NOTICE OF ORDINARYCouncil MEETING

 

 

 

The Meeting of Parramatta City Council will be held in the Council Chamber, Fourth Floor, 2 Civic Place, Parramatta on Monday, 8 September 2008 at 6:45pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Robert Lang

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Parramatta – the leading city at the heart of Sydney

 

30 Darcy Street Parramatta NSW 2150

PO Box 32 Parramatta

 

Phone 02 9806 5050 Fax 02 9806 5917 DX 8279 Parramatta

ABN 49 907 174 773  www.parracity.nsw.gov.au

 

“Think Before You Print”



COUNCIL CHAMBERS

 

 

Clr Paul Barber, Lord Mayor – Caroline Chisholm Ward

Dr. Robert Lang, Chief Executive Officer - Parramatta City Council

 

 

 

 

Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services

 

 

 

Assistant Minutes Clerk – Michael Wearne

 

 

Stephen Kerr –  Group Manager Corporate

 

 

 

Minutes Clerk – Grant Davies

 

Marcelo Occhuizzi –Acting Group Manager Outcomes & Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clr Omar Jamal – Arthur Philip Ward

 

 

Clr Lorraine Wearne - Lachlan Macquarie Ward

 

Clr Anita Brown – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward

 

 

Clr John Chedid – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward

 

Clr David Borger – Macarthur Ward Elizabeth

 

 

Clr Andrew Wilson – Lachlan Macquarie Ward

 

Clr Paul Garrard – Woodville Ward

 

 

Clr Tony Issa, OAM – Woodville Ward

 

Clr Julia Finn – Arthur Philip Ward

 

 

Clr Brian Prudames – Caroline Chisholm Ward

 

Clr Chris Worthington – Caroline Chisholm Ward

Clr Pierre Esber, Deputy Lord Mayor  Lachlan Macquarie Ward

Clr Maureen Walsh – Wooville Ward

Clr Chiang Lim – Arthur Phillip Ward

Text Box:   Press

 

Staff

 

 

Staff

 

GALLERY

 


ORDINARY Council

 8 September 2008

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM                                                         SUBJECT                                              PAGE NO

 

1       CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council - 25 August 2008

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, 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas    

9        DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION

10      DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD

11      Reports - Domestic Applications

11.1   20 Hewlett Street Granville. (Lot 3 DP 775950)  (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12      Reports - Development Applications

12.1   1 Grand Avenue, Camellia. (Lot 1 in DP 721503)

12.2   Macarthur Girls High School - 9 Thomas Street (1 Macarthur Street) Parramatta (Lots 1 & 2 DP 797543)

12.3   235 Church Street, Parramatta (Commonwealth Bank) (Lots 1 & 2 in DP 205570)

12.4   479 Kissing Point Road, Ermington. (Lachlan Macquarie Ward) (Lot 18A in DP 440585).

12.5   1 Cambridge Street, Harris Park. (Lot 18 in DP 874) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward).

12.6   15-17 Weston Street, Rosehill (Lot 2 in DP 128283) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.7   66 Cross Street, Guildford (Lot B in DP 348917) (Woodville Ward)

12.8   12 Pitt Street, Parramatta. (Lot 1 in DP 73427) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

12.9   Further Report - 12 Milton Avenue, Eastwood. (Lot 79 DP 7004) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

12.10  6 Belmore Street, North Parramatta. (Lot 4 DP 758788) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

12.11  288 Clyde Street, South Granville. (Lot 53 HCP7) (Woodville Ward).

12.12  Further report - Parramatta Stadium 11-13 O'Connell Street, Parramatta (Lots 951 to 965 in DP 42643) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

13      DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION

14      Community Care

14.1   Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting

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 Parramatta City Council and Sydney West Area Health Service (SWAHS) - Update.  

 

16      Notices of Motion

16.1   Proposed Alcohol Free Zones at Mobbs Lane, Carlingford and James Hoskins Reserve.   

17      QUESTION TIME

 

 

  


Ordinary Council 8 September 2008

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.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(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 14 July 2008 resolved:-

 

(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

 

 

Attachments:

1View

List of Proposed Onsite Meetings

2 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

  


Ordinary Council 8 September 2008

Item 8.1

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER         8.1

SUBJECT                   Lots 2-14, 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas

DESCRIPTION          Lots 2 to 14, 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas. Land and Environment Court Appeal Nos. 10592 to 10604 of 2008

REFERENCE            F2008/02985 - 

APPLICANT/S           Defence Housing Australia

OWNERS                    Defence Housing Australia

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 Environment Court 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 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas.

