NOTICE OF ORDINARYCouncil MEETING
The Meeting of
Parramatta City Council will be held in the Council Chamber, Fourth Floor,
Dr. Robert Lang
Chief Executive
Officer
Phone 02 9806 5050 Fax 02 9806 5917 DX 8279
ABN 49 907 174 773
www.parracity.nsw.gov.au
“Think Before You Print”
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
|
Clr Paul Barber, Lord Mayor – Caroline Chisholm Ward |
Dr. Robert Lang, Chief Executive Officer - |
|
Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services |
|
|
Assistant Minutes Clerk – Michael Wearne |
|
|
|
|
Minutes Clerk – Grant Davies |
|
Marcelo Occhuizzi –Acting Group Manager Outcomes
& Development |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clr Omar Jamal – Arthur Philip Ward |
|
|
Clr |
|
Clr Anita Brown – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward |
|
|
Clr John Chedid – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward |
|
Clr David |
|
|
Clr Andrew Wilson – |
|
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 |
Clr Pierre Esber, Deputy Lord Mayor – |
Clr Maureen Walsh – Wooville Ward |
Clr Chiang Lim
– Arthur Phillip Ward |
|
Staff |
|
|
Staff |
GALLERY
ORDINARY Council |
|
|
|
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE
NO
1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council -
2 APOLOGIES
3 DECLARATIONS
OF INTEREST
4 Minutes of Lord Mayor
5 Public Forum
6 PETITIONS
7 Development Applications
Referred For On-Site Meetings
7.1 List of Future Onsite Meetings
8 Regulatory Reports
8.1 Lots 2-14,
9 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO
BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION
10 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO
BE BROUGHT FORWARD
11 Reports - Domestic Applications
11.1
12 Reports - Development Applications
12.1
12.2
12.4 479
Kissing
12.5
12.9 Further
Report -
12.11
12.12 Further
report - Parramatta Stadium
13 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO
BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION
14 Community Care
14.1 Aboriginal and
15 City Leadership and
Management
15.1 Provision of Insurance to Non-Commercial
Community Fairs
15.2 Investments Report for July 2008
15.3 Strategic Partnership between
16 Notices of Motion
16.1 Proposed
Alcohol Free Zones at
17 QUESTION TIME
Item 7.1 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REFERRED FOR ON-SITE MEETINGS
ITEM NUMBER 7.1
SUBJECT List
of Future Onsite Meetings
REFERENCE F2004/08629 - D01010140
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
PURPOSE: To provide
Councillors with a list of proposed onsite meetings for development
applications. |
(a) That the list of proposed onsite
meetings appended as Attachment 1 to this report be adopted. (b) Further, that the Councillor Support Officer’s forward invitations for
each onsite meeting in line with individual Councillors requirements. |
BACKGROUND
1. Council at its meeting held on
(a) That
in future regulatory Meetings of Council, the agenda contain a separate item at
the end which lists all DA’s which staff and Councillors deem onsite meetings
maybe necessary, along with a recommended date and time as to when these
meetings might be held, i.e. subject to the concurrence of Councillors. This
may also include DA’s which are listed on that particular agenda for debate.
Included with the suggested date and time fore the meeting, its to be reason
why it is considered an onsite meeting is necessary.
(b) Further,
that following the setting of the dates and times of the meetings, these be
forwarded onto the CSO’s for them to forward invitations in line with
individual Councillor’s requirements.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
2. In accordance with the above
resolution, a list of future onsite meetings has been developed by Development
Assessment Services. The list is appended as Attachment 1 of this Report.
3. Subject
to Council approval, the Councillor Support Officer’s will forward invitations
for each onsite meeting listed in Attachment 1 of this report, in line with
individual Councillor’s requirements.
CONCLUSION
4. The
list of proposed onsite meetings for development application to take place in
the next month is placed before Council for its consideration and/or adoption.
Louise Kerr
Manager Development
Services
1View |
List of Proposed Onsite Meetings |
2 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 8.1 |
REGULATORY
ITEM NUMBER 8.1
SUBJECT Lots 2-14,
DESCRIPTION Lots 2 to 14,
REFERENCE F2008/02985 -
APPLICANT/S Defence Housing
OWNERS Defence Housing
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To advise Council
of an appropriate course of action in respect of 13 Class 1 appeals brought
against Council in the Land and Council has
engaged legal representation and an independent town planning expert to act
on its behalf in respect of these appeals. Based on the findings of the town
planning expert, Council’s legal representative recommends that Council
resolve to enter into Consent Orders in respect of all 13 of the Class 1
appeals. This is on the basis that Council’s reasons for refusal of the
development applications cannot be sustained on planning grounds and that
subsequently, there is a high risk that an order for costs could be made
against Council by the Court, should Council seek to defend these appeals in
light of the town planning expert’s conclusions. |
(a) That Council enter into consent
orders in respect of Land and Environment Court Appeals Nos. 10592 to 10604 brought against Council by Defence Housing
Australia in respect of Council’s refusal of development applications for
dwelling housings and dual occupancy development on Lots 2-14 at (b) Further, that all persons having
made submissions in respect of the related development applications be
notified of Council’s decision and that a copy of the independent town
planning report prepared by Brett Newbold be made available to these persons. |
BACKGROUND
1. Development
Application No. 993/2004 was approved under delegation on
2. Development
Application No. 993/2004A was approved on
3. Development
Application No. 993/2004B was approved on
4. Defence
Housing
Appeals |
Proceedings Nos |
|
DA No |
Proposed development |
Date of refusal by Council |
1 |
10592 of 2008 |
9 |
11/2008 |
Dwelling house |
|
2 |
10593 of 2008 |
2 |
1018/2007 |
Dwelling house |
|
3 |
10594 of 2008 |
4 |
1017/2007 |
Dwelling house |
|
4 |
10595 of 2008 |
6 |
1016/2007 |
Dwelling house |
|
5 |
10596 of 2008 |
14 |
971/2007 |
Dwelling house |
|
6 |
10597 of 2008 |
3 |
1014/2007 |
Dwelling house |
|
7 |
10598 of 2008 |
5 |
1015/2007 |
Dwelling house |
|
8 |
10599 of 2008 |
7 |
10/2008 |
Dwelling house |
|
9 |
10600 of 2008 |
13 |
779/2007 |
Dual occupancy |
|
10 |
10601 of 2008 |
11 |
777/2007 |
Dual occupancy |
|
11 |
10602 of 2008 |
12 |
780/2007 |
Dual occupancy |
|
12 |
10603 of 2008 |
8 |
12/2008 |
Dwelling house |
|
13 |
10604 of 2008 |
10 |
778/2007 |
Dual occupancy |
|
DISCUSSION
5. On
6. Council has engaged DLA Phillips Fox to
act as legal representatives in respect of all of the appeals. As part of their
defence of the appeals they have engaged Brett Newbold, an independent town
planning consultant, to undertake a review of the subject development
applications and Council’s reasons for refusal. Mr Newbold is a well respected
and long experienced industry professional. Mr Newbold’s report is attached as
Appendix B.
7. With the exception of some minor design
and landscaping modification, Mr Newbold is unable to support Council’s reasons
for refusal of the 13 development applications and makes the following remarks
inter alia, in his report dated
“5.1 The
proposed developments would not create significant adverse impacts for
neighbouring properties in terms of appearance, privacy or shadowing:….
5.2 Lowering
of three buildings can be achieved without comprehensive redesign, and is
recommended because positive impacts would be achieved by simple design
amendments that are not unreasonable:…
5.3 For
the remainder of buildings, there are no grounds to demand comprehensive
redesign:…
5.4 Notwithstanding
my assessment that impacts would not be excessive or unreasonable, the proposed
developments will result in appreciable changes to the environmental amenity
that is experienced by existing neighbours. The extent of such changes should
be moderated by more-considerate landscape design:…”
8. On the basis of the conclusions reached by
Mr Newbold, DLA Phillips Fox have advised Council, by letter dated
“7. Council’s
reasons for refusal of the 13 applications were not supported by Council’s
planning staff.
8. Council’s
reasons for refusal of the 13 applications are not supported by an independent,
well-respected and highly experienced consultant who has carried out a thorough
and in-depth assessment of the development applications.
9. Without
expert evidence to support Council’s case, there is next to no chance of a
Court refusing the applications and dismissing the appeals.
11. Given
that Council’s planning staff and Mr Newbold do not support Council’s case, it
is most unlikely that another expert with the requisite experience and status
will be found who would support Council’s case.
16. In
the circumstances, we suggest that Council has done as much as it reasonably
can to obtain independent expert support for its reasons for refusal and to
protect the amenity of the residents.
17. In
the circumstances, we suggest Council accept that the expert evidence does not
support its reasons for refusal and resolve to enter into consent orders in
respect of the Court proceedings.”
9. In respect of the potential for an order
of costs to be made against Council, DLA Phillips Fox advise that:
“22. Council
will appreciate that if it does not resolve to enter into consent orders, in
the circumstances there is a real possibility that the Court will make a costs
order against Council in the proceedings for various reasons including:
(a) That
Council acted unreasonably in the circumstances leading up to the commencement
of the proceedings by not accepting the recommendations of its planning staff;
and
(b) That
council maintained a defence to the proceedings where the defence did not have
reasonable prospects of success given that there was no expert evidence to
support Council’s defence.”
10. The letter of
CONCLUSION
11. In the absence of any planning evidence to
support Council’s reasons for refusal of the 13 development applications and
the significant likelihood of costs being awarded against Council, should
Council seek to defend the appeals given the planning evidence of Mr Newbold,
it is recommended that Council resolve to enter into consent orders in respect
of each of the 13 appeals. To date Council has incurred legal fees totalling
$16,653.78 in defending these appeals and in light of comments provided by
Council’s solicitors so far, it is considered financially imprudent to pursue
defence of these appeals when there is very little if any chance of success in
Court.
12. Similarly, the Court would take a dim view
of Council engaging another planning consultant to provide evidence on their
behalf. This would be seen as Council merely ‘fishing’ for comments that
support their contentions. This is particularly so in light of the fact that
Council’s development assessment officers recommended approval of the
development applications initially and that an independent planning consultant
accords firmly with that position.
13. The minor design and landscaping
modifications suggested by Mr Newbold can be achieved through appropriate
conditions of consent.
14. Importantly, it should be noted that even if
Council resolves to enter into consent orders, this does not preclude the
opportunity for the resident objectors to inform the Court of their concerns
during the consent orders hearing.
Mark Leotta
Service Manager Development Assessment
Services
1View |
Appendix A – Statement of Contentions |
3 Pages |
|
2View |
Appendix B - Independent planning report prepared by Brett Newbold |
22 Pages |
|
3View |
Appendix C - Letter to Council from DLA Phillips Fox dated |
5 Pages |
|
Item 11.1 |
DOMESTIC APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 11.1
SUBJECT
DESCRIPTION Demolition of an
existing garage and construction of a new garage. (Location Map - Attachment 1)
REFERENCE DA/340/2008 - Submitted
APPLICANT/S Miss F Zheng
OWNERS Miss F Zheng
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Development Application No.340/2008 seeks approval to the
demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a new garage. The
new garage is timber framed with a colourbond roof. The DA has been referred
to Council as the site is identified as an item of local heritage
significance under Schedule 2 of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage &
Conservation). The works proposed as part of this application are minor
and the application seeks approval to the replacement of an existing garage.
The dimensions of the garage are 6 metres x 8.3 metres, with an area of
49.8m2. The maximum height of the new garage is 3 metres. The new garage is to be located in the same position as
the existing garage and will not have any adverse amenity impacts on
adjoining properties or streetscape impacts on the laneway in which the
garage faces. The materials (with the exception of the roof colour) that are
to be used in the construction of the garage will complement the existing
brick dwelling located on the site. A condition has been placed on the
consent requiring a complementary roof colour be used. Subject to the roof
colour being amended, the new garage will not impact on the heritage
significance of the site. Accordingly, approval of the application is recommended. |
That
Council grant consent to Development Application No. 340/2008 subject to
standard conditions and the following extraordinary condition. 1. The
proposed colour scheme of the garage is to incorporate neutral tones with the
garage roof being the same or of similar colours to the existing dwelling to
minimise the visual impact of the garage. Details of the proposed colour
schedule are to be submitted to the nominated PCA’s satisfaction. Reason:
To ensure that the colours will compliment the Heritage Item |
SITE & LOCALITY
1. The site is located on the
southern side of
2. The site comprises of a
single storey Federation period dwelling, a detached corrugated iron garage and
a metal garden shed. The property is individually listed as an item of heritage
significance in Schedule 2 of Parramatta LEP 1996.
PROPOSAL
3. The proposal is for the demolition of the existing
dilapidated corrugated iron garage AND replacement with a timber framed garage
with a pre-coloured metal roof.
3.1 The garage will be located
adjacent to the laneway, in the same location as the existing garage.
3.2 The garage will measure 6m x 8.3m.
STATUTORY CONTROLS
4. The
site is zoned Residential 2(a) under PLEP 2001. Garages are permissible with
consent and the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the 2(a)
Residential Zone.
5. The
site is identified as an item of heritage significance in Schedule 2 of
the Parramatta LEP.
6. The
heritage provisions of Schedule 2 seeks 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. The proposed garage meets
these objectives as the existing Federation style dwelling will not be
compromised as a result of the proposed garage as they are two separate
structures, with adequate separation. Heritage is discussed in more detail
below.
7. The
provisions of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 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 aims and objectives of
the DCP.
CONSULTATION
8. In
accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified to
adjoining property owners/occupiers between 4 June and
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 2 of Parramatta
LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) The
comments of Council’s Heritage Advisor are as follows:
10. “The property is individually listed as an
item of heritage significance in Schedule 2 of
11. The current proposal is for the demolition
of a dilapidated garage at the rear of the property. The garage is not part of
the original configuration. The fence at the rear is also not original, and it
is not affected by the proposal. The access arrangements are to remain
unchanged.
12. The current application includes
architectural plans, with sufficient relevant elements to allow assessment of
impact of the proposed works. The application does not include a colour scheme
nor a Statement of Heritage impact, however, given the location of the
proposal, an assessment can be made with conditions regulating any outstanding
issues.
13. The proposed garage utilises design, forms
and materials that are considered acceptable in heritage terms. The replacement
garage is to be located behind the house, fully detached, accessed from the
side lane, and will not participate in the streetscape. Due to its location
behind the house and behind the tall timber fence, the garage will not be visible
from any publicly accessible areas.
Under the circumstances, the proposal
is considered generally acceptable with the available documentation. The
colours of the proposal however need to be confirmed with the applicants, and
conditioned. In my opinion, under these
circumstances any combination of colours that is not visually intrusive would
generally be acceptable. The preference is however for neutral tones for garage
walls, with roof colour similar to the colour of the house roof.
14. Accordingly, the proposed garage will have
no adverse heritage impacts subject to an appropriate colour scheme. A
condition of consent is recommended to ensure this”.
Michael Carter
Senior Development Assessment
Officer
1View |
Location Map |
1 Page |
|
2View |
Plans and elevations |
2 Pages |
|
3View |
Compliance Table |
1 Page |
|
4View |
Heritage Inventory |
2 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 12.1 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.1
SUBJECT
DESCRIPTION Proposed
REFERENCE DA/472/2008 - Submitted
APPLICANT/S Billbergia Group
Pty Ltd
OWNERS Billbergia Group
Pty Ltd (Licensed Water Servicing Coordinator acting as an agent for Sydney
Water)
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Development Application No.472/2008 seeks approval to the
subdivision of land beneath & adjacent to the Clyde-Carlingford railway
corridor into 2 lots. The main purpose of the stratum subdivision is to
subdivide the land into parcels that will allow for the existing (private)
roadway under the Clyde-Carlingford railway corridor (proposed Lot 101 of
499m2) to be contained upon its own lot and to allow for a separate allotment
adjoining (proposed Lot 102) for future development of the Sydney Water site.
The DA has been referred to Council as the site is
identified as an item of local significance in Schedule 6 of Sydney Regional
Environmental Plan No.28. The subdivision is a relatively simple and straightforward
vertical subdivision (ie stratum subdivision). The proposed subdivision will
allow the future redevelopment of proposed The proposed subdivision is consistent with the objectives of the SREP No.28 and the future subdivision of the land in the manner proposed will not impact on the heritage significance of the site or locality. Accordingly, approval of the subdivision is recommended. |
(a) That development application No.
472/2008 be approved, subject to standard conditions. |
PROPOSAL
1. Stratum and Torrens Title subdivision of
land into two lots. The main purpose of the stratum subdivision is to subdivide
the land into parcels that will allow for the existing (private) roadway under
the Clyde-Carlingford railway corridor (proposed
SITE & LOCALITY
2. The land is the Sydney Water site
(the former James Hardies site) on the eastern side of
STATUTORY CONTROLS
SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007
3. Development immediately adjacent to rail corridors
(1) This clause applies to development on land
that is in or immediately adjacent to a rail corridor, if the development:
(a) is
likely to have an adverse effect on rail safety, or
(b) involves
the placing of a metal finish on a structure and the rail corridor concerned is
used by electric trains, or
(c) involves
the use of a crane in air space above any rail corridor.
(2) Before determining a development application
for development to which this clause applies, the consent authority must:
(a) within
7 days after the application is made, give written notice of the application to
the chief executive officer of the rail authority for the rail corridor, and
(b) take
into consideration:
(i) any
response to the notice that is received within 21 days after the notice is
given, and
(ii) any
guidelines that are issued by the Director-General for the purposes of this
clause and published in the Gazette.
4. Railcorp
raise no objections with the proposal. The proposed subdivision will not impact
upon Railcorp’s infrastructure.
Sydney Regional
Plan No.28 (
5. Sydney Regional Plan No.28 (Parramatta) –
zoned part Transport, Part Environmental Protection, Part James Ruse Drive
Mixed Uses and Part Regional Enterprise within the Camellia Precinct. The
subdivided land is shown in the plan above as proposed
6. Given the heritage significance of part of
the site, with archaeological significance as outlined in Schedule 6 Part 2 of
the REP, the DA was referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser for comment. The
Heritage Adviser made the following conclusions:
“The place is listed for archaeological values, including
the Magee Grave, located in the vicinity.
The site forms part of the
However, the subdivision and transfer of ownership do not
imply any potential redevelopment, particularly as I understand the buyer will
be the Sydney Water Corporation.
I am therefore of opinion that the proposal will have no
adverse impact from the heritage perspective.”
7. Accordingly,
there are no objections to the proposal on heritage grounds.
Development Control
Plans:
8. The
CONSULTATION
9. The development application was notified between 16 and
ISSUES
10. There are no issues arising from this
proposal. The functions of the existing private road and the railway line will
be retained and unaffected by the proposal.
Stratum
Subdivision
11. Stratum subdivision is used to create
stratum lots where vertical subdivision (conventional or normal form of
subdivision) is not practical. Some of the more obvious uses and applications
for such subdivision include:-
- Underground railway tunnels;
- Underground railway stations and
adjoining shopping complexes;
- Subdivision of the air space above
railway stations for commercial purposes;
- Subdivision of a space above roads for
accessways.
12. Stratums typically involve division of land
where at least one boundary is created by a plane at variance to the vertical
(it may therefore be horizontal or an inclined plane). Lots in a stratum
subdivision are restricted in height and/or depth by a plane which is
referenced usually to AHD.
13. The submitted stratum and
Alan
Middlemiss
Senior
Development Assessment Officer
1View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
2View |
History of DA |
1 Page |
|
3View |
Plans (existing and proposed allotments) |
2 Pages |
|
4View |
Heritage Inventory |
2 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 12.2 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.2
SUBJECT
DESCRIPTION Construction of a
toilet block (Crown Development). (Location Map - Attachment 1)
REFERENCE DA/225/2008 - Submitted
APPLICANT/S Department of
Education & Training
OWNERS Department of
Education & Training
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development Application No.225/2008 seeks approval to the
construction of toilet block within the grounds of The works proposed as part of this application are minor.
The application seeks approval to the construction of a single storey brick
building with dimensions of 13.14 metres and 6.24 metres, with an area of
81.9m2. The building is to be located 4 metres east of the
existing pool change facilities and north of the existing sporting field. The toilet facilities are basic amenities needed for an
educational establishment. The design of the building is appropriate and
there will not be any adverse impacts on the heritage significance of the
site or on any significant trees located within the vicinity of the proposed
amenity block. The proposed amenities block is also consistent with the
objectives of the Parramatta LEP 2001. Accordingly, approval of the
application is recommended. |
(a) That Council grant consent to
Development Application No. 225/2008 subject to the following conditions
which need to be approved by the applicant (the Crown) before being
finalised: 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:
Reason: To ensure the work is carried out in accordance with the
approved plans. 2. The applicant is to obtain an Excavation Permit or
an exemption under Section 140 of the Heritage Act 1977 from the NSW Heritage
Council and is to lodge a copy of the permit/exemption together with a copy
of the Excavation Permit application with Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to
any works commencing on site. Reason: To comply with legislative
requirements and to protect potential archaeological relics. 3. All building works must be carried out
in accordance with the technical provisions of the State’s building
laws (i.e. the Building Code of Australia). Reason: To comply with the Environmental
Planning Assessment Act 1979, as amended and the Environmental Planning
Assessment Regulation 2000. 4. The toilet block shall
incorporate appropriate facilities for people with a disability in accordance
with the design criteria in AS1428.1 (2001) - Design for Access and Mobility
- General Requirements for Access - New Building Work. Reason: To ensure equity of access and
appropriate facilities are available for people with disabilities in
accordance with Federal legislation. 5. The construction site must be
enclosed with a suitable security fence to prohibit unauthorised access prior
to works commencing. Reason: To ensure public safety. 6. Erosion and sediment control
devices are to be installed prior to the commencement of any excavation or
construction works upon the site. These devices are to be maintained
throughout the entire excavation and construction phases of the development
and for a minimum three (3) month period after the completion of the project,
where necessary. Reason: To ensure soil and water
management controls are in place before site works commence. 7. Building work may only be carried
out six (6) days a week, Monday to Friday between the hours of Reason: To protect the amenity of the
area. 8. Noise from construction and
excavation activities associated with the development shall comply with the
NSW Environment Protection Authority’s Environmental Noise Manual and the
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Reason: To protect the amenity of the
area. 9. No
materials, machinery, signs or vehicles used in or resulting from the
construction or demolition relating to the development shall be stored or
placed on Council's footpath, nature strip or roadway. Reason: To
ensure safe pedestrian access. 10. Dust control measures shall be implemented
during all periods of earth works, excavation and construction in accordance
with the requirements of the NSW DEC. Dust nuisance to surrounding properties
should be minimised. Reason: To
protect the amenity of the area. 11. The following trees are to be retained and protected.
Note: Tree numbers refer to the
submitted arborist report prepared by Australian Tree Consultants Pty Ltd. Reason: To protect existing significant
trees. 12. The following trees are permitted for
removal.
Note: Tree numbers refer to the
submitted arborist report prepared by Australian Tree Consultants Pty Ltd. 13. Retained trees or treed areas shall be fenced with a 1.8m high
fully supported chainmesh to minimise disturbance to existing ground conditions within the canopy drip line or a
setback as specified on the approved landscaping plan for the duration of the
construction works. “Tree Protection Zone’ signage is to be attached to
protective fencing. Reason: To protect the environmental amenity of
the area. 14. No
materials (including waste and soil), equipment, structures or goods of any
type are to be stored, kept or placed within 3 metres of the dripline of any
tree. Reason: To ensure the protection of the
tree (s) to be retained on the site. 15. The consent from Council is to be obtained prior to any pruning
works being undertaken on any tree, including tree/s located in adjoining properties. Pruning works that are to be
undertaken must be carried out by a certified Arborist. This includes the
pruning of any roots that are 30mm in diameter or larger. Reason: To ensure the protection of the tree (s)
to be retained. 16. No work of any
description is to occur in or above the Tree Protection Zone except under the
supervision of the Consulting Arborist and in accordance with a Work
Methodology Statement developed by the Consulting Arborist and approved by
Council’s Landscape Officer prior to its implementation. This includes, but
is not limited to handling, construction hoarding, site sheds, and pedestrian/machinery
access. Reason:
To ensure the trees protection throughout
the construction works. |
SITE & LOCALITY
1. The site is bounded by
2. Currently, the site contains a group of
school buildings and sporting fields. The school buildings are generally
concentrated centrally within the site whilst the sporting fields are located
adjacent to the northern and southern boundaries.
PROPOSAL
3. Approval is sought for the construction of a toilet block within
STATUTORY CONTROLS
Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Part
5A – Development by the Crown
4. The subject property is owned by the
Department of Education and Training and therefore is “Crown Development”.
Pursuant to Section 116C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Council must not:
“(a) refuse
its consent to Crown Development, except with the written approval of the
Minister, or
(b) impose
a condition of its consent, except with the written approval of the Minister or
the applicant.”
Therefore, the recommended
conditions of consent will need to be approved by the applicant before being
finalised.
State
Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007
5. Clause 29 of State Environmental Planning
Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 states which development can be carried out without
consent as “Exempt Development” for an existing educational establishment. This
includes construction of a library, administration building, portable class
room, tuckshop, cafeteria and bookshop as long as they are single storey in
height and are located 5m from any property boundary. The list does not include
a toilet block to be exempt and development consent is therefore required for
the proposed development.
Sydney
Regional Environmental Plan No 28 -
6. The site is within the Northern Precinct
of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 28. However, there are no specific
standards that apply to the proposed development, except for the heritage
considerations under Part 9 of SREP No 28.
Heritage areas and items (Clauses 42 to 52)
7. The
subject site is listed as a heritage item for the gates, trees and
archaeological potential that were associated with the residence of Henry
Harvey prior to the occupation of
8. Council’s
Heritage Advisor has confirmed that the proposal has negligible impact on the
heritage significance of the item and has recommended that the applicant obtain
a permit or an exemption under Section 140 of the Heritage Act 1977 from the
NSW Heritage Council.
