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 11.5

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. Prominent notices shall be installed within the building near its exits and announcements to be made encouraging persons to leave in a quiet and orderly manner.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbours.

22. All waste shall be stored within the building and removed after 7.00am the following day.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbours.

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

SITE AND LOCALITY

1. The subject site is known as No. 157 Blaxcell Stewart, Granville (Lot 2 in DP 217971) and the building is known as the Crest Theatre, located on the corner of Blaxcell and Redfern Streets. The immediate area is characterised by residential development of varying scale and bulk, as well as a number of local shops.

2. The site has a total area of approximately 2,580m², with a frontage to Blaxcell Street of approximately 45.8 metres and to Redfern Street of 56.6 metres.

3. The building is constructed to the boundary along both its Blaxcell and Redfern Street elevations and is a State-listed heritage item under Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

4. The NSW Heritage Office describe the building and its significance in the following terms:

4.1 Rendered masonry cinema. 1940s. Barrel vaulted roof clad with galvanised iron. Retains original doors and front awning, plus decorative detail.

4.2 Built by Western Suburbs Cinemas using the Quonset technique already used on the Granville Castle. Designed by Cowper, Murphy & Associates, and built by A.W Edwards Pty Ltd. Opened 27 March 1948, closed 24 August 1963. The building was rebuilt internally for use as a dance hall.

4.3 The building’s significance relates to the evidence of social and cultural life as well as being a notable feature of the townscape.

5. The building has State Heritage Significance as an extremely rare example of a cinema constructed in Australia in the years immediately following World War Two and one which has survived virtually intact. In addition, it possesses an internal decorative scheme that is unique within New South Wales (and perhaps Australia), also almost completely intact.

6. Accordingly, the building is listed as an Item of State Heritage Significance on the NSW State Heritage Register.

7. The National Trust of Australia also list the building as an ‘indicative place’ of historic significance. The Trust outlines that the building has social significance as a local cinema from 1948 until 1963 and since then has been adapted for use as a public hall for social and entertainment purposes. The former cinema had a seating capacity of 852.

8. The Crest is currently in excellent condition with the majority of its interior and exterior decoration intact from the late 1940s. The only modification of note was the removal of the raked flooring in the auditorium and minor exterior signage changes. The theatre is currently used for functions and bingo.

PROPOSAL

9. Approval is sought for the following works:

9.1 reconfiguration of toilet facilities;

9.2 small addition to the rear of the hall (in order to provide a new kitchen);

9.3 reuse of projection room as a Boardroom;

9.4 formalisation of carparking, permeable driveway and marked carparking spaces;

9.5 new airconditioning:

9.6 landscaping of the site.

9.7 to establish regulated hours of operation of the premises, namely:

- 11.00am to 11.00pm, Mondays to Thursdays and

- 11.00am to Midnight, Friday to Sundays.

10. It is proposed to continue the use of the hall as a community facility. In this instance, the hall is owned and operated by the Australian Blouza Association, who assist new migrants in the community as well as those who are suffering from illnesses. The Association also raises money for various charities and hires the premises to the general public for functions.

11. The specific uses, frequencies and times have been nominated by the applicant as follows:

Activity	Frequency	Times	Guests
Weddings	10-12 times per year	Up to midnight	350 max
Blouza functions	5 times per year	Up to midnight	300 max
Charity events, talent shows, community events, youth groups – general hall hire	As requested	Up to 10.00pm	As requested
Blouza meetings	Once per week	7.30pm to 9.30pm	20 max

12. There is no proposal to remove the decorative lettering on the corner parapet of the building. This lettering displays in classical style the word ‘Crest’ on the western and southern facades of the building.

13. Between the lower and taller Blaxcell Street facades is a large, prominent, triangular concrete pier with five protruding circles which originally contained the letters ‘HOYTS’. This has more recently been replaced with the letters ‘BINGO’. This will be changed to read ‘BLOUZA’.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

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

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

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

15. The site is zoned Residential 2(b) and community facilities are permitted with the consent of Council within this zone. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the Residential 2(b) zone.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

16. The building is listed as an item of State significance in LEP 1996. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the LEP.

17. The description and significance of the heritage item is described in the inventory form at Attachment 2.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

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

CONSULTATION

19. The development application was notified and advertised between 15 August and 5 September 2007. Three objections were received in response to the notification and advertising of the proposal.

20. The issues raised by the objectors are discussed below.

ISSUES

Heritage

21. 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 Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). Council’s Heritage Advisor concurs with the advice offered by the NSW Heritage Council.

22. Given that the building is listed by the Heritage Council of NSW, the proposal is Integrated Development and was referred to the Heritage Council for concurrence.

23. The Heritage Council has issued General Terms of Approval in accordance with Section 91A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. These are reflected in the extraordinary conditions of consent nominated above.

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

Permissibility in a Residential 2(b) zone

25. The premises is to be used for various specific activities, including community functions, fund-raising events, parties and cultural purposes.

26. To be permissible in the Residential 2(b) zone, the premises must fall within the parameters of a use nominated in the relevant zoning table.

27. Given the nature of the use and the availability of the premises to be used and visited by the broader community, it is considered that the use fits within the scope of a ‘community facility’

28. A ‘community facility’ is defined by Parramatta LEP 2001 as:

“a building or place owned or controlled by the Council, a public authority, a religious organisation or a body of persons associated for the physical, social, cultural, economic, intellectual or religious welfare of the community, which may include:

(a) a public library, rest rooms, meeting rooms, recreation facilities, a child care centre, cultural activities, social functions or any other similar building, place or activity, or

(b) a community club, being a building or place used by persons sharing like interests, but not a registered club,

whether or not that building or place is also used for another purpose.”

Loss of symmetry on the facade

29. One of the objectors is concerned that the existing building identification signage at the front of the building will lose its symmetry by increasing the number of letters from 5 to 6.

30. The current lettering comprises the name ‘CREST’ and consists of 5 disks, each used to accommodate one letter within the word. It is proposed to increase the number of disks to 6, in order to spell out the word ‘BLOUZA’, reflecting the Association operating the facility and to remove reference to ‘CREST’.

31. Between the lower and taller Blaxcell Street facades is a large, prominent, triangular concrete pier with five protruding circles which originally contained the letters ‘HOYTS’. This has more recently been replaced with the letters ‘BINGO’. The building originally featured the name ‘CREST’. This would be the first known time in the 60 year history of the building that 6 letters would be featured rather than 5.

32. The applicant is moving each of the disks in order to maintain a symmetry following installation of a sixth disk. The top and the bottom discs will be equidistant from the top and the bottom of the protruding façade of the building (the concrete pier referred to above).

33. No objections from a heritage and aesthetic point of view is raised in this regard, as the most important association of the building with its past, that being the building itself, will be protected and enhanced as a result of this proposal.

Traffic and Parking

34. Local residents raised concerns with existing and future traffic surrounding the site, particularly in relation to the potential for a development that may have numerous people on site, with the subsequent flow-on effects.

35. The proposed use of the premises as a ‘community facility’ is not changing as a result of this development. This proposal involves alterations and additions to the existing building.

36. Council’s Traffic Engineer also raises no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions and notes:

“I refer to the above proposal and wish to advise the following comments for your consideration:

- Site inspection revealed that adequate public transport facilities are within close proximity to the development site.

- There is no footpath along Redfern Street frontage and it is recommended that a footpath should be provided by the applicant at no cost to Council.

- A footpath should also be provided along the Blaxcell Street frontage between the existing bus shelter and proposed exit driveway by the applicant at no cost to Council.

- The proposed driveway entry (5 metres wide off Redfern Street) and exit (5 metres wide off Blaxcell Street) to be used, signposted and marked on the pavement within the site with directional arrows.”

37. The formalisation of carparking on the site will assist in ensuring that 37 vehicles can be parked on the site rather than in surrounding streets.

38. The surrounding road network is considered to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the facility, noting that the capacity of 852 persons has existed on the site since the building was completed in 1948. Since that time, public transport options have improved in the locality.

39. The facility has operated with a high capacity, but is now proposed to cater for 350 at the most and this would only be during wedding receptions. A cap to this limit is considered warranted and is included as a condition of consent.

40. The applicant has prepared a traffic report that makes the following conclusions:

41. “The additional traffic demand on the intersection of Blaxcell and Redfern Streets during the weekday and Saturday evening peak hours, as a consequence of the proposed development will only alter the Degree of Saturation and Total Average Delays marginally.

42. The good Level of Service at the intersection of Blaxcell and Redfern Streets will not change with the estimated additional traffic generation of the proposed development during the weekday and weekend evening peak hours.

Excessive operating hours

43. One resident has raised concerns that the hours of operation are excessive.

44. The listed hours of operation of the premises are proposed to be:

- 11.00am to 11.00pm, Mondays to Thursdays and

- 11.00am to Midnight, Friday to Sundays.

45. No objection is raised with the proposed hours, although the Sunday night activities should be curtailed, and to conclude no later than 11.00pm in order to better protect the amenity of the surrounding residential area.

46. The proposed development gives the site and its neighbours more certainty in relation to the activities that may be carried out and for the duration of such activities, where no such restrictions had previously applied.

Acoustic impacts

47. The applicant was requested to have an acoustic assessment of the proposal undertaken, in order to determine the likely impact of the proposal on the neighbours as well as to make some recommendations in terms of management of the site.

48. The acoustic report was prepared by Acoustic Logic Consultancy and makes the recommendations in relation to the hours of operation, perimeter detailing, absorption material to be used in construction, management techniques and waste disposal.

49. Subject to conditions of consent, the proposed activities and associated hours of operation will not have an undue acoustic impact on surrounding development.

Public interest

50. The use of the cinema and hall has developed haphazardly over time. In this regard, lodgement of the application to formalise the use of the premises and to have a degree of certainty is considered to be in the public interest.

51. Although operated by a private group, the facility will remain accessible to the wider community for use.

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality map	1 Page
2View	Plans & elevations	12 Pages
3View	Heritage study inventory	1 Page
4View	History of DA	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 12.4

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.4

SUBJECT 197 Church Street, Parramatta. (Lot 1 DP 710335).

DESCRIPTION Use of the first floor of the existing heritage listed premises for a ten pin bowling centre with associated internal and external alterations and signage. (Location Map - Attachment 1).

REFERENCE DA/266/2008 - Submitted: 21 April 2008

APPLICANT/S Strike Entertainment Pty Ltd

OWNERS Holdmark Properties Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 266/2008 which seeks approval for the use of the existing first floor of the heritage listed premises for a ten pin bowling centre with associated internal and external alterations and signage.

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. 266/2008 subject to standard conditions as well as the following extraordinary conditions:

(i) The caretakers unit and associated elements such as the support walls and beams shall be retained and no consent is given for the demolition, alteration and modification in any form to these elements.

Reason: To ensure construction does not affect significant heritage elements of the building.

(ii) No signage is to be installed above the awning fronting Church and Macquarie Street.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area

(iii) Signage approved as part of the consent is not to be illuminated or use LED lighting.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area

(iv) The days and hours of operations being restricted to the following:

Monday 10:00am to 11:00pm

Tuesday 10:00am to 11:00pm

Wednesday 10:00am to 11:00pm

Thursday 10:00am to 12:00 Midnight

Friday 10:00am to 12:00 Midnight

Saturday 10:00am to 12:00 Midnight

Sunday 10:00am to 11:00pm

Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

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

(v) The sale of alcohol to patrons is restricted to the following:

Monday 10:00am to 11:00pm

Tuesday 10:00am to 11:00pm

Wednesday 10:00am to 11:00pm

Thursday 10:00am to 12:00 Midnight

Friday 10:00am to 12:00 Midnight

Saturday 10:00am to 12:00 Midnight

Sunday 10:00am to 11:00pm

Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

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

(vi) The use of the premises for live music is not permitted.

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

(vii) The sale of alcohol and or consumption is not permitted without the necessary license being obtained from the Liquor Administration Board prior to the commencement of the activity.

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

(viii) Penetrations through load-bearing beams and joist shall not occur.

Reason: Maintain the heritage structure of the building.

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 premises 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 alterations, signage and use of an existing first floor heritage building for the purposes of a bowling club and a place of public entertainment relate only to the southern portion of the building which fronts Church and Macquarie Streets. The proposed works do not involve the portion of the building which fronts to either Church Street or Macquarie Street. The proposal is to be contained on the first floor only.