 

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.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(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 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas.

 

(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 September 2005 and granted consent for a community title subdivision comprising 27 allotments at 16 Dorahy Street, Dundas.

 

2.      Development Application No. 993/2004A was approved on 25 November 2005 and related to a correction of lot number and plan references.

 

3.      Development Application No. 993/2004B was approved on 1 November 2006 and included changes to pad level heights for lots 2 to 12.

 

4.      Defence Housing Australia subsequently lodged a total of 26 development applications for a combination of single dwelling houses and dual occupancy developments at 16 Dorahy Street. Of these development applications, 13 were refused by Council. In response, the applicant has lodged a Class 1 appeal in the Land and Environment Court against each of the 13 refusals. The table below provides the corresponding appeal number to the refused development application and the date of determination of that application by Council.

 

Appeals

Proceedings Nos

Lot Nos

DA No

Proposed development

Date of refusal by Council

1

10592 of 2008

9

11/2008

Dwelling house

19 June 2008 (Notice of determination)

2

10593 of 2008

2

1018/2007

Dwelling house

19 June 2008 (Notice of determination)

3

10594 of 2008

4

1017/2007

Dwelling house

19 June 2008 (Notice of determination)

4

10595 of 2008

6

1016/2007

Dwelling house

19 June 2008 (Notice of determination)

5

10596 of 2008

14

971/2007

Dwelling house

19 June 2008 (Notice of determination)

6

10597 of 2008

3

1014/2007

Dwelling house

19 June 2008 (Notice of determination)

7

10598 of 2008

5

1015/2007

Dwelling house

19 June 2008 (Notice of determination)

8

10599 of 2008

7

10/2008

Dwelling house

19 June 2008 (Notice of determination)

9

10600 of 2008

13

779/2007

Dual occupancy

15 July 2008 - (Resolution)

10

10601 of 2008

11

777/2007

Dual occupancy

15 July 2008 - (Resolution)

11

10602 of 2008

12

780/2007

Dual occupancy

15 July 2008 - (Resolution)

12

10603 of 2008

8

12/2008

Dwelling house

19 June 2008 (Notice of determination)

13

10604 of 2008

10

778/2007

Dual occupancy

15 July 2008 - (Resolution)

 

DISCUSSION

 

5.      On 30 June 2008, Defence Housing Australia lodged 13 separate Class 1 appeals in the Land and Environment Court in respect of Council’s refusal of the development applications listed in the table above. As per procedural requirements, Council has lodged a Statement of Facts and Contentions with the Court in respect of each of the 13 appeals. The contentions tendered on behalf of Council are attached as Appendix A to this report. Each Statement raises the same issues, as these were considered to universally apply to all of the refused development applications.

 

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 21 August 2008:

 

“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 21 August 2008, inter alia that: 

 

“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 21 August 2008 from DLA Phillips Fox is attached as Appendix C.

 

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

 

 

Attachments:

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 21 August 2008

5 Pages

 

 

 

  


Ordinary Council 8 September 2008

Item 11.1

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         11.1

SUBJECT                   20 Hewlett Street Granville. (Lot 3 DP 775950)  (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Demolition of an existing garage and construction of a new garage. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE            DA/340/2008 - Submitted 15 May 2008

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.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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 Hewlett Street between Woodville Road and Walter Street. The site has a frontage of 11.67m with a battle axe handle configuration with a width of 22.01m at the rear. The area is characterised by single and 2 storey residential development.

 

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

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

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.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

7.      The provisions of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal 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 18 June 2008. No submissions were received.

 

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 Parramatta LEP 1996. It is located on the boundary but outside the Granville Conservation Area – Residential Precinct. The house is a Federation period structure, located on the corner of Hewlett Street and a lane.

 

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

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Location Map

1 Page

 

2View

Plans and elevations

2 Pages

 

3View

Compliance Table

1 Page

 

4View

Heritage Inventory

2 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

  


Ordinary Council 8 September 2008

Item 12.1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.1

SUBJECT                   1 Grand Avenue, Camellia. (Lot 1 in DP 721503)

DESCRIPTION          Proposed Torrens and Stratum subdivision of land into two lots. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE            DA/472/2008 - Submitted 2 July 2008

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 Lot 102 for independent purposes in the future.

 

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.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(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 Lot 101) and a separate allotment (proposed Lot 102) for future development. The subdivision will allow ease of development of individual sites in the future.

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

2.      The land is the Sydney Water site (the former James Hardies site) on the eastern side of James Ruse Drive, Camellia and adjoining the Parramatta River. The land also contains the Clyde-Carlingford railway line, with this area containing an overpass for the train line over the private road.