9. PLEP
1996 (Heritage and Conservation) requires approval for works on heritage listed
sites whilst ensuring no adverse impacts occur to the heritage significance of
the site.
10. It is satisfied that the proposed development
is not likely to have:
(a) undue impact on the heritage significance,
curtilage and setting of the heritage item
(b) undue impact on any significant views to or
from the heritage item.
As discussed, the applicant will be
required to obtain a permit or an exemption under Section 140 of the
Heritage Act 1977 from the NSW Heritage Council prior to any work commencing.
11. The site is zoned “Special Uses 5” and the
proposed development is permissible subject to Council consent.
12. The subject site is not located within acid
sulphate soil risk area map published by the Department of Land and Water
Conservation. The location for the toilet block is also well above 1 in 100
year flood level.
CONSULTATION
Notification
13. In accordance with Council’s Notification
Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 21 April and
Heritage
Referral
14. The application was referred to Council’s
Heritage Advisor who provided the following comments:
“The site is listed as a heritage item
due to the remnant elements of the former Newlands Estate (primarily the gates
and Bunya pines along
The site is currently used as a high
school and the proposed development includes the erection of a new toilet block
and its connection to the existing sewer, all of which are located within the
existing school court.
In my opinion, the proposed works will
have negligible impact on the heritage significance of the item.
However, the works require a limited
amount of shallow trenching that constitutes disturbance of ground and
therefore requires a permit or an
exemption under Section 140 of the Heritage Act 1977 from the NSW Heritage
Council.”
A
condition of consent has been recommended accordingly (Condition No 2).
Landscape
Referral
15. An arborist report was provided as there are
a number of trees located in the vicinity of the proposed toilet block. Having
considered the arborist report, Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer raises
no objection and therefore supports the proposal subject to appropriate
conditions.
16. It is noted that the trees listed as
heritage are located along the
ISSUES
17. There
are no other issues associated with the proposal.
James (Seong) Kim
Senior
Development Assessment Officer
1View |
Location Map |
1 Page |
|
2View |
Plans and Elevations |
3 Pages |
|
3View |
Heritage Inventory |
3 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 12.3 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.3
SUBJECT
DESCRIPTION Installation of
business identification signs. (Location Map - Attachment 1)
REFERENCE DA/282/2008 - Submitted
APPLICANT/S Bovis Lend Lease
Pty Ltd
OWNERS Boti Investments
Pty Ltd
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development Application No.282/2008 seeks approval to the
replacement of 5 signs (being fascia, bulkhead & under awning signs) and
the installation of 7 new signs (being projecting wall signs and window
signs) located along the George & Church Street facades of the existing
Commonwealth Bank building. The signs are located at ground, awning and first
floor levels. The DA has been referred to Council as the site is identified
as an item of State Environmental Heritage under Schedule 5 of Parramatta
City Centre LEP 2007. The works proposed as part of this application are minor and are not significant. The new and replacement signs are of a high design quality in terms of their graphic design. The new and replacement signs (with the exception of 3 window signs which are recommended in the report to be deleted) complement the streetscape character of both Church & George Streets; complement the design and style of the building; do not result in visual clutter of signage on the building and do not impact on the heritage significance of the site. The proposed signs also are consistent with the objectives of both the City Centre DCP and SEPP 64. Accordingly, approval of the development application is recommended. |
(a) That DA No. 282/2008 which seeks
approval for façade, projecting wall and awning business identification signs
be approved, subject to standard and the following extraordinary conditions: 1. 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. 2. A
maximum of 3 window signs shall be installed along the Reason: To reduce
clutter. |
SITE & LOCALITY
1. The subject site is known as
2. Being located in the heart of the Parramatta CBD, the
surrounding area is characterised by retail, restaurants and commercial
development.
3. The 1970s commercial building holds no
heritage or conservation significance. However, the NSW Heritage Office
describe the building and its significance in the following terms:
3.1 “Located at the rear off
3.2
The heritage listing is for
reasons of historical significance, including previous occupation of the site
from 1790 as a convict allotment and hut.
PROPOSAL
4. Approval is sought for the replacement
of 5 signs and the installation of new signs along the George and
- 2 new small projecting walls signs above
the awning on the George and
- replacement fascia & bulkhead signs on
and below the awning to George and
- replacement under awning signs, one each
in George and Church Streets;
- new small wall sign on the
- installation of 4 window signs along the
STATUTORY CONTROLS
State Environmental Planning Policy 64
5. State Environmental Planning Policy No.
64 (SEPP 64) applies to the development. This Policy relates to ‘Advertising
and Signage’. The prescriptive and numerical aspects of the SEPP are contained
at Part 3 of the instrument. However, Part 3 does not apply to ‘Business Identification
Signs’ or ‘Building Identification Signs’.
6. The relevant matters for consideration
under the SEPP can be found at Clause 3 (aims and objectives) and Schedule 1
(Assessment Criteria).
7. Subject
to a maximum of 3 window signs along the
8. The
assessment criteria is addressed in Attachment 5 of this report.
9. The site is zoned Mixed Use B4 and the
proposal is permissible with the consent of Council. Subject to the window
signs along
10. The building is listed as an item of
local significance in Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. The proposed development
is consistent with the objectives of the LEP.
11. The description and significance of the
heritage item is described in the inventory sheet at Attachment 2.
12. The provisions of the City Centre Plan
have been considered in the assessment of this proposal.
13. The DCP outlines a number of objectives
relating to the provision of advertising signs. These include:
- “To
ensure that all advertising achieves a very high level of design quality in
terms of graphic design, its relationship to the architectural design of
buildings and the character of streetscapes
- To
limit the overall amount of advertising through the provision of fewer, more effective
signs, to avoid the creation of visual clutter on buildings and streetscapes.
- To
promote signs that add character to the streetscape and assist with way finding
and the pedestrian useability of the city.
- To
consider the amenity of residential development and the visual quality of the
public domain.
- To
encourage corporate logos and colours in signs that achieve a high degree of
compatibility with the architecture of the building.
- To
promote signs that complement the architectural style and use of buildings.
- To
ensure that the location and design of signs are consistent with road safety
principles”.
14. The proposal is consistent with the
objectives of the plan.
CONSULTATION
15. The development application was notified
between 14 and
ISSUES
Heritage
16. 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 Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. Council’s
Heritage Advisor advised:
16.1 “In my opinion, the proposed signage is
excessive. The current LEP and DCP do
not envisage any signage to be stuck or painted directly onto shopfronts. While
I appreciate that the building itself is not of heritage value, the desirable
principle to be applied across
16.2 Relevant recent precedents in the area are:
- Signage of this type was earlier created
without Council's approval on the building at
- Approved signage painted on the
shopfront, but only up to the level of 1.2m above ground, is present at the
shopfront of at 262 Church Street (across Church Street from the site).
However, that was the permissible height for this type of signage under the
previous City Centre DCP.
- Another major renowned bank has recently
applied for a fitout of premises including signage at adjacent
In my opinion, the solution should be sought
based on one of the two recently approved signage elements.’
17. The
applicant was requested by Council, by way of letter dated
17.1 “To
address these concerns and in accordance with the NSW Police Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design Principles, it is considered appropriate that full
height graphic panels covering an entire window at the ground level be limited
to cover no more than 25% of windows along the elevation (maximum 3 windows)
and the remainder of windows along the façade remain clear and unobstructed
from any advertising material.”
18. The
applicant submitted amended plans reducing the extent of permanent signage on
the building to a level that is considered reasonable. However, the extent of
temporary window signs along the
19. Accordingly, there are no objections to
the proposal on heritage grounds.
Alan
Middlemiss
Senior
Development Assessment Officer
1View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
2View |
Plans |
3 Pages |
|
3View |
Heritage Inventory Form |
1 Page |
|
4View |
History of DA |
1 Page |
|
5View |
SEPP 64 Assessment |
3 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 12.4 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.4
SUBJECT 479 Kissing
DESCRIPTION Demolition of
dwelling house and construction of a two storey boarding house containing 13
bedrooms (8 at ground floor level and 5 at first floor level). (Location Map -
Attachment 1)
REFERENCE DA/255/2008 - Submitted
APPLICANT/S Mark Makhoul
OWNERS Tony & Eleanora
Boyagi
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Development Application No. 255/2008 seeks approval for the demolition of a dwelling house and
construction of a two storey building to be used as a boarding house
containing 13 bedrooms. The DA has been referred to Council due to the number
of submissions received. The proposed boarding house is consistent with the
objectives of Parramatta LEP 2001 and Parramatta DCP 2005 and the proposal
will not unreasonably affect the amenity of the surrounding area, subject to
conditions relating to the operation and management of the premises. The proposed building is consistent with the scale of a
large dwelling house; is of a design that is compatible with the existing and
desired future character of the streetscape and complies with the numerical
requirements that would apply to a dwelling house. Accordingly, approval of
the development application is recommended. |
(a) That Council grant its consent to
DA/255/2008 for the demolition
of a dwelling house and construction of a two storey dwelling to be used as a
boarding house at 1. The boarding house shall be limited to a
maximum occupancy of 15, with only Bedrooms 1 and 9 being capable of
accommodating 2 persons. Bedrooms 2-8 and 10-13 shall be limited to 1 person
only. Reason: To control the intensity of the development. 2. The outdoor areas shall not be used after Reason: To protect neighbour amenity. 3. A 24-hour phone number shall be supplied
to each occupant so that contact may be made with the manager. Reason: To ensure proper management of the premises. 4. The manager shall ensure that a notice is
placed near the entrance to the property in a visible position to the public
advising of his name and contact number. Reason: To ensure proper management of the premises. 5. The premises shall require licensing
pursuant to the Youth and Community Services Act 1973 should one or more
occupant be diagnosed as having a disability. Reason: Legislative requirement. 6. That each occupant shall be furnished with
a set of house rules and a copy of this consent and that no variation shall
be permitted without the further approval of Council. Reason: To
ensure proper management of the premises. 7. That the manager shall maintain a computer
record of all residents with details of their names, length of stay, number
of persons in each room, and that such record shall be made available to
Council when requested. Reason: To ensure that appropriate records are
kept. 8. All
residents in the boarding house are to sign a lease or licence agreeing to
comply with the boarding house rules, with the length of the lease to be
determined by the management on the explicit understanding that accommodation
is not to be provided on a temporary basis to tourists. The length of lease
considered appropriate is to be not less than 3 months. Reason: To ensure that appropriate records are
kept. 9. The
manager, upon signing of the lease or licence agreement, shall provide boarders
with a key to their individual room and common areas. Reason: To ensure tenant amenity. 10. Additional
house rules shall be prepared by the manager of the premises and furnished to
Council, in relation to such matters as the keeping of pets, noise, cleaning
of outdoor areas and general use of outdoor areas. 11. A copy of the house rules
shall be placed in prominent locations on the site, including in all communal
areas, behind doors in bedrooms, and upon the rear façade of the dwelling, in
order to familiarise residents of the boarding house with acceptable
activities . Reason: To ensure that residents of
the boarding house are familiar with the local house rules. 12. Individual
rooms are to be restricted to plug-in appliances such as microwave oven, toasters,
kettles and the like. Reason: Fire safety. 13. The
individual rooms and common areas are to be maintained in a clean and tidy
state and individual’s rubbish is to be placed in the appropriate
receptacles. Reason: To ensure proper management of the
premises. 14. No
fire, candles or naked flames are permitted within individual rooms – this
includes smoking. Reason: Fire safety. 15. Any
advertising of the property shall clearly state that it provides a principle
place of residence for residents and not temporary stay accommodation for
persons on recreational pursuits, with tariffs displaying cost per week, not
per night. Reason: To ensure compliance with the terms of
this consent. 17. Doors
to the kitchen and common areas are to be clear glazed. Reason: Safety reasons. 18. Dining
shall be encouraged within one of the ground floor internal common areas, so
as not to isolate residents. Reason: To ensure suitable amenity for
occupants. 19. All lighting on the site shall be designed
to ensure no adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding residential
development by light overspill. Lighting shall comply with Australian
Standard 4282-1997: Control of the Intrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting. Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding
residents. 20. An operational plan of management in one
complete document shall be submitted prior to the use commencing and
submitted to Council to form part of this consent, addressing such matters
as: - minimisation of anti-social behaviour; - site security; - noise management; - lighting; - fire safety; - any other management/operational issue
raised by these conditions of consent. Reason: To ensure that management details are contained
in one document. 21. The kitchen shall be made
available for residents 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and the applicant
shall ensure that basic facilities in good working order are provided,
including, but not limited to: · a large refrigerator; · a regular and a microwave oven; · dishwashing facilities; · waste disposal; · personal hygiene (soap, paper
towels and the like); · food storage space; · a bench top for food
preparation. Reason: To protect the amenity of boarding house residents. 22. Smoke alarms must be
installed on or near the ceiling in every bedroom and in every corridor or
hallway associated with a bedroom, or if there is no corridor or hallway, in
an area between the bedrooms and the remainder of the building. Reason: In order to comply with the
requirements of Part 3.7.2.4 of the Building Code of Australia (Location). 23. The applicant shall supply a single bed for
each single occupancy room (including base, a
mattress with a minimum dimension of 800mm x 1900mm and a mattress
protector). Reason: To ensure suitable amenity
for occupants. 24. In addition to the above,
the applicant shall also ensure that each room is provided with the following
basic facilities: · Wardrobe; · Mirror; · Table
& Chair; · Small
bar fridge; · A
night light or other approved illumination device for each bed; · Coffee
and tea making facilities; · Waste
container; · An
approved latching device on the door; · Curtains,
blinds or similar privacy device; · A
phone line. All room
furnishings shall be detailed in the Plan of Management. Reason:
To provide suitable amenity for occupants. 25. The premises shall comply
with fire safety regulations pertinent to a Class 3 building, being a
boarding house with greater than 12 occupants. Reason: To comply with the BCA. 26.
In relation to the laundry, the
following are to be provided: · One
5kg capacity automatic washing machine and one domestic dryer; · At least one large laundry tub with running hot
and cold water; and · 30 metres of clothesline in an outdoor area (can be retractable). Reason:
For the amenity of occupants. 27. The applicant/developer
shall contact Council’s Waste Unit to discuss the provision of a 240 litre
bin for the collection of waste and the provision of a 240 litre bin for
recycling. Services over and above the frequency and volume provided by
Council shall require a private contracting service. Reason: To ensure adequate waste
removal. 28. The
boarding house and immediate surrounds shall be kept in a tidy and sanitary
condition at all times. Reason: To maintain the amenity of the area. (b) Further,
that the objectors
be advised of Councils decision. |
SITE & LOCALITY
1. The subject site is known
as
2. The site is an irregular shaped allotment,
with an area of 770.3m² and a frontage to
PROPOSAL
3. Approval is sought for the following
development:
3.1 Demolition of a single storey dwelling
house.
3.2 Construction of a 2 storey building to be
used as a 13 room boarding house to accommodate a maximum of 25 persons. The
applicant has agreed that this maximum be reduced (in accordance with the
discussion below – to be no greater than 15 persons).
3.3 Site works and associated landscaping.
3.4 Provision of 2 carparking spaces within the
front setback.
STATUTORY CONTROLS
4. The site is zoned Residential 2(a) and the
proposed boarding house is permissible in the zone, with the consent of
Council. Subject to conditions of consent, in particular the reduced intensity
and potential occupancy rate of the premises, the proposed development is
considered consistent with the objectives of the zone and the LEP.
5. The proposal achieves compliance with the
definition of ‘boarding house’ defined under Parramatta LEP 2001 as:
“… a building or part of a building let
in lodgings or a hostel which provides lodgers with a principle place of
residence, but does not include backpackers accommodation, a guest house,
serviced apartment, or any other building defined in this (the
LEP’s) Dictionary.”
6. 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
7. The
development application was placed on public notification between the 7th
and 28th of May, 2008. The notification generated five submissions,
including a petition containing 47 signatures.
8. The submissions raised the following
issues:
Out of character with
the residential area
9. The proposed use is a residential use and
any advertising of the property in the
local press is required by condition of consent to clearly state that it
provides a principle place of residence for residents and not temporary stay
accommodation for persons on recreational pursuits, with tariffs displaying
cost per week, not per night with a minimum of three months stay. This is to
ensure that the premises operates as a boarding house and not a tourist
facility.
10. The
proposed building is commensurate with a large two storey dwelling house and
its appearance in the street will not be out of keeping with either what is
currently in
Inconsistent with the
zoning
11. The proposal is a permissible form of
development in the zone and it therefore cannot be regarded as inconsistent
with the current zoning of the land.
Inadequate parking
12. On the basis that boarding houses are
traditionally regarded as a form of low-cost accommodation the incidence of car
ownership is low compared with other forms of residential accommodation. The
rationale behind this statement is that occupants of boarding houses are quite
often one step away from homelessness and the likelihood of car ownership is
low.
13. The provision of 2 parking spaces for this
development is considered adequate.
Noise pollution
14. Objectors advised that the
boarding house with up to 25 residents was likely to result in excessive noise
being generated that would result in sleep disturbance for residents that live
near the site.
15. The proposed use is for
residential purposes and with the reduction in the capacity of the facility to
accommodate only 15 persons, it is considered that noise will not be any more
of an issue that would be the case for any other residential development.
16. Conditions of the
recommended consent relating to the operational aspects of the proposal also
deal with the issue of noise minimisation.
Loss of property
values
17. There is no evidence to suggest that this
proposal would result in a loss of property values in the locality and this is
not a valid planning consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental
Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.
Anti-social behaviour
18. All
residents in the boarding house are to sign a lease or licence agreeing to
comply with the boarding house rules, with the length of the lease to be
determined by the management on the explicit understanding that accommodation
is not to be provided on a temporary basis to persons on recreational pursuits.
The length of lease considered appropriate is to be not less than 3 months.
19. This
condition is recommended to ensure that the residents are aware of the rights
of other occupants and to ensure that the amenity of the neighbourhood and other
occupants is not compromised. It also ensures that the premises is not used for
the purposes of a tourist facility, which is prohibited within the Residential
2(b) zone.
Increased fire risk
to adjoining petrol station
20. There is no evidence to suggest that there
is any significant fire risk associated with a brand new building. Residents of
the boarding house will be prohibited from smoking in their rooms and in any
event, it will be the operator’s right to decide if smoking will be permitted
anywhere on the site. If so, appropriate receptacles shall be provided for the
occupants. Smoke alarms will be installed as required under the BCA.
Increased traffic
21. The proposal is not likely to generate a
significant amount of traffic and the local road network is capable of coping
with whatever traffic generation is provided.
22. This issue is discussed in more detail
below.
Need to guarantee a
24-hour caretaker
23. A 24-hour phone number shall be supplied to
each occupant so that contact may be made with the manager and that a notice is
placed near the entrance to the property in a visible position to the public
advising of the manager’s name and contact details. There is no requirement for
a manager to be present on the site 24 hours per day.
Poor amenity for
occupants
24. A boarding house is required to provide
adequate light and ventilation, fire safety measures and sufficient space for
recreation, washing, sanitary facilities and the like. The recommended
development consent is conditioned to require the applicant to ensure that all
relevant safety and amenity standards are met.
25. While none of the rooms have a sink in them,
it is relevant to note that there is no requirement under the Public Health
Act, 1991, Local Government Act, 1993, the Building Code of Australia or the
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 for the individual rooms to
make provision for sinks. Communal facilities are provided at both ground and
first floor levels and are considered sufficient.
ON-SITE
MEETING
26. Council, at its meeting of
27. In accordance with the relevant resolution
of the time, an on-site meeting was held on
28. Present at the meeting were Councillors
Andrew Wilson (Chair), John Chedid, Lorraine Wearne, Maureen Walsh and the Lord
Mayor, Councillor Paul Barber; approximately 34 residents; 2 representatives of
the applicant; and Council’s Team Leader Development Assessment.
29. The following issues were discussed at the
meeting:
Appropriateness of boarding houses in residential areas
30. Residents raised concern
about a commercial use being in a residential area and expressed concern that a
boarding house is an inappropriate use.
31. An objector provided a
summary table to the Lord Mayor highlighting that nearby Councils, including
Ryde City Council, only allow boarding houses in zones that permit residential
flat buildings (it is noted that this is true of Ryde City Council).
32. It was explained that a
number of non-residential uses are permitted in residential areas in the
Parramatta City Council local government area, including childcare centres.
Boarding houses are considered to be a residential use and what occurs in other
local government areas is of no relevance to this development application.
33. It was also further
indicated by Council staff that Council is likely to be exhibiting a draft
local environmental plan later this year and that if residents believe that
boarding houses are inappropriate in low and medium density areas then it would
be appropriate to write to Council when the draft instrument is exhibited.
City of
34. An objector advised that
applicant has assessed the proposal against the requirements contained within
the City of
35. There are no minimum room sizes prescribed
by NSW planning legislation or the Building Code of Australia. The figures
adopted by the City of Sydney are those which are prescribed by Section 22 of
the Public Health (General) Regulation 2002 vis-à-vis “the maximum number of persons accommodated in a bedroom…must not
exceed the number determined by allowing a minimum floor area within the bedroom…of
5.5 square metres for each persons staying for more than 28 consecutive days or
3.25 square metres or more for each person staying 28 consecutive days or
less.”
36. The smallest room in the premises would have
an internal area of approximately 11.5m²
(being Bedroom 5).
37. Individual
rooms are to be restricted to plug-in appliances such as microwave oven,
toasters, kettles and the like. The small nature of some of the rooms inhibits
the presence of larger items such as large sized refrigerators and the like.
Limiting the rooms to smaller items ensures that there is sufficient ambient
space for occupants.
Parking
38. Objectors expressed concern
that this development will lead to an increase in parking along
39. Boarding houses traditionally are regarded
as a form of low-cost accommodation and the incidence of car ownership is
regarded as low compared with other forms of residential accommodation. The
rationale behind this statement is that occupants of boarding houses are quite
often one step away from homelessness and the likelihood of car ownership is
low.
40. It was advised that vehicles
parking along
41. For the reasons outlined
above, it is unlikely that there will be a significant number of vehicles
associated with this use and that illegal parking would be dealt with at the
appropriate time. The potential for illegal parking is not a valid reason warranting
refusal of the application.
42. A reduction to the maximum
occupancy of the boarding house from 25 to 15 will also serve to ensure that
the demand for carparking by future occupants of the boarding house is suitably
controlled.
Lack of public transport in the area
43. Residents also advised that
given the limited public transport in the area (particularly on weekends) that
residents of the boarding house are more likely to have cars that would need to
park on
44. There are a number of bus
services that operate either along
Discarded shopping trolleys
45. Residents expressed concern
that shopping trolleys from the Woolworths store in Ermington may be left in
front of the premises. This is not a relevant planning consideration and given
the distance from the site, is unlikely to be an issue.
Traffic
46. Concern was expressed that
this development with up to 25 people residing in the boarding house would
result in an unacceptable increase in traffic in the area. Residents indicated
that it is often difficult to turn right from Victoria Road into Kissing Point
Road and that this development would make it even more difficult.
47. It was also advised that
due to the traffic volumes along
48. The incidence of car
ownership amongst boarding house residents is low. The likely increased traffic
as a result of this development can be readily accommodated within the surrounding
road network and the reduced occupancy of the boarding house from 25 to 15 will
also reduce potential traffic impacts.
49. Councillor Wilson requested
that a CRM be lodged to ask Council’s Traffic Section to review whether
no-stopping signs should be placed in front of both 380 and
50. Council’s Engineers will
respond to this issue separately.
Noise
51. Objectors advised that the
boarding house with up to 25 residents was likely to result in excessive noise
being generated that would result in sleep disturbance for residents that live
near the site.
52. The proposed use is for
residential purposes and with the reduction in the capacity of the facility to
accommodate only 15 persons and requirement for a management plan, it is
considered that noise will not be any more of an issue than would be the case
for any other residential development.
Social Issues with a boarding house in the area
53. Objectors indicated that a
boarding house is likely to result in an increase in anti-social behaviour in
the area. Residents advised that bad
tenants/ tenants with mental health problems within the complex were likely to
affect the amenity of the area as well as increasing crime. Concern was also
raised that an on-site manager was not provided to assist in managing boarder’s
behaviour.
54. This is part of a broader social issue that
is not limited to those occupying boarding houses. Whilst there may be some
correlation between income levels and crime, it is not Council’s role to
determine the criteria of occupants of the building.
55. There is no evidence to suggest that the
safety of surrounding residents would be compromised as a result of approval to
this proposal. The manager of the facility shall be responsible to ensure that
occupants do not interfere with the amenity of the area as a result of any
actions occurring within the site.
Density of living
56. Concern was raised that up
to 25 residents could live within the boarding house. It was further advised
that more people may reside in the premises as other boarding houses have had
bunks placed in bedrooms resulting in four people residing in the room instead
of the two indicated.
57. The conditions of the
recommended development consent limit the number of persons to 15. This issue
was discussed and agreed with by the applicant in the assessment of the DA.
Moreover, the statement of environmental effects also includes reference to
reducing the maximum occupancy of the premises if Council deems such to be
necessary (Page 21 of the statement of environmental effects, dated April
2008).
Garbage Disposal
58. Residents expressed concern
that waste generated from 25 residents would be greater than could be
accommodated by Council’s weekly garbage/ recycling collection.
59. Staff advised that Council’s
Waste Section would review the proposal and it was likely that Council’s weekly
waste/ recycling service would need to supplemented by a commercial waste
service.
High Voltage Power Lines
60. Concern was raised that the
increase in density of the site may not be appropriate due to their being high
voltage power lines with associated electromagnetic radiation in close
proximity to the site.
61. The Australian Federal
Government’s ‘Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’ advise
that:
“There
is a general perception amongst many in the community that there are health
risks resulting from exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) from power lines.
All alternating electric currents generate electric and magnetic fields,
collectively known as EMFs (sometimes, incorrectly referred to as
electromagnetic radiation). The electric field is proportional to the voltage
(which can be considered as the pressure with which electricity is pushed
through the wires). The results of all EMF studies to date have indicated
either no association or a weak association with adverse health effects.”
