Agenda of Regulatory Council

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 7.1

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 7.1

SUBJECT Establishment of Alcohol Free Zones

REFERENCE F2004/09185 - D00971825

REPORT OF Supervisor Environmental Protection

PURPOSE:

To establish an Alcohol Free Zone for western end of Albert Street, North Parramatta at the Fleet Street steps; and to conjoin the established Alcohol Free Zones of the Parramatta CBD into one larger all encompassing Alcohol Free Zone.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council declare the whole of the road (including carriageway, verge, footpath and steps) of Albert Street between O’Connell Street and Fleet Street, North Parramatta to be an Alcohol Free Zone pursuant to the provisions of Part 4 Chapter 16 of the Local Government Act 1993;

(b) That Council declare the area defined on Attachment 2 (which amalgamates and extends in area the existing several separated CBD Alcohol Frees Zones) as an Alcohol Free Zone pursuant to the provisions of Part 4 Chapter 16 of the Local Government Act 1993;

(c) That the community be informed of the declaration of these Alcohol Free Zones by advertisement in local newspaper(s) as required by Section 644B of the Local government Act 1993;

(d) That signage be updated/amended/erected to define the respective pertinent Alcohol Free Zone(s), with Alcohol Free Zone signage adjacent to any approved footpath dining area to include the wording “Approved Outdoor Dining Areas Exempt”.

(e) That open spaces within the amalgamated and expanded CBD Alcohol Free Zone that are not roads or road related areas, be made and appropriately signposted as places where consumption of alcohol is not permitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 632 of the Local Government Act.

(f) That Council’s function and authority to establish and re-establish an Alcohol Free Zone) be delegated to the General Manager.

BACKGROUND

1. Council at its Meeting on 26 March 2007 (Environment) considered a Report on re-establishment of Alcohol Free Zones across the whole municipality and resolved that those Zones in existence be re-established and that an additional Zone for the Rawson Street Epping public carpark be established.

2. Council at its Meeting on 25 February 2008 (Community Safety Advisory Committee) resolved in part that:

(a) An alcohol free zone be considered for the laneway from Albert Street to Fleet Street (near Hope Hostel) and for the pedestrian mall beside Guildford Coles;

(b) Re-establishment of the Alcohol Free Zone for Delwood shopping precinct be considered;

(d) Larger Alcohol Free Zone signs be considered for Council’s Civic Place carpark and for Church Street Mall.

3. An application for Council’s consideration has been received from Parramatta Police for amalgamation of the several separate Alcohol Free Zones (AFZ) presently established about the Parramatta CBD into one zone and for that zone to be subsequently enlarged.

4. Councils have been given the ability to declare an area an AFZ for the purpose of improving amenity and ambiance of the place and removing the contributing element of alcohol to anti-social and threatening behaviors. The place that can be declared an AFZ is confined to a road or road related area (footpath, laneway, public carpark).

5. Prohibiting consumption of alcohol in a place other than a public road or road related area is available vide provisions in S632 of the Local Government Act.

6. The process for establishing an AFZ is clearly described in Part 4 Chapter 16 (Street Drinking) of the Local Government Act. An application is to be made by a Police Officer, a bona-fide active community group, a person who lives or works in the area or on Council’s own motion. The Council may inform the community of the proposal but must inform the local police station and any liquor establishment/outlet adjacent a proposed AFZ. Council must consider any representations made arising from this consultation. The Council may then resolve to establish an area or areas to be AFZ’s and for what period, which can be up to a maximum of 3 years. After the making of the resolution, the details of the AFZ must be advertised in a local newspaper and the zone does not become effective until 7 days has elapsed from the first publication.

7. For the proposed Albert Street AFZ, there are no liquor establishments/outlets adjacent, thus no requirement to inform anyone other than the Police of the proposal. The Licensing Sergeant at Parramatta Local Area Command supports the proposal.

8. The pedestrian mall (off Guildford Road, Guildford) next to Guildford Coles, is situated in an already established AFZ. The Council’s Resolution declaring the Guildford Shopping precinct and environs made at its Meeting on 26 March 2007, includes this laneway in its description and thus all that is required is signage. Additionally the Guildford Public Carpark is also within the ‘declared area’ and can also be signposted as an AFZ.

9. Similarly the Delwood shopping precinct and environs was declared an AFZ at the Meeting on 26 March 2007. The signs have been so extensively vandalised by their removal, that it appeared this area was not an Alcohol Free area.

10. A Works Order has been placed for signage for Guildford shops and Delwood shops to be placed/replaced.

11. With respect to the Councillor’s enquiry of why some Councils seem not to need to renew AFZ’s; the legislation is explicitly clear that an Alcohol Free Zone cannot be made for longer than 3 years, however the zone may be on or prior to expiration be extended, provided the complete establishment procedure is followed – see Clause 6 above for procedure details. It is possible that the process of re-establishment appears ‘seem-less’ in other Councils who may well practice different administrative procedures to Parramatta and/or have delegated the function of re-establishment to their General Manager.

12. Section 377 of the Local Government Act provides that Council may by resolution, delegate a function to the General Manager. Establishment and/or reinstatement of an AFZ is a permissible delegation.

13. With respect to the enquiry on possibility of larger Alcohol Free Signage; the size of the signage is not specified in the legislation or Guidelines published by the Department of Local Government thereby, leaving this open to the individual Council to determine. The Guidelines do provide a basic template of the minimum wording to be included. The size presently in use is in accordance with the Australian Standard 1743 for street parking and similar traffic regulatory signage in order to provide visual uniformity across the streetscape.

14. The proposal of the Police to amalgamate the existing several AFZ’s and further extended the area, is explained in their submission appended as Attachment 1.

15. In discussing the proposal with the Parramatta Command Licensing Sergeant, the biggest benefit is clarity for the Police as to the boundaries of the AFZ’s, for at present, around the greater Parramatta CBD area the Zones are ‘centred’ around either a liquor outlet or a place where persons congregate to consume alcohol. As the Zones are not contiguous, it is possible for an ‘offender’ to walk out of a declared Zone into an undeclared space and therefore move into an area where street drinking, is not controllable.

16. By amalgamating the existing AFZ areas and enlarging the area to the very furthest extents of the CBD, it is proffered by the Police, there would be less confusion or ambiguity on AFZ boundaries which would enhance enforcement.

17. For full effectiveness areas that are not ‘roads’ that are within the extended area, like the riverside areas and similar open spaces, will need to be made places where consumption of alcohol is prohibited vide Section 632 of the Local Government Act.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

18. The establishment procedure for the proposed AFZ for Albert Street has been followed.

19. The Police have submitted the proposal to amalgamate and enlarge the AFZ for the purpose of making their regulatory function easier with greater clarity to the public of where street drinking is not permitted. Benefits of this will accrue to the community with envisaged reduction of crime, alcohol related assaults, damage and anti-social activities.

20. The financial cost to Council in establishing an AFZ relates to advertising costs and making of and erection of signage. Signage is performed ‘in house’ by Council’s Trades and Buildings Unit.

21. Costs of advertising and signage for reinstatement of AFZ across the whole LGA subsequent to the Council Meeting on 26 March 2007, totalled approximately $20,000. Given the size of the Police proposal and signage demand thus required, cost is envisaged to be in the order of $12,000

22. No funds are provided in the 08/09 Budget for AFZ establishment/reinstatement as a declaration of this magnitude was not envisaged and with all AFZ’s across the LGA not expiring till 2010 and no standing allocation was made.

CONCLUSION

23. Establishment of the Alcohol Free Zones for Albert Street, North Parramatta and for the expanded CBD, would continue Council’s position on street drinking being subversive to the City’s character and attractiveness and also confirm Council’s support for Police regulating street drinking.

Michael Randall

Supervisor – Environmental Protection

Attachments:

1View	Map of Alcohol Free Zone Location - Albert Street, North Parramatta	1 Page
2View	Submission of Parramatta Police	18 Pages
3View	Map of expanded Zone	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 7.2

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 7.2

SUBJECT Appointment of Council as an enforcement agency under Food Act 2003.

REFERENCE F2005/01433 - D00972254

REPORT OF Supervisor Regulated Premises

PURPOSE:

For Council to confirm its level of activity as an enforcement agency under the Food Act.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council confirm it’s commitment to community protection and food safety by ratifying a level of activity commensurate with minimum Category ‘B’, as proposed in Option 2 of this report;

(b) That notice of Council’s decision in this regard be forwarded to the Food Authority;

(c) That in recognition of the obligations imposed by Category ‘B’ level, a new position of Environmental Health Officer be created and considered through workplace reform sub-committee.

BACKGROUND

1. At it’s meeting of 14 June 2005, Council considered a report on the proposed model for a food regulation partnership proposed by the new NSW Food Authority. Council resolved at that meeting:

(a) That Council agree to the proposal to mandate a role for local government in NSW, as outlined in the exposure draft prepared by the Food Regulation Partnership Steering Committee, dated April 2005.

(b) That the Food Regulation Partnership be advised of Council’s decision, together with a response to the submission by the Manager, Environment & Health on each of the recommendations made.

(c) Further that the Manager, Environment & Health/or representative, negotiate at the earliest convenience with the NSW Food Authority to confirm a role in food regulation activity at a category ‘C’ level by way of a service agreement, as defined in the draft model.

2. Council has been formally requested by the NSW Food Authority to confirm what level of activity it elects to undertake in food regulation. Correspondence received from the Authority proposes a Category B appointment for this council effective July 1 2008. (Attachments 1, 2 & 3 - ‘Pathway to Partnership – a guide to food regulation in NSW’).

3. Subject to Council’s decision and ratification by the Food Authority, a mandate in food regulation for Parramatta Council will take effect.