 

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 (Parramatta)

 

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 Lot 101 and is located beneath the railway line. Proposed Lot 102 will retain the heritage listed gravesite and the remainder of existing Lot 1 in DP 721503.

 

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 Parramatta Archaeological Management Unit 2938, which was identified to have high potential and State Significance. 

 

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 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area DCP applies to the site. The proposal does not compromise the objectives of the DCP. There are no numerical controls applicable to the development.

 

CONSULTATION

 

9.      The development application was notified between 16 and 30 July 2008. No objections were received in response to the notification of the proposal.

 

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 Torrens subdivision application is considered to be a relatively simple stratum, although Railcorp have not to date provided the final RLs for the railway bridge. Accordingly, an application at development application stage is sufficient in plan form, showing the horizontal plane and the lot boundaries depicted upon them. Written text is also considered sufficient at this stage of the subdivision.

 

 

 

 

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

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

 


Ordinary Council 8 September 2008

Item 12.2

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.2

SUBJECT                   Macarthur Girls High School - 9 Thomas Street (1 Macarthur Street) Parramatta (Lots 1 & 2 DP 797543)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a toilet block (Crown Development). (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE            DA/225/2008 - Submitted 4 April 2008

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 Macarthur Girls High School. The application has been made by the Crown and 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. 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.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(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:

 

Drawing No

Dated

Site Plan, Drawing No A4 of 0713

June 2008

Floor Plan & Elevations, Drawing No A1 of 0713

November 2007

Section & Internal Elevations, Drawing No A2 of 0713

November 2007

Structural Details, Drawing No A3 of 0713

November 2007

           

Document(s)

Dated

Arborist Report, prepared by Australian Tree Consultants Pty Ltd

July 2008

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 7.00am to 8.00pm and Saturday 8.00am to 8.00pm.  No work is permitted to be carried out on Sundays or Public Holidays.

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.

 

Tree No

Botanical Name

Setback Required

2

Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box)

3m

3

Pinus pinea (Stone Pine)

5m

4

Eucalyptus moluucana (Grey Box)

4m

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.

 

Tree No:

Botanical Name

Health /

Condition

1

Cinnamomum camphora

(Camphor Laurel)

Inappropriate species

5

Eucalyptus sp.

Damage to structural roots.

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 Thomas Street to the north, Parramatta River to the south, Macarthur Street to the east and Stewart Street to the west. The site is approximately 6 hectares in area with an average width of 180m and an average depth of 320m.

 

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 Macarthur Girls High School. The toilet block will be located 4m east of the existing pool change facilities and north of the existing sporting field. The toilet block will be of single storey cavity brick construction and will have dimensions of 13.14m in length and 6.24m in width.

 

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 - Parramatta

 

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 Macarthur Girls High School. The above Newlands gates and Bunya pine trees are located along the Macarthur Street frontage and are approximately 110m away from the subject toilet block.

 

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.

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

 

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.

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

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 5 May 2008. No submissions were received.

 

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 Macarthur Street) and potential archaeological relics of local significance that are likely to survive underground.

 

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 Macarthur Street frontage and will not be affected by the proposed development.

 

ISSUES

 

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

 

 

 

James (Seong) Kim

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

Attachments:

1View

Location Map

1 Page

 

2View

Plans and Elevations

3 Pages

 

3View

Heritage Inventory

3 Pages

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Ordinary Council 8 September 2008

Item 12.3

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.3

SUBJECT                   235 Church Street, Parramatta (Commonwealth Bank) (Lots 1 & 2 in DP 205570)

DESCRIPTION          Installation of business identification signs. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE            DA/282/2008 - Submitted 24 April 2008

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.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(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 George Street elevation.

Reason:        To reduce clutter.

 

 

 

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.         The subject site is known as No. 235 Church Street, Parramatta (being Lots 1 and 2 in DP 205570). The subject site is located on the western side of Church Street, at its intersection with George Street. It contains a four storey office building with the Commonwealth Bank as one of its main occupants.

 

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 George Street. Wall approximately 12 feet high of sandstone blocks with a curved coping. Single storey sandstone cell block located at the rear of the allotment. Apart from an altered doorway, the building appears to be intact. These two features are the only surviving parts of the Mortimer Lewis Courthouse originally completed in 1840”.

