NOTICE OF Council MEETING

 

 

 

The Meeting of Parramatta City Council will be held in the Council Chamber, Fourth Floor, 2 Civic Place, Parramatta on Monday, 28 July 2008 at 6:45 pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Robert Lang

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

Dr. Robert Lang, General Manager - Parramatta City Council

 

 

 

 

Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services

 

 

 

Assistant Minutes Clerk – Michael Wearne

 

 

Stephen Kerr –  Group Manager Corporate

 

 

 

Minutes Clerk – Grant Davies

 

Marcelo Occhuizzi – Acting Group Manager Outcomes & Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clr Omar Jamal – Arthur Philip Ward

 

 

Clr Lorraine Wearne - Lachlan Macquarie Ward

 

Clr Anita Brown – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward

 

 

Clr John Chedid – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward

 

Clr David Borger – Macarthur Ward Elizabeth

 

 

Clr Andrew Wilson – Lachlan Macquarie Ward

 

Clr Paul Garrard – Woodville Ward

 

 

Clr Tony Issa, OAM – Woodville Ward

 

Clr Julia Finn – Arthur Philip Ward

 

 

Clr Brian Prudames – Caroline Chisholm Ward

 

Clr Chris Worthington – Caroline Chisholm Ward

Clr Pierre Esber, Deputy Lord Mayor  Lachlan Macquarie Ward

Clr Maureen Walsh – Wooville Ward

Clr Chiang Lim – Arthur Phillip Ward

Text Box:   Press

 

Staff

 

 

Staff

 

GALLERY

 


Ordinary Council

 28 July 2008

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM                                                         SUBJECT                                              PAGE NO

 

1        CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Regulatory Council - 14 July 2008

2        APOLOGIES

3        DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4        Minutes of Lord Mayor  

5        PUBLIC FORUM

6        PETITIONS

7        Rescission Motions

7.1     Draft Planning Controls for Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere.

7.2     132 Blaxcell Street, Granville. (Lot 2 Sec 3 DP 1788) (Woodville Ward)

7.3     25 Talbot Road, Guildford. Lot A in DP 349926 (Woodville Ward)

7.4     10 - 12 Highland Street, Guildford (Woodville Ward)  

8        COUNCIL MATTERS TO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION

9        Regulatory Reports

9.1     Assumed Concurrence from Director General to Vary Development Standards

9.2     87A Hammers Road, Constitution Hill

9.3     10-20 Constance Street, Guildford (Lots 18-23, Section 2 in DP 1144)

9.4     62-66 Robertson Street and 27-29 Zillah Street, Merrylands (Lots 15 Sec 3, 16 Sec 3, 36 Sec 3, 37 Sec 3 and 38 Sec 3 in DP 945) (Woodville Ward)
(Location Map - Attachment 1)

9.5     40 Grimwood Street, Granville
(Lot 1 DP 104144) (Woodville Ward)

10      City Development

10.1   Future Development of Eastwood Brickworks Site

10.2   Review of Draft Heritage Items

10.3   Milson Park Westmead 

11      Roads Paths Access and Flood Mitigation

11.1   Adshel Street Furniture Contract - Advertising Panels

12      Culture and Leisure

12.1   Additional Dog Leash Free Areas

13      Community Care

13.1   Arts Advisory Committee

13.2   Minutes of Access Advisory Committee Meeting 3 June 2008

13.3   Minutes of the Community Safety Advisory Committee 11 June 2008

13.4   Police Memorandum of Understanding for the City Centre

13.5   Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee

13.6   Presentation to Councillor Workshop from City of Sydney Council on 9 July 2008

14      City Leadership and Management

14.1   Investments Report for May 2008

14.2   Making of 2008/09 Rates

14.3   Report of the Audit Committee Meetings held on 22 April 2008 and 26 June 2008.

14.4   Report of the Code of Conduct Committee

14.5   Adoption of Department of Local Government Revised Model Code of Conduct

14.6   Proposed Structure for Outcomes and Development Group

14.7   Catering Policy  

15      Notices of Motion

15.1   Walking School Buses  

16      Closed Session

16.1   Civic Place Update July 2008

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (c) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

16.2   Tender for Waste Processing and Disposal

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

 

16.3   Tender for Provision of Major Events (Australia Day & Riverbeats Live)

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

 

16.4   21 Tucks Road Toongabbie - Transfer of land to Council

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

 

16.5   21B Barangaroo Road Toongabbie - Proposed Disposal

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

 

17      DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION

18      Question Time

 


Ordinary Council 28 July 2008

Item 7.1

RESCISSION MOTION

ITEM NUMBER         7.1

SUBJECT                   Draft Planning Controls for Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere.

REFERENCE            F2006/01198 - D00975411

REPORT OF              Manager Land Use and Transport Planning       

 

To be Moved by Councillor M K Walsh and seconded by Councillors J D Finn and P Esber:-

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

“That the resolution of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 23 June 2008 regarding the Draft Planning Controls for Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere, namely:-

 

(a)       That Council adopt the draft planning controls for the RDS Centres of Merrylands (option 1), Carlingford and East Rydalmere, as shown at Attachment 2 of Manager Land Use & Transport Planning Report, and that these be incorporated into the draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2008 prior to its exhibition.

 

(b)       Further, that a further report be presented to Council that outlines detailed planning controls to be incorporated into the draft Parramatta Development Control Plan 2008 to support the zoning, height and FSR for these areas.

 

be and is hereby rescinded.”

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 23 June 2008 regarding Draft Planning Controls for Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere

24 Pages

 

2View

Petition from the Residents of Smythe Street, Merrylands that was tabled at Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 to be considered in conjunction with this matter

3 Pages

 

 

 


Item 7.1 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 23 June 2008 regarding Draft Planning Controls for Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere

 

CITY DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER         9.1

SUBJECT                   Draft Planning Controls for Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere

REFERENCE            F2006/01198 - D00958497

REPORT OF              Manager Land Use and Transport Planning       

 

PURPOSE:

 

This report seeks Council’s endorsement of draft planning controls for the RDS centres of Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere for inclusion in draft Parramatta LEP 2008.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council adopt the draft planning controls for the RDS Centres of Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere, as shown at Attachment 2, and that these be incorporated into the draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2008 prior to its exhibition.

 

(b)       Further that, a further report be presented to Council that outlines detailed planning controls to be incorporated into the draft Parramatta Development Control Plan 2008 to support the zoning, height and FSR for these areas.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.         In November 2006, Council adopted a revised Residential Development Strategy (RDS) to provide a more sustainable approach to managing population growth and housing demand in the Parramatta LGA. In adopting the RDS, Council deferred some areas for consideration at a later date. Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere were amongst those areas deferred in the RDS.

 

2.         The revised RDS is being implemented through planning controls in draft Parramatta LEP 2008 and draft Development Control Plan (DCP) 2008. In response to Council’s request to the Department of Planning (DoP) for a Section 65 Certificate to enable public exhibition of the draft plan, the DoP advised Council in October 2007 that it had various issues with the draft LEP and that it would not be issuing a Section 65 Certificate. One of the issues was that the Department would require Council to maintain at least the current zones in all RDS precincts, rather than down-zoning some parts. Council’s position has been that some parts of the deferred areas will need to be down-zoned in the short term to preserve long term capacity when they are revisited.

 

3.         At its meeting of the 29 October 2007 Council resolved in part:

 

‘That Council note the advice of the Minister for Planning on 24 October that:-

 

1.         The Department of Planning will not accept the down-zoning of deferred areas and therefore Council proceed immediately to prepare detailed analysis of these areas leading to zoning and built form controls in the draft Parramatta LEP 2008.’

 

4.         The deferred RDS study areas of Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere were addressed as a result of Council’s resolution.

 

CONSULTATION

 

5.         A Councillor workshop was held on 7 April 2008 to discuss the planning analysis and draft planning controls for these areas. Staff from Council’s Strategic Asset Management, Community Capacity Building, Place Management, Traffic and Transport Services and Urban Design teams have also been consulted in the preparation of draft planning controls. Community consultation will occur with the public exhibition of the draft Parramatta LEP 2008 as a whole.

 

OVERVIEW OF PLANNING CONTROLS

 

6.         Draft proposals for land use controls for these areas have been prepared. These are described in the detailed report shown at Attachment 1, and the maps shown at Attachment 2.

 

7.         The Merrylands RDS precinct has very good access to public transport facilities, is close to a major retail centre, has a linear street pattern and has limited environmental constraints. The recommended planning controls focus increased residential density in the northern portion of the precinct, whilst retaining the southern portion as a low density residential area, underpinning the area’s potential to accommodate further residential development in the longer term. Consideration has been given to the width of Smythe Street and the density of development on and adjacent to heritage sites as discussed at the Councillor workshop and is discussed in the detailed report at Attachment 1.

 

8.         An alternative zoning Option 2 has been prepared for Merrylands as detailed at Attachment 3 and responds to discussion at the Councillor workshop regarding the advice provided by the Department of Planning in relation to down zoning of land bounded by Mombri Street, Loftus Street and Merrylands Road, to retain capacity for future higher density development in the longer term. Whilst the Department has indicated it would permit down zoning in this specific location, the Department’s letter inferred that the remainder of the precinct would need to retain existing zoning equivalents of Residential 2(b) and Residential 2(c).

 

9.         For the Carlingford RDS precinct, it is proposed that higher density development be encouraged within a limited portion of the study area reflecting the principal constraints imposed by topography and a poorly connected street pattern. Opportunities for medium to high density development are proposed, generally along Pennant Hills Road and Adderton Road. Elsewhere, the predominant low-density residential character of Carlingford will be preserved, with a small pocket at the southern edge of the precinct proposed to be down-zoned.

 

10.       In the East Rydalmere RDS precinct it is proposed that medium and higher density development be framed to the north and west of the intersection of Park Road and Pine Street, which will be the focus of activity with the existing, school, hotel, church, shops and local services, as well as new opportunities for mixed use development. South of the intersection of Victoria and Park Roads, opportunity for higher density residential development is also proposed with good proximity to open space, the school and shops in this part of the precinct. Medium density zoning along Victoria Road is proposed to be retained, reflecting the significant uptake of development in the current Residential 2b zone.

 

NEXT STEPS

 

11.       If Council adopts the zoning, height and floor space ratio controls for these areas as outlined at Attachment 2, they will be incorporated into the draft Parramatta LEP 2008 prior to its exhibition. The Department of Planning will review the draft proposals as part of its consideration of the draft LEP in making its decision to issue a Section 65 certificate.

 

12.       The proposed LEP controls need to be supported by detailed development controls to inform the scale, bulk and configuration of future development. These draft DCP controls will be reported to Council at a future date and will be incorporated in the draft Parramatta Development Control Plan 2008.

 

 

 

 

 

Diane Galea                                   Marcelo Occhiuzzi

Project Officer                     A/Group Manager

Land Use &  Planning                Outcomes & Development

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Detailed Report Deferred Area Attachment 1

8 Pages

 

2View

RDS Deferred Area Attachment 2

9 Pages

 

3View

RDS Deferred Area Attachment 3

4 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Item 7.1 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 23 June 2008 regarding Draft Planning Controls for Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere

 

DETAILED REPORT ON DRAFT PLANNING CONTROLS FOR

MERRYLANDS, CARLINGFORD & EAST RYDALMERE

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

In November 2006, Council adopted a revised Residential Development Strategy (RDS) to respond to future population growth and housing demand in Parramatta local government area (LGA). The purpose of the RDS is to set the direction for the future location, density and character of housing within Parramatta.

 

To manage new residential development, the RDS proposes a ‘concentrated growth’ model. This would allow more intense housing development to occur in areas or ‘centres’ which can best support such growth. Typically, these areas are close to public transport, shops and community facilities.

 

In adopting the RDS, Council deferred some of the ‘centres’ for consideration at a later date. Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere were amongst those areas deferred in the RDS. There were a variety of reasons for the decision to defer areas but generally it was better to examine these areas in the longer term when the affects of other influences could be better assessed.

 

In translating the RDS into the draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (LEP), Council in May 2007 adopted the draft Parramatta LEP 2008 which proposed to downzone some areas within the study areas of Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere that are currently zoned Residential 2(b). This was to preserve the land from ad-hoc development in the short term until decisions on its future development capacity were made. (Note: The existing areas zoned Residential 2(c) within these areas were proposed to be retained in the equivalent R4 High Density Residential Zone under the draft LEP).

 

In October 2007, the Department of Planning (DoP) advised Council that there were a number of outstanding issues that prevented the DoP from authorising a Section 65 Certificate enabling the draft Parramatta LEP to be formally exhibited. One of the issues raised by the DoP was that deferred areas where down-zoning was proposed would not be supported. At its meeting of the 29 October 2007, Council resolved in part:

 

‘That Council note the advice of the Minister for Planning on 24 October that:-

 

1.      The Department of Planning will not accept the down-zoning of deferred areas and therefore Council proceed immediately to prepare detailed analysis of these areas leading to zoning and built form controls in the draft Parramatta LEP 2008.’

 

As a consequence, an assessment of the deferred areas of Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere was undertaken.

 

 

 

THE DEFERRED AREAS

 

This report focuses on the deferred areas in the RDS of Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere. Maps of each study area are identified within Attachment 2.

 

The Merrylands Study Area is focused on the eastern side of Merrylands Railway Station.  The railway line forms the boundary between Parramatta City Council and Holroyd City Council. A small group of shops are located on the eastern side of the railway station. The area surrounding these shops comprises mostly detached dwellings. The Merrylands Town Centre is located on the western side, within the Holroyd LGA.

 

There are small pockets of medium and higher density housing spread throughout the study area. The study area is relatively flat and there is a large park (Granville Park) further east of the station closer to Woodville Road. The primary roads in the study area are Merrylands Road, Railway Terrace, Mombri Street and Loftus Streets. Merrylands Road provides access directly to Merrylands Railway Station and Woodville Road to the east. Railway Terrace provides access to the south towards Guildford. Mombri and Loftus Streets provide access across the railway line into the Merrylands Town Centre. Two heritage items are located in the study area at Nos. 56 and 59 Merrylands Road, being single storey dwellings.

 

The Carlingford Study Area is located around Carlingford Railway Station. The study area is located on a ridge line defined by Pennant Hills Road, which also forms the boundary between Parramatta City Council and Baulkham Hills Shire Council.  Carlingford Railway Station is the last stop on the Carlingford Railway Line.  Access to the railway station is on the northern side of Pennant Hills Road. Several bus services exist connecting Carlingford to other centres such as North Rocks, Epping, Pennant Hills, Ryde, West Ryde and Meadowbank.

 

There is a small group of shops to the south of Carlingford Railway Station along Pennant Hills Road, located in Parramatta LGA, as well as the Carlingford Village shops at the eastern end of the study area at the intersection of Marsden Rd and Pennant Hills Road. The study area comprises a mix of housing, including residential flat buildings, town houses and detached houses. Spread throughout the area is a series of bushland corridors. 

 

There are a number of heritage items in and adjacent to the study area including bushland at Evans Road, Carlingford Memorial Park, Eric Mobbs Memorial, K13 Memorial, Galaringi Reserve, Mobbs Hill Reserve, bushland, fencing and bridge on Honiton Avenue, water tanks on Marsden Road, and dwellings at Nos. 101 and 105 Adderton Road.

 

The East Rydalmere Study Area is located on Victoria Road at the intersection of Park Road. Victoria Road is a heavily trafficked arterial road linking Parramatta to Sydney. The study area accommodates a variety of building types and land uses, including low scale detached housing and is adjacent to substantial industrial areas. Subiaco Creek, a regional open space corridor, lies to the north of the study area, with Parramatta River to the south. The study area also includes a Bowling Club and local parks. There is a small grouping of shops framed by Park Road and Victoria Road which provide day to day retail services. There is also a hotel, baby health care facility, church and school within the precinct. Heritage items are located at Nos. 2 Myrtle Street (Catholic Church), and two dwellings at No. 24 Wattle Street and No. 72 Park Road.