ISSUES

4. Changes to the NSW Food Act in late 2007 commence July 2008. These will:

- mandate a role for Councils across NSW in food regulation.

- allow each Council to operate within defined parameters of activity, depending on what category has been agreed with the NSW Food Authority.

- provide for cost recovery of the activities undertaken by local government.

5. In the previous report, the model for partnership with the Food Authority sought to:

2.1 Clearly define the roles of Councils and the NSW Food Authority;

2.2 Provide a dedicated program to support and assist Council’s role in food regulation;

2.3 Establish arrangements for co-ordination of the NSW food regulatory system (eg protocols, guidelines and reporting arrangements); and

2.4 Provide a secure funding base for Council’s food regulatory work.

6. The proposal effectively recognises the role Councils have undertaken and with adequate support mechanisms, will allow them to support the Food Authority in ensuring a safe food supply in NSW.

7. The proposal provides an option for a minimum role in food regulation, effectively a ‘get-out’ clause, known as Category ‘A’. Parramatta Council has, however, conducted a food surveillance program over a prolonged period which provides for more than the minimum level of activity allowed. The current program is resourced on a partial cost recovery basis from industry, which is acknowledged in Council’s Management Plan.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

8. The NSW Food Authority is the sole agency responsible for food regulation at the NSW State Government level. It was established on 5 April 2004.

9. All Councils in NSW have ‘enforcement agency’ status under the Food Act 2003. This enables, but until now has not required, Councils to enforce the requirements of the Act, continuing a long standing, non-mandatory role in food regulation for local governments across NSW. The Local Government Act also has enabled Councils to undertake this function as a ‘may do’ activity.

10. Council has been active in this area in the following ways:

8.1 Approval of food premises;

8.2 Monitoring compliance with standards, and enforcing where non-compliant;

8.3 Food recalls;

8.4 Advising food business operators on correct practices;

8.5 Investigating complaints, including food borne illness; and

8.6 Conducting education and training for food handlers.

11. These activities represent a typical model for most Councils, although not all Councils in NSW have conducted food surveillance programs as a regular part of public health functions.

12. The categories put forward in the appointment proposed would permit Council to:

a) continue to act as an enforcement agency;

b) exercise functions within a specified area – in this case the Parramatta LGA, and only in relation to retail food businesses, except in cases of emergency;

c) conduct routine inspection, enforcement and food complaint investigation regards to retail businesses.

Reporting requirements on food regulating activities apply.

13. The base role - (Category A) - as defined, is intended as the minimum responsibility level for an enforcement agency. This is limited only to response where there is an imminent threat to public health and safety, or the health of an individual, in connection with food.

While there is capacity for response in emergency situations such as a bio-terrorism threat or food recall, this level of activity if elected, would not allow for Council to undertake any additional activity, including routine inspections of food premises or exercising other functions that are currently undertaken, including investigative work, food sampling programs or food handler education. Importantly, undertaking any activity as a category ‘A’ agency would not allow for any cost recovery mechanisms.

14. Election of category ‘A’ would create a circumstance where the Food Authority would itself exercise routine inspection functions under the Food Act in that area, or allow for another enforcement agency – including another Council – to undertake the functions, and cover the cost of regulating by imposing fees for inspections etc, against the business being regulated. It is understood that this arrangement may be acceptable in some remote regional Councils exposed to chronic shortage of appropriately qualified staff and something less than a critical mass of businesses to offset the cost of operating a surveillance program in that area alone.

However, Parramatta Council is not one of those Councils, and indeed the area encompasses one of the highest numbers of retail food businesses of any local government in the state. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that a proposal to nominate for a Category ‘A’ appointment would be accepted by the state agency.

15. Category ‘B’ is intended to be the standard food regulation responsibility level for an enforcement agency. In addition to category ‘A’ activity, the agency would have a duty to exercise functions conferred under the Food Act (S.111) with respect to retail food businesses. The responsibility and activity level would approximately reflect current involvement by Council in that a program of systematic surveillance of retail food businesses would be undertaken. The Food Authority has proposed to appoint Parramatta Council as a Category ‘B’ agency, and has indicated the overwhelming majority of local government agencies favour this level.

16. Category C builds on the regulatory functions of ‘A and ‘B’ by value adding other activities directly negotiated with the Authority. This includes regulatory functions in respect of a specified food business or class of food business, in addition to retail sites, such as inspection/audit of manufacturing and other levels of food industry not covered under existing licensing schemes. This would be dependant on the capacity of the agency and qualifications and experience of authorised officers. Other activities such as training could also be undertaken by negotiation.

17. Whilst each Council is given an opportunity to decide on which of three levels of activity it may elect to operate, Parramatta Council has provided a service level to business and consumers over and above the minimum regulatory role over a long period, including food handler training, and dependant on the level of resourcing, is capable of undertaking activities equivalent to the category designated ‘C’. Several metropolitan Councils have already indicated their intent to conduct food regulation at this level.

Financial

18. The existing service activity is currently funded on a user pays principle, with inspections costed back to industry. Council’s Management Plan lists these fees as partial cost recovery, indicating that there is community benefit from partially subsidising public health surveillance programs. In practice, not all activities could be funded by direct costing to business, an example being where a complaint into a food illness outbreak is being investigated. The continuity of such a service is dependant on maintaining funding for the activity area, and this has been recognised in the income model outlined in the legislation.

Council charges a range of fees to recover costs of inspecting food businesses. The income received represents a substantive cost recovered activity, with approximately 60% of the cost incurred in conducting food premises inspections covered by these fees.

19. A part of the change to legislation was recognition that an enforcement agency should be able to recover costs of the regulatory activity. This is reflected in the funding component of the model. In addition to inspection fees, where a ceiling of $143/hour is recommended provision is made for additional charges, including a general administration fee, which might cover costs not directly associated with physical inspection of premises. Examples of value adding activities that can be covered by this fee are conducting food sampling surveys and conducting food handler training, in addition to administration activities of data entry and invoicing activity, the costs of which are not directly covered by existing fees.

The proposed maximum annual administration fee per business (typically $250 for most small businesses) is not mandatory and while it is understood that some Councils intend adopting the maximum fee, a lesser figure of $50 per premises has been recommended in the Management Plan for 2008-09, which would be an additional fee to businesses along with an increase to inspection fee structures by CPI only.

20. Additional cost recovery mechanisms exist in the legislation, including a prescribed fee for serving formal improvement notices under the Food Act. The maximum fee has been set at $330, which is equivalent to the fine under a penalty notice that might be issued for an array of minor breaches of food safety standards, and effectively acts as a de-facto fine. There is also a parallel with the administration fee of $320 that is imposed with notices issued under environmental control legislation. Fees generated from this activity may act as a deterrent for non-compliance but along with fines issued for breaches of legislation, are not of themselves a predictable or significant income stream. Several dozen improvement notices are currently issued annually.

Staff Resources

21. Environmental Health Officers are already authorised under the Food Act legislation, and three of these staff have undertaken specialist training to qualify as Food Safety Auditors. There is no requirement under the legislation which alters the way in which Councils may staff this area of activity.

22. The regime of inspection frequency proposed indicates a higher level of activity than is currently conducted for many food premises. Premises have been designated according to risk category and identified as high, medium or low depending on the extent of food handling controls exercised by that business.

Those designated ‘high’ risk – which includes 75% of the existing businesses - are to be inspected twice per annum, as opposed to Council’s Management Plan requirement of 1 inspection per annum. The impact of this requirement is significant in that it effectively doubles the numbers of inspections required for the majority of premises. Those businesses designated medium risk (10% of the total) would be required to be inspected annually. It is proposed that those premises identified as low risk (around 15%) not be inspected except in instances following complaint or need for food recall intervention. Some of those premises that are indicated as low risk are currently included on Council’s inspection program and might become inactive as a consequence, freeing some resource to the increased inspection need for higher risk businesses.

23. Staff currently undertake approximately 1000 inspections of food premises annually. As a category “B” or ‘C”, agency this would increase to over 1700 inspections per annum, excluding re-inspections deemed necessary over and above the initial appraisal and subsequent review inspection. The inspection model recognises that where businesses can demonstrate an ongoing level of compliance, a reward in the form of reduced numbers of compliance inspections is allowable, which is consistent with audit frequency practice in quality assurance programs across many industries. In the case of the retail food industry, the moderators to that occurring are the volatile nature of businesses due to substantial turnover of business ownership and workers, as well as the unregulated nature of training requirements of the food industry generally. These lead to inconsistent standards being found at many food premises, the result of which demands a regular inspection frequency to avoid critical breaches of food hygiene and escalating risk to the consumer.

24. In addition to the increased frequency of inspection activity required under the partnership model, Parramatta Council has experienced sustained growth in it’s food business sector, with numbers of food businesses growing by an average of 5% per annum in the last 10 years. Between 2002 - 2007, over 500 development applications were processed that involved food business activities. Two thirds of those applications were for new premises. Already in 2008, nearly 70 applications involving proposals for new food premises or alterations to existing facilities have been received at Council.

25. The consequence of both the mandated increase in inspection frequency and growth in the numbers of food businesses within the City, is that existing professional and administrative staff resources are insufficient to fully address the proposed activity level under Categories ‘B’ or ‘C’. If Council is to continue it’s long term commitment in food regulation, a means of increasing the resource will have to be realised.

26. It is considered that the legislated funding model provides adequate means for cost recovery of the additional resources required to undertake the workload shown in the partnership proposal, depending on what fees for service are determined by Council. It is proposed that additional staff be provided for the conduct of obligations under the Food Act. A business case for additional staffing will be separately presented to the Workplace Reform Committee utilising the cost recovery model presented in the guidelines developed by the NSW Food Authority.

