Agenda of Regulatory Council - 10 November 2008

Regulatory Council 10 November 2008

Item 8.1

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 8.1

SUBJECT Illegal Footpath Parking

REFERENCE F2004/07072 - D01055570

REPORT OF Manager Ranger Services

PREVIOUS ITEMS 8.1 - Footpath Parking - Ordinary Council - 26 May 2008

Footpath Parking in the Parramatta LGA - Ordinary Council - 26 November 2007

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the matter of illegal footpath parking in the Parramatta LGA.

RECOMMENDATION

That should Council wish to pursue permitting parking on footpaths in streets with roll kerbs, including the installation of signs as described in this report, that the budget centre for the quarterly review variation required for this expenditure be identified.

BACKGROUND

1. The issue of footpath parking was considered at the Council meeting of 26 May 2008 and Council resolved the following:

“(a) That consideration of this matter be deferred.

(b) That further legal advice be sought on the legality of parking on footpaths and on the development of a Local Orders Policy.

(c) Further, that advice on this issue also be sought from the Local Government Association.”

2. Councillors and members of the community have raised concerns over residents receiving infringement notices for parking vehicles on nature strips. In the 1990s, Council widened the nature strips on about 40 streets in the LGA, most of which are in the southern suburbs. Roll-top kerbs were installed and some residents construed that this meant vehicles could be parked on the nature strip.

3. However, it is clear that parking on footpaths / nature strips was made illegal with the introduction of the Australian Road Rules on 1 December 1999. The following are listed as ‘penalty notice offences ‘:

a. Stopping on a path / nature trip in a built up area (rule 197/1)

b. Stopping on / across a driveway / other access to / from land (rule 198/2

4. The new rules came into operation after council constructed widened nature strips in some streets.

5. On 1 September 2008 the Australian Road Rules 1999 were replaced by The Road Rules 2008. Sections 197 and 209 are the relevant laws in regard to parking on path / natures strips. The regulations are as follows:

197 Stopping on a path, dividing strip, nature strip or painted island (Division 6)

(1) A driver must not stop on a bicycle path, footpath, shared path or dividing strip, or a nature strip adjacent to a length of road in a built-up area, unless:

(a) the driver stops at a place on a length of road, or in an area, to which a parking control sign applies and the driver is permitted to stop at that place under these Rules, or

(b) the driver is permitted to stop under another law of this jurisdiction.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

209 Parallel parking in a median strip parking area

(1) This rule applies to a driver who parks in a median strip parking area if a parking control sign or road marking applies to the area, and information on or with the sign or road marking indicates that the driver’s vehicle must be positioned parallel to the median strip.

Note. Driver’s vehicle, median strip, median strip parking area, parking control sign, road marking and with are defined in the Dictionary.

(2) The driver must position the driver’s vehicle:

(a) to face:

(i) in the direction of travel of vehicles in the marked lane or line of traffic to the left of the driver, or

(ii) if there is no traffic to the left of the driver—in the direction in which vehicles could lawfully travel on that part of the road, and

(b) parallel, and as near as practicable, to the centre of the median strip, and

(c) if the driver does not park in a parking bay—at least 1 metre from the closest point of any vehicle in front of it and any vehicle behind it.

Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

6. Legal advice has been obtained from Barrister at Law Mr Mark Preece in relation to whether a local orders policy can be introduced permitting vehicles to park on nature strips in certain locations and officer discretion in regards to the issuing of warnings to illegally parked vehicles. Mr Preece has advised in his legal opinion that (See Attachment 1) there is no ability to make a Local Orders policy in relation to this subject, that Council can introduce enforcement guidelines in respect of any enforcement activity, that council must not instruct an authorised officer not to issue a penalty notice in respect of a particular matter and that the provision clearly vests a discretion in the authorised officer as to whether they decide to issue a penalty notice or a warning.

7. Based on this advice, it is clear that Council can not instruct an authorised officer not issue a penalty notice, that the discretion to issue a penalty notice or warning lies with each enforcement officer and that a local orders policy would not apply in this situation. Standard Operating Procedures (Guidelines) were introduced into the Ranger Services Unit in 1999 and have recently been reviewed and updated to reflect changes in legislation/council policies. Further changes/review can be undertaken if so required.

8. In addition to seeking further legal advice, a mail box drop was undertaken in June 2008 advising each residence in streets with rollback curbing that it is illegal to park on a path/strip (See Attachment 2).

9. The introduction of the Road Rules 2008 on 1 September 2008, has now provided for Council to design and erect permissible parking signs that would permit parallel parking on roll curbing. An example has been provided in Attachment 3. It must be noted that vehicle drivers may still be subject to punitive action if they do not park parallel to the curb.

10. An initial quote has been provided by Council’s Building and Trades section advising that the cost for each sign inclusive of installation is $75.00. The cost for signs to be erected at the intersection of each street and on both sides of the road would therefore be $300.00. These costs may be affected by the length of certain streets as the Australian standards require that a permissible parking sign be erected every 75 metres to advise motorists of the parking conditions. In order to ascertain the total cost associated with the installation of signs to allow vehicle parking on the nature strip in roll kerb area’s an accurate quote will need to be sought from Building Trade Services. The information provided from Council’s Traffic Unit indicates that there are 38 streets within our LGA with roll curbing. Whilst a small number of these streets have hard bay surfaces that allows for strip parking, the majority would require signage to be erected to allow for verge parking.

11. Council should be aware that whilst allowing vehicle parking on the nature strip in accordance with the Road Rules 2008 may alleviate concerns expressed by some residents, the long term impact of parking on grassed areas may lead to unsightly results on the ground. Over time, as grassed areas are used for parking, they may well wear out the surface area leading to muddy conditions during wet weather and possible trip hazards caused by divots and holes.

12. As the current legislation prohibits parking on path/strips unless the area is signposted or made of a hard bay surface, it is recommended that if Council seeks to allow vehicle parking on the nature strip in streets with roll back kerbs it adopts either (a) That signs be erected at each intersection and on both sides of each street with roll curbing permitting parallel parking beside the curb or (b) That residents are to seek permission from council to install a hard bay surface area on the nature strip at their cost to allow for vehicle parking.

13. It must be noted that the NSW Pedestrian Council does not support vehicle parking on path/strips. Previous dialogue with the Council chairman reveals this stance relates to the issue of pedestrian safety and the obstruction caused by vehicles parking on path/strips.

Rodney Sutcliffe

Acting Manager Regulatory Services

Attachments:

1View	DAC PCC Parking Enforcement and Policy Opinion	13 Pages
2View	Letter re parking illegally on nature strip 080508	1 Page
3View	Attachment to letter to residents re parking illegally on nature strip 080508	1 Page
4View	Nature strip parking sign layout	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 10 November 2008

Item 11.1

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.1

SUBJECT 20 Rawson Street, Epping. (Lot 4 DP 9193) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house and the construction of a cabana and an in-ground swimming pool at the rear (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/514/2008 - Submitted 18 July 2008

APPLICANT/S Contemporary Architecture Pty Ltd

OWNERS Ms S A Ferguson

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

To determine Development Application No. 514/2008 which seeks approval for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house and the construction of a cabana and in-ground swimming pool at the rear.

The application is being referred to Council for determination due to the number of submissions received. Six (6) objections have been received in respect of this application.

The application is considered suitable for approval as it is consistent with the aims and objectives of the residential zoning applying to the land, complies with Council’s LEP2001 and DCP2005 requirements and is generally consistent with the aims, objectives and conservation guidelines contained within LEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation) and the Heritage DCP 2001.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 514/2008 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary condition:

1. The premises being used exclusively as a single dwelling house and not being adapted for, or used as a dual occupancy.

Reason: To ensure the premises is used as a sole occupancy.

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

SITE AND LOCALITY

1. The subject site is known as 20 Rawson Street and is located on the eastern side of Rawson Street between Bridge Street and Chesterfield Road, Epping. The site is rectangular in shape, with dimensions of 16.765m x 69.005m/68.715m and has an area of 1151m². The site has a natural ground fall from the street to the rear of approximately 4.7m.

2. The site contains a single storey dwelling house and detached garage. The site is surrounded by predominantly single storey dwelling houses.

PROPOSAL

3. Approval is sought for the following:

3.1 Carry out alterations to the ground floor of the existing dwelling house. The alterations are predominantly at the rear and increase the floor space of the dwelling house by an additional 142m². The rear addition contains a lounge, kitchen/dining, study, pantry, laundry bedroom and 2 bathrooms

3.2 Construct a cabana at the rear of the site measuring 5m x 5.7m

3.3 Construct an in-ground swimming pool at the rear of the site.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

4. The site is zoned Residential 2(a) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and alterations to dwelling houses are permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of LEP2001 and the objectives of the residential zoning applying to the land.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

5. The site is located within the Epping/Eastwood Conservation Area which is an identified conservation area within Schedule 3 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) which seek to conserve existing significant fabrics and settings associated with the heritage significance of heritage conservation areas and to ensure that any development does not adversely affect the heritage significance of heritage conservation areas.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

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

Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 2001

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

Parramatta Section 94 Contributions Plan

8. The proposed development is subject to the provisions of the Parramatta Section 94 Contributions Plan as the cost of residential works exceed $305,000. A condition requiring the payment of the appropriate Section 94 contribution fees is to be imposed on any consent granted.

CONSULTATION

9. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the development was notified to adjoining owners/occupiers for a period of 14 days between 28 July 2008 to 11 August 2008. The notification plans did not contain the southern elevation (“elevation 4”) of the proposed development. The application was re-notified with the southern elevation included between 8 September 2008 and 22 September 2008. A total of six (6) individual submissions were received. The issues raised are discussed below.

Overdevelopment of the site

10. Concern is raised that the proposed development represents an overdevelopment of the site and sets a “dangerous” precedent for the area.

11. The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 0.24:1, which is well below the maximum 0.5:1 floor space ratio permitted within the zoning applying to the land. In addition, the proposed development provides sufficient side and rear setbacks, and is in excess of the minimum soft soil, landscaping and private open space numerical requirements of DCP 2005. It is considered that the proposed alterations and additions do not represent an overdevelopment of the site and does not create an undesirable precedent for the area.

Impact on the character of the area

12. Concern is raised that the proposed development will detract from the heritage significance of the area and the character of the area will be destroyed.

13. The subject site is within the Epping-Eastwood Conservation Area. The materials used are compatible with the existing dwelling house to be retained and the additions will not have a significant impact upon the visual appearance of the dwelling house when viewed from the street. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and requirements of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) and Parramatta Heritage DCP 2001. The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who raises no objection to the proposed development. This issue has been discussed in further detail within this report.

Unsympathetic additions to the dwelling house

14. Concern is raised that the additions are unrelated in architectural elements and are unsympathetic to the original dwelling house.

15. The proposed extension is to be constructed of brick and contains timber windows to match the existing dwelling house. The proposed roof is corrugated iron which differs in construction material from the roof tiles of the original dwelling house. This is considered acceptable as the materials used should either match the existing dwelling house, or be of a light weight material. Council’s Heritage Advisor raises no concern with the proposed materials to be used.