 

DEFERRED AREAS ANALYSIS

 

A workshop was held with Councillors on 7 April 2008 in relation to the deferred areas of Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere. The information presented at the workshop outlined the context and setting for each area, environmental analysis, proposed urban design principles and draft land use controls to underpin the LEP. The principal findings of the analysis are discussed below.

 

Merrylands

 

§ With access to public transport, retail and commercial services, open space and a relatively unconstrained urban structure, Merrylands offers opportunities for increased residential densities.

 

§ This area has direct pedestrian access to the railway station and vehicular and pedestrian access to the Merrylands Town Centre. Given the principles of transit-oriented development, the lots directly adjacent to the station may be given comparatively more generous height and floor space controls.

 

§ In the short term, it is desirable to preserve the low scale residential character of single dwellings in the southern part of the precinct, which contribute to the mix of housing and the amenity of the neighbourhood. In the longer term, increased densities may be considered, as the first stage of redevelopment is completed, and assuming that there is sufficient demand for further housing.

 

§ Planning controls prepared by Holroyd Council in respect of land in that LGA directly adjacent to the railway line allows for mixed used development between 6 – 8 storeys in height. This also accommodates some demand for housing development in the locality.

 

Carlingford

 

§ Carlingford has topographical and natural constraints, poor pedestrian and vehicular connectivity and is characterised by a mix of housing including established residential flat buildings and low scale detached housing. Considering these constraints Carlingford study area is less likely suitable to sustain significant housing growth.

 

§ Planning controls prepared by Baulkham Hills Shire Council in respect of land on the northern side of Pennant Hills Road allow for significant increases in residential densities and will also accommodate demand for housing in the area.

 

 

 

East Rydalmere

 

§ Considering the existing mix of uses in East Rydalmere, as well as its established low scale character, it is anticipated that this study area could sustain contained redevelopment for increased residential densities focused around the existing ‘centre’ and close to parks and schools.

 

§ New mixed-use development should be focused around the current commercial and community uses and toward the intersection of Park Road and Pine Street.

 

§ Part of the study area has an established low density character with single dwellings that are highly consistent in terms of scale, materials and setbacks from the street. Retention of this housing in the eastern sections of Pine and Wattle Street is desirable in providing for housing mix and retaining the character of this housing and the amenity it provides to the neighbourhood.

 

RECOMMENDED PLANNING CONTROLS

 

Merrylands Precinct

 

1. Preferred Planning Controls - Option 1

 

The provision of high density residential development near existing public transport infrastructure is consistent with transport oriented development promoted by the NSW State Government and Council’s RDS. Land along Mombri Street, Loftus Street, Railway Terrace, Merrylands Road and Smythe Street is in the immediate vicinity of Merrylands Railway Station and is recommended for higher density residential development. This area also is within walking distance to a large retail centre on the opposite side of the railway station which provides major retailing and considerable services to support the needs and demands of the existing and future community.

 

The recommended draft planning controls for Merrylands provide for increased densities concentrated along the northern portion of the precinct, whilst allowing reduced densities within the southern portion as outlined in Attachment 2.

 

It is proposed to concentrate higher density mixed use development toward the railway line, with building heights and densities gradually falling from west to east (towards Woodville Road). An active street frontage to Railway Terrace is recommended, creating opportunities for surveillance of the railway line and improved pedestrian access between the northern portion of Railway Terrace and Merrylands Railway Station.

 

Concentrating the tallest buildings (5 – 6 storeys or 17 – 21 metres proposed on the Parramatta LGA side) closest to the railway station has also been the strategic approach of Holroyd City Council, which allows for development between 6 – 8 storeys in this vicinity. The area bound by Mombri Street, Loftus Street, and Merrylands Road is proposed to allow higher density residential development, providing a gradual change in scale from Railway Terrace to Woodville Road. The area bound by Boomerang, Bennalong, Randle and William Streets, and the parcels between the existing school and Bennalong Park on William Street are also proposed to be zoned to allow higher density residential development, providing streetscape continuity along Boomerang and William Streets.

 

Land south of Sutherland Lane and the southern part of the precinct is proposed to be zoned low density residential, allowing it to be revisited in the future as to its longer term development capacity.

 

2. Alternative Zoning based on Department of Planning Advice – Option 2

 

At the Councillor workshop it was suggested that another zoning option could be considered for Merrylands, reflecting the advice of the Department of Planning (DoP) in its letter to Council of 19 December 2007, viz:

 

The Department’s assessment of the zoning within the RDS included consideration of Council’s argument that down zoning was needed to retain capacity for future higher density development. In most cases adequate low density 2(a) land was identified in reserve, without the need to downzone existing medium density 2(b) or high density 2(c) land. In the case of Merrylands however, there does not appear to be adequate 2(a) land in reserve. Therefore the Department agreed that the two street blocks closest to the station (Mombri & Lotus Streets & Merrylands Road) could be down zoned to allow for future higher density development.

 

Under this scenario of the Department of Planning, all existing zonings of Residential 2(b) and Residential 2(c) in the Merrylands RDS precinct would be retained, with the exception of the Mombri Street, Loftus Street and Merrylands Road blocks referred to. The zoning, height and FSR outcomes under this scenario are mapped in Attachment 3. Building height and density controls would remain consistent with those allowed under the existing LEP 2001, other than for the Mombri, Loftus & Merrylands Road blocks which would be downzoned to R2 low density residential.

 

Councillors may wish to consider this option, but the recommended planning controls discussed in Option 1 above are preferred because they make better provision for consolidated increase in residential density in the short term as well as preserving land for longer term growth.

 

Option 2 would result in the fragmentation of high and medium density areas over the Merrylands RDS area and limit the long term growth potential of Merrylands. It may also result in more inconsistency in built form throughout the precinct.

 

3. Response to issues raised at Councillor Workshop

 

Concern was raised by some Councillors at the workshop about the width of Smythe Street in relation to the proposed higher density residential development. This matter has been discussed with Council’s Transport & Traffic Service Manager and Design staff who have advised that the current Smythe Street road pavement width of 9.65 metres is sufficient to enable 2 metres for vehicle car parking on either side, whilst allowing 2.8 metres per vehicle travelling lane in each direction. These widths are consistent with the RTA’s minimum width of 2.7 metres and are comparable to sections of Parramatta Road which allows vehicles to travel at 60 km/hour. By contrast, Smythe Street is a slow vehicle movement area, is of a reasonably short distance, and is not a major road within the local road network.

 

Options are available to improve vehicle circulation within Smythe Street including restricting parking to one side of the roadway only, altering vehicle movements to ‘one way’, or widening of the carriageway.

 

Should Council wish to widen the Smythe Street carriageway in the future, this could be achieved within the existing road reservation, without the need to acquire private property. The costs associated with undertaking road widening would include realignment of kerb and guttering, extension of road pavement, removal and replacement of existing trees, potential realignment of the footpath/s and potential relocation of services.

 

While an increase in traffic volumes may be expected as a result of higher residential densities within the locality, the proposal accords with the principles of Council’s RDS to provide higher density housing close to centres and public transport, which provides opportunities for reduced car movements in the longer term. Traffic speeds in any case will be slow.

 

Another matter raised at the Councillor Workshop was concern about the proximity of higher density development in the vicinity of existing heritage items at Nos. 56 and 59 Merrylands Road, Merrylands and the potential impact this will have on the integrity of these heritage items. Proposed zonings in proximity of these items have been reviewed so that the current zoning regime is maintained immediately adjoining these sites.

 

Carlingford Precinct

 

In response to a number of constraints relating to Carlingford as previously discussed, particularly topography and poor vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, it is recommended to concentrate increased densities along Pennant Hills Road, Adderton Road and Charles Street as detailed at Attachment 2.

 

The draft planning controls propose greater height and density along Pennant Hills Road in the shopping precincts of Carlingford Village Shopping Centre at the eastern end of the precinct, and for the shops closer to Carlingford Railway Station, to encourage an upgrade of existing retail shops with shop top housing and support their ongoing viability with increased residential population within their catchment. It would also add to the diversity of dwelling types in the locality.

 

West of the railway line it is proposed to allow a mix of four storey (14 metres) residential flat buildings and two storey (11 metres) townhouse style housing. This part of the precinct also has good proximity to the Telopea RDS precinct and has already shown potential for redevelopment with recent medium density redevelopment.

 

The remainder of the precinct is more suited to low density residential development. The effect of this is some proposed down zonings of residential land at the perimeter of the RDS area consistent with proposed zonings outside the RDS area, where rezoning is proposed from 2(b) Residential to R2 Low Density Residential.  This is considered appropriate and justifiable to the DoP largely because of the environmental constraints and limited walkability of these areas for residents, as well as in the context of the broader RDS proposals in this locality.

 

Existing heritage items within the precinct are proposed to retain existing zoning equivalents.

 

As mentioned previously, planning controls prepared by Baulkham Hills Shire Council in respect of land on the northern side of Pennant Hills Road allow for significant increases in residential densities and will also accommodate demand for housing in the area.

 

East Rydalmere Precinct

 

The recommended planning controls for East Rydalmere seek to accentuate development along Park Road both north and south of Victoria Road within the precinct as detailed at Attachment 2. It is proposed to retain the existing medium density residential zone along Victoria Road as R3 Medium Density Residential, reflecting the existing zoning and recent multi-unit residential redevelopment in this location.

 

Proposed zonings north of Victoria Road seek to allow for a level of mixed use activity (3 storeys or 12 metres) to be concentrated around the intersection of Park Road and Pine Street, building on existing activities including the church, school, hotel and shops, and allowing future redevelopment to be focussed away from Victoria Road. Increased residential densities are generally proposed between the industrial area west of Myrtle Street and the eastern side of Park Road allowing for a mix of two storey (11 metres) R3 medium density and 3 storey (11 metres) R4 high density residential zones.

 

Proposed zonings on the southern side of Victoria Road will also allow for a mix of two storey (11 metres) R3 Medium Density Residential and R4 three storey (11 metres) R4 High Density Residential zones. The existing commercial zoning on the south eastern corner of Victoria Road and Park Road will be extended to incorporate two additional properties on Park Road as previously resolved by Council and will allow a maximum of 3 storeys (12 metres).

 

The southern part of the precinct is considered appropriate for up zoning given its isolation from low density residential areas, its proximity to open space, Rydalmere Primary School and public transport services including the Rydalmere Ferry Wharf and bus services along Victoria Road. The street width in Elonera Street and Burbang Crescent allows for constrained traffic movement if cars are parked in the street and may require an extension of existing parking restrictions that apply on one side of Elonera Street.

 

Height and densities proposed over the precinct as a whole are proposed to be relatively low scale allowing for two and three storey developments throughout. These heights and densities would also provide consistency where existing development has already taken place within the 2(b) Residential Zone, particularly along Victoria Road. Furthermore, the heights and densities proposed allows for a suitable relationship to be created between the existing low density areas and proposed areas to be up zoned.

 

An existing heritage item and adjoining land at No. 72 Park Road is proposed within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. Height and densities proposed on and adjacent to this site will provide for relatively low scale development at 2 storeys (11 metres). The current Residential 2a zone applying to this site and surrounds permits a maximum height of 2 storeys (9 metres). Heritage planning controls require the heritage significance of the heritage item to be considered as part of any development on or adjacent to the site. The heritage item at No. 24 Wattle Street is proposed to remain within a low density residential zone, while the heritage item at No. 2 Myrtle Street, the Catholic Church, will maintain zoning, height and density controls equivalent to Parramatta LEP 2001.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Staff from Council’s Strategic Asset Management, Community Capacity Building, Place Management, Traffic and Transport Services and Urban Design teams were consulted in the preparation of draft planning controls.

 

Community consultation of these deferred areas will occur with the exhibition of the draft Parramatta LEP 2008 as a whole.

 

NEXT STEPS

 

This report details the preferred zoning, height and density options for Council to consider. Once the draft planning controls have been adopted by Council they will be included as part of draft Parramatta LEP 2008. Draft DCP controls will also be formulated, to provide more detailed planning guidance on built form outcomes, desired streetscape, building setbacks, future character, desired future pedestrian connections etc and will be reported for Council’s consideration. These controls will form part of the draft Parramatta Development Control Plan 2008 to guide future development in each precinct.

 


Item 7.1 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 23 June 2008 regarding Draft Planning Controls for Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere

 




Item 7.1 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 23 June 2008 regarding Draft Planning Controls for Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere

 




Item 7.1 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 23 June 2008 regarding Draft Planning Controls for Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere

 



 


Item 7.1 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 23 June 2008 regarding Draft Planning Controls for Merrylands, Carlingford and East Rydalmere

 




 

 


Item 7.1 - Attachment 2

Petition from the Residents of Smythe Street, Merrylands that was tabled at Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 to be considered in conjunction with this matter

 



 


Ordinary Council 28 July 2008

Item 7.2

RESCISSION MOTION

ITEM NUMBER         7.2

SUBJECT                   132 Blaxcell Street, Granville. (Lot 2 Sec 3 DP 1788) (Woodville Ward)

REFERENCE            DA/306/2007 - D00985984

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

To be Moved by Councillor O Jamal and Seconded by Councillors C X Lim and A Issa, OAM:-

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

“That the resolution of the Regulatory Council Meeting held on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 132 Blaxcell Street, Granville, namely:-

 

That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

1       The applicant has indicated the desire to withdraw the application.

2       The applicant has not provided the information requested by Council.

3       The report lacks veracity in terms of the information provided regarding traffic, sight lines and fails to give consideration to both the slight rise in Farnell Street and number of high rise vehicles that park along the street obstructing sight lines.

4       Vehicles cannot safely exit the building.

5       There are no parking facilities provided.

6       There is no disability parking provided consistent with guidelines.

 

be and is hereby rescinded.”

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 132 Blaxcell Street, Granville

24 Pages

 

 

 


Item 7.2 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 132 Blaxcell Street, Granville

 

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         11.1

SUBJECT                   132 Blaxcell Street, Granville. (Lot 2 Sec 3 DP 1788) (Woodville Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Further Report - Alterations and additions to the front of the existing dwelling for the purposes of a local shop.

REFERENCE            DA/306/2007 - Submitted 24 April 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mr E Sassine

OWNERS                    Mr E Sassine and Mrs A Sassine

REPORT OF              Development Assessment Officer     

 

PURPOSE:

 

To provide Councillors with a response to the resolution of Council at its meeting on 10 December 2007, and determine Development Application No. 306/2007, which seeks approval for alterations and additions to the front of the existing dwelling for the purpose of a local shop.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 306/2007, subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

 

1.         The development is to be carried out in accordance 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

Site, Elevation and Section Plan, Prepared by C.B of Baini Design, Numbered 07042/01B, Revision B

September 2007

Floor and Fitout Plan, Prepared by C.B of Baini Design, Numbered 07042/02B, Revision B

September 2007

Elevations Plan, Prepared by C.B of Baini Design, Numbered 07042/03B, as amended in red

April 2007

 

Document(s)

Dated

Waste Management Plan for 132 Blaxcell Street, Granville, as amended in red

Undated

Schedule of finishes for 132 Blaxcell Street, Granville

Undated

List of items to be sold

Undated

Note:              In the event of any inconsistency between the architectural plan(s) and the landscape plan(s) and/or storm water disposal plan(s) the architectural plan(s) shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

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

 

2.         A standard rubbish bin (with a minimum 120 litre capacity) is to be provided to the front of the premises underneath the proposed awning for general waste from customers. The bin is to be provided at all times while the shop is operating and is to be removed and stored out of view at the end of daily operations.

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

 

3.         All food items sold from the premises are to be pre-packaged. No food preparation activities are to occur from the premises.

Reason:       To ensure compliance with the consent.

 

4.         Access for people with disabilities from the public domain and all car parking areas on site to and within the building is to be provided. Consideration must be given to the means of dignified and equitable access from public places to adjacent buildings, to other areas within the building and to footpath and roads. Compliant access provisions for people with disabilities shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate. All details shall be prepared in consideration of, and construction completed to achieve compliance with the Building Code of Australia Part D3 “Access for People with Disabilities”, provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and the relevant provisions of AS1428.1 (2001) and AS1428.4.