Options

27. Council can elect to do the following:

Option 1

Conduct food regulation activity at Category ’A’ level, effectively removing itself as a food enforcement agency except in cases of emergency as outlined in the model. No mechanism exists for cost recovery of activities conducted within these parameters. Council will have no input or control over which enforcement agency subsequently undertakes the Category ‘B’ functions within it’s area.

Option 2

Conduct food regulation activity at Category ’B’ level.

Continuity of existing engagement with retail food industry.

Funding mechanism to undertake a range of activities commensurate with previous assured.

Option 3

Conduct food regulation activity at Category ’C’ level.

Engage with food industry at a higher level, particularly with regard to value adding activity of training for food business. Potential to expand beyond retail activity. Funding mechanism assured.

Activity is consistent with a leading enforcement agency.

Tony Gleeson

Supervisor - Regulated Premises

Attachments:

1View	Letter from Food Regulation Partnership	2 Pages
2View	Pathway to Partnership - Part 1	29 Pages
3View	Pathway to Partnership - Part 2	44 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 7.4

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 7.4

SUBJECT Issues brought forward by applicant relating to 3 development applications:-
DA 106/2008
DA 729/2007
DA 183/2008

REFERENCE DA/106/2008 -

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To provide Council with information relating to the following Development Applications:

1. 278 Woodville Road, Guildford – DA/106/2008

2. 66 Cross Street, Guildford – DA/729/2007

3. 115 Hammers Road, Northmead – DA/183/2007

RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received and noted.

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting of 23 June 2008 resolved the following:

“That the Acting General Manager bring forward a report to the next Regulatory Council Meeting in respect of allegations relating to issues brought forward by applicants pertaining to the following DAs:-

1. Aldi Development Woodville Road

1.1 – That the urban planner was not brought into negotiations regarding the DA, until the DA had well progressed and at the stage, it was indicated she was not happy with the design.

2. DA/729/2007 – child care centre 66 Cross Street, Guildford

2.1 – Applicant was not informed until the DA had well advanced, that the number of children had to be reduced by 40 children to 25 children.

3. DA/183/2008 – child care centre 115 Hammers Road, Northmead

3.1 – Applicant was requested to withdraw application after DA had well advanced.”

REPORT

1. A history of each development application (including pre-lodgement advice) is provided, together with a response to each allegation which has been made in the Council resolution.

278 WOODVILLE ROAD, GUILDFORD (DA/106/2008)

2. It is noted that correspondence has been provided to all Councillors from the Manager Development Services regarding this application over the last 6 weeks. The information which has been provided is attached to this report.

Pre-lodgement advice

3. An application to attend a pre-lodgement meeting was submitted to Council on 21 November 2007 to discuss the development of an Aldi Supermarket at 278 Woodville Road, Guildford. The applicant for the pre-lodgement meeting was Lisa Esposito of Milestone (Aust) Pty Ltd.

4. A pre-lodgement meeting was held on 29 November 2007 and was attended by the following persons:

· Jonathon Goodwill – senior development assessment officer from PCC

· Ali Hammoud – development assessment officer from PCC

· 2 architects from Steiner Richards

· Lisa Esposito – applicant for pre-lodgement

· 1 other representative of Aldi.

5. A letter dated 3 December 2007 was sent to the applicant (Milestone Aust Pty Ltd) outlining the issues which Council officers raised with the plans submitted at the pre-lodgement meeting. The following comments were provided by Council staff in the letter dated 3 December 2007 in relation to urban design and streetscape matters:

1. Concern is raised that the site is not suitable for a supermarket of the scale proposed. It is noted that access to the site is from Oxford Street which is a busy road and both customer vehicles and delivery trucks will share a single driveway. It is noted that no landscaping is proposed within the site and the development has an industrial character which is not consistent with the established and likely future character of the area. It is likely that the acquisition of the adjoining site to the south would allow for greater flexibility in the design of the development and would go some way to solving these issues.

2. The development needs to address both Oxford Street and Woodville Road, concerns are raised that the building does not appropriately address the public domain due to its lack of windows, the entrance being recessed from the eastern boundary and located in the south eastern corner of the site, the lack of articulation elements along the western boundary and the visual prominence of the roller shutter to the loading dock. The proposed building is considered to more suitable for a light industrial zone than a commercial zone surrounded by residential land. The development in its current form is not consistent with objective (e) of the zone which includes, ‘to promote a high standard of development within the zone, with particular regard to any development control plan adopted by Council’.

6. There were also a number of other issues which were identified with the proposed development. The full list of issues raised is shown in Council’s letter dated 3 December 2007 which can be found in attachment 1 to this report.

7. On 31 January 2008 a meeting was arranged through the Lord Mayor’s office to discuss the proposed development of the site. The following persons were present at that meeting:

· Councillor Paul Barber – Lord Mayor

· Mark Leotta – Service Manager Development Assessment

· Jonathon Goodwill – Senior Development Assessment Officer

· Lisa Esposito (Milestone Aust Pty Ltd)

· Amanda Young (Aldi Property Director)

· Bill Yassine

8. As stated in the formal file note of the meeting from Council officers, the Aldi representatives presented several photomontages of the proposed development based on amended plans that had been prepared. It is noted that the amended architectural plans were not presented at the meeting. Council officers at the meeting noted that the treatment to the Oxford Street/Woodville Road corner needed work and that the awning along Woodville Road projected into the road reserve. Council advised that the handling of the interface between the subject site and adjoining dwellings was critical to the application. The issue of traffic impacts was also discussed at the meeting.

9. A copy of the file note from the 7 February 2008 meeting can be found in attachment 2 to this report.

Lodgement of DA 106/2008

10. Development Application No.106/2008 was submitted to Council on 20 February 2008. The DA was placed on public exhibition between 5 March 2008 and 26 March 2008. 3 submissions, including a petition with 12 signatures have been received objecting to the DA.

11. The application has been referred to the RTA and the following internal departments for comment:

· Urban designer

· Traffic engineer

· Environment & health

12. It is noted that the plans submitted with the DA have minor differences to those plans tabled at the pre-lodgement meetings. The issues relating to the industrial architectural character of the building, the lack of street address and the visual dominance of the loading dock which were raised during pre-lodgement meetings have not been addressed in the plans submitted with DA 106/2008.

13. Based on the significant urban design, architectural and traffic issues raised by town planning staff at pre-lodgement stage it was appropriate for the plans submitted with the DA to be referred to both Council’s Urban Design team and Traffic Team for comment. This is not dissimilar to other development applications and is standard practice for development applications of this nature.

14. The following contains a summary of written advice received from the Urban Designer on 7 April 2008 relating to the plans submitted with DA 106/2008:

· The single storey height of the building does not appropriately address the Oxford Street/Woodville Road corner. A taller building or a 2 storey corner element should be provided.

· The proposed pedestrian entrance into the building is disconnected both physically and visually from the public domain and there is a lack of visual cues signalling the entrance to the building.

· The roof structure is somewhat bulky and cumbersome due to the size of the floor plate. The applicant should consider articulating the roof, or breaking down the massing.

15. A full copy of the written comments provided by the Urban Designer can be found in attachment 3 to this report.

16. The following comments have been received from the Traffic team relating to the plans submitted with DA 106/2008:

· The traffic report does not address the impact of the development on vehicles queuing in Oxford Street in proximity to the intersection with Woodville Road. It is considered that the queuing of vehicles on Oxford Street (especially in peak periods) near the intersection of Woodville Road would prevent vehicles turning right out the site and further that vehicles turning right into the site may increase queuing along Oxford Street.

· The loading dock is located too close to the driveway and will interfere with the movements of customer vehicles.

· At this point of time it is considered that the likely impact of this development on the intersection of Oxford Street/Woodville Road is unacceptable and warrants refusal of the application.

17. In addition to the above issues, the following specific controls of PDCP 2005 have not been satisfied in the current application:

· The development is considered to be contrary to Part 4.2.1 ‘Streetscape’ of Parramatta DCP 2005 in that the development fails to address each street frontage and define prominent street corners.

· The development is considered to be contrary to Part 4.2.3 ‘Building form and Massing’ of Parramatta DCP 2005 in that the form of the development would not enhance the visual character of the street.

· The development is considered to be contrary to Part 4.2.4 ‘Building Façade and Articulation’ of Parramatta DCP 2005 in that the development does not: complement and enhance neighbourhood and streetscape character, provide a building facade which contributes to the streetscape, provide a building frontage and entrance which provides a sense of address and visual interest.

· The development is considered to be contrary to Part 4.2.5 ‘Roof Design’ of Parramatta DCP 2005 in that the development fails to provide a roof form that minimises bulk and scale and provides character to the building.

· The development is considered to be contrary to objective (e) of the Centre Business 3(a) zone.

18. The applicant (Milestone Australia Pty Ltd) has been formally advised of these issues in a letter dated 21 May 2008 and was also verbally advised prior to the issuing of the letter dated 21 May 2008 that urban design and architectural issues remained with the DA.

19. A copy of Council’s letter dated 21 May 2008 can be found in attachment 4 to this report.

20. The applicant (Milestone Pty Ltd) requested a meeting with Council officers to discuss the issues raised in the letter. A summary of the issues discussed at the meeting held on 25 June 2008 can be found in attachment 7 of this report. Since the meeting the applicant has provided draft amended plans which seek to address the issues raised in Council’s letter dated 21 May 2008. Advice has been provided to the applicant that the amended plans substantially address the plans. Council staff are now awaiting advice from the applicant whether amended plans are to be formally submitted to Council for assessment and re-notification to adjoining properties.