Loss of established trees and loss of garden area

16. Concern is raised that the proposed development will result in a loss of established trees and garden area.

17. The application proposes the removal of 6 trees on the site. These trees are to be removed as a result of their location within the proposed building platform or due to poor health. The trees include a Prunus sp (fruit tree), a Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle), a Pistacia chinensis (Chinese Pistachio), a Liquidamber Styraciflua (Liquidamber) and 2 x Acer palmatums (Japanese Maples). The application was referred to Council’s Landscape Officer who raises no issue with the proposed tree removal. The trees to be removed are not significant trees within the area. Five (5) significant trees are proposed to be retained at the rear of the site, including a Corymbia citriodora (Lemon-scented Gum), an Acer palmatum (Japanese Maple), a Grevillea robusta (Silky Oak), a Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) and a Phoenix rupicola (Cliff Dale Palm). Additional landscaping is also proposed as part of the development application.

18. Although there is a loss of garden area at the rear of the site, the proposed development maintains 580m² of soft soil area, which represents approximately 50% of the site area. This exceeds the minimum 30% soft soil area requirements under the provisions of DCP2005 and complies with the 50% soft soil area requirements under the provisions of the Heritage DCP2001.

Height of the proposed development

19. Concern is raised that the proposed additions at the rear have the bulk of being 2 storeys in height and may in fact be 2 storeys in height.

20. The proposed additions at the rear of the dwelling house contain one floor level which is located a maximum of 1m above natural ground level and are single storey in height. The proposed bulk of the additions at the rear are considered acceptable and will not adversely impact upon neighbouring properties.

Potential unauthorised use

21. Concern is raised that the proposed additions at the rear will be used as a separate dwelling.

22. The proposed alterations involve the provision of an additional entry on the northern side of the dwelling house. The dwelling house contains single kitchen facilities and is unlikely to be used as 2 separate dwellings. Notwithstanding this, a condition requiring the premises be used as a sole occupancy can be imposed on any consent granted.

Overshadowing

23. Concern is raised that the proposed additions at the rear of the dwelling house will overshadow the patio area at No.18 Rawson Street.

24. The alterations and additions at the rear of the existing dwelling house are single storey and the floor level is approximately 1m above natural ground level. The majority of the shadows cast from the proposed development fall within the existing shadows cast upon No.18 Rawson Street. There are no additional impacts to the windows of the neighbouring property and only a minor portion of the rear yard is additionally overshadowed at 3pm during the Winter Solstice. The private open space of the neighbouring property would still receive sufficient solar access in accordance with the requirements of DCP2005.

Side setback intrusion

25. Concern is raised that the proposed additions to the rear of the dwelling house are too close to the property at No. 18 Rawson (the proposed southern wall intrudes closer to the fenceline than the existing house) and will create a dark and damp area within the side setback of No.18 Rawson Street.

26. The proposed addition at the rear of the dwelling house is located a minimum distance of 1m from the southern boundary, which complies with Council’s side setback requirements and the requirements under the Building Code of Australia. The side setbacks to the south of the proposed development are generally consistent with the existing dwelling house. The shadows cast by the additions do not substantially alter the existing solar access received between the boundary fence and the side of the dwelling house at No. 18 Rawson Street. The proposed additions do not significantly impact upon the private open space of the adjoining property.

Intrusion of pool activities (noise) on 18 Rawson Street

27. Concern is raised that the location of the proposed pool at the rear of the dwelling house will impact upon the acoustic privacy of the occupants at No. 18 Rawson Street.

28. Noise created by activities carried out within the rear yard by occupants of dwelling houses are to be expected within residential areas. Notwithstanding this, the pool and pool pump are to be located towards the rear of the site, away from the main living areas of the neighbouring dwelling house. It is considered that there will be no unreasonable noise generated by the proposed residential use or location of the pool.

Amended Plans

29. Amended plans were submitted to Council on 29 September 2008 which included the retention of the existing front fence and the alteration of the carport from a 2 car space structure to a single car space structure, and the relocation of the carport further behind the building line. The amended plans were not re-notified due to the minor changes proposed and the resultant reduced impact upon the amenity of the area.

ISSUES

Heritage

30. The subject site is located within the Epping/Eastwood Conservation Area which is an identified conservation area within Schedule 3 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). The dwelling house is listed as a Schedule A building under the Heritage DCP 2001, which is considered to contribute to the heritage significance of the area and is deemed worthy of retention.

31. The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who initially commented as follows:

“The proposal in its current form does not comply with the Conservation Area guidelines in that:

· the addition exceeds 100% of the floor area of the existing house

· the addition encroaches on the extant side setbacks of the house

· the carport partially blocks the views of the notable porch on the principal elevation

· the retention of fences contemporary with the houses is required, while new timber picket fences are discouraged in the Conservation Area.

In my opinion, the Council should require modifications of the proposal to include:

· setbacks equal to those of the existing house, in accordance with the Conservation Area guidelines

· existing property fence to be retained, in accordance with the Conservation Area guidelines

· the carport to be setback by about 1m behind the line of the entrance (door to room marked "Bedroom 3” in the DA), to allow full visibility of the notable porch from the publicly accessible areas of the Rawson Street.”

32. The applicant forwarded photo montages to Council on 18 September 2008 illustrating the streetscape view of the proposed development. Discussions were held with Council’s Heritage Advisor who then raised no objections to the encroachments on the side setbacks of the dwelling house additions. A letter was forwarded to the applicant on 24 September 2008 requesting modifications to the carport and the retention of the front fence.

33. Amended plans were received on 29 September 2008 complying with Council’s request for modifications to the proposed development.

34. The amended plans were referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who commented as follows:

“Having reviewed the updated DA drawings (including DA01, DA05, DA07, DA09, DA10 and DA15, all dated 25/08/2008, prepared by Contemporary Architecture P/L), I have no further objection to the proposal.

The house is listed in the Schedule A of the Epping/Eastwood Conservation Area. It is an example of quality Interwar residential architecture that presents as substantially intact when viewed from the street.

The current form of the proposal is a modification of the original, amended further to my suggestion. The carport is now located about 1m behind the facade line, to allow ongoing exposure of the porch to views from the publicly accessible areas. The existing fence is now proposed to be retained. It is noted that the proposed additions encroach on the side setbacks, however, the applicants have successfully demonstrated that the visibility of the addition would be relatively low when viewed from the street, and there is some precedent in the setbacks of the existing building line to allow for this modification.”

35. Accordingly, there are no objections to the proposed development on heritage grounds.

36. The application was referred to Council’s Drainage Engineer and Council’s Landscape Officer who raise no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of standard engineering and landscaping conditions.

37. There are no other undue impacts relative to streetscape, overshadowing or privacy associated with the proposed development.

Katherine Lafferty

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Table of Compliance	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	14 Pages
4View	History of DA	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 10 November 2008

Item 11.2

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.2

SUBJECT 623 Victoria Road, Ermington. (Lots 1-3, DP 128448 and Lot 1 DP 669296) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION To carry out a traffic control/management home business within the existing dwelling house and on the subject site. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/226/2008 - 8 April 2008

APPLICANT/S Mr J Sanson

OWNERS Mr J Sanson

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

executive summary

To determine Development Application No. 226/2008 which seeks approval to carry out a home business (traffic control/management business) within a portion of the existing dwelling house and on the site.

The application is being referred to Council for determination due to the number of submissions received. In this regard four (4) individual objections have been received in respect of this application.

The application is recommended for approval as it is consistent with the aims and objectives of the residential zone applying to the land, and is generally consistent with the aims and objectives contained within Council’s LEP 2001 and DCP 2005.

Furthermore the proposal will not impact on the streetscape or the amenity of the locality and adjoining properties.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 226/2008 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

1. The proposed home business shall operate for a maximum period of three (3) years from the date of determination. Continuation of the use will require Council's approval under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, by way of a new development application.

Reason: To ensure that the extended hours of operation are reviewed and assessed in light of their performance and to ensure that the use does not interfere with the amenity of the locality.

2. The proposed home business shall operate between the hours of 6am and 5pm Monday to Friday. No operations/activities associated with the use shall occur on Saturday, Sunday or Public Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

3. The parking area for the utility vehicles on the site shall be made into a hardstand area, as indicated in red on the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure appropriate use of the site

4. At no time shall vehicles associated with the use or dwelling on the site, be parked in Ermington Lane.

Reason: To ensure adequate access on Ermington Lane

5. The proposed home business shall not employ more than two (2) persons other than the residents of the dwelling at any time.

Reason: To ensure appropriate use of the site and comply with the definition of ‘home business’.

6. The use shall not interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of the emission of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil, or otherwise.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the definition of ‘home business’ under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001.

7. There shall be no more than four (4) utility vehicles associated with the use at any time, and these shall be parked in a stacked arrangement in the area and configuration indicated on the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure appropriate entry and exit from the site and to protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings.

8. The utility vehicles associated with the use shall enter and exit the site in the following manner:-

i) reverse into the site from Ermington Lane

ii) exit the site onto Ermington Lane in a forward direction.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring properties

9. There shall be no storage of hazardous or toxic materials on the site at any time.

Reason: To ensure the health and safety of the public and to enure appropriate use of the site.

10. The operation of the premises is not to give rise to emissions of air impurities in contravention of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Air emissions from the premises must not cause a nuisance from odours, nor be hazardous to human health or the environment.

Reason: To prevent loss of amenity to the area.

11. The use of the premises not giving rise to:-

i) transmission of unacceptable vibration to any place of different occupancy,

ii). a sound pressure level measured at any point on the boundary of any affected residential premises that exceeds the background noise level by more than 5 dB(A). The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq,15 min and adjusted in accordance with Environment Protection Authority (EPA) guidelines for tonality, frequency weighting, impulsive characteristics, fluctuations, and temporal content as described in the NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979: Environmental Noise Control Manual, Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Reason: To prevent loss of amenity to the area.

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

SITE AND LOCALITY

1. The subject site is known as 623 Victoria Road, Ermington and is located on the southern side of Victoria Road, on the corner of Trumper Street, Ermington. Ermington Lane adjoins the site to the south. The site is irregular in shape, and comprises of a single storey aluminium clad dwelling and detached garage.

2. The site is predominantly surrounded by residential development, although Ermington Uniting Church in Australia is located opposite the site on Trumper Street.

THE PROPOSAL

3. Approval is sought to carry out a home business within the existing dwelling house on the site. The business is related to ‘traffic control/management’ which involves the placement of workers and associated traffic control signs at various work sites when required.

4. The business will be operated by a resident of the dwelling, and will employ a maximum of two (2) additional employees being an administrative assistant and a grounds person who do not reside at the site. Drivers of the utility vehicles required at the various sites will be employed from a sub-contracting business off site.

5. The business involves the use of one room within the dwelling as an office for administration purposes, while part of the existing rear yard will be used for the parking of four utility vehicles. The vehicles are used during the day at various work sites where traffic control measures are required. The primary use of the building on the site is for residential purposes.

6. The traffic control signs associated with the business will be stored within the detached garage on the site and within the utility vehicles associated with the business.

7. The use involves occasional repairs to traffic control signs, involving general cleaning, minor repairs and minor spray painting. Such repairs are similar to household repairs and include household tools, and household spray cans. All repairs are to be carried out within the subject site itself.