3. The proposed bowling club is to have 14 bowling lanes for the use of patrons with bar and restaurant facilities that will employ 14 employees. The proposed hours of operations are 10:00am to 3:00am from Monday to Saturday and 10:00am to 12 Midnight on Sunday. Deliveries are to occur on the premises 10 times per week and will be undertaken the existing loading bays located in the basement accessible from Marsden Street and can be accessed from the bowling tenancy via an existing lift. There are currently 24 parking spaces and 2 loading bays located in the basement level.

4. DA/35/2008 is lodged with Council for the internal and external works to the north-western portion of the site fronting Marsden Street.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

SEPP (Temporary Structures and Place of Public Entertainment) 2007

5. The application proposes a bar area subject to a licence under the Liquor Act 1982, the proposed use involves a place of public entertainment and therefore SEPP (Temporary Structures and Place of Public Entertainment) 2007 applies. Accordingly, the proposed use of the premises for the purposes of a ten pin bowling centre is appropriate having considered the capacity of the premises, security and safety of patrons, employees and the general public, hours of operation, traffic impacts and the use of the heritage item.

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

6. The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use City Core Zone (City Centre Precinct) and 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 satisfies the objectives of the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007.

Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan 2007

7. 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

8. In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 29 April 2008 and 13 May 2008. No objections were received.

ISSUES

Heritage

9. 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:

10. The proposal will affect relatively new or otherwise insignificant fabric and is therefore not of heritage concern.

11. The premises was originally used as a department store, but this original use ceased some time ago. The proposed new use allows for opening of the place to general public and for its ongoing maintenance and does not necessarily imply any adverse changes. The proposed new use is thus generally acceptable in heritage terms.

12. The proposal allows the place to retain and present its spatial qualities, notably the open character of the first floor plan. This aspect of the proposal is supported.

13. The initial proposal included total demolition of the western lightwell, which is part of the original space configuration. This was supported by the applicant’s heritage advisor, in spite of the age of the element. The removal of the lightwell was to facilitate fire egress and layout of bowling lanes. However, the removal of this element would make the original caretaker's flat (on the second floor) unsafe, and the initial proposal included demolition of the caretaker's flat and subsequent modifications of the roof form.

14. Further to our discussions, the applicants decided to modify this part of the proposal so as to retain major parts of two of the four walls forming the light well. This in turn allows for retention of the caretakers flat and removes the need to modify the roof form, albeit at some cost for structural reinforcements necessary.

15. The current form of the proposal presents an acceptable outcome from the heritage perspective since it includes a level of modification that can reasonably be expected on projects of this type and scale. The proposed changes are deemed minimal for the given program and allow retention of the significant original caretaker's flat, eliminate the need to modify the roof form, and allow the partial retention and interpretation of the western light well without compromising the safety requirements or the applicants program.

16. The initial proposal included several elements above and below the awning line which were considered unacceptable from the perspective of views and vistas along Church Street as defined in the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. The excessive signage elements included LCD displays, internally illuminated signs, a gigantic bowling pin with wings addressing the street corner, and two oversized frames shaped to resemble bowling pins (one above the awning on each end of the building). These are deemed to have had a major visual impact on the presentation of the heritage item.

17. Further to our discussions, the applicants decided to remove the elements deemed unacceptable from the proposal. The proposal was also modified to utilise smaller signage font, and to not utilise illuminated signs or LED signage.

18. The applicants indicated they needed additional business signage as a replacement for the removed intrusive elements. The results of my brief research indicated that the awning fascias were historically continuously utilise for signage, as shown in historic photos of 1930, 1938 and 1954. As a result, the proposed signage was extended to parts of the awning fascia to both Macquarie and Church Streets.

19. The proposal utilises the semi-circular addition to the awning fascia, addressing the corner of Church and Macquarie Streets. This is an existing element of unknown date of creation, however, it is noted that similar elements existed in the historic photographs consulted.

20. The applicants required the lettering to be elevated about 20mm from the awning fascia surface. In my opinion, this detail would have a negligible impact in heritage terms. My recommendation regarding this part of the proposal is to support the updated (modified) signage proposal (dated 02/06/2008), that does not utilise any elements above the awning level, and that does not utilise illuminated or LED signs

21. The proposal in its current form implies penetration (in places) through the floor structure for sanitary fittings. The extent floor is a mix of original and repaired/replaced areas. While a certain number of penetrations can be reasonably expected in any adaptive reuse project of this extent, the penetrations need to be kept to the minimum and to avoid structural load-bearing elements of greater order where original timber structure survives. In other words, minimal penetrations through floorboards and planks are acceptable, but penetrations through load-bearing beams and joist should not occur.

22. The proposal is thus supported within the limitations of the above recommendations.

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

Traffic

24. The development application was referred to Councils Traffic Engineer for assessment. The comments of Councils Traffic Engineer are:

25. “…the traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development and its parking demand is not considered to have a significant impact on this section of Church Street, Macquarie Street and the surrounding road network”.

26. Currently, there are 26 parking spaces at the basement level. However, these spaces are reserved for loading and employee uses and therefore, the basement parking will not be made available for public use. It is noted that the proposed use of the premises under the LEP does not require additional parking spaces.

27. Accordingly, there are no objections to the proposal on traffic grounds.

NSW Police

28. The development application was referred to NSW Police for assessment. NSW Police raises no objections to the development application and trading hours of 10:00am and 3:00am the following day; however request that a condition be placed on the approval restricting the sale of alcohol after 2:00am.

Operational Hours

29. The application initially proposed hours of operation between 10am to 3am Monday to Saturday and 10am to 12 Midnight on Sunday.

30. Having regard to the nature of the proposed use and adjoining approved land uses and its impacts on the social environment, the proposed hours of operation are considered to be excessive.

31. Accordingly, a condition will be placed on the consent modifying the hours of operation to 10am to 11pm Monday to Wednesday and Sunday and 10am to 12 Midnight on Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

32. In addition, a condition will be placed on the consent limiting the hours which alcohol can be served to patrons to the operating hours, being 10:00am to 11:00pm Monday to Wednesday and Sunday and 10am to 12 Midnight on Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	Heritage Inventory Form	1 Page
3View	History of Development Application	1 Page
4View	Plans and Elevations	11 Pages
5View	Police Referral	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 12.5

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.5

SUBJECT 24 Fennell Street, Parramatta. (Lot 1 DP 770721, Lot 103 DP 575238)

DESCRIPTION Alterations and Additions to a Heritage listed dwelling and the use of the premises for the purposes of a home business. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/843/2006 - Submitted: 18 September 2006

APPLICANT/S M Davis

OWNERS Mr P W Davis and Mrs C A Davis and Mr B E Davis and Mrs G Davis

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 843/2006, which seeks approval for the alterations and additions to a Heritage listed dwelling, including removal of a metal awning to the rear, removal of internal masonry wall and replacement with a glazed wall, restoration of the front fence, the filling of the pool and spa to the rear, the installation of a mechanical gate for vehicle access and the use of the premises for a home business.

This application is being referred to Council as the site is listed as a heritage item in Schedule 2 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 843/2006 subject to standard conditions as well as the following extraordinary conditions:

(i) The area to the rear of the site that currently contains the pool and spa shall be turfed after filling.

Reason: To comply with legislative requirements.

(ii) The home business shall comply with the definition of a home business as defined in the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 at all times.

Reason: To comply with legislative requirements.

(iii) A maximum of two (2) additional employees who are not permanent residents of the dwelling shall be employed by the home business.

Reason: To comply with legislative requirements.

(iv) The proposed mechanically operated gate is not approved under this consent.

Reason: To maintain the streetscape presentation in absence of any designed detail for the gate.

(v) The hours of operations of the home business being restricted to 9:00am to 5:00pm Monday to Friday. No work on Weekends and Public Holidays. Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is known as 24 Fennell Street, Parramatta. The site is located on the northern side of Fennell Street and has a total area of 395.85 square metres and is regular in shape. The premises are located within the North Parramatta Conservation area. The immediate area surrounding the subject site is a mixture of residential and commercial uses.

PROPOSAL

2. The proposal seeks approval for the alterations and additions to a Heritage listed dwelling, including removal of a metal awning to the rear, removal of internal masonry wall and replacement with a glazed wall, restoration of the front fence, the filling of the pool and spa to the rear, the installation of a mechanical gate for vehicle access and the use of the premises for a home business. It is noted that the home business involves providing management consultation services to other businesses and most of the engagements and meetings are held off-site.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

3. The site is zoned Residential 2A under the provisions of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The proposed proposal is permissible in the zone and satisfies the objectives of PLEP 2001.

4. Home business is defined under PLEP 2001 as “a business carried out in a dwelling house or within the site area of a dwelling house by the permanent residents of the dwelling house, but only if, the use does not employ more that 2 additional employees other than permanent residents, only goods made or produced or services offered as a result of the activity or pursuit are displayed, sold or provided, the primary use of the dwelling is for residential purposes, the use does not interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood due to excess vehicular traffic, attraction of excessive number of customers or clients, reduction of car parking. The use does not involve the display of goods. The use does not involve the exhibition of any notice, advertisement or sign and that the use does not involve prostitution”.

5. The proposed home business complies with the definition of a home business under PLEP 2001 as one permanent resident occupies the dwelling and who will also work for the home business. Two additional employees who are not permanent residents will also carry out tasks associated with the home business. No goods are manufactured or produced on the premises, nor will products be sold on the premises. No adverse noise or odour will be produced as part of the home business. The home business is a service provider that out sources to other businesses as consultants. Operational hours are from 9am to 5pm weekdays and no work is carried out on weekends or public holidays. As client engagements are done off-site the home business is unlikely to increase local traffic or increase parking demands. No advertising is proposed. Stacked on-site parking is available for 2 vehicles on the driveway.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

6. The proposed internal and external alterations including removal of a metal awning to the rear, removal of internal masonry wall and replacement with a glazed wall, restoration of the front fence and the use of the premises for the home business are not considered to create adverse impacts on the heritage item.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

7. The provisions of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the plan.

Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 2001

8. The provisions of the Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 2001 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the plan.

CONSULTATION

9. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application between 11 October 2006 and 1 November 2006. In response, no submissions were received. As the applicant was required to amend the plans and the Statement of Environmental Effects to reflect the home business component of the proposal, the application was re-notified between 23 May 2008 and 6 June 2008. In response to the re-notification, no submissions were received.

ISSUES

Heritage

10. 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 Councils Heritage Advisor are:

11. “None of the elements proposed to be removed appear to be original or otherwise important to the significance of the property. The general idea of removing recent side additions is supported. The modification at the rear, located within the existing enclosed area, is considered fully acceptable.

12. The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) and Statement of Heritage Impact (SHI) with Schedule of Works contain enough information to allow me to understand the methodology and are generally acceptable. It is noted that the SHI and the earlier issue of the SEE document included references to details that were apparently removed from the proposal described in the architectural drawings. The confusing details include references to moveable gates, glass walls at the rear of the house and deliberations over the wall/fence to Fennel street (e.g. in the Statement of Heritage Impact, p.2). The latest reviewed drawings indicate no changes to those areas.

13. I assume that the drawings will prevail in case of any conflicting information. I find the proposal, as presented in the drawings, to have an acceptable level of heritage impact and have no objection to it from the heritage perspective”.

14. It is noted that the existing front fence is proposed to be restored to its original brick condition. This is considered to be acceptable and is consistent with the heritage presentation of the item.

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

Landscaping

16. Filling of the pool and spa and paving the area will not be approved under this consent as the premise is to remain a residential dwelling as its primary use; the proposal will need to comply with the appropriate landscaping control. Filling and paving of the rear portion of the site is not considered to be in compliance with this control. Accordingly, a condition will be placed on the consent stipulating that the pool and spa can be filled provided that the area is turfed.

Mechanical Gate

17. A mechanically operated gate is also proposed for vehicle access. However, as this is not shown on the plans and no details of the gate are provided a condition will be placed on the consent stipulating that gate is not to be installed. It is noted that a mechanical gate is currently installed. A perusal through Council records did not yield any results regarding previous applications for a mechanical fence in relation to the subject site.

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	History of Development Application	2 Pages
3View	Heritage Invetory Form	1 Page
4View	Plans and Elevation	4 Pages
5View	Schedule of Conservation of Works	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 12.6

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.6

SUBJECT Parramatta Town Hall - 182 Church Street, Parramatta.
Lot 1 in DP 791300 (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Installation of air-conditioning in town hall.

REFERENCE DA/143/2008 - submitted 29 February 2008

APPLICANT/S Parramatta City Council

OWNERS Parramatta City Council

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 143/2008 for the installation of air-conditioning within the Parramatta Town Hall.