Allegation:

21. That the Urban Planner was not bought into negotiations regarding the DA, until the DA had well progressed and at the stage, it was indicated she was not happy with the design.

22. Town planners were present at both pre-lodgement meetings held on 29 November 2007 and 31 January 2008. These professionals provided advice in relation to the proposed development which included advice on matters including urban design, architectural, traffic and access, noise, waste storage and landscape issues.

23. The advice that was provided during these meetings was that Council’s final position could only be made following the submission of a development application.

24. Based on the significant urban design & architectural issues raised by town planning staff at pre-lodgement stage it was appropriate for the plans submitted with the development application to be referred to Council’s Urban Design team for comment. This took place immediately after the lodgement of the application on 20 February 2008. The referral of the application to an urban designer for comment is standard practice for this type of application.

25. Whilst the plans submitted with the DA show minor differences to those plans tabled at the pre-lodgement meetings, the issues relating to the industrial architectural character of the building, the lack of street address and the visual dominance of the loading dock have not in the opinion of Council staff been addressed in the plans which have been submitted with DA 106/2008.

26. The urban design advice which was been provided during the development assessment process is obviously more detailed than the urban design advice that was provided at pre-lodgement stage, however it is not inconsistent with the advice that was provided at the pre-lodgement stage. This is to be expected and is normal as development applications are accompanied by complete sets of architectural plans and supporting documentation. This level of documentation and detail is often not available in pre-lodgement meetings. In the case of this project, no architectural plans were tabled at the meeting of 31 January 2008 only photo montages.

66 CROSS STREET, GUILDFORD (DA/729/2007)

Pre-lodgement advice

27. A pre-lodgement meeting was held on 21 June 2007 to discuss the proposed development of the site as a chid care centre for 40 children. Advice was provided to the applicant on the plans which were presented at the pre-lodgement meeting. A copy of the advice provided at the meeting can be found in attachment 8 to this report.

28. Specific advice relating to car parking and traffic were raised at the pre-lodgement meeting. Specifically the following information was provided to the applicant:

29. ‘Car parking – concerns are raised the proposal does not provide sufficient onsite car parking. Car parking is required at the rate of 1 per 4 children therefore 10 spaces required. 4 car parking spaces are proposed, this is considered inadequate at minimum 7 car parking spaces should be provided.

30. Section 3.4 – Access of Car parking of Council’s DCP states the car parking rates , and states a reduction in the minimum car parking may be considered where sufficient safe on street parking is available and will not have an adverse impact on the road network. Detailed justification would be required to support any variation to car parking requirements, as stated above at minimum 7 car parking spaces should be provided on site.

31. Concerns are raised regarding the location of car parking and that vehicles will not be able to enter and exit in a forward direction. This arrangement for drop off pick up parking is not suitable – parents should be able to enter and exit in a forward direction.’

Lodgement of DA 729/207

32. Development Application No. 729/2007 was submitted to Council on 5 September 2007 and sought approval to the use of the property as a 40 place child care centre. It is noted that the property is a listed heritage item in Parramatta Heritage LEP 1996.

33. The DA was placed on public exhibition between 3 October and 24 October 2007. No submissions have been received.

34. The application was referred to council’s traffic engineer and the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group (as required by Council resolution).

35. The plans submitted with the DA have minor differences to those plans tabled at the pre-lodgement meeting. The plans submitted with the development application provide parking for 6 cars in a stacked configuration, 2 driveways are provided and cars can not enter and exit the site in a forward direction. The plans submitted with the development application did not address the car parking and traffic and pedestrian safety issues raised at pre-lodgement stage.

36. Advice was received from Councils Traffic Engineer on 24 January 2008. This advice can be found in attachment 9 to this report. The advice stated that the 6 off-street car parking spaces that were provided did not comply with the parking provisions of the Child Care Centers DCP which required 10 off-street parking spaces for child care centers with 40 children. Notwithstanding this advice the traffic engineers did not object to the application, however upon further review of the advice it has been established that the traffic engineer did not consider the heritage impacts of the 2 driveways on the existing heritage item or the potential pedestrian safety impacts of vehicles not being able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

37. The Traffic Engineering advice was presented to the February 2008 meeting of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group and the comments of the TEAG were endorsed at the February Council Meeting.

38. During a peer review of the development application by senior planning staff the issue of pedestrian safety impacts relating to vehicles not being able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction and the heritage impacts of 2 driveways being provided were raised. The applicant was advised of these issues at that time but elected to not make any changes to the plans to address the concerns.

39. A meeting with the Service Manager Traffic Services was held and a re-assessment of the application was carried out. This assessment highlighted that 2 driveways which accommodate 3 stacked car parking spaces in each driveway would result in unacceptable pedestrian and vehicle safety risks. It was recommended that as there was sufficient on street parking in Cross Street that a 15 minute parking area for drop-off and pick-up may be suitable in front of the site (approximately 3 spaces could be accommodated) and that a request should be made to the Local Traffic Committee prior to the determination of the DA. This advice can be found in attachment 10 of this report.

40. The Traffic Committee at its May 208 meeting considered the request for 3 x 15 minute drop-off/pick-up spaces to be signposted in front of the site and granted approval to the parking.

41. The applicant attended a meeting on Friday 27 May with the Manager Development Services, Team Leader Development & Certification and Councillors Worthington and Brown to discuss the DA. The applicant at that meeting stated that they would explore options to provide one driveway and additional parking to the rear of the site. The applicant was advised to provide advice to Council by Tuesday 1 July as to whether amended plans were to be submitted, in the event that amended plans were not submitted to Council the applicant was advised that a report recommending 24 children at the child care centre would be presented to 14 July Regulatory Council meeting.

Allegation:

42. Applicant was not informed until the DA had well advanced, that the number of children had to be reduced by 40 children to 25 children.

43. It is clear from the pre-lodgement advice that staff raised concerns with the shortfall in parking and pedestrian and vehicular safety risks arising from vehicles not being able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction. Whilst the plans submitted with the DA have minor differences to those plans tabled at the pre-lodgement meeting the plans submitted with the development application provide parking for 6 cars in a stacked configuration (shortfall of 4 spaces) in 2 driveways and cars not being able to both enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

44. It is therefore reasonable to state that despite advice being provided to the applicant at pre-lodgement stage, the applicant failed to address the issues raised. The issues raised are therefore no different to the issues raised at pre-lodgement stage and should have been expected by the applicant.

44. The issue which is pertinent to this matter is the time in which it took for the applicant to be advised of the traffic and safety issues. It is not acceptable that it took a number of months for the applicant to be advised that the traffic and safety issues remained with the application.

45. To ensure that this issue does not arise again in the future, staff who carry out the preliminary assessment of development applications at ‘clearing house’ which is conducted within the first 7 days of lodgement of a DA will be required to review any pre-lodgement advice that may have been provided for a project. If the issues or advice have not been addressed in the development application a letter will be sent to the applicant within 21 days advising that the issues still remain and are of concern to staff. Staff attending ‘clearing house’ will be required to mark on the clearing house checklist that the pre-lodgement notes have been reviewed.

115 HAMMERS ROAD, NORTHMEAD (DA/183/2008)

Pre-lodgement advice

46. A pre-lodgement meeting (PL/55/2007) was held on 5 December 2007 to discuss preliminary plans for the development of the site as a child care centre. Advice was provided to the applicant on the plans presented at the meeting. A copy of the advice provided at the meeting can be found in attachment 11 to this report.

47. The advice provided to the applicant is silent on the matter relating to the location criteria for Child Care Centers as prescribed in the Child Care Centre DCP. The letter does however state the following:

48. ‘Pre-lodgement advice does not constitute approval and applicants must substantiate compliance with the objectives of all prevailing planning controls. Council’s final position can only be made once a DA has been lodged and assessed.”

Lodgement of DA 183/2008

49. Development Application No.183/2008 was lodged on 19 March 2008 and was supported by architectural plans and a statement of environmental effects submitted by a town planning consultancy. An assessment of the application was carried out by Council staff and a letter dated 11 April 2008 was sent to the applicant advising that the location of the child care centre was inconsistent with the objectives of section 3.1 of the Child Care Centre DCP. This letter can be found in attachment 12 to this report.

50. Section 3.1 of the Child Care DCP states the following;

51. ‘Council will not allow proposed child care centers on sites zoned Residential 2A except in the following circumstances:

· Sites adjacent to a school,

· Sites adjacent to a shopping or neighborhood centre, or

· Sites within 300 meter radius of a railway station.’

52. The assessment of the development application revealed that the site was not located adjacent to a school, shopping centre or railway station and as a result the letter dated 11 April 2008 was sent to the applicant advising them of the very specific location controls as prescribed in the DCP and that as a result of the non-compliance with the location criteria of the DCP the application could not be supported. The letter went on to state that it was requested that the applicant withdraw the application and would provide the applicant with a full refund of the base development application and advertising fees.

Allegation:

53. Applicant was requested to withdraw application after DA had well advanced.

54. As stated above the development application was submitted to Council on 19 March 2008. The letter from Council that advises that the application can not be supported and suggests withdrawal of the application is dated 11 April 2008. The provision of such advice within 3 weeks of lodgement of the application is acceptable.

55. The issue which is pertinent to this matter is the fact that the location criteria of the Child Care Centres DCP was not discussed at the pre-lodgement meeting which was held on 5 December 2007.

56. Council’s pre-lodgement service has been established to provide advice on Council’s planning controls and to help applicants to prepare development applications. It is not a service in which staff conduct full assessments of draft proposals or provide advice on whether development consent will be issued in the event that a development application is lodged.