ISSUES
Traffic & Parking
62. The DA was referred to
Council’s Traffic Engineer who provided the following comments:
63. “The proposed development for a boarding house includes 8 bedrooms on
the ground floor and 5 bedrooms on the first floor.
64. The proposed development site is located approximately 61 metres to the
west of
65. On-site inspections revealed that there is a bus stop on the southern
and northern sides of this section of
66. As mentioned in the statement of environmental effects by the
applicant, Council’s DCP and the RTA’s Guide to Generating Developments do not
have specific requirements for boarding houses.”
67. Council and the Roads and Traffic Authority
are almost silent on the issue of parking requirements for boarding houses.
68. The provision of 2 spaces (one being
specifically allocated to the manager) and an adjoining street with
unrestricted parking and few, if any, significant parking-generating activities
nearby, is considered reasonable considering the location of public transport
services in Victoria Road in particular and a reduction in the maximum occupancy
of the building, as recommended by this report.
Design Qualities
69. The objectives of the Residential 2(a) Zone are to encourage
redevelopment of low density housing forms, including boarding house
development, where the redevelopment will not compromise the amenity of the
surrounding area and is in character with the surrounding built environment.
70. The subject site is located within an established residential
area. The DCP encourages development to be consistent with the built form
objectives and controls under the DCP in terms of scale, design and materials.
The proposal complies with the relevant objectives of LEP 2001 and DCP
2005.
71. Given that there are no specific controls relating to boarding
houses in the LEP or the DCP, the table in Attachment 4 of this report
summarises the proposal’s compliance with the specific requirements of PLEP
2001 and PDCP 2005 as they relate to dwelling houses.
72. What is
demonstrated is that the proposal would comply with the ordinary requirements
for a dwelling house (albeit a large one) on the site, with setbacks,
landscaped area, height and floor space ratio consistent with the requirements
for such development, notwithstanding that the controls cannot be used as
determinative in the assessment of the proposal.
Alan Middlemiss
Senior Development Assessment Officer
1View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
2View |
Plans & Elevations |
7 Pages |
|
3View |
History of DA |
1 Page |
|
4View |
Compliance Table |
1 Page |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 12.5 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.5
SUBJECT
DESCRIPTION Alterations and
additions to a heritage listed single storey dwelling house and conversion to a
10 room boarding house. (Location Map - Attachment 1)
REFERENCE DA/87/2008 - Submitted
APPLICANT/S Danny Alam c/o
Australian Consultant Architect
OWNERS Danny Alam
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development
Application No. 87/2008 seeks approval for alterations and additions to a
heritage-listed, single storey dwelling house and change of use to a 10 room
boarding house, including provision for staff accommodation (1 room) and an
overall occupancy of a maximum of 11. The bulk of the additions would occur
to the rear of the house, with only landscaping and paving works to occur at
the front. The DA has been
referred to Council due to the number of submissions received and that the
dwelling house is a heritage item of local significance listed in Schedule 6,
Part 2 of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 ( Subject to
conditions, the proposed development is consistent with the provisions and
the objectives of |
(a) That Council grant its consent to
DA/87/2008 for alterations and
additions to the rear of a heritage-listed, single storey dwelling house and
change of use to a 10 room boarding house at 1. The boarding house shall be limited
to a maximum occupancy of 11 (inclusive of staff), being a maximum of 1
person per room, except Bedroom 4 where the maximum occupancy is 2. Reason: To control the intensity of the development. 2. The outdoor areas shall not be used
(other than for access) after Reason: To protect neighbour amenity. 3. A 24-hour phone number shall be
supplied to each occupant so that contact may be made with the manager. Reason: To ensure proper management of the premises. 4. The manager shall ensure that a
notice is placed near the entrance to the property in a visible position to
the public advising of his name and contact number. Reason: To ensure proper management of the premises. 5. The premises shall require licensing
pursuant to the Youth and Community Services Act 1973 should one or more
occupant be diagnosed as having a disability. Reason: Legislative requirement. 6. That each occupant shall be furnished
with a set of house rules and a copy of this consent and that no variation
shall be permitted without the further approval of Council. Reason: To
ensure proper management of the premises. 7. That the manager shall maintain a
computer record of all residents with details of their names, length of stay,
number of persons in each room, and that such record shall be made available
to Council when requested. Reason: To ensure that appropriate records are
kept. 8. All
residents in the boarding house are to sign a lease or licence agreeing to
comply with the boarding house rules, with the length of the lease to be
determined by the management on the explicit understanding that accommodation
is not to be provided on a temporary basis to tourists. The length of lease
considered appropriate is to be not less than 3 months. Reason: To ensure that appropriate records are
kept. 9. The
manager, upon signing of the lease or licence agreement, shall provide
boarders with a key to their individual room and common areas. Reason: To ensure tenant amenity. 10. Additional
house rules shall be prepared by the manager of the premises and furnished to
Council, in relation to such matters as the keeping of pets, noise, cleaning
of outdoor areas and general use of outdoor areas. 11. A copy of the house
rules shall be placed in prominent locations on the site, including in all
communal areas, behind doors in bedrooms, and upon the rear façade of the
dwelling, in order to familiarise residents of the boarding house with
acceptable activities. Reason: To ensure that residents of
the boarding house are familiar with the local house rules. 12. Individual
rooms are to be restricted to plug-in appliances such as microwave oven,
toasters, kettles and the like. Reason: Fire safety. 13. The
individual rooms and common areas are to be maintained in a clean and tidy
state and individual’s rubbish is to be placed in the appropriate
receptacles. Reason: To ensure proper management of
the premises. 14. No
fire, candles or naked flames are permitted within individual rooms – this
includes smoking. Reason: Fire safety. 15. Any
advertising of the property shall clearly state that it provides a principle
place of residence for residents and not temporary stay accommodation for
persons on recreational pursuits, with tariffs displaying cost per week, not
per night. Reason: To ensure compliance with the terms of
this consent. 16. Doors
to the kitchen and common areas are to be clear glazed. Reason: Safety reasons. 17. Dining
shall be encouraged within one of the ground floor internal common areas, so
as not to isolate residents. Reason: To ensure suitable amenity for
occupants. 18. All lighting on the site shall be
designed to ensure no adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding
residential development by light overspill. Lighting shall comply with
Australian Standard 4282-1997: Control of the Intrusive Effects of Outdoor
Lighting. Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding
residents. 19. An operational plan of management in one
complete document shall be submitted prior to the use commencing and
submitted to Council to form part of this consent, addressing such matters
as: - minimisation of anti-social behaviour; - site security; - noise management; - lighting; - fire safety; - any other management/operational issue
raised by these conditions of consent. Reason: To ensure that management details are contained
in one document. 20. The kitchen shall be
made available for residents 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and the
applicant shall ensure that basic facilities in good working order are
provided, including, but not limited to: · a large refrigerator; · a regular and a microwave oven; · dishwashing facilities; · waste disposal; · personal hygiene (soap, paper
towels and the like); · food storage space; · a bench top for food
preparation. Reason: To protect the
amenity of boarding house residents. 21. Smoke alarms must be
installed on or near the ceiling in every bedroom and in every corridor or
hallway associated with a bedroom, or if there is no corridor or hallway, in
an area between the bedrooms and the remainder of the building. Reason: In order to comply with the
requirements of Part 3.7.2.4 of the Building Code of Australia (Location). 22. The applicant shall supply a single bed
for each single occupancy room (including base, a
mattress with a minimum dimension of 800mm x 1900mm and a mattress
protector). Reason: To ensure suitable amenity
for occupants. 23. The manager shall
reside on the premises and shall be a responsible person over the age of 18. Reason: To ensure
appropriate management of the premises. 24. In addition to the
above, the applicant shall also ensure that each room is provided with the
following basic facilities: · Wardrobe; · Mirror; · Table
& Chair; · Small
bar fridge; · A
night light or other approved illumination device for each bed; · Coffee
and tea making facilities; · Waste
container; · An
approved latching device on the door; · Curtains,
blinds or similar privacy device; · A
phone line. All room furnishings shall be detailed in the Plan of Management. Reason: To provide suitable amenity for occupants. 25. The premises shall
comply with fire safety regulations pertinent to a Class 3 building, being a
boarding house with greater than 12 occupants. Reason: To comply with the
BCA. 27.
In relation to the laundry, the
following are to be provided: o One 5kg capacity automatic
washing machine and one domestic dryer; o At least one large laundry tub with running
hot and cold water; and o 30 metres of clothesline in an outdoor area (can be retractable). Reason: For the amenity of occupants. 28. The
applicant/developer shall contact Council’s Waste Unit to discuss the
provision of a 240 litre bin for the collection of waste and the provision of
a 240 litre bin for recycling. Services over and above the frequency and
volume provided by Council shall require a private contracting service. Reason: To ensure
adequate waste removal. 29. The
boarding house and immediate surrounds shall be kept in a tidy and sanitary
condition at all times. Reason: To maintain the amenity of the area. 30. A timber picket fence shall be constructed along the front
boundary and between the front boundary and the eastern and western boundaries
within the front setback of a style and height consistent with those at No.s
3 and Reason:
To improve the streetscape. 31. The stone paving to be added to the public pedestrian
footpath shall be deleted from the plans.
Reason: This
paving is out of character. 32. A revised Schedule of Works shall be submitted to Council
prior to works commencing and must include details on: - significant original house
elements to be retained, conserved and/or reconstructed, in particular in
relation to ceilings, floors and the verandah. - all
new windows shall express vertical proportions, with frames of dimensions not
less than 50mm. The fenestration
pattern cannot be permitted to create unusual or aesthetically unacceptable
elements (such as those formed by W5, W6 and D7 on western elevation). - Door
D7 and Windows W5 and W6 on the western elevation shall be deleted and
replaced with a window of smaller proportions, accentuating the vertical
using similar proportions to the windows on the existing dwelling. - replacement
of the flooring of the existing dwelling is to be in timber. - the
paving not to be tiling or concrete tiles. - the
paving adjacent to the eastern boundary to be deleted and replaced with
landscaping and stone stepping stones - the schedule of finishes being amended to reflect the
requirements above. - the verandah
post adjacent to D9 and on the south-eastern side of the dwelling shall be
reconstructed to original detail. Reason: To ensure that the works are
undertaken in an appropriate manner 33. The
toilet and shower addition adjacent to Bedroom 5 shall be set back a further
300mm from the eastern boundary. The construction certificate plans shall be
amended accordingly. Reason: To distinguish new work from old. 34. Access
to the reception area shall be directly from the staff quarters. Reason: Access to the side passage as depicted is
impractical. (b) Further,
that the objectors
be advised of Councils decision. |
SITE & LOCALITY
1. The subject site is known
as
2. The site is a rectangular-shaped
allotment, with an area of 495.9m² and a frontage to
PROPOSAL
3. Approval is sought for the following
development:
3.1 Alterations and additions to the rear of a
single storey dwelling house to comprise communal space, 4 bedrooms and
sanitary facilities.
3.2 Change of use to a 10 bedroom boarding house
to accommodate a maximum of 11 persons.
3.3 Site works and associated landscaping.
3.4 Paving works upon the public way.
STATUTORY CONTROLS
State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 –
Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)
4. The site is not identified by Council’s
records as having any known contaminants present. A search reveals that the
site has a lengthy history of residential usage and it is unlikely that there
are any substances on the site which would cause harm to humans.
State Environmental Planning Policy
(Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
5. State Environmental
Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 ("BASIX") applies to the
proposed development. The development application was accompanied by BASIX
Certificate No. A20682, dated
6. These requirements have been imposed by
standard condition prescribed by Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.
Sydney
Regional Environmental Plan 28 (
7. The site is
zoned Residential 2(c) under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 28 (
8. The proposal achieves compliance with the
definition of ‘boarding house’ defined under SREP No. 28 as:
“… a building or part of a building let in lodgings or a hostel which
provides lodgers with a principle place of residence, but does not include
backpackers’ accommodation, a guest house, serviced apartments, or any other
building defined in this Schedule.”
9. The site is
subject to a maximum height limit of 11 metres under Clause 29O of the REP. The
proposed additions would maintain the existing height of approximately 3.3
metres.
10. The site is
subject to a maximum FSR under Clause 29P of the REP of 0.8:1, commensurate
with the high density zoning of the site. The proposed additions would result
in an FSR over the site of approximately 0.41:1.
11. The proposal therefore complies with the relevant statutory
controls prescribed by the REP.
Harris
Park Development Control Plan
12. The development
is subject to the requirements of this plan. However, many of the requirements
of this plan relate to other forms of residential development, not boarding
houses specifically. The development is consistent with the numerical
requirements and the aims and objectives of the DCP.
CONSULTATION
13. The
development application was placed on public notification between 27 February
and
14. The amended
plans improved the amenity of the building occupants by reducing the number of
bedrooms from 11 to 10 and increasing the size of the communal area and
kitchen.
15. The submissions raised the following issues:
Out of character with
the residential area
16. The proposed use is a residential use and any advertising of the property in the local
press is required by condition of consent to clearly state that it provides a
principle place of residence for residents and not temporary stay accommodation
for persons on recreational pursuits, with tariffs displaying cost per week,
not per night with a minimum of three months stay. This is to ensure that the
premises operates as a boarding house and not a tourist facility.
17. The
proposed additions would result in the building maintaining its single storey
dwelling house appearance and will not be out of keeping with either what is
currently located in the neighbourhood or what is entitled to be constructed
there.
Inconsistent with the
zoning
18. The proposal is a permissible form of
development in the zone and it therefore cannot be regarded as inconsistent
with the current zoning of the land.
Inadequate parking
19. On the basis that boarding houses are
traditionally regarded as a form of low-cost accommodation the incidence of car
ownership is low compared with other forms of residential accommodation. The
rationale behind this statement is that occupants of boarding houses are quite
often one step away from homelessness and the likelihood of car ownership is
low.
20. Although the development does not provide
for any parking, the site is located in an area where access to public
transport is good.
21. The DA was referred to Council’s Traffic
Engineer who provided the following conclusions:
“The proposed development site is in close
proximity to Harris Park Railway Station and other public transport facilities,
and ……. the proposed boarding house would not have a significant traffic impact
on the road network”.
22. Council officers are also mindful of the
heritage integrity of the building and that the provision of carparking within
the front setback would have a detrimental impact on its heritage qualities.
23. Accordingly, there is no objection to the
proposal being undertaken without the provision of on-site parking.
Noise pollution
24. Objectors advised that the
boarding house with up to 11 residents was likely to result in excessive noise
being generated that would result in sleep disturbance for residents that live
near the site.
25. The proposed use is for
residential purposes and the number of occupants is relatively small compared
with other boarding houses. On this basis, it is considered that noise will not
be any more of an issue that would be the case for any other residential
development.
26. Conditions of the
recommended consent relating to the operational aspects of the proposal also
deal with the issue of noise minimisation.
Loss of property
values
27. There is no evidence to suggest that this
proposal would result in a loss of property values in the locality and this is
not a valid planning consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental
Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.
Anti-social behaviour
28. All
residents in the boarding house are to sign a lease or licence agreeing to
comply with the boarding house rules, with the length of the lease to be
determined by the management on the explicit understanding that accommodation
is not to be provided on a temporary basis to persons on recreational pursuits.
The length of lease considered appropriate is to be not less than 3 months.
29. This
condition is recommended to ensure that the residents are aware of the rights
of other occupants and to ensure that the amenity of the neighbourhood and
other occupants is not compromised. It also ensures that the premises is not
used for the purposes of a tourist facility, which is prohibited within the
Residential 2(c) zone.
Increased traffic
30. The proposal is not likely to generate a
significant amount of traffic and the local road network is capable of coping
with whatever traffic generation is provided.
31. This issue is discussed in more detail
below.
Poor amenity for
occupants
32. A boarding house is required to provide
adequate light and ventilation, fire safety measures and sufficient space for
recreation, washing, sanitary facilities and the like. The recommended
development consent is conditioned to require the applicant to ensure that all
relevant safety and amenity standards are met.
33. While none of the rooms have a sink in them,
it is relevant to note that there is no requirement under the Public Health
Act, 1991, Local Government Act, 1993, the Building Code of Australia or the
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 for the individual rooms to
make provision for sinks. Communal facilities are provided and are considered
sufficient.
ON-SITE
MEETING
34. Council, at its meeting of
35. In accordance with the relevant resolution
of the time, an on-site meeting was held on
36. Present at the meeting were Councillors
Andrew Wilson (Chair), John Chedid, Lorraine Wearne, Maureen Walsh and the Lord
Mayor, Councillor Paul Barber; approximately 34 residents; 2 representatives of
the applicant; and Council’s Team Leader Development Assessment.
37. The following issues were discussed at the
meeting:
Social Issues with a boarding house in the area
38. Objectors indicated that a
boarding house is likely to result in an increase in anti-social behaviour in
the area. Residents advised that bad tenants/tenants with mental health
problems within the complex were likely to affect the amenity of the area as well
as increasing crime. Many residents indicated that their premises/vehicles have
already been broken into and that this development would further increase crime
in the area.
39. This is part of a broader social issue that
is not limited to those occupying boarding houses. Whilst there may be some
correlation between income levels and crime, it is not Council’s role to
determine the criteria of occupants of the building.
40. There is no evidence to
suggest that the safety of surrounding residents would be compromised as a
result of approval to this proposal. The manager of the facility shall be
responsible to ensure that occupants do not interfere with the amenity of the
area as a result of any actions occurring within the site.
41. Residents requested that
the premises contain a prominent street number to avoid prospective tenants, or
visitors knocking on the wrong door, disturbing the amenity of the area. A
standard condition to this effect is included in the recommended conditions of
consent.
42. Residents advised that the
provision of an on-site manager was supported.
Rubbish
43. Concern was raised by
residents that the development was likely to lead to increased littering in the
area and household goods such as beds, furniture etc being disposed of in front
of the site.
44. It was indicated that the
recent introduction of Council’s quarterly hard rubbish collection has reduced
the problems of furniture being abandoned.
45. A condition of consent also
requires the proprietor to ensure that the site and its surrounds is kept in a
clean and sanitary state at all times.
Parking
46. Objectors expressed concern
that this development will lead to an increase in on-street parking in the area
the area especially as this development would not have any off-street parking
due to the siting of the heritage listed building preventing rear yard access.
47. The applicant advised that
the site has easy access to the train station and that the residents are
unlikely to have a motor vehicle.
48. This issue is addressed
above where it is concluded that on balance, the provision of no on-site
carparking is acceptable.
Density of living
49. Concern was raised by
residents that up to 10 persons could live within the boarding house (in
addition to the manager/caretaker). It was indicated by residents that the area
contained enough flats already and that increasing the density of this property
would increase problems, especially for adjoining business whose workers and
clients often struggle to find parking spaces in the area.
50. The zoning allows for
higher density development. Moreover, boarding houses are permissible in each
of the residential zones (other than upon flood liable land).
Bathroom Facilities
51. Residents requested to be
advised of the number of bathrooms and toilets that will be provided to future
occupants.
52. It was advised at the
meeting that the boarding house will contain 4 toilets and 3 showers. This
ratio is considered sufficient for the size of the boarding house.
Possible Brothel
53. Residents raised concern
that the boarding house may be used as a brothel. The applicant advised that
this was not their intention and that the on-site caretaker would prevent this
from occurring. In the absence of any reasonable evidence, the fear or threat
of something like this occurring is not a valid planning consideration under
the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment
Act, 1979.
54. In the event that Council
obtained evidence that the premises was being used as a brothel, Council would
take action to close the unauthorised use down.
ISSUES
Design Qualities
55. The objectives of the Residential 2(c) Zone are to encourage
redevelopment of housing forms of varying intensity, including boarding house
development, where the redevelopment will not compromise the amenity of the
surrounding area and is in character with the surrounding built environment.
56. The subject site is located within an established residential
area. The DCP encourages development to be consistent with the built form
objectives and controls under the DCP in terms of scale, design and materials.
The proposal complies with the relevant objectives of REP No. 28 and the Harris
Park DCP.
57. There are few specific controls relating to boarding houses in
the REP or the DCP, but the proposal complies with all of them.
58. Being of
single storey construction, the proposed development is unlikely to result in
any unreasonable impacts in terms of loss of sunlight, views or visual privacy.
Heritage
59. The
DA was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who provided the following
comments:
60. “The heritage item at
61. The property boundaries are not proposed to
be changed as part of this DA. The space
around the house that is currently proposed to remain open would result in the
minimal, but sufficient immediate curtilage in which the house remains free
standing and the important views from Cambridge Street can be retained.”
62. The issues and details that need to be
addressed are:
Site
and landscaping:
63. It would appear that the current proposal
does not envisage any fence changes. This should be confirmed.”
64. A
condition of consent is included requiring the construction of a timber picket
fence of a style and height consistent with those at No.s 3 and
65. “The proposal appears to suggest a stone
paving to be added to the public pedestrian footpath. This part of the proposal is not supported.
The proposal includes paving a considerable area to the east of the existing
house and between the
66. The
paving adjacent to the eastern boundary is to be deleted and replaced with
landscaping and stone stepping stones. A condition to this effect is included
in the recommended development consent.
67. The
proposed paving of the public way is required to be deleted. A recommended
condition of consent addresses this issue.
House
fabric
68. “The design of the rear additions is modern,
yet generally acceptable as a background for the historic item in that it would
not compete visually nor tend to dominate the item. The additions to the house are within the
acceptable limits for size and position as per the Heritage DCP requirements,
subject to the utilisation of suitable forms and details.
69. The DCP criterion of additions not greater
than the existing house was not complied with, but that criterion is not
considered critical in this instance”.
70. “A revised Schedule of Works needs to include
full details on significant original house elements to be retained, conserved
and/or reconstructed.” A condition of consent requires this to be
undertaken prior to works commencing.
71. “The proposed use as boarding house is
considered ‘light’ on the fabric and generally suitable for historic former
residences, provided that significant fabric is protected.
72. The design of the floorplan of the additions
at the rear is generally in keeping with the DCP requirements.
73. “Further details of windows and doors, and
the arrangement of window and door openings shall be submitted for the approval
of Council’s Heritage Adviser before proceeding with work on the site, as
recommended in the conditions of consent. It is noted that the currently
proposed windows utilise a variety of forms and proportions, the benefits of
which are not readily apparent.
74. It is recommended to utilise windows of
vertical proportions, with frames of dimensions not less than 50mm, albeit it
is not necessary to mimic the windows of the existing house. The fenestration pattern cannot be permitted
to create unusual or aesthetically unacceptable elements (such as those formed
by W5, W6 and D7 on western elevation).”
75. A
revised schedule of colours and finishes of all materials proposed to be
utilised should be submitted in accordance with the conditions listed in the
Recommendation.
76. The
condition and conservation issues of the notable front verandah shall be
addressed as part of the additional heritage information to be submitted before
work commences. This is addressed by way of condition of consent.
77. The
heritage impact assessment submitted with the DA concludes:
- “The dwelling cannot be occupied in its
current condition. The proposed work will contribute to the long-term
conservation of the dwelling by making it habitable. Residential occupation is
the original and best use for this building.
- The proposed new work retains a good
understanding of the existing and original layout of the dwelling. What little
remains of the internal fabric is retained.
- The proposed work to the dwelling (and
the proposed landscaping) will improve the streetscape presentation of the site
and visual relationships to the adjoining heritage items at Nos 3 and
- The date of the existing garage is not
known. It could conceivably date from the Interwar Period. The garage is
retained and made good.
- The proposed addition respects the
existing dwelling in the following manner:
- The proposed addition is
located to the rear of the dwelling, in an area that has undergone past
alteration;
- The proposed addition is
single storey in height and has a simple hipped roof form that compliments the
roof form of the existing dwelling. The addition will be concealed when the
site is viewed from directly in front;
- The proposed addition is
simple in form, detailing and materials and will not compete with the original
dwelling;
- The proposed addition
follows the side setbacks of the existing dwelling;
- The proposed addition is
well separated from the existing dwelling by means of a lower sink section. A
full understanding of the main hipped roof form with rear skillion of the
existing dwelling is retained along the eastern boundary. A clear distinction
between old and new work will be created.
- The vertical proportion of
openings of the original dwelling is generally replicated in the addition. The
greater void to solid ratio in the addition will have limited visibility from
the public domain.”
78. The
recommendations of Council’s Heritage Adviser are included as conditions of
consent.
Drainage
79. Council’s
Development Engineer supports the proposal, subject to standard conditions of
consent.
Landscaping
80. Council’s
Landscape Officer assessed the proposal and made the following conclusions:
“There are no tree protection measures
identified to protect the trees to be retained on the adjacent site to the
proposed development. The tree located closest on the western boundary will
require measures to be undertaken to protect the root system during the
construction period. Root growth will have likely been restricted in this area
due to the existing building.
The proposed drainage line/pit along the
western boundary will be located within the setback area (see Table 2) required
to protect the root system of the tree located on the adjacent property.
The Planting Schedule shown on the submitted
Concept Landscape Plan does not show the number of trees/shrubs proposed to be
planted or the pot size proposed for the development. The location of the
proposed planting is also not shown.”
81. Standard
conditions of consent are included to address these issues.
Design Qualities
82. The objectives of the Residential 2(c) Zone are to encourage
redevelopment of a variety of housing forms, including boarding house
development, where the redevelopment will not compromise the amenity of the
surrounding area and is in character with the surrounding built environment.
83. The subject site is located within an established residential
area. The Harris Park DCP encourages development to be consistent with the
built form objectives and controls under the DCP in terms of scale, design and
materials. The proposal complies with the relevant objectives of SREP No. 28
and the Harris Park DCP.
84. The table in Attachment 4 of this report summarises the
proposal’s compliance with the specific requirements of the REP and the DCP.
85. What is
demonstrated is that the proposal complies with the requirements for on the
site, with setbacks, landscaped area, height and floor space ratio consistent
with the requirements for such development.