The application has been assessed by an independent consultant town planner (Kerry Gordon Planning Services) and referred to Council due to Council being the applicant and owner of the site.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 143/2008 subject to standard conditions and the following specific condition:

Photographic Recording

Prior to the commencement of any works a photographic recording of all portions of the building to be altered by the works is to be prepared, catalogued and submitted to Council.

Reason: To ensure an accurate record of the state of the heritage item before works is retained.

PROPOSAL

1. Approval is sought to the installation of reverse cycle air-conditioning into the Parramatta Town Hall, including the main hall, Charles Byrne Room and Jubilee Hall. The installation involves provision of indoor units (fan-coils) hidden in the roof spaces and in the basement, and outdoor equipment (condensing units) placed on the roof of the building, between the roofs of the Main Hall and Jubilee Hall and on the concrete roof over the kitchen.

2. The air conditioning system will provide a series of floor mounted supply grilles located along the perimeter walls of the Main Hall, serviced by ducting under the floor. The other rooms are to be provided with either ceiling or wall mounted diffusers located to be sympathetic with the architectural treatment of the rooms.

SITE & LOCALITY

3. The site is known as 182 Church Street, Parramatta (Lot 1 in DP 791300), and contains the Parramatta Town Hall. The site is located on the eastern side of Church Street between Darcy Street and Macquarie Street. The site is surrounded by a mix of uses and building types, typical of its location within the retail centre of Parramatta.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

4. The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use under Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007. The installation of air-conditioning does not alter the existing use which is permissible as it is neither listed as a prohibited use or as a use being permissible without consent.

5. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone. The proposal does not affect the FSR or height of the building, both of which are currently compliant.

6. The only other relevant controls are the heritage controls, with the site being identified as an item of heritage and being within the vicinity of a number of other items. The application was referred to the Heritage Council who had no comments as the works would not affect relics on the site.

7. The impacts of the proposal upon the heritage significance of the building are addressed later within this report by Council’s Heritage Advisor who is satisfied that the design appropriately minimises the impacts.

Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan

8. As the works (other than for placement of the condensers on the roof) are largely internal the majority of controls under the City Centre DCP do not apply to the development.

9. Clause 7.1 addresses controls for heritage and special uses and provides criteria that may be relevant in the assessment of applications for heritage items. The relevant criteria are addressed following.

10. Architectural Form – new work needs to respect the architectural form of the item.

11. The location of the proposed supply grills and ceiling/wall mounted diffusers has been carefully planned to respect the architectural features of the rooms, including the patterned ceilings and the sense of symmetry within the building. The proposed roof mounted condensers and other equipment (vents, air intakes, etc) are located so that they will not be visible from ground level, other than from the alley way between the Town Hall and the toilets. The view of these structures from the alley way is not considered critical to the heritage significance of the item.

12. Materials and Finishes – reuse materials where possible and ensure materials are compatible with the original in terms of colour, texture, type and finish.

13. The materials used are appropriate to the building to the degree possible in relation to air-conditioning hardware, with the grills being brass and the colours of wall and ceiling mounts chosen to minimise visual impact

14. Original Fabric – minimise loss of original fabric.

15. The only original fabric to be removed are the potions of the floor, walls, ceiling and roof necessary to install the equipment, which is considered to be acceptable. It is noted that where possible the equipment has been located within replacement, rather than original, material

CONSULTATION

Notification

16. In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 20 March and 3 April 2008. No submissions were received.

External Consultation

Heritage Council of NSW

17. The application was referred to the Heritage Council of New South Wales by letter dated 17 April 2008 due to the site being identified as one of high archaeological sensitivity for possible archaeological remains. In response, the Heritage Council indicated that it had no comments as the works were to be contained in the above ground sections of the building and as such there would be no impact on any areas of archaeological potential or disturbance of relics

Internal Consultation

Heritage Advisor

18. The application was also referred to the Heritage Advisor as the site is listed as a Heritage Item and is within the vicinity of a number of other items. The Heritage Advisor provided the following comments:

“Having reviewed the application, I am of the opinion that the impact of the proposed changes on the heritage values of the site is acceptable.

The architects and project managers of the proposal consulted the Council representatives, including myself, on several occasions during the design stage of the project. While the program requirements implied some constraints on the design of the proposal, the decisions made and the solutions proposed by the project team appear adequate to allow the ongoing retention of the heritage significance of the place.”

ISSUES

Heritage

19. The site contains an item of heritage and the works have the potential to have an impact upon the significance of that item. As has been discussed above, the design of the air-conditioning system has been careful of the heritage significance of the item, ensuring that the external components (condensers and other fittings on the roof) will not be visible from ground level other than from the alley way between the Town Hall and the toilets and that the operating equipment for the system is hidden from view to the extent possible. The view of these structures from the alley way is not considered critical to the heritage significance of the item.

20. Where components of the system must be visible (ie grills and diffusers), their location has been carefully designed and the materials controlled to minimize impact on the heritage significance of the site. In this regard neither the Heritage Council of New South Wales, nor Council’s Heritage Advisor raise objection to the proposal. It is considered that the appropriate design and placement of the air-conditioning equipment suitably minimises the impact and the application should be supported.

21. The proposal is considered to be in the wider public interest as it will provide an acceptable level of amenity (through heating and cooling) to the building, allowing for its continued use. The continued use of the building will ensure its long term protection and maintenance

James Kim

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	Plans and Elevations	4 Pages
3View	Site Photographs	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 12.7

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.7

SUBJECT 12 Caroline Street, Westmead. (Lot 3 DP 348754) (Arthur Phillip Ward).

DESCRIPTION Section 96(1a) modification of DA/14/1994 to an existing medical centre. The modification seeks approval for extending operating hours to 7am to 5pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 12 midday Saturdays and Sundays. ( Location Map - Attachment 1).

REFERENCE DA/14/1994/A - submitted 18 March 2008

APPLICANT/S IVF Australia

OWNERS Mr Joseph J & Mrs Janette R Cristaudo

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine an application to modify development consent DA/14/1994. This consent granted approval to alterations and additions to an existing building to be used as a medical centre. The modification proposed in this current application seeks to extend the operating hours to 7am to 5pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 12 midday Saturdays and Sundays. The existing approved hours of operation are 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays.

The application has been referred to Council as a written objection containing a petition with 6 signatures has been received by Council.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council modify Development Consent DA/14/1994 dated 18 March 1994 in the following manner.

1. Condition 10 be amended to read as follows:

The hours of operation for the use of the premises as a medical centre is restricted to:-

7.00am to 5.00pm (Monday to Friday) and

8.00am to 1.00pm (Saturday, Sunday)

2. The following additional non-standard conditions be added:

15. The noise level of any air conditioning units and other equipment are not to exceed 5dBA above the ambient background noise level measured at any boundaries of the property during the permitted operating hours specified above. All air conditioning units and other equipment are to be switched off or not to be audible at any boundaries of the property outside the permitted operating hours. This condition applies for the life of the development.

Reason: To control noise impacts to on adjoining properties

16. An operational plan of management shall be prepared within 30 days of approval of this Section 96 modification:

a) to require staff entering the car park to drive their cars, close car doors and operate car audio equipment in a manner that minimises noise impacts.

b) to require all vehicles to exit carefully from the premises for pedestrian safety.

c) to require staff, patients, contractors and suppliers not to use parking spaces of adjacent residential properties and to preserve residential amenity.

d) to require cleaning contractor(s) not to generate excessive noise in the course of their activities.

e) the operational plan of management shall be displayed in a prominent position within the reception area of the premises.

Reason: To preserve the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

17. A ‘stop’ sign and convex traffic mirror be provided at the entrance of the premises wholly within the subject site.

Reason: To improve pedestrian and traffic safety when vehicles exit from the premises.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is a uniform rectangular shaped allotment and is located on the south-western side of Caroline Street, between Park Avenue and Hawkesbury Road, Westmead. The site has a total area of 776.69m², a width of 14.326m and a depth of 54.216m. The site gently slopes down from the north-west to the south-east.

2. The site contains a two storey building that is used for a medical centre approved by Council under DA/14/1994. It is noted that an IVF clinic operates from the site. On-site car parking spaces are located at the rear of the building. The site is adjoined by three to four storey residential flat buildings on both sides.

3. The locality is predominantly characterised by medium to high density residential flat buildings. Westmead Hospital is located west of Hawkesbury Road and Parramatta Park is located east of Park Avenue.

PROPOSAL

4. The proposed modification is to extend the operating hours to 7am to 5pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 12 midday Saturdays and Sundays. The existing approved hours of operation are 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays only.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

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

6. The proposed modification seeks approval to extend the hours of operation of the medical centre only. The proposed modification will result in substantially the same development as that originally approved and can be dealt with pursuant to Section 96(1A) of the Act.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 28 - Parramatta

7. Clause 57 of SREP 28 applies to the subject site in relation to car parking requirements. However, the proposed modification relates to hours of operation only. No other specific design controls or development standards are contained within SREP 28 that apply to the proposed modification.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

8. The subject site is zoned Residential 2(d) under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. A medical centre is prohibited within the zone. However, the subject premises are considered to have existing use rights under Section 108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, as it was legally established with Council consent prior to implementation of the Parramatta LEP 2001 and has been operating since that time.

9. The site was previously zoned Residential 2(c) under Parramatta LEP 1990 (Toongabbie) which permitted hospitals within the zone. The subject medical centre was approved under the definition of a hospital.

10. Pursuant to Clause 41 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, an existing use may, subject to development consent:

(a) be enlarged, expanded or intensified, or

(b) be altered or extended, or

(d) be changed to another use that conforms to the zoning permissibility

11. In this case, the current Section 96 modification application seeks the existing use to be altered or expanded in terms of hours of operation.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

12. No specific development controls are contained within Parramatta DCP 2005 that apply to the proposed modification.

CONSULTATION

13. In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 28 March and 11 April 2008. The notification generated one written objection which contains a petition with 6 signatures. The matters raised in the submission are addressed below.

Air conditioning noise in early morning (from 6am) disturbs neighbouring residents at 14 Caroline Street

14. A condition of consent has been recommended to restrict the hours of operation to:-

7.00am to 5.00pm (Monday to Friday) and

8.00am to 1.00pm (Saturday, Sunday)

15. It is also recommended that the noise level of any air conditioning units and other equipment not exceed 5dBA above the ambient background noise level measured at any boundaries of the property during the permitted operating hours and the air conditioning units and other equipment be switched off or not be audible at any boundaries of the property outside the permitted operating hours.

Is 7am start appropriate?

16. On weekends, a 7am start for non-residential uses in a residential zoned area is not widely accepted and may unreasonably impact on the amenity of nearby residents. A recommended condition allows the premises to operate from 8am on weekends.

17. On the other hand, a 7am start on weekdays is reasonable as most people are out of their beds and starting to prepare for the day by 7am. It is not considered that a 7am start will unduly impact on the amenity of surrounding residents.

Vehicle engine and music noise from staff arriving in the car park in early morning (i.e. before 7am) disturbs neighbouring unit residents at 14 Caroline Street

18. The applicant has suggested that some staff could park their vehicles on the street until 8am Monday to Friday and until 9am on weekends for a 3 month trial so as to allow the proposed start of 7am on weekends.

19. However, this suggestion would not be consistent with Condition No 8 of the original DA/14/1994 consent which stated:

8. All vehicles associated with the use are to be parked on the site at all times.

Reason: To ensure all vehicles generated by the development are located off-street.

20. Such a suggestion would also be difficult and impractical to implement should there be changes in staff members or types of vehicles driven and in so far as what defines noisier vehicles to be parked on the street until 8am or 9am.

21. The submitted acoustic assessment report prepared by Wilkinson Murray finds vehicle noise impact not detrimental to neighbouring residents if employees’ behaviour can be managed.

22. Under the circumstances, it is recommended that the medical centre prepare an operational plan of management to manage staff entering the car park to operate vehicles in a manner that minimises potential noise impacts.

The proposed extension of the operation hours in the afternoon until 7pm on weekdays would have an adverse amenity impact on neighbouring residents

23. It is noted that no extension of time is proposed in the afternoon and the latest the medical centre will be in operation is until 5pm on weekdays and this will remain unchanged from the original DA approval.

Concern is raised that patients, visitors, tradesmen associated with the medical centre use car park spaces within adjacent residential properties

24. The plan of management to be prepared requires management of the medical centre to require staff, patients, contractors and suppliers not to use parking spaces of adjacent residential properties.