8. The proposal also involves the construction of a 1.5m high colorbond fence around part of the rear yard of the site in order to designate a deep soil private open space recreation area for residents of the dwelling.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

9. The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The proposed development is defined as a ‘home business’ and is permitted with consent in the zone. In this regard a ‘home business’ is defined as follows:-

9.1 Home business means any business carried out, in a dwelling house or within the site area of a dwelling house, by the permanent residents of the dwelling house, but only if:

(a) the use does not employ more than 2 additional employees other than the permanent residents, and

(b) only goods made, or produced or services offered, as a result of the activity or pursuit are displayed, sold or provided, and

(c) the primary use of the dwelling is for residential purposes, and

(d) The use does not interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of the emission of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil, or otherwise, and

(e) The use does not interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood due to:

(i) the generation of excess vehicular traffic, or

(ii) attraction of excessive number of customers or clients, or

(iii) reduction of car parking in the vicinity of the site, and

(f) The use does not involve the display of goods, whether in a window or otherwise, and

(g) The use does not involve the exhibition of any notice, advertisement or sign (other than a notice, advertisement or sign exhibited on the dwelling house or dwelling to indicate the name and occupation of the resident), and

(h) The use does not involve prostitution.

10. The proposed use as a traffic control business employs two (2) staff members other than a permanent resident of the dwelling, being an administrative assistant and a grounds person. The four utility vehicles parked on the site are hired out from a sub-contactor being located off site, and therefore the sub-contractors are not direct employees of the business.

11. The primary use of the dwelling on the site is for residential purposes, with the proposed office being located within a room of the dwelling and operating between 8am and 5pm. The utility vehicles will leave the site between the hours of 6am and 7am, and returned to the site between the hours of 4pm and 5pm. There will be no work on weekends or public holidays, associated with the use.

12. The proposed use is not considered to interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of the emission of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil, or otherwise. This has been confirmed by the applicant, and appropriate conditions will be included on the consent to ensure compliance with this requirement.

13. Vehicular movements associated with the use involve sub-contractors coming to the site, parking their vehicles on either Victoria Road or Trumper Street and picking up the utility vehicles which will either enter or exit the site during the hours specified in this report. These traffic movements are not considered to be excessive and will have a negligible increase to existing traffic volumes.

14. The use does not attract clients or customers, does not involve the display of goods, whether in a window or otherwise, does not involve the exhibition of any notice, advertisement or sign, and does not involve prostitution.

15. Given the above the proposed development is considered to be a ‘home business, and is therefore being permissible in the zone Residential 2(b) zone. Further, the proposal is consistent with the aims objectives of the Residential 2(b) Zone.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

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

CONSULTATION

17. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP the application was advertised and notified to surrounding properties from the 28 May 2008 to the 2 June 2008. A total of four (4) individual submissions were received. The issues raised are discussed below.

The proposed use will obstruct use of Ermington Lane for other residents

18. The subject site has rear access from Ermington Lane which is shared by a number of neighbouring properties.

19. The objector is concerned that the proposed use will obstruct access for vehicles using the laneway due to the number of utility vehicles associated with the use.

20. The utility vehicles associated with the use will be parked within the subject site, in a stacked parking arrangement, allowing vehicles to exit the site in a forward direction. The vehicles will not be parked in Ermington Lane at any time, and a statement has been provided by the applicant confirming that this is the case. Furthermore, a condition has been recommended that prohibits any vehicles associated with the site to be parked in Ermington Lane.

There will be an increase in traffic volume, noise and lack of parking facilities.

21. Concern is raised that the proposed use will result in increased traffic volumes into the area as well as increased noise from everyday activities related to the business. It is also of concern that drivers of the utility vehicles will park their private vehicles on the street decreasing available on-street parking.

22. Vehicular movements associated with the use involve sub-contractors coming to the site, parking their vehicles on either Victoria Road or Trumper Street and picking up the utility vehicles which will either enter or exit the site during the hours specified in this report. These traffic movements are not considered to be excessive and will have a negligible increase to existing traffic volumes.

23. The vehicles will exit the site in a forward direction eliminating any reversing signal noise in the mornings. There will be no meetings taking place on the site. The noise from the traffic movements are not considered to be significant so as to impact on the amenity of residents, and would not be dissimilar to everyday vehicular noise associated with a residential area. There would be no other noise issues associated with the proposed use.

24. The private vehicles of the sub-contracted utility drivers will be parked either on Victoria Road or Trumper Street. It is considered that these two roads have sufficient capacity to accommodate a maximum of four (4) additional cars during the hours of 6am and 5pm Monday to Friday.

How many employees in this business and where will their private vehicles be parked during hours of operation?

25. The proposed use will employ two (2) people in addition to a resident of the dwelling, thereby complying with the definition of ‘home business’.

26. The private vehicles of the sub-contracted utility drivers will be parked either on Victoria Road or Trumper Street. It is considered that these two roads have sufficient capacity to accommodate a maximum of four (4) additional cars during the hours of 6am and 5pm Monday to Friday.

There will be inconvenience/disturbance on a daily basis due to moving and accessing up to 8 vehicles

27. Concern is raised that the entering/exiting of vehicles and associated traffic movements will result in a loss of amenity to the neighbourhood.

28. As has been discussed, the proposal involves the parking of four (4) utility vehicles on the site. Any or all of these vehicles will be driven out of the site at around 6am – 7am Monday – Friday morning and returned at around 4pm or 5pm in the afternoon. No vehicular movements will occur between these times, or on the weekends or pubic holidays.

29. The vehicles are parked on the site in a stacked arrangement with the front of the vehicles facing Ermington Lane. This will allow the vehicles to exit the site in a forward direction and reverse into the site at the time of returning the vehicle. These movements are not considered to be excessive, and are done so in such a way so as to minimise disturbance to neighbouring properties.

Proposed spray painting and cleaning of signage will have a significant environmental effect and impact on the health of residents

30. It is confirmed in writing by the applicant that there will be 1-3 signs repaired/maintained a month.

31. Such repairs include spray painting of a logo onto the back of the signs sprayed through a template onto the sign surface. The spray paint used is standard household spray paint cans that can be bought from a household hardware store.

32. The applicant has also stated that cleaning of the signs is done with a product named ‘Olympic Cleen’. It is a citrus based cleaner that is not flammable and is similar to standard household heavy duty cleaning solution.

33. Repairing of signs involves bending of signs by hands or body mass, with a crow bar used for bending the boxed edge section.

34. The materials/products used for cleaning/repairing/maintaining the signs do not comprise dangerous, flammable or explosive chemicals and will not impact on the amenity or safety of residents surrounding the site.

35. Furthermore a condition will be placed on any consent issued for the proposal that ensures that hazardous or toxic materials are not kept on the premises.

Over the last few weeks the subject site has been undergoing renovations resulting in trade vans being parked in Ermington Lane and blocking access

36. The owner of the subject site has confirmed that there has been some internal works being undertaken to the dwelling on site. These works do not require Council consent. It was also clarified that there were vans parked in the laneway, but these were not for long periods of time, and were parked for unloading purposes.

37. The applicant has been advised that Ermington Lane cannot be used for the parking of vehicles due to accessibility reasons, and it has been recommended that a condition be included on the consent issued for the proposed use, prohibiting the parking of vehicles in Ermington Lane.

What is the garage being used for? How often will repairs to signage take place, will it be safe for neighbours and will there be dangerous storage of flammable or explosive chemicals on the site?

38. The garage located on the subject site will be used for the storage of excess traffic control signs and associated equipment.

39. It is confirmed in writing, by the applicant, that there will be 1-3 signs repaired/maintained a month, and that there will be no storage of dangerous, flammable or explosive, materials on the site. The only products that will be stored on the site would be turpentine, mentholated spirits, motor oil for the vehicles and approximately six spray cans.

40. The types of products and materials used for repairs of the signage have been discussed earlier in this report.

Trucks unloading and unloading goods into the site will create a hazard to users of the site

41. Concern is raised that the use will involve trucks unloading/loading materials from Trumper Street, resulting in a hazard to users of the Church located opposite the site.

42. The proposed use does not involve the loading and unloading of goods to the site from Trumper Street. The only loading/unloading activities that take place involve loading/unloading signage from the garage on site to the utility vehicles when required. This activity occurs after the vehicles are returned in the afternoon (at around 5-6pm), so the utility vehicles are ready for jobs the following day.

43. The only vehicles associated with the use are average 5m long utility vehicles which will be parked within the rear yard of the subject site overnight, on weekends, and at times when they are not required on site.

Has Council policy been changed to allow businesses in the area?

44. The subject site is zoned Residential 2(b), which allows for ‘home businesses’ with Council consent, in accordance with the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. This zoning has been in effect since 2001.

45. There are no other undue impacts relative to loss of amenity to surrounding development associated with the proposal, and accordingly it is recommended that the application be approved subject to a conditional consent.

Maya Sarwary

Senior Development & Certification Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	Plans	2 Pages
3View	History of Development Application	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 10 November 2008

Item 11.3

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.3

SUBJECT 1/140 Church Street, Parramatta. (Lot 94 SP 78606) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION To fitout and use the existing premises as a Restaurant/Cafe. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE DA/555/2008 - Submitted 6 August 2008

APPLICANT/S Mr J Zervos

OWNERS Everest Property Holdings Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

Executive Summary:

To determine Development Application No. 555/2008 which seeks approval to the fit out and use of shop No.1 within 140 Church Street as a Restaurant/Café.

The application is considered suitable for approval as it is a permissible land use within the B4 Mixed Use Zone, is consistent with the aims and objectives of Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 and Development Control Plan 2007, is compatible with other land uses including restaurants and commercial development, and will not adversely impact upon the amenity of the area.

The application has been referred to Council for determination as the site is a heritage item of local significance under Schedule 5 of the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 555/2008 for the internal fitout and use of shop No.1/140 Church Street, Parramatta as a Restaurant/Café subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions.

1. The supply and/or sale of alcohol is prohibited on the premises prior to a license to sell alcohol being obtained from the Liquor Administration Board (LAB)/Casino, Liquor, Gaming Control Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

2. Sanitary Facilities are to be provided in accordance with Clause F 2.3 of the Building Code of Australia 2008. Details shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the PCA prior to release of the construction certificate.

Reason: To ensure the adequate sanitary facilities are provided.

3. The hours of operation are restricted to 7am to 10pm Monday-Thursday, and 7:00am to 11:00pm Friday - Sunday. Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

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

4. Outdoor dining shall be wholly within the boundaries of the subject site as per the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the consent.

5. To preserve the streetscape, roller shutters are not to be placed over the entrance or the windows of the premises.

Reason: To preserve the streetscape.

6. Any use of the premises as a Place of Public Entertainment is subject to further approval of Council.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

7. Umbrellas shall not be installed in the outdoor dining area unless further approval is obtained by Council.

Reason: To protect the heritage significance of the site.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site is located on the corner of Church and Fitzwilliam Street, Parramatta. The premise is part of a 23 level mixed use building comprising of residential uses on levels 1-22 and commercial/retail uses on the ground floor, with basement parking. The building also comprises of a two storey former fire station building. The site measures 1120m² in total floor area, with a 29.75m Church Street frontage and 21.65m Fitzwilliam Street frontage. The site is surrounded by commercial and retail development. Development immediately surrounding the subject premises (shop 1), includes a convenience store, a grocery store; and the Westfield shopping complex located directly opposite the site.

PROPOSAL

2. Details of the proposal include:-

2.1 To use the existing premises being a former fire station building as a Restaurant/Café.

2.2 Reinstatement of the first floor and internal fitout for the purpose of a restaurant over two floors.

2.3 Installation of mechanical exhaust air system.

2.4 Outdoor dining comprising of six (6) tables and sixteen (16) chairs located wholly within the boundaries of the subject site.