57. The location criteria as prescribed in the Child Care Centres DCP is one of the key development standards relating to child care centres and it is reasonable as an applicant to expect that advice on key development controls and standards will be provided at pre-lodgement meetings. This did not happen in this case which is unacceptable.

58. To ensure that this situation does not arise again in the future, a check list is being developed by staff which will contain all of the key and relevant development standards that should be discussed with applicants at pre-lodgement meetings which will be used at pre-lodgement meetings.

Louise Kerr

Manager Development Services

Attachments:

1View	Pre Lodgement advice dated 03 DEC 2007 278 Woodville Road	2 Pages
2View	Pre lodgement advice dated 7 Februrary 2008 278 Woodville Road	2 Pages
3View	Advice of urban designer date 07 April 2008 278 Woodville Road	3 Pages
4View	Letter to applicant dated 21 May 2008 278 Woodville Road	3 Pages
5View	Email to all Councillors from manager DSU dated 22 May 2008 including response to issues raised by Mr Bill Yassine 278 Woodville Road	8 Pages
6View	Email to all Councillors from Manager DSU dated 30 May 2008 278 Woodville Road	2 Pages
7View	Email to all Councillors from Manager DSU Dated 25 June 2008 278 Woodville Road	1 Page
8View	Prelodgement advice dated 21 June 2007	2 Pages
9View	66 Cross Street Traffic engineers comments dated 25 January 2008	3 Pages
10View	Traffic Engineers comments dated 2 May 2008 66 Cross Street	3 Pages
11View	Prelodgement advice dated 5 December 2007	2 Pages
12View	115 Hammers Road Letter to applicant dated 11 April 2008	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 11.1

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

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 11.2

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.2

SUBJECT 40 Grimwood Street, Granville. (Lot 1 DP 1049144) (Woodville Ward).

DESCRIPTION Construction of parish toilets to the existing Holy Trinity Church (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/187/2008 - Submitted 19 March 2008

APPLICANT/S Glanville Architects Pty Ltd

OWNERS Trustees Catholic Church Diocese

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 187/2008 which seeks approval to construct parish toilets to the existing Holy Trinity Church.

The application has been referred to Council as the subject site is listed as an item of heritage significance (Inv No 462 in Schedule 2) under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 187/2008 subject to standard conditions of consent.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site is legally identified as Lot 1 in DP 1049144 and is located on the south western corner of Grimwood Street and Randle Street in Granville.

2. The area of the site is 8190m², and comprises of The Holy Trinity Church building, a Church Hall, a Presbytery building, a demountable building and a two storey Primary School building fronting Grimwood Street. The building which is the subject of this application is the Holy Trinity Church.

3. The site is identified as being of heritage significance in the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

4. Residential development adjoins the site along both Grimwood and Bennalong Streets, as well as opposite the site on Randle Street.

PROPOSAL

5. The application is for the construction of a parish toilet block comprising of 1 x unisex toilet and 1x disabled toilet for the existing Holy Trinity Church. The building is proposed to have dimensions of 4.2m x 3.0m, and a maximum height of 2.8m. The proposal also involves the demolition of part of an external pavement, as well as the removal of windows and a concrete blade wall attached to the rear of the church.

5.1. A new fence and gate is also proposed adjoining the toilet block and along the existing concrete pathway leading to this area. The fence is to be constructed at the same height (2m) as the existing fence which is located within close vicinity to the immediate site. Furthermore, the materials of construction of the fence will be consistent with the materials of the existing fence on the site which comprise of a black steel/metal material.

5.2. The toilets will be located on the southern side of the existing church building and will not be readily visible from the main street frontage. The design of the addition is consistent with the built form of the existing church building and comprises of a metal deck roof and external finishes that match the existing church building.

5.3. The applicant has stated that the works are proposed to ensure that the toilet is accessible for disabled persons, staff and visitors to the existing church, as well as to ensure that child protection issues are addressed by separating church parishioners and school students who all currently use the toilets attached to the school building located elsewhere on the site.

5.4. The proposal will not result in an increase in the number of people visiting the existing church.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

PARRAMATTA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2001 (PLEP 2001)

6. The site is zoned part Residential 2(a) and part Special Uses 5 under the provisions of PLEP 2001. The subject church building and associated structures are located within that part of the site zoned Special Uses 5.

7. The proposed alterations to the church are permissible within this zone with the consent of Council, and are consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

PARRAMATTA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

8. The site is identified in Schedule 2 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) as a heritage item (Inv No 462). The site contains The Holy Trinity Church building, a Church Hall (former church), a Presbytery building, a demountable building and a two storey Primary School building fronting Grimwood Street, and is known as the ‘Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Church Group’.

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

PARRAMATTA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN – 2005

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

11. The gross floor area of the site will increase by 12.5m²,which is negligible given the size of the site (8190m²). Further, the toilet facility is single storey in height and will largely be screened by the existing church building.

PARRAMATTA HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN – 2001

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

CONSULTATION

13. In accordance with Table 4 of Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised to adjoining property owners/occupiers for a period of fourteen (14) days, from 4 April 2008 until 18 April 2008. In addition Council’s Heritage Committee was notified of the proposal.

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

ISSUES

Heritage

15. The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment, as the site is listed as a heritage item in Schedule 2 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). The comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor include:

“The proposal is for minor additions to the c. 1960s “new” church building, including a toilet block facing the rear of the site. The place is listed in the Parramatta Heritage LEP Schedules, however, the key components of the site (the c. 1910s “old” church and associated hall) are not affected by the proposal.

The proposal will have no impact on the street presentation of the place and its significant components to the general public. The proposal has generally been designed in keeping with the Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 2001, and the proposed materials are in keeping with those utilised on the existing building.

In my opinion, the proposal is supportable, subject to assessment against planning controls. Given the relatively small size of the addition, the proposed addition is likely to have a negligible impact on heritage values of the site.”

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

17. There are no other planning matters requiring consideration under this development application.

Maya Sarwary

Senior Development & Certification Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	Plans and Elevations	1 Page
3View	Inventory Report	3 Pages
4View	Application History	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 11.3

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.3

SUBJECT Our lady of Mercy, 6 Victoria Road, Parramatta. Lot 4 DP68819 Lots 3, 7 & 8 Sec 9 DP 758788. (Arthur Phillip Ward).

DESCRIPTION Construction of a pre-fabricated demountable building on site to contain two music rooms, a store room and a staff room with associated verandah. (Location Map - Attachment 2).

REFERENCE DA/279/2008 - Submitted 23 April 2008

APPLICANT/S Curtin Bathgate & Somers Pty Ltd

OWNERS Trustees of The Sisters of Mercy

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 279/2008 which seeks approval for the placement of a pre-fabricated demountable building on site to contain 2 music rooms, a store room and a staff room with associated verandah.

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 279/2008 subject to standard conditions.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site contains a Catholic college and a convent known as ‘Our Lady of Mercy’ and is bounded by Victoria Road, O’Connell Street, Ross Street and Villers Street. The site is surrounded by commercial and residential development, including multi-unit housing.

PROPOSAL

2. The application seeks approval for the placement of a single storey demountable building on site. Details of the proposed development are as follows:

· The demountable building measures 16.8m x 11.9m in dimensions, 2.7m in height and comprises of two music rooms, a store room, staff room and verandah.

· Materials used for construction will include polyester coated plywood, colorbond guttering and steel wall framing, zincalume trimdeck roofing, masonry block piers and timber steps.

BACKGROUND

3. DA/854/2006 was approved on 11 December 2006 for five shade and shelter structures to be erected within the college grounds.

DA/978/2004 was approved on 16 November 2004 for alterations and additions to the foyer of the school hall, including the installation of a lift.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

4. The site is zoned Special Uses 5 under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, and is consistent with the objectives of the Zone. The proposed works are permitted with consent in the zone.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

5. The site is known as ‘Convent of Our Lady of Mercy’ and is a Heritage item in Schedule 1 of the Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation), and the proposal satisfies the relevant objectives of the LEP as it involves no changes to the heritage fabric or setting of the existing buildings on site.

Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 2001

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

CONSULTATION

7. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the application was advertised for 21 days to the owners of surrounding properties from 7 May 2008 to 28 May 2008. No submissions were received.

Revised plans were submitted to Council on 19 June to address concerns raised by Council’s landscape officer regarding the potential impact of construction on trees within the vicinity of the classroom block. The changes involved moving the classroom block to the east and 500mm to the south. However, the changes did not warrant re-notification as the amended location is not considered to impact upon the amenity of the area as it is bounded by existing structures of a similar nature being an existing demountable class room, a carport and shed.

ISSUES

Landscape

8. The development application was referred to Council’s landscape officer who raised concerns regarding the proposed location of the demountable and the materials of construction for the disabled access ramp due to impact on the trees located west of the site. Amended plans were requested to address the issues raised.

The applicant amended the plans to relocate the building 1m further to the east and 500mm to the south, and modified the construction materials to be used for the disabled access ramp. In the opinion of Council’s Landscape officer, the amended plans address the potential impact on the subject trees to be retained and protected. Therefore Council’s Landscape officer has no objection to the proposal subject to standard conditions of consent.

Heritage

9. The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment as the building is listed as a Heritage Item in Schedule 1 of the Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

The comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor include:

‘In my opinion, the impact of the proposal on the heritage values of the place is acceptable being a relatively small addition to a relatively large complex.’

Therefore, Council’s Heritage Advisor has no objection to the proposal subject to standard conditions of consent.

9.1 The development application was referred to the ‘Department of Planning Heritage Branch’ as the site is listed as a Heritage item of state significance in the Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

The following comment was provided:

‘In terms of size, scale and location there appears to be little impact on the heritage values of the site or adjacent buildings.’