At times, cars exit from the clinic at a dangerous speed to pedestrians

25. The plan of management discussed above is to include management of the medical centre to require patients and staff to exit carefully from the premises. It is also recommended that a condition be included to any consent granted requiring placement of a ‘stop’ sign and traffic mirror at the entrance to the premises.

Concern is raised that cleaners breaking up boxes by stomping on them creates unacceptable noise around 7-8pm for residents who try to relax after returning from work.

26. The plan of management is to require the cleaning contractor(s) to perform such jobs in a quiet manner or use an alternative method to minimise potential noise impacts.

ON-SITE MEETING

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

28. In accordance with the above resolution, an invitation to Councillors, Council officers, the applicant and the objectors was sent in relation to the inspection to be held on Saturday 31 May 2008 commencing at 10.30am.

29. Present at the site meeting were Councillor Omar Jamal (Chair) and Councillor Maureen Walsh, Council’s Team Leader Development and Certification, the applicant and 4 residents. The following issues were discussed at the meeting:

Noise from cars/staff entering and exiting site

30. Residents on the adjoining site raised concern with noise from staff entering the subject site particularly before 7.00am. The noise is generated from car radios, staff talking and the slamming of car doors.

31. The adjoining residents have children and once they are awake, it is difficult for the children to return to sleep. Whilst this could be tolerated during the week, weekends should allow more opportunity for sleep.

32. It has been recommended previously in this report that:

(a) the opening hours of the medical centre be from 7am Monday to Friday and 8am on weekends to minimise impact

(b) a plan of management be prepared to manage staff behaviour in the car park when arriving

Speed at which vehicles leave the site

33. The adjoining residents raised concern with the speed at which motorists leave the site and the implications for safety of pedestrians and small children within the area.

34. It has been recommended previously in this report that a plan of management be prepared to remind patients and staff to exit carefully from the premises. The applicant has also offered to provide a sign and mirror to improve safety.

Noise from air conditioner

35. The air conditioning unit located at the side of the building which faces the concerned residents starts at 6.30am in order to control the inside temperature of the IVF clinic. However, the timer of the system is causing a noise nuisance and the continual off/on of the system generates more noise which interferes with residential amenity.

36. It has been recommended previously in this report that the noise level of any air conditioning units and other equipment not exceed 5dBA above the ambient background noise level measured at any boundaries of the property during the permitted operating hours and the air conditioning units and other equipment be switched off or not be audible at any boundaries of the property outside the permitted operating hours.

37. It has been confirmed upon a site visit that the applicant intends to provide sound attenuation enclosures for the subject air conditioning units to minimise noise impact. A condition of consent is recommended accordingly.

Comments from the applicant in response to issues

38. The representative of the IVF clinic described the sensitive nature of the clinic in regard to the emotional issues and the timing of the procedures. In this regard, patient couples prefer to do their testing before work to preserve their privacy. This is the purpose of the 7.00am start times.

39. The representative explained that until late last year they were unaware of the conditions of consent, in particular the approved hours of operation. Furthermore they had been operating the same hours for approximately 5 years. For this non-compliance they apologised and hence had lodged the subject Section 96 modification application to vary the approved hours.

40. In response to noise generated from the staff in the carpark, the applicant suggested preparing a site specific management plan that includes prohibition of staff vehicles parking in the carpark on early weekend mornings to minimise disruption to the residents of the units. This suggestion has been discussed in paragraphs 18-22.

41. In addition, the applicant offered to install a traffic mirror and a ‘stop’ sign at the edge of the internal driveway to ensure vehicles exit the site in a safe manner. This forms a recommended condition of consent.

42. In regard to the noise of the air conditioner the applicant offered to consider treatment (e.g. a sound attenuation enclosure) to reduce the noise impact on the neighbours. This forms a recommended condition of consent.

43. Meeting closed with all issues being summarised at 11.20am with the residents, applicant and Councillors being advised that they will be notified in writing of the date in which the Development Application will be presented at the Council meeting.

James (Seong) Kim

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	Acoustic Report	17 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 12.8

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.8

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

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

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

APPLICANT/S Mr S Nour

OWNERS Mr S Nour and Mrs T Nour

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

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

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

RECOMMENDATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SITE & LOCALITY

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

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

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

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

PROPOSAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND HISTORY

DA/1270/2004

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

Appeal No 11371 of 2005

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

DA/1270/2004/B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- maximise the useable area at the rear of the site

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

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

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Children’s Services Regulation 2004

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

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

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

Child Care Centre Development Control Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

30. Bulk and scale issues are discussed below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONSULTATION

Notification

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

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

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

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

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

Demolition, waste production

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

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

Preservation of heritage building

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

Tree removal and attack on natural environment and pollution

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

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

Increase in housing, industrial density

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

Section 96 Applications

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

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

Hours of operation not to be increased

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

ISSUES

Bulk and scale

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

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

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

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

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

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

ON-SITE MEETING

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

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

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

Front setback

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

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

Drainage

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

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

Conclusion

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

James (Seong) Kim

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Plans and Elevations (Original Consent)	6 Pages
3View	Plans and Elevations (Section 96AA)	8 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 12.13

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.13

SUBJECT 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Proposed Lot 15). (Lot 11 DP 867610) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward).

DESCRIPTION Section 96(1) modification to DA/843/2007 - The construction of a two-storey dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision on proposed Lot 15. The modification is to delete Condition 12 (c) which requires the provision of street trees. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/843/2007/A - Submitted: 18 January 2008

APPLICANT/S Defence Housing Australia

OWNERS Defence Housing Australia

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine an application to modify development consent DA/843/2007. This consent granted approval to construct a two-storey dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision. The modification proposes to delete Condition 12 (c) which requires planting of street trees.

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

RECOMMENDATION

That, Council grant consent to modify Development Consent No. 843/2007 dated 26 November 2007 by deleting Condition 12 (c).

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site is Lot 15 of a 27 lot subdivision approved under DA/933/2004 at 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas. The overall site initially formed part of the St Patrick’s Marist Brother’s School, located immediately to the north of the site and has since been subdivided from the school site.

2. The proposed modifications are associated with the approved development on Lot 15 of that subdivision which is located to the west of the new road within the subdivision. Lot 15 is regular in shape, with a frontage to the new road of 19.05 metres, a length of approximately 31.5 metres and a total site area of 600m2. The site is currently vacant with no significant vegetation. It is noted that Lot 15 does not back on to residential properties fronting Paul Street.

BACKGROUND

3. Development Application No. 993/2004, which granted consent for tree removal and community title subdivision into 27, lots comprising of 1 common lot (containing a private road reserve) and 26 residential lots, earthworks and stormwater works, was approved under delegation on 2 September 2005.

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

5. Development Application No. 993/2004/B granted consent to modify the original consent, which included changing the pad levels of lots 2 to 14. The matter was determined under delegation on 1 November 2006.

6. Development Application No. 843/2007 granted a deferred commencement on 26 November 2007 under delegation for the construction of a two-storey dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision.

7. Twenty-one applications relating to the individual lots on 16 Dorahy Street have been determined. Thirteen applications have been determined with a deferred commencement and nine applications located on the southern side of the site have been refused. Ten of the approved applications relates to dual occupancy development located to the north of the new road.

PROPOSAL

8. The Section 96(1) modification seeks approval to modify the consent by deleting Condition 12 (c) which requires the provision of street trees.

9. It is noted that the original Section 96 application for lot 15 initially involved three modifications to the consent being deleted of Condition 12(a), 12(b) and 12(c) as the applicant agreed argued that these conditions were placed on the consent in error.

10. Further assessment of the modification revealed that the deletion of Conditions 12 (a) and 12 (b) were not placed on the consent in error and advised the applicant to lodge a further application to amend the consent.

11. Accordingly, the applicant withdrew the proposed modifications to delete Condition 12(a) and Condition 12(b) and accordingly, this current application only seeks to modify condition No. 12 (c).

REASONS FOR MODIFICATIONS

12. Condition 12 (c) requires two street trees to be provided on the verge. This condition has been included in the consent by mistake as there is no verge in which to plant the trees and there is insufficient room between the driveways to plant the trees.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

13. Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, A Section 96 (1) is a modification involving a minor error, misdescription or miscalculation. The proposed modification to delete a condition to provide street trees where no verge is available is considered to be a minor error.

14. The deletion of the condition will result in substantially the same development as that originally approved and can be dealt with pursuant to Section 96 (1) of the Act.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001.

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

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

16. 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

17. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application for a period of 14 days from 4 February to 18 February 2008. One individual submission and 1 petition with 21 signatures were received. The issues raised in the submission are addressed below.

The proposed removal of trees is inappropriate given that a significant amount of vegetation have already been removed from the site.

19. The objector objected to any further removal of trees given that a significant amount of vegetation has already been removed from the site.

20. The Section 96 modification is to delete a condition to provide street trees that cannot physically be provided. There will be no further removal of existing trees on the subject site.

Excessive Height

21. The current modification is for the deletion of condition 12 (c) which relates to landscaping issues. Height is not a relevant matter for consideration in this assessment.

Pad Levels

22. The current modification application is for the deletion of conditions 12 (c) which relates to landscaping issues. The pad levels are not a relevant matter for consideration in the assessment of this application.

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

23. The current modification application is for the deletion of conditions 12 (c) which relates to landscaping issues. Privacy is not a relevant matter for consideration in the assessment of this application

On-site Meeting

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

25. In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 29 March 2008 commencing at 1:30pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Borger (chair), Councillor Chedid, Councillor Finn, Councillor Brown, Danielle Woods – Team Leader Development and Certification, James McBride – Development and Certification Officer, Denise Fernandez – Development Assessment Officer, up to 50 residents, the applicant and a representative of the owner. No issues were raised at the site meeting which relate to this subject application that being the deletion of the requirement for street trees to be provided.

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	Map of Approved Application	1 Page
3View	History of Section 96 Modification	1 Page
4View	Copy of Notice of Determination for 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Proposed Lot 15)	17 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 12.14

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.14

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

DESCRIPTION Section 96(1) modification to DA/842/2007 - Construction of a two-storey dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision on proposed Lot 16. The modification is to delete Condtion 12 (c) which requires the provision of street trees. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/842/2007/A - Submitted: 18 January 2008

APPLICANT/S Defence Housing Australia

OWNERS Defence Housing Australia

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine an application to modify development consent DA/842/2007. This consent granted approval to construct a two-storey dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision. The modification proposes to delete Condition 12 (c) which requires planting of street trees.

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council grant consent to modify Development Consent No. 842/2007 dated 26 November 2007 by deleting Condition 12 (c).

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site is Lot 16 of a 27 lot subdivision approved under DA/933/2004 at 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas. The overall site initially formed part of the St Patrick’s Marist Brother’s School, located immediately to the north of the site and has since been subdivided from the school site.

2. The proposed modifications are associated with the approved development on Lot 16 of that subdivision which is located to the west of the new road within the subdivision. Lot 16 is regular in shape, with a frontage to the new road of 19.017 metres, a length of approximately 31.498 metres and a total site area of 601m2. The site is currently vacant with no significant vegetation. It is noted that Lot 16 does not back on to residential properties fronting Paul Street.

BACKGROUND

6. Development Application No. 842/2007 granted a deferred commencement on 26 November 2007 under delegation for the construction of a two-storey dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision.

PROPOSAL

8. The Section 96(1) modification seeks approval to modify the consent by deleting Condition 12 (c) which requires the provision of street trees.

9. It is noted that the original Section 96 application for lot 16 initially involved three modifications to the consent being deleted of Condition 12(a), 12(b) and 12(c) as the applicant agreed argued that these conditions were placed on the consent in error.

11. Accordingly, the applicant withdrew the proposed modifications to delete Condition 12(a) and Condition 12(b) and accordingly, this current application only seeks to modify condition No. 12 (c).

REASONS FOR MODIFICATIONS

STATUTORY CONTROLS

14. The deletion of the condition will result in substantially the same development as that originally approved and can be dealt with pursuant to Section 96 (1) of the Act.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

16. 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

17. The Section 96(1) under Council’s Notification DCP was not required for notification. However, a petition was received which covered the whole site of 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas. Accordingly, the issues raised in that petition are addressed below.

Excessive Height

18. The current modification is for the deletion of condition 12 (c) which relates to landscaping issues. Height is not a relevant matter for consideration in this assessment.

Pad Levels

19. The current modification application is for the deletion of conditions 12 (c) which relates to landscaping issues. The pad levels are not a relevant matter for consideration in the assessment of this application.