2.5 Deliveries to the restaurant will take place Monday to Thursday, 8am to 10am within various loading zone located within close proximity to the premises.

2.6 The business proposes to operate with a maximum ten (10) employees and cater for a maximum of 80 customers, seven (7) days a week (6:00am – 12:00am).

2.7 A front balcony will be constructed (where it used to exist when the building was used as a fire station) presenting to Church Street, and a single tubular handrail will be added to match the colour of the existing windows. There will be no additional change to the existing fabric of the external part of the building.

2.8 No signage is proposed as part of the application.

2.9 The shop is currently vacant.

BACKGROUND

3. Development Application No. 691/2001 was granted consent on 27 March 2002 for the construction of a 23 level mixed use building with basement parking.

4. Section 96 Application No. 691/2001/A was granted consent on 24 June 2003 for internal and external modifications to an approved 23 level mixed use building with basement parking.

5. Section 96 Application No. 691/2001/B was granted consent on 20 September 2004 to replace the cantilevering tower structure with a column structure that locates columns behind the pitch of the roof and through the roof of the fire station; to relocate the driveway entrance/exit to Fitzwilliam Laneway and for the provision of a dedicated residential lobby to Fitzwilliam Street; to reduce the basement car park depth/levels, redesign the layout, and for the provision of car lift access rather than ramps; to convert the residential apartment layout from masonite to a single floor plate increasing the number of apartments from 88 to 93; and modifications to the facade treatment of the tower.

6. Development Application No. 51/2007 was granted consent on 14 May 2007 for the installation of external signage along the western (Church Street) and north-east (Fitzwilliam Street) elevation.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

7. The site is located upon land within Zone B4 Mixed Use under the provisions of the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. The use of the premises as a ‘restaurant’ is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposed development is considered to satisfy the relevant zone objectives. The site is listed as a heritage item of local significance known as a former fire station under Schedule 5 of the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007.

Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan 2007

8. Applicable controls & objectives of the Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the plan and satisfy the relevant Heritage provisions.

CONSULTATION

9. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the application was advertised to owners and occupiers of surrounding properties for a period of 21 days from 20 August to 10 September 2008. A site notice was also placed on the site advising of the development in accordance with Council’s notification DCP. No submissions were received.

ISSUES

Health

10. The development application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer who has no objection to the proposal subject to standard conditions of consent.

Parking

11. The proposed works will not increase the existing floor area of the premises, therefore additional car parking provisions are not required under the LEP. Furthermore, the site is located within the Parramatta City Centre which provides for generous car parking and public transport facilities within close proximity.

Noise

12. The proposed restaurant is not considered to adversely impact on the amenity of the area given the nature of the development being consistent with existing commercial development surrounding the subject site. Furthermore, the reduced hours of operation (7am to 10pm Monday-Thursday, and 7am to 11pm, Friday-Sunday) are considered to minimise undue noise impacts to surrounding residential development located on the above storeys. In this regard, given the nature of the proposed development being for a Café/Restaurant to include outdoor dining, it is likely that customers may prolong their stay on the premises. For these reasons, extended hours of operation have been restricted to minimise adverse impacts on the amenity of residential development within the locality.

Heritage

13. The development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment as the building is listed as a Heritage Item known as a shop (Former Fire Station) of local significance under Schedule 5 of the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007.

13.1 Council’s Heritage Advisor considers that the proposed works will not impact upon elements of Heritage significance on the subject site, and therefore has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions of consent. Council’s Heritage Advisor’s comments are as follows:-

‘It is noted that the submitted plans specify no changes to the shopfront, and no signage. It is also recommended that umbrellas shall not be installed in the outdoor dining area, as they would obscure the interpretive panels installed by Council on the wall of the adjoining the building.

Subject to these conditions, the proposed changes would have an acceptable impact on the surviving historic fabric and I would have no objection to the proposal from the heritage perspective.’

Lina Dababneh

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Plans	1 Page
2View	Location Map	1 Page
3View	History of DA	1 Page
4View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	4 Pages

RFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 10 November 2008

Item 11.4

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.4

SUBJECT 33 Alfred Street & 75 Parramatta Road, Granville (F.S Garside Park) (Lots 24, 26, 28 & Pt Cl lane Sec 3 in DP 1250) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Staged Application for demolition of existing kiosk, toilets and change shed and erection of new amenities building.

REFERENCE DA/413/2008 - Submitted 6 June 2008

APPLICANT/S Parramatta City Council

OWNERS Parramatta City Council

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

To determine Development Application No. 413/2008 which seeks approval to the demolition of existing kiosk, toilets and change shed and erection of new amenities building at FS Garside Park.

The application has been assessed by an independent planning consultant and is referred to Council for determination as Council is the applicant and owner of the site.

The application is recommended for approval as it is consistent with the aims and objectives of the zoning of the land, and is generally consistent with Council’s LEP 2001 and DCP 2005.

The proposed development supports the use of the site for open space, is complementary and will have a positive impact upon the open space.

No objections have been received in respect of this application.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant a staged development consent to Development Application No. 413/2008 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

1 The existing change sheds, toilets and the awning over the seating area between these structures are to be demolished within 2 months of the completion of the Stage 1 works. The kiosk building is to be demolished within 2 months of the completion of the Stage 2 works. The area of the demolition for each stage is to be cleared of debris, appropriately graded and is to be grassed. The existing spectator seating area may be retained.

Reason: To ensure the removal of the substandard and visually unattractive structures.

2 Structural certification from a suitably qualified structural engineer should be submitted with the application for a Construction Certificate indicating that the proposed building and structures have been designed to withstand inundation, debris and buoyancy forces of floodwater through the site for all storms up to and including the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) assuming total pipe blockage.

Reason: To ensure the appropriate flow of water

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is known as F.S Garfield Park and is located at No. 33 Alfred Street and No. 75 Parramatta Road, Granville (Lots 24, 26, 28 & Pt Cl lane Sec 3, in DP 1250). The site contains sporting fields, landscaped areas comprising generally of grassed areas with scattered trees. A run down weatherboard changing shed, with brick toilets either side, adjoining spectator seating (covered by an awning) and a kiosk building is located along the Alfred Street frontage of the site.

2. The site is located in a mixed use area containing recreation uses, a hotel, commercial and industrial uses, with some residential properties in the vicinity.

PROPOSAL

3. DA/413/2008 seeks approval for a staged development to demolish the existing change rooms, toilets and kiosk and to construct a new amenities block at the southern end of F.S Garside Park, providing change rooms, toilets, a kiosk and store rooms.

4. The building is to be located immediately inside the existing southern chain wire fence that encircles the oval, on the elevated mound area which is currently planted with a row of trees. Three trees are to be removed to allow the proposed building works.

5. The proposed amenities building is to be roughly rectangular in shape, having dimensions of 7.1m x 34m. The proposed western end of the building is to contain the kiosk, kiosk store and the equipment store and is separated from the remainder of the building by a proposed breezeway. The remainder of the building is to contain male, female and accessible toilets, a home and visitor change room, with showers, and a toilet and a referee’s change room with a toilet and shower. The proposal also incorporates a 2m wide veranda to the north of the building, an accessible ramp from the lower level of the grounds on the western side of the veranda, stairs to the western and eastern sides and a set of stairs from the grounds to the change rooms, together with ancillary fencing. The building is to be constructed of face brickwork with a colorbond roof.

6. The existing weatherboard change rooms, brick toilets and separate brick kiosk are to be demolished. The concrete seating area between the kiosk and change rooms is to be retained, however the awning over it is to be demolished.

7. The development is to be constructed in two stages due to budgetary constraints, as follows:

Stage 1: Demolition of the existing weatherboard change rooms, toilet blocks and awning over the seating area.

Construction of new change rooms, toilets, part of breezeway and veranda and the accessible ramp.

Stage 2: Demolition of existing kiosk and store room

Construction of new kiosk, storeroom and equipment room, completion of breezeway and veranda in front of kiosk,

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

8. The site is part zoned 6(a) Public Open Space and part unzoned (road) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The proposed works are wholly contained within the portion of the site that is zoned 6(a). Under the 6(a) zone recreation facilities (which the amenities building is defined as) are permissible with consent.

9. Clause 46 requires a consent authority to consider the following before granting consent to any development in an open space zone:

(a) the need for the proposed development on that land,

(b) whether the impact of the proposed development will be detrimental to the existing or future use of the land,

(c) whether the proposed development will be secondary and complementary to the use of the land for recreation,

(d) whether the height and bulk of any proposed building or structure has regard to existing vegetation and topography,

(e) in the case of public open space, whether the proposed development will significantly diminish public use and access to public open space,

(f) whether the proposal is compatible with adjacent uses in relation to its height, bulk and noise generation and any other aspects that might conflict with surrounding land uses,

(g) whether the proposed development will impact on bushland and remnant bushland,

(h) whether the proposed development will impact on stormwater flow.

10. The amenities building supports the use of the site for open space and as such is necessary, is complementary and will have a positive impact upon the open space. The amended design ensures the retention of all but 3 trees and the landscape officer has indicated that he supports the removal of the 3 trees. The improved amenities proposed will improve the usability of the oval and as such is likely to improve its public use. The provision of an accessible toilet and path of travel will improve access to the park.

11. The proposed amenities building and its use are unlikely to generate any significant level of noise or any other amenity impacts that would impact upon the area. Further, the height, scale and setbacks of the amenities building, together with the retained screen landscaping between the building and both Parramatta Road and Alfred Street will ensure the building has less visual impact than the existing amenities structures, which are to be demolished. The area in which the amenities building is to be built contains no bushland or remnant bushland. The development has been assessed by the stormwater engineer and is considered acceptable and has no detrimental impact on stormwater flow, subject to conditions.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

12. The site is located opposite a local item of heritage listed under LEP 1996, being No. 91 Parramatta Road, Granville (Rosehill Hotel) and as such LEP 1996 is applicable to the assessment of the application.

13. Clause 14 requires Council to assess the impact of a development on the following before granting consent to a development that may adversely effect a heritage item:

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

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

14. The amenities building is a low, single storey building that is setback behind landscaping as viewed from both Parramatta Road and Alfred Street and is separated from the item of heritage by Alfred Street. As such the proposed building will not have an unacceptable impact upon the heritage significance of the item, its curtilage or its setting. The amenities building will not have an impact upon any significant views to or from the heritage item, given its separation by Alfred Street and its low, single storey construction.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

15. The building envelope controls within Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 (PDCP 2005) do not apply to land that is zoned 6(a). General Principles for Development are applicable to all development, except where it is clear that the principle is not relevant to the development proposed. The relevant principles relate to Public Domain, Water Management (note stormwater component assessed by Stormwater Engineer – refer to previous comments), Soil Management, Building Form and Massing and Access for People with Disabilities. The landscaping component has been assessed by the Landscape Officer (see previous comments).

16. The relevant public domain controls contained in clause 4.1.2 of PDCP 2005 require access to the public domain to be maximized and for views to and from the public domain to be protected. The provision of an accessible toilet and an accessible path of travel to the amenities building improve the level of accessibility to the public domain. Views to and from the park to Parramatta Road are altered by the location of the amenities building, however the view of the park from Parramatta Road will not be altered significantly as the existing vegetation between the building and the road will screen the building to a large degree. The view from the oval to part of Parramatta Road will be lost, however the view is currently affected by the topography of the site and the loss of this outlook is not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of the park.