 

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 Church Street facades at ground and awning levels, including:

 

-      2 new small projecting walls signs above the awning on the George and Church Street facades;

-      replacement fascia & bulkhead signs on and below the awning to George and Church Street;

-      replacement under awning signs, one each in George and Church Streets;

-      new small wall sign on the Church Street façade;

-      installation of 4 window signs along the George Street elevation at ground floor level.

 

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 George Street elevation, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the aims and objectives of the Policy.

 

8.         The assessment criteria is addressed in Attachment 5 of this report.

 

Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007

 

9.         The site is zoned Mixed Use B4 and the proposal is permissible with the consent of Council. Subject to the window signs along George Street being reduce in number (to a maximum of 3), the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone.

 

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.

 

Parramatta City Centre Plan

 

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 28 May 2008. No objections were received.

 

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 Church Street area would be to minimise the utilisation of such signage.

 

16.2         Relevant recent precedents in the area are:

 

-        Signage of this type was earlier created without Council's approval on the building at 239 Church Street (directly across George Street), where sports and travellers equipment is sold.  However, this cannot be used as a relevant precedent.

 

-        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 244 Church Street, but that proposal utilised framed panels hung behind the glass rather than foils stuck onto the shopfront.

 

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 16 June 2008, to amend the proposal in the following manner:

 

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 George Street elevation is still considered excessive. A condition of consent recommends that the number of window signs along this elevation be reduced to a maximum of 3.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

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

 


Ordinary Council 8 September 2008

Item 12.4

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.4

SUBJECT                   479 Kissing Point Road, Ermington. (Lachlan Macquarie Ward) (Lot 18A in DP 440585).

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 17 April 2008

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.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(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 479 Kissing Point Road, Ermington, subject to standard and the following extraordinary conditions:

 

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 10.00pm and before 6.00am, 7 days per week.

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 479 Kissing Point Road, Ermington (Lot 18A in DP 440585). The site is located on the southern side of Kissing Point Road, near its intersection with Victoria Road, Ermington. The surrounding area is a mix of residential, commercial and retail, though mostly residential. A petrol station is located adjacent to the site to the east.

 

2.      The site is an irregular shaped allotment, with an area of 770.3m² and a frontage to Kissing Point Road of 15.9 metres.

 

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

 

Parramatta LEP 2001

 

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.”

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

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 Kissing Point Road or what is entitled to be constructed there.

 

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 9 July 2007, resolved that all applications with 5 or more submissions be subject to a site inspection prior to them being determined at a Regulatory Meeting. Council’s subsequent Resolution of 26 May 2008 modified this to 7 or more objections.

 

27.    In accordance with the relevant resolution of the time, an on-site meeting was held on 14 June 2008, commencing at 10.30am.

 

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 Sydney Boarding Houses DCP 2004

 

34.    An objector advised that applicant has assessed the proposal against the requirements contained within the City of Sydney DCP for boarding houses and still the application does not comply with the requirements within this DCP for bedroom sizes and communal areas.

 

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 Kissing Point Road. It was advised that this section of Kissing Point Road carries a high volume of traffic and that 2 spaces for 25 persons would be inadequate.

 

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 Kissing Point Road would affect the ability of traffic to enter and exit the adjoining service station, impact on buses using Kissing Point Road and impact on residents accessing Cowells Lane, Deakin Street and Blakeford Avenue.

 

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 Kissing Point Road.

 

44.    There are a number of bus services that operate either along Kissing Point Road or Victoria Road at various intervals throughout the week. It is considered that services to either Parramatta or the Sydney BCD are adequate and also provide access to nearby railway stations.

 

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 Kissing Point Road, when vehicles are parked on the north eastern side of Kissing Point Road near Cowells Lane and Blakeford Avenue sight lines are obstructed.

 

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 400 Kissing Point Road to improve sight lines for vehicles turning right from these streets into Kissing Point Road. Ms Elizabeth Zeng of 15/7A Blakeford Avenue is to be advised of the outcome of this review. CRM 459756 has been lodged to facilitate this review.

 

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 Victoria Road and 30 metres to the east of Cowells Lane. This section of Kissing Point Road outside the development site has a road width of approximately 10.7 metres between kerbs with two traffic lanes and unrestricted parking on both sides of the road.

 

65.    On-site inspections revealed that there is a bus stop on the southern and northern sides of this section of Kissing Point Road in close proximity to the proposed development site.

 

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

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

2View

Plans & Elevations

7 Pages

 

3View

History of DA

1 Page

 

4View

Compliance Table

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Ordinary Council 8 September 2008

Item 12.5

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.5

SUBJECT                   1 Cambridge Street, Harris Park. (Lot 18 in DP 874) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward).