Alan Middlemiss
Senior Development Assessment Officer
1View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
2View |
Plans & Elevations |
8 Pages |
|
3View |
Heritage Inventory Sheet |
1 Page |
|
4View |
Table of Compliance |
1 Page |
|
5View |
History of DA |
1 Page |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 12.6 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.6
SUBJECT
DESCRIPTION Section 82A Review
of Determination for the demolition of a dwelling house and construction of 20
x 2 storey townhouses over basement level carparking for 35 cars, strata
subdivision.
REFERENCE DA/338/2006 - (Section 82A Review)
APPLICANT/S Steve Issa c/o
Weston Investment Group
OWNERS Weston Investment
Group
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Section 82
Application to review the determination of refused Development Application
No. 338/2006 that seeks approval for the demolition of a dwelling house and
construction of 20 x 2 storey townhouses over basement carparking for 35
cars, and strata subdivision. The
DA has been referred to Council as the original decision (refusal) was made
under delegated authority and the Environmental Planning & Assessment
Act, 1979 requires the review to be undertaken at a higher level of authority
that that at the original determination stage. The works proposed by this application are consistent with
the adopted Masterplan for the precinct; is of good design and without any
known environmental harm being likely as a result. The proposed development
is also consistent with the objectives of both the Sydney Regional
Environmental Plan No. 28 and the Harris Park DCP. By virtue of the
changes made to the development, the extent of compliance with the relevant
planning controls and the absence of objections to the proposal, it is
considered that the development in its present form would not compromise the
public interest. Accordingly, approval of the development application is
recommended. |
RECOMMENDATION (a) That Development Application No.
338/2006 for the demolition of a dwelling house and the construction
of 20 x 3 bedroom multi-unit dwellings (terrace houses) within 3 buildings,
connected beneath by a single level basement capable of accommodating 35 cars
(including one wash bay) and strata subdivision at 15-17 Weston Street,
Rosehill, be approved as a
‘Deferred Commencement’ consent under the provisions of Section 80(3) of the
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, as amended. The consent
shall not operate until the applicant satisfies Council’s Drainage Engineer
as to the following matters contained in Part A, with such matters being
satisfied within 6 months of the date of this consent. Part A – Deferred
Commencement 1. An inter-allotment drainage easement shall be
created. Proof of registration of the drainage easement with the NSW Department
of Lands and owner’s consent of any adjoining allotment, must be provided to
the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to the issue of the Construction
Certificate. Reason: To ensure an appropriate easement is
in place. Part B – General 1. All references to ‘Design of façade
to be revisited’ in relation to the southern elevation shall be deleted from
the plans. Reason: These hand written notations by the
applicant do not form part of this consent. (b) Further,
that the objector
be advised of Council’s decision. |
SITE & LOCALITY
1. The subject site comprises of 2 lots which
contain a single dwelling house. The site has a frontage of 40.23 metres and a
depth of 77.42 metres with a total land area of 3,114m².
2. Weston Street is characterised by single
storey dwellings and a number of new 2 storey townhouse developments. The site
has a north-south orientation with the frontage of the site facing due south.
Both adjoining sites comprise single detached dwelling houses.
PROPOSAL
3. The application involves demolition of a
dwelling house and the construction of 20 x 3 bedroom multi-unit dwellings
(terrace houses) within 3 buildings, connected beneath by a single level
basement capable of accommodating 35 cars (including one wash bay). The
development is in the form of row housing built across the site. The proposal
also entails strata subdivision.
4. Access to the basement car park is from a
ramp located on the western side of the site. The basement car park contains 35
car parking spaces with a mix of stacked
spaces, caged spaces and open spaces being provided and complies with SREP
No.28.
5. The proposed development comprises three
rows of 2 storey (plus ‘attic’) terrace houses over basement level carparking
for 35 cars. The front row contains 6 dwellings, the middle row 7 dwellings and
the rear row 7 dwellings.
BACKGROUND
6. The
application was refused under delegated authority on
- “The development does not
comply with the requirements of clause 29O ‘Height of Buildings’, of Sydney
Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 because the development exceeds the 7.2m
plus attic height limit.
- The development does not
comply with the requirements of clause 29T ‘Landscape Controls’, of Sydney
Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 because less than 30% of the site area is
landscaped area.
- The development is not
consistent with the objectives of clause 29S ‘Roof Design’, of Sydney Regional
Environmental Plan No. 28 because the roof design and detail results in an excessively
bulky roof that is not compatible with the built form of the area and reduces
views within the area.
- The development is not
consistent with the requirement of clause 57 ‘Car Parking Provisions’, of
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 because the number of car spaces
provided exceeds the maximum allowed by the REP.
- The proposed development does
not provide bicycle parking in accordance with Part 3.6.6 ‘Car parking
Controls’ of the Rosehill Master Plan/DCP.
- Inadequate information has been
submitted to satisfy the requirements of Part 3.7.2 ‘Waste Controls’ of the
Rosehill Master Plan/DCP.
- The development does not
satisfy the requirements of part 3.7.4 ‘Stormwater Management / Water Sensitive
Urban Design’ of the Rosehill Master Plan/DCP.
- The development is
inconsistent with part 4.3.2 ‘Key Objectives’ of the Rosehill Master Plan/DCP
because the floor levels of the development have not been adequately stepped to
address the natural ground levels, this results in unacceptable solar access
and overlooking within the development.
- The development is not in the
public interest”.
7. The
plans were revised in the manner described in Paragraphs 10-19 below. and a
Section 82A Review lodged with Council on
STATUTORY CONTROLS
Section 82A - Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979
8. The application is
substantially the same development as previously assessed. Section 82A of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 allows an applicant within 12
months of the date of determination to have the decision reviewed. Amendments
to the proposal have been made to the proposal to address the reasons for
refusal. An assessment of the Section 82A Review application against the reasons for refusal of the
original DA is provided below.
9. The
Section 82A Review submission addresses the previous reasons for refusal in the
following manner:
- “The development does not
comply with the requirements of Clause 29O ‘Height of Buildings’, of Sydney
Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 because the development exceeds the 7.2m
plus attic height limit”.
10. The
attics have been revised to comply with the REP’s definition of ‘attic’ and now
do not constitute a third storey within the development. The proposed height of
the development complies with the maximum prescribed by the REP.
- The development does not
comply with the requirements of clause 29T ‘Landscape Controls’, of Sydney
Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 because less than 30% of the site area is
landscaped area.
11. The
extent of landscaping, as defined by the REP, has been modified to provide for
33% of the site as landscaped area. The proposal now complies with the
statutory control (which is a density control in the absence of an FSR
control).
- The development is not
consistent with the objectives of clause 29S ‘Roof Design’, of Sydney Regional
Environmental Plan No. 28 because the roof design and detail results in an
excessively bulky roof that is not compatible with the built form of the area
and reduces views within the area.
12. The
roof form has been significantly modified to comply with the requirements of
the REP. It is considered that the proposed roof form is compatible with the
existing streetscape.
- The development is not
consistent with the requirement of clause 57 ‘Car Parking Provisions’, of
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 because the number of car spaces
provided exceeds the maximum allowed by the REP.
13. The
extent of carparking no longer exceeds the maximum prescribed by the REP being
reduced to 35 and consistent with the maximum number permitted by SREP No. 28.
- The proposed development does
not provide bicycle parking in accordance with Part 3.6.6 ‘Car parking
Controls’ of the Rosehill Master Plan/DCP.
14. Bicycle
parking is provided. This reason for refusal is no longer valid.
- Inadequate information has
been submitted to satisfy the requirements of part 3.7.2 ‘Waste Controls’ of
the Rosehill Master Plan/DCP.
15. Matters
relating to waste and recycling are able to be resolved by way of a condition
of consent.
- The development does not
satisfy the requirements of part 3.7.4 ‘Stormwater Management / Water Sensitive
Urban Design’ of the Rosehill Master Plan/DCP.
16. This
matter is being resolved at the present time with ongoing discussions between
the applicant’s and Council’s Drainage Engineers. The DA can be approved
subject to a deferred commencement consent, pending the exact location of the
inter-allotment drainage easement being established. Other matters can be
addressed by way of standard conditions of consent.
- The development is
inconsistent with part 4.3.2 ‘Key Objectives’ of the Rosehill Master Plan/DCP
because the floor levels of the development have not been adequately stepped to
address the natural ground levels, this results in unacceptable solar access
and overlooking within the development.
17. The
proposal satisfies the key block principles. Each dwelling has at least 40m² of
private open space with at least 35m² being contained in one area. The other
controls are provided in the table attached to this report.
- The development is not in the
public interest.
18. By
virtue of the changes made to the development, the extent of compliance with
the relevant planning controls and the absence of objections to the proposal,
it is considered that the development in its present form would not compromise
the public interest.
Side setbacks
19. Although
not listed as a reason for refusal, the side setbacks have been adjusted to
ensure compliance with the Rosehill Masterplan.
State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 –
Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)
20. The site is not identified by Council’s
records as having any known contaminants present. A search reveals that the
site has a lengthy history of residential usage and it is unlikely that there
are any substances on the site which would cause harm to humans.
State Environmental Planning Policy
(Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
21. State Environmental
Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 ("BASIX") applies to the
proposed development. The development application was accompanied by BASIX
Certificate No. 59368M, dated
22. These requirements have been imposed by
standard condition prescribed by Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.
Sydney
Regional Environmental Plan 28 (
23. The site is
zoned Residential 2(b) under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 28 (
Harris
Park Development Control Plan
24. The development
is subject to the requirements of this plan. However, many of the requirements
of this plan are superseded or replicated by the site specific requirements of
the Rosehill Master Plan/DCP. The development is consistent with the numerical
requirements and the aims and objectives of the DCP.
Rosehill Masterplan/DCP
25. The development
is within the mid block terrace precinct as defined by the Masterplan. The
Masterplan seeks to achieve the maximum level of amenity for future residents
by carefully setting out the controls for development within the precinct. The
Masterplan aims to minimise the need for site amalgamation, provide a high
level of pedestrian and vehicular permeability through the block, and ensure
that ecologically sustainable development is achieved. Subject to conditions of
consent, the development will be consistent with the objectives of the
Masterplan.
CONSULTATION
26. The Section 82 Review application was
notified from 16 to
27. It is understood from
discussions between the applicant’s and Council’s Drainage Engineers that the
applicant is making arrangements for the stormwater easement to be provided
through the development site at the rear of the site at
28. The author of
the submission notes that he has no specific objection to the development
itself, but requests that the stormwater disposal not occur through his
property.
ON-SITE MEETING
29. Council,
at its meeting of
30. In
accordance with the above resolution, an on-site meeting was held on
31. Present
at the meeting were Councillor Anita Brown (Chairman); Councillor Maureen
Walsh; Steven Issa (owner); Council’s Senior Development Assessment Officer and
7 residents. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.
32. The
meeting commenced with Council’s Senior Development Assessment Officer briefly
outlining the proposal, that it is a reconsideration of the same development
application (previously refused) and outlining how the applicant has addressed
the reasons for refusal of the previous submission (in particular in relation
to the statutory non-compliances of height, landscaped area and attic
dimensions).
33. It
was pointed out to the meeting that there is no FSR relevant to the site and
that the measurement of ratio of development to land is taken by a minimum 30%
landscaped area.
34. Councillor
Walsh asked whether the 33% landscaped area included the area to be ultimately
dedicated as public road along the eastern boundary of the site. The owner of
the property indicated that it was not used in this calculation.
35. Councillor
Walsh asked whether the 3.5 metres future road area was to be replicated on any
future development of the adjoining properties to the east. It was advised that
this is a component under the adopted Masterplan.
36. Council’s
Senior Development Assessment Officer indicated that the current scheme has not
attracted any objections. However, one submission was received from a resident
who lives to the rear of the site, concerned with ensuring that drainage issues
are satisfactorily resolved (the site slopes towards his property). The owner
indicated that he will liaise with the adjoining property owner in relation to
that issue.
37. Councillor
Brown requested clarification regarding the access for removalist’s vans. It
was advised that the site has the benefit of a 3.5 metre future road reserve
down the side of the property that could be used for this purpose, in addition
to the driveway to the basement.
38. One
nearby resident raised concerns with the 2003 Rosehill Masterplan and that it
did not provide for sufficient scope for the redevelopment of his property in
39. None
of the residents in attendance expressed any objections to the DA.
40. Councillor
Walsh also asked about the width of each individual dwelling fronting
ISSUES
Ecologically Sustainable
Development
41. Part 3.7
‘Environmental Performance’ of the Masterplan contains detailed requirements in
regard to energy and water efficiency. These requirements include the level of
thermal comfort (NatHers rating) for the proposed dwellings and measures used
to recycle water and reduce water usage. Non standard conditions are
recommended to ensure that the development complies with the requirements of
the Masterplan.
Height
42. For the building that faces Weston Street
the maximum height is the average RL of the kerb directly opposite the site PLUS 7.2 metres. The RL of the ceiling
for the building at the front of the site is limited to a maximum of RL 24.32
(based on the average kerb RL of RL 17.12). The ceiling of the first floor
level of the front building is RL 23.10, this equates to a building height of
5.98 metres.
43. The proposal now complies with the height requirements
of SREP No. 28, whereby the previously refused scheme had a third storey that
did not constitute an attic and was therefore considered prohibited
development.
Roof Design
44. Clause 29S of SREP No. 28 provides the
following controls for the design of roofs;
(a) within the Area of National Significance,
as defined for the purposes of this Plan, the predominant roof form of all new
single dwellings, and all new multi-unit dwellings (except residential flat
buildings), shall have a pitch of between 25 degrees and 45 degrees,
(b) where windows and skylights are used to
allow ventilation and natural light into an attic, these must be flat and sit
parallel to the roof where they are located on the front and side elevations of
the building. Consent may be granted for dormer windows and the like located to
the rear of the building only,
(c)
where attics are created within an
existing roof shape, the shape of the roof must not be altered, except in
accordance with paragraph (b),
(d) for new buildings or extensions to existing
buildings which include an attic, the roof in which the attic is contained must
be pitched from the top of the external wall at a maximum pitch of 45 degrees.
These controls are supported by the following objectives;
(a) to maximise opportunities for solar access
in residential areas,
(b) to retain space and views between buildings
in residential areas,
(c) to ensure that the roofs of new buildings
in residential areas are compatible with existing roofs in the area in terms of
their pitch, form and design detail,
(d) to allow for existing and new buildings to
accommodate attics within the roof space,
(e) to ensure that, where attics are proposed
to be accommodated within existing roofs, the existing appearance of the roof
is altered as little as possible.
45. The
development now complies with the height requirements prescribed by the REP and
the form of the proposed roof has been revised to be consistent with the
objectives of Clause 29(s), whereas a complicated roof form was previously
proposed that failed to meet the requirements of the REP.
Design
46. In
the Residential 2(b) zone, SREP No. 28 aims to promote multi-unit residential
development and limited non-residential development (not residential flat
buildings) and residential development which is encouraged in the zone
including developments that do not compromise the character and amenity of the
surrounding area. Design objectives seek
to ensure that the building form is in character and integrates with the
surrounding built environment. The proposal is considered to achieve this.
47. The aims and objectives of Harris Park Precinct DCP seek to
ensure that development respects and integrates with the site and the
surrounding built environment and enhances residential amenity. Th proposed
development satisfies these requirements.
48. The Harris Park DCP outlines performance criteria designed to
maximise solar penetration into dwellings and opportunities for natural cross
ventilation to optimise natural light and implement the principles of
ecologically sustainable development. The proposal satisfies these principles.
49. The Rosehill Masterplan provides the framework for future
development of 3.52 hectares of land bound by
Landscaping
50. The previously refused development failed to
comply with the requirements of Clause 29T ‘Landscape Controls’, of Sydney
Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 because less than 30% of the site area was
calculated to be landscaped area.
51. The
extent of landscaping, as defined by the REP, has been modified to provide for
33% of the site area. The proposal now complies with the statutory control
(which is the density control in the absence of a prescribed FSR).
Alan Middlemiss
Senior
Development Assessment Officer
1View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
2View |
Plans & Elevations |
8 Pages |
|
3View |
History of DA |
1 Page |
|
4View |
Compliance Table |
1 Page |
|
5View |
Extracts from Masterplan |
7 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 12.7 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.7
SUBJECT
DESCRIPTION Alterations and
additions to a heritage-listed dwelling and change of use to a 40-place
childcare centre.
REFERENCE DA/729/2007 - Submitted
APPLICANT/S Mr M Maklouf
OWNERS Mr M & Mr R
Ibrahim
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
PREVIOUS ITEMS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a further report in
relation to 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 at The application is being
referred to Council for determination as it involves development relating to
a child care centre; as the existing dwelling is a heritage item and in
accordance with Council’s resolution of By virtue of the
changes made to the development, the extent of compliance with the relevant
planning controls and the absence of objections to the proposal, it is
considered that the development in its present form would not compromise the
public interest. Accordingly, approval of the development application is recommended. |
(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 40 children at any one time and
comprise of a minimum of 10 places for 0–2 year olds and a maximum of 30
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 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,
but subject to a maximum of 40 children only. Reason: To mitigate noise
impacts to adjoining property owners. 5. The
original chimney, fireplace and rear walls of the two front bedrooms (which
face 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. 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. 8. The proponent
shall ensure that on-site signage includes an after hours contact telephone
number. Reason: For security purposes. 9. All costs associated with the supply and
installation of the ’15 Minute Parking Reason: To ensure that costs are met. 10. Three on-street parking spaces to be marked and signposted as
’15-minute Parking Reason: To ensure adequate parking. 11. The applicant shall liaise with Council’s Traffic &
Transport Investigations Engineer regarding the installation of the ’15
Minute Parking’ at least 3 months prior to the final occupation of the
building as works instruction will need to be forwarded to Council’s Supervisor
Building Trades for implementation. Reason: To
ensure adequate implementation of parking restrictions. 12. A combined entry & exit driveway (3 metres wide) to be
provided and constructed according to AS 2890.1- 2004 and Council’s
specification, as shown on the DA plan. Reason: To ensure suitable access. 13. Driveway gradients shall comply with Clause 2.5.3 and Clause
3.3 of AS2890.1-2004. Reason: To
ensure suitable access. 14. Traffic facilities, such as; wheel stops,
bollards, kerbs, signposting, pavement markings, lighting and speed humps,
shall comply with AS2890.1. Reason: To ensure compliance with
Australian Standards. 15. A safe pedestrian pathway
(1.2 metres minimum width) from the carparking area to the building should be
marked and provided for pedestrian safety. Reason: To ensure safe access. 16. 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 600mm higher than the boundary level at the
driveway. Reason: To ensure adequate visibility and safety. 17. The dimensions of the
on-street parking spaces must be 5.4 metres long for the end spaces and 6.0
metres long for the middle space in accordance with AS 2890.5-1993 Parking
Facilities, Part 5 - On-Street Parking. Reason: To comply with Australian Standards. 18. The dimensions of the
off-street parking spaces, as shown on the DA plan, indicates 2.3 metres wide
x 5.3 metres long. The dimensions of these spaces must be in accordance in AS
2890.1-2004 (refer to traffic condition Item (a)). Reason: To comply with Australian
Standards. 19. At least one space for a
disabled person must be provided on-site and suitably marked. Reason: To provide equitable access. 20. A
1.8 metres high perimeter fence of timber material, lapped & capped,
shall be constructed along the northern, southern and eastern boundaries,
commencing and concluding at a point perpendicular with the front façade of
the premises. Reason: To mitigate noise impacts. 21. Play
Area No.1 shall be located at existing ground level (between RLs 37.04 and
37.29), not at RL 38.15 and that access to this area be provided via stairs
from the existing building. Reason: In order to mitigate potential privacy issues. |
SITE & LOCALITY
1. The site is known as
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
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 refurbished
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)
and a cot room;
3.3 The proposed child care
centre includes 6 at-grade car parking spaces (two in a stacked arrangement)
located at the rear of the site, indoor and outdoor play areas, kitchen,
laundry, bathrooms, storage areas and offices;
3.4 The proposed hours of
operation are Monday to Friday
3.5 Southern boundary single
width driveway access to 6 parking spaces at the rear of the site.
BACKGROUND
4. Council at its meeting of
“(a) That consideration of
this matter be deferred subject to immediate negotiations being entered into
with the applicant to vary the design so that sufficient additional carparking
spaces be provided which would allow the centre to cater for 35-40 children.
(b) That subject to the
change of design satisfying the conditions of Council’s CCC, DCP and parking
code (sic) approval be immediately
granted to the development application under delegated authority by the General
Manager.
(c) Further, that a (sic) legal advice be obtained on the
permissibility of approving this application as a deferred commencement as
ruled out of order in the initial motion.”
5. 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 within the front setback area. This necessitated
the need for vehicles to depart the site in a reversing manner.
6. Amended plans were submitted to Council on
7. Due to
the amended plans not complying with the numeric controls for parking and
landscaping in the Childcare Centres DCP, the DA could not be approved under delegated
authority by the CEO as preconditions in Part B of the Council Resolution were
not satisfied.
STATUTORY CONTROLS
8. 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.
9. Subject to conditions, the
proposal is regarded as being consistent with the LEP and the zone.
10. 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.
Child Care Centre Development
Control Plan
11. 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 (one space short) and with the
landscaping control (side boundary strip) but is generally consistent with the
objectives of the Child Care Centre DCP, as will be explained in this report.
Consultation
12. The amended plans were
renotified to surrounding residents between 23 July and
Issues
Heritage
13. 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
14. 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”.
15. 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. The amended plans do not change the composition and layout of the
heritage-listed cottage compared with the originally submitted plans.
Accordingly no objections are raised on heritage grounds.
Car parking
16. 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 and 3
additional spaces on street, as recommended by Council’s Traffic Engineer and
the Traffic Committee.
17. The
purpose of Clause 3.4 of the Childcare Centres DCP is to allow for 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.
18. 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 and has been endorsed by the
Parramatta Local Traffic Committee.
19. Consideration
of on-street parking is a case by case assessment envisaged under Clause 3.4 of
the DCP. It does not itself create a precedent as it has a site specific
assessment basis.
20. In relation to the amended
plans submitted on
20.1 The parking requirements according Council’s Child Care Centre DCP 2007
for 40 children should be 10) spaces (ie. 1 space per 4 children in
attendance).
20.2 The three on-street parking spaces as shown on the amended DA
plan has been previously approved by the PTC under Delegated Authority No 142
on 22 May 2008 (refer to extract copy of Item 27- TRIM Document # D00964251).
20.3 The dimensions of the on-street parking spaces should be 5.4 metres
long for the end spaces and 6.0 metres long for the middle space according to
AS 2890.5-1993 Parking Facilities, Part 5 - On-Street Parking.
20.4 The dimensions of the off-street parking spaces, as shown on the DA
plan, indicates 2.3 metres wide x 5.3 metres long. The dimensions of these spaces should be in
accordance in AS 2890.1-2004 (refer to traffic condition Item (a)).
20.5 Council’s CCC DCP 2007 specifies that “if the carparking required is
less than 10 spaces then at least 1 space a disabled person must be provided
on-site”. The amended DA plan does not
provide any disabled parking space.
20.6 Provision of 9 parking spaces (including 3 spaces on street) is
considered acceptable although with a deficiency of 1 parking space according
to Council’s CCC DCP 2007. It is noted that the deficiency of 1 parking space
is not expected to have a significant impact on the safe operation of this
section of
20.7 A safe pedestrian pathway (1.2m minimum) from the carparking area to
the building should be marked and provided for pedestrian safety.
20.8 Based on the amended DA plans, it is considered that the proposed
development is not expected to have a significant traffic impact on Cross
Street and its surrounding road network and can be supported on traffic &
parking grounds for 40 children in attendance.
21. Although not all required
carparking can be provided on-site, the shortfall of 1 space is not considered
fatal to the proposal and a reduction in the capacity of the childcare centre
is not considered necessary under the circumstances.
22. There are no objections
with the proposal based on carparking.
Noise
23. 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”.
24. 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.
25. The acoustic report also
provides an assessment of the potential impacts of motor vehicles used in
association with the use and concludes:
25.1 “For start-up noise and movement noise, a 1.8 metres high fence will
provide a noise reduction of 7 dB(A) or greater to the residences to the south
and 6 dB(A) or more to the residences to the north.
25.2 Vehicles moving at 20km/h or less, typically produce transient noise
levels of 60 to 65 dB(A) at 5 metres. These lower speeds would be expected for
parents accessing the carparking area.
25.3 Vehicle start-up and movement will be less than the general transient
LAmax noise levels from
25.4 Traffic movements associated with the operation of the proposed
childcare centre would generally coincide with the peak periods for local
residential traffic movements”.
26. The acoustic report is
based upon the original plans, not the amended plans. However, the changes to
the plans result in a maximum of 40 children being spread out over an area of
nearly 247m², rather than the
previously proposed 451m².
Given that not all 40 children will be outside at any one time, that a 1.8
metres high perimeter fence will be constructed and that the acoustic report
submitted with the DA deals with noise control for childcare centres in a
general sense, it was not deemed necessary to have the acoustic report modified
to deal with the amended plans. The recommendations of this report are still
relevant and are addressed in the recommended conditions of consent.
Landscaping
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. The landscaping plan shows
that there will be approximately 269m²
of outdoor play area provided, whereas the Childcare Centres DCP requires 280m², based on 7m² per child. The extent of non-compliance is not considered to be
unreasonable and the impacts not likely to be noticeable.
Design Qualities
31. The objectives of the Residential 2(b) Zone are to encourage
redevelopment of low density housing forms, and certain non-residential
development including childcare centres, where the redevelopment will not
compromise the amenity of the surrounding area and is in character with the
surrounding built environment.
32. The slope of the land and the proposal to provide Play Area No. 1
at the same level as the floor level of the existing building results in the
play area being approximately 1.3 metres above the ground level of the
adjoining property.
33. In order to mitigate potential privacy issues, it is recommended
that Play Area No.1 be located at existing ground level and that access to this
area be provided via stairs from the existing building. Disabled access would
still be available via Play Area No. 2. A condition is included in the
Recommendation.