17. The relevant public water management controls contained in clause 4.1.4 of PDCP 2005 require development to incorporate relevant water conservation measures. A condition of consent is recommended requiring the use of dual flush toilets and flow restricting devices on taps and showers.

18. The relevant soil management controls contained in clause 4.1.5 of PDCP 2005 require that soil loss from development be minimized and that site disturbance be minimised. A soil and sedimentation management plan has been lodged with the application to ensure effective management of soil during the construction of the proposed development. The proposed building will result in minimal disturbance to the site and the three trees to be lost are assessed as acceptable by the landscape officer.

19. The relevant building form and massing controls contained in clause 4.2.3 of PDCP 2005 require buildings to be of a height that responds to the topography of the site and for the building height and mass not to result in unreasonable loss of amenity. The low scale of the proposed building is appropriate in its open space setting. The proposed building’s height and mass results in no detrimental impacts upon amenity or upon the public domain.

20. The relevant access for people with disabilities controls contained in clause 4.4.1 of PDCP 2005 require an appropriate level of accessibility to be provided to all buildings used by the public. The proposed amenities block significantly improves the accessibility of the park by providing an accessible path of travel to the amenities block, providing an accessible toilet and providing tactile floor surfaces at points of danger, such as at the top and bottom of stairs

CONSULTATION

21. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the application was notified to owners and occupiers of surrounding properties for a period of 14 days from 25 June until 16 July 2008. No submissions were received in response to the notification. Subsequent to the notification of the application, an amendment was lodged seeking approval also for the demolition of the existing toilets, change rooms and kiosk and staging of the application.

22. Given these facilities are to be replaced and that their demolition cannot result in any detrimental impacts upon nearby properties (subject to appropriate demolition conditions as are recommended), the application was not required to be renotified.

External Consultation

23. Police - The application was referred to the Police for comments. No comments from the Police have been received at the time of writing of this report.

Internal Consultation

24. Landscaping - Initial comments provided indicated that the building footprint and roof area would conflict with the Box Brush tree adjacent to Alfred Street, which was identified to be retained, and it was requested that it be relocated 2-3m to the east to allow the tree to develop unhindered by the proposed building. Subject to that change no objection was raised to the proposal subject to a series of conditions that have been included in the recommendation. Amended plans have been received that relocate the building as requested and these plans have been assessed throughout this report.

25. Engineering - The subject site is flood prone and as such the application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment.

25.1 Council’s Engineer has no objections subject to conditions relating to the submission of floodwater certification, un-obstruction of area below the building and certification of compliance with the approved floor level.

ISSUES

Demolition

26. The application also seeks to demolish the existing amenities buildings, kiosk and toilet, though the existing spectator seating is to be retained, whilst the awning over it is to be demolished. Potential impacts of the demolition relate to possible health risks due to hazardous material and these concerns are addressed by a recommended condition of consent requiring a hazardous materials survey prior to demolition and identification of the method of demolishing and disposing of any hazardous material.

27 Further, the application does not clearly identify the treatment of the area where the structures are to be demolished. It is appropriate that this area be landscaped with grass, consistent with the landscape approach on other parts of the Alfred Street frontage of the park. Therefore a condition of consent is recommended requiring that the area of demolition for each stage of demolition be cleared of debris, appropriately graded and grassed.

Staging

28 The proposed staging is logical and will not result in any detrimental impacts to the users of the park or the public, with the delaying of the construction of the kiosk being appropriate due to the retention of the existing kiosk until stage 2.

29. There are no other undue impacts relative to streetscape, noise, or overall amenity of the park or surrounding land uses associated with the proposed development.

Kerry Gordon Planning Services Pty Ltd

Independent Planning Consultant

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	Plans and Elevations	1 Page
3View	History of Application	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 10 November 2008

Item 11.5

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.5

SUBJECT 37 Midson Road, Eastwood. (Lot 1 DP 270441) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward).

DESCRIPTION Internal structural strengthening of the two existing chimneys (identified as the Northern Chimney and Southern Chimney) located within the Eastwood Brickworks Site. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/576/2008 - Submitted 12 August 2008

APPLICANT/S AV Jennings

OWNERS Community Association DP 270441

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

To determine Development Application No. 576/2008 which seeks consent to undertake internal structural strengthening to two existing chimneys known as the Northern Chimney and the Southern Chimney located at the Eastwood Brickworks Site to upgrade their structural integrity and to ensure that they are structurally safe.

The proposed works involve:

- Installation of internal metal bracing anchored at 1 metre intervals

- Installation of a metal cap at the top of the chimneys

- Removing steel work from the external faces of the brickwork

No external works are proposed and no changes to the appearance of the structures are proposed (exception being for the removal of the steel works attached to the external façade of the chimney)

Furthermore the proposed works will ensure the retention of a heritage listed item and ensure structural stability of the chimneys which are a key element of the historic significance of the site.

The application has been referred to Council as the site is a Heritage Item under Schedule 1 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). No objections have been received in respect of this application.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 576/2008 subject to standard conditions.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site is known as The Eastwood Brickworks site and has an approximate area of 14.73 hectares. The site is located on the western side of Midson Road, and adjoins Skenes Avenue to the south and Mobbs Lane to the north.

2. The Northern Chimney has a height of 44.45 metres and the Southern Chimney has a height of 28.24 metres. Both Chimneys are located within the Heritage Precinct which is centrally located within the former brickworks site.

3. The overall site is identified as a heritage item known as ‘Eastwood Brickyards’ in Schedule 1 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

BACKGROUND

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

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

6. Council on 5 July 2004 approved DA/1723/2003 for civil and subdivision works comprising of the construction of the final landform, construction of the internal road network, provision of utility services (gas, sewer, water, stormwater drainage, electricity and communications), landscaping works, Community title subdivision into 46 lots (comprising a Community title lot, 36 residential lots that form Stage 1 of the proposed redevelopment of the site and 8 development lots [Stages 2-8] that represent the remainder of the site for future development) and subdivision of land adjacent to Terry’s Creek for dedication to Council as a Public Reserve.

7. DA/582/2005 was approved on 14 November 2005 for the refurbishment of the Patent Kiln building for residential use to accommodate 10 dwellings, demolition of the mill building and construction of part 5 and part 6 storey building, accommodating 41 dwellings over basement carparking for 83 vehicles and landscaping. The proposal is part of the Eastwood Brickworks site which is an item of heritage significance.

8. DA/18/2006 was approved on 10 April 2006 for the demolition of the heritage listed northern and southern chimney fan and motor room and downdraft kiln 1 and 5, as well as demolition of the workshop, staff facilities, sheds and staff room which form part of the Heritage Precinct for the former Brickworks site.

PROPOSAL

9. Development Application No. 576/2008 seeks approval for the following:

9.1 Internal structural strengthening works to the two existing chimneys known as the Northern Chimney and the Southern Chimney.

9.2 The proposed works will incorporate the following:

- Installation of internal metal bracing anchored at 1 metre intervals

- Installation of a metal cap over the top of the chimneys

- Removing steel work from the external faces of the brickwork

STATUTORY CONTROLS

PARRAMATTA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2001

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

11. The site is also identified as requiring the preparation of a master plan under Clause 30 of PLEP 2001. The Eastwood Brickworks Master Plan was endorsed by Council on 6 June 2003. The objectives of the Master Plan are to ensure that the urban structure, layout and form of the development respond positively to the urban context.

12. The proposed works to strengthen the two existing chimneys are permissible development and satisfies the objectives specified within the Eastwood Brickworks Master Plan.

PARRAMATTA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1996 (Heritage & Conservation)

13. The site has been identified as a heritage item under Schedule 1 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage & Conservation). The proposed works to strengthen the two existing chimneys will ensure the longevity and preservation of the chimneys which is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation).

PARRAMATTA HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2001

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

CONSULTATION

15. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the application was advertised for a 21 day period between 27 August 2008 and 17 September 2008. No submissions were received.

16. The proposal was also notified to the Parramatta Heritage Committee with no comments received.

ISSUES

Structural Works

17. The proposed structural works involve the installation of internal metal bracing to the chimneys anchored at 1 metre intervals. This is not regarded as maintenance given the fact that the works introduce new elements to the structure. The works are considered to be necessary to ensure the structural integrity of the chimneys.

Heritage

18. The application has been referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for review. Council’s Heritage Advisor raises no objection to the proposal and provides the following comments:

This DA is for repairs to the chimney only.

The scope of works have been prepared by a renowned structural engineer, a known Sydney heritage specialist having the appropriate expertise for the works proposed.

The works are deemed necessary to allow for the ongoing retention of the chimneys, and the proposal is thus fully supported.

19. Accordingly there are no objections to the proposed development on heritage grounds, and the proposed works will ensure the preservation and retention of two significant heritage items located on the subject site and accordingly the application is recommended for approval.

James McBride

Development and Certification Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	Architectural Plans	2 Pages
3View	History of DA	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 10 November 2008

Item 11.6

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.6

SUBJECT 50 O'Connell Street, Parramatta (also known as 8A Grose Street, Parramatta). (Lot 1 DP1103632) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Use of the existing building for the purpose of a graphic arts and web page designers office. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/643/2008 - Submitted 8 September 2008

APPLICANT/S Order Architects Pty Ltd

OWNERS Parramatta Leagues Club Limited

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

Executive summary :

To determine Development Application No. 643/2008 which seeks approval for the use of the existing building for the purpose of a graphic arts and web page designer’s office.

The application has been referred to Council for determination as the site is affected by Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation), as the property is within the North Parramatta Conservation Area and listed in Schedule 2 Heritage items of local significance (Inventory Number 248).

One objection has been received in respect of this application.

Furthermore the proposal will not impact on the streetscape or the amenity of the locality and adjoining properties.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 643/2008 subject to standard conditions.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject building is located at the rear of 8 Grose Street. Both 8 and 8A Grose Street have been restored as part of a larger development that comprises land generally known as 50-52 O’Connell Street, 6-12 Grose Street and 3C Trott Street, Parramatta. The amalgamated site has a total area of 3,617 square metres and comprises of a two storey commercial building, 4 cottages and a bakery building which are listed heritage items.

2. The subject outbuilding was previously used as a bakery and remnants of the buildings’ ovens are on display as a consequence of the restoration works carried out to the subject building.

3. The site is bounded by O’Connell Street to the west, Grose Street to the south and Trott Street to the east. Surrounding development comprises a mixture of low density dwellings, commercial uses and the Parramatta Leagues Club to the west.

PROPOSAL

4. Approval is sought for the following:-

4.1 Use of the existing out building (Bakers Mews) at the site known as 8A Grose Street Parramatta for the purposes of a graphic art and web design office.