Reason:        To ensure the provision of equitable and dignified access for all people in accordance with disability discrimination legislation and relevant Australian Standards.

 

5.         The gradient for all disabled access ramps shall not exceed a maximum of 1 (vertical) in 14 (horizontal) as per the requirements of Australian Standard AS1428.1 (2001) – Design for Access and Mobility – General Requirements for Access – New Building Work. The final design of the proposed disabled access ramps 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.         Signs incorporating the international symbol of access for disabled persons must be provided to identify each accessible entrance. This requirement shall be reflected on the Construction Certificate plans and supporting documentation.

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

 

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

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.         At the regulatory Council meeting of 10 December 2007, Council considered a report which recommended approval for alterations and additions to the front of the existing dwelling for the purpose of a local shop. At the meeting the following was resolved;

 

1.1.     That consideration of the development application be deferred and a traffic count be taken at the intersection of Membrey and Blaxcell Streets and at the intersection of Blaxcell and Farnell Streets and in Blaxcell Street, Granville.

 

1.2.     That Council be provided with a report which addresses the sight lines from the subject premises and also from the egress and ingress points of Farnell and Membrey Streets.

 

1.3.     Further, that the Development Control Unit reassess the development application in light of the report and the information that is brought forward.

 

APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION

 

2.         The applicant was advised of the resolution of Council on 20 December 2007 and was accordingly requested to provide a traffic study.

 

3.         The applicant was contacted by telephone on 2 April 2008 as no information had been lodged to Council regarding the traffic study requested. During the telephone conversation, the applicant advised that they are not willing to provide Council with the information requested and furthermore that they no longer wish to proceed with the application.

           

4.         The applicant was requested to confirm their intentions to no longer proceed with the application in writing. The applicant advised that they would not provide Council with written confirmation as they had made their intentions clear during the telephone conversation and considered that to be a sufficient request to withdraw the application.

 

5.         As the applicant has not formally withdrawn their application, this report is being returned to Council for determination.

 

ISSUES

 

Traffic

 

6.         The application was referred for a 2nd time to Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer for additional comment. Comments from Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer include:

 

6.1.          The proposed development has a gross floor area of 46sqm and its traffic generation is considered to be low with a parking demand of 2 spaces based on Council's DCP (refer to previous traffic comment dated 14 August 2007 - D0069717).

 

6.2.          A traffic study is not warranted for this proposal as the scale of development is small and the proposal is not expected to have a significant traffic impact on Blaxcell Street and the surrounding road network.

 

 

 

6.3.          As per Item (a) of the Council's resolution on 10 December 2007, the traffic count that was required to be taken at the intersection of Membrey and Blaxcell Streets and at the intersection of Blaxcell and Farnell Streets and in Blaxcell Street, Granville is not required for the purpose of this proposed development. For a proposed retail development, traffic counts and traffic study are required for the assessment of traffic impact if it is within a scale of 500sqm or more according to RTA Guidelines for Traffic Generating Development and that would need referral to the RTA or its Regional Development Committee for consideration.

 

6.4.          A check of the RTA recorded accidents during the last 5 years indicate that there have been a total of 4 accidents (no injury accidents) at Blaxcell Street & Membrey Street intersection (1 accident), and Blaxcell Street & Farnell Street intersection (3 accidents) during the last 5 years from January 2002 to December 2006. Based on the number of accident data, provision of any intersection improvement on either of these intersections is not warranted according to RTA requirements.

 

6.5.          This section of Blaxcell Street has a road width of approximately 11.5m wide with bicycle/parking lane (approx 2.3m wide) and painted median island (approx 2m). The traffic lane width is approx 2.8m. Parking in this section of Blaxcell Street is unrestricted.

 

6.6.          Analysis of the sight lines from the subject premises and also from the egress and ingress points of Farnell and Membrey Streets are as follows:

 

6.6.1.         Sight lines from the subject premises into Blaxcell Street - if a vehicle is parked on the parking lane near the development site, a driver wishing to leave from the premises would have a limited sight distance unless the front of car is right on the edge of the parking lane. Otherwise, the sight distance is approximately 100m and is in accordance with the Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 5 - Intersections at Grade.

 

6.6.2.         Sight lines from Farnell Street into Blaxcell Street in both directions are approx 100m to the north and 120m to the south of the intersection of Farnell Street & Blaxcell Street and are in accordance with the Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 5 - Intersections at Grade.

 

6.6.3.         Sight lines from Membrey Street into Blaxcell Street - due to the existing shrubs and tree on the north-eastern corner, the sight distance from Membrey Street turning into Blaxcell Street is approximately 35m and is considered to be less than the required minimum sight distance according to the Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 5 - Intersections at Grade. If a vehicle is within the alignment of the parking lane when turning at the intersection, the sight distance would be approximately 70m from the intersection. However, the sight distance at the intersection can be improved by removing the existing shrubs and pruning the branches of the tree on the footpath through Council's Tree Management Officer. In addition, it is considered appropriate to install a 'No Stopping' zone on Blaxcell Street to a distance of approximately 20m to the north of Membrey Street, subject to the approval of Council's Traffic Committee under Delegated Authority.

 

6.6.4.         Sight lines from Membrey Street into Blaxcell Street - the sight distance at the intersection looking to the south-eastern corner is approximately 100m and is in accordance with the Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 5 - Intersections at Grade. However, it is also considered appropriate to install 'No Stopping' zone on Blaxcell Street to a distance of approximately 15m-20m to the south of Membrey Street, subject to the approval of Council's Traffic Committee under Delegated Authority.

 

6.7.          Based on the analysis and assessment of the Council's resolution on 10 December 2007 as mentioned above, it is considered that this proposed development is not expected to have a significant traffic impact on Blaxcell Street and is supported on traffic and parking grounds. Also, in order to improve the sight distance of driver's vision when turning at the intersection of Blaxcell Street & Membrey Street, the installation of the 'No Stopping' zone on Blaxcell Street on either side of the intersection of Membrey Street and the removal and pruning of the shrubs and branches of the existing tree on the north-eastern corner of the intersection are considered appropriate. The installation of the 'No Stopping' zones in Blaxcell Street on either side of Membrey Street will be referred to Council's Traffic Committee under Delegated Authority. Council's Tree Management Officer should also be requested to remove the shrubs and prune the branches of the tree to improve sight distance when turning at the intersection.

 

7.         The recommendation from Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer is that the proposed development for a local shop at 132 Blaxcell Street, Granville can be supported on traffic and parking grounds subject to the traffic related conditions as specified in the traffic comments dated 14 August 2008.

 

8.         Part (c) of Council’s resolution from the regulatory Council meeting of 10 December 2007 states;

 

(c)            Further, that the Development Control Unit reassess the development application in light of the report and the information that is brought forward.

 

9.         In light of the latest comments received from Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer and a further assessment of the application, the previous recommendation that the application should be approved subject to standard and extraordinary conditions remains unchanged.

 

 

 

 

Ali Hammoud

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Previous Report DSU 239/2007 to Council 10/12/2007 including all attachments

16 Pages

 

2View

Previous Traffic Comments for DA/306/2007 at 132 Blaxcell Street, Granville

2 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Item 7.2 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 132 Blaxcell Street, Granville

 
















 


Item 7.2 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 132 Blaxcell Street, Granville

 


 

 


Ordinary Council 28 July 2008

Item 7.3

RESCISSION MOTION

ITEM NUMBER         7.3

SUBJECT                   25 Talbot Road, Guildford. Lot A in DP 349926 (Woodville Ward)

REFERENCE            DA/1270/2004 - D00986254

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

To be Moved by Councillor O Jamal and Seconded by Councillors C X Lim and P Esber:-

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

“That the resolution of the Regulatory Council Meeting held on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 25 Talbot Road, Guildford, namely:-

 

(a)     That Council uphold refusal of Section 96AA Application No. 1270/2004/B which seeks approval to modify the original development application for the following reasons:

1.      That the proposed modification will have an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the adjacent heritage cottages within the “Talbot Road Precinct”. The desirable streetscape relationship with the heritage items will be adversely affected by the proposed increase in building height and bulk and views to and from the heritage cottages will also be unnecessarily diminished.

2.      That the proposed modification does not comply with the following objective for outdoor areas set out in 3.7.1 of Parramatta Child Care Development Control Plan, in that the modification fails to minimise potential impacts on adjacent residential premises in that it will exacerbate the amenity impacts on No 23 Talbot Road in terms of noise transmission and building bulk and scale. In particular:-

2.1    As the children’s transition area (veranda) is now elevated higher (approximately 1.9m above the existing ground level) the acoustic impact of the child care centre will be greater. However, no revised noise assessment report has been provided to establish whether the elevated transition area is acceptable in terms of noise impact.

2.2    The split levels approved under the original consent are now proposed to be removed. Therefore, the overall height of the building has been increased by 370mm in the front and 1.085m in the rear respectively, which unnecessarily results in an adverse bulk and scale impact upon the adjoining property at No 23 Talbot Road. It is essential for the subject commercial building to minimise its bulk and scale as the building is not adequately articulated on the northern and southern elevations and extends significantly into the rear yard well beyond the de-facto rear building line within the locality.

3.      That the proposed modification does not comply with the following design principles for outdoor play space set out in 3.7.2 of Parramatta Child Care Development Control Plan. In particular:-

3.1    The proposed ramping and steps are excessive and does not provide a convenient and safe means of access for children between the indoor and outdoor play areas.

3.2    The proposed zigzagged ramping with associated railing is approximately 28m in length and 1.9m in overall height. This will significantly block sightlines and compromise carers’ ability to supervise children between the outdoor and indoor areas.

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

 

be and is hereby rescinded.”

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 25 Talbot Road, Guildford

26 Pages

 

 

 


Item 7.3 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 25 Talbot Road, Guildford

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.8

SUBJECT                   25 Talbot Road, Guildford. Lot A in DP 349926 (Woodville Ward).

DESCRIPTION          Section 82A Review of determination of Section 96AA modification to DA/1270/2004 that granted approval for the construction of a 2 storey commercial building over basement carparking. (Location Map - Attachment 1).

REFERENCE            DA/1270/2004/B - Submitted 14 March 2008

APPLICANT/S           Mr S Nour

OWNERS                    Mr S Nour and Mrs T Nour

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To review a refused (under delegated authority) Section 96AA modification to DA/1270/2004. The Section 96AA application sought approval to modify the Land and Environment Court approval to the demolition of the existing dwelling and other structures and the construction of a 2 storey commercial building over basement parking, providing a 28 place child care centre on the ground floor and 2 offices on the first floor.

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination as the original determination (refusal) was made at Council Officer level under delegation.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council uphold refusal of Section 96AA Application No. 1270/2004/B which seeks approval to modify the original development application for the following reasons:

 

1.         That the proposed modification will have an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the adjacent heritage cottages within the “Talbot Road Precinct”. The desirable streetscape relationship with the heritage items will be adversely affected by the proposed increase in building height and bulk and views to and from the heritage cottages will also be unnecessarily diminished.

 

2.         That the proposed modification does not comply with the following objective for outdoor areas set out in 3.7.1 of Parramatta Child Care Development Control Plan, in that the modification fails to minimise potential impacts on adjacent residential premises in that it will exacerbate the amenity impacts on No 23 Talbot Road in terms of noise transmission and building bulk and scale. In particular:-

 

(a)     As the children’s transition area (veranda) is now elevated higher (approximately 1.9m above the existing ground level) the acoustic impact of the child care centre will be greater. However, no revised noise assessment report has been provided to establish whether the elevated transition area is acceptable in terms of noise impact.

 

(b)     The split levels approved under the original consent are now proposed to be removed. Therefore, the overall height of the building has been increased by 370mm in the front and 1.085m in the rear respectively, which unnecessarily results in an adverse bulk and scale impact upon the adjoining property at No 23 Talbot Road. It is essential for the subject commercial building to minimise its bulk and scale as the building is not adequately articulated on the northern and southern elevations and extends significantly into the rear yard well beyond the de-facto rear building line within the locality.

 

3.         That the proposed modification does not comply with the following design principles for outdoor play space set out in 3.7.2 of Parramatta Child Care Development Control Plan. In particular:-

 

(a)     The proposed ramping and steps are excessive and does not provide a convenient and safe means of access for children between the indoor and outdoor play areas.

 

(b)     The proposed zigzagged ramping with associated railing is approximately 28m in length and 1.9m in overall height. This will significantly block sightlines and compromise carers’ ability to supervise children between the outdoor and indoor areas.

 

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

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The site is located on the western side of Talbot Road with a frontage of 14.7m and a total area of 802.58sqm. The site has a fall of approximately 2.3m from the north-western corner to the south-eastern corner.

 

2.      There is an existing dwelling on the site, which is of a similar era and style to neighbouring buildings within Talbot Road.

 

3.      To the north, the site adjoins the “Talbot Road Precinct”, which is identified as a significant group of 1920s cottages mostly built of brick with some timber and all of similar quality and all roofed with Marseilles tiles.

 

4.      The subject site adjoins the council car park area to the south and west, which is utilised by the Guildford Road commercial area.

 

PROPOSAL

 

5.      The Section 96AA application, subject to a review under the current Section 82A application, seeks to modify the original consent for the demolition of the existing dwelling and other structures and the construction of a 2 storey commercial building over basement parking, providing a 28 place child care centre on the ground floor and 2 offices on the first floor, in the following way.

 

(a)     Internal layout redesign of the child care centre on the ground floor, including provision of a new cot room and separation of the indoor play areas between different age groups

(b)     Removal of internal ramps accommodating transition in floor levels and replacement with an elevated floor level to provide the same finished floor level (FFL) from the front to the rear of the building

(b)     The ground level has been amended to remove the split levels which results in raising the finished floor level by 585mm

(c)     Internal layout redesign of the offices on the first floor by resizing Office 1 and 2 and reconfiguring the amenity facilities, including staff kitchens and toilets

(d)     The first floor level has been amended to remove the split levels which results in raising the finished floor level by 885mm at the rear

(e)     Consequently, the overall height of the building at the rear has been increased by 1.085m (from RL35.215 to RL36.30) and the ramp and stairs connecting between the children’s transition area and outdoor play area have been expanded

(f)      The overall building height in the front has been increased by 370mm (from RL35.93 to RL36.30)

 

BACKGROUND HISTORY

 

DA/1270/2004

6.      A Development Application for the demolition of existing structures, tree removal and construction and strata subdivision of a part 2 and 3 storey commercial building over basement parking, providing a 30 place child care centre on the ground floor and 2 office units on the first floor was refused by Council on 14 November 2005.

 

Appeal No 11371 of 2005

7.      The applicant appealed Council’s determination to the Land and Environment Court and the Court subsequently upheld the appeal and approved the proposed development on 15 November 2006, after a series of amendments to the original scheme that resolved heritage and streetscape concerns identified by the Court-appointed planning expert.

 

DA/1270/2004/B

8.      A Section 96AA application to modify the original consent given by the Court was refused by Council under delegated authority on 17 January 2008 for the following reasons:

 

(1)       The proposal is inconsistent with zone objectives (a) and (e) of the 3A Centre Business Zone of Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2001 as the scale and size of the proposed development are not in keeping with the established and likely future character of the locality, especially having regards to the height of the rear elevation.

           

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

 

-      Additional supporting details, being non compliance with DOCS requirements and justification of level changes, not being submitted as requested.

 

(3)       The proposal fails to comply with the objectives of Parramatta DCP2005 Section 4.1.7 Development on Sloping Land as the proposal fails to respond to the natural topography. In particular the proposal is inappropriate in respect of the following design principles by failing to:

-      minimise the visual bulk of the development, particularly when viewed from the rear

-      minimise the impact of development on the privacy of the adjoining property

-      maximise the useable area at the rear of the site

 

(4)       The proposal fails to comply with the objective of Parramatta DCP2005 Section 4.2.3 Building Form and Massing, as the proposal fails to ensure that where changes in building scale, mass and height are proposed, it occurs in a manner that is sensitive to amenity issues of surrounding or nearby development. In particular the proposal is inappropriate in respect of the following design principles:

 

-      The rear floor level increase is excessive and is not at a height that responds to the topography of the site. 