Therefore the Department of Planning, Heritage Branch has no objection to the proposal subject to standard conditions of consent.

Noise

10. The proposed development is not considered to adversely impact on the amenity of the area as the music rooms will be buffered by an existing demountable class room, a carport, shed and a convent. The demountable will be located within the boundaries of the premises north of Victoria Road and East of O’Connell Street. The building is sufficiently separated from any residential development to ensure undue noise impacts.

Access, Traffic and Parking

11. Access to the premises is at the existing entrance via Ross Street. Our Lady of Mercy College will maintain current student and teacher numbers, as the purpose of the demountable is to cater for existing curriculum activities which currently take place in inadequate class rooms and staff rooms that are shared with other functional activities at present. Therefore, the proposal will not generate additional parking requirements as there will be no increase in student enrolments and/or staff.

Lina Dababneh

Development and Certification Officer

Attachments:

1View	Plans/Elevations	2 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	1 Page
4View	History of DA	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 11.4

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.4

SUBJECT 85 Weston Street, Harris Park. Lot 1 DP 745744 (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward).

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to an existing heritage listed dwelling, comprising of an awning over an existing rear deck. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE DA/189/2008 - Submitted 20 March 2008

APPLICANT/S Mr F Nakhle

OWNERS Mr F Nakhle and Mrs A S Nakhle

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 189/2008 which seeks approval for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, comprising of the construction of a colourbond awning over an existing approved timber deck located at the rear of the dwelling.

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

heritage item in the Elizabeth Farm Heritage Conservation Area, which is included in

Part 3 of Schedule 6 of SREP No. 28.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council grant consent to Development Application No.189/2008 subject to standard conditions.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site has a total area of 858.4m²and is located in the Residential 2(a) (HarrisParkPrecinct) zone. The site comprises of a heritage listed single storey dwelling and is located within the Elizabeth Farm Heritage Conservation Area.

PROPOSAL

2. The application seeks approval for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising of, the construction of a colourbond awning over an existing approved timber deck located at the rear of the dwelling.

BACKGROUND

3. DA/759/2002 was approved on December 2002 for the construction of a new deck and external staircase to the rear of the existing dwelling.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 (Parramatta)

4. The site is located upon land zoned Residential 2(a)( HarrisParkPrecinct)under the provisions of SREP 28 – Parramatta. The site is a listed Heritage Item in the Elizabeth Farm Heritage Conservation Area, which is included in Part 3 of Schedule 6 of SREP No. 28. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of SREP 28 – Parramatta.

Harris Park DCP 2002

5. The development application is satisfactory having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under the Harris Park Development Control Plan 2002.

CONSULTATION

6. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application between 4 April 2008 and 18 April 2008. No submissions were received. In addition, the heritage committee were notified in which no response was received.

ISSUES

Heritage

7. The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for

assessment as the property is listed as a heritage item. Council’s heritage advisor has no objection to the proposal subject to standard conditions of consent. Furthermore, the following comments were made:

‘The proposal is for minor additions to the existing house at 85 Weston Street, including the addition of a roof above an existing deck to the rear of the house.

The proposal was generally designed in keeping with the Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 2001 and the applicable Guidelines for this heritage area. The proposed materials are in keeping with those utilised on the existing building. The proposed development would have no impact on the street presentation of the place and its significant elements.

In my opinion, the proposal is supportable, subject to assessment against planning controls. Given the relatively small size of the development, the proposed addition would have an acceptable impact on heritage values of the site.’

There are no other planning matters for consideration in respect of this development application.

Lina Dababneh

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Plans/Elevations	1 Page
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	History of DA	1 Page
4View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 11.5

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.5

SUBJECT 4/85 Victoria Road, Parramatta. (Lot 100 DP 635092 Pt Lots 8, 10, 11, 12) (Elizabeth Macarthur)

DESCRIPTION Proposed use of the existing premises for the retailing and installation of car audio equipment and motor trimming. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/41/2008 -

APPLICANT/S Platinum Car Audio & Interiors Pty Limited

OWNERS Labide Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 41/2008, which seeks approval for the use of unit 4 for the retailing and installation of car audio equipment and motor trimming.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant approval to Development Application No. 41/2008subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

1. The hours of operations being restricted to 8.00am – 6.00pm Monday to Saturday, (closed Sunday and Public Holidays). Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

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

2. No testing of audio equipment is to be undertaken outside of the acoustic booth.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

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

PROPOSAL

1. Development Application No. 41/2008 seeks approval for the use of unit 4 for the retailing and installation of car audio equipment and motor trimming. The proposal includes the following:

1.1 Internal fitout of a vacant showroom at the northern end of the unit for the display of car audio equipment including internal partitioning and shelving.

1.2 Internal fitout of the rear workshop to form a new kitchenette.

1.3 Installation of work benches within the rear workshop.

1.4 Installation of a sound proof booth within the workshop area for the testing of car audio systems.

1.5 The proposed hours of operation are 8:00am – 6:00pm Monday to Saturday (closed Sundays and Public Holidays).

1.6 The proposed use will require the employment of 6 staff.

1.7 6 parking spaces for visitors have been allocated to the shop.

1.8 No signage is proposed as part of the application

BACKGROUND

Onsite meeting

2. Council at its meeting on 9 July 2007 resolved that all Development Application’s with 5 or more objections be subject to a site inspection prior to them being considered at a Regulatory Meeting.

3. In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was organized for Saturday 3 May 2008 due to the submission of the petition from adjoining residents.

4. The onsite meeting commenced at 10.30am, 3 May 2008. Present at the meeting were:

Councilors: Clr Wearne (Chairperson) and Lord Mayor Barber

Staff: Brad Delapierre, Nicholas Clarke

Residents: Those properties that were originally notified were sent notification to attend this onsite meeting. No local residents were in attendance.

Applicant: 3 representatives

5. After the applicant outlined the proposal, the issue raised in the petition - noise generated from the premises - was discussed.

6. In response to the petition and the issue of noise, the applicant outlined the following measures:

6.1 A sound proof booth is to be installed within the workshop for the testing of audio equipment. An amended floor plan is to be submitted showing said booth.

6.2 Motor trimming involves reupholstering car interiors, car seats etc and will be undertaken within the workshop. Furthermore, all cars undergoing work are to be stored within the workshop.

6.3 Proposed hours of operation are 8.00am – 6.00pm Monday to Saturday (closed Sunday), being similar to operating hours of all units within the complex.

6.4 Lightweight and hand-held machinery and equipment is proposed to be used including drills, glue guns, electrical equipment and sewing machines. The noise will be no greater than that generated by the adjoining unit which sells tools and lawn mower repairs.

7. The meeting concluded at 10.45am.

SITE & LOCALITY

8. The subject site is located on the south eastern corner of the intersection of Victoria Road and Macarthur Street Parramatta. A retail/commercial development consisting of five units currently exists on site. The proposed change of use relates to unit 4 within the development. The site is zoned 3(a) Centre Business whilst all adjoining properties are zoned either 2(a) Residential or 2(b) Residential.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Local Environmental Plan 2001

9. The subject site is zoned 3(a) Centre Business under LEP 2001 and the primary use of the proposal is defined as a shop for the retail of audio equipment, with a related ancillary use of installing the equipment. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone.

Parramatta Development Control Plan

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

CONSULTATION

11. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised between 6 February 2008 and 27 February 2008. In response 1 petition with 13 signatures was received. The petition raised one issue:

Noise generated from the premises

12. Concern is raised that the proposed use will generate significant noise due to the testing of audio equipment and from the use of power tools used for the installation of the audio equipment and motor trimming.

13. The site is located on the south eastern corner of the intersection of Victoria Road and Macarthur Street Parramatta. A retail/commercial development consisting of 5 units exists on site. The proposed change of use relates to unit 4 within the development. The site is zoned 3(a) Centre Business whilst all adjoining properties are zoned either 2(a) Residential or 2(b) Residential.

14. It is considered that the noise generated from the proposed use will not adversely impact existing amenity for the following reasons:

14.1 A sound proof booth is to be installed within the workshop for the testing of audio equipment.

14.2 Motor trimming involves re-upholstering car interiors and will be undertaken within the workshop. Furthermore, all cars undergoing work are to be stored within the workshop.

14.3 Proposed hours of operation are 8.00am – 6.00pm Monday to Saturday (closed Sunday), being similar to operating hours of all units within the complex.

15. Lightweight and hand-held machinery and equipment are proposed to be used including drills, glue guns, electrical equipment and sewing machines. The noise will be no greater than that generated by the adjoining units within the complex.

ISSUES

Proposed hours of operation

16. The proposed hours of operation are 8.00am – 6.00pm Monday to Saturday (closed Sunday and public holidays). Adjoining units have similar hours of operation to that proposed and the proposed hours will have no greater social or economic impact than currently occurs within the unit complex.

Traffic

17. Existing access to the site will remain. All works will be undertaken within the workshop and all cars will be parked within the workshop outside business hours. It is not anticipated the proposed use will significantly increase traffic and parking issues as 6 visitor spaces are allocated to the unit.

Noise

18. As discussed above, the proposed use will not cause a detrimental impact upon the surrounding residents and is permissible in a 3(a) Centre Business Zone.

Ashleigh Matta

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Petition	1 Page
3View	History of Development Application	1 Page
4View	Plans & Elevations	6 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 12.1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.1

SUBJECT 5 Marook Street, Carlingford. (Lot 29 DP 31228) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward).