4.2 The ground floor of the building will be utilised for office area, meeting and seating area, kitchenette and WC.

4.3 The site contains 2 tandem car spaces to the eastern side of the site.

4.4 Signage is not associated with the proposal.

4.5 Proposed hours of operation are as follows:-

Monday 8:30am to 6:00pm

Tuesday 8:30am to 6:00pm

Wednesday 8:30am to 6:00pm

Thursday 8:30am to 6:00pm

Friday 8:30am to 6:00pm

Saturday 9:00am to 1:00pm

5. There are no internal or external building works proposed to the subject outbuilding to accommodate the proposal.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Sydney Regional Environmental Planning Policy No. 28 – Parramatta

6. The land is located within the Parramatta Primary Centre. In so far as the Primary Centre controls affect the site, on-site car parking is set at maximum numbers not minimum. In this respect, the maximum number of cars allowable for this site is 2 spaces, the proposal provides on-site car parking for one (1) car space or 2 in a tandem form for small vehicles and as such the proposal fully complies with this control.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

7. The site is zoned Residential 2A under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The proposed use of the building as a graphic art and web design office is permissible under Clause 27 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 as outlined below:

27 Development of land for certain additional purposes

(1) Nothing in this plan prevents a person, with development consent, from carrying out development on land described in Schedule 3 that is specified in that Schedule in relation to that land, subject to such conditions (if any) as are so specified.

(2) Subclause (1) does not affect the application, to or in respect of development to which that subclause applies, of such of the provisions of this plan as are not inconsistent with that subclause or with a consent granted in respect of the development.

Schedule 3 Development of land for certain additional purposes (Clause 27)

Address

Property description

Development allowed

Area bounded by Ross Street, Villiers Street, Albert Street and O’Connell Street, North Parramatta

So much of the land as is within Zone 2 (a)

Development for the purpose of restaurants and professional suites

8. The site is within the area bounded by Ross Street, Villiers Street, Albert Street and O’Connell Street and is zoned Residential 2A.

9. The PLEP 2001 does not define ‘professional suites’ nor does the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 or the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulations 2000. However a definition which can be found in SREP28 is as follows:

Professional office suite means a building or a place used for the purpose of accommodating professional offices, occupied by no more than six people, but does not include a building or place elsewhere specifically defined, or a building or place used for a land use elsewhere specifically defined, in this Schedule.

10. In this regard it is considered that the proposed use as a graphic art and web design office is consistent with the above definition which would be a common interpretation of the meaning of professional suites.

11. The use as a graphic art and web design office is permissible within the residential 2A zoned area that is bounded by Ross Street, Villiers Street, Albert Street and O’Connell Street. The use is defined as a professional suite and is consistent with the objectives of the zone.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

12. The site is listed as a heritage item known as 8 Grose Street under Schedule 2 of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) (Inventory Number 248). The subject outbuilding was previously used as a bakery and remnants of the buildings’ ovens are on display as a consequence of the restoration works carried out to the subject building.

13. The Parramatta Heritage LEP 1996 does not incorporate any minimum development standards for the proposed use and accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the plan.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

14. The provisions of the PDCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposed use is consistent with the aims and objectives of the Plan.

Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 2001

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

CONSULTATION

16. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised for a twenty one day period between the 24 September 2008 and 15 October 2008. In response, one submission was received. The issue raised in the submission is discussed below.

The proposal should be readvertised as the property address is incorrect

17. The submission raises concern that the property address was incorrectly advertised given that the subject building has a frontage to Grose Street. The application was advertised as 50 O’ Connell Street Parramatta.

18. Whilst the subject building related to the proposed use is also known as 8A Grose Street, the site is primarily known as 50 O’Connell Street due to a recent property consolidation which involved the amalgamation of several adjoining properties to form 50 O’Connell Street Parramatta. Therefore the application was advertised correctly and in accordance with Councils Notification DCP, and the application does not warrant readvertising.

ISSUES

Heritage

19. The application has been referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor as buildings located on the site at 6, 8, 10 and 12 Grose Street are listed as heritage items under schedule 2 of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation) (Inventory Number 248). The following comments were provided by Council’s Heritage Advisor:

20. The submitted Statement of Environmental effects states that: "there are no internal or external works required to be carried out to the building for the proposed use: (SEE p.4).

In my opinion, the proposal would therefore have no adverse impact on the heritage values of the place.

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

22. There are no other undue impacts relative to loss of amenity to surrounding development associated with the proposal, and accordingly it is recommended that the application be approved subject to a conditional consent.

Nicholas Clarke

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Plans	2 Pages
3View	Application History	1 Page
4View	Heritage Inventory Form	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 10 November 2008

Item 12.1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.1

SUBJECT 1 Wyuna Place, Oatlands. (Lot 13 DP 31813) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Further Report - Demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of an attached two storey dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision

REFERENCE DA/634/2007 - Submitted: 14 August 2007

APPLICANT/S Mr J Rou

OWNERS Ms R Jia

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

Executive summary:

To provide Councillors with a summary of the issues discussed at the on-site meeting held on 21 June 2008 as per the Council resolution of the 10 June 2008 and determine Development Application 634/2007 that seeks consent for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of an attached two storey dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision.

The application for a dual occupancy on the subject site is considered to be suitable for approval as it is consistent with the aims and objectives of the zoning applying to the land, and is generally consistent with Council’s PLEP 2007 and PDCP 2007.

This is a long-standing application that has undergone amendments to address Council's planning controls and is now ready for determination.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 634/2007 subject to standard conditions.

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

BACKGROUND

1. At the regulatory meeting on 10 June 2008, Council considered a report which recommended approval to the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of an attached two storey dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision at 1 Wyuna Place, Oatlands. The following resolution was made by Council:

“(a) That consideration of this matter be deferred for 1 month and in the meantime, an on site meeting be held on Saturday 21 June 2008 at 9:00am between the applicant, concerned residents, interested Councillors and relevant staff to discuss issues of concern including those concerns as raised in the recently tabled petition.

(b) Further, that all petition signatories be notified of the on-site meeting”.

2. In accordance with resolution (a), an on site meeting was scheduled for Saturday 21 June 2008 and 9:00am.

3. All petition signatories were notified of the on site meeting in accordance with resolution (b).

4. It is noted that despite the Council resolution of 10 June 2008, a previous on site meeting was held on 23 February 2008 for the subject application. Amended plans were also renotified on two occasions between 15 January 2008 to 29 January 2008 and 28 August 2008 and 11 September 2008.

ONSITE MEETING

5. In accordance with resolution (a), a second on-site meeting was held on Saturday 21 June 2008. Present at the meeting Councillor Chedid (Chairperson), Councillor Barber, Councillor Wearne, Ali Hammoud (Development Assessment Officer), Danielle Woods (Team Leader Development and Certification Team), the property owner, applicant, the architect and approximately 30 residents.

6. The following issues (which were also raised at the February on-site meeting) were discussed at the June meeting:

· Residential Subdivision

· Parking, Traffic and Safety

· Overdevelopment

· Privacy and Amenity

· Height, Bulk and Scale and Cutting of the Site

· Shadows

· Development Intention

· Deep/Soft Soil Zones

· Asbestos Removal during Demolition

7. New issues were also raised and discussed at the June meeting and included the following:

Precedence and Cumulative Impact

8. Concern was raised that approval of the development would establish a precedence for similar development in the area and that there would be cumulative impacts on the area.

9. The proposed development has a maximum height of 2 storeys and is 9 metres. The height is consistent with the design standards of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005. The proposal compliments the existing character of Wyuna Place by limiting the bulk and scale of the building through the articulation and design of the dual occupancy. The proposed development will result in the first dual occupancy development within the immediate locality, however, the development complies with all of Council’s development standards as contained within the LEP and DCP including the maximum floor space ratio development standard and is a form of development envisaged and planned for the Residential 2(A) Zone.

Planners Assessment Report

10. Concerns were raised that the assessment report presented to the Council meeting on 10 June 2008 did not adequately address Sections 4.2.3 – Building Form and Massing, 4.5.1 – Parking and Vehicular Access and 4.6 – Residential Subdivision of Parramatta DCP 2005.

11. These following extracts taken from the Section 79C assessment report prepared for the DA demonstrate that these issues have been addressed and considered in the assessment of the DA. See attachment 2 for extracts.

Wrong Location and Site Not Suitable for Development

12. Concern was raised that the proposed development is in the wrong location and that the area is not suitable for dual occupancy developments

13. The subject site is zoned Residential 2(A) which allow dual occupancy developments with Council consent. Providing the proposed development complies with specific dual occupancy development controls contained within the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan and the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 dual occupancy developments are an expected and permissible type of development in the Residential 2(A) Zone.

Conditions of Consent

14. Concern was raised as to who residents would report breaches to conditions of consent.

15. Should any conditions not be complied with, concerned residents are to contact the Certifying Authority in the first instance. If not satisfied, concerned residents should contact Council’s Development Control Team.

Status of Service Request

16. Concern was raised that no action has been taken on a Service Request lodged with Council regarding the excessive staff numbers at the accountant’s office located at 1-3 Bells Road and the parking of associated vehicles in Wyuna Place.

17. Perusal of Council records indicate that a CRM (CRM # 410192) was lodged on 6 May 2008 in regards to the above issue. An inspection was undertaken on 26 August 2008 of the accountant’s office where it was noted that on-street parking was not an issue as 3 cars were parked on the street which were all legally parked. It is noted that there are no signage parking restrictions within the vicinity.

18. In regards to excessive staff numbers, a perusal of Council records did not return any recent Council approvals for the accountant’s office which would have stipulated staff numbers as a condition of consent. However, the accountant’s office is an established premise that has been part of the local community for more than 20 years. During the inspection, the Council Officer was told that up to 17 employees can be on the premises at any time. The CRM was closed on 26 August 2008. In the absence of a consent relating to the number of employees, no further action was taken.

Size of Balconies

19. Concern was raised over the proposed size of the first floor balconies that face the street.

20. The front balcony to dwelling 1 has an area of 6.5m² and the front balcony to unit 2 has an area of 2.5m². Given the size of the proposed development, the size of the balconies is considered appropriate. Council’s DCP encourages partial overlooking from adjoining properties to the front yards and to the street of neighbouring properties in order to increase security and natural surveillance. This method is also encouraged by the NSW Police’s Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Safer by Design principles.

Height and Bulk

21. Concern was raised that the proposed development will be 3 times higher than the existing dwelling on the site. In addition, concerns were raised that the development is located on the high side of the street which exacerbates the overall height and bulk of the building and presents as a residential flat building.

22. In response to these issues, Council requested the applicant to consider further reductions to the height of the proposed development which could be achieved by additional excavation of the site, the reduction of the floor to ceiling height of the development to 2.4 metres. Council also requested that consideration be given to the stepping of the first floor of the development to reduce the width of the first floor and that consideration be made to articulating the long unbroken walls through the use of recessed walls or highlight features such as banding or highlight windows.

23. Amended plans were submitted to Council on 6 August 2008 illustrating further excavations to the rear of the eastern, western and northern elevations by 460mm and to the front southern and western elevations by 200mm and 460mm respectively. The amended plans also show a reduced floor to ceiling height of the first floor from 2.48 metres to 2.4 metres. The applicant has also stepped the first floor by 700mm to provide further articulation. These amendments further reduce the bulk and scale of the proposal. It is noted the amended plans were notified between 28 August and 11 September 2008.

24. It is noted that Council renotified the amended plans upon receipt and that the renotification generated five individual submissions. The issues raised within the submissions were similar concerns regarding, bulk and height, car parking and traffic and amenity of the streetscape all of which have already been addressed in this report.

Amenity

25. Concern was raised that the development will impact the amenity of the area including the existing quiet character of the area.

26. The proposed dual occupancy development is not expected to generate noise that would be deemed excessive. It is unlikely that objectors’ properties would experience noise levels beyond normal residential acoustics which would impact on the existing character of the area.