-      The proportion and massing of building does not relate favourably to the form, proportions and massing of existing building patterns when viewed from the side and rear elevations.

-      The proposed floor levels result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to the adjacent property.

 

(5)       The proposal fails to comply with the objectives of Parramatta DCP2005 Section 4.4 Social Amenity as the proposal fails to provide a convenient means of access to the rear playground due to the extensive ramping system proposed.

 

(6)       The proposal fails to comply with the objectives of Parramatta DCP2005 Section 4.3.2 Visual and Acoustic Privacy as the proposal fails to ensure that development does not cause unreasonable overlooking of habitable rooms and principal private open spaces of dwellings. In particular the proposal is inappropriate in respect of the following design principles:

 

-      The increased floor level of the rear balcony results in unreasonable overlooking of living areas and private open spaces of the adjoining dwelling at 23 Talbot Road.

 

(7)       That granting consent to the proposal would not be in the public interest.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

9.      Under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, an applicant may request Council to review a determination of a development application including a Section 96 application, other than for designated development, integrated development and state significant development. The proposed development does not fall into any of these categories.

 

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

 

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

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

 

10.3       The subject Section 82A review application was made within 12 month after the date of determination (refusal) of Section 96AA application No. 1270/2004/B, which was on 17 January 2008.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

13.    An assessment of the Section 82A review application will be discussed below.

 

14.    As the subject Section 82A application seeks a review of a determined Section 96AA application, the proposed modification must also satisfy the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

16.    The words “substantially the same development” have repeatedly been interpreted by the Land and Environment Court to mean “essentially or materially the same or having the same essence” and “to alter without radical transformation”.

 

17.    The proposed modification (as described above) would be substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted, should the Section 96AA application be approved.

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

18.    The subject site is zoned Centre Business 3(a) under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. Both child care centres and commercial premises are permissible within the zone with the consent of Council. The proposed modification does not change compliance with the LEP.

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

 

19.    The subject site is not listed as a heritage item. However, the site is within the vicinity of the “Talbot Road Precinct” which contains 14 heritage items consisting Nos 11 to 23 and 12 to 24 Talbot Road.

 

20.    Clause 14 of the LEP requires Council to consider the impact of the development:

         

20.1       on the heritage significance, curtilage and setting of the heritage item or the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area, and

20.2       on any significant views to or from the heritage item or the heritage conservation area.

 

21.    Having regard to the heritage LEP and DCP, Council’s Heritage Advisor considers the proposed modification unacceptable. The following comment has been provided:

 

Having reviewed the available documents, the application cannot be supported.

 

The subject site is, in effect, semi-encircled by historic single-storey cottages of the Talbot Road Precinct, including the heritage listed cottages at Nos. 1 to 23 and 12 to 24.  It is noted that the demolition of the existing cottage and the construction of a new two storey dwelling at No.23 Talbot Road has been approved in 2005 by Council. However the other heritage listed cottages of the precinct remain, including notably No.22 directly across the road, and Nos. 24 and 20 to the south-east and north-east of the subject site, respectively.

 

The original DA/1270/2004 for the subject two storey commercial building had been refused by Council mainly due to adverse heritage and streetscape impacts.  The Land and Environment Court then approved the proposal after a series of substantial amendments undertaken by the applicant which addressed the heritage and streetscape issues. At the proceedings, the Court-appointed expert for planning recognised that the site constitutes a transition point between 3A Centre Business and 2B Residential zones and that the proposed building needs to provide an appropriate transition accordingly.

 

In essence, the Land and Environment Court approval has imposed a balanced outcome, between the original proposal and the applicable Council Heritage DCP controls. Council’s Heritage DCP guidelines were not strictly complied with.  The Court has thus, in its judgement, established a new set of controls and criteria to regulate the development on this site.  These controls and criteria would be breached should the proposed Section 96 modification application be approved.

 

The Section 96 application includes raising the approved floor levels with subsequent increase in the building height and the overall bulk and volume of the proposal.  This would clearly have an additional negative impact on the adjacent heritage cottages.  The proposed increase in the building height would also affect views to and from the heritage listed 1920s Bungalows and similar modest cottages in the vicinity.

 

Children’s Services Regulation 2004

 

22.    The subject child care centre on the ground floor complies with the minimum space requirements regarding indoor play space (at least 3.25sqm of unencumbered space per child) and useable outdoor play space (at least 7sqm useable space per child) set out in Clause 30 of the Regulation.

 

23.    The child care centre provides 3.493sqm of indoor play space per child and 7.57sqm of useable outdoor play space per child in the form of the grassed at-grade playground and tiled masonry veranda (i.e. transition area).

 

24.    It is noted that Children’s Regulation 2004, which does not differentiate between an at-grade outdoor play space and a transition area, is not an environmental planning instrument but regulates licensing requirements for child care centres in New South Wales.

 

Child Care Centre Development Control Plan

 

25.    The original application was Court approved before the implementation of Council’s Child Care Centre Development Control Plan (in force from 6 June 2007). However, the DCP does not contain any saving provisions for the proposed Section 96 modification to be exempt from complying with the requirements.

 

26.    The DCP requires provision of a separate transition area and unencumbered outdoor play space. The proposed transition area, in the form of a veranda, provides a total area of 95.05sqm and a width of 8m which complies with the DCP. However, the unencumbered outdoor play space additional to the transition area provides approximately 4.18sqm per child as opposed to 7sqm per child. The deficiency has been exacerbated as a result of the extended ramping that occupies useable space.

 

27.    The finished floor level of the transition area (veranda) has been increased by 0.885m which is approximately 1.9m above the existing ground level. This is considered contrary to the following objective of outdoor areas set out in 3.7.1 of the DCP, namely:

 

To ensure that the outdoor areas are designed so as to minimise potential impacts on any adjacent residential premises

 

28.    In contrast, the modification has potential for exacerbating the amenity impacts on adjoining residential properties, particularly No 23 Talbot Road, in terms of noise transmission and building bulk and scale.

 

29.    As the veranda is now elevated higher, the acoustic impact of children playing on the transition area will be greater. However, no revised noise assessment report has been provided to establish whether the elevated transition area is acceptable in terms of noise impact.

 

30.    Bulk and scale issues are discussed below.

 

31.    The extensive ramping and steps will also hinder provision of a convenient means of access for children between the indoor and outdoor play areas and will make supervision of children more difficult, which is contrary to the following design principles for outdoor play space set out in 3.7.2 of the DCP, namely:

 

-        Outdoor play spaces are to be integrated with indoor space and provide direct and easy access from transition areas

-        Outdoor play spaces are to be of a design and layout to enable clear lines of sight to all areas of the outdoor space to allow direct staff supervision from other areas of the child care centre

 

32.    The proposed zigzagged ramping is approximately 28m in length and 1.9m in overall height and railing is also provided all along the ramp. This will significantly block sightlines and compromise carers’ ability to supervise children between the outdoor and indoor areas. In addition, the proposed 10 steps are not considered an easy and safe means of access for smaller children catered for in the centre.

 

33.    The Court-approved child care centre on the ground floor has three internal ramps of 1:14 in grade that satisfy the provisions of Australian Standards 1428.1 to 1428.4 (Design for access and mobility). The ramps are not located within the child accessible spaces and therefore will not affect children’s indoor activities.

 

34.    It has been confirmed by a Licensing Officer of the Department of Community Services, Leona Golan, that ramping is acceptable within non child accessible spaces.

 

35.    However, the applicant fails to provide reasonable justification for the level increase, other than stating:

 

“The level changes are required to make the internal space of the child care more functional (i.e. less steps within the building)”

 

“Ground and first floor levels have been amended to make single level floors which in return will allow easier manoeuvring for people with disabilities on both floors due to the intended use of the first floor for a medical centre.”

 

36.    Council does not have any objection to the proposed internal modification to the approved child care centre. However, suitable ramping can still be accommodated within non child accessible spaces in accordance with the advice from the Department of Community Service which provides a continuous path of travel for people with a disability without excessively raising the ground floor level.

 

37.    The first floor comprised of 2 offices under the original consent. Office No 1 was 146sqm in total area with no steps provided between the lift and the office, whilst Office No 2 had a total area of 148.17sqm with 4 steps located internally within the office. There is no reason why the intended medical centre could not be accommodated in Office No 1 where there are no steps at all.

 

38.    It is noted that the number of offices on the first floor remains unaltered under the current Section 96 modification application.

 

CONSULTATION

 

Notification

 

39.    In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 1 and 15 April 2008. The notification generated two submissions. The matters raised in the submissions are addressed below.

 

The decision made by the Land & Environment Court should be final and should not be modified.

 

40.    Section 96AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act allows Court consents to be modified by a consent authority including Council, should the application be supported.

 

Concern is raised whether the building has been placed closer to the street frontage

 

41.    The setbacks of the approved building relative to all boundaries are not proposed to change.

 

Demolition, waste production

 

42.    Concern is raised over demolition and the production of waste associated with demolition and the preservation of heritage items.

 

43.    The proposed modification would not unduly increase demolition waste should the proposal be supported.

 

Preservation of heritage building

 

44.    The proposed Section 96AA modification is recommended for refusal due to adverse heritage impacts. Refer to Council Heritage Advisor’s comment above.

 

Tree removal and attack on natural environment and pollution

 

45.    Concern is raised over the protection of trees, increases in air pollution when trees are removed, the emission of electromagnetic radiation from telecommunication antennae and allied structures and increases in concrete surfaces.

 

46.    The modification does not propose to remove any additional trees and there will not be a significant increase in hard surface.

 

Increase in housing, industrial density

 

47.    The proposed modification would not increase density of the development should the application be supported.

 

Section 96 Applications

 

48.    Concern is raised over the submission of Section 96 modification applications. The submitter argues that the Section 96 application must be refused when it is obvious that the original application was just a ruse to get an approval and the true intention was to follow with modifications.

 

49.    This is not a relevant consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Hours of operation not to be increased

 

50.    Hours of operation of the commercial premises are not proposed to change.

 

ISSUES

 

Bulk and scale

 

51.    The overall height of the building has been increased by 370mm in the front and 1.085m in the rear respectively. The finished floor level of the transition area (veranda) has been increased by 0.885m which is approximately 1.9m above the existing ground level. This is contrary to the evidence provided by the Court-appointed expert for planning, Ms A McCabe, during the Court proceedings in 2005.

 

52.    Ms McCabe gave evidence that the site constitutes a transition point between two different zones (Centre Business 3A and Residential 2B) and therefore any building proposed needs to provide an appropriate transition to the adjoining residential and heritage listed buildings.

 

53.    After a series of amendments by the applicant in response to the heritage streetscape concerns, Ms McCabe re-assessed the proposal and reiterated importance of appropriate building bulk and scale on the subject site by saying:

 

“The scale of the development now reads as 2 storeys and has been stepped down the site. The rear terrace is now within 1.15m of the ground level.”

 

“A 2 storey development is an acceptable form of development on the subject site but only with adequate setbacks to north, east and western boundaries and not elevated from the natural ground level.”

 

54.    However, the split levels that minimised the bulk and scale of the development are now removed under the Section 96 modification. This unnecessarily increases the building bulk and scale and result in adverse built form impact upon the adjoining property on No 23 Talbot Road. Despite Council’s consent for a new 2 storey dwelling house with swimming pool at No 23 Talbot Road on 12 March 2007, it is still essential for the subject commercial building to minimise its bulk and scale as the building is not adequately articulated on the side elevations and extends significantly into the rear yard well beyond the de-facto rear building line within the locality.

 

ON-SITE MEETING

 

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

 

56.    In accordance with the above resolution, an invitation to Councillors, Council officers, the applicant and the objectors was sent in relation to an on-site meeting to be held on Saturday 31 May 2008, commencing at 9am.

 

57.    Present at the site meeting were Councillor Omar Jamal (Chair) and Council’s Team Leader Development Assessment and Senior Development Assessment Officer, the applicant and 3 residents. The following issues were discussed at the meeting:

 

Front setback

 

58.    Concern was raised whether the proposed s82A application seeks to modify the approved front setback.

 

59.    The applicant advised that the setback relative to the front boundary remains unchanged.

 

Drainage

 

60.    Concern was raised whether the proposed drainage provision will be satisfactory.

 

61.    The applicant advised that the drainage provision approved by the Land & Environment Court will not be affected by the proposed modification.

 

Conclusion

 

62.    The meeting concluded at 9.35am with all parties being advised that they will be notified in writing of the date on which the development application will be presented at the Council meeting.

 

 

 

James (Seong) Kim

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

2View

Plans and Elevations (Original Consent)

6 Pages

 

3View

Plans and Elevations (Section 96AA)

8 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Item 7.3 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 25 Talbot Road, Guildford

 

 


Item 7.3 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 25 Talbot Road, Guildford

 






 


Item 7.3 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 25 Talbot Road, Guildford

 








 

 


Ordinary Council 28 July 2008

Item 7.4

RESCISSION MOTION

ITEM NUMBER         7.4

SUBJECT                   10 - 12 Highland Street, Guildford (Woodville Ward)

REFERENCE            DA/670/2005 - D00986310

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

To be Moved by Councillor A Issa, OAM Seconded by Councillors A A Wilson and J Chedid:-

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

“That the resolution of the Regulatory Council Meeting held on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 10 – 12 Highland Street, Guildford, namely:-

 

(a)     That Council refuse the application for the following reasons:

1.      The proposal is inconsistent with the desired future character of the area as outlined in Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 having regards to its height, bulk and scale.

2.      The development does not satisfactorily enhance the streetscape of the locality.

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

3.1    does not enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area;

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

3.3    is excessive in terms of height, bulk and scale particularly at the rear of the site.

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

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

 

be and is hereby rescinded.”

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 10 - 12 Highland Street, Guildford

43 Pages

 

 

 


Item 7.4 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 10 - 12 Highland Street, Guildford

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.18

SUBJECT                   10 -12 Highland Street, Guildford (Woodville Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Further Report - Demolition, tree removal and construction of a multi-unit housing development containing 9 townhouses over basement carparking with strata subdivision

REFERENCE            DA/670/2005 - submitted 28 July 2005

APPLICANT/S           Urban link

OWNERS                    Mr M Ghosn

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To provide Councillors with a response to the resolution of Council, dated 11 December 2006, where the application was deferred, and to determine Development Application No. 670/2005 for demolition, tree removal and construction of a multi-unit housing development.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council refuse the application for the following reasons:

 

1.      The proposal is inconsistent with the desired future character of the area as outlined in Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 having regards to its height, bulk and scale.

 

2.      The development does not satisfactorily enhance the streetscape of the locality.

 

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

3.1    does not enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area;

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

3.3    is excessive in terms of height, bulk and scale particularly at the rear of the site.

 

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

 

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

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      This development application was deferred by Council at its meeting of 11 December 2006 where it was resolved that:

 

“That consideration of this matter be deferred pending a further report on solar access and for a further independent assessment by Deena Ridenour.”

 

2.      In accordance with the above resolution, Deena Ridenour from Allen Jack and Cottier (AJC) was engaged to complete the independent urban design assessment. Unfortunately prior to AJC completing their urban design review, Deena Ridenour went on maternity leave and AJC advised in April 2007, that they were unable to complete the review.

 

3.      In June 2007, Bob Nation was asked to complete the independent urban design review.  Mr Nation commenced the review but subsequently moved his practice to Dubai in August 2007.  Given this, he advised that he would not be able to complete the review.

 

4.      In October 2007, Gabrielle Morrish from GMU Design was engaged to complete the independent urban design assessment.  The review (attachment 1) recommends that the proposal be redesigned so that 4 townhouses are orientated to the street and other design changes to improve the amenity for future occupants and allow the retention of existing vegetation.

 

5.      On 11 January 2008 a copy of the review was provided to the applicant who was asked to either prepare sketch plans of a revised proposal or provide a written response to the issues raised.

 

6.      A letter was sent to the applicant on 26 March 2008 that requested a response to Council’s letter of 11 January 2008. No response was received.