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 13 February 2008

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 (Parramatta).

 

Subject to conditions, the proposed development is consistent with the provisions and the objectives of Sydney regional Environmental Plan No. 28 (Parramatta) and the Harris Park DCP. The proposal will not result in any unreasonable impacts on the amenity of surrounding residents. Accordingly, approval of the development application is recommended.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(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 No. 1 Cambridge Street, Harris Park, subject to standard and the following extraordinary conditions:

 

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 10.00pm and before 6.00am, 7 days per week.

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 5 Cambridge Street.

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 No. 1 Cambridge Street, Harris Park (Lot 18 in DP 874). The site is located on the northern side of Cambridge Street, to the west of its intersection with Wigram Street, Harris Park. The surrounding area is a mix of residential and commercial, though mostly residential. The Main Western railway line is located to the west of the site and Harris Park Railway Station in close proximity to the north.

 

2.      The site is a rectangular-shaped allotment, with an area of 495.9m² and a frontage to Cambridge Street of 10.67 metres. A single storey, detached dwelling house is currently located on the site. The dwelling is dilapidated and currently vacant.

 

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 11 October 2007, committing to environmental sustainability measures.

 

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 (Parramatta)

 

7.      The site is zoned Residential 2(c) under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 28 (Parramatta) and is located within the Harris Park precinct. The development is consistent with the numerical requirements and the aims and objectives of this plan and is permissible in the zone, subject to the consent of Council.

 

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 19 March 2008 and amended plans from 16 to 30 May 2008. The notification generated 7 submissions (from 5 properties), including a petition containing 57 signatures.

 

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 9 July 2007, resolved that all applications with 5 or more submissions be subject to a site inspection prior to them being determined at a Regulatory Meeting. Council’s subsequent Resolution of 26 May 2008 modified this to 7 or more objections.

 

35.    In accordance with the relevant resolution of the time, an on-site meeting was held on 14 June 2008, commencing at 10.30am.

 

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 1 Cambridge Street, Harris Park, was built c.1890s.  The house was modified, including in the Federation and Inter-war periods.  In recent decades, it has fallen in disrepair and is currently not habitable, with its floors and facilities generally missing.  Some structural issues were noted in the recent years, and the retention of the house was scrutinised by the current owners. However, these are generally considered mendable.

 

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 5 Cambridge Street.

 

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 Cambridge Street and the entrance to the house”.

 

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 5 Cambridge Street.

-        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

 

 

 

Attachments:

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


Ordinary Council 8 September 2008

Item 12.6

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.6

SUBJECT                   15-17 Weston Street, Rosehill (Lot 2 in DP 128283) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

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 10 August 2007 for the following reasons:

 

-     “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 4 January 2008.

 

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 17 March 2006, committing to environmental sustainability measures.

 

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 (Parramatta)

 

23.    The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 28 (Parramatta) and is located within the Harris Park precinct. The development is consistent with the numerical requirements and the aims and objectives of this plan and is permissible in the zone, subject to the consent of Council and consistency with the Masterplan.

 

 

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 30 January 2008. One submission was received. The submission raised general issues such as the stormwater plans depicting an easement through the property at No. 22 Hope Street. Despite a number of requests for this to be rectified, the plans have not been amended other than in relation to other specific detail, but not including the location of the easement.

 

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 No. 24 Hope Street. Until such arrangements are finalised, Council has no alternative but to recommend a deferred commencement consent, subject to the easement being created. Therefore, it is considered that the development is acceptable and would not compromise the public interest.

 

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 9 July 2007, resolved that Section 82A Review applications be subject to a site inspection prior to them being determined at a Regulatory Meeting.

 

30.    In accordance with the above resolution, an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 12 April 2008 at 9.00am.

 

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 Arthur Street. Councillor Walsh asked whether the proposal at hand restricted his rights/potential or whether the Masterplan did. The resident advised that it was the Masterplan that he had issue with, not the current proposal. The resident was concerned that his site was effectively underzoned and should not be Residential 2(a).

 

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 Weston Street. The Council Officer responded that each dwelling would be approximately 5 metres (internal width). Dwellings in the rows behind would have a width of approximately 4.4 metres (internally).

 

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 James Ruse Drive to the east, Weston Street to the south, Hope Street to the north and Arthur Street to the west. The relevant controls of the REP, the DCP and the Masterplan are addressed in Attachment 4 of this report, where it is demonstrated that the proposal exhibits full compliance with the relevant provisions of the planning controls.