32. The subject site is located within an established residential
area. Parramatta DCP 2005 encourages development to be consistent with the
built form objectives and controls under the DCP in terms of scale, design and
materials. The proposal complies with the relevant objectives of Parramatta LEP
2001, Parramatta DCP 2005 and the Childcare Centres DCP.
33. The table in Attachment 3 of this report summarises the
proposal’s compliance with the specific requirements of the Childcare Centres
DCP.
34. What is
demonstrated is that the proposal would comply with the building envelope
controls relevant to the site, with setbacks, height and floor space ratio
consistent with the requirements for such development.
35. In addition to this, the
development protects the heritage fabric of the building and the additions to
the rear would be undertaken in a sympathetic manner.
Alan Middlemiss
Senior Development Assessment Officer
1View |
Plans & Elevations |
4 Pages |
|
2View |
Childcare Centres DCP Compliance Table |
2 Pages |
|
3View |
Childcare Centres Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
4View |
History of DA |
1 Page |
|
5View |
Management Report |
9 Pages |
|
Traffic Report |
9 Pages |
|
|
Acoustic Report |
18 Pages |
|
|
Previous Report to Council for Development Application - Item 12.19 at
Council Meeting on |
52 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 12.8 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.8
SUBJECT
DESCRIPTION Demolition of
existing building and construction of a three storey commercial building with
basement carparking. (Location Map - Attachment 2)
REFERENCE DA/967/2007 - Submitted
APPLICANT/S Mr H J Brooks
OWNERS Andrew J Brooks Pty
Limited
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development
Application No. 967/2007 seeks approval to the demolition of the existing
building and construction of a three storey commercial building with basement
parking at The proposed commercial building
is 10 metres in height and has a gross floor area of 680m2 which
comply with the requirements of Council’s Planning Instruments. The building
will be set back 3metres from The proposed development
satisfies aims and objectives of the City Edge Zone within the City Centre
Precinct and is consistent with the specific design requirements of Council’s
Development Control Plans. Council’s various internal
referral bodies can support the proposal subject to appropriate conditions of
consent. Resident’s main concern relating to solar access to the residential
balconies and main living areas has been satisfactorily resolved by
submission of the amended plans which reduced the building depth at the rear
and minimises overshadowing impacts. Accordingly, approval of the
application is recommended. |
(a) That Council grant consent to
Development Application No 967/2007 subject to standard conditions and the following
extraordinary conditions from the NSW Heritage Office:- 1. The applicant must apply to the Heritage
Office for an excavation permit under Section 140 of the Heritage Act 1977
prior to the release of the Construction Certificate. Reason: To
prevent damage to any possible relics on the site. 2. General bulk
excavation of the site is not to commence prior to compliance with the
conditions and requirements of any excavation permit issued by the NSW
Heritage Council for the site. Reason: To
ensure bulk excavation is carried out at the appropriate time. 3. If archaeological excavation is
required, the Applicant must ensure that the nominated Excavation Directors
and archaeological excavation team are adequately resourced to allow full and
detailed archaeological investigation and recording to be undertaken to the
satisfaction of the Heritage Council.
Where necessary, work schedules must be adjusted to accommodate the
archaeological excavation works and works must be undertaken in accordance
with a S140 Excavation Permit approval issued by the NSW Heritage Council. Reason: To clarify excavation
works. 4. Should any historical relics be
unexpectedly discovered in any areas of the site not subject to an excavation
permit, then all excavation or disturbance to the area is to stop immediately
and the Heritage Council of NSW should be informed in accordance with section
146 of the Heritage Act 1977. Reason: To clarify excavation
works. 5. Should any Aboriginal relics be
unexpectedly discovered in any areas of the site not subject to an excavation
permit, then all excavation or disturbance of the area is to stop immediately
and the Department of Conservation is to be informed in accordance with
Section 91 of the National Park and Wildlife Act, 1974. Reason: To clarify excavation
works. 6. The applicant shall comply with all
conditions and requirements of any excavation permit required by the NSW
Heritage Council prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate. Reason: To
comply with the excavation permit. (b) Further, that objectors be advised of Council’s decision. |
SITE & LOCALITY
1. The subject site is rectangular in shape
and is located on the eastern side of
2. The site contains a single storey building
that is currently used for a commercial purpose.
3. The site is adjoined by a three storey
commercial building to the north and a two storey residential flat building to
the south.
4. Parramatta Golf Course is located on the
opposite side of
PROPOSAL
5. Approval is sought to the demolition of
the existing building and the construction
of a three storey commercial building above a single level of basement
carparking for six vehicles. Vehicular access is provided from
6. The proposed building has a total floor
area of 680.25m2 and is set back 3m from the
BACKGROUND HISTORY
DA/1395/2003
7. Approval was granted to the demolition of
the existing building and the construction of a three storey mixed use building
containing one commercial unit on the ground floor and four residential units
on the first and second floors on
8. The approved mixed use building had substantially
the same building configuration (including height, setbacks, bulk and scale) as
the proposed building that is subject of this current development application.
Development Consent No.1395/2003 has not been taken by the owner of the site,
however this consent is still valid.
STATUTORY CONTROLS
Sydney
Regional Environmental Plan No 28 –
9. The
site is zoned City Edge Zone and the proposed commercial development is
permissible subject to Council consent.
Aims of the City Centre Precinct (Clause 15)
10. The
subject site is located within the City Centre Precinct. The proposal satisfies
the aims of this precinct, as the development will enhance retail and
commercial functions and will fulfil the long-term commercial development
potential for the growth of Parramatta City Centre without unduly compromising
the natural assets of the Parramatta City Centre.
The objectives of the City Edge Zone (Clause 19)
11. The
proposal satisfies the objectives of the City Edge Zone within the Precinct by
providing a physical transition between the City Core and Retail Core zones and
nearby lower density residential properties and parkland. It will also provide
neighbourhood support services and facilities for the residential and working
population and encourage an active frontage to the street.
Urban design (Clause 25)
12. Council’s
Urban Designer considers that “the proposed development demonstrates a reasonable effort to
articulate the building and internal elevations with expressed entries, façade
modulation and enhancing elements. The proposed articulation and balance of
vertical and horizontal elements reduces the appearance of the building bulk
and contributes positively to the streetscape. The overall façade treatment,
with articulated features and projecting elements, is a familiar
contemporary response and appropriate given the desired character of the area” and that “the proposed
commercial development is a satisfactory urban design response to the context
of the site given the existing and desired future character of the area,
intended occupants of the building and heritage values of the area”.
Height of building (Clause 26)
13. The
height of the building in this case is defined as the vertical distance
measured in metres to the ceiling of the topmost floor from the horizontal
plane at the average of the heights of the top of the street kerb nearest to
each end of the street frontage of the building. The proposed building has a
height of 10m, which complies with the City Centre Height Map under this
clause.
Floor Space Ratio (Clause 27)
14. The
applicant has provided amended plans to reduce the FSR which now complies with
the required standard (1.5:1) in response to the residents’ concern regarding
solar access to the principal living area of the adjoining residential flat
building to the south. The amendment effectively reduces the building depth by
0.64m at the rear and provides additional solar access of approximately half an
hour to the balcony areas of
Special areas – City Edge West (Clause 28(g))
15. The
proposal satisfies the objectives and provisions of the City Edge West Special
Area by providing a sufficient separation distance (minimum of 18m) from
Heritage areas and items
16. The
subject site is not heritage listed, but has archaeological potential. In this
regard, the applicant provided a Heritage Impact Statement and Historical
Archaeological Assessment Report under DA/1395/2003, which was previously
approved by Council in 2004. These documents were referred to the NSW Heritage
Office at that time. The NSW Heritage Council considered that the reports
provide a thorough review of the site’s historical archaeological potential and
recommended the following conditions in support of the proposal:
(1) The
applicant must apply for an excavation permit under Section 140 of the Heritage
Act 1977 prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.
(2) General
bulk excavation of the site is not to commence prior to compliance with the
conditions and requirements of any excavation permit.
(3) Should
any historical or Aboriginal relics be unexpectedly discovered in any areas of
the site not subject to an excavation permit, then all excavation is to stop
immediately and the NSW Heritage Office contacted.
17. Council’s
Heritage Advisor confirms that the proposal will not adversely affect the significance
of any heritage items in the vicinity and advises that the recommended
conditions of the NSW Heritage Office should be re-applied to the current
Development Application to protect potential archaeological relics should the
application be approved.
18. It is
noted that the proposed development does not require a formal referral to the
NSW Heritage Office as the site is not listed as a heritage item of state
significance under Sydney Regional Environment Plan No 28 -
Carparking provisions (Clause 57)
19. This
clause sets out the maximum car park spaces permitted on site so as to
encourage the use of public transport. In this case, the development is
permitted to provide six car spaces and 6 car spaces are proposed in compliance
with the standard.
20. Council’s Traffic and Transport
Investigations Engineer has reviewed the application and is satisfied with the
proposal in terms of vehicle access and parking.
21. The City Centre LEP 2007 came into effect on
21 December 2007 but applies to development applications lodged after this time
due to the savings provisions in that document. The City Centre LEP does not
apply to the subject development application as it was lodged on
Section
6 – Built form
22. The proposal is consistent with the “compulsory
front setback” and “build-to line” requirements of the DCP by providing a
minimum of 3m setback to
23. Council’s Urban Designer also confirms that
“the proposed built form adequately responds to alignments, proportions and
massing of the desired character of the area.
Furthermore, the new building reinforces the existing
subdivision property, without significantly compromising the existing urban
pattern and impacting on
Section
7.5 – Building types (Row/street wall buildings)
24. The proposed commercial building is
consistent with the objective of this section by achieving the maximum FSR
allowed to retain the fine built grain of dense development on a small site.
Nil side setbacks are allowed under this section to form a continuous wall
along the street.
Section
9 – Pedestrian access, parking and servicing
25. A continuous path of travel is available for
people with a disability throughout the building by providing level access to
the main entry and a lift to the upper floors. Underground parking is provided
in accordance with the control.
Section
11 – Active frontage and address
26. The development incorporates an active
street frontage in accordance with this section by providing active office uses
with the reception area visible from the street for the ground floor and
orientating the building to address the street and park.
Section
12 – Special areas and streets (
27. The proposal is consistent with the
objective of this section by proposing flexible ground and first floor spaces
suitable for retail or professional commercial uses.
28. The City Centre DCP came into effect on
Section
1 – Introduction
29. The subject site is located within “City
West Special Area” under Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan.
Section
2.1 – Building to street alignment and street setbacks
30. The proposal complies with the street
setback and building alignment control of 2-3m so as to establish the
consistent front building line and to reinforce the spatial definition of
streets.
Section
31. The development incorporates an active
street frontage in accordance with this section by providing active office uses
with the reception area visible from the street for the ground floor and
orientating the building to address the street and park.
Section
3.8 – Building exteriors
32. The proposal provides balconies which
address to the street and park, articulated façade to add visual interest and
rendered brick work construction that is durable and consistent with adjacent
properties in the vicinity. Council’s Urban Designer is satisfied with the
proposed development and confirms that the development will positively
contribute to the streetscape.
Section
4 – Access, parking and servicing
33. The development provides 6 car spaces and a
bicycle rack area in the basement which is consistent with the DCP. An enclosed
waste storage room is also provided in the basement.
34. Council’s Traffic and Transport
Investigations Engineer has reviewed the application and is satisfied with the
proposal in terms of vehicle access and parking.
Section
7 – Controls for special areas (City West)
35. The
proposal satisfies the objectives and provisions of the City West Special Area
by providing a positive built address to the parkland across the street. The
ground floor is design to accommodate professional commercial uses with the
reception area visible from the street and the building reinforces the east and
west orientation with the design of openings to overlook the parkland.
CONSULTATION
Notification
36. In accordance with Council’s
Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 21
November and
Overshadowing of balconies of
adjoining properties
37. The applicant submitted amended plans which shorten the depth of
the building by 640mm at the rear. This effectively provides approximately half
an hour of additional solar access to the residential balconies of
Concerns regarding noise and
vibration from the proposed lift
38. The lift area is enclosed with brick walls which will minimise
any potential noise and vibration. Nevertheless, a condition of consent has
been recommended to control the noise level from any equipment (including the
lift) to be used on site.
Concerns regarding damage to
adjoining properties during excavation and construction
39. Appropriate
conditions of consent have been recommended requiring preparation of a
dilapidation report and structural adequacy certificate to ensure that the
development does not cause damage to the adjoining properties at Nos.10 and
Concerns regarding dust during construction
40. A
condition of consent has been recommended requiring implementation of dust
control measures including installation of perimeter scaffolding with chain wire
and shade cloth and use of water spray, etc.
Concerns regarding construction vehicle
parking
41. The submitter is concerned that there will be no street parking
for construction vehicles as the eastern kerb side of
42. In this regard, a condition of consent requiring submission and
implementation of a ‘pedestrian, parking and traffic management plan’ during
construction is required to be submitted to Council for approval prior to works
commencing on site.
Concerns regarding construction hours
43. A
condition of consent has been recommended to restrict the construction hours
from
Concern that construction may impact upon
the adjoining business due to interruption of services such as electricity,
water reticulation and communication. Request made that at least 24 hours prior
notice of commencement of works should be provided.
44. Conditions of consent have been recommended requiring at least 5
day prior notice of commencement of the works on site and submission of a ‘work
method statement’ to ensure nuisance to the adjoining properties is minimised.
REFERRALS
Heritage
45. Having
regard to the comments of the NSW Heritage Council made in respect of
DA/1395/2003, Council’s Heritage Advisor considers that the potential impact of
the development is essentially the same as that of the previous approval.
Therefore, Council’s Heritage Advisor advises that the recommended conditions
of the NSW Heritage Office should be re-applied to protect potential
archaeological relics should the application be approved.
Traffic
Engineer
46. Council’s Traffic and Transport
Investigations Engineer has no objections and supports the development subject
to appropriate conditions.
Landscape
47. Council’s Landscape Assessment Officer has
confirmed that the proposed landscape plan is acceptable.
Development
Engineer
48. Council’s Development Engineer considers the
proposed stormwater plan acceptable and recommends appropriate conditions to ensure satisfactory
discharge of stormwater.
Urban
Designer
49. Council’s Urban Designer considers that the
proposed commercial development is a satisfactory urban design response to the
context of the site given the existing and desired future character of the
area, intended occupants of the building and heritage values of the area.
ON-SITE MEETING
50. Council,
at its meeting of
51. 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
52. Present at the site meeting were Councillor Omar Jamal (Chair),
Councillor Chiang Lim and Councillor Paul Barber (Lord Mayor) and Council’s
Team Leader Development and Certification, the applicant and 3 residents. The
following issues were discussed at the meeting:
Loss of solar access
53. The
adjoining residents were concerned that the proposed development would impact
on their solar access, in particular their main living areas and balconies.
Furthermore, they were concerned that the scale of the development would
restrict their winter sun.
54. As
discussed above, amended plans have been submitted to shorten the
depth of the building by 640mm at the rear which provides approximately half an
hour of additional solar access to the balconies of
Dust, access and noise during construction
55. The residents were
concerned that given the site constraints and the age of the development, that
during demolition and construction, excessive noise and dust would be generated
and impact on their health and properties. Furthermore, access to the site
would be difficult and may result in the need to construct from their
properties.
56. As discussed above,
appropriate conditions have been recommended to ensure dust, access and noise
impacts are minimised during all stages of construction.
The development will create a wind tunnel effect
57. The residents raised
concern that given the orientation and design and that the new building is to
be located along the boundary, this would create a tunnel effect and allow wind
to circulate within their driveway, common areas and balconies.
58. Nil setbacks to the side
boundaries are permitted within this area under Parramatta City Centre
Development Control Plan to establish a new streetscape with a continuous wall
along the northern part of
Setback to the rear boundary
59. Residents requested that
there be suitable setback to the rear boundary to allow sunlight/ ventilation
to the site and respect the heritage significance of
60. The proposed building is
set back 10.68m from the rear boundary and 18m from the cemetery which are
considered acceptable with respect to solar access and heritage significance.
Parking on footpath will compound traffic congestion
61. The adjoining residents
raised concern of parking on the footpath in regard to carrying out their
business activities and traffic issues within this section of Pitt Street, due
to the ‘No Stopping’ zone and bus lane.
62. Whilst Council can not
assume people will park illegally on the footpath, a condition of consent has
been recommended requiring an operational traffic and parking management plan
to be prepared and implemented. Such a plan is to educate and to require
occupants, visitors and contractors associated with business activities of the
building to observe traffic rules and respect adjoining properties.
The applicant response to all issues raised
63. The applicant discussed the
previous consent granted for a similar scale development as the one before
Council now for consideration. This consent is still valid and the approved
works could commence.
64. The applicant contended
that the shadow impacts of the proposed development would be no greater than
that of the development previously approved by Council. However, it was
suggested that further shadow diagrams be prepared indicating the extent of
solar access currently received to the adjoining residential flat building and
Councillors further suggested these revised shadow plans be made available to
the residents for comments.
65. It is noted that the shadow
diagrams indicating the extent of solar access currently received to the
adjoining residential flat building have not been submitted. However, the
applicant provided further shadow diagrams to demonstrate that the proposed
development will not have any additional shadow impacts than that of the
previously approved mixed use development. These diagrams form part of the
attachments at the end of this report for information.
66. In relation to the setbacks
and height of the proposed development, it was resolved that the development is
acceptable having regard to Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan.
67. The applicant agreed to
accept the imposition of conditions of consent to suitably control and allow
further enforcement if required in regard to dust, noise, parking and construction
management of the site.
Conclusion
68. The meeting concluded at
69. There
are no other matters or issues associated with this development application.
James (Seong) Kim
Senior Development Assessment Officer
1View |
Table of Compliance |
1 Page |
|
2View |
Location Map |
1 Page |
|
3View |
Plans and Elevations |
8 Pages |
|
REFERENCE
MATERIAL
Item 12.9 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.9
SUBJECT Further Report -
DESCRIPTION A Section 82A
Review of Determination to review the determination (refusal) of DA/202/2006
for demolition, tree removal and construction of a two storey attached dual
occupancy with Torrens Title Subdivision.
REFERENCE DA/202/2006 - Submitted
APPLICANT/S Mr K C Lam and Ms W
Y Ko
OWNERS Mr K C Lam and Ms W
Y Ko
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
PREVIOUS ITEMS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To provide Council with a
further report on the shadow diagrams prepared by Mr David Modra of Revised architectural plans and
a revised external finishes schedule were submitted as part of the Section
82A review application. The built form and aesthetics of the development will
make a positive contribution to the character of the area. The overshadowing
to adjoining properties is considered acceptable having regards to the extent
of compliance with the Building Envelope controls of Parramatta DCP 2005 and
the orientation of the allotment. The proposed dual occupancy is a
permissible form of development in the zone and consistent with the zone objectives.
Accordingly approval of the development is recommended. |
(a) That Council change the previous
determination and grant consent to Development Application No. 202/2006,
subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions: 1. The submitted landscape
plan 2006.302DA1 Issue B is not approved. A revised landscape plan is to be
submitted to the principle certifying authority prior to the issue of the
construction certificate. The landscape plan is to incorporate the following
amendments:- (i) The proposed Syzigium australe along the rear boundary shall be replaced with
a native screening plant that grows to a minimum 4-5m eg. Acmena smithii (ii) A mix of shrubs and ground covers
from the following list shall be incorporated into garden beds that extend
the length of the rear Eastern and Western boundary of each dwelling, at a
rate of 3 per square metre of garden bed:- Shrub / screen plants: Syzygium
‘Cascade’, Eriostemon mypoproides, baekea virgata, leptospermum sqaurrosum,
Grevillea species, Grevillea ‘Winpara
Gem’, Banksia ericifolia, Leptospermum ‘Cardwell’, Callistemon ‘Endeavour’,
Callistemon ‘Little John’ Groundcovers: Dianella
caerulea, Myoporum parvifolium, Grevillea x goudichoudii, Dianella revoluta,
Themeda australis, Lomanra longifolia, Lomandra ‘Tanika’, Lomandra ‘little Joey, Brachycomb
multifida.hardenbergia violacea, Viola hederacrea. (iii) One replacement tree with a minimum container size of 45
litres from the following list shall be planted within the rear lawn area of
each dwelling:- Lophostemon confertus (Brush
Box), Corymbia eximia (Yellow Bloodwood), Backhousia citriodora
(Lemon-scented Myrtle), Elaeocarpus reticulatus (Blueberry Ash) (iv) The proposed planting of Dwarf Coastal Rosemary
along the front eastern boundary is to be replaced with the planting of a
screening tree with a minimum mature height of 3m. (v) The landscape bed on front eastern boundary is to
be increased in length by 3m and additional trees with a minimum mature
height of 3m are to be planted at 500mm intervals. (vi) Shrubs are to be provided within the detention
basins on the edges of the driveway. 2. The ensuite windows shown on the west
and east elevations are to be deleted. Reason: These windows are not shown on the floor plans. 3. The applicant/developer is to ensure
that the construction of the development does not compromise the structural
integrity of existing side boundary fencing. Side boundary fencing may only
be replaced with the agreement of all relevant property owners. Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of
the Dividing Fences Act. 4. The portion of the bedroom window on the
western elevation is to consist of obscure glazing within 1.5m of the floor
level. Reason: To provide adequate privacy between adjoining
dwellings (b) Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s
decision. |
BACKGROUND
1. At the regulatory meeting on
(a) That consideration of this matter be deferred to the Council Meeting
(Regulatory) to be held on
Shadow Diagrams
2. Following
the 10 June Council meeting a review of the shadow diagrams submitted with the
development application was undertaken. This review showed that the shadow
diagrams submitted with the application were not correct. A true north point
had not been shown on the plan and the level of shadowing to
3. On
4. The
applicant submitted amended shadow diagrams on
5. In
accordance with standard architectural practice the shadow diagrams prepared by
the applicant show the shadows which will be cast by the proposed building. The
shadow diagrams prepared by Mr David Modra (adjoining neighbour) show the
shadows cast by the proposed building plus the eaves and wall projections on
his own dwelling. Council staff have met with Mr Modra to discuss his concerns
and Mr Modra has been provided with a copy of the revised shadow diagrams. Mr
Modra agrees that the amended diagrams are accurate.
6. The
proposed development would impact on solar access to five windows located on
the eastern elevation of
7. In
accordance with Land and
8. In
accordance with the practice of the Land and
9. Five
windows are located on the eastern elevation of
10. The
study is to the south of the sunroom, the eastern wall of the study projects
approximately 1m from the main wall of the dwelling. The study has a setback of
900mm from the side boundary. The study will receive 40 minutes of solar access
between the hours of
11. The
family room is located at the rear (southern side) of the building and is
generally orientated towards the backyard. The family room also has two east
facing windows. The northerly window will receive 30 minutes of solar access
between
12. The
sunroom will receive 2 hours 40 minutes of solar access, the study 40 minutes
of solar access and the family room 1 hour and 40 minutes of solar access. The
solar access to the rooms on the eastern side of
13. The
impact of a development on solar access is an issue often examined by the Land
& Environment Court. The Court considers that the vulnerability of the
windows affected and the reasonableness of the proposal are matters relevant to
the assessment of solar access.
14. The
first issue to be considered is the vulnerability of the windows to
overshadowing. The eastern wall of
15. The
second issue to consider is the ‘reasonableness’ of the development in
accordance with the principle that an impact that arises from a non compliant
proposal is harder to justify than one from a compliant proposal.
16. The side
setback of the proposed development is between 1.5m to 2m. The DCP requires a
minimum setback of 1.5m. The ceiling height of the development is 2.7m on the
ground floor and 2.4m on the first floor. The selected ceiling heights are the
minimum permitted by the DCP. The finished floor level of the western unit is
RL87.84, this is 400mm lower than the existing natural ground level. The height
of the development is significantly less than the maximum permitted by the DCP.
17. To
increase the solar access to the southerly living room window and the family
room windows of
18. The
submission from
19. The
floor space ratio of the development has been re-assessed and confirmed as
0.48:1. Parramatta LEP 2001 allows a maximum FSR of 0.6:1. The floor area of
the proposed dual occupancy is 120.5m2 less than the maximum permitted.
20. Solar
access to the other adjoining site must also be considered. The development
will not cast a shadow over the western wall of the adjoining dwelling at No.
10 Milton Avenue therefore it will not reduce solar access to the habitable
rooms of No. 10 Milton Avenue. More than 50% of the private open space area of
21. The
proposed development will cast a shadow over the backyard of
22. The
proposed development is considered to be reasonable as the density of the
development, the height, and the setbacks are well within the maximum permitted
by Parramatta DCP 2005. Whilst the development will result in reduced solar
access to the windows on the eastern elevation of
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION
23. On
Loss of solar access
24. Concern
has been raised that windows will be 75% shaded up to
25. Issues
pertaining to solar access have previously been addressed in this report.
Privacy
26. Concern
has been raised that the bedroom window on the first floor level will look
directly into the study window of
27. The
architectural plans indicate that the lower portion of the bedroom window will
be frosted glass. The frosted glass satisfactorily addresses any overlooking
concerns.
Streetscape character
28. Concern has been raised that there are three Heritage houses within 40 to 60
metres of the development with many of the other houses being constructed of
red brick, some Federation and some newer, therefore it is claimed that the
dual occupancy is out of character with
the streetscape.
29. An
amended material schedule has been supplied and the light coloured bricks
previously proposed have been replaced with darker red bricks. A site
inspection showed that a significant number of dwellings in the area have red
coloured bricks. A recently constructed dwelling with red bricks is located
opposite the site at
30. The site
is not located within a Special Character or Heritage Conservation Area. The
site does not directly adjoin any heritage listed dwellings. Dwellings of various age and architectural
styles make up the character of the immediate area, it would be unreasonable to
ignore the contribution of new development to the character of the area. The
architectural style of the development is compatible with the existing and
likely future character of the area and is not out of character with the
streetscape.
The development does not comply with the
Neighbourhood character areas as defined by the DCP
31. The objector has stated that appendix 4 of
the DCP nominates the street as ‘Federation Character’ and that this character
is typified by dark brick walls, gables, bay windows. The objector states that
the dual occupancy does not have
Federation Character, but it is possible with some changes it could be made to
have that character. eg Attic Style could be considered.