 

ISSUES

 

Urban Design Advice

 

7.      The Urban Design Advice suggests substantial changes to the proposal to re-orientate at least 4 of the dwellings so that they present to Highland Street to provide an appropriate streetscape presentation. This is consistent with the current controls contained within Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 that place a greater emphasis on streetscape presentation.

 

8.      Development Control Plan 2001 which applies to this application placed a greater emphasis on solar access and amenity and required buildings to be located to maximum opportunities to receive solar access. This design represents the building footprint envisionaged by DCP 2001.

 

9.      Notwithstanding this, given the length of time that DCP 2005 has been in force, the existing and likely built form in the precinct and taking into account that the applicant has not responded to council’s correspondence this year, it is recommended that the application be refused.

 

 

 

 

Brad Delapierre

Team Leader

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Independent Urban Design Report

3 Pages

 

2View

Previous Manager Development Services Report 11 December 2006

37 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Item 7.4 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 10 - 12 Highland Street, Guildford

 



 


Item 7.4 - Attachment 1

Previous Report from the Council Meeting on 14 July 2008 regarding the Development Application for 10 - 12 Highland Street, Guildford

 





































 

  


Ordinary Council 28 July 2008

Item 9.1

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER         9.1

SUBJECT                   Assumed Concurrence from Director General to Vary Development Standards

REFERENCE            F2006/00601 - D00971223

REPORT OF              Manager Land Use and Transport Planning       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To seek Council’s delegated authority to the General Manager to exercise the capacity to vary development standards in the City Centre LEP.

 

Please Note:    Council at its meeting on Monday, 14 July 2008 resolved to defer this matter to this Council Meeting.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council delegate to the General Manager the capacity to vary development standards contained in the City Centre LEP subject to:

 

1       Height and FSR not exceeding 10% of the standard prescribed in the LEP.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      The City Centre Local Environmental Plan (LEP) was gazetted on 21 December 2007.  Like most LEPs, the Parramatta City Centre contains numerical development standards that help to guide and control development.  Perhaps the most significant of these are floor space ratio and height controls.

 

2.      One of the fundamental platforms of the NSW planning system is the capacity to vary standards in some circumstances.  This is to ensure that a level of flexibility underpins development decisions as long as they are consistent with adopted objectives for the proposed development in the relevant zone or area.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

3.      The City Centre LEP contains this provision in clause 24 – Exceptions to development standards.  This clause enables the consent authority to vary development standards if:

§  it has received a written request to do so

§  it is consistent with various objectives for the relevant standard and zone, and

§  the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning (DoP) has been obtained.

 

4.      The DoP issued guidelines in May 2008, outlining circumstances in which Councils will be able to exercise delegated authority to vary development standards for LEP’s that comply with the new template format.  The City Centre LEP is such an instrument.

 

5.      The guidelines the DoP issued in May 2008 are a little ambiguous and Council staff have now had advice that they do apply to clause 24 of the City Centre LEP. This means that Council can vary development standards in the City Centre LEP without the need for concurrence from the Director-General.

 

6.      This will, however, mean that all applications for the city centre that seek any variation to development standards, will need to be referred to Council for its determination, even if a minor variation is sought.  Clearly, this will add to processing times.  It is proposed that variations beyond 10% of floor space ratio and height standards be determined by Council and others be delegated to the General Manager for determination.

 

7.      The other standard that may be requested to be varied from time to time is that of car parking spaces.  Council has already resolved to consider such requirements (clause 22C) as maximum standards in keeping with sensible transport planning principles.  As a result, it is assumed that development that does not provide the “required” number of parking spaces as outlined in clause 22C could be “varied” under delegated authority because Council wants less private parking not more.

 

8.      The capacity to vary development standards does not apply to complying development.  

 

 

 

Marcelo Occhiuzzi

Acting Group Manager – Outcomes & Development

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Ordinary Council 28 July 2008

Item 9.2

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER         9.2

SUBJECT                   87A Hammers Road, Constitution Hill

REFERENCE            DA/1370/2001 - D00966065

REPORT OF              Service Manager, Construction and Development       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To provide Council with information on issues raised at the an on-site meeting held 20 March 2008 with residents and Council representatives including Councillors regarding the Constitution Hill Retirement village located at 87A Hammers Road, Constitution Hill.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That the report be received and noted.

 

(b)     Council undertake an audit of the existing pathway to determine if any works are required to ensure the existing pathway is accessible and unobstructed.

 

(c)     Council engage an independent auditor to review the maintenance program as required by the conditions of the Bushland Management Plan to date, and upon completion.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      Following an onsite meeting held at the Constitution Hill Retirement Village on        20 March 2008 issues were raised by residents. Councillor Worthington that a report be forward to Council, outlining the following:-

 

All matters which pertain to Council, and are its responsibility to maintain in the long term as set down in the set of conditions by the L&E Court.

 

(a)     Which of these matters to date have been attended to, and those which are still outstanding.

 

(b)     A timeline of when it is expected that all outstanding matters pertaining to Council will be met.

 

(c)     The plan of management and timeline of ongoing maintenance for matters, for which Council is responsible.

 

(d)     The amount of money budgeted for each year to ensure necessary ongoing maintenance is provided within the timeline set down.

 

2.      Information is also sought on Council's involvement to date in ensuring that the Body Corporate of the Village is conforming with the conditions as set down by the L&E Court, and what can be done regarding outstanding matters for which it is responsible, and which to date, haven't been responded to.

 

 

 

Report

 

Issue 1:

 

A.  All matters which pertain to Council, and are its responsibility to maintain in the long term as set down in the set of conditions by the L&E Court.

 

B.  Which of these matters to date have been attended to and those which are still outstanding.

 

1.      In relation to the development known as the Constitution Hill Retirement Village

Council is responsible for the enforcement of conditions of development consents and the management of the land transferred to Council, for public use as open space known as Lot 3

 

2.      The issues that remain outstanding as a result of this development are the construction of a bicycle pathway on lot 3 as required by Development Consent No. 10799/1994 and the reporting to the developer of the maintenance of bushland on Lot 3 in accordance with the bushland management plan approved as part of the Development Consent.

 

3.      Development Consent No 10799/1994 required a bicycle pathway to be constructed on Lot 3. This pathway has not been constructed and since the issuing of the development consent the land has transferred to Council’s ownership and is used as open space.

 

4.      Another condition of this 1994 consent was for Council to maintain the bushland in accordance with the adopted Bushland Management Plan and provide 6 monthly reports to the developer. Investigations have revealed Council has been maintaining the land known as Lot 3 but has failed to report 6 monthly to the developer.  The maintenance of lot three is detailed under the following heading; Actions from 87A Hammers Rd Bushland POM.

 

Bicycle Pathway

 

5.      As Council would be aware development consent for the redevelopment of the site for an aged care retirement village was issued many years ago.  As a result appeals to the Land and Environment Court two Development Consents have been issued for the subdivision of the land, which included the transfer of land adjacent to Toongabbie Creek to Council.

 

6.      The Development Consents are known as 10798/1994 and 10799/1994.

 

7.      As a result of the court decision a Deed of Agreement was signed by Council and the developer and is referenced in Development Consent No.10798/1994. The Deed of Agreement confirmed the conditions of consent and made Council responsible for the payment of land and the maintenance of the existing pathway in proposed Lot 3 as required in condition 10 of Development Consent No. 10798/1994.  The Deed of Agreement did not refer to the other development consent issued ie. Development Consent No. 10799/1994. 

 

Condition 10 of Development Consent 10798/1994 states:

 

“The Council and the applicant shall comply with the bushland management plan to be approved by Council, which shall be generally in accordance with the terms of the bushland management plan dated 22 July 1996 submitted by the applicant and the Council acknowledges it is responsible for the cost and implementation of the works set out therein”.

 

8.      Both Council and the developer are required to comply with the Bush Management Plan prepared by Anne Clements as part of condition No.10. Both the consent and Deed of Agreement referred to the Bush Management Plan prepared by Anne Clements requiring the existing pathway to be maintained.

 

9.      Development Consent No. 10799/1994 contains an additional condition that requires the construction of a new Bicycle pathway (Condition No.28).

 

10.    The land has been subdivided and the subdivision was registered with the Land Titles Office on 22 December 2000. Council took ownership of Lot 3 after an inspection of the infrastructure for drainage. There are no records to indicate that Council requested the construction of the pathway as referred to in condition No 28 of Development Consent No. 10799/1994.

 

11.    Council had the opportunity at the time to request the path be constructed but appears only to have required condition 10 of the consent be enforced.

 

12.    No formal records of this decision can be found but it can only be assumed that the developer and Council agreed that the construction of the pathway was not required and that only maintenance of the existing pathway was required to satisfy both consents. 

 

13.    In discussions with present staff in both Strategic Asset Management and Bushland Management it appears that the reasons for the decision are:

 

(a)     A new bicycle pathway was not required as the overall cycle way was to take an alternative route and not along Toongabbie Creek.

 

(b)     To construct a new pathway would involve major construction work in an environmentally sensitive area. The land is protected under the National Parks and Wildlife legislation and the construction of a new path would significantly impact on the environment and maintenance would preserve the existing pathway and have minimal environmental impacts.

 

14.    Council has maintained the existing pathway and has constructed stairs and boardwalks to maintain access as required in the Bushland Management Plan. Details of the works undertaken by Council are documented further in the report.

 

Bushland Management Plan Maintenance Reporting

 

15.    As required in the Deed of Agreement, Council is required to maintain the natural bush located on Lot 3 in conjunction with the privately owned land during development of the site, and in accordance with the Bushland Management.  Council has been maintaining the land in accordance with the Bushland Management Plan.

 

16.    The Bushland Management Plan requires Council to report 6 monthly on the maintenance of the bushland to the private land owner of the ongoing maintenance that has occurred. If Council did not meet the terms of agreement then the private land owner could complete the works at a cost to Council.

 

17.    The Deed of Agreement and the Bushland Management Plan do not require Council to maintain the bushland located on private land, however the developer is required under the development consent to comply with the Bushland Management Plan.

 

18.    It is has been established that Council Bush Care Officers have carried out maintenance works as required in the Bushland Management Plan, however  reporting  to Grand United (adjoining land owner) has not occurred. 

 

19.    The development of the retirement facility is nearing completion. Despite the reporting to Grand United not being carried out to date it is suggested that Council engage a consultant to prepare a report on the maintenance that has been carried out to date, and again at the completion of the project and also to report on any other matters required in Deed of Agreement relating to the Bushland Management Plan.

 

20.    The first bush regeneration contract entered into by Council was for the period of 2004/05 after the land known as Lot 3 was transferred to Council.

 

Issue 2:

 

Which of these matters to date have been attended to, and those that are outstanding as identified from the Bushland Management plan.

 

22.    The following table shows actions from the Bushland Management Plan and implemented to date:

 

Source

 

Actions from the Bushland Plan of Management Part B

          Backhousia Reserve (Lot 3 Hammers Rd)

%

Complete

Time

Comment

4.1

Series of soaks in the western creek line seeded with Eucalyptus amplifolia due to increased stormwater from Retirement Village

30%

Started 2008

Initial weed removal in this area

5.0

Soil translocation from Housing footprints in housing estate

100%

 

As development occurred

7.1

Bush regeneration upper slopes above 1:100 flood levels – 5 years *

75%

4th  year

Likely to be completed within 5 years

7.2

Bush regeneration lower slopes below 1:100 flood levels 

“mosaic clearance over an extended period of time”

20%

Ongoing

Approx 10 years at current funding levels

8.2

Formalised bush tracks from the residential development to the creek

100%

4th year

Exceeded standard by providing formal boardwalks & stairs Minor upgrades of track surface required.

 

* doesn’t provide a timeframe for maintenance

 

23.    Estimated cost by Anne Clements & Associates, acting on behalf of GUFS, was $200,000 over 5 years in Lot 3 (Backhousia Reserve). Advice at the time by the Bushland Supervisor was that this was a gross underestimate of costs & the timeframe for recovery was longer than 5 years. The report states “The quality of the bushland on Lot 3 and the Buffer Zone varies from about 10% exotic cover up to 80% cover.” And in the POM this statement appears in 8.1 “After this initial weed treatment” (5 years), work should commence in the other more degraded bushland areas”. This contradicts the impression given by the works program that the bush regeneration would take 5 years.

 

Issue 3:

 

A timeline of when it is expected that all outstanding matters pertaining to Council will be met.

 

24.    Council’s Bushland Management Officer has advised of the following time estimates for the completion of works.

 

Source

 

Actions from the Bushland Plan of Management Part B

          Backhousia Reserve (Lot 3 Hammers Rd)

Estimated time of completion.

4.1

Series of soaks in the western creek line seeded with Eucalyptus amplifolia

Completed by 2010

5.0

Soil translocation from Housing footprints in housing estate

Completed 2006

7.1

Bush regeneration upper slopes above 1:100 flood levels

Completed by 2010

7.2

Bush regeneration lower slopes below 1:100 flood levels 

 

Completed by 2018

8.2

Formalised bush tracks from the residential development to the creek

Completed 2007

 

25.    Council is on track to deliver all outcomes from the actions list from the Bushland Plan of Management Part B Backhousia Reserve (Lot 3 Hammers Rd).

 

26.    However construction of a pathway is required by condition 28 of the Development Consent. Staff from Council’s Bushland Team and Strategic Asset Management are now required to determine whether the pathway should be constructed or whether they seek to have the condition removed from the development consent.  In the event that Council wishes to not construct the pathway a formal request to modify the Development Consent will need to be lodged and the application will be independently assessed.

 

Issues 4 & 5

                  

Timeline of ongoing maintenance for matters, for which Council is responsible and the amount of money budgeted each year to ensure necessary maintenance.

 

The Bush Regeneration

 

27.    Maintenance will be ongoing to achieve and keep the bushland at the asset target of 2-5% weed level.

 

Walking Track (existing)

28.    Brush cut to 1m either side of current track (approx. 1.5km) once per quarter to maintain ease of pedestrian access.

 

29.    The amount of money budgeted for each year to ensure necessary ongoing maintenance is provided within the timeline.

 

30.    Current expenditure $70, 000 per annum no increase required to meet targets.

 

 

 

Laurie Whitehead

Service Manager – Construction & Development

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Annexure A - Scope of Works

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 9.2 - Attachment 1

Annexure A - Scope of Works

 

Appendix A

***Please Note***   Maps are indicative & not to scale

     Primary          Secondary          Maintenance        Revegetation                                  Walking trail                     

Primary - initial weed removal on a site ranges from 5-95% initial coverage.

Secondary – follow-up weed removal from initial native density of say 20% to asset target of 95-97% native coverage

Maintenance – ongoing due to continued impacts eg stormwater, bird & human introduced seed.

Revegetation – only undertaken due to low native occurrence or need to quickly stabilise creek banks.

Greygum TerraceGreygum TerraceOutlet 1Outlet 2Black Wattle CircuitCentenary AveCentenary AveBluegum CircuitFaulkner Street      


Ordinary Council 28 July 2008

Item 9.3

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER         9.3

SUBJECT                   10-20 Constance Street, Guildford (Lots 18-23, Section 2 in DP 1144)

DESCRIPTION          Demolition of 6 dwelling houses and construction of 27 seniors living/disabled housing units within a part 1 and part 2 storey multi-housing development.

REFERENCE            DA/914/2007 - 

APPLICANT/S           Resitech (Department of Housing)

OWNERS                    Department of Housing

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 914/2007 that seeks approval for the demolition of 6 dwelling houses and the construction of 27 seniors living/disabled housing units and a community room within a part 1 and part 2 storey multi-housing development.

 

The application is referred to Council due the number of objections 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 and development standards prescribed by State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That, subject to the written approval 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.      In accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, a restriction as to occupier, in accordance with Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, shall be registered against the title of the property limiting accommodation on the premises to the following:

 

(i)      seniors or people who have a disability (as defined in the SEPP);

 

(ii)     people who live within the same household with seniors or people who have a disability;

 

(iii)    staff employed to assist in the administration of and provision of services to housing provided under State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the Seniors SEPP.