Loss of Privacy / Potential for overlooking from windows

20. The current modification application is for the deletion of conditions 12 (c) which relates to landscaping issues. Privacy is not a relevant matter for consideration in the assessment of this application

ON-SITE MEETING

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

22. An on-site meeting was held due to the amount of submissions received on Saturday 29 March 2008 commencing at 1:30pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Borger (chair), Councillor Chedid, Councillor Finn, Councillor Brown, Danielle Woods – Team Leader Development and Certification, James McBride – Development and Certification Officer, Denise Fernandez – Development Assessment Officer, up to 50 residents, the applicant and a representative of the owner. No issues were raised at the site meeting which related to this subject application that being the deletion of the requirement for street trees to be provided.

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	Map of Approved Applications	1 Page
3View	History of S96 Modification	1 Page
4View	Copy of Notice of Determination for 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas (Proposed Lot 16)	15 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 12.16

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.16

SUBJECT 80 Dunlop Street, Epping. (Lot 14 Sec 3 DP 10048) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward).

DESCRIPTION Section 96(2) modification to DA/127/2005 approved for demolition and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision. The modifications include a reduced setback to the western boundary and increased setback to the eastern boundary, deletion of eaves, changes to the internal layouts, extension to western unit first floor front balcony on the north elevation plan to provide consistency with the floor plan, changes to various windows on the western and eastern elevations, relocation of rainwater tanks to the subfloor area below each unit and amended external finishes. (Location Map - Attachment 1).

REFERENCE DA/127/2005/A - Submitted 3 August 2007

APPLICANT/S Mr Y P Chau

OWNERS Mr L Yan and J B Wong

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine an application to modify Development Consent No. 127/2005, approved by Council for demolition and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision under Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council modify Development Consent No. 127/2005 dated 10 July 2006, in the following manner:

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

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

Drawing N^o	Dated
Drawing 1, Site Plan, Issue 6, drawn by HZ of 3D Archplan	20/06/2007
Drawing 2, Landscape Plan, Issue 4, drawn by HZ of 3D Archplan	22/01/2006
Drawing 3, Ground Floor Plan, Issue 6, drawn by HZ of 3D Archplan	20/06/2007
Drawing 4, First Floor Plan, Issue 6, drawn by HZ of 3D Archplan	20/06/2007
Drawing 5, North and South Elevation Plan, Issue 4, drawn by HZ of 3D Archplan	20/06/2007
Drawing 6a, East Elevation Plan, Issue 6, drawn by HZ of 3D Archplan	20/06/2007
Drawing 6a, West Elevation Plan, Issue 6, drawn by HZ of 3D Archplan	20/06/2007
Drawing 7, Section A Plan, Issue 5, drawn by HZ of 3D Archplan	01/06/2007
Drawing 9, Basement Plan, Issue 6, drawn by HZ of 3D Archplan	20/06/2007
Drainage Plan C01, Issue A, drawn by ES of KHH (Engineers)	26/3/06

Document(s)	Dated
Waste management plan
Statement of environmental effects
Basix Certificate No. 148159S	13/07/2007
Basix Certificate No. 147470S	13/07/2007
Schedule of finishes

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. The following new conditions are imposed:

51. Additional landscaping is to be provided within the western boundary setback of the development for the entire length of the dwelling. The landscaping is to include a mix of trees capable of growing to at least 3m in height as well as shrubs and ground cover vegetation suitable for the location. Suitable species may be chosen from Council’s list of indigenous/low water use species.

Reason: To provide additional screening.

3. That all other conditions remain.

Notes: You are reminded that to comply with the conditions of consent, this modification requires you to obtain an amended construction certificate.

This consent should be read in conjunction with development consent DA/127/2005 dated 10 July 2006 which granted approval for demolition and construction of a 2 storey attached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision and that all conditions should be complied with.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is known as 80 Dunlop Street, Epping and the legal description is Lot 14, Sec 3 in DP 10048. The subject site is located on the southern side of Dunlop Street with a north to south orientation and a substantial fall from the front to the rear of the site. The site is regular in shape with a frontage and rear boundary measuring 21.34m and depth of 50.29m, resulting in an overall site area measuring 1072.94sqm. Existing improvements on the site include a partially constructed 2 storey dual occupancy development approved by Council in 2006 under DA/127/2005.

BACKGROUND

2. Development Application No. 127/2005 was determined by way of approval by Council on 10 July 2006 for demolition and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision.

3. A Construction Certificate was issued by a Private Certifying Authority for the development on 27 December 2006 (Reference No. PC05110).

4. On 23 May 2007, an adjoining property owner wrote to Council and the PCA raising concern that the development was not being constructed in accordance with Council’s Development Consent issued for DA/127/2005.

5. A Notice of Intention to Give an Order was issued by the PCA to the builder on 31 May 2007 outlining that the development had not been constructed in accordance with the Development Consent DA/127/2005.

6. An application under Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (this application) was lodged on 3 August 2007 to modify Development Consent DA/127/2005 seeking approval for the changes to the unauthorised construction works completed.

PROPOSAL

7. Consent is sought to modify Development Consent DA/127/2005 dated 10 July 2006 in the following manner:

7.1. A reduced setback to the western side boundary from 1.5m to 1.1m,

7.2. An increased setback to the eastern side boundary from 1.5m to 1.8m,

7.3. Deletion of the eaves from the entire building,

7.4. Minor changes to the internal layouts of both units,

7.5. An extension to the western unit, first floor, front facing balcony on the north elevation plan to be consistent with the floor plan,

7.6. Changes to various windows on the western and eastern elevations,

7.7. Relocation of rainwater tanks to the subfloor area below each unit, and

7.8. Amended external finishes.

8. It is noted that a number of the proposed modifications have been completed prior to obtaining a modified consent from Council. The issue of unauthorised work is discussed later in this report.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

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

10. The proposed modifications to DA/127/2005 include a number of internal and external changes to the approved development. If amended, the development is still for the demolition and construction of an attached 2 storey dual occupancy development, which is substantially the same development as that originally approved in DA/127/2005 and can therefore be dealt with pursuant to S96 of the EP&A Act.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

11. The site is zoned 2A Residential pursuant to the zoning provisions contained in Clause 16 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The development, if modified, is considered to satisfy the aims and objectives of the 2A Residential zone.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

12. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005. A compliance table can be found as attachment 2 to this report.

CONSULTATION

13. In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the proposal between 28 August and 11 September 2007. In response to the notification period, no submissions were received.

14. Amended plans were received for the application, which were further notified to surrounding properties between 21 January and 4 February 2008. In response, 5 written submissions were received. The issues raised in the submissions are discussed below.

15. A further 3 submissions and 1 petition containing 30 signatures from 24 properties were received outside the notification periods. The issues raised in the submissions and petitions are discussed under the heading on-site meeting.

ON-SITE MEETING

16. Council at its meeting of 9 July 2007 resolved that a site meeting be held for Development Applications where five or more submissions have been received. A total of 8 written submissions and 1 petition containing 30 signatures from 24 properties were received. In accordance with Council’s resolution, an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 16 February 2008 at 11:30am. Present at the site meeting were Councillor Wearne (Chairperson), Councillor Wilson, Greg Smith (member for Epping), Ali Hammoud (Development Assessment Officer), Louise Connolly (Manager Development Services), 7 residents from 5 separate properties, Andre (the applicant and owner of the property) and Henry (Architect from 3DARCHPLANS). The issues raised at the on-site meeting are discussed below.

Potential for damage to existing vegetation along the property boundary during construction.

17. This issue is not related to this modification application and was considered under the original Development Application DA/127/2005.

Development will impact on the existing drainage easement at the rear of the subject site.

18. The proposed modifications do not include any modifications to the existing easement and therefore the issue is not related to this modification application. Furthermore, the issue was considered under the original Development Application DA/127/2005.

Privacy impacts of the development on surrounding residents particularly with the unauthorised filling of the on-site detention basins at the rear of the site.

19. The issue of the unauthorised filling of the on-site detention basins at the rear of the site has been investigated by Council’s Development Control Officer. An order for the removal of the fill and return of the site to the original contour levels was issued to the property owner on 10 March 2008. Further action on the order is pending the determination of this modification application.

Section 96 Modification Application, if approved, will approve the unauthorised works.

20. Pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), modifications to a development can be retrospectively approved by the consent authority if the consent authority is satisfied that the development, as amended, is substantially the same as that approved in the original consent. The modified development, if approved, is still for the demolition and construction of a 2 storey attached dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision and is considered substantially the same as DA/127/2005, approved by Council on 10 July 2006.

The amended plans are not approved amendments by the Architect 3DARCHPLAN.

21. The amended plans submitted to Council for consideration in this application are plans prepared by 3DARCHPLAN.

The widths of all windows are not illustrated on the plans.

22. Although the widths of all windows are not illustrated on the elevation plans, the dimensions of all windows are illustrated on the floor plans scaled at 1:100, which were provided to all parties who attended the on-site meeting for the development on 16 February 2008. Furthermore, all plans and documentation submitted with the modification application are available for public viewing on Council’s DA tracking website.

The plans are not an accurate representation of the existing structure in its current form.

23. The plans submitted with the application are not required to be a representation of the structure in its current form, rather, the plans are a representation of the modifications sought in this application, to the approved development.

The deletion of the eaves will not solve overshadowing problems on the adjoining dwellings.

24. The approved development will overshadow a portion of the adjoining property at 82 Dunlop Street between the hours of 9am to 12pm at the winter solstice on 21 June, however the development will not overshadow the existing dwelling on that property. A shadow analysis of the approved development indicates that the 9am shadow line is positioned 1.1m from the existing dwelling and that shadowing does not extend to cover any part of the existing dwelling on the adjoining property. A further shadow analysis of the modified development indicates that the 9am shadow line will be extended by 100mm towards the existing dwelling on the adjoining site and that the 9am shadow line will be positioned 1m from the existing dwelling. The amended shadows do not extend to cover any part of the existing dwelling on the adjoining property. The dwelling on the adjoining property will received solar access between 9am and 3pm at the winter solstice on 21 June.

The front setback of the dwelling has been reduced from 10m to 9m.

25. Survey plans provided by the applicant together with a site inspection by Council’s Development Assessment Officer indicate that the front setback of the dwelling, as constructed to date is 10m as per the approved plans.

The side western boundary setback of the development has been reduced to 900mm on the western side to the rear and 1.15 metres to the front.

26. The development was approved with a 1.5m side boundary setback to the eastern and western side boundaries. The development has been partially constructed with a reduced western boundary setback measuring 1.1m and an increased eastern boundary setback measuring 1.8m. The modification application is seeking a variation to the side boundary setback controls of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 by 400mm along the western side boundary. The side elevation of the western unit includes 4 ground floor windows, 2 of which have been reduced in size from 1.5m in height to 1m in height, with increased sill heights. The remaining 2 windows have proposed lower sill heights and no increases in their size. The reduction in size and increased sill heights of the windows reduces the potential privacy impacts of the development on the adjoining western property. In addition to the ground floor windows, the development includes 2 small sized first floor windows which service an ensuite and bathroom and will be finished with obscure glazing to further reduce the privacy impacts and the potential for overlooking into the adjoining property to the west. No additional windows or other openings are proposed on the ground or first floor of the western elevation of the development.

27. The reduced western boundary setback does not raise any concerns in relation to solar access and overshadowing impacts on the adjoining western property. As previously outlined, the approved development will overshadow a portion of the adjoining property at 82 Dunlop Street between the hours of 9am to 12pm at the winter solstice on 21 June, however will not overshadow the existing dwelling on the property. A shadow analysis of the modified development indicates that the 9am shadow line will be extended by 100mm towards the existing dwelling on the adjoining site and that the 9am shadow line will be positioned 1m from the existing dwelling. The amended shadows do not extend to cover any part of the existing dwelling on the adjoining property. The dwelling on the adjoining property will received solar access between 9am and 3pm at the winter solstice on 21 June.

The building is 3 storeys in height with a greater roof angle.

28. Pursuant to Clause 39 of PLEP 2001, the maximum height permissible for a Dual Occupancy development is 2 storeys above ground level. The proposed modifications to Development Consent No. 127/2005 include the use of the subfloor area beneath the ground floors of the development as storage areas for rainwater tanks. The floor to ceiling heights of the subfloor areas beneath the ground floor of the development, measure 1.8m and protrude more than 1.2m above ground level which constitutes a storey in accordance with the definitions contained in PLEP 2001. However, no portion of the building exceeds the 2 storey height limit. The development was approved with a 22 degree roof pitch and the amended proposal does not seek any changes to the approved roof pitch.

