to take place in mid June.”

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 14.3

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER 14.3

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

REFERENCE F2005/01345 - D00950581

FROM Councillor A A Wilson

To be Moved by Councillor A A Wilson:-

“That Council officer’s prepare a report examining if Parramatta City Council can look to provide insurance to all Non-Commercial Community Fairs in the LGA.”

Regulatory Council 10 June 2008

Item 14.4

NOTICE OF MOTION

ITEM NUMBER 14.4

SUBJECT Concept Plan for New Amenities Building at Granville Park

REFERENCE F2004/07861 - D00949928

FROM Councillor D L Borger

To be Moved by Councillor D L Borger:-

“(a) That a Concept Plan be prepared by Parramatta City Council in consultation with the Two Blues Rugby Union Club for a new amenities building to be located adjacent to the existing amenities building.

(b) That the Concept Plan include provision for toilets, change rooms, a meeting room, a kiosk, storage area and spectator seating.

(c) Further, that the Concept Plan be brought back to Council for its consideration with a view to submitting a proposal to the NSW Department of Sport and Recreation for funding. If possible this should be undertaken with a view to lodging a funding submission prior to the August 2008 deadline.”

Comment from Service Manager Open Space & Natural Resources – Neville Davis:-

“The existing pavilion building at the main oval at Granville Park is a single storey timber framed and asbestos cement clad structure. It comprises change rooms, storeroom, referees room first aid, kitchen and meeting rooms.

In view of the size, layout and extent of asbestos materials it is considered unsuitable for extensive alterations or additions.

The new building proposed by Councillor Borger would cost approximately $400,000 based on the cost of the similar building recently completed at Everley Park North.

The upgrading and replacement of sportsground pavilion buildings is currently funded under Council’s Pavilion Improvement Project which is part of the capital works budget.

There are 30 similar pavilion buildings located at sporting grounds and priority has been given to replacing a number of the older buildings which have reached their economic life. FS Garside Park, Granville is listed for replacement in 2008/09 and the detailed drawings are currently underway. This Granville Park pavilion building would need to be considered along with several other pavilions in order for Council to determine future priorities.

The cost to prepare concept plans in order to lodge an application for grant funding to NSW Sport & Recreation would be approximately $4,000.

NSW Sport & Recreation have not indicated when their annual Regional Sports Facility Program will open for 2008. However, based on previous years this is likely to be in July/August 2008.

This program allocates funding of between $30,000 to $300,000 for building projects of this nature.

Council received a $50,000 grant under this program in 2006/07 towards the skate facility in Granville park.

However, previous applications for similar pavilion projects at Ray Marshall Reserve and Barton Park have been unsuccessful.”