 

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

 

Attachments:

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


Ordinary Council 8 September 2008

Item 12.7

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.7

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

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

REFERENCE            DA/729/2007 - Submitted 5 September 2007

APPLICANT/S           Mr M Maklouf

OWNERS                    Mr M & Mr R Ibrahim

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services

PREVIOUS ITEMS             12.19 - 66 Cross Street, Guildford (Lot B in DP 348917) (Woodville Ward) - Regulatory Council - 14 July 2008      

 

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 66 Cross Street, Guildford. The matter was previously considered by Council at its Regulatory meeting of 14 July 2008, where it was deferred pending amended plans required to address the requirements of the Childcare Centres DCP.

 

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 14 July 2008.

 

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

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

 

4.      The childcare centre shall operate in accordance with the endorsed recommendations of the approved acoustic report prepared by RSA Acoustics, 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 Cross Street) are required to remain in-situ. They shall not be demolished as part of the application.

Reason: To preserve the heritage fabric of the existing dwelling

 

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

Reason: To ensure compliance with this consent.

 

7.      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 8:00am-6:00pm Mon-Fri' zone and signage to be the responsibility of the property owner.  

Reason: To ensure that costs are met.

 

10.    Three on-street parking spaces to be marked and signposted as ’15-minute Parking 8.00am-6.00pm Mon-Fri’.  All costs associated with the supply and installation of the appropriate signage to be paid for the applicant at no cost to Council.

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

 

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

 

PROPOSAL

 

3.      Approval is sought for the following:

 

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

3.2    To use the 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 7:00am to 6:00pm. The proposed outdoor activities will be between 8:30am to 4:30pm;

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 14 July 2008 resolved as follows:

 

“(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 8 July 2008 to address the shortfall of parking. The proposed childcare centre was redesigned to provide 6 parking spaces at the rear of the site, accessed off a single width driveway along the southern side of the site. The design of the building was also amended.

 

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

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

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.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

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 13 August 2008. No submissions were received

 

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 Guildford area.

 

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 8 July 2008, Council’s Traffic Engineer provided the following comments:

 

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 Cross Street and its surrounding road network.

 

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 Cross Street. Vehicle door noise will be less than the general short term noises in the street in general.

 

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

 

 

Attachments:

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

 

6

Traffic Report

9 Pages

 

7

Acoustic Report

18 Pages

 

8

Previous Report to Council for Development Application - Item 12.19 at Council Meeting on 14 July 2008

52 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Ordinary Council 8 September 2008

Item 12.8

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.8

SUBJECT                   12 Pitt Street, Parramatta. (Lot 1 in DP 73427) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

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 8 November 2007

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 No.12 Pitt Street, Parramatta. The application has been referred to Council as Council has received three written objections and one of the submissions contained a petition with seven signatures.

 

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 Pitt Street boundary and will be 20.36 metres in length and 13.41 metres in width.

 

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.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(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 Pitt Street. The site has a total area of 453.5m2, a street frontage width of 13.4m and a depth of 33.8m. The site is relatively flat.

 

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 Pitt Street across from the site. To the east is the rear of another commercial property. St Johns Cemetery is located further to the south-east.

 

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 Pitt Street.

 

6.      The proposed building has a total floor area of 680.25m2 and is set back 3m from the Pitt Street boundary and 10.68m from the rear boundary. The building is proposed to be constructed on the side common boundaries.

 

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 9 November 2004.

 

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 – Parramatta

 

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 thatthe 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 No.14 Pitt Street. Solar access will be discussed further in paragraphs 37, 53 and 54.

 

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 St Johns Cemetery to the south-east so as not to visually impact on the heritage significance of the cemetery.

 

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 - Parramatta.

 

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.

 

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

 

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 8 November 2007 which predates the gazettal of the LEP. Nevertheless, the proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the LEP.

 

Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan under SREP 28

 

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 Pitt Street.

 

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 St. Johns Cemetery. The development allows for deep soil zones and landscaping at the rear”.

 

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 (Parramatta Park Edge)

 

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.

 

Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan under City Centre LEP 2007

 

28.    The City Centre DCP came into effect on 19 December 2007 and does not have savings provisions. Therefore, the City Centre DCP applies to the subject development application. Relevant sections of the DCP are discussed below.

 

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 3.2 – Active street frontages and address

 

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 12 December 2007. The notification generated three written submissions. One of the submissions contains a petition with 7 signatures. The matters raised in the submissions are addressed below.

 

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 No.14 Pitt Street. These balconies will now receive effective solar access for 2 and half hours (from 9am till 11.30am) in mid winter which is considered acceptable within the city centre.

 

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 14 Pitt Street.