On-Site Detention Basins

27. Concern was raised that the capacity of the on-site detention basins will be insufficient and will not cope with an inundation of heavy rainfall.

28. An on-site stormwater detention system is proposed at the front of the site to manage stormwater storage and disposal for the proposed development. This plan has been supported by Council’s Development Engineer.

Front Setback

29. Concern was raised that the proposed front setback of the development is inconsistent with the DCP requirements which requires consistent setbacks.

30. The proposed front setback is generally consistent with the proposed setbacks of adjoining developments. The proposed 10.360 metre setback is staggered to address the prevailing setbacks of adjoining properties.

Views and Vistas

30. Concern was raised that the development will affect the existing views and vistas enjoyed by adjoining properties

31. The proposed development does not obstruct any significant views. In addition, the proposed development complies with Council’s height controls in PDCP 2005 which minimises any impacts on any views and vistas currently enjoyed by surrounding residents.

Landscaping

32. Concern was raised that the development does not provide sufficient landscaping.

33. The proposal provides 426.5m2 of landscaping. It is acknowledged that the area to the front which is included in the landscaping calculations is to be used for the purposes of on-site detention. However, PDCP 2005 states that “stormwater structures” be excluded from landscaping calculations. The on site detention is not considered to be a structure as it is an area covered in grass and is not a physical structure. The only stormwater structures located to the front of the subject land are two control pits which has a size area of approximately 2m2 each. Therefore, the landscaping total minus the control pits are 422.5m2 which is significantly more than the 40% requirement of 364.28m2.

34. The applicant has complied with Council’s resolution, the application is returned to Council with amended plans for determination.

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Revised Plans and Elevations	11 Pages
2View	Extracts from Section 79C Report	1 Page
3View	Previous Report including all attachments. Item No. 13.10 to Council 10 June 2008	28 Pages
4View	History of DA	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 10 November 2008

Item 12.2

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.2

SUBJECT Church Street Road Reserve and 353A - 353C Church Street, Parramatta. (Arthur Philip Ward).

DESCRIPTION Section 96(1)(A) Modification to an approved outdoor dining for 180 chairs. The modification seeks to relocate 4 tables and associated chairs, erection of an awning and extension of hours of operation. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE DA/26/2006/C - Submitted: 4 July 2008

APPLICANT/S Meat and Wine Company (Parramatta) Pty Ltd

OWNERS Parramatta City Council

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

To determine an application which seeks to modify Development Consent No. 26/2006 in the following manner:

(i) Relocation of 4 tables and associated chairs,

(ii) Construction of an awning and

(iii) Extension of hours of trading of the outdoor area from the approved (7am to 10pm) to 7am to 12 midnight, 7 days a week.

The application has been assessed by an independent consultant town planner and referred to Council due to Council being the applicant and owner of the site.

The modifications recommended for approval as it is consistent with the aims and objectives of the zoning applying to the land, and is generally consistent with Council’s City Centre LEP 2007 and City Centre DCP 2007. In addition, it will contribute to an improved functionality, service and presentation of the restaurant.

RECommendation

That Council modify Development Consent No. 26/2006 as follows.

1. Replace condition 1 with the following:

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

Drawing N^o	Dated
Job No. 461005, Drawing No. 03 prepared by DS17	January 2006
Job No. 461005, Drawing No. 02 prepared by DS17 – typical seating dimension and railing elevation only, layout of tables and chairs amended by the following plans	January 2006
One plan unnumbered, titled Ground Floor Plan, showing the layout of tables and chairs, prepared by DS17	Undated, received by fax on 19.09.08
One plan titled “Plan” showing layout of 4 tables, prepared by Alfresco Shade	Undated
One plan titled “West Wall Elevation”, prepared by Alfresco Shade	Undated
One plan titled “West Wall Elevation”, prepared by Alfresco Shade	Undated
One plan titled “Section A - A”, prepared by Alfresco Shade	Undated

Document(s)	Dated
Document titled “Statement of Environmental Effects and Statement of Heritage Impact”, prepared by Graham Edds & Associates, as amended by the following documents.	February 2008
Document titled “Statement of Environmental Effects – Proposed Relocation of Outdoor Seating”, prepared by Design Cubicle	July 2008
Document titled “Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Assessment Outdoor Dining Areas”, prepared by Thompson Stanbury Associates	22 April 2008
Waste Management Plan	25/2/2008
Document titled “Transistor Café, 353A Church Street, Parramatta Noise Management Plan and House Policy”, prepared by Karima Catering Enterprises Pty Ltd, with the exception of the components addressing the provision of live music within the site.	21 August 2006
Document titled “Extended Existing Trading Hours Transistor Café 353A Church Street, Parramatta Environmental Noise Assessment”, prepared by Acoustic Logic Consultancy	21 August 2006

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

2. Replace condition 7 with the following:

7. The hours of operation of the outdoor area being restricted to 7.00am to 12.00 midnight, seven days per week.

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

3. Replace condition 15 with the following:

15. The outdoor dining area is to be enclosed on a maximum of three sides and the PVC screens are only to be used in rainy or windy weather, in accordance with Council’s Outdoor Dining Policy 2003 or between 10pm and midnight as required by the recommendations of the “Extended Existing Trading Hours Transistor Café 353A Church Street, Parramatta Environmental Noise Assessment”, prepared by Acoustic Logic Consultancy, dated 21 August 2006.

4. Replace condition 17 with the following:

17. No live entertainment is to be provided within the external dining area or within the associated restaurant.

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

5. Replace condition 18 with the following:

18. The restaurant and associated outdoor dining area shall at all times be operated in accordance with the recommendations of the “Extended Existing Trading Hours Transistor Café 353A Church Street, Parramatta Environmental Noise Assessment”, prepared by Acoustic Logic Consultancy, dated 21 August 2006” and the “Transistor Café, 353A Church Street, Parramatta Noise Management Plan and House Policy”, prepared by Karima Catering Enterprises Pty Ltd, dated 21 August 2006 as amended by the conditions of this consent.”

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

6. The following additional conditions be included in the consent:

19. A noise complaints register is to be maintained on the premises and is to identify all noise complaints and the response taken to such complaints. The register is to be made available for viewing upon request by Council officers or Police.

Reason: Ensure appropriate ongoing management of noise issues.

20. The semi-transparent plastic sheets extending from the northern-most segment of the Church Street seating area (under the umbrella in closest proximity to the pedestrian crossing on Church Street) are to be removed from all 3 sides. The 2 sections of barrier fencing around the periphery of that segment are to be removed. All tables and chairs and other equipment for storage of materials, together with any other material in this area that may block sight lines towards pedestrians using the Church Street crossing are to be removed permanently. These works are to be carried out at the cost of the applicant. Council will cut back the strip hedge along Church Street to be 6m from the pedestrian crossing and will provide feature paving bricks as required at no cost to the applicant.

Reason: To maintain amenity of the streetscape.

21. A 2m wide path of travel is to be maintained to the exit door adjoining the relocated tables and chairs and the existing approved tables and chairs.

Reason: To ensure public safety.

22. Approval is required under section 126 the Roads Act 1993 and an activity approval under Section 68 Part E the Local Government Act 1993 is also required for the proposed works.

Reason: To fulfil requirements under the legislation.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is known as 353A-C Church Street, Parramatta (Lot 2 in DP 740382), and the adjoining Church and Market Street road reserves. The site contains the Riverside Theatres and a restaurant known as the Meat and Wine Company and includes tables and seating for 176 persons as external seating within the road reserves. The site is surrounded by a mix of uses and building types, including entertainment, open space, commercial, retail and residential uses.

PROPOSAL

2. DA/26/2006/C seeks to modify Development Consent No. 26.2006 in the following manner:

(a) Relocate 4 tables and the associated 6 chairs from the northern most section of the outdoor dining area along the Church Street kerb, to adjacent to the building,

(b) Provide a new awning to shelter the new tables and chairs,

(c) The modification also seeks to use the outdoor area (existing and proposed area) between 7am and 12midnight, 7 days a week being an increase of 2 hours. It is noted that the internal part of the restaurant currently has approval to operate to 12midnight.

3. The modification also seeks to use all of the 44 tables and 176 chairs between 7am and 12midnight 7 days a week, being an increase of 2 hours per day over the currently approved 10pm closing time.

4. As such, the application seeks approval to modify:

Condition 1 which identifies the approved plans, by amending the approved plans to show the new location of the seating and structures

Condition 7 which sets the hours of use, by increasing the hours of use to 7am to midnight 7 days a week.

Condition 18 which limits the period for the extended trading hours, by deleting the condition.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

5. The site is part zoned B4 Mixed Use (353A-C Church Street) and part unzoned (road reserves) under Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007. The use as a restaurant is permitted in the B4 Mixed Use zone with consent and pursuant to clause 13 of the City Centre LEP 2007 is also permitted on unzoned land.

6. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone and does not alter the number of tables and chairs and as such the car parking provisions of clause 22C of the City Centre LEP 2007 are not relevant to the assessment of the application.

7. Clause 13 of the City Centre LEP 2007 applies to unzoned land and requires Council to consider the following prior to the approval of any use on that land:

(a) must consider whether the development will impact on adjoining zoned land and, if so, consider the objectives for development in the zones of the adjoining land, and

(b) must be satisfied that the development is appropriate and is compatible with permissible land uses in any such adjoining land.

8. The adjoining zone is B4 Mixed Use and the use for seating for the restaurant is only sustainable with the operation of the restaurant on the adjoining site. As such the proposed use of the unzoned land is supportive of the use of the adjoining land and is consistent with the objectives of the Mixed Use zone. Given the use is to operate in conjunction with the restaurant on the adjoining land, it is compatible with the use on the adjoining land.

9. Clause 22G of the City Centre LEP 2007 requires Council to ensure development identified as being within Special Areas is compatible with the character and significance of the Special Areas, reinforces the specific attributes and qualities of the Special Area and has regard to the objectives of the Special Area identified in the City Centre DCP.

10. Whilst the site is located within the Prince Alfred Park Special Area, the nature of the proposal is so minor that there are no specific controls of relevance under the City Centre DCP. The proposal is consistent with the objectives for the Prince Alfred Park Special Area.

Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan

11. Due to the minor nature of the works proposed the majority of the City Centre DCP does not apply to the application, including the Building Form, Access, Parking and Servicing and Environmental Management sections. The potentially relevant sections are Section – Pedestrian Amenity and Section 7 – Controls for Special Areas, which are addressed following.

12. Two controls within Section 3 of the City Centre DCP – Pedestrian Amenity apply to the application. The relevant controls identify the site as being one upon which outdoor dining is encouraged and require that clear lines of sight be provided for pedestrians.

13. The site currently contains a significant amount of outdoor dining and this is continued in the application, consistent with this control.

14. The amended layout of the outdoor dining is being proposed to provide an improved line of sight for vehicles approaching the pedestrian crossing on Church Street. Currently the location of the tables nearest the crossing limit the sight distance of vehicles and reduce the level of safety for pedestrians using the crossing. A Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Assessment prepared by Thompson Stanbury Associates that accompanied the application indicates that the relocation of the set of four tables and chairs closest to the pedestrian crossing to another position would significantly improve the safety of pedestrians using the pedestrian crossing by increasing the sight lines to them from vehicles using Church Street. Therefore the proposal satisfies this control.