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of an attached dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision. (Location Map - Attachment 3)

REFERENCE DA/931/2007 - Submitted 1 November 2007

APPLICANT/S Residential Logistics Pty Ltd

OWNERS Mr K L Chau, Ms L C L Chan and Ms C W H Chan

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 931/2007 which seeks approval for the demolition, tree removal and construction of an attached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 931/2007 subject to standard conditions as well as the following extraordinary conditions:

1. Landscape Plan (Drawing # LPDA 08-63926/1B) is to be amended to include the following:

(a) 2 Trees species from the following list are to be provided in replacement for the removal of the Chamaecyparis obtusa. The replacement trees are to be supplied in 45 Litre containers.

Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box)

Tristaniopsis laurina (Water Gum)

Backhousia citriodora (Lemon-scented Myrtle)

Elaeocarpus reticulatus (Blueberry Ash)

The amended landscape plan is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Reason: To maintain streetscape amenity.

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

PROPOSAL

1. Approval is sought for demolition, tree removal and the construction of an attached 2 storey dual occupancy development. Torrens title subdivision is also sought to create Lot A to have an area of 266.06 square metres and Lot B to have an area of 466.75 square metres.

SITE AND LOCALITY

2. The subject site is located on the northern side of Marook Street. The site has a minimum width of 24.35 metres, a minimum depth of 38.445 metres, and a total site area of 932.8 square metres.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

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

4. Clause 38(4A) of the PLEP 2001 permits the subdivision of lots where approval for a dual occupancy development has been obtained.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

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

CONSULTATION

6. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was first notified between 23 November 2007 and 7 December 2007. Four submissions were received.

7. Amended plans were submitted by the applicant on 3 March 2008 and 8 May 2008. The plans indicate an increased front setback, amended shadow diagrams and reduced finished floor levels. The modification to the proposal was renotified between 26 May 2008 and 10 June 2008. Two submissions were received.

8. The issues raised in the submissions from both notification periods are outlined below.

Front setback

9. Concern is raised that the front setback is inconsistent with prevailing front setbacks on Marook Street.

10. The original concept proposed a front setback of 7 metres. Amended plans have since been received that increase the front setback to between 10.421 and 11.024 metres. In this regard, the increased setback reduces the impact the development has on the streetscape and is appropriate.

Overdevelopment

11. Concern is raised that the proposed dual occupancy is an overdevelopment of the site.

12. Clause 40(1) of PLEP 2001 restricts floor space ratio of dual occupancies to a maximum 0.6:1. The proposal has a floor space ratio of 0.55:1 therefore complying with this development standard. In addition, the dwellings are of an appropriate size and height, with sufficient private open space, solar access and separation between buildings in accordance with the provisions of PDCP 2001. In this regard, the proposal achieves satisfactory amenity to future occupants of the site and is not considered to be an overdevelopment.

Bulk and Scale, Streetscape and Character of Area

13. Concern has been raised regarding the bulk and scale of the proposal, the impact on the streetscape and that it is not consistent with the character of the area and will set a precedent.

14. The site is zoned 2A Residential and dual occupancy development is permissible with the consent of Council.

15. The proposed development has a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.55:1 and complies with all development standards in PLEP 2001 and PDCP 2005 relating to dual occupancies. It is not considered that the proposal will have adverse bulk, scale and streetscape impacts and is not dissimilar to other 2 storey residential development in the surrounding area.

Insufficient On-site Carparking

16. Concern is raised that the property does not have adequate on site parking for four vehicles.

17. PDCP 2005 requires dual occupancies to provide 2 car parking spaces for each dwelling, therefore a total of 4 car parking spaces for the proposed development.

18. Each dwelling of the dual occupancy has provided 1 car parking space in a garage and 1 car parking space on the driveway. A total of 4 car parking spaces have been proposed with the development.

External walls

19. Concern is raised that the blank brick walls on the side elevations of the development are an eye sore.

20. The original concept proposed the first floor and roof of both dwellings of the attached dual occupancy being separated, leaving a small space in between the first floor areas, being 1 storey in height. The current plans illustrate the first floor of both dwellings to be connected and moved to indicate the bulk in the centre of the building and indicate the side walls to be stepped in to increase architectural articulation.

Roof Height

21. Concern is raised that the roofline appears up to 1.8 metres higher than the roofline at 6 Marook Street and a significant portion of the sky will be blocked.

22. PDCP 2005 restricts the height of dual occupancies to be a maximum 2 storeys and a maximum building height of 9 metres. The proposed dual occupancy will be 2 storeys and will have a maximum height of 7.561 metres therefore complying with this development standard. Accordingly, the ridge height of the development is considered to be consistent with that of a 2 storey dwelling that could be built on this site or adjoining properties.

Excessive hard surface paving

23. Concern is raised that there is excessive paving at the front of the dwelling that is not consistent with the existing streetscape.

24. The original concept proposed excessive paving to the front of the dwelling providing for a front yard landscaped area of 95.2 square metres. Amended plans have since been received that reduce the hard surface paving area to the front of the dwelling and increase the front landscaped area to 188 square metres. In this regard, the increased landscaping reduces the impact of the development on the streetscape and is considered appropriate.

Solar Access and Overshadowing

25. Concern is raised over the potential for the development to overshadow the adjoining properties.

26. The shadow diagrams provided indicate that the windows along the eastern side boundary of the adjoining property at 4 Marook Street will receive solar access after 12 noon at the winter solstice on 21^st June. This is consistent with solar access requirements in DCP 2005.

27. The development is consistent with the building envelope controls provided in PDCP 2005. Due to the orientation of the southwest-northeast site, the majority of overshadowing will cover the front setback area of 5 Marook Street and will not unduly overshadow habitable rooms or private open space areas on adjoining sites. Compliance with the solar access requirements of DCP 2005 is achieved.

Privacy

28. Concern was raised over the potential for overlooking into the adjoining properties. Particular concern was raised that amended plans indicate the windows of the rear bedrooms are to be moved from the rear walls to the sides of the building.

29. The construction of a two storey dual occupancy on the subject site will provide some opportunity for overlooking into the rear yard and windows of the adjoining properties. However, the extent of overlooking into the rear yards and windows of the adjoining dwellings from the first floor windows will be limited as these rooms are used as bedrooms and used less frequently than living areas and predominantly at night. All living areas are located on the ground floors with the exception of a computer room which is centrally located in each unit with 1 small window facing the rear yard. The computer rooms are considered to be secondary living areas and are not highly trafficable compared to other living rooms in the dwelling. Therefore there will be minimal potential for overlooking from the computer rooms.

Views at the front of the street

30. Concern is raised that the development will impede the existing outlook from 6 Marook Street.

31. The original concept proposed a front setback of 7 metres. Amended plans have since been received that increase the front setback to between 10.421 and 11.024 metres. In this regard, the increased setback is consistent with the prevailing setback of existing dwellings and allows for views to be maximised and is considered appropriate.

Stormwater drainage

32. Concern is raised that there are current stormwater runoff problems at 6 Marook Street and concern is raised whether an On-Site Detention system is proposed and how it may affect the streetscape.

33. The proposal has been referred to Councils Drainage Engineer who has no objection to the proposal and comments that the stormwater is to connect to the street gutter at Marook Street and 1 common underground On-Site Detention tank with overland flow being diverted through a swale is proposed.

Driveway gradient is too steep

34. Concern is raised that a car may roll down and across the road into homes on the opposite side of the street.

35. The proposed vehicular access for the development complies with the Australian Standards for Parking Facilities (AS2890.1:2004). Accordingly a car with a handbrake on is unlikely to roll across the road and constitutes a duty of care by the driver of the vehicle and is not a planning related issue.

Depth of excavation

36. Concern is raised that the plans indicate the development being constructed below natural ground level and this may adversely affect drainage and stormwater retention.

37. The proposal has been referred to Councils Drainage Engineer who has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions of consent.

Increase in vehicular traffic on Marook Street

38. Concern is raised that the proposed development will increase the vehicular traffic on Marook Street.

39. The proposed vehicular access for the development complies with the Australian Standards for Parking Facilities (AS2890.1:2004). The increase in traffic generation from one additional dwelling is in the vicinity of 9 additional daily vehicle trips and will have a minimal impact on the existing traffic conditions.

Landscaping

40. Concern is raised that the removal of trees will emphasise the bulk and scale of the development and the front garden will not be consistent with the prevailing streetscape.

41. The development application was referred to Councils Landscape Tree Management Officer for assessment. No objections are raised by the Landscape Tree Management Officer subject to conditions of consent.

42. Councils Landscape Tree Management Officer comments that the Bangalow Palm located at the rear property boundary is to be retained, the Magnolia tree located at the front northern boundary of no. 4 Marook Street and Norfolk Island Pine located at the rear southern boundary of no. 6 Marook Street are to be protected during development works, and 10 existing trees are to be removed during the development works as listed in a condition of consent.

43. Subject to consent being granted, a condition of consent is imposed for an amended landscape plan to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate and is to include replacement and additional tree planting.

44. In addition, the original concept proposed a front setback of 7 metres. Amended plans have since been received that increase the front setback to between 10.421 and 11.024 metres. In this regard, the increased setback reduces the impact the development has onto the streetscape and increases the amount of front yard landscaping.

Sophia Chin

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Numerical Compliance Table	2 Pages
2View	Plans & Elevations	5 Pages
3View	Locality Map	1 Page
4View	History of Development Application	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 12.2

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.2

SUBJECT 197 -207 Church Street, Parramatta and 89 Marsden Street, Parramatta. (Lot 1 DP 710335, Lot 1 DP 233150).

DESCRIPTION Internal and external alterations to an existing commercial building. Location Map - Attachment 1

REFERENCE DA/35/2008 - Submitted: 18 January 2008

APPLICANT/S Grant Simmons Architects Pty Ltd

OWNERS Holdmark Properties Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 35/2008 which seeks approval for the internal and external alterations to an existing listed heritage commercial building.