 

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 Pitt Street is restricted for parking during peak hours.

 

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 7am to 8pm on weekdays and 8am to 8pm on Saturdays only.

 

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 9 July 2007, resolved that all applications where more than 5 submissions are received be subject to an on-site meeting prior to them being determined at a Regulatory Meeting. The application is subject to this resolution.

 

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 Saturday 17 May 2008, commencing at 9am.

 

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 No.14 Pitt Street. These balconies associated with main living rooms will receive effective solar access for 2 and half hours (from 9am till 11.30am) in mid winter. This is considered acceptable within the city centre considering the compliance of the proposed building envelope and the need for the long term growth of Parramatta City Centre.

 

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 Pitt Street.

 

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 St Johns Cemetery at the rear.

 

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 10.10am with all parties being advised that they will be notified in writing of the date on which the development application will be presented at the Council meeting.

 

69.    There are no other matters or issues associated with this development application.

 

 

 

James (Seong) Kim

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Table of Compliance

1 Page

 

2View

Location Map

1 Page

 

3View

Plans and Elevations

8 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Ordinary Council 8 September 2008

Item 12.9

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.9

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

DESCRIPTION          A Section 82A Review of Determination to review the determination (refusal) of DA/202/2006 for demolition, tree removal and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy with Torrens Title Subdivision.

REFERENCE            DA/202/2006 - Submitted 26 September 2007

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             13.3 - 12 Milton Avenue, Eastwood. (Lot 79 DP 7004) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward) - Regulatory Council - 10 June 2008      

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

To provide Council with a further report on the shadow diagrams prepared by Mr David Modra of No. 14 Milton Avenue and to determine Development Application 202/2006 which seeks approval for demolition and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy with Torrens Title Subdivision.

 

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.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(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 10 June 2008, Council considered a report which recommended approval of an application for demolition and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy building with Torrens Title Subdivision. The following resolution was made by Council:

 

(a)     That consideration of this matter be deferred to the Council Meeting (Regulatory) to be held on 14 July 2008 and a report be provided on the shadow diagrams as recently submitted by Mr David Modra.

 

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 No. 14 Milton Avenue had been underestimated.

 

3.      On 3 July 2008 the applicant was requested to prepare amended shadow diagrams at hourly intervals and to confirm the location of the true north point by survey.

 

4.      The applicant submitted amended shadow diagrams on 14 July 2008. Council staff requested further amendments to these diagrams due to an error with the 11.00am shadow diagram and revised plans were submitted to Council on 23 July 2008. Further amendments to ensure that the diagrams reflected the differences in levels between the sites were requested on 11 August 2008 and revised plans submitted on 13 August 2008 and 14 August 2008, however these plans overstated the differences in levels between the sites. The shadow diagrams submitted to Council on 23 July 2008 best represent the shadowing situation and are the ones that have been attached to this report. Council staff have also prepared shadow diagrams.

 

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 No. 14 Milton Avenue. At approximately 11:40am the solar azimuth angle on 21 June is 9 degrees east. At this time the angle of the sun is less than 22.5 degrees to the horizontal plane of the windows on the eastern elevation of the building.

 

7.      In accordance with Land and Environment Court planning principles the windows cannot be considered in sunlight after 11:40am because sunlight at extremely oblique angles has little effect. The windows on the eastern elevation of No. 14 Milton Avenue have a maximum potential of 2 hours and 40 minutes of solar access on the winter solstice.

 

8.      In accordance with the practice of the Land and Environment Court windows are considered to be in sun if at least 50% of the surface area is receiving sunlight.

 

9.      Five windows are located on the eastern elevation of No. 14 Milton Avenue. The two windows closest to the street serve an 8m long by 2.2m wide sunroom which adjoins a living room and a bedroom. Both the living room and bedroom have openings to the sunroom. It is noted that plans submitted by the owner show a sunroom but the owner also refers to this room as a living room. The northerly sunroom window will receive 2 hours and 40 minutes of solar access, the southerly sunroom window will receive 1 hour and 40 minutes of solar access.

 

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 11.00am and 11.40am.

 

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 10.00am and 10.30am. After this time the window is shaded by the wall of the study. The southerly window will receive solar access from 9.30am onwards but a minimum of 50% of glass area would receive solar access from 10.00am to 11.40am, a total of 1 hours and 40 minutes.

 

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 No. 14 Milton Avenue does not comply with the requirement of Section 4.3.4 of Parramatta DCP 2005 that habitable rooms are to receive a minimum of 3 hours solar access on the winter solstice. The question to be answered is whether the impact of the development on the solar access to No. 14 Milton Avenue is a sufficient reason to warrant refusal of the application.