32. It is agreed that the site is located in an
area identified as being predominantly characterised by Federation Houses. A
correct reading of Appendix 4 would illustrate that this section of the DCP
does not state that new buildings need to be designed strictly in accordance
with the existing character of an area, the introduction to Appendix 4 of the
DCP contains the following text:
“Although the housing and
landscaping forms and styles vary from street to street and even within each
block, recurrent themes have been identified to enable the design of new
residential development to fit more sympathetically with the existing local
context.
As new housing development
takes place, it should not simply mimic the decorative, surface features of
past styles, nor restrict freedom of expression of individual householders, but
rather should broadly continue the themes, forms and patterns that have helped
to establish the character of the locality. By understanding the overall form,
proportion and colour range that makes the existing character, it is possible,
and indeed desirable, to interpret them in contemporary design.”
33. Part
4.2.1 ‘Streetscape’ of Parramatta DCP 2005 contains the following text,
“Note: Refer to Appendix
Neighbourhood Character Areas for details of the patterns, form, proportions,
materials and detailing of housing styles that characterise different areas.
These are to be used to assist in developing contemporary design of new housing
development that fits sympathetically with existing local context.’”
34. Appendix 4 of Parramatta DCP 2005 does not
require that new development be designed strictly in accordance with the
existing streetscape character. If it
were Council’s intention for new development in the area to be designed
strictly in accordance with the existing character of the area the area would
be identified as a Special Character Area or Heritage Conservation Area.
35. The
proposed development utilises materials which are consistent with other
buildings in the street and it has design elements such as a pitched roof,
street facing gables and decorative columns which are consistent with the
stylistic themes associated with Federation Houses. The development is consistent
with the requirements of Appendix 4 of the DCP.
Council
should show consistency when considering applications.
36. Concern has been raised that Council
Officers have not shown consistency in assessing development applications. The
objector alleges that when assessing an application for 29A
37. All
development applications are assessed on their merits as required by Section
79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Every development site
has unique constraints and opportunities and assessments proceed on this basis.
It is noted that the application for No. 29A
Boundary fencing
38. Concern
has been raised that the applicant proposed timber fencing, the objector would
like the existing colorbond fencing to be retained.
39. A non
standard condition has been included in the recommendation to ensure that
boundary fencing is protected during construction. This will not prevent
adjoining owners from agreeing to replace fencing if they decide to do so.
Tree Removal
40. Concern has been raised that whilst it is
acknowledged that the trees at the rear of the development are in poor health,
the objector would prefer they remain to maintain privacy and outlook.
41. Council’s Landscape Officer is supportive of
the proposed tree removal due to the trees being in poor health. A non standard
condition is recommended to ensure that adequate replacement planting is
provided, including the planting of a 4-5m high screening trees along the rear
boundary and additional shrubs along the side boundaries.
Previous advice to applicant
42. The
submission from
ON SITE MEETING
43. The
submission from
44. Council at its meeting of
45. In accordance with the above resolution, an on-site meeting was
held on
Survey Plans
46. Concerns were raised that the submitted survey plans are not
provided indicating Australian Height Datum (AHD) levels. Following the on-site
meeting, a survey plan was submitted with AHD levels. It is considered the
survey plan submitted is satisfactory.
Retaining walls
47. Concerns were raised that insufficient details of the retaining
walls had been submitted. Following the on-site meeting further details for the
retaining walls were requested and subsequently submitted by the applicant. The
top of the retaining wall along the western boundary has a maximum RL of 88.39
which equates to a height of 950mm above the finished ground level and 270mm
higher than the existing natural ground level. The finished floor level of the
western unit is RL87.84, this is 400mm lower than the existing natural ground
level. The top of the retaining wall along the eastern boundary has a maximum
RL of 86.99, that being 400mm higher than the existing ground level. The
finished floor level of the eastern unit is RL87.575, a maximum of 985mm higher
than the existing ground level. Adequate details of the proposed retaining
walls have been submitted to Council.
Streetscape
48. The proposal has been modified to respond to the reasons for
refusal, including modifying the roof design, articulation of the development
and modifying levels to ensure a more sympathetic design. Whilst it is
acknowledged this would be the first dual occupancy development in the
immediate vicinity two dual occupancies are currently under construction less
than 100m away on Valley Road, the character of the area consists of single and
two storey dwellings of varying design and scale, and the 2A Residential zone
allows dual occupancy development.
Solar access
49. Concerns were raised regarding the impacts the development will
have on the solar access to
Privacy
50. Concerns were raised that the proposal will impede on the privacy
of adjoining properties. It was agreed at the on-site meeting that the first
floor street facing balconies and rear ground floor patios would be provided
with screening. Following the meeting amended plans were submitted indicating
that privacy screening would be
provided along the side elevations of the first floor balconies and ground
floor patios. Obscure glazing is also proposed for the lower portion of the
bedroom window on the west elevation.
Fencing
51. Concerns were raised regarding the replacement of existing
boundary fencing. The applicant proposes to provide a 1.8m lapped and capped
timber fence along the property boundaries and between the private open spaces
of the dwellings. A non standard condition is recommended requiring the
protection of existing boundary fencing during construction works.
Design
52. Concerns were raised regarding the design of the dual occupancy
and it was suggested that a single storey design with attic would integrate
better into the streetscape. The proposal is two storey in height which
complies with Council’s controls. There are other two storey dual occupancies
in the area including at
Heritage
53. Concerns were raised regarding the limited development potential
for heritage listed developments within the street.
Traffic
54. Concerns were raised that the proposal will increase the traffic
in the area. The proposal is for the construction of a dual occupancy,
resulting in one additional dwelling over the existing situation. Dual
occupancies are permissible forms of development in the locality. It is not
considered the increase of one dwelling on the subject site will significantly
increase the current traffic volumes in
Permissibility
55. Concerns were raised that the zoning allows dual occupancy
development and will lead to the existing streetscape being altered. It was
advised that dual occupancies are permissible forms of development subject to
consent from Council. Development Applications are required to address all
applicable controls and are required to integrate into the existing and desired
streetscape.
Jonathon Goodwill
Development Assessment Officer
1View |
Shadow Diagrams |
2 Pages |
|
2View |
Solar Access Table |
1 Page |
|
3View |
Finishes Schedule |
2 Pages |
|
4View |
Previous Council Report from |
16 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 12.10 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.10
SUBJECT
DESCRIPTION Demolition and
construction of a multi-unit housing development containing 4 townhouses.
(Location Map - Attachment 1)
REFERENCE DA/1037/2007 - Submitted
APPLICANT/S Wally Gebrael
OWNERS Walland Pty Ltd
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development
application No. 1037/2007 seeks approval for demolition and construction of a
multi-unit housing development containing 4 townhouses. The application has
been referred to Council for determination due to the number of submissions
received. The proposal is for a contemporary development that is
consistent with the aims and objectives of Parramatta DCP 2005 and promotes
the objectives of the Residential 2(b) zone. Accordingly, approval of the
development application is recommended. |
(a) That development application No. 1037/2007 be
approved subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary
conditions; 1. One
adaptable dwelling is to be provided within the development in accordance
with the Australian Standard No. 4299. Revised plans demonstrating compliance
with this requirement are to be submitted for the approval of the Principal
Certifying Authority with the application for Construction Certificate. Reason: To ensure compliance with Part 4.4.3
‘Housing Diversity and Choice’ and Parramatta DCP 2005. (b) Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s
decision. |
SITE & LOCALITY
1. The site consists of a single
allotment with frontage to
PROPOSAL
2. The proposal is for demolition of existing
structures and construction of two 2 storey buildings containing 2 X 3 bedroom
townhouses and 2 X 2 bedroom townhouses. The building to the south of the site
has frontage to
3. The building at the front of the site with
frontage to
4. The building at the front of the site with
frontage to the lane contains units 3 and 4. The floor layout of each unit is a
mirror reverse of each other. The ground floor level consists of a lounge area
at the front of the dwelling with a courtyard located to the side of the hall
and an open plan space at the rear containing the living/meals room and the
kitchen. The open plan space to the rear is the main living area within the
dwelling and it adjoins a 10m2 covered patio which provides direct access to
the courtyards. The first floor level contains two bedrooms, two bathrooms and
a small space adjoining the stairs which is labelled as an open study. A single
garage is provided to each dwelling and the driveway is of sufficient size for
the parking of an additional vehicle in front of each garage door.
STATUTORY CONTROLS
State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX)
5. A BASIX certificate was submitted with the
application. The development is consistent with the requirements of the BASIX
SEPP.
State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Contaminated Land
6. The site has a history of usage for
residential purposes. It is unlikely that the site is contaminated.
7. The
site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001
and multi unit housing is permissible within the Residential 2(b) zone with the
consent of Council. The development complies with the maximum floor space ratio
control of 0.6:1 and the two storey maximum height control. The proposed
development is consistent with the objectives of PLEP 2001.
8. The proposed
development is consistent with the objectives of the DCP. Non compliances with
the requirements of the plan are discussed in the ‘ISSUES’ section of this
report. The non compliances include, landscaped area, site frontage, adaptable
housing, side setbacks, ceiling height and solar access.
CONSULTATION
9. In accordance with the requirements of the Notification DCP
the application was notified between 16 January and
Tree
removal
10. Concern was raised that the application
includes the removal of two Jacaranda trees located on the
11. Whilst the applicant has indicated on the
plans that the trees will be retained, Council’s Landscape Officer has
inspected the trees and has recommended that they be removed. The tree located
on the western side of the nature strip has poor form and the tree located on
the eastern side has poor form and a large main branch that projects across the
nature strip. The Jacaranda trees would interfere with vehicles entering the
driveway and it is likely that the main branch of the easterly tree would need
to be removed. Standard conditions will be imposed requiring new street tree
planting in appropriate locations.
Privacy
12. Concern has been raised that the windows on
the easterly elevation of unit 2 may impact on the privacy of the rooms located
on the western side of
13. The windows on the easterly elevation of
unit 2 will face the side wall of the garage of
Overshadowing
14. Concern has been raised by an owner of a townhouse
at
15. The windows of
16. The separation between the two buildings
within the site is 12.2m and the minimum distance between the western walls of
the proposed buildings and
Encroachment
17. Concern has been raised that the existing
boundary fence, driveway and car port has been built within the boundary of
18. The architectural plans show that the
existing carport is located within the boundary of
Damage
During Construction
19. Concern has been raised that adjoining
properties may be damaged by the construction work and that a dilapidation
report should be prepared prior to the commencement of construction.
20. Standard conditions requiring the preparation
of dilapidations reports prior to the commencement and at the conclusion of
construction work will be imposed.
ISSUES
Landscaped Area
21. Part
4.1.10 of Parramatta DCP 2005 states that a minimum of 40% of the site area of
a multi-unit housing development is to be landscaped open space. The DCP also
provides requirements on how to measure landscaped open space, with any areas
with a width or length less than 2m to be excluded, landscaping must be at
ground level and the minimum soil depth that can be included is 1m. Measured in
accordance with DCP requirements 37.5% of the site area is landscaped open
space, this represents a shortfall of 24.8m2.
22. The
landscape plan indicates that a significant amount of new landscaping is
proposed. The new landscaping includes a mix of ground covers, shrubs, and
trees to assist to maintain privacy and reduce the visual impacts of hard
surfaces. The minor shortfall in the landscaped area is considered
acceptable.
Site Frontage
23. Part
3.1 ‘Preliminary building envelope’ of Parramatta DCP 2005 states that the
minimum frontage required for a multi-unit housing development is 24m. The
subject site has a frontage of 20.115m. The subject site is classified as an
‘isolated site’ subject to DCP 2005. The site is located between two allotments
that have been developed to their potential. Part 4.1.11 ‘Site consolidation
and Development of Isolated Sites’, contains the following principle with
respect to isolated sites:
“The development of existing
isolated sites is not to detract from the character of the streetscape and is
to achieve a satisfactory level of amenity including solar access, visual an
acoustic privacy. Development of existing isolated site may not achieve the
maximum potential, particularly height and floor space ratio, and will be
assessed on merit.”
24. Despite
the non compliance with the frontage requirement it is considered that the site
is suitable for a multi-unit housing development as the design responds
effectively to the streetscape and adjoining and surrounding development.
Side Setback
25. Part
3.1 of DCP 2005 states that the side setback for a multi unit housing
development is to be a minimum of 3m. The development consists of two
buildings, one located to the front of the site facing
26. With
respect to the building at the front of the site the side walls which are set
back 1.5m from the boundary do not contain any windows, the portion of the wall
that contains the side facing windows to the courtyard is inset from the main
wall by 2m. At the first floor level a wall to the two bedrooms marked as ‘bed
3’ is also set back 1.5m from the side boundary, however the window to the
bedroom is located in a portion of the wall that faces the street, not the side
boundary.
27. With
respect to the building at the rear of the site the side walls are in the same
configuration as the building at the front of the site. The portion of the
walls with setbacks of 1.5m do not contain any windows and the courtyard is
inset an additional 2m from the main wall for a total setback of 3.5m. One
significant difference is that the side walls of the first floor level have a
minimum side setback of 3.5m.
28. As
no side facing windows are located within 3m of the side boundaries the
development achieves a similar level of performance with respect to privacy
impact as if a minimum setback of 3m were observed. In terms of visual impact
the stepping of the buildings to achieve a 3m setback for the majority of the
first floor level assists in reducing the apparent bulk and scale of the
development. It is also noted that the two storey development to the east of
the site at
29. The
non compliance with the 1.5m side setback requirement is considered acceptable
as the development is located on an isolated site and will have an acceptable
level of impact on adjoining properties.
Adaptable
Housing
30. Parramatta DCP 2005 requires that one unit within the development
must be configured as adaptable housing. Units 1, 3, and 4 are most suited for
adaptable housing as no stairs are required to be negotiated to enter the
dwellings. A non standard condition will be imposed requiring one of the
dwellings to be configured as ‘adaptable housing’, in accordance with the
requirements of Australian Standard No. 4299.
Ceiling Height
31. The ceiling height of the powder room and hall of units 1
and 2 and the ceiling height of the first floor levels of all the townhouses is
2.4m which does not comply with the
minimum 2.7m requirement of Section 4.3.4 ‘Solar Access and Cross Ventilation’
of DCP 2005.
32. State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) states that controls
within development controls plans which aim to improve the thermal performance
of buildings have no effect with regard to BASIX affected developments.
33. The objectives of Section 4.3.4 relate to the thermal performance
of buildings, having regard to issues such as thermal comfort, solar access,
cross ventilation and overshadowing.
34. The proposed townhouses are a BASIX affected development and the
2.7m minimum ceiling height requirement of the DCP has no effect. It is noted
that the main living areas including the lounge room, living, meals, and kitchen
all comply with the 2.7m ceiling height requirement.
Solar Access
35. Part 4.3.4 ‘Solar Access and Cross Ventilation’ of Parramatta DCP
2005 requires that 50% of private open space areas receive 3 hours of solar
access on the winter solstice. Part 4.3.1 ‘Private and Communal Open Space’ of
DCP 2005 states that the minimum private open space area for multi unit housing
is 40m2.
36. The
courtyard for unit 3 has an area of 76.49m2. The courtyard is made up of a 10m2
covered patio attached to the living area and a 66.49m2 open turfed area. As
the courtyard is located on the southern side of the building it is subject to
overshadowing from the building. The courtyard will receive between 16.5m2 and
25.7m2 of solar access between
37. The
courtyard for unit 4 also has an area of 76.49m2. The courtyard is made up of a
10m2 covered patio attached to the living area and a 66.49m2 open turfed area.
As the courtyard is located on the southern side of the building it is subject
to overshadowing from the building. The courtyard will receive between 20m2 and
13.2m2 of solar access between
38. The
lounge room windows of both units have a northerly orientation. As these
windows face a quiet rear lane with low levels of traffic the lounge rooms will
receive a good level of privacy and future development is unlikely to shade the
windows.
39. The
solar orientation of the courtyard of units 3 and 4 is not ideal. However, the
density of the development is less than the maximum permitted, the courtyards
are 91% larger than required and secondary courtyards to the sides of the units
have been provided. Having regards to the site constraints and the FSR of the
proposal, the non compliance with the DCP solar access control is considered
acceptable and will not unduly impact on the amenity of future residents.
Design
40. The
development is of a contemporary design which utilises a variety of materials
and a skillion roof with a low pitch. The streetscape is mixed, with single
dwellings, multi-unit housing and residential flat buildings being represented.
A contemporary design is appropriate in this context. The proposed development
will make a positive contribution to the streetscape and is compatible with the
existing character of the area.
Jonathon Goodwill
Development
Assessment Officer
1View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
2View |
DA History |
1 Page |
|
3View |
Compliance Table |
7 Pages |
|
4View |
Plans and elevations |
13 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 12.11 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.11
SUBJECT
DESCRIPTION Section 96(1A)
modification to an approved community centre to modify windows from timber
frames to aluminium frames in the rear hall. (Location Map - Attachment 2)
REFERENCE DA/774/2004/B - Submitted
APPLICANT/S Mr T Qazzaz
OWNERS Granville Youth
Association Inc
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development
Application No. 774/2004/B seeks approval to modify the rear hall windows of
an approved community centre from timber frames to aluminium frames. The
application has been referred to Council as the property is listed in
Schedule 1 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)
as an Item of State or regional significance. The works proposed
as part of this application are minor. The application seeks retrospective
approval to modify the rear hall windows of an approved community centre from
timber frames to aluminium frames. Materials and
labour were donated by the local community to contribute to the construction
of the approved community centre. As part of the construction, the builder
who constructed the approved rear hall made an error and installed aluminium
windows to the rear hall only, instead of the approved timber windows.
Councils Heritage Advisor has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to
the modification of windows from timber frames to aluminium frames. The
proposed modification of windows from timber frames to aluminium frames is
consisted with the objectives of Parramatta LEP 2001. Accordingly, approval
of the application is recommended. |
(a) That Council modify Development
Consent No. 774/2004 in the following manner: 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:
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. |
PROPOSAL
1. The Section 96(1A) modification seeks
approval to modify the approved development to modify the rear hall windows from timber frames to aluminium frames.
SITE AND LOCALITY
2. The site is known as
3. The site is currently occupied by a single
storey heritage building listed under Schedule 1 of the Parramatta LEP 1996
(Heritage and Conservation) as an item of State or regional significance.
4. The site is also listed under the
Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 2001 under Schedule A - Blaxcell
Estate Conservation Area as part of a group of buildings that together
demonstrate the history and heritage significance of the area.
5. The adjoining properties to the north and
west are also listed under Schedule 1 of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and
Conservation) and are located within the Blaxcell Estate Conservation Area. A
public park adjoins the subject site along the southern side.
BACKGROUND
6. Development Application No. 774/2004 for
alterations and additions to the existing building and use as a community
centre for youth was approved by Council on
7. Section 96 modification No. 774/2004/A to
an approved community centre including an increase in the floor space, changes
to the external finishes, changes to the internal configuration and changes to
the external doors was refused by Council on 20 June 2006.
STATUTORY CONTROLS
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
8. 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.
9. Materials and labour were donated by the local community to contribute
to the construction of the approved community centre. As part of the
construction, the builder who constructed the approved rear hall made an error
and installed aluminium windows to the rear hall only, instead of the approved
timber windows.
10. The proposed modification seeks approval to
modify the approved development to modify
the rear hall windows from timber frames to aluminium frames. The proposed
modifications will result in substantially the same development as that
originally approved and can be dealt with pursuant to Section 96(1A) of the
Act.
11. The site is zoned Residential 2(a) under
Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and community facilities are
permissible within the zone with consent of Council. The proposed development
is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.
12. The building at
13. The application was referred to Councils Heritage
Advisor who has no objection to the proposal and comments that the proposed
replacement of previously approved timber-framed windows with aluminium-framed
windows on the rear and side elevations, is acceptable as there would be no
discernible adverse impact on heritage values.
14. The proposal is consistent with the
objectives for the Blaxcell Estate Conservation Area under Parramatta Heritage
DCP 2001.
15. The provisions of PDCP 2005 have been
considered in the assessment of this application and the proposal is consistent
with the aims and objectives of PDCP 2005. There are no numerical controls
relevant to the proposal.
CONSULTATION
16. In accordance with Council’s Notification
DCP, the proposal was notified between
Sophia Chin
Development
Assessment Officer
1View |
Plans and Elevations |
8 Pages |
|
2View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
3View |
Heritage Inventory |
3 Pages |
|
4View |
History of Development Application |
1 Page |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 12.12 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.12
SUBJECT Further report - Parramatta Stadium
DESCRIPTION Use of Parramatta
Stadium and its immediate surrounds for various additional events, including
concerts, music festivals, cultural festivals, children's carnivals and
motorcross events. (Location Map - Attachment 2)
REFERENCE DA/659/2007 - Submitted
APPLICANT/S
OWNERS The State of
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
PREVIOUS ITEMS 13.12 -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to provide Councillors with
a response to the resolution of Council, dated 10 June 2008, where the
application was deferred, and to determine Development Application No. 659/2007 which seeks approval for the use
of Parramatta Stadium and surrounds for additional events, including concerts
& music festivals, cultural festivals, children’s carnivals and
motorcross events (motorbikes). The application is referred to Council for
determination due to the number of submissions received. The
development application is a Crown application and is subject to the
provisions of Part 5A (Development by the Crown) of the Environmental
Planning & Assessment Act 1979. The
recommended conditions of consent contain a number of safeguards to protect
the amenity of the surrounding area, in particular some sensitive land uses
and the conclusions of this report are that the proposal is satisfactory and
recommended for approval. |
(a) That, subject to the written approval of the Parramatta
Stadium Trust or the Minister and in accordance with Section 116C of the
Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, that a consent be
granted, subject to standard and the following extraordinary conditions. Noise 1. In respect of each non-sporting event to be held on the
subject site (but also including the motorcross), the consent holder shall
submit a Noise Management Plan for the five submitted categories of events
prepared on behalf of the Parramatta Stadium Trust by a suitably qualified
acoustic specialist in accordance with the requirements of the Department of
Environment & Climate Change and in a similar manner to that prepared by
the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust, dated February 2007 (available on
its website). The Plan shall establish parameters for noise emissions
(including any pyrotechnics), ensure that noise monitoring occurs during
events, that sound checks occur and a complaints register is kept. The Plan
shall be submitted to Parramatta City Council a minimum of 60 days prior to any non-sporting event (including the
motorcross) taking place and approved in writing. Reason: Having regard to the
Protection of the Environment (Noise Control) Regulation 2008 and Protection
of the Environment Operations Act 1997. 2. The acoustic report
prepared by Pollution Control Consultancy and Design, dated March 2008, shall
be modified to include the café/kiosk and conference facilities to the
northwest of the site, Old Government House to the south of the site and the
residential component (the convent) of Our Lady of Mercy College to the east
and that an assessment of the existing background noise be carried out at
those locations prior to the commencement of any event covered by this
consent to determine an acceptable noise limit for those locations. This
information shall be included in the Noise Management Plan required under
Condition 1. Reason:
To have regard for the users of this facility. 3. The Reason: To ensure that noise is
suitably controlled. 4. The public address system and all amplified sound equipment
shall be installed, operated and maintained so as to prevent “offensive
noise”, as defined under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act
1997, being detected at nearby sensitive land uses. Reason: To protect the amenity of
the environment. 5. The applicant is also required to negotiate and
liaise with the Parramatta Park Trust in relation to specific noise sensitive
events to be held within the Park, such as weddings and to resolve conflicts
in dates between potentially conflicting events. Reason: To ensure that suitable
dialogue occurs between the two entities. Crowd Management 6. In respect of each non-sporting event to be held on the
subject site (but also including the motorcross), the consent holder shall
submit a crowd dispersal management plan for each of the five categories of
events formulated by the applicant by a suitably qualified event
organiser/coordinator/promoter and adhered to at all times. The Plan shall be
submitted to Parramatta City Council and the NSW Police Parramatta Local Area
Command a minimum of 60 days prior
to any non-sporting event (including the motorcross) taking place and
approved in writing. Reason: To ensure that adequate
crowd dispersal measures are employed. 7. A Pedestrian
and Traffic Management Plan for any non-sporting event (including the
motorcross) must be submitted to and approved by Council a minimum of 60 days prior to the first
event taking place. It must include details (but is not limited to) of the
following: (a) Proposed ingress and egress of vehicles to and from the site; (b) Proposed protection of pedestrians adjacent to the site at
various stages of events; (c) Proposed pedestrian management whilst vehicles are entering
and leaving the site, and (d) The Pedestrian and Traffic Management Plan shall be
implemented during all events. Reason: To maintain pedestrian and vehicular
safety during construction. 8. The applicant and/or organiser shall
confer with the NSW Police (Parramatta Local Area Command) regarding the
proposed measures to minimise the possibility of any anti-social and criminal
behaviour during events and undertaking any additional measures that might be
recommended to enhance such security measures. This information to be included in the
crowd dispersal management plan referred to in Condition 6 above. Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory level of security
is put in place to minimise the extent of any anti-social behaviour in the
locality. 9. The applicant and/or organiser of the
event shall make suitable arrangements for the provision of a free shuttle
bus service between the venue and Parramatta Railway Station. Reason: To ensure that adequate transport services are
made available to patrons who do not have access to private transport. 10. For all ticketed events, printed information must be
distributed through the ticketing agency and/or with the event tickets
advising of the limited parking in the area and advising of the available
public transport options. Reason: To encourage the use of
public transport to and from events. 11. Licensed security is to be provided at events at a ratio to be
decided by the NSW Police. Council is to be furnished with documentary
evidence of the findings of the NSW Police. Reason: For crowd control. 12. The security company employed by the applicant/organiser shall
be briefed to ensure that regular patrols are undertaken for the surrounding
streets and Reason: To mitigate concerns over
possible anti-social behaviour. Event Management 13.