No access is available to the area between the retaining walls and the south and western boundary fences.

29. Access to these areas is not required as they are not functional areas.

The floor space ratio of the development exceeds the permissible 0.6:1 for Dual Occupancy development.

30. Pursuant to Clause 40 of PLEP 2001, the maximum permissible floor space ratio for a Dual Occupancy development is 0.6:1 which equates to 643.76sqm of floor space on the 1072.94sqm site. The proposed modifications to Development Consent No. 127/2005 include additional floor space to the approved development.

31. The subfloor areas located beneath the ground floors of the development have been excavated and are proposed to be used for the storage of the rainwater tanks for each dwelling. The floor to ceiling height of the subfloor areas measures 1.8m from the natural ground levels to the ceiling levels. In accordance with the definition of floor space areas contained in PLEP 2001, such areas are not specifically catered for, yet it can be argued that these areas are not exempted from calculation of floor space under point (c) of the floor space area definition. Therefore, the floor space area of the subfloors has been included in the overall floor space calculation of the building. The subfloor areas measure 13.65sqm each in area and 27.3sqm in total. In addition to the existing approved floor space area of 643sqm, the total floor space area of the building is 670.3sqm which equates to a floor space ratio of 0.63:1.

32. The additional floor space area of the building does not contribute to any additional height of the building and is not considered to have a perceptible impact on the bulk and scale and the form and mass of the development. The design corresponds to the topography of the site by stepping the design down the site and not exceeding the 2 storey height limit at any point of the building.

Drainage works have not been carried out in accordance with the approved drainage plan.

33. No modifications to the on-site detention system are sought in this application. The issue of the on-site detention system not being constructed in accordance with the approved plans has been investigated by Council’s Development Control Officer and further action on this issue is pending the determination of this modification application. Should this application be approved, Council’s Development Control Officer may issue an order for rectification works to be undertaken to construct the on-site detention system in accordance with the approved plans.

Compliance with condition 1 of the consent relating to the provision of a drainage plan.

34. A drainage plan was provided with the original application and is listed as an approved plan in condition 1 of the original consent. The drainage plan is also retained in the modified condition.

Compliance with condition 2 of the consent relating to the building being constructed in accordance with the Building Code of Australia and condition 3 relating to the requirement for a Construction Certificate.

35. A Construction Certificate was issued by the Private Certifier for the proposed development on 27 December 2006 which also includes an assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

Compliance with condition 5 of the consent relating to replacement fencing.

36. DA/127/2005 was approved with a condition that existing fencing is to be retained and that any replacement fencing is to be agreed to by adjoining property owners.

Compliance with condition 7 of the consent relating to a Section 73 Compliance Certificate being obtained from Sydney Water.

37. The Private Certifier has provided Council with a copy of the Section 73 Compliance Certificate issued by Sydney Water for the development.

Compliance with conditions 8 and 9 of the consent relating to written confirmation being obtained from Integral Energy and an approved Telecommunications Provider for the provision of electricity and telecommunications services for the development.

38. The Private Certifier has provided Council with a copy of the written confirmation required from Integral Energy and Telstra.

Compliance with conditions 10 and 11 of the consent relating to disturbance of utility installations and public utility easements.

39. The proposed vehicular crossing will not impact on any existing utility installations or existing utility services or easements and therefore no written confirmation from the utility providers was required.

Compliance with condition 12 of the consent relating to costs associated with restoration works to Council’s property.

40. The development is currently under construction and any damage to Council’s property during the construction will be restored by the applicant, at their own cost, as per the condition of the original consent.

Compliance with condition 15 of the consent relating to the installation of service ducts.

41. The development is currently under construction and any service ducts required for the development will be constructed as per the condition of the consent.

Compliance with condition 17 of the consent relating to the on-site detention system being designed in accordance with the Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust “On-Site Detention Handbook” and Council’s drainage code.

42. No modifications to the on-site detention system are sought in this application. The issue of the on-site detention system not being constructed in accordance with the approved plans has been investigated by Council’s Development Control Officer and further action on this issue is pending the determination of this modification application. Should this application be approved, Council’s Development Control Officer may issue an order for rectification works to be undertaken to construct the on-site detention system in accordance with the approved plans.

Compliance with condition 18 of the consent relating to notice being given to adjoining occupants 5 days prior to demolition works commencing.

43. The Private Certifier has provided Council with a copy of the written notice given to adjoining occupants prior to the demolition works commencing.

Compliance with condition 19 of the consent relating to Private Certifying Authority inspecting the site prior to demolition, to ascertain whether the existing structure contained any asbestos material.

44. The Private Certifier has provided Council with a copy of the relevant inspection record.

Compliance with condition 20 of the consent relating to the use of licensed demolishers being used for the demolition and removal of asbestos materials.

45. The Private Certifier has provided Council with details of the demolition company used for the demolition of the existing dwelling.

Compliance with condition 21 of the consent relating to the erection of a sign warning ‘Asbestos Removal in Progress’.

46. The Private Certifier has provided Council with written confirmation that the sign was erected prior to demolition works commencing.

Compliance with condition 22 of the consent relating to the erection of a suitable security fence prior to commencement of any building work.

47. A security fence was erected prior to the commencement of any construction works associated with the development. The fence was sighted during the site visits conducted for the development and during the on-site meeting held for the application. Following concerns raised by neighbouring property owners, a service request was lodged with Council to investigate the concerns of inadequate fencing (Service Request Number: 450366). At the time of writing this report, the service request was under investigation.

Compliance with condition 23 of the consent relating to the erection of a site sign.

48. A site sign was erected on the security fence. The sign was sighted during the site visits conducted for the development and during the on-site meeting held for the application.

Compliance with condition 25 of the consent relating to the requirement for the plans to be stamped by Sydney Water.

49. The Private Certifier has provided Council with a copy of the stamped Sydney Water plans.

Compliance with condition 26 of the consent relating to the provision of toilet facilities.

50. Toilet facilities are available on site.

Compliance with condition 27 of the consent relating to retaining wall details being submitted with the Construction Certificate.

51. Condition 27 of the consent relates to the requirement for any additional retaining walls other than those already approved by the consent. No new retaining walls were proposed when the Construction Certificate was issued.

Compliance with condition 28 of the consent relating to the installation of erosion and sediment control devices prior to works commencing and maintenance of the devices during works.

52. Erosion and sediment control devices were available on site and sighted during the site inspections conducted for the development and during the on-site meeting held for the application.

Compliance with condition 37 of the consent relating to the preparation of a survey certificate at certain stages of the development.

53. The Private Certifier has provided Council with a copy of the survey certificates.

Compliance with condition 38 of the consent relating to the provision of toilet facilities on Council’s nature strip.

54. The toilet facilities were sighted during the site inspections carried out for the development and the on-site meeting held for the application. The toilet facilities were located within the confines of the site.

Compliance with condition 45 of the consent relating to the provision of all records of inspection to Council.

55. The Private Certifier has provided Council with a copy of the inspection records.

Compliance with condition 46 of the consent relating to the landscaping being completed in accordance with the approved plans.

56. The development is currently under construction and has not reached the stage of landscaping. The occupation certificate will not be issued for the use of the site until such time that the landscaping is completed in accordance with the approved plans, as per the condition of consent.

The amended external finishes are not clearly indicated on the plans.

57. The proposed amendments to the external finishes include a change from rendered brickwork along the western, eastern and southern elevations of the building to face brickwork. No further modifications to the external finishes are proposed. These changes are illustrated on the elevation plans, which were provided to residents in the notification packages.

The issues identified in Council’s letter dated 25 June 2007 have not been addressed.

58. The issues raised in Council’s letter dated 25 June 2007 relate to inconsistencies between the constructed development and Council’s approval. These issues are the subject of this application. Further action on this matter is pending the determination of this application.

The size of the dwelling is excessive when compared to other residential dwellings in the neighbouring area.

59. Dwelling sizes within the Parramatta Local Government Area are restricted by the floor space ratio controls contained within PLEP 2001. For a Dual Occupancy development, PLEP 2001 permits a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1, which for the subject 1072.2sqm site equates to 643.32sqm. The proposed modifications to Development Consent No. 127/2005 include additional floor space to the approved development. The floor space area of the subfloors has been included in the overall floor space calculation of the building. The subfloor areas measure 13.65sqm each in area and 27.3sqm in total. In addition to the existing approved floor space area of 643sqm, the total floor space area of the building is 670.3sqm which equates to a floor space ratio of 0.63:1. The proposed additional floor space area of the building does not contribute to any additional height of the building and is not considered to have a substantial impact on the bulk and scale and the form and mass of the development. The additional floor space area of the building does not contribute to any additional height of the building and is not considered to have a perceptible impact on the bulk and scale and the form and mass of the development. The design corresponds to the topography of the site by stepping the design down the site and not exceeding the 2 storey height limit at any point of the building.

The subfloor areas could be used as habitable rooms for residential purposes.

60. The floor to ceiling height of these subfloor areas measures 1.8m and the floor areas measure 13.65sqm each and 27.3sqm in total. PDCP 2005 requires habitable rooms for residential dwellings to have a minimum 2.7m ground floor to ceiling height. Additionally, the minimum floor to ceiling height for habitable rooms required by the Building Code of Australia (BCA) is 2.4m. Therefore, the subfloor areas of these dwellings would not be considered suitable or practical for use as habitable rooms for residential purposes.

The modifications are outside the scope of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

61. The proposed modifications include a number of internal and external changes to the approved development. If amended, the development is still for the demolition and construction of an attached 2 storey dual occupancy development, which is substantially the same development as that originally approved in DA/127/2005 and can therefore be dealt with pursuant to Section 96 of the EP&A Act.

Council is not taking appropriate action to enforce planning rules and regulations.

62. The unauthorised works which have been constructed by the applicant have been investigated by Council’s Development Control team and as a result, the property owner was advised to lodge a Section 96 Modification Application to seek to modify the consent and include the changes. Further action by Council’s Development Control Officer is pending the determination of this application.

The development has introduced vermin to surrounding properties.

63. Following concerns raised by neighbouring property owners, a service request was lodged with Council to investigate the concerns of vermin on their properties (Service Request Number: 450368). The request was investigated and comments from the investigation include:

63.1. ”Lack of human presence and lack of activity affords this property to be used for rodent nesting.”

64. Further action by on this matter is pending the determination of this application.

A change in the description of the modification application represents a new application being lodged with Council.

65. The description of the application was changed to better reflect the modifications applied for in the application. The concerned residents were advised that the change in description did not include any new modifications.

The survey plan provided did not adequately reflect the current structure.

66. A site inspection was conducted by Council’s Development Assessment Officer to validate distances as indicated on the survey plan. The site inspection revealed that the survey plan is a correct representation of the structure on the site.

ISSUES

Height Limits in Residential Zones

67. Pursuant to Clause 39 of PLEP 2001, the maximum height permissible for a Dual Occupancy development is 2 storeys above ground level. The proposed modifications to Development Consent No. 127/2005 include the use of the subfloor area beneath the ground floors of the development as storage areas for the rainwater tanks.

68. The floor to ceiling heights of the subfloor areas beneath the ground floor of the development measure 1.8m and protrude more than 1.2m above ground level, which constitutes a storey in accordance with the definitions contained in PLEP 2001. However, no portion of the building exceeds the 2 storey height limit.

Floor Space Ratios for Development

69. Pursuant to Clause 40 of PLEP 2001, the maximum permissible floor space ratio for a Dual Occupancy development is 0.6:1 which equates to 643.76sqm of floor space on the 1072.94sqm site. The proposed modifications to Development Consent No. 127/2005 include additional floor space to the approved development.

70. The subfloor areas located beneath the ground floors of the development have been excavated and are proposed to be used for the storage of the rainwater tanks for each dwelling. The floor to ceiling height of the subfloor areas measures 1.8m from the natural ground levels to the ceiling levels. In accordance with the definition of floor space areas contained in PLEP 2001, such areas are not specifically catered for, yet it can be argued that these areas are not exempted from calculation of floor space under point (c) of the floor space area definition. Therefore, the floor space area of the subfloors has been included in the overall floor space calculation of the building. The subfloor areas measure 13.65sqm each in area and 27.3sqm in total. In addition to the existing approved floor space area of 643sqm, the total floor space area of the building is 670.3sqm which equates to a floor space ratio of 0.63:1.