 

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 No. 14 Milton Avenue has a varied setback from the side boundary. The sun room and family room windows have a setback of 2m from the side boundary, the study has a setback of 900mm from the side boundary. The windows have a maximum potential solar access of less than 3 hours and are located in close proximity to the shared boundary. The windows are particularly vulnerable to overshadowing in the morning hours when the sun is low in the sky. The windows are highly vulnerable to overshadowing from development on No. 12 Milton Avenue.

 

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 No. 14 Milton Avenue by 1 hour the side setback would need to be increased from 2m to 3.8m. The side setback requirement of the DCP is 1.5m. It is not considered reasonable to require the applicant to provide a setback of more than twice the DCP requirement to increase solar access to an adjoining dwelling by 1 hour.

 

18.    The submission from No. 14 Milton Avenue suggests that the dwelling should be designed as an ‘attic style’ with rooms located within the roof. An inspection of the site showed that a number of recently constructed dwellings are located on Milton Avenue and surrounding streets. The majority of these new dwellings are 2 storeys in height. A 2 storey dwelling of red brick construction with tiled roof is located opposite the development site at No. 19 Milton Avenue. This building was approved in 1999. Attached dual occupancies are currently under construction at No. 17 and No. 19 Valley Road. Two attached 2 storey dual occupancies are located on the southern side of Union Street. As the DCP does not require the applicant to provide an attic style dwelling and 2 storey dwellings are situated in the area it is not reasonable to require the applicant to change to an attic style design to achieve a minor increase in solar access to an adjoining dwelling.

 

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 10 Milton Avenue will receive a minimum 3 hours of solar access. Solar access to the courtyards within the dual occupancy development will comply with the 3 hour requirement of the DCP.

 

21.    The proposed development will cast a shadow over the backyard of No. 14 Milton Avenue between 9am to 12pm, however the extent of the overshadowing is minor and over 3 hours solar access to more than 50% of the backyard area will be maintained. Solar access to the backyard of No. 14 Milton Avenue will exceed the requirements of the DCP.

 

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 No. 14 Milton Avenue, good solar access to the sun room and reasonable solar access to the family room will be provided. The study is not a principle living area and the loss of sunlight to this room is acceptable in the circumstances of the case. Good solar access to the adjoining site to the east No. 10 Milton Avenue is also provided. The overshadowing caused by the development is acceptable and not a sufficient reason to warrant refusal of the application.

 

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION

 

23.    On 11 August 2008 an additional submission was received from Mr Modra of No. 14 Milton Avenue. The following issues were raised in the submission.

 

Loss of solar access

 

24.    Concern has been raised that windows will be 75% shaded up to 11.00am

 

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 No. 14 Milton Avenue

 

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 No. 19 Milton Avenue.

 

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 Milton Ave, Council saw fit to make the applicant comply with every detail of the DCP, but now chooses to overlook many provisions in the DCP.

 

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 Milton was for the construction of an additional dwelling to the rear of a heritage item, the assessment of this application is irrelevant to the assessment of an application for an attached dual occupancy on a non heritage listed site.

 

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 No. 14 Milton Avenue expressed concern that Council staff previously requested the applicant to revise the proposal to provide 3 hours solar access to adjoining dwellings and the amended development proposal is not consistent with this previous advice. The applicant has amended the proposal but 3 hours solar access to No. 14 Milton Avenue has not been achieved. Despite the previous request to the applicant, a detailed assessment of this issue indicates that the non compliance with the 3 hour requirement is not a reason that warrants refusal of the application.

 

ON SITE MEETING

 

43.    The submission from No. 14 Milton Avenue raised concern that the issues raised at the on site meeting have not been adequately addressed. The objector was advised that the issues raised at the site meeting will be revisited in this further report to Council.

 

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

 

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

 

Survey Plans

 

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 No. 14 Milton Avenue. Following the on-site meeting,        additional elevational shadow diagrams were requested and submitted. These shadow diagrams were incorrect. Amended shadow diagrams have been submitted and the issue of overshadowing is addressed in paragraphs 2-19 of this report.

 

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 No. 12 Union Street, No. 2 Union Street and No. 17 and No. 19 Valley Road. Articulation has been provided to the development and it is considered the proposal integrates into the existing streetscape.

 

Heritage

 

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

 

Traffic

 

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 Milton Avenue or the immediate locality.

 

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

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Shadow Diagrams

2 Pages

 

2View

Solar Access Table