 

2.      Prior to the commencement of demolition and/or construction activities, a construction management plan shall be developed and submitted to Council for approval. The plan shall provide a comprehensive and complete action and implementation plan to ensure that the anthropological and natural environment is not unacceptably affected by the proposal. The plan shall include but not be necessarily limited to the following:

 

(i)      measures to control noise emissions from the site during the construction phase;

(ii)     measures to suppress odours and dust emissions;

(iii)    selection of traffic routes to minimise residential noise intrusions;

(iv)    soil and sediment control measures;

(v)     measures to identify hazardous wastes (such as asbestos) and the procedures for removal and disposal;

(vi)    community consultation;

(vii)   construction vehicle parking;

(viii)  pedestrian access and safety.

Reason: To ensure that adequate safeguards are employed.

 

3.      A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained and an application made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Following the application, a ‘Notice of Requirements’ will detail water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid. The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Department of Housing prior to construction commencing.

Reason: To ensure that an adequate provision is made for services.

 

4.      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.

 

5.      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.

-        AS1428

-        The Building Code of Australia

-        Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992

-        NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

Reason: To ensure equity.

 

6.      The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of a new footpath, for the full length of the site along the Constance Street frontage, designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s specifications. All associated costs are to be borne in full by the consent holder.

Reason: To ensure appropriate access

 

 

7.      Before occupation of the development commences, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of Council. As far as is reasonably possible, all new landscaping shall be of a semi-mature nature in order to expedite screening and privacy mitigation.

Reason: To ensure that suitable landscaping is provided.

 

8.      The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of Council, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced. The landscape works shall be maintained into the future to ensure the establishment and successful growth of plant material to meet the intent of the landscape design and to enhance the character of the surrounding area. This shall include but not be limited to watering, weeding, replacement of plant material and promoting the growth of all plants through standard industry practices.

Reason: To ensure the ongoing maintenance of landscaping.

 

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

 

 

PROPOSAL

 

1.      The proposed development is on land owned by the NSW Department of Housing (Crown Land) and the applicant seeks consent for the demolition of 6 dwelling houses and the construction of 27 seniors living/disabled housing units and a community room within a part 1 and part 2 storey multi-housing development.

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

2.      The site is located on the southern side of Constance Street, Guildford, to the west of Excelsior Street and Porst Place, and approximately 200 metres to the east of Woodville Road. The immediate area is characterised by detached dwelling houses and a smaller number of newer multi-unit housing developments.

 

3.      The site contains 6 allotments, is rectangular in shape with side boundaries of 55.78 metres and front and rear boundaries of 91.44 metres, resulting in a land area of approximately 5,100m².

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People With a Disability) 2004

 

4.      ‘Seniors Housing’ is defined by the SEPP as being residential accommodation for seniors or people with a disability consisting of:

 

          (i)      a residential care facility, or

 

          (ii)     a hostel, or

 

          (iii)    a group of self-contained dwellings, or

 

          (iv)    a combination of these; but does not include a hospital.

 

5.      This proposal involves self-contained dwellings and satisfies the requirements to be considered under the SEPP.

 

6.      Clause 2, ‘Aims of Policy’, is a relevant provision of the SEPP and states that the aims of the policy will be achieved by setting aside local planning controls that would prevent the development of housing for seniors or people with a disability that meets the development criteria and standards specified in this policy.

 

7.      The proposed development is permissible by way of clause 4(1)(a) of the SEPP being "land zoned primarily for urban purposes".  Where there is any inconsistency between the SEPP and any environmental planning instrument, clause 5(3) provides that the provisions of the SEPP shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

 

8.      Part 2 of the SEPP provides site related requirements, such as location and access to facilities (clause 26) and water and sewer (clause 28).

 

9.      Part 3 provides design requirements, including design of in-fill self-care housing (clause 31). This clause requires consideration be given to the provisions of the Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guideline for Infill Development published by the former Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources in March 2004.

 

10.    Clause 32 provides that consent must not be granted unless the proposed development demonstrates that adequate regard has been given to the principles set out in the Division 2. The relevant provisions are Neighbourhood Amenity and Streetscape (clause 33) and Visual and Acoustic Privacy (clause 34).

 

11.    Part 4 of the SEPP provides development standards to be complied with. The proposed development satisfies the requirements relating to site size and site frontage, as well as development within the rear 25% of the site being restricted to single storey construction.

12.    Part 7 identifies development standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse consent. The proposed development satisfies all relevant development standards in Part 7. These development standards relate to building height (clause 50(a)), density and scale (clause 50(b)), landscaped area (clause 50(c)), deep soil zones (clause 50(d)), solar access (clause 50(e)), private open space (clause 50(f)), and parking (clause 50(g)).

 

13.    The provisions of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the SEPP.

 

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

 

14.       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

 

15.       State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 ("BASIX") applies to the proposed development. The development application was accompanied by BASIX Certificate No. 162959M, dated 11 October 2007, committing to environmental sustainability measures.

 

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

 

Parramatta LEP 2001

 

17.       The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under the provisions of Parramatta LEP 2001 and the proposal is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the LEP.

 

18.      Clause 30 of Parramatta LEP 2001 requires development of land referred to in Schedule 4 of the LEP to be the subject of a masterplan. Schedule 4 relates to the development site as the land has a site area in excess of 5,000m².

 

19.      However, Clause 30(11) provides that Council may dispense with the requirement for a masterplan if a site analysis study that is satisfactory to Council accompanies the development application.

 

20.      The applicant has submitted a detailed site analysis that is considered acceptable. There is therefore no requirement for the submission of a masterplan.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

21.       The provisions of Parramatta DCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the DCP.

 

CONSULTATION

 

22.      In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised and notified between 14 November and 5 December 2007. Nine submissions were received. The matters raised in the submissions are outlined below:

 

Excessive height

 

23.      Clause 50 of the SEPP provides that Council must not refuse consent to a development application if all the buildings are 8 metres or less in height.

 

24.      In this instance, the proposal would have a maximum height (defined to be the distance from the greatest distance from the ceiling to ground level immediately below that point) of approximately 6.5 metres.

 

25.      The proposal complies and Council cannot refuse the proposal on the basis of excessive height.

 

26.    It is also noted that Parramatta DCP 2005 allows multi-unit housing that is permissible in the zone to have a maximum height of 11 metres.

 

Acoustic privacy

 

27.      Clause 34 of the SEPP requires that the proposed development shall consider the acoustic and visual privacy of neighbours by ensuring appropriate site planning, locating balconies and windows to have regard to neighbours, through the use of screening devices and landscaping as well as locating bedrooms within the development away from driveways, parking areas and pathways.

 

28.      The proposal has been designed to take into consideration existing adjoining residential properties, as well as the internal layout of the scheme.

 

Overdevelopment of the site

 

29.      The proposed floor space ratio is considered to appropriately measure the density of development over a site.

 

30.      Whilst Parramatta LEP 2001 prescribes a maximum FSR of 0.6:1 for development of multi-unit housing over land zoned Residential 2(b), the SEPP provides that a development must not be refused by Council if the density and scale of the buildings expressed as a floorspace ratio is 0.5:1 or less. The proposal would result in an FSR over the site of approximately 0.4:1 and thereby complies.

 

31.      As the proposal complies, Council cannot refuse the proposal on the basis of excessive floorspace (overdevelopment of the site).

 

Insufficient setbacks

 

32.      The following minimum setbacks are required by Parramatta DCP 2005:

 

(i)    Side – 3 metres

(ii)   Front – 5-9 metres

(iii)  Rear – 15% of the site’s depth (8.37 metres)

 

33.      The proposal complies with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005 having the following setbacks:

 

(i)   Side - 4.5 metres (to both sides),

(ii)  Front - 8.49 metres

(iii) Rear - 15.4% (8.595 metres).

 

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

 

34.       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.

 

35.       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.

 

36.      Given that the western-most edge of the site is located approximately 200 metres to the east of Woodville Road, it is unlikely that future residents would be overly affected by pollution emissions resulting from traffic on Woodville Road

 

Increased traffic generation

 

37.      The proposal is compliant with floor space ratio controls and density and resultant traffic generation is anticipated by the site’s zoning and applicable development standards under the SEPP. Notwithstanding this, 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 and this remains so when also taking into consideration other medium density development that has been approved by Council within the surrounding area.

 

38.      Council’s Traffic Engineer has assessed the proposal and found the allocation, access arrangements and dimensions of the carparking area and driveway to be satisfactory.

 

Lack of parking

 

39.      Under the provisions of the SEPP, a minimum of 1 on-site space per 5 dwellings is required. The development requires 5 carparking spaces and 12 are proposed. It is considered the proposal achieves compliance with the objectives of the SEPP and provides sufficient parking on-site to cater for the needs of residents and visitors.

 

40.      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

 

41.      The proposal is for the construction of a part one and part two storey multi-unit housing development comprising 27 dwellings and a community room in association with the site. The proposal achieves general compliance with the relevant controls contained in the Seniors SEPP (other than in respect of the requirement for two-thirds of the deep soil zone to be located at the rear of the site), Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005. Accordingly, the proposed development is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

 

42.      The applicant will need to satisfy relevant utility authorities that the appropriate provision of water, gas, sewer and electricity can be provided, prior to the construction of the development. At this stage, there does not appear to be any evidence that the provision of these services cannot be satisfied.

 

Overshadowing

 

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

44.      Shadow diagrams for the winter solstice have been submitted which illustrate the proposed overshadowing to neighbouring properties and are attached to this report. The proposal will allow the adjoining properties to continue to receive adequate solar access and in accordance with the requirements of Clause 35 of the Seniors SEPP.

 

45.      The shadow diagrams identify overshadowing of the private open space of the properties to the east and west will occur during earlier morning and later afternoon hours, with all properties retaining at least 3 hours of sunlight in accordance with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005.  It is also noted that the properties to the rear (located to the south) will achieve adequate solar access for all of the day and will not be significantly affected by the proposal.

 

46.      The level of sunlight available to adjoining properties is acceptable and the extent of overshadowing is not sufficient to warrant refusal or modification of the proposal.

 

The site would be better used as open space

 

47.      The land is currently zoned to permit the form of development proposed with the consent of Council.

 

Asbestos in houses to be demolished

 

48.      A recommended standard condition of consent will require any asbestos to be handled, removed and disposed of in accordance with relevant Australian Standards.

 

Copies of the SEPP are not available in the public libraries

 

49.      This planning instrument was not prepared by Parramatta City Council and is not an instrument for exclusive use within the Parramatta local government area. It was prepared by the former Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources and the NSW Government’s Parliamentary Counsel’s Office. The document is therefore not provided for sale by Parramatta City Council, but is available for purchase from the Department of Planning and available for free to download from various state government departmental websites (including the NSW Legislation website).

 

Exceeds 2 storey height limit at the rear of the site

 

50.      Under Parramatta DCP 2005 townhouse development is restricted to 2 storeys in height within the front 20 metres of the site. However, this requirement does not apply to development that is subject to the provisions of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability).

 

51.      The SEPP contains provisions that override the development standards and controls of both the LEP and the DCP respectively. In this regard, the relevant standard relates to development within the rear 25% of the site being limited to single storey. This equates to a length of approximately 14 metres. The proposal complies with this requirement, having single storey development that extends approximately 17.2 metres (or 30.8%) from the rear boundary.

 

That the development is not in the public interest

 

52.      This development application has raised considerable interest within the local community. The level of submission is not surprising as these sites retain examples of the original residential development that was prevalent in this area and are consistent with the prevailing form of development located nearby.

 

53.      Several generations of planning controls have passed since the development of the detached dwellings now present on site and in the locality. Examples of medium density development are occurring nearby.

 

54.      The site’s zoning allows for the form of development proposed. The compliance with the density controls of Council’s planning controls and of the SEPP (setbacks, height and FSR) indicates that anticipated site yield is appropriate.

 

55.      The development is compliant with Council’s controls and generally with those prescribed by the Seniors SEPP and does not result in any undue privacy, overshadowing or bulk and scale impacts on adjoining sites.

 

56.       The facility is replacing ageing dwellings that offer poorer facilities and which do not contribute positively to the qualities of the streetscape. The new facilities will improve site conditions and are considered to fulfil a wider public benefit for increased community housing of better design.

 

Loss of character of the street

 

57.      The proposed buildings will be 2 storeys fronting Constance Street and this is consistent with the desired future character of the locality. What distinguishes this development from its surrounds is not the height of the development, but the continuity of the development with attached dwellings.

 

58.      However, given the articulated frontage with recessed components of the façade, along with the 8.49 metre setback and landscaping, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory and not out of context with the surrounding area.

 

Impact on sewer/capabilities of sewer

 

59.      Clause 28 of the Seniors SEPP requires Council to ensure that the development is capable of being connected to the sewer system.

 

60.      The submitted plans indicate the proposal will be connected to the local pipes within Constance Street.

 

61.      Prior to the construction of the development, the Department of Housing will obtain a Section 73 Certificate from Sydney water to ensure that existing facilities will be able to cope with the proposal. The Department of Housing has concurred with the imposition of this condition of consent.

 

Water pressure in street is insufficient to cope with this development

 

62.      A recommended condition of consent requires the Department of Housing to liaise with Sydney Water in relation to the connection to the water supply. This is not an issue for Council to consider as determinative, as Council is not the service authority for the provision of water. Council merely needs to be assured that water supply is available to the site.

 

63.      Prior to the construction of the development, the Department of Housing will obtain a Section 73 Certificate from Sydney water to ensure that existing facilities will be able to cope with the proposal. The Department of Housing has concurred with the imposition of this condition of consent.

 

Too many Department of Housing dwellings within the street

 

64.      This is not a valid planning consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.

 

Dwellings must be for seniors only

 

65.       The Seniors SEPP provides that accommodation on the site may be provided for:

 

(i)    seniors or people who have a disability;

 

(ii)   people who live within the same household with seniors or people who have a disability;

 

(iii)  staff employed to assist in the administration of and provision of services to housing provided under State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

 

66.      An appropriate condition of consent is recommended to ensure that the dwellings are not occupied other than in accordance with the SEPP.

 

Loss of privacy

 

67.      The development has been designed to minimise living area windows and balconies adjacent to the side boundaries. This, together with the rear part of the land being restricted to single storey development, will ensure that privacy loss is not unacceptable.

 

68.      In addition to this, the driveway is proposed near the centre of the front of the site, not adjacent to the side boundaries. Impacts from cars and other vehicles on the amenity of existing residents will therefore be minimised.

 

Lack of architectural merit

 

69.      The design of the proposal is conducive to maintaining a low density character as well as minimal height and the particular design has incorporated measures to promote this character.

 

70.      The Urban Design principles for the site are prescribed by Division 2 of Part 3 of the Seniors SEPP. These principles set out design principles that should be followed to achieve built form that responds to the characteristics of its site and form.

 

71.      An assessment of the proposal indicates that the proposal meets the prescribed and subjective requirements of the SEPP and the design principles purposes to produce good design.

 

Unsightly extra garbage bins and general rubbish being located on the street

 

72.      Garbage bins will not be placed on the street. Instead they will be collected from an internal area by private contractor. The enclosed garbage storage area will be located near the front of the site, with bins not visible from the street.

 

The proposal fails to meet the ‘desired future character’ requirements envisaged by the LEP and the DCP

 

73.      The permissibility of this form of development by virtue of the provisions of the Seniors SEPP and Parramatta LEP 2001 indicates that there is nothing about this proposal that compromises the desired future character of the locality.

 

74.      Two storey development with an FSR of a maximum of 0.6:1 is envisaged by the LEP. The Seniors SEPP on the other hand limits the development of land to 0.5:1. The proposed development would have an FSR of 0.4:1.

 

75.      Future development is anticipated and is to be controlled by the planning and design policies of the council, in addition to the prevailing state and regional policies at the time. The desired future character is derived from these instruments and policies and in this regard, the proposal is satisfactory.