This consent is valid for a period of
three years from date of determination. Following this time, if the applicant
wishes to continue with the additional uses of the site, an application
pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act,
1979 shall be lodged, at least 3
months prior to the expiration of the three years period, requesting
amendment to this condition. Reason: In order for Council to assess the on-going
impacts of the additional uses. 14. That the use of Parramatta Stadium for purposes
other than sport (including the motorcross) shall require the consent of the
Minister. Evidence of the Minister’s consent shall be submitted to Council a minimum of 60 days prior to the first
non-sporting event taking place. Reason: To comply with the 1981 decision of the
NSW Cabinet for the use of Parramatta Stadium. 15. In addition to the existing sporting
activities approved for Parramatta Stadium, this consent is limited to the
following activities, frequencies and times:
16. An ‘event’ as nominated in this consent (and in the Table
above) is for a calendar day only. Reason: To ensure clarity in this
consent. 17. A letterbox drop to all residents within a
1km radius of the site advising of the events covered by this consent is to
be undertaken by the applicant or event organiser, at least 60 days prior to that event. An outline of the hours of
the event and direct contact details of the event coordinator responsible is
to be provided to these residents. A copy of the required written
notification is also to be forwarded to Council’s Development Services Unit
at least 60 days prior to the event. Reason: To keep local residents and Council informed of
events covered by this consent. 18. Details of the all events covered by this
consent event shall be provided to the Minister for Sport & Recreation,
Parramatta City Council, the Parramatta Park Trust and the NSW Police a minimum of 60 days prior to the event
taking place, in the form of an Event Management Plan. The detail of the plan
shall include an acoustic report, identification of venue, expected
attendance, date of event and any preliminary practice sessions or
rehearsals, signage, expected duration, traffic & pedestrian management
plans, waste management plan and the like. This detail shall also include a
telephone number of a person authorised by the Parramatta Stadium Trust to
discuss any event management issues during events covered by this consent, as
well as Parramatta City Council’s after-hours contact line. Reason: Having regard to the amenity of neighbours. 19. The motorcross event is limited to once
per year only, with the event to take place on a Saturday night concluding no
later than Reason: To protect the amenity of
the area. 20. Events covered by this consent shall not take place at the same
time as sporting events are being held within Parramatta Stadium. Reason: Having regard to the
cumulative impact of events. 21. The Reason: To monitor noise levels. 22. Once approved in writing, all of the management reports
referred to in the above conditions shall be provided on the Parramatta
Stadium Trust’s website, in order for the public to be able to freely access
this information. Reason: To keep the public informed
of management techniques for events. 23. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that all
required Liquor Licensing arrangements are established prior to any event,
not currently covered by the Trust’s license at Parramatta Stadium, being
carried out. Reason: Legislative requirements. 24. For all events, a telephone ‘help-line’
established by the Parramatta Stadium Trust must be established to deal with
all complaints from neighbours before, during and after events. This
includes anti-social behaviour, noise and littering. In addition, Council’s
after-hours emergency line and the phone number of the Parramatta Police must
be provided on relevant signage and documentation associated with all events. Reason: To ensure that neighbours
and residents have sufficient recourse to be able to report anti-social and
criminal behaviour Construction Management 25. In respect of each non-sporting event to be held on the
subject site, the consent holder shall submit a Construction
Management Plan, prepared by a
suitably qualified event organiser/coordinator/promoter to be
submitted to Parramatta City Council a minimum
of 60 days prior to any events taking place under this consent and
approved in writing. The Plan shall detail (but is not limited to):- (a) The
proposed method of access to and egress from the site for construction
vehicles, including access routes through the Council area and the location
and type of temporary vehicular crossing for the purpose of minimising
traffic congestion and noise in the area, with no access across public parks
or reserves (other than that land under the responsibility of the Parramatta
Stadium Trust) being allowed. (b) The
proposed phases of construction works on the site for events and the expected
duration of each construction phase. (c) The
proposed order in which works on the site will be undertaken, and the method
statements on how various stages of construction will be undertaken. (d) The
proposed method of loading and unloading construction machinery, excavation
and building materials, formwork and the erection of any structure within the
site. Wherever possible mobile cranes should be located wholly within the
site. (e) The
proposed areas within the site to be used for the storage of temporary
construction materials and waste containers during the construction period. (f) Proposed
protection for Council and adjoining properties. (g) The
location and operation of any on site crane. (h) The
location of any temporary loading zone (if required) approved by Council’s
Traffic Committee, including a copy of that approval. Reason: To ensure appropriate measures have been
considered for site access, storage and the operation of the site during all
phases of the construction process in a manner that respects adjoining
owner’s property rights and residential amenity in the locality and without
unreasonable inconvenience to the community. 26. That the event organiser shall obtain a certificate from a
Practicing Structural Engineer for all
temporary stalls, stages, amusement devices, motorcross jumps (and the like)
and any other structure prior to the commencement of events covered by this
consent and that addresses the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Temporary Structures and Places of Public
Entertainment) 2007 and certifying that: (i) the design and erection in accordance with AS1170 – Design
Loading Code. This certificate is to also indicate that all temporary
structures are structurally sound. (ii) the ground is sufficiently firm to sustain the applied
loadings while structures are being used. (iii) all temporary toilets and associated structures for use by
patrons must be certified that they are structurally sound and are in
accordance with AS1170 – Design Loading Code and that the ground is
sufficiently firm to sustain the applied loadings for the duration of the
event. Reason: To comply with legislative
requirements. 27. The events covered by this consent shall be provided with
sanitary facilities in accordance with the Building Code of Australia, Part
F2 and disabled toilet facilities in accordance with AS1428. Reason: To ensure the adequate
provision of such facilities. 28. The applicant shall ensure that evidence is submitted to
Council prior to each event demonstrating public liability insurance to the
value of $20 million, indemnifying Council in the event of any damages claim
consequential to the carrying out of the activity, in respect of loss,
damage, injury or death. Reason: To protect Council’s
interests. 29. The applicant shall provide clean, vermin-proof solid waste
bins on the site as follows: (i) all waste storage bins shall be located so as to support the
requirement for clean and healthy conditions. The bins shall be maintained so
as to prevent the generation of offensive odours and harbourage of pests and
vermin. (ii) The applicant shall ensure that safe, all-weather access is
provided for removal of solid-waste. (iii) The applicant shall ensure that adequate facilities are
provided, and maintained, for the collection, storage and proper disposal of
sullage wastewaters generated during events. Reason: To ensure that suitable
waste management occurs. 30. All activities associated with the proposal shall comply
strictly with WorkCover Authority requirements. Reason: To promote a safe
environment for the events. 31. All structures and amusement devices shall be registered with
WorkCover as required, and inspection shall be carried out by a certified
engineer with satisfactory certificates provided to the Parramatta Stadium
Trust no later than on the morning of the event. Reason: To ensure that WorkCover
requirements are met. 32. The
ground surface on which the structure is to be erected is to be sufficiently
firm to sustain the structure while it is being used and shall not be
dangerous because of slope or irregularity or for any other reason. Reason: Having regard to public safety. 33. All
temporary structures (tents and the like), internal structures, seating
frames/stages and the like shall be constructed in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications and appropriate certification by a structural
engineer shall be supplied to Council to certify structural soundness of all
structures. Reason: Having regard to public safety. 34. A
structural engineer’s certificate is to be provided to Parramatta City
Council certifying the structural adequacy of the structure(s) prior to the
commencement of use. Reason: Having regard to public safety. 35. That
the fire hazard properties of any “fabric type material” used within the
structure and associated with the structure shall be such as to not increase
the hazard of fire and comply where relevant with the requirements of specification
C1.10 and clauses NSW H102.7&8 of the Building Code of Australia. Reason: Having regard to public safety. 36. That
electrical services serving stages and allied structures shall meet with the
requirements of AS/NZS 3000 & 3002 and be certified by a licensed
electrical contractor prior the commencement of use. Reason: Having regard to public safety. Waste Management 37. In
respect of each non-sporting event to be held on the subject site (but also
including the motorcross), the consent holder shall submit, a minimum of 60 days prior to the first event taking place
and approved in writing by Parramatta City Council, a completed Waste
Management Plan. The Waste Management Plan must be prepared in accordance
with the requirements of Council’s relevant planning instruments and shall
address (but is not limited to) the following: the type of material, the
estimated volume, area or weight of each material, the proposed number and
location of waste receptacles and method for reuse or recycling, the location
and number of ablution facilities and the recycling waste contractor’s
details Reason: To ensure suitable waste storage and disposal measures
are employed. 38. The applicant shall ensure that its waste
contractor for each event undertakes a clean-up after each event for a
distance of 400 metres (radius) from the stadium within a period of at least
2 hours following the completion of any event covered by this consent. Reason: To ensure that litter is managed. Health & Amenity 39. The applicant shall ensure that all premises for the sale of
food at the proposed events covered by this consent shall comply with the
following requirements: (i) all food and food service premises shall comply with the
requirements of the New South Wales Food Act 2003 and Food Regulations 2004
(incorporating the Food Standards Codes) to the satisfaction of Council’s
Environmental Health Officers. (ii) all food vendors shall hold a current food stall permit issued
by Council prior to the sale of food at the venue. (iii) The applicant and all food vendors shall comply with any
reasonable directions issued by an authorised officer of Parramatta City
Council. (iv) All liquid and solid wastes generated by food service premises
shall be adequately contained whilst on the site and disposed of so as not to
cause any nuisance or harm. (v) Electricity supplies for all proposed activities associated
with the events covered by this consent shall comply with AS3002-19875
“Electrical Installations – Shows and Carnivals”. Adequate and safe
electrical supply must be provided to ensure that any food storage appliances
are capable of maintaining statutory temperature requirements. (vi) The operators of any food stall shall comply with all WorkCover
Authority safety requirements. All WorkCover Authority documentation shall be
complete and available for inspection during events. Reason: To ensure suitable health
levels are maintained. 40. Free access to a safe drinking water supply must be made
available to any person attending events covered by this consent. These
drinking water points must be clearly signposted, raised to a height of at
least 900mm above the ground and maintained in a clean and sanitary
condition. Reason: To ensure an adequate supply
of drinking water. 41. First aid facilities shall be clearly identified and be located
to ensure all-weather access for emergency vehicles. Reason: To ensure suitable access
for medical treatment. Advisory Note: A. That consideration be given by the Minister for Arts, Sport
& Recreation to forming a Parramatta Park & Environs Major Events
Co-ordinating Unit featuring representatives of the Department of Transport, Parramatta Park Trust, Parramatta
Stadium Trust, Parramatta City Council, Sydney Buses, the RTA, the NSW Police
and the NSW Taxi Council to provide coordination and strategies for major
events at Parramatta Stadium. Reason: To provide for a coordinated
approach to the use of Parramatta Stadium into the future. (b) That the objectors be advised of
Council’s decision. |
ISSUES
RESOLUTION
A
1. This development application was
deferred by Council at its meeting of
“(a) That
the matter be deferred to the next Regulatory Council meeting to be held on
(b) That,
in the meantime, a meeting take place between the applicant’s representative,
Mr Luke Coleman; the objectors, including Mr Chris Levins, Director Parramatta
Park Trust; Mr Greg Smith, Director Our Lady of Mercy College, Parramatta;
interested Councillors and Council staff.
(c) That
a further meeting between relevant Council staff and interested Councillors be
held.
(d) That
this meeting be minuted and provided as supplementary to the Council report for
(e) Further,
that this meeting review the proposal, but not exclusively, against SEPP
(Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment) 2007 and seek the
possible written advice and/or approval for rejection by the Minister for
Planning in accordance with Part 5A of the Environmental Planning &
Assessment Act, 1979.”
RESOLUTION
B
2. Resolution B states:
“(b) That,
in the meantime, a meeting take place between the applicant’s representative,
Mr Luke Coleman; the objectors, including Mr Chris Levins, Director Parramatta
Park Trust; Mr Greg Smith, Director Our Lady of Mercy College, Parramatta;
interested Councillors and Council staff.”
3. An on-site meeting was arranged and
subsequently held on
4. Councillor Wearne expressed her view that
the use of the site for events other than ‘rugby league’ should be the subject
of individual DAs. It was advised that it was the applicant’s choice whether or
not to lodge a single DA for the range of activities proposed.
5. Councillor Wearne asked the
representatives of the college and the Park Trust to outline their concerns.
Mr Greg Smith
(Director of Finance and Administration, Our Lady of
6. The representative of the college outlined
the college’s concerns and indicated that he wants to ensure that the multiple
uses in the locality can work together cooperatively.
7. The college expressed concerns with the
motorcross event and in particular that the recommended conditions of consent
allow for a practice session to take place on a Friday, potentially a school
day.
8. Council officers advised that they would
review this requirement. The conditions of consent have been modified accordingly to prohibit
the practice session on weekdays.
9. The Parramatta Stadium Trust (the
applicant) advised that the annual motorcross event would take place in the
evening and that practice could occur during the day of the event (i.e.
Saturday).
10. Concern was raised that the acoustic report
does not address the college as an affected noise receiver and that the report
needs to be expanded to consider the impacts on the residential and student use
of the site.
11. Concern was also raised that the recommended
14-28 days notification of the college prior to events being held at the
stadium was insufficient to allow for alternative arrangements to be made
within the college.
12. Council officers advised that these matters
will be reviewed in more detail in the further report to Council and the
recommended conditions of consent modified accordingly if deemed appropriate.
Conditions have been amended to provide a 60 day notification period prior to
events occurring. In addition the acoustic report is required to take into
consideration noise impacts on the College.
Mr Chris Levins (
13. Raised concerns in relation to the
consultation. He expressed that he would have preferred a round table meeting
between all of the interested parties.
14. It was outlined that the Council resolution
required that a meeting take place. The format of the meeting did not form part
of the resolution.
15. The Park Trust outlined that three previous
submissions have been made to Council outlining the objections of the
Parramatta Park Trust, including a recent submission outlining the past and
planned events within the Park over the period January 2007 to December 2008.
Councillors requested that this information be made available to the Parramatta
Stadium Trust in order to assist in future planning of events.
16. The Park Trust is concerned that this is a
major change of use of the stadium. It was outlined that the stadium has
previously been used for concert events and that the extent of change was
outlined in the
17. The Park Trust also raised concern that the
Council assessment report erred in relation to the permissibility of the
proposal and the prevailing planning instrument. The Park Trust contends that
the DA should be assessed against the provisions of City Centre LEP 2007.
18. Council officers explained that as the DA
was lodged on
19. The Park Trust maintained that the DA was
lodged after the LEP came into force and that it was the PoPE that was
submitted earlier. It was shown that the DA was lodged on
20. The Park Trust indicated that the
development has not been considered against Schedule 1 of the LEP. Council
officers advised that the City Centre LEP was a matter for consideration as it
was a draft EPI at the time of lodgement of the DA, but not in a determinative
manner.
21. It was indicated by the Park Trust that the
Schedule of the LEP would be essentially the same as that within the REP. The
REP contains no such Schedule. The relevant control is contained at Clause 33
of the REP.
22. Schedule 1 of the LEP contains ‘Additional
permitted uses’ as it relates to Clause 14 of the LEP. In this instance,
allowing educational, cultural or community activities, exhibitions, public
entertainment, recreation areas and stadiums within the Parramatta Stadium Trust’s
land (Lots 951 to 965 in DP 42643). The schedule in no way prohibits the
development as proposed. Copies of the relevant LEP Schedule and Clauses from
the REP and the LEP are attached to this report.
23. It was also indicated that the new LEP
prohibits major recreation areas (including stadiums and sports grounds) within
the RE2 Zone. However, as the DA is assessed against the provisions of the REP,
the development remains permissible.
24. Notwithstanding this, Schedule 1 of the LEP
allows the proposal to proceed, subject to the consent of Council.
25. The Park Trust also indicated that the
acoustic report did not go far enough into looking at the potential impacts on
individual land uses within the park, in particular weddings and the café.
26. Council officers advised that this would be
reviewed prior to the matter being further reported to Council. Conditions have
been amended requiring the acoustic report is required to take into
consideration noise impacts on
27. Councillor Wearne asked whether it was
possible to reduce the noise of the motor bikes used in the motorcross. It was
advised that the noise is regulated and could be set to meet relevant
standards. It was advised that the Stadium Trust should seek out further
information in this regard from the EPA.
28. Councillor Chedid sought that certain events
be curtailed in capacity due to the nature of the activity, in order to
consider the broader social impact of certain concerts and events.
29. Council officers outlined that recommended
conditions of consent were specific in this regard and that security and police
personnel were required for all events and based on a specific ratio.
30. Councillor Wearne asked if Council officers
had based their assessment in any way on a facility somewhere else. It was
outlined that many of the conditions are based on experiences of the City of
31. Councillor Wearne also asked Council
officers to clarify from the previous site inspection minutes of
32. The relevant meeting notes show the
conclusion as being:
“Meeting closed with all issues being summarised with the residents,
applicant and Councillors being advised that they will be notified in writing
of the date in which the DA will be presented at a Council meeting.”
33. There does not appear to be any indication
that the report was required to be delayed pending any further discussions
between the affected parties and the applicant.
34. Councillor Wearne sought that there be fixed
days for events at the Stadium. The Stadium Trust indicated that it was not
feasible to fix dates for most events well in advance.
35. Councillor Wearne asked whether it would be
possible to have a coordinated approach to the use of the park and the stadium.
Council officers indicated that an advisory note to the recommendation provided
a potential avenue for this to occur.
36. It was asked of both the Park and the
Stadium Trusts who was the responsible Minister for their lands. In response,
it was advised that both come under the auspices of the Minister for Sport
& Recreation.
37. Council officers reminded those at the
meeting that the development is a Crown DA and requires the consent of the
Minister (or the applicant) to impose conditions or consent of the Minister
should Council wish to refuse the DA.
38. Councillor Wearne asked whether it would be
possible for the parties at the meeting to sit down and come to find some
common ground and whether Council’s Development Services Unit could provide a
staff member to document this meeting.
39. It was considered that it was more appropriate for the
applicant, the Park Trust and the college to discuss this matter and to make
submissions to the DSU as early as possible and that the matter be stood-over
for a further two weeks, thereby to be reported to the Council meeting of 28th
July, 2008. All parties appeared to agree with this approach.
40. The conclusions of the meeting outlined the
key issues:
(i) The acoustic report to be expanded to
include uses within the park and the school;
(ii) The use of the site for motorcross is the
most contentious;
(iii) The timeframe within which to notify
surrounding land uses of events be further considered;
(iv) That the DA be deferred (subject to approval
of the Council) for a period of two weeks, pending discussions between the
Parramatta Stadium Trust, Parramatta Park Trust and Our Lady of Mercy College.
With results and comments to be forwarded to the Senior Development Assessment
officer as soon as possible.
41. The meeting concluded at
42. Council at its Special Meeting of
43. This further meeting was held between
representatives of the Parramatta Stadium Trust (applicant), the Parramatta
Park Trust and Our Lady of Mercy College on
44. The following notes were prepared by the
applicant and submitted to Council for consideration:
It was suggested by the applicant that
the application will be revised to include a maximum of 3 Musical
festivals/concerts; 1 cultural festival; 1 children/family carnival; 1
motocross event. This is a total of 6 events outside sporting events.
45. Council
officers view this as a favourable outcome and the conditions of consent have
been amended to reflect the number of proposed non-sporting activities.
In consultation with the Park Trust and
the Lady of
the events planned at the stadium with
those at their locations could be avoided. The Park Trust supplied a list
of planned events at the Park venues and Our Lady of Mercy agreed to provide a
schedule for events at the College.
46. This is
a matter for the College to address. To date, Council has not received a list
of planned events for the college.
The notice period in respect of
planning events was agreed in principle to be
60 days rather than 28 days in the
Council’s conditions. However it was agreed between the parties that the
greater period of notice possible is preferred.
47. The
recommended conditions of consent have been amended to require a minimum 60
days advance notice of events to be submitted to the community and to Council.
This general consensus was reached between the applicant and the neighbours at
the meeting and is supported by Council officers and reflects discussions at
the on-site meeting held on
The representative of the College
indicated that there are residents in the Convent (5 to 8 Sisters) and that a
noise reading in respect of these nearby residents should be taken.
48. Council
officers concur with this recommendation and the recommended conditions of
consent have been amended to reflect the requirement to take into consideration
the residential and scholastic functions of the college.
The
49. A revised
acoustic assessment is required to be submitted and shall address the adjoining
land uses in accordance with Protection of the Environment (Noise Control)
Regulation 2008 and Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.
The
applicant pointed out that for all events a ‘help line’ would be established to
deal with all complaints from neighbours before, during and after
events. This included anti-social behaviour, noise and littering.
50. A
condition to this effect is included in the recommended development consent.
The motorcross event was described by
the
51. Further
detail in relation to acoustics and the general operation of the activity is
required by way of condition of consent.
52. The
acoustic report and operational details of the event to be the subject of
additional information to be submitted to Council.
53. No
practice sessions shall take place on the day preceding the event. The
recommended conditions of consent restrict the event to a Saturday only and
only once per year.
54. The
further information to be submitted, including a detailed acoustic assessment
and operational details of the event are outlined in the recommended conditions
of consent.
Parramatta Stadium Trust suggest
that the security numbers (ratio 1 to 200 pax as indicated in the recommended
conditions of consent contained within the Manager Development Services’ report
to Council of 10 June 2008) is a police concern and that the police need to
provide input into this.
55. A recommended condition of consent requires
the applicant to liaise with the NSW Police and to furnish Council with the
recommendations that shall form part of this consent.
RESOLUTION
C
56. Resolution C states:
“(c) That
a further meeting between relevant Council staff and interested Councillors be
held.”
RESOLUTIONS
D AND E
57. These resolutions state:
(d) That
this meeting (Resolution C above) be
minuted and provided as supplementary to the Council report for
(e) Further,
that this meeting review the proposal, but not exclusively, against SEPP
(Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment) 2007 and seek the
possible written advice and/or approval for rejection by the Minister for
Planning in accordance with Part 5A of the Environmental Planning &
Assessment Act, 1979.”
58. In respect of Resolution C,
a meeting took place on
59. In accordance with Resolutions C, D and E,
the following comments are made:
Proposed Condition 9
60. Staff indicated that
previously recommended Condition 9 (outlined below) limits the number of
non-sporting events that can occur at the stadium as follows:
61. “In addition to the
existing sporting activities approved for
Activity |
Frequency |
Times |
Music
festivals |
Maximum two
events per year |
|
Concerts |
Maximum six
events per year |
|
Cultural
festival |
One per month |
Weekends
only, between the hours of |
Children’s
carnivals |
One per month |
|
Motorcross |
Maximum of
one event per year |
Friday or
Saturday night only to conclude no later than |
62. Councillors asked whether
an event was to occur over one day or whether for example a music festival with
performances for the public on 3 evenings would be counted as 1 event. It was
advised that this issue will be clarified as part of the future report. In this
regard, an event shall equate to one calendar day. A condition to this effect
is included in the Recommendation.
63. Concern was also expressed
that this condition (in Paragraph 61 above)does not limit the capacity of each
event. Concern was raised that a larger event would have a greater impact on
surrounding landuses.
64. This condition has been
modified as a result of further discussions with the applicant and following
discussions between the applicant and neighbours to the site to read:
Activity |
Frequency |
Times |
Music festivals & concerts |
Maximum three events per year |
Music festivals: Concerts: |
Cultural festival |
One per year |
Weekends only, between the
hours of |
Children’s carnivals |
One per year |
|
Motorcross |
Maximum of one event per year |
Saturday night only to conclude
no later than |
Preparation of 4 Generic Management Plans
65. It was suggested that it
would improve understanding of the application if generic management plans were
prepared for each of the 4 types of non-sporting events that will occur at the
stadium.
66. The recommended conditions
of consent provide that additional information and consultation is required
prior to any event taking place. This shall ensure that adequate public
notification occurs and that Council and the relevant authorities (such as the
Police) are able to provide further input into the operation of non-sporting
events at Parramatta Stadium and its surrounds.
Separate DA for each event
67. It is contended that if
separate development applications were submitted for each event, it would allow
all parties to clearly understand what the impacts of each event would be.
68. The recommended conditions
of consent require further assessment of the events to take place, particularly
in terms of noise, crowd, event, construction and waste management.
69. It is considered that
requiring a separate development application for each event is unnecessary, as
appropriate conditions of consent can be imposed under a single DA addressing
the full management of all events proposed under the current DA.
SEPP (Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment) 2007
70. It was indicated during the
meeting that it would be appropriate for the further report to address in
greater details the requirements of the SEPP and how this development satisfied
them.
71. An assessment of the SEPP
was provided in the Manager Development Services’ report to Council dated
“State Environmental Planning
Policy (Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment) 2007
71.1. This SEPP came into force on
71.2. Clause 12 of the SEPP outlines that before
granting consent to the erection of a temporary structure, Council must
consider the following matters:
(a) whether
the number of persons who may use the structure at any one time should be
limited,
(b) any
adverse impact on persons in the vicinity of any noise likely to be caused by
the proposed erection or use of the structure and any proposed measures for
limiting the impact,
(c) whether
the hours during which the structure is used should be limited,
(d) any
parking or traffic impacts likely to be caused by the erection of the structure
or its proposed use,
(e) the
principles for minimising crime risk set out in Part B of the Crime Prevention
Guidelines,
(f)
whether the proposed location of the structure is satisfactory in terms of the
following:
(i) the proposed distance of the structure from
public roads and property boundaries,
(ii) the
location of underground or overhead utilities,
(iii) vehicular
and pedestrian access,
(g) whether
it is necessary to provide toilets and washbasins in association with the use
of the structure,
(h) whether
the structure is proposed to be erected on land that comprises, or on which
there is:
(i)
an item of environmental heritage that is listed on the State Heritage
Register, or that is subject to an interim heritage order, under the Heritage
Act 1977, or
(ii) a
place, building, work, tree, relic or Aboriginal object that is described as an
item of environmental heritage or as a heritage item in another environmental
planning instrument, or
(iii) land
identified as a heritage conservation area, an archaeological site or a place
of Aboriginal heritage significance in another environmental planning
instrument,
(i)
the duration for which the structure should be permitted to remain on the land
concerned,
(j)
whether any conditions should be imposed on the granting of consent in relation
to the dismantling or removal of the structure in view of any safety issues.