This application is being referred to Council as the site is listed as a heritage item in Schedule 5 of the Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 35/2008 subject to standard conditions as well as the following extraordinary conditions:

(i) No works shall be undertaken to the south-western portion (portion with a Church Street/Macquarie Street frontage) of the site as marked in red.

Reason: To ensure works are limited to the north-western portion of the site and protect elements of the building that are of heritage significance.

(ii) The three proposed signage panels (marked in red) on the Marsden Street frontage are not approved under this consent. Any signage panels are to be subject of a further development application.

Reason: To protect elements of the building that is of heritage significance.

(iii) The proposed glazed awning on the Marsden Street frontage is not approved under this consent.

Reason: To maintain a consistent streetscape and protect elements of the building that is of heritage significance.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is known as 197 Church Street, Parramatta with three frontages to Church Street, Macquarie Street and Marsden Street. The site has a total area of approximately 3823 square metres and is irregular in shape. The site is located within the Parramatta CBD. The immediate area surrounding the subject site is predominantly commercial and retail.

2. It is noted that the application for internal and external works relate only to the north-western portion of the building which fronts Marsden Street. The proposed works do not involve the portion of the building which fronts either Church Street or Macquarie Street.

3. An application (DA/266/2008) has lodged with Council for the use of the first floor for the purposes of a bowling alley. This application is the subject of a separate report in the business paper.

PROPOSAL

4. The proposal seeks approval for internal and external alterations as part of a general upgrade of the heritage listed commercial building. Internal works include the removal of an the existing fit-out and workstations on the ground, first and second floor, the installation of two new passenger lifts, new concrete stairs and a disabled stair hoist. External alterations include a new glazed infill panel, a new glazed awning and three new signage panels all in respect of the Marsden Street façade. In addition, the existing entry slab and steps ancillary to the Marsden Street entrance is to be removed and the existing entry doors to Marsden Street is to be replaced.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

5. The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use City Core Zone (City Centre Precinct) and Retail Core Zone (City Centre Precinct) under the provisions of the Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007. The proposed internal and external works are permissible in the zone and satisfy the objectives of the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007.

Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan 2007

4. The provisions of the Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the plan.

CONSULTATION

5. In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 29 January 2008 and 12 February 2008. No objections were received.

ISSUES

Heritage

6. The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment as the site is listed as a heritage item in Schedule 5 of the Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007. The comments of Councils Heritage Advisor are:

7. “The site subject to DA/35/2008 encompasses two distinctive buildings: The former Murray Brothers Department Store (with the formal address at 197 Church Street) and the office building at 28 Macquarie Street. The buildings are connected internally. The Murray Brothers building has frontages to Church and Macquarie Streets, while the office building has a single frontage to Marsden Street.

8. Further to recent changes, the scope of works proposed under this DA does not affect the former Murray Brothers building at 197 Church Street, but only the office block behind it. The place is also subject of a separate DA for alterations to the Murray Brothers building for a ten pin bowling centre. That Development Application s undetermined at this time.

9. The works proposed under DA/35/2008 are generally acceptable, with the exception of the awning proposed to be mounted above the first floor level of the Marsden Street elevation”.

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

Glazed Awning

11. A new glazed awning is proposed on the first floor of the building on the Marsden Street frontage.

12. However, given that it is a new awning that is inconsistent and not compatible with awning in the vicinity and controls in the City Centre DCP, this element is not supported. In addition, Council’s Heritage Adviser has stipulated the following:

13. “…if the proposed awning was built, the long distance views along Marsden Street would be adversely affected. Most importantly, a precedent would be created that could potentially lead to other similar creations of notable cumulative effect in the streetscape.

14. The recommendation is therefore to remove the described awning element from the proposal…”

15. Accordingly, this proposed awning will be deleted from the proposal and a condition incorporated to the consent reflects this.

Signage Panels

16. The proposal includes three signage panels on the Marsden Street elevation. No other details regarding the size, wording and materials used for the signage have been provided. Given that no details of signage have been provided, these signage panels shall be deleted and excluded from the consent with an additional condition requiring a further development application for any future signage.

17. There are no other planning matters for consideration under this development application.

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	History of Development Application	1 Page
3View	Heritage Inventory Listing	1 Page
4View	Plans and Elevations	8 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 12.3

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.3

SUBJECT 157 Blaxcell Street, Granville. (Lot 2 in DP 217971) (Woodville Ward).

DESCRIPTION Continued use of the premises as a community facility and for alterations and additions to the heritage-listed building, as well as formalised carparking, perimeter landscaping and establishing regulated hours of operation. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/555/2007 - Submitted 20 July 2007

APPLICANT/S Mr J Phillips

OWNERS Australian Blouza Foundation Incorporated

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 555/2007 which seeks approval for the continued use of the premises as a community facility, specifically for migrant assimilation and assisting ill members of the community, charity fund-raising events and hall hire.

It is also proposed to undertake alterations and additions to the heritage-listed former cinema, as well as formalised carparking, perimeter landscaping and establishing regulated hours of operation.

The development application is referred to Council for determination as the building is listed as a heritage item of local significance in Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That development application No. 555/2007 be approved, subject to standard and the following extraordinary conditions:-

1. A heritage consultant must be nominated for the project. The consultant shall have appropriate qualifications and experience commensurate with the scope of the works. The name and experience of this consultant shall be submitted to the Heritage Council for approval prior to the release of the construction certificate. The consultant shall advise on detail design resolution of the air-conditioning to ensure the protection of significant fabric and conformity to the conditions of approval.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Heritage Council.

2. The stainless steel urinal shall be cut to fit and re-used in the new men’s WC.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Heritage Council.

3. The decorated mirrors and associated shelves in the bathrooms are to be re-used in the new bathrooms, as they are consistent with the original design.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Heritage Council.

4. All works are to be carried out by suitably qualified tradespeople.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Heritage Council.

5. Significant building elements, features, fixtures, fittings and fragile materials shall be adequately protected during the works from potential damage. Protection systems must ensure that historic fabric is not damaged or removed.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Heritage Council.

6. An application under Section 60 of the Heritage Act 1977 (being an application to carry out an activity), must be submitted to, and approved by, the Heritage Council of NSW before site works may commence.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Heritage Council.

7. The consent holder shall construct a concrete footpath, being 1.2 metres wide by 70mm thick adjacent to both the Blaxcell and Redfern Street property frontages within the road reserve. Details of the proposed footpath works and specifications shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principle Certifying Authority prior to the release of the occupation certificate and the footpath shall be completed to the satisfaction of Parramatta City Council prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate. All costs involved in the design, approval and construction of the footpath are to be borne by the consent holder. Further details and Council’s specifications are available from Council’s City Services Department.

Reason: To provide pedestrian passage.

8. Two water quality treatment devices shall be installed prior to disposal of stormwater to Blaxcell Street. Details of the proposed units shall be submitted for the approval of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

Reason: To ensure appropriate water quality treatment measures are in place.

9. To enhance the landscape character of Redfern Street, seven street trees shall be provided in 100 litre containers and planted in the nature strip at distances of 3 metres from any driveway, 12 metres from the intersection of Blaxcell and Redfern Street and 8 metres between trunks. The species to be planted is Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush).

Reason: To improve landscape amenity.

10. A total of 37 off-street parking spaces (including 2 disabled parking spaces) to be provided, permanently marked on the pavement, as shown on the DA plan, and used accordingly. The dimensions of the parking spaces should be in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004. The disabled parking space should be 3.8m wide x 5.5m long according to Council’s DCP 2005.

Reason: To ensure adequate on-site parking is provided.

11. Separate entry (5 metres wide off Redfern Street) and exit (5 metres wide off Blaxcell Street) driveways to be provided, used, signposted and marked on the pavement with directional arrows. These driveways to be constructed according to AS 2890.1- 2004 and Council’s specification.

Reason: To ensure suitable ingress and egress.

12. Sight distance to pedestrians exiting the property shall be provided by clear lines of sight in a splay extending 2 metres from the driveway edge along the front boundary and 2.5 metres from the boundary along the driveway in accordance with Figure 3.3 of AS2890.1. Any landscaping, fences or walls in this area are to be no greater than 0.6 metres higher than the boundary level at the driveway.

Reason: Pedestrian safety.

13. The hours of operation being limited to

- 11.00am to 11.00pm, Sundays to Thursdays and

- 11.00am to Midnight, Friday and Saturdays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the residential area.

14. That the capacity of the premises not exceed 350 persons at any one time.

Reason: To have regard to the amenity of the surrounding area.

15. A solid 2 metre high boundary fence (lapped and capped timber) shall be erected along the full lengths of the northern and eastern boundaries.

Reason: To provide a sight and acoustic barrier to adjoining properties.

16. All external doors (other than the existing entry doors to the foyer) shall be replaced with 40mm thick, solid core timber doors with perimeter acoustic seals to be installed.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbours.

17. All external entry doors to the main hall shall remain closed during functions.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbours.

18. The foyer entry doors and the doors between the foyer and the main hall shall be fitted with an automatic self-closing mechanism.

Reason: To protect the acoustic amenity of neighbours.

19. A minimum of 50m² of absorptive material is to be installed on the underside of the ceiling of the foyer to reduce reverberant noise. Absorptive panels may be faced with open weave fabric for protection. Absorptive material to consist of 50mm thick, 32kg/m³ glasswool insulation faced with Regina tissue. Such material also to be installed adjacent to the main foyer entry doors.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbours.

20. The consent holder is responsible in ensuring that the carpark and exterior of the building is suitably supervised and that congregations of guests are not encouraged to linger.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbours.

21.

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

Regulatory Council	14 July 2008