 

Transport and amenities for residents are poor

 

76.      Clause 26 of the Seniors SEPP requires Council to take into consideration the access for future residents to facilities such as shops, bank service providers and other retail and commercial services that residents may reasonably require, as well as community facilities and recreational facilities and location of a general medical practitioner.

 

77.      Clause 26 outlines that compliance with this clause is attained where such services are located less than 400 metres from the site (and with a pathway with a gradient of no greater than 1:14) or where there is a public transport service available to the residents who will occupy the development located no further than 400 metres from the site and that will take residents to facilities or to within 400 metres of those facilities.

 

78.      Such transport services must be provided (to and from) at least once between 8.00am and noon per day and at least once between noon and 6.00pm from Monday to Friday.

 

79.      The site is located near Excelsior Street, with the western (furthest) corner of the site located approximately 100 metres from Excelsior Street. The nearest bus service is the Veolia-operated Route 906 linking Fairfield with Parramatta via Excelsior Street, Guildford Railway Station and Fairfield Railway Station. Services run at regular intervals Monday to Friday with the first journey commencing at 5.37am (from Fairfield) and concluding at 8.50pm terminating at the intersection of Excelsior Street and Guildford Road.

 

80.      On Sundays, an hourly service (Route 907) operates along Woodville Road and connects Bankstown with Parramatta, including Yagoona, Villawood and Bass Hill Plaza. This service commences at Parramatta Interchange at 8.10am with the last trip from Parramatta departing at 7.10pm.

 

81.      In addition to meeting the locational criteria of the SEPP, the local bus operator provides access for wheelchair-bound persons on a number of journeys throughout the day, including weekends.

 

82.      The gradient of the land to and from the bus stops is less than the 1:14 maximum prescribed by the SEPP.

 

Limited access to facilities (shops, recreation, community)

 

83.      Given the destinations described above, the SEPP does not require that shops and facilities need to be located in proximity to the site. Each of the bus services listed above provides direct access to a range of services and meets the requirements of the Seniors SEPP.

 

Noise from demolition and construction activities

 

84.      Residents raised concern that vehicle access to the site during construction would be problematic. Concern was also raised that traffic would be diverted through local residential streets and that would create noise and safety problems for residents.

 

85.      A construction management plan is included as a recommended condition of consent and that the traffic management component must take into account construction traffic routes and construction vehicle parking.

 

86.      Construction hours (including demolition and excavation) are set by a standard condition of consent, limiting the hours of work to 7.00am to 8.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 8.00pm on Saturdays.

 

No indication of future maintenance of landscaping

 

87.      Residents have raised concern that the planned landscaping of the site has not been accompanied by any plan for ongoing maintenance.

 

88.      Landscaping in new developments can easily die if not maintained, or become infested with weeds, or fail to propagate in the first few years, and as a result fail to achieve the final intention of the proposed development.

 

89.      In this instance, it would be more appropriate to ensure that mature specimens are planted throughout the site and that the Department of Housing commit itself to providing some degree of assistance to future residents of the site to carry out landscaping particularly for those who are unable to actively participate in such activities. A standard condition has been recommended requiring the planting of semi-mature species throughout the site.

 

Insufficient parking

 

90.      The facility will provide 12 carparking spaces. This exceeds the minimum number of 5 prescribed by the Seniors SEPP. This provision is considered sufficient, with ample unrestricted on-street parking currently available.

 

High crime within the area

 

91.      The facility would provide support facilities and would have good surveillance over the internal driveway. There is no evidence to suggest that this issue is sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposal, nor that there is any correlation between Seniors Living development and increased crime.

 

ON SITE MEETING

 

92.       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.

 

93.       In accordance with the above resolution, an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 8 March 2008 at 9.00am.

 

94.       Present at the meeting were Councillors Barber (Chairman), Jamal, Walsh and Brown; 25 residents, the architect and applicant and the Team Leader Development and Certification. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

95.      The site meeting opened at 9.05am with the proposal description being identified and the following issues discussed.

 

Traffic generation from the development site and the difficulty of passing in the street due to limited parking

 

96.      Local residents are concerned about the potential increase in traffic within Constance Street and surrounding feeder streets, which are currently managing the amount of traffic at various times of the day. There are concerns in regard to safety of children and persons with a disability trying cross the feeder street. The residents also raised concern to the narrowness of the street and if cars are parked on the street, to pass it is difficult and dangerous and any additional on street parking will only add to the existing situation.

 

97.      Issues relating to traffic were examined by Council’s Traffic Engineer and found to be satisfactory, subject to standard conditions of consent.

 

98.      The proposal also includes 12 on-site carparking spaces, being 7 spaces in excess of the SEPP requirement of 5 spaces for this development.

 

Overcrowding within the street and a drain on resources given the inadequate water pressure within the street

 

99.      All residents raised this concern, in particular as the water pressure is allegedly inferior in the street, so much so that residents can identify if a neighbour is watering the lawn. There appears to be a long-standing history with this issue and was apparently raised when the DA was lodged for a similar type of development within the street.

100.    A condition was imposed on a Land and Environment Consent for a mixed use development on Woodville Road that Sydney Water is to make recommendations to improve the water supply before construction works started. It appears from the residents that whilst they acknowledged that Sydney Water did carry out repairs, this has not to date rectified the problem.

101.    Residents are  therefore concerned that the water supply lines/pipes are inadequate to manage the supply of water to serve the residents of the street. Therefore the additional 27 units proposed with this current DA would only exacerbate the current situation and impact on the new and existing residents.

102.    A recommended condition of consent requires the Department of Housing to liaise with Sydney Water in relation to the connection to the water supply. The issue of water pressure is not one for Council to consider as a determinative issue, as Council is not the service authority for the provision of water. Council merely needs to be assured that water supply is available to the site.

 

103.    Prior to the construction of the development, the Department of Housing will obtain a Section 73 Certificate from Sydney water to ensure that existing facilities will be able to cope with the proposal. The Department of Housing has concurred with the imposition of this condition of consent.

 

Inadequate infrastructure available to the existing residents due to limited bus services and no service on Sundays, and any proposed development will add more concern to infrastructure

 

104.    Residents advised that the current transport network servicing this area has been reduced and with no bus service available on Sundays. As the proposed development is for seniors living, the occupants of the new development will have expectations that if they have no vehicle that public transport would be provided. Concern was raised that this may not comply with the SEPP for seniors living requirements.

 

105.    This issue is addressed above at Paragraphs 73-79 where it is concluded that the proposal complies with the distance requirements of the SEPP.

 

Parking arrangements upon the site. Will they comply with SEPP criteria?

 

106.    The residents are concerned that the proposed development nominates 6 car spaces, which will not provide adequate parking on the site considering that development comprises of 1 and 2 bedroom units in which may attract 2 cars per unit.

 

107.    The applicant responded by outlining the proposed parking arrangements and highlighting that the 12 spaces provided (not 5 or 6 as suggested by some residents) comply with the car-parking requirements of the Seniors SEPP.

 

Explanation on the SEPP for seniors living in relation to the requirement for only one occupant to be aged over 55

 

108.    An explanation to the definition of seniors living was requested as the residents are concerned that whilst it is proposed to accommodate persons over 55 years old, the requirements of the Seniors SEPP allow that only one of the occupant/s have no restriction on age.

 

109.    The concern is based on the perception that residents feel that the area is currently over-supplied with Department of Housing occupants in the street and that this generates crime ranging from theft to assault. Residents indicated that to allow a mixture of ages may add to the existing crime within the street.  

 

110.    The Seniors SEPP provides that accommodation on the site may be provided for:

 

(i)    seniors or people who have a disability;

 

(ii)   people who live within the same household with seniors or people who have a disability;

 

(iii)  staff employed to assist in the administration of and provision of services to housing provided under State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

 

111.    ‘Seniors’ is defined as:

 

(i)    People aged 55 years or more,

 

(ii)   People who are resident at a facility at which residential care (within the meaning of the Aged care Act 1997 of the Commonwealth) is provided,

 

(iii)  People who have been assessed as being eligible to occupy housing for aged persons provided by a social housing provider.

 

112.    ‘People with a disability’ is defined by the Seniors SEPP as:

 

            “…people of any age who have, either permanently or for an extended period, one or more impairments, limitations or activity restrictions that substantially affect their capacity to participate in everyday life.”

 

113.    An appropriate condition of consent is recommended to ensure that the dwellings are not occupied other than in accordance with the SEPP.

 

Design elements can they be amended to reflect single storey development Explanation on the reason for two storeys given the potential age of the occupants

 

114.    The residents queried the need for two-storey development, given that the proposal is for seniors and considered that there is an opportunity to reduce the proposal to a single storey development.

 

115.    The applicant responded to this concern by explaining that the needs of the occupants have been considered with the two-storey design as a lift has been proposed to allow all units to be accessible .The two storey design allows the ability to utilise the site dimensions/area and address the housing shortage in Sydney.

 

Can a covenant be created to ensure a more consistent development pattern within the Guildford area?

 

116.    The residents are concerned that there is no consistent development plan/ pattern for the Guildford area as there are residential flat buildings on Woodville Rd, seniors living in residential areas and there is no certainty to the future development of the area.

 

117.    Councillor Barber responded by reference to the State Government’s housing strategy and the need for all local government areas to consume additional housing, be it villas to apartments.

 

118.    It is also noted that the Seniors SEPP applies to all urban land, including land not zoned for such purposes provided that it is located adjacent to such and land that permits dwellings of any type, hospitals and special use zones.

 

Local shops are for sale. This raises the possibility of potential development sites for additional housing resulting in a further drain on services

 

119.    The residents are concerned that the local shops may be redeveloped to become additional housing, placing greater demands on the area and limit the intention of the Seniors SEPP, in that shops should be within walking distance.

 

120.    This is not a relevant consideration at this time, as no development application has been received by Council.

 

Waste generated from the site and if over-55, the ease in which these bins are moved within the site for collection

 

121.    Concern is raised to waste disposal on the site and the ability for the occupants to manoeuvre their bins to the kerbside for weekly collections.

 

122.    Bins will be stored and collected on-site by a private contractor, therefore there will be no need for bins to be located by the kerb.

 

Is the footpath to be reinstated?

 

123.    The applicant responded by stating that a footpath for the length of the development will be built as per Council’s requirements. The remainder of the footpath is a matter for the Council to address separate from the assessment of this DA.

 

The development as proposed is too modern for the area

 

124.    Some residents raised concern with the design of the development and felt that it is a modern design and would be more suited to the new Homebush area than in Guildford.

 

125.    The applicant explained that the modern elements of the design and the use of balconies to the front of the site provide solar access and surveillance of the street. The design also maximises the aspect of the street and outlook.

 

Increase in Crime in the area

 

126.    Residents allege to have had and continue to experience crime in their streets and, given the proposed development, they are concerned of the potential for a further increase in crime. The residents explained the frequency in which the police attend the street and the concern from Department of Housing staff that visit the occupants of their properties.

 

127.    In addressing this issue, it is submitted that this is part of a broader social concern that is not limited to persons associated with this tenure of housing. The facility is permissible within most zones throughout the Parramatta City LGA.

 

128.    This is not a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 as the proposed use is a legal activity and there is no established nexus, supported by data, between Department of Housing facilities and increased crime.

 

No social impact statement provided

 

129.    Residents expressed concerns that no social impact statement was submitted with the DA.

 

130.    Whilst all applications at assessment stage are considered on the basis of social impacts on the area and community, the proposal is not required to be accompanied by a social impact assessment or statement.

 

The concern that this proposed development is not consistent with the approved seniors living in the street

 

130.    Some residents raised further design concerns, in particular, drawing a comparison to existing development in the street to this DA, suggesting single storey development would be more in keeping with the area.

 

131.    As mentioned previously in this report, Council cannot lawfully refuse this DA on the basis of height alone where it complies with the height restrictions imposed by the Seniors SEPP. Notwithstanding this compliance, 2 storey development fronting Constance Street is not inappropriate and is consistent with surrounding development and Council’s planning controls not only for this site, but for the locality.

 

Councillor Walsh requested that the issue of potential isolation of the adjoining development be addressed

 

132.    Councillor Walsh is concerned, along with some residents, that adjoining residents to the proposed development will be landlocked and have no future potential for development due to the isolation of their parcel of land.

 

133.    Development of the land will not result in adjoining allotments becoming land-locked. There are ample opportunities for allotments both east and west to be consolidated and approval of this DA will not affect this situation.

 

State of existing department of Housing within the street the gardens not being maintained

 

134.    Some residents raised concern that a number of the Department of Housing sites in the area are not maintained and are not mowed until complaints are made, which is making the street appear unkempt. Concern is that the proposed development may generate similar maintenance issues in the street.

 

135.    This is an issue that is the responsibility of the Department of Housing as part of its site management.

 

136.    Council’s limitations extend to possibly imposing conditions of consent in relation to ongoing maintenance of the site, particularly its landscaping. Accordingly, such a condition is included in the Recommendation.   

 

Land Acquisition by the Department of Housing and devaluation of the resident’s properties as a result of the Seniors SEPP

 

137.    The residents are concerned that if the properties are required in the future, is the value of the home at market value or is the purchase price set by the Department of Housing. This is not a valid planning consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.

 

Construction time frames and the management of construction vehicles within the street

 

138.    The residents are concerned about time frames for construction and the management of heavy vehicles during this phase of construction.

 

139.    In response the applicant provide the time frame for completion being approximately 12 months and there would be traffic management controls during construction. It was suggested that this be a condition of consent that a construction management plan be submitted prior to works commencing. An appropriate conditions is included in the Recommendation.

 

NON-COMPLIANCES

 

140.    The deep soil zone requirements prescribed by the Seniors SEPP are outlined as follows:

 

Deep soil zones (Clause 81 SEPP)

Minimum 15% of site area (765m²)

815m² (=15.9%)

Yes

Deep soil zones (Clause 81 SEPP)

Two-thirds of zone to be provided at the rear of the site (66% or 505m²)

260m² or 34%

No

 

141.    The requirement for the development to provide two-thirds of the soft soil zone at the rear of the site is the only area within which the proposal fails to satisfy a development standard nominated by the SEPP.

 

142.    The applicant provided the following commentary in relation to the non-compliance:

 

            “After detailed analysis, the layout of the proposed development is considered the most appropriate for the site in terms of neighbourhood amenity and streetscape, and maintenance of visual and acoustic privacy and solar access. As a result, obtaining the preferred deep soil requirement to the rear of the site is unachievable. However, considering the proposal provides 50m² in excess of the minimum deep soil requirement, this non-conformity with the SEPP’s preference is considered justifiable.”

 

143.    In addition to the applicant’s comments in relation to the overall deep soil area of the site, it is also noted that the development exceeds private and communal open space provision and is contained within a density and scale below the maximum achievable on the site.

 

144.    The provided soft soil is still suitable for the site and the non-compliance is not considered to be a significant departure from the controls nominated by the SEPP, having regard to all other factors. In addition, it will not manifest any unreasonable impacts on neighbours or the environment generally.

 

145.    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.

 

146.    The standards contained in Division 4 (specifically Clause 50) of the Seniors SEPP are non-discretionary standards and if complied with cannot be used to refuse consent.

 

147.    Section 79C(3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 provides that a provision of an environmental planning instrument that allows flexibility in the application of a development standard may be applied to the non-discretionary development standard.

 

148.    In this regard, some flexibility in its application is permitted without the need to have to consider an objection under SEPP1.

 

 

 

Alan Middlemiss

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

2View

Plans

4 Pages

 

3View

Compliance Table

2 Pages

 

4View

History of DA

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 9.3 - Attachment 1

Locality Map /

 

 


Item 9.3 - Attachment 2

Plans

 




 


Item 9.3 - Attachment 3

Compliance Table

 


 


Item 9.3 - Attachment 4

History of DA

 

 


Ordinary Council 28 July 2008

Item 9.4

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER         9.4

SUBJECT                   62-66 Robertson Street and 27-29 Zillah Street, Merrylands (Lots 15 Sec 3, 16 Sec 3, 36 Sec 3, 37 Sec 3 and 38 Sec 3 in DP 945) (Woodville Ward)
(Location Map - Attachment 1)

DESCRIPTION          Demolition of 5 dwelling houses and construction of a multi unit housing development containing 11 dwellings.