71. The additional floor space area of the building does not contribute to any additional height of the building and is not considered to have a perceptible impact on the bulk and scale and the form and mass of the development. The design corresponds to the topography of the site by stepping the design down the site and not exceeding the 2 storey height limit at any point of the building.

Side Boundary Setback

72. The development was approved with a 1.5m side boundary setback to the eastern and western side boundaries. The development has been partially constructed with a reduced western boundary setback measuring 1.1m and an increased eastern boundary setback measuring 1.8m. The modification application is seeking a variation to the side boundary setback controls of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 by 400mm to the western side boundary. No additional windows or other openings are proposed on the ground or first floor of the western elevation of the development.

73. The reduced western boundary setback does not raise any concerns in relation to solar access and overshadowing impacts on the adjoining western property. The dwelling on the adjoining property will received solar access between 9am and 3pm at the winter solstice on 21 June.

Unauthorised Works

74. As a number of the proposed modification works have been carried out without prior consent of Council, it is recommended that Council's Compliance section issue a penalty infringement notice for the carrying out of works without the consent of Council.

75. Refusal of this application is considered to have a greater impact on the amenity for surrounding properties, than if the application were approved. The modified development fails to satisfy the floor space ratio control of PLEP 2001 and the side boundary setback control of PDCP 2005 however, the proposed modifications are generally consistent with the aims and objectives of PLEP 2001 and PDCP 2005.

76. A refusal of the application, assuming an appeal against the decision is made to the Land and Environment Court and lost, would result in an order being issued for the demolition of the building, to the extent of non-compliance with the approved consent, and construction of the development in accordance with the approval granted by Council. Such an outcome is considered to have a greater amenity impact on the adjoining property owners than if the application were approved with conditions requiring window treatments and landscaping to aid in softening the building along the western elevation.

77. Legal advice was sought including the likelihood of Council successfully defending a refusal of the application in the Land and Environment Court. The advice provided is summarised below:

77.1. “Our preliminary view is that the existing breaches of the controls caused by illegal building works, are not significant. Alternatively any potential adverse impacts from such breaches may be able to be minimised by conditions of consent … Council's prospects of successfully defending an appeal will be less than 50%.”

77.2. The likelihood of successfully defending an appeal in the Land and Environment Court on the basis of the development as modified being inconsistent with the objectives of the 2A residential zoning and the non-compliances with the numerical controls in respect of FSR and side setbacks is largely dependent upon whether the non-compliances results in actual adverse amenity impacts. We refer to the decision of his Honour, Justice Talbot in Winten Developments Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [1999] NSWLEC 229 at paragraph [24]:

"The non-compliance with standards is to be considered in the context of the impact on view, privacy, overshadowing and bulk."

78. In light of the advice provided and an assessment of the proposed modifications, the increased floor space ratio and reduced western side boundary setback will not have an adverse amenity impact on the adjoining property in terms of view, privacy, overshadowing and bulk as detailed below.

Views

79. There are no significant views or vistas identified from the subject site or the adjoining property. The view of the western elevation from the adjoining property is not considered to be exacerbated by the relocation of the dwelling closer to the boundary. It is further considered that the provision of suitable landscaping along the western elevation could be used to soften the elevation. A condition requiring suitable landscaping of the western side boundary setback is included in the recommendation.

Privacy

80. The building is positioned 400mm closer towards the western boundary than what was approved in DA/127/2005 and the uses of the rooms within the building remain unchanged. Rooms on the ground floor include a living room, kitchen and family room and rooms on the first floor include 2 bedrooms, an ensuite and a bathroom. The windows along the ground floor of the western elevation are proposed to be modified including increased sill heights to the living room and kitchen windows and repositioning of the family room window. These modifications will reduce any privacy impacts and reduce the potential for overlooking from within the dwelling to the adjoining site to the west.

81. As a result of the reduced western side boundary setback, the eastern side boundary setback has been increased to 1.8m. No additional openings are proposed along the eastern elevation. However, an error in the representation of 1 window along the eastern elevation is being sought under this modification application. The window was represented on the floor plan of the original application but omitted from the elevation plan. The window has now been included on the proposed modified elevation plan and is not a new window.

Overshadowing

82. The development as approved will partially overshadow the adjoining property at 82 Dunlop Street between the hours of 9am to 12pm at the winter solstice on 21 June, however will not overshadow the existing dwelling on that property. A shadow analysis of the modified development indicates that the 9am shadow line of the modified development with the reduced side boundary setback will be extended by 100mm towards the existing dwelling on the adjoining site and that the 9am shadow line will be positioned 1m from the existing dwelling. The amended shadows do not extend to cover any part of the existing dwelling on the adjoining property. The amended side boundary setback does not reduce or further impact the provision of solar access to the existing dwelling on the adjoining property. The dwelling on the adjoining property will receive solar access between 9am and 3pm at the winter solstice on 21 June, which is consistent with the requirements of PDCP 2005.

Bulk

83. The additional floor space area of the building does not contribute to any additional height of the building and is not considered to have a perceptible impact on the bulk and scale and the form and mass of the development. The design corresponds to the topography of the site by stepping the design down the site and not exceeding the 2 storey height limit at any point of the building.

84. Should the application be approved, a majority of the concerns raised by the surrounding property owners would cease to exist.

Ali Hammoud

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	Compliance Table	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	9 Pages
4View	History of DA	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 12.17

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.17

SUBJECT Eastwood Brickwork Site - 37 Midson Road, Eastwood. (Lot 100 DP 1068077) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION Section 96(1a) modification to an approved apartment building containing 41 units including changes to the internal layout and relocating the entry foyer of an approved residential flat building.

REFERENCE DA/582/2005/B - Submitted - 21 May 2008

APPLICANT/S A V Jennings

OWNERS Brickworks Limited

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine an application that seeks to modify Development Consent No. 582/2005 by changing the internal layout and relocating the entry foyer.

The application has been referred to Council as the site is a Heritage Item under Schedule 1 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council modify development Consent No. 582/2005 dated 17 November 2005 in the following manner:

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

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

Drawing No	Dated
Mill Building: South Elevation Plan Dwg No. S96-22 Rev A	1 May 2008
Mill Building: Ground Floor Plan Dwg No. S96-14 Rev B	1 May 2008
Mill Building: Section B-B Plan Dwg No. S96-26 Rev A	1 May 2008
Mill Building: Section C-C Plan Dwg No. S96-27 Rev A	1 May 2008
Mill Building: South Elevation Plan Dwg No. S96-24 Rev A	1 May 2008

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

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

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

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site is known as The Eastwood Brickworks and covers an area of approximately 14.73 hectares. The site has frontage to Mobbs Lane (to the north), Midson Road (to the east) and Skenes Avenue (to the south). Residential properties surround the site, with the exception of the Channel 7 Studio which is located on Mobbs Lane. Terry’s Creek traverses the south west corner of the site.

2. The Heritage Precinct is centrally located within the former Brickworks site. The Heritage Precinct will become the major focus of the development, providing a great opportunity to interpret the former industrial use of the site.

3. The northern and southern boundaries of the subject site adjoin an area of open communal space. The Downdraft Kilns are located within this area of open communal space to the south. Detached housing is proposed to the east, courtyard homes are proposed to the west and more broadly to the north, east and west.

BACKGROUND

4. Council on 6 June 2003 approved the Eastwood Brickworks Master Plan for the redevelopment of the site to provide a maximum of 280 dwellings.

5. The Land and Environment Court on 2 July 2004 granted consent to Development Application 668/2003 for the filling of the Eastwood Brickworks to facilitate future residential development of the site.

6. Council on 5 July 2004 approved the civil and subdivision works comprising the construction of the final landform, construction of the internal road network, provision of utility services (gas, sewer, water, stormwater, drainage, electricity and communications), landscaping works, Community title subdivision into 46 lots (comprising a Community title lot, 36 residential lots that form Stage 1 of the proposed redevelopment of the site and 8 development lots [Stages 2-8] that represent the remainder of the site for future development) and subdivision of land adjacent to Terry’s Creek for dedication to Council as a Public Reserve.

7. Council at its meeting on 14 November 2005 granted consent to Development Application 582/2005 for the refurbishment of the Patent Kiln Building for residential use to accommodate 10 dwellings, demolition of the Mill Building and construction of a part 5 and 6 storey building, accommodating 41 dwellings over basement car parking for 83 vehicles and landscaping.

8. Council at its meeting on 12 June 2007 granted consent to modify Development Application 582/2005 to amend schedule 1 (Deferred Commencement conditions) that approved the refurbishment of the Patent Kiln building and the demolition and reconstruction of the mill building.

PROPOSAL

9. To determine an application to modify Development Consent DA/582/2005 for the proposed refurbishment of the Patent Kiln building for residential use to accommodate 10 dwellings, demolition of the mill building and construction of part 5 and part 6 storey building, accomodating 41 dwellings over basement carparkng for 83 vehicles and landscaping at 37 Midson Road, Eastwood under Section 96(1a) of the EP & A Act 1979.

10. The Section 96 amendment relates to the residential flat building only and seeks approval to modify the development consent in the following way:

Relocate the foyer from the western elevation to the southern elevation

11. The proposed relocation of the foyer will not substantially change the appearance of the building as the height, massing and scale of the building will not be altered.

12. In addition, the proposed relocation of the foyer will provide a more direct link to the public domain to enhance the relationship between pedestrian movement and buildings on the site.

Relocate one apartment from the southern elevation to the western elevation to accommodate relocation of the foyer

13. The relocation of one apartment will not increase the approved floor space ratio and allows for the relocation of the foyer.

Redesign of a two bedroom apartment to a one bedroom apartment

14. The redesign of a two bedroom apartment to a one bedroom apartment will not change the approved floor space ratio. There will be no variation of vehicular access and parking as approved in the original application.

15. Given this, the proposed modification will not result in any significant environmental, economic or social impacts.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

SEPP 65

16. The provisions of SEPP No.65 apply to the proposed development. The SEPP identifies 10 design quality principles that must be considered in the assessment of development applications for residential flat buildings.

17. In this regard, the applicant has submitted a SEPP 65 report written by a Registered Architect – refer to Attachment 5, which addresses the 10 design quality principles considered in the assessment of development applications for residential flat buildings.

18. The proposal was referred to the Councils Urban Designer who made the following comments:

“The proposed building typology includes an apartment building and this will not be altered by the proposal. The height, massing and scale of the built form of the building will not be altered by the proposal. The articulation and façade treatment will be altered to reflect the relocation of the foyer and one of the apartments. The alteration however will not substantially change the appearance of the building and is considered acceptable.

The proposed location of the new foyer will optimise the visibility, functionality and safety of the development and results in a more direct relationship with the public domain.

It is considered that the proposed amendments to the building are a satisfactory urban design response to the context of the site, given the desired future character of the area and the intended occupants of the development.”

19. Given this, the application is considered to satisfy the 10 design principles contained within SEPP 65.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

20. Section 96 of the EP& A Act 1979 allows applicants to make an application to modify a development consent issued by Council. It also states that a consent authority must be satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for consent was originally granted.

21. The proposed modifications include changes to the internal layout and relocating the entry foyer of the approved residential building. The proposed modification will result in substantially the same development as that originally approved and can be dealt with pursuant to S96 of the Act.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

22. The site is zoned 2(a) Residential under PLEP 2001, which allows for a variety of forms of low density residential development. The objectives of this zone include enhancing the amenity of the existing residential area and ensuring that building forms are in keeping with the existing character of the area.

23. The site is subject to an approved masterplan, which establishes that higher densities are permissible on the site. In addition, the master plan allows the formulation of development controls which may vary from those prescribed in the PLEP if it can be demonstrated that they have arisen from an analysis of the site and its context.

24. The Eastwood Brickworks Master Plan was endorsed by Council on 6 June 2003. The objectives of the Master Plan are to ensure that the urban structure, layout and form of the development responds positively to its urban context.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation ) and the Heritage Development Control Plan 2001

25. The site is listed as an item of significance under Schedule 1 of LEP 1996. The proposed modification results in no adverse impacts to the heritage significance of the site.

CONSULTATION

26. The application was notified from 2 June 2008 to 16 June 2008. One submission has been received.

27. The issues raised in the objection are as follows:

Concern is raised that the proposed multi level apartments will cause too many people, traffic, noise and impact on privacy

28. The application involves minor modifications to an already approved development application and does not include any changes in density, traffic, noise or privacy. The application does not involve an increase in floor area or the building envelope. Accordingly, these matters are not relevant when considering this Section 96 modification.