71.3. Whilst these matters will be discussed in
this report, there is no determinative weight given to them, as the savings
provisions of the SEPP (noting that the DA was lodged on 17 August 2007)
provide that “any development application lodged before the commencement
of this Policy, but not finally determined before that commencement, is to be
determined as if this Policy had been exhibited under section 66 of the Act but
had not been made.”
71.4. Given the degree of relevance of the SEPP,
the proposal is assessed against the criteria prescribed by Section 68 of the
Local Government Act 1993.
Local
Government Act 1993 (Section 68: What
activities, generally, require the approval of the council?)
71.5. Various parts of Section 68 have been
repealed since the enactment of SEPP (Temporary
Structures and Places of Public Entertainment) 2007, in particular those
elements relating to temporary structures and places of public entertainment.
71.6. Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993
defines what activities generally require the approval of Council. A person may
carry out an activity specified in the Approvals Table of Section 68 only with
the prior approval of Council. The applicant seeks approval of activities as
previously listed under Section 68 as follows:
Part A Structures or Places of Public Entertainment
71.7. It is intended to erect and/or install
stages, associated audio and visual equipment, seating, stalls and specialised
paraphernalia associated with the motorcross event and concerts to take place
in the stadium.
Matters to be taken into consideration by Council in determining whether
to approve the installation of a temporary structure on land
71.8. Whether the temporary structure will be
structurally sound and capable of withstanding the loadings likely to arise from
its use.
71.9. To ensure that the stalls, amusement devices,
stages etc are erected in a safe and structural manner, a condition is included
on the recommended development consent requiring that all temporary structures
comply with the structural requirements relevant to the particular structure.
All works will need to be certified by a practising Structural Engineer prior
to being installed.
71.10. Whether the temporary structures will contain
reasonable provision for the safety of persons proposed to be accommodated in
or on the structure, in the event of fire, in particular in relation to egress
and have reasonable provision for the prevention or suppression of fire and the
prevention of the spread of fire.
71.11. The proposed structures will need to be
installed in an ‘open-air’ nature, thus ensuring that the egress of persons
attending the event will be reasonable and not impeded, that it will be
designed in a manner for the prevention and suppression of fire and that ample
fire extinguishers and fire blankets are provided.
71.12. The layout of the stalls will need to ensure
safe pedestrian access across the venue. Obstacles and obstructions are to be
kept to a minimum and the supervision of set-up by the organisers and the
Events in the precincts
72. Concern was raised that
non-sporting events are likely to clash with events within
73. It was advised that
during a conversation between the applicant and Council staff earlier in the
day, that the applicant had indicated that they were considering reducing the
number of events approval is sought for. This has subsequently been confirmed
in writing.
74. A revised condition of
consent, as outlined in Paragraph 64 above indicates the extent of the reduced
intensity of the development. The 6 additional non-sporting events to be held
each year are considered to be a satisfactory outcome.
Motocross Event
75. Councillors indicated that
the event that they were most concerned about within the stadium complex was
the proposed Motor Cross event.
76. It is noted that this event
will occur on one day per year and that day will be a selective Saturday.
77. The applicant is required
to submit additional information in relation to the event, particularly in
terms of acoustic impact and general operation of the event, as well as having
to liaise with the Local Area Command (NSW Police).
78. It is not considered that
an annual event to occur on one day is an unreasonable outcome.
Crown Application
79. Councillors expressed
concern that as the application has been submitted on behalf of the Crown that
the application could only be refused or conditions imposed with the
concurrence of the applicant.
80. Part 5A Environmental Planning &
Assessment Act, 1979 (Determination of Crown Development Applications) provides
that:
“A
consent authority, in respect of a development application made by or on behalf
of the Crown, must not:
(a) refuse its consent to the
application, except with the written approval of the Minister, or
(b) impose a condition of its consent,
except with the written approval of the Minister or the applicant.”
Applicable planning instruments
81. Councillors referred to
concerns raised by the Parramatta Park Trust that the application should be
assessed against the requirements of the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007.
82. It was advised that
although Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 needs to be considered as a draft
planning instrument, determinative weight is not required to be given to it due
to savings clauses within the new instrument.
83. This issue was addressed in
the Manager Development Assessment’s report to Council dated
83.1. “The
savings provisions provided by Clause 8 of Parramatta City Centre Plan LEP 2007
allows the proposal to be determined as if the new planning instrument had been
exhibited, but not yet commenced, given that it was lodged prior to 21 December
2007.
83.2. The site
is now zoned RE2 (Private Recreation) under
83.3. Development
for the purposes of a ‘Recreation Facility (Major)’ is prohibited. ‘Recreation
Facility (Major)’ is defined as
“….a building or place used for
large-scale sporting or recreation activities that are attended by large
numbers of people whether regularly or periodically, and includes sports
stadiums, showgrounds, racecourses and motor racing tracks.”
83.4. Development
applications lodged at the present time may need to be determined on the basis
of existing use rights. This does not apply to the current DA, for the reasons
outlined above.
83.5. The
prevailing planning instrument that applied to the site when the development
application was lodged on
83.6. Despite
the savings clause in
83.7. Notwithstanding
the prohibition contained in
84. The meeting concluded at
85. At the time of preparation of this report,
further telephone discussions have been held between Council staff and the
college and the Park Trust
86. Additional correspondence received is
addressed below.
Old
Government House
87. An email was received from Old Government
House on
No
mention of Old Government House and
88. It is not reasonable to expect every nearby
property to be individually named and addressed in the assessment of a
proposal.
89. The assessment of the proposal has regard to
the locality in a general sense as well as in relation to submissions made by
third parties. An assessment of the impacts of the proposal specifically in
relation to Old Government House is outlined in this report, noting that this
site is located in excess of 400 metres to the south of Parramatta Stadium.
No
mention of the heritage impact of the proposal on the significance of Old
Government House and
90. Old Government
House and
91. Having regard to
the occasional nature of the application involving the positioning of a
temporary stage and facilities in and around the stadium with some barricades,
portable facilities and the like, the proposal will have an acceptable heritage
impact.
92. It is considered that the use of Parramatta
Stadium would have no greater impact on the heritage integrity of adjoining
heritage items than what occurs in relation to events in Hyde Park, Martin
Place, the Domain, the Sydney Opera House forecourt, the Sydney Cricket Ground
or even concerts that are held in Parramatta Park itself or when 40,000 people
attended the National Trust open day in 2007 at Observatory Hill.
Diocese
of
93. A submission dated
That
the diocese and the cathedral were not notified of the proposal
94. Surrounding property owners and occupiers
were notified of the proposal in accordance with Council’s Notification DCP.
The diocese lists its address as
95. Notification and advertising of the proposal
extended to a site sign being erected, an advertisement in the local newspaper
as well as public notification to all adjoining properties and as far as to the
western side of Villiers Street (to the east of Parramatta Stadium on the
northern side of Victoria Road)
96. The cathedral and the diocese office were not
directly notified of the proposal. This was not intentional, but based on the
extent of notification required by Council’s DCP.
Concerns
raised are similar to those expressed by Our Lady of
97. These issues have been comprehensively
addressed in this and earlier reports.
98. A number of significant concessions have
already been offered by the applicant. These, together with the recommended
conditions of consent, are considered to address relevant matters of concern
and have generally been accepted by the applicant (on behalf of the Crown) by
way of letter dated
99. Having regard to the relevant heads of
consideration, the proposal has been found to be acceptable and is in the
public interest, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to guide
the management of the use, and to regulate noise, patron behaviour and hours of
operation.
100. Overall, the occasional use of various parts
of Parramatta Stadium and its perimeter grounds for musical performances,
cultural and children’s events as well as an annual motorcross balances the
various uses of the locality for public use whilst adding to the cultural
diversity of the city.
Our Lady
of
101. A further submission dated
The
number of non-sporting events to be reduced from 33 to 6
102. The College advise that neighbours agreed to consider
and respond to the number and types of proposed events after consulting with
their organisations.
103. At the time of preparing this report, no
further correspondence has been received from the College.
That
children’s carnivals should be restricted to
104. The event condition in the Recommendation
limits the annual children’s carnival event to a weekend day or weekday during
school holidays.
Object
to the potential for practice sessions for the motorcross to be held between
105. This was never the intent of the original
condition. However, in redrafting the condition the potential for conflict with
school days has been omitted. The revised condition reads as follows:
“Saturday night only to
conclude no later than
Concerns
with the potential for additional sporting events to take place at the stadium
and especially Friday night games
106. The draft draw for the NRL competition is
provided during the latter stages of the preceding year, with a final draw
released in February of the season proper, with Friday night matches taking
place following consultation with media outlets FoxSports and Channel 9
approximately 6 weeks prior to the weekend in question.
107. This information is provided on the relevant
rugby league and media websites.
108. These matches (when the bulk of the crowd is
in attendance) take place after school hours. The earlier matches around school
lesson hours are generally limited to school competitions.
109. Further consent from Council is not required
for additional sporting events to be undertaken at Parramatta Stadium, whether
they be Rugby Union, Soccer or Rugby League. This was made clear in the consent
issued on
Neighbour
planned events to be submitted to the
110. The College advised:
110.1 “The
College confirms that it would be able to provide a schedule of its known
events by the end of November each year for the subsequent year. The
Congregation has advised that it would be able to provide the same notice for
events that are not known at that time, but for additional events, six months
notice could be provided.
110.2 While…….the
stadium would make efforts to avoid holding events at the stadium that would
clash with College or Congregational events, such an undertaking is insufficient
as it would not preclude the stadium from proceeding. We therefore request that
in the event of any dispute in this regard, a separate development application
should be sought by the applicant, or some other dispute resolution procedure
established as a condition of any consent.”
111. Council will not require the submission of a
separate development application for those reasons, as this is beyond the scope
of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.
112. It is recommended that where possible disputes
arise, that the affected party contact the office of the Minister for the Arts,
Sport & Recreation in order to seek a resolution, given that the ultimate
use of the site will be subject to Ministerial approval (under the lease
agreement), regardless of the terms of any development consent issued.
Request
that the notification of future events be extended from 60 days to 90 days to
Council
113. Two months notification of events is
considered sufficient and has been agreed by the applicant. Two months is
considered sufficient for Council to be able to undertake an assessment of
information received.
Acoustic
testing should be required for the convent
114. Given the residential status of this building,
the relevant condition relating to acoustic testing has been amended to include
the convent.
Acoustic
testing should be undertaken for the motorcross event
115. A condition of consent is required for this
and given that the use is for a limited period of time over one day per annum,
Council has no objection to the activity notwithstanding that it will create
additional noise in the locality. On this basis, the use is not considered to
be unreasonable.
116. The event is scheduled to be carried out over
a 2.5-3.5 hour period on 8 November 2008 and in future years (if at all) on a
date to be determined and made publicly available.
NSW
Department of the Arts, Sport & Recreation
117. The Department has twice contacted Parramatta
City Council, the first time by way of letter dated
118. In its letter of
“…defer consideration of the development application to allow for the
conclusion of consultations between the
119. On
“Further to my previous letter on the
above matter I can advise that consultations between the
As a result it is my view that it is now appropriate for Council to
consider the development application as submitted by the
Alan Middlemiss
Senior
Development Assessment Officer
1View |
Manager Development Services Report |
22 Pages |
|
2View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
3View |
Advice from the NSW Department of the Arts, Sport & Recreation |
3 Pages |
|
4View |
Letter from the applicantdated |
2 Pages |
|
5View |
Schedule 1 & Clause 14 |
3 Pages |
|
6View |
SREP 28 ( |
1 Page |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 14.1 |
COMMUNITY CARE
ITEM NUMBER 14.1
SUBJECT Aboriginal
and
REFERENCE F2005/01941 - D01001985
REPORT OF
PURPOSE: The Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on |
(a) That
the minutes of the Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee held on 24th June
2008 (Attachment 1) be received
and noted. (b) That
the Committee host a Social Enterprise Information Forum prior to the opening
of the next Council Grant round in September 2008. (c) That Council note that Officers Tanya
Bigeni and Maggie Kyle continued to support the work of the Committee in
delivering NAIDOC events including providing final event details to members
and preparing Certificates for All contributors to the NAIDOC Family Fun Day. (d) That Council write to Prime Minister,
the Honourable Kevin Rudd asking him to support the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Aboriginal People and noting that the Canadian
Government has recently apologised to (e) That a report be prepared by the
relevant Council Officers on Aboriginal artefacts found in the (f) Further that Council consider the
inclusion of an appropriate storage and exhibition space for Aboriginal
artefacts in the new |
BACKGROUND
1. Parramatta City Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Advisory Committee meets monthly. The Committee currently comprises fifteen
members representing a variety of interests.
2. Council’s
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee met on
MAIN
DISCUSSION POINTS
3. The main issues discussed at this meeting are
outlined below.
4. Final planning for Council’s NAIDOC
events:
(a) Members were briefed on the current status
of the NAIDOC Family Day by Maggie Kyle- Community Capacity Building Officer
and requested further detail on a number of issues and recommended that a
written update be distributed to them.
(b) Members also recommended Council Officers
prepare Certificates for all contributors to the NAIDOC Family Fun Day and that
these certificates be presented to people during the day.
Officer’s Comment:
While both these recommendations are outside the
Committee’s responsibilities in terms of directing Council Officers’ work, it
is understood that they reflect their sense of urgency regarding the NAIDOC
events rather than its belief that they can direct Officers’ work. The
NAIDOC Family Day was held on
That Council note that Officers Tanya
Bigeni and Maggie Kyle continued to support the work of the Committee in
delivering NAIDOC events including providing final event details to members and
preparing Certificates for All contributors to the NAIDOC Family Fun Day.
(c) Members were provided with
further information regarding the NAIDOC BBQ to be held at Parramatta
Correctional Facility. Members were invited to attend the event and requested
Maggie Kyle forward them the relevant security clearance forms.
Officer’s Comment
The NAIDOC BBQ at
Parramatta Correctional Facility was held on
5. Social
Members were
informed that Council’s Community Capacity Building Officer Social Enterprise,
had offered to organise an Information Forum on Social Enterprises for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community members. Members recommended
the Forum be held in August 2008, prior to the opening of Council’s 2009
Community Grants round in September 2008.
Officer’s Comment
Council’s
Community Capacity Building Officer Social Enterprise will attend the
Committee’s August meeting to further discuss this issue.
6. The
Rights of Indigenous People:
Members
discussed the current debate regarding compensation for the stolen generation
and the importance of not minimising the extent of the injustices done to
Aboriginal people.
Members
recommended that Council write to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd requesting he
support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Aboriginal People and
note that the Canadian Government has recently apologised to
Officer’s Comment:
Historically, the ATSI Advisory
Committee has taken action on a broad range of matters affecting the Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander communities and interprets the responsibility stated
in the Terms of Reference ‘To represent the views and interests of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people in
The Committee’s Roles and
Responsibilities (2.4 Terms of Reference) also instruct the Committee ‘To
liaise with local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to identify
and represent issues affecting these communities and to work collaboratively in
developing solutions that Council could include in current and future work.’
Committee members
are unanimous in recognising that the injustices done to Aboriginal people
including the forced removal of children, are ‘issues affecting’ Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander communities. They take their responsibility to liaise
with these communities, represent their interests to Council and work with
Council to develop solutions that Council can include in its work, very
seriously. Over the past years, there have been a number of discussions held in
Committee meetings and recommendations made to Council concerning Council
advocating to state and federal government agencies to respond to the needs of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. In each instance Council has
approved these recommendations and it is proposed that Council again support
this advocacy role.
7. Storage
and exhibition of Aboriginal artefacts in
Members
requested that a report be prepared by the relevant Council Officers on
Aboriginal artefacts that have been found in the
Members
recommended that the new
Officer’s Comment
Both of these
proposals from the Committee are recommended to Council.
Maggie Kyle
1View |
Minutes Aboriginal and |
4 Pages |
|
Item 15.1 |
CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
ITEM NUMBER 15.1
SUBJECT Provision
of Insurance to Non-Commercial Community Fairs
REFERENCE F2005/01345 - D01004485
REPORT OF Service Manager Commercial and Risk
PURPOSE: Council at its
meeting |
(a) That the insurance of all Non-Commercial Community Fairs in the
LGA not be funded by Council as it is not in accordance with industry
practice or Westpool policy. (b) Further, that the requirement to
comply with existing Westpool policy as a joint venture member Council be
noted. |
BACKGROUND
1. Council is a member of Westpool
insurance pooling joint venture and in accordance with that membership is the
requirement to act in accordance with the policies as determined by the
Westpool board. Council along with
2. The Public Liability /
Professional Indemnity premium that would cover negligence claims arising from
events is paid annually. This premium comprises our Councils contribution to
the insurance pool arrangements. Under Westpool a range of risks are covered by
the one policy. Councils size, income other statutory reporting items and
claims experience are used to derive Councils contribution which for 2008/9 is
$828,300. There is currently no provision to specifically quantify costs
associated with insurance for any individual Council activity. The Westpool
Risk management Committee and Board have been reviewing alternate calculation
methods but it is not envisaged that activity specific premiums can be
provided.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
3. In accordance with Westpool policy
where a Festival of Event is being considered the following requirements apply.
(a) A risk assessment must be carried out prior to the event as a matter of
policy, otherwise coverage may not be provided.
(b) Coverage may be provided for council and its volunteers for events or
festivals managed by council.
(c) Organisers and volunteers must be acting under the direction and control
and supervision of an authorised council employee.
(d) Any incorporated entity or third parties involved in this event that
received a fee or benefit for their activity must have their own insurance.
(e) Any event more than 5,000 participants should be advised to the Pool
prior to the event.
The above policy was adopted by the Westpool
board
4. Any event that does not fall within the
scope of Westpool requirements as being under the control of Council would be
subject to the review of that event to determine a premium payable for
insurance cover. Those requirements would include provision of:-
(a) Number of Events / Festivals per year
(b) Details of all Events / Festivals (inclusive of
dates, locations, number of attendees, brief paragraph describing the event /
festival, security and any other relevant information)
(c) Number of Entertainers / Performers per event
/ festival
(d) Details of the nature of the Entertainers /
Performers
(e) Number of Stall Holders per Event / Festival
(f) Details of the activities of the Stall
Holders
(g) Number of ‘paid volunteers’ per year as
individuals and number of days worked (on average) by each individual.
Once this level of information was obtained
we would then be in a position to seek a quotation for the cost of coverage. It
should be noted that further detailed enquiries would need to be undertaken to
obtain this level of information from all potential Event / Festival
organisers.
5. As any policy decision by Council to
control all Non-Commercial Community Fairs within the LGA would have an impact
on resources for which it would be necessary to develop a policy and a budget
proposal for implementation.
6. Where Council does not wish to control all
Non Commercial Community Fairs in the LGA Council would need to canvas
community groups within the LGA to seek the information required to permit a
quotation for insurance to be obtained for consideration by Council.
7. It is not Local Government industry
practice to assume responsibility for third party risks. Westpool and other
Local Government specific schemes have to date looked to risk transfer to
provide effective management of third party risk. The Local Government Act does
not provide for cover of other than Local Government authority risk and the
extension of cover to third parties would be in opposition to this approach.
8. Council should not assume risk associated
with third party activities and in particular Community Fairs and the cost for
insurance cover can be more appropriately determined by the marketplace based
on their assessment of the risk.
CONSULTATION & TIMING
9. Westpool and Willis have been consulted
in the process of developing this report.
Michael Maclean
Service Manager Commercial and Risk
There are no
attachments for this report.
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 15.2 |
CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
ITEM NUMBER 15.2
SUBJECT Investments
Report for July 2008
REFERENCE F2008/01474 - D01017524
REPORT OF Manager - Finance
PURPOSE: To inform
Council of the investment portfolio performance for the month of July 2008. |
That Council receives and notes the
investments report for July 2008. |
BACKGROUND
1. In accordance with clause
212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, a report setting out
details of all money invested must be presented to Council on a monthly basis.
2. The report must include a
certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance
with the Act, the Regulations and the investment policy of Council.
ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES
3. The Council’s investment
portfolio stood at $76.4 Million as at
4. Council invests directly
with Local Government Financial Services (LGFS), various term deposit providers
and with funds managers
utilising the services of Grove Financial Services. There are also investments
with the Commonwealth Bank for loan offset funds.
5. The average interest rate
on Council’s investments for the month compared to the Bank Bill Index is as
follows:
Monthly
Annualised
Total Portfolio 0.44% 5.42%
Funds Managers 0.41% 5.09%
Bank Bill Index 0.67% 8.15%
NB: Annualised rates are calculated on a
compounding basis assuming that the interest returns are added to the initial
investment amount and reinvested.
6. After allowing for
Council’s loan offsets and at call funds, Council achieved an average
annualised return of 5.42% in the month for its total investment portfolio. The
rate achieved by Council was below the Bank Bill Index of 8.15%. Fund managers
achieved an annualised rate of 5.09% for the month of July.
7. The
amount of funds invested at the end of July decreased from the
previous month by 8.2 Million. This decrease was due to minimal rates receipts
during the period which resulted in the necessity to redeem maturing term
deposits and cash at call monies to fund substantial end of financial year
accounts payable runs and Loan principal repayments due in the first week of
July.
8. Although some of councils Funds
managers performed close to or above the Bank bill index, councils overall
performance was well below the Bank Bill Index benchmark. The poor performance
can mostly be attributed to the Blackrock Diversified Credit Fund (-8.55%) and
BT Institutional Enhanced Cash Fund (5.89%). These funds account for
approximately 17% of councils overall holdings. These credit linked funds have
continued to be effected by the volatility being experienced in world wide
credit market due to the sub prime crises.
9. Blackrock announced that they intend
to close the Diversified Credit Fund. The decision to terminate the fund
follows, amongst other factors, the determination of the Cole Report which
recommended the removal of the option for local government to invest in managed
funds. This fund was originally created for NSW local government councils and
Blackrock believe that the purpose of the fund now ceases to exist.
10. It is BlackRock's expectation that,
under current market conditions, the bulk of the Fund's assets will be sold
down over the next six to eight weeks. Disposal of the less liquid securities
in the Fund may take longer in order to ensure appropriate and reasonable
values are realised. It is the intention of BlackRock to make periodic returns
of capital to investors on a pro rata basis as the Fund's assets are realised.
BlackRock believes that this process of winding the Fund down will achieve the
best possible outcome, including the maximum return of capital, for all
investors. Council’s current holding in Blackrock is approximately $8.8M.
11. The following details are
provided on the attachments for information:
Graph –
Comparison of average funds invested with loans balance
Graph –
Average interest rate comparison to Bank Bill Index
Graphs –
Investments and loans interest compared to budget
Summary
of investment portfolio
12. The Certificate of
Investments for July 2008 is provided below:
Certificate of Investments
I hereby certify that the investments for the month of
July 2008 have been made in accordance with the Act, the Regulations and
Council’s Investment Policy.
13. There is no standard report attachment -
detailed submission - attached to this report.
Jenny Fett
Finance Manager
1View |
Investments & Loans - Performance |
1 Page |
|
2View |
Summary of Investments Portfolio |
2 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Item 15.3 |
CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
ITEM NUMBER 15.3
SUBJECT Strategic
Partnership between
REFERENCE F2004/10350 - D01018496
REPORT OF Manager - Social Outcomes
PURPOSE: To report to Council on part 9 of the Memorandum of Understanding
(Scope of Work), including a timeline for the expected achievement of all
milestones as approved at the initial meeting of the Strategic Partnership
Steering Committee, and further advise on the status of the Health Data
Sharing Project. This is in accordance with a resolution of Council of |
(a) That Council note the status of
all projects. (b) Further, that Council accepts the update on
the Health Data Sharing Project. |
BACKGROUND
STRATEGIC HEALTH
PARTNERSHIP SCOPE OF WORK
1. An MOU was officially signed by the
Parramatta Lord Mayor and the CEO of SWAHS at Council’s meeting on the
2. Eight projects were initially agreed by
the steering committee as the Scope of Work to be carried out under the
partnership MOU.
3. Three of the 8 projects are complete and 3
more are being finalised.
4. Two of the initial projects were reviewed
and stopped. Agreement was reached that the content of these projects was
related to ongoing services provided by both organisations, and therefore a
project brief was not necessary as these were not stand alone projects.
5. Full details for each of the 8 projects,
including project objectives, deliverables, timing and current status is
provided in the table attached (Attachment 1).
HEALTH DATA
PROJECT UPDATE
6. The Health Data Sharing
Project commenced in November 2007 and will be finalised in November 2008.
7. There are two project
objectives; to ensure health related data within each organisation is up to
date and used appropriately, and to obtain health related data from SWAHS
Epidemiology Unit for inclusion in a health profile of Parramatta LGA.
8. There are three project
deliverables; To include NSW Health survey questions in Council’s residents
panel consultations where appropriate, to obtain a health profile of Parramatta
from SWAHS, and to provide health data workshops for PCC staff to assist in
planning and delivery of programs and services.
9. Full details for this project are included
in Attachment 1.
SUMMARY
10. The Strategic Partnership
between PCC and SWAHS has been active for 18 months. Eight projects were initially agreed by the steering
committee as the Scope of Work to be carried out under the partnership MOU to
improve the health of our community. Three of the eight projects are complete,
three more are being finalised and two have been reviewed and now undertaken in
alternative formats.
Diane Barrera Megan
Dephoff
Project Officer Manager
Social Outcomes
Social Outcomes
1View |
Strategic Partnership with SWAHS Project Updates |
3 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
None.
Item 16.1 |
NOTICE OF MOTION
ITEM NUMBER 16.1
SUBJECT Proposed
Alcohol Free Zones at
REFERENCE F2004/09185 - D01018520
REPORT OF Councillor A A Wilson
To be Moved by Councillor A A Wilson:- “That Parramatta City Council
institute an alcohol free zone in the row of shops at the beginning of |