REFERENCE            DA/726/2007 - Submitted 4 September 2007

APPLICANT/S           Resitech Australia

OWNERS                    Department of Housing

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To determine Development Application No. 726/2007 that seeks approval for demolition of 5 dwelling houses and construction of a multi unit housing development containing 11 dwellings.

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 726/2007 subject to standard conditions.

 

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

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.         The development site consists of 5 separate allotments known as 62, 64 and 66 Robertson Street and 27 and 29 Zillah Street, Merrylands and the legal descriptions are Lots 15 Sec 3, 16 Sec 3, 36 Sec 3, 37 Sec 3 and 38 Sec 3 in DP 945. The subject sites are located on mid blocks between Robertson and Zillah Streets with east to west orientations and a fall of 1.5m from Zillah Street to Robertson Street. Each individual allotment has a 12.19m width and a 45.72m depth resulting in a site area of 557.33m2 per site and an overall site area for the development of 2786.65m2. Existing improvements on the sites include a single storey detached fibro-cement dwelling on each site and a single car carport on the 62 Robertson Street site.

 

BACKGROUND

 

2.         A petition containing 80 signatures from surrounding residents opposing the proposed development was tabled at Council’s Regulatory meeting on 8 October 2007, where the following was resolved:

         

2.1.      That the petition be received and noted and the NSW Department of Housing be requested to withdraw the relevant application based on information relayed to the Chamber by The State Member for Granville, that the Minister for Housing would not allow townhouses in this area of South Granville.

 

2.2.      That a delegation be arranged to meet with the Housing Minister and that the State Member make representations on Council’s behalf.

 

2.3.      Further, that in the event the development application is placed before Council, the petition be addressed in the officer’s report.

 

2.4.      In accordance with part 1 of the above resolution, Council’s Group Manager Outcomes and Development sent a request to the Director General of the Department of Housing on 16 October 2007 to withdraw the subject Development Application. In response to Council’s request, the following summarises the response received from the Director General on 26 October 2007:

 

2.4.1.  “The Department has given no indication that it will not proceed with its development applications nor can it give such an undertaking.”

 

2.5.      In accordance with part 2 of the resolution, the Lord Mayors Office contacted the Housing Minister on 3 separate occasions in January and February 2008, to organise a meeting to discuss the proposed development. No response has been forthcoming from the Ministers office to date.

 

2.6.      In accordance with part 3 of the resolution, the petition is addressed in the Consultation section of this report.

 

3.         At the Regulatory Council meeting on 11 February 2008, Council resolved:

 

3.1.      That an immediate inquiry be undertaken to determine why Council’s resolution of 8 October 2007 relating to 27 - 29 Zillah Street, South Granville was not carried out.

 

3.2.      That urgent and immediate action be implemented in order to put into effect Council’s resolution.

 

3.3.      That any further action on the related Development Application be deferred pending the outcome of Council’s resolution.

 

3.4.      Further, that the Acting General Manager report to Council as to what administrative changes need to be put into place to avoid a similar recurrence of this nature.

 

3.5.      In accordance with part 3 of the resolution, an on-site meeting for the proposed development was cancelled and further action on the application was deferred.

 

4.         At the Regulatory Council meeting on 25 February 2008, Council resolved:

 

4.1.      That Acting General Manager Report No 06/2008 be received and noted.

 

4.2.      Further, that the process to complete the assessment of the Development Application for 27 - 29 Zillah Street, South Granville be recommenced, including the provision of an on-site meeting.

 

4.3.      In accordance with part 2 of the resolution, an on-site meeting for the proposed development was held. The issues raised at the on-site meeting are discussed in the On-Site Meeting section of this report.

 

PROPOSAL

 

5.         The proposed development is on land owned by the NSW Department of Housing (Crown Land). The proposal is DA/726/2007 and seeks consent for demolition of 5 dwelling houses and construction of a multi unit housing development containing 11 dwellings.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

6.         The sites are zoned 2B Residential pursuant to the zoning provisions contained in Clause 16 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. Multi unit housing is a permissible form of development within the 2B Residential zone with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the 2B Residential zoning.

 

7.         Pursuant to Clause 39 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, multi unit housing developments are restricted to a height limit of 2 storeys above ground level. The proposed development includes 3 separate blocks which are part single and part 2 storeys in height. The development is therefore consistent with the height limits prescribed by Clause 39 of PLEP 2001.

 

8.         Pursuant to Clause 40 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, multi unit housing developments are restricted to a 0.6:1 floor space ratio, which equates to 1672.59sqm of floor space on the 2787.65sqm site. The proposed development includes 1146.94sqm of floor space which equates to a floor space ratio of 0.41:1. The development is therefore consistent with the floor space ratio controls contained in Clause 40 of PLEP 2001.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

9.         The provisions of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 apply to this development and have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan and achieves compliance with most of the numerical requirements of the plan. A numerical compliance table demonstrating the proposed development’s compliance with PDCP 2005 can be found as attachment 2 to this report. The non-compliances with PDCP 2005 are discussed in the Issues section of this report.

 

CONSULTATION

 

10.       In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the proposed development between 26 September and 17 October 2007. In response to the notification period, 6 written submissions and 1 petition containing 80 signatures were received. An additional submission was received outside the notification period.

 

11.       Amended plans were received for the application, which were further notified to surrounding properties between 4 July and 18 July 2008. In response, 2 written submissions were received. The issues raised in all the submissions and petition are discussed below.

 

The site is not suitable for this type of development.

 

12.       Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Development Control Plan 2005 contain specific controls for multi unit housing developments including minimum site frontages and floor space ratio controls, which determine whether a site is suitable for the development.

 

13.       Pursuant to Clause 40 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, multi unit housing developments are restricted to a 0.6:1 floor space ratio, which equates to 1672.59sqm of floor space on the 2787.65sqm site. The proposed development includes 1146.94sqm of floor space which equates to a floor space ratio of 0.41:1.

 

14.       Section 3.1 of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires a minimum site frontage of 24m for multi unit housing developments. The proposed development site has a dual street frontage with a 36.57m frontage to Robertson Street and a 24.38m frontage to Zillah Street.

 

15.       The development is consistent with the floor space ratio controls contained in Clause 40 of PLEP 2001 and the minimum site frontage controls for multi unit housing developments contained in Section 3.1 of PDCP 2005. The proposed multi unit housing development is therefore suitable for the site.

 

The existing road network is not capable of supporting such a development.

 

16.       The proposed development was referred to Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer for comment who raised no objection to the proposal on traffic and parking grounds subject to conditions of consent. The conditions recommended by Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer will be included on the consent.

 

The development will result in a decrease in property values.

 

17.       The potential impact on property values is not identified as a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

Demolition involves the production of waste and should be avoided.

 

18.       Demolition is a permissible development within the 2B Residential zone with the consent of Council. The proposal includes demolition of the existing dwellings on the sites as part of the development. Suitable conditions will be incorporated in the consent to cover demolition including the hours of demolition work, handling and removal of asbestos, the use of licensed demolition contractor/s and the provision of a waste management plan.

 

Heritage items, structures and heritage precincts should remain intact. Heritage items or structures should not be overwhelmed or overshadowed by new development.

 

19.       The sites are not listed as or located within close proximity to heritage items nor are they within a heritage conservation area and therefore this issue is not related to this application.

 

Existing trees should be protected as removal of trees increases air pollution. If trees are removed, replacements should be planted.

 

20.       The proposed development includes the removal of 4 trees. The proposal was referred to Council’s Landscape Officer for assessment who raised no concern over the tree removal subject to replacement planting and conditions of consent. Suitable conditions will be imposed on the consent to cover the proposed tree removal and replacement plantings.

 

Telecommunication antennae and allied structures increase unwanted and dangerous electromagnetic radiation into the natural environment.

 

21.       This issue is not related to this application.

 

There should be no increase in concrete surfaces.

 

22.       The development does not include excessive concrete surfaces. The development allows for concrete driveways on each side of the development which are not excessively sized and serve the purpose of provide vehicular access to the sites. The development includes landscaped areas covering 46% of the site which is the equivalent of 1277.22sqm. Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires only 40% of the site to be landscaped and so the development provides additional landscaped areas than what is required by PDCP 2005.

 

Increase in housing or industrial density must not overburden utilities and must allow for sufficient space for children to play.

 

23.       The proposed multi unit housing development achieves a floor space ratio of 0.41:1 which is below the permissible 0.6:1 floor space ratio control for the site. The development is not anticipated to overburden utilities. The development allows for sufficient outdoor areas for children to play with each unit being provided with sufficient private open space areas.

 

Concern raised over the intent behind the lodgement of Section 96 Modification Applications.

 

24.       The application is not a Section 96 Modification Application and so this issue is not related to this application.

 

There must be no increase in hours of commercial or industrial activity.

 

25.       The proposed development is not a Section 96 Modification Application seeking increase in hours and so this issue is not related to this application.

 

Dust and pollution from the development will affect the health of neighbouring residents.

 

26.       Suitable conditions will be placed on the consent including the provision of dust control measures during all works associated with the development and restrictions on noise generation during works associated with the development.

 

The development will require tenants of the existing dwellings to be relocated. New tenants will pose safety concerns for existing residents.

 

27.       The potential tenants of a development is not identified as a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

The development will result in a loss of sunlight to adjoining properties. The 2 storey development will overshadow the front landscaped area of 26 Zillah Street.

 

28.       Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires a development to provide adequate solar access to new developments and adjoining properties. A minimum of 3 hours solar access between 9am and 3pm at the winter solstice on 21 June is required for dwellings and private open space areas of the development and adjoining properties. The proposed development satisfies the solar access requirements of PDCP 2005 as the dwellings and private open spaces of this development and adjoining properties receive a minimum of 3 hours solar access between 9am and 3pm at the winter solstice on 21 June. Shadow diagrams provided with the development application indicate that the development will not cast any shadows over 26 Zillah Street, which is located on the opposite side of the street to the west of the development site.

 

All residents in both Zillah and Robertson Streets oppose the development and therefore the development is not in the public interest.

 

29.       The sites are zoned 2B Residential pursuant to the zoning provisions contained in Clause 16 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. Multi unit housing is a permissible form of development within the 2B Residential zone with the consent of Council.

 

30.       The proposed development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the 2B Residential zoning primarily by:

 

30.1.   Enhancing the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area, and

 

30.2.   Encouraging and stimulating further redevelopment of low density housing forms, including dual occupancies and multi unit housing. The proposed development will not compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential area or the natural and cultural heritage of the area, and

 

30.3.   Ensuring that the building form is in character with the surrounding built environment.

 

31.       The proposed development is consistent with the aims, objectives and controls contained in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Development Control Plan 2005.

 

32.       The proposed development is consistent with the NSW Department of Planning’s Metropolitan Strategy which has identified Parramatta as a “Regional City” with a target of providing an additional 21,000 dwellings within the LGA between 2004 and 2031.

 

The number of visitor parking spaces proposed for the development is insufficient.

 

33.       Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires multi unit housing developments to provide on site visitor parking spaces at the rate of 0.25 spaces per dwelling. The development includes a total of 11 dwellings which requires the provision of 2.75 visitor car parking spaces. The development allows for a total of 3 on site visitor car parking spaces over the site which is consistent with the requirements of PDCP 2005.

 

ON-SITE MEETING

 

34.       Council at its meeting of 9 July 2007 resolved that a site meeting be held for Development Applications where five or more submissions have been received. A total of 7 written submissions and 1 petition containing 80 signatures from were received during the first notification period. In accordance with the above resolution, an on-site meeting was held on Thursday 13 March 2008 commencing at 6:00pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Brown (Chairperson 1), Councillor Borger (Chairperson 2), Ali Hammoud (Development Assessment Officer), Brad Delapierre (Team Leader Development Assessment), approximately 30 residents and 4 representatives on behalf of the applicant. The following issues were raised and discussed at the on-site meeting:

 

The development is an overdevelopment of the site.

 

35.       At the on-site meeting, Councillor Borger emphasised that multi unit development has been a permissible development in the area for approximately 20 years.

 

36.       Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Development Control Plan 2005 contain specific controls for multi unit housing developments including minimum site frontages and floor space ratio controls, which determine whether a site is suitable for the development.

 

37.       Pursuant to Clause 40 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, multi unit housing developments are restricted to a 0.6:1 floor space ratio, which equates to 1672.59sqm of floor space on the 2787.65sqm site. The proposed development includes 1146.94sqm of floor space which equates to a floor space ratio of 0.41:1.

 

38.       Section 3.1 of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires a minimum site frontage of 24m for multi unit housing developments. The proposed development site has a dual street frontage with a 36.57m frontage to Robertson Street and a 24.38m frontage to Zillah Street.

 

39.       The development is consistent with the floor space ratio controls contained in Clause 40 of PLEP 2001 and the minimum site frontage controls for multi unit housing developments contained in Section 3.1 of PDCP 2005. The proposed multi unit housing development is therefore suitable for the site and is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

 

Dual Occupancy Developments on the sites would be more acceptable.

 

40.       At the on-site meeting, the applicant’s representative emphasised that the Department of Housing does not build to represent the department and that their developments are comparative to private developments.

 

41.       Multi unit housing and dual occupancy developments are both a permissible form of development on the subject site with the consent of Council. The applicant has applied for a multi unit housing development on the subject site, which as previously outlined, is suitable for the subject site.

 

Residents were concerned that their properties had been rezoned without their knowledge.

 

42.       The subject development site and surrounding properties are zoned 2B residential pursuant to the zoning provisions contained in Clause 16 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, which was gazetted in December 2001. No rezoning of the subject or surrounding sites has occurred since the gazettal of the LEP.

 

2 storey townhouses are not permissible in the area and attempts by other residents in the past to build 2 storey dwellings have been refused by Council.

 

43.       The sites are zoned 2B Residential pursuant to the zoning provisions contained in Clause 16 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. Multi unit housing and dwelling houses are a permissible form of development within the 2B Residential zone with the consent of Council.

 

44.       Pursuant to Clause 39 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, multi unit housing developments are restricted to a height limit of 2 storeys above ground level. The proposed development includes 3 separate blocks which are part single and part 2 storeys in height. The development is therefore consistent with the height limits prescribed by Clause 39 of PLEP 2001.

 

Manoeuvring within Robertson Street is difficult as residents use on street parking where they own multiple vehicles. Safety of children and residents in the street and would be compromised by this development. Traffic calming devices are required in the street. Accidents occur frequently at the Lavinia Street intersection.

 

45.       The proposed development will create at least 2 additional on street parking spaces on Robertson Street and at least 1 on Zillah Street as the existing 5 driveways and crossovers will be replaced with 2 driveways and crossovers for the overall development.

 

46.       The proposed development was referred to Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer for comment who raised no objection to the proposal on traffic and parking grounds subject to conditions of consent. The conditions recommended by Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer will be included on the consent.

 

The number of visitor parking spaces proposed as part of the development is insufficient.

 

47.       Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires multi unit housing developments to provide on site visitor parking spaces at the rate of 0.25 spaces per dwelling. The development includes a total of 11 dwellings which requires the provision of 2.75 visitor car parking spaces. The development allows for a total of 3 on site visitor car parking spaces over the site which is consistent with the requirements of PDCP 2005.

 

The development will result in a decrease in property values.

 

48.       The potential impact on property values is not identified as a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

First floor balconies, which face into neighbouring properties, would have privacy impacts on adjoining residents.

 

49.       Amended plans were submitted to Council on 14 July 2008 which included the deletion of all first floor balconies.

 

New tenants will be socially unstable and will pose safety concerns for existing residents.

 

50.       The potential tenants of a development is not identified as a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

Driveways of adjoining properties would be blocked during the construction of the development.

 

51.       The submission of a construction management program will be included in the conditions of consent to ensure this does not occur. At the meeting, the applicant’s representatives advised that the Department of Housing follows a construction management plan for all their developments and if any issues arise during construction, contact details for the relevant people are available on the site sign.

 

ISSUES