ISSUES

Heritage

29. The application has been reviewed by Council’s Heritage Advisor who raises no objections to the proposal and provides the following comments:

“The current S.96 application refers to the changes to the entrance area only, including installation of a wheelchair lift to facilitate disabled access and subsequent changes to the floor plan. From the heritage perspective, these changes are of minor nature and would have no impact on heritage values of the place, the area or any adjacent places.”

Sophia Chin

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Plans and Elevations	6 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Heritage Inventory	1 Page
4View	Previous Council Reports	12 Pages
5View	SEPP 65 Report	6 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 14 July 2008

Item 12.19

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.19

SUBJECT 66 Cross Street, Guildford (Lot B in DP 348917) (Woodville Ward)

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to heritage-listed dwelling and change of use to a 40-place childcare centre.

REFERENCE DA/729/2007 - DA/729/2007

APPLICANT/S Mr M Maklouf

OWNERS Mr M & Mr R Ibrahim

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To determine Development Application No. 729/2007 which seeks approval for alterations and additions to a single storey, heritage-listed dwelling house and change of use to a 40-place childcare centre.

The application is being referred to Council for determination as it involves development relating to a child care centre.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 729/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

1. The childcare centre shall cater for a maximum of 24 children at any one time and comprise of a minimum of 8 places for 0–2 year olds and a maximum of 16 places for 3–6 year olds.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Department of Community Services, the Childcare Centres DCP and the terms of this consent.

2. This consent does not authorise the use or operation of the premises as a childcare centre, except where the operator and all employees are in possession of a current and valid licence from the NSW Department of Community Services.

Reason: To comply with the Department of Community Services

3. The days and hours of operation of the childcare centre are restricted to Monday to Friday from 7:00am to 6:00pm respectively. The childcare centre is not to operate on public holidays or weekends. An additional 30 minutes at the start and at the conclusion of the day may be used for administrative/staff functions. After-hours events and activities associated with the use as a childcare centre shall require the further approval of Council.

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

4. The childcare centre shall operate in accordance with the endorsed recommendations of the approved acoustic report prepared by RSA Acoustics.

Reason: To mitigate noise impacts to adjoining property owners.

5. The original chimney, fireplace and rear walls of the two front bedrooms (which face Cross Street) are required to remain in-situ. They shall not be demolished as part of the application.

Reason: To preserve the heritage fabric of the existing dwelling

6. The roof materials and alterations and additions shall match those existing and be of compatible colour scheme and roofing material.

Reason: To ensure compliance with this consent.

7. The Management Plan is to be amended to reflect the 24-child capacity of the childcare centre. A copy of the management plan is to be submitted to Council prior to the release of the construction certificate.

Reason: To ensure compliance with this consent.

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

Reason: To ensure that the proposal satisfies legislative requirements.

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

Reason: For security purposes.

10. The number of driveways shall be reduced from two to one, with the southern driveway to be retained for the exclusive use of staff of the childcare centre. The former driveway location shall be landscaped in a similar manner to the front setback area.

Reason: Safety and aesthetic purposes.

11. All costs associated with the supply and installation of the ’15 Minute Parking 8:00am-6:00pm Mon-Fri' zone and signage to be the responsibility of the property owner.

Reason: To ensure that costs are met.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is known as No. 66 Cross Street (Lot B, DP 348917) and is located on the eastern side of Cross Street. The site is rectangular with a frontage to Cross Street of 20 metres, a depth of 51 metres and a total site area of 1026m².

2. The site is currently occupied by a single storey heritage-listed dwelling house. The surrounding area is characterised by detached dwellings, dual occupancy development and multi-unit housing and is located approximately 450 metres to the south of the Guildford shopping centre.

PROPOSAL

3. Approval is sought for the following:

3.1 Alterations and additions to the existing single storey dwelling-house including a rear extension;

3.2 To use the building as a 40-place child care centre with three play areas for 0-2 year olds (10 children), 3-6 year olds (16 children) and 3-6 year olds (14 children);

3.3 The proposed child care centre includes 6 at-grade car parking spaces (in a stacked arrangement), indoor and outdoor play areas, kitchen, laundry, bathrooms, storage areas and offices;

3.4 The proposed hours of operation are Monday to Friday 7:00am to 6:00pm. The proposed outdoor activities will be between 8:30am to 4:30pm.

BACKGROUND

4. The proposal was initially lodged proposing two separate driveways, one being adjacent to the northern boundary, the other to the south. These driveways proposed to accommodate 6 cars in a stacked arrangement. This necessitated the need for vehicles to depart the site in a reversing manner.

5. This arrangement was considered by Council’s Traffic Engineer to be unacceptable for vehicular and pedestrian safety reasons and conflicts relating to vehicles exiting the premises and reversing back on street, particularly for visitors and parents who drive into and out of the site.

6. Council’s Traffic Engineer advised that she would not support a 40-place childcare centre with a shortfall of 4 spaces and with a parking arrangement in the manner submitted.

7. The Traffic Committee has supported the provision of 3 off-street parking spaces in one driveway and no greater than the equivalent of 3 additional 15 minute limited parking spaces being provided on-street immediately outside the premises, parallel to the kerb.

8. The NSW Police and the RTA have also expressed their support for this recommendation and approval was granted by the Parramatta Traffic Committee (Item 27) under Delegated Authority No. 142 on 22 May 2008.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

9. The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. Childcare centres are permissible with the consent of Council and subject to consistency with the aims and objectives of the LEP and the zone.

10. Subject to conditions, the proposal is regarded as being consistent with the LEP and the zone.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

11. The development is subject to the requirements of this plan. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 and achieves compliance with the required carparking spaces.

Child Care Centre Development Control Plan

12. The development is subject to the requirements of the Parramatta Child Care Centre Development Control Plan. The proposed development is inconsistent with the carparking control and with the landscaping control but, subject to a reduction in the number of children in care from the proposed 40 to 24, is generally consistent with the objectives of the Child Care Centre DCP.

Consultation

13. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised from 3 to 24 October 2007. No submissions were received.

Issues

Heritage

14. The site is listed as an item of local heritage significance under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (Heritage and Conservation) 1996. The site is significant as the dwelling is an example of the Federation and Inter-War California Bungalow housing type in the Guildford area.

15. A heritage impact statement has been prepared by Urban Link and submitted with the development application. The report concludes:

“The design of the proposed rear additions and alterations to the existing dwelling have been done to match in all aspects to the existing form, materials, timber doors and window types, roof pitch, external finishes and walls. The character of this existing building will therefore not alter the environment of the streetscape. The proposed additions and alterations are intended to improve the quality of the existing building and the rear existing parts that are dilapidated will be upgraded”.

16. Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the proposal and has raised no objections, subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the protection of the existing heritage fabric. Accordingly no objections are raised on heritage grounds.

Car parking

17. The minimum car parking requirement for childcare centres is 1 space per 4 children. The proposed development comprises 40 children and generates a maximum requirement for 10 car parking spaces. The proposal provides on site parking for 6 spaces in a stacked arrangement in 2 driveways resulting in a deficit of 4 spaces.

18. The application has been reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineers and Traffic Committee where the following conclusions are made:

19. The subject site accommodates a heritage item, which is retained and upgraded as part of the proposal, to achieve compliance with the car parking requirements would result in the loss of existing landscaping and detract from the heritage significance of the dwelling.

20. If two driveways are provided in association with the use, two on-street and time-limited parking spaces could be accommodated between the two driveways. This would account for a total of 8 carparking spaces, 3 on each driveway and 2 on the street. However, this is considered inappropriate due to sight distance issues and safety concerns, particularly in relation to vehicles exiting the premises and reversing back on street at the same time when there are cars parked on the street. This is deemed particularly inappropriate given the use of the premises as a childcare centre and the proposed reverse manoeuvring arrangement would create undue vehicle-pedestrian risk, specifically in relation to children.

21. Therefore, it is advised that the 40-place child care centre cannot be supported with 6 parking spaces provided on-site utilising two parallel driveways shown in the manner submitted. However, similarly a reduction in on-site parking to 3 spaces on 1 driveway only cannot be supported as it compounds the off-street parking shortfall. The reduction in the number of off-street parking spaces has been considered and is supported subject to the centre providing care for a maximum of 24 children with 3 on-site carparking spaces provided in a single driveway in a stacked arrangement and the provision of 3 on-street parking spaces, these being 3 x 15 minute parking spaces immediately outside the premises. This results in 6 spaces being provided and a capacity for 24 children at the site.

22. The stacked driveway spaces shall only be used for staff, thus ensuring that there is no potential conflict with children as a result of vehicles reversing onto the carriageway during peak periods.

23. Whilst generally on-street parking should not be considered as part of the off-street parking requirement calculation for this proposal, the volume of traffic on this section of Cross Street is not considered significant and part-time on-street parking would not impact on the safe operation of the surrounding street network.

24. The purpose of Clause 3.4 of the Childcare Centres DCP is to allow for the on-street parking in certain circumstances where there will be no adverse impacts on the safe and efficient flow of traffic in the surrounding road network or any other undue parking or traffic generation impacts within the locality. The other criteria to be satisfied is that the on-street parking does not compromise the safe operation of the centre, for example the safe pick-up and drop-off of children.

25. The clause does not limit consideration of on-street parking to that which can

be located directly in front of the centre. Where parking is located off-site

Council needs to be satisfied that it is located a suitable distance from the centre to enable adequate drop off and pick up of children. In this regard, the 3 restricted on-street carparking spaces will allow a controlled drop-off and pick-up to a maximum of 15 minute intervals directly in front of the centre. This is concluded to be satisfactory.

26. Consideration of on-street parking is a case by case assessment envisaged under Clause 3.4 of the DCP. It does not of itself create a precedent as it has a site specific assessment basis.

27. Accordingly, no objections are raised to the proposal based on carparking, provided that the maximum capacity of the centre is limited to 24 children.

Noise

28. The application was accompanied by a Noise Assessment prepared by RSA Acoustics. The report concludes “while the children may be audible to the residents to the properties to the north, south and east, acoustically, the predicted noise levels will be within acceptable LAeq noise limits. The proposed child care centre building will contain the internal noise. The fencing to the north, south and east of the external educational play activity area and along the northern and southern boundaries will reduce the external noise emissions in these directions. The child care centre should be able to operate in accordance with Department of Community Services guidelines and without significant loss of acoustic amenity to local residents”.

29. Child Care Centres DCP provides acoustic criteria for child care centres. The submitted acoustic report addresses these criteria and complies with the noise criteria, including ensuring external noise does not exceed 55 dB(A). The centre achieves compliance with a external noise level of 53 dB(A). Measures to ensure noise does not impede on adjoining properties include provision of a 1.8m high boundary fence, provision of windows and glass doors with a minimum Rw rating of 23 dB or higher. Accordingly no objections are raised to the proposal on acoustic grounds.

30. The recommended reduction of the number of children in care from 40 to 24 will also serve to mitigate noise emissions from the site.

Landscaping

31. The Childcare Centres DCP requires provision of a minimum 1 metre landscape buffer along the side and rear boundaries. The proposal fails to achieve full compliance with this control with landscaping being provided along the boundaries of the outdoor play area and to approximately 50% of the southern property boundaries.

32. The proposal is for alterations and additions to the an existing heritage listed dwelling. The proposal has been designed taking into consideration the site constraints. The DCP requires the landscape strip to protect the visual privacy of adjoining properties, as well as providing aesthetic appeal, general biodiversity and appropriate hard/soft surface proportions. It is considered that the proposal achieves compliance with the objectives of the DCP as adequate privacy with be maintained to adjoining residents through the provision of a 1.8 metre high fence and more beneficial and practical landscaping is provided elsewhere on the site. Accordingly no objections are raised to the proposal on landscaping grounds.

33. A landscaping plan was submitted with the DA after a request from Council for more detail to be provided. The revised plan depicts sufficient detail in relation to species and growth and in this regard, appropriate species have been proposed.

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Plans & Elevations	5 Pages
3View	Childcare Centres DCP Compliance Table	1 Page
4View	Childcare Centres Locality Map	1 Page
5View	History of DA	1 Page
6View	Management Report	9 Pages
7View	Traffic Report	9 Pages
8View	Acoustic Report	18 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

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

1View	Independent Urban Design Report	3 Pages
2View	Previous Manager Development Services Report 11 December 2006	37 Pages

1View	Resolution and Previous Report from Council Meeting on 26 May 2008 regarding the Site Meeting Process	7 Pages
2View	Resolution and Previous Report from Council Meeting on 28 April 2008 regarding the Site Meeting Process	14 Pages

Regulatory Council	14 July 2008