15. Section 7 – Controls for Special Areas of the City Centre DCP provides specific controls for the Prince Alfred Park Special Area, in which the site is located, however none of the controls are relevant given the minor nature of the works proposed. The proposal is consistent with the objectives and desired future character for the Prince Alfred Park Special Area.

CONSULTATION

16. In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 11 August and 25 August 2008. Three submissions from individuals were received. The following issues were raised in the submissions.

17. The footpath area is already affected and no more area should be provided for the restaurant.

The proposal does not result in an increased area of usage of the footpath, but rather seeks to relocate the area of usage given concerns raised in relation to sight line distances from vehicles to pedestrians using the pedestrian crossing on Church Street.

18. The exhaust from the kitchen does not work and odours and fumes come into 7/346 Church Street

This is not a matter that is relevant to the assessment of the application as no amendments are being sought to the kitchen or odour systems. .

19. Existing use results in unacceptable impact to bedrooms of 5/346 Church Street and extension of hours to midnight will make the situation worse.

Potential impacts of the increased trading hours would be a loss of amenity to nearby residences due to noise from patrons (whilst on the premises and after leaving the premises) and noise from staff during closing up of the premises, removal of glasses, removal and storage of tables and chairs and cleaning of the premises. Such activities may result in additional noise impacts upon nearby residences that could lead to sleep disturbances.

Acoustic reports lodged with previous modification requests for the extended trading hours have addressed the potential for noise disturbances due to patrons on the site, both within the premises and within the outdoor dining area and have found likely noise impacts to be within acceptable noise ranges, subject to use of the drop down plastic sheets after 10pm (to be conditioned). The site has been operating on extended hours for over twelve months, both in its previous form as a café and in its current form as a more up-market steak house, without any significant level of complaint. The operation as a restaurant which also caters for the theatre goers of the adjoining theatre is less likely to result in noisy or rowdy patron behaviour and as such, given the previous two trial periods did not result in significant amenity impacts for nearby residents, it is unlikely the restaurant will.

REFERRALS

NSW Police

20. Given the potential for the extended trading hours to affect the Liquor Licence for the premises and to result in problems with noise and patron behaviour, the application was referred to the Police for comments. The Police raised no objections to the proposal in their response to the notification.

Traffic

21. The application was referred to the Traffic Engineer to address the issue of sight distance to the pedestrian crossing on Church Street. The Traffic Engineer raised no objections to the proposal subject to a series of conditions, which have been included in the recommendation.

Property

22. The application was referred to the Property Section as the proposal is located on a Council owned road reserve. The Property Section raise no objections to the proposal subject to conditions that have been included in the recommendation. As a result of the revised external dining layout, a revised outdoor permit is required to be obtained. Discussions have commenced with the operator in regards to the revised permit.

ISSUES

Pedestrian Safety

23. The likely impacts of the proposed changes to the layout of the outdoor dining and associated structures have been addressed previously in this report, being an improvement in pedestrian safety through the provision of improved sight distances to pedestrians using the Church Street pedestrian crossing from vehicles travelling along Church Street.

Noise

24. The remaining potential impacts would result from the proposed permanent increase in outdoor trading hours from 7am – 10pm 7 days a week to 7am to midnight 7 days a week. Potential impacts of the increased trading hours would be a loss of amenity to nearby residences due to noise from patrons (whilst on the premises and after leaving the premises) and noise from staff during closing up of the premises, removal of glasses, removal and storage of tables and chairs and cleaning of the premises). Such activities may result in additional noise impacts upon nearby residences that could lead to sleep disturbances. It is noted that the restaurant currently has approval to operate to 12midnight.

25. Acoustic reports lodged with previous modification requests for the extended trading hours have addressed the potential for noise disturbances due to patrons on the site, both within the premises and within the outdoor dining area and have found likely noise impacts to be within acceptable ranges, subject to use of the drop down plastic sheets after 10pm (to be conditioned).

26. No additional information has been provided to support the request for additional hours, and whilst the previous reports addressed the need for staff to carryout packing away and cleaning up the area for closure of the restaurant in a quiet manner and managing patrons to minimise the chances of noise disturbances to neighbours, such measures cannot prevent such disturbances completely. Such measures, particularly in relation to patrons, can only seek to reduce the length and frequency of such disturbances.

27. However, the site has been operating on the extended hours for over twelve months, both in its previous form as a café and in its current form as a more up-market steak house, without any significant level of complaint. The operation as a restaurant, which also caters for the theatre goers of the adjoining theatre, is less likely to result in noisy or rowdy patron behaviour and as such, given the previous two trial periods did not result in significant amenity impacts for nearby residents, it is unlikely the restaurant will.

28. However, it is noted that the current consent does not incorporate the recommendations of the acoustic report and the Noise Management Plan and House Policy as conditions of consent and it would be appropriate for any modification of the consent to include both as conditions of consent. Further, an ongoing maintenance of logs of reported disturbances should also occur, to allow appropriate management responses to noise complaints. Further, given the change in nature of the operation, it is appropriate that a condition of consent prevent live music from being performed from the site.

29. Subject to all of the above recommended conditions to ensure a suitable level of amenity is maintained for nearby residents, and which have been agreed to by the applicant, and given the successful trial periods previously, it is considered appropriate to allow trading to midnight 7 days a week for this use in this location.

Kerry Gordon

Director

Kerry Gordon Planning Services

Consultant Town Planner

Attachments:

1View	Plans and Elevations	5 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	History of Application	1 Page
4View	DSU 14/2006 - Regulatory Council Report for DA/26/2006 - 13 February 2006	9 Pages
5View	DSU 152/2006 - Regulatory Council Report for DA/26/2006/A - 9 October 2006	6 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 10 November 2008

Item 12.4

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.4

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

DESCRIPTION Section 96(2) application to modify the approved hours of trading and hours for the sale of alcohol for Strike Bowl.

REFERENCE DA/266/2008/A - Submitted: 9 September 2008

APPLICANT/S Grant Cusack Solicitor Principal

OWNERS Holdmark Properties Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To determine an application to modify Development Consent No. 255/2008. This consent granted approval to use the first floor of an existing heritage listed premises for a ten pin bowling centre with associated internal and external alterations and signage. The modifications involve the extension of operating hours from the approved 10am to 12 midnight on Friday and Saturday nights to 10am to 1.30am on Friday and Saturday nights. It is also proposed to increase the hours in which alcohol can be also be served on Friday and Saturday nights to reflect those of the trading hours.

The modifications are considered to be suitable for approval as it will not create detrimental impacts on the locality and are generally consistent with Council’s City Centre LEP 2007 and City Centre DCP 2007. The proposed modifications will integrate within the existing development and assist and activating this section of Church Street that was recently opened to traffic.

The application has been referred to Council as the building is listed as a heritage item under Schedule 5 of City Centre LEP 2007.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council modify Development Consent No. 255/2008 dated 14 July 2008 in the following manner:

Condition No. 1 is to be modified to read as follows;

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

Document	Dated
Security and Management Plan for ‘Strike Parramatta” – Amended	August 2008

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

Condition No. 40 is to be modified as follows;

40. The days and hours of operation being restricted to the following:

Monday 10:00am until 11:00pm

Tuesday 10:00am until 11:00pm

Wednesday 10:00am until 11:00pm

Thursday 10:00am until 12:00 midnight

Friday 10:00am until 1:30am

Saturday 10:00am until 1:30am

Sunday 10:00am until 11:00pm

Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

Reason: To protect and maintain the amenity of the area.

Condition No. 41 is to be modified as follows;

41. The sale of alcohol to patrons is restricted to the following:

Monday 10:00am until 10.45pm

Tuesday 10:00am until 10.45pm

Wednesday 10:00am until 10.45pm

Thursday 10:00am until 11:45pm

Friday 10:00am until 1:00am

Saturday 10:00am until 1:00am

Sunday 10:00am until 10.45pm

Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

Reason: To ensure consistency with conditions of Liquor Licence.

SITE & LOCALITY

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

2. It is noted that the bowling alley will occupy the southern portion of the building which fronts Church and Macquarie Streets. The proposed modifications do not involve the portion of the building which fronts to either Church Street or Macquarie Street. The proposal is to be contained on the first floor only.

BACKGROUND

3. The Regulatory Council Meeting of 14 July 2008 granted consent to DA No. 266/2008 for the use of the first floor of the existing heritage listed premises for a ten pin bowling centre with associated internal and external alterations and signage. It is noted that the original DA sought trading hours of 10am to 3am Monday to Saturday and 10am to 12 midnight on Sundays. The report presented to Council stated that the proposed hours of operation were excessive considering the nature of the proposed use and adjoining approved land uses which included licensed premises. Accordingly, reduced hours were recommended and supported by Council.

4. The approved operating hours and the hours permitting the sale of alcohol are as follows:

Monday 10:00am until 11:00pm

Tuesday 10:00am until 11:00pm

Wednesday 10:00am until 11:00pm

Thursday 10:00am until 12:00 midnight

Friday 10:00am until 12:00 midnight

Saturday 10:00am until 12:00 midnight

Sunday 10:00am until 11:00pm

PROPOSAL

5. The Section 96 (2) modification seeks approval to modify conditions No 40 and 41 of Development Consent No. 266/2008. In particular it is proposed to increase trading hours on Friday and Saturday nights by a period of 1 and a half hours. The proposed hours of operation are as follows:

Monday 10:00am until 11:00pm

Tuesday 10:00am until 11:00pm

Wednesday 10:00am until 11:00pm

Thursday 10:00am until 12:00 midnight

Friday 10:00am until 1:30am

Saturday 10:00am until 1:30am

Sunday 10:00am until 11:00pm

6. It is also proposed to modify the hours in which the sale of alcohol is permitted from the site to ensure consistence with the trading hours.

Monday 10:00am until 10.45pm

Tuesday 10:00am until 10.45pm

Wednesday 10:00am until 10.45pm

Thursday 10:00am until 11:45pm

Friday 10:00am until 1:00am

Saturday 10:00am until 1:00am

Sunday 10:00am until 10.45pm

7. However, the police have advised that the sale of alcohol must cease half an hour prior to the close of trading after midnight and 15 minutes where trading ceases operation at 12 midnight. It is noted that applicant’s request for the variation to the trading hours has been supported by a letter from the licensing Sargent of Parramatta Police Security and Management Plan.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Environmental Protection and Assessment Act 1979

8. Section 96(2) of the EP&A Act allows applicants to make an application to modify a development consent issued by Council. It also states that a consent authority must be satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted.

9. The proposed modifications to extend the hours of operation and the hours permitted to sell alcohol will result in substantially the same development as that originally approved and can be dealt with pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Act.

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

10. The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use City Core Zone (City Centre Precinct) and Core Zone (City Centre Precinct) under the provisions of the Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007. The proposed extended hours of operation and extended hours permitting the sale of alcohol are permissible in the zone and satisfies the objectives of the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007.

REASONS FOR MODIFICATIONS

11. The current hours of operation restrict trading to midnight on Friday and Saturday nights. These restrictions were largely placed on the consent as concerns had been expressed by the police during meetings with Senior Council Staff about the number of licensed premises within the Parramatta CBD and the increase in alcohol related crime within Parramatta. The applicant as part of the original Development Application applied to operate until 3am on Friday and Saturday evenings.

12. Following the consent being issued, the applicant has liaised with the NSW Police Service and has prepared an updated Security and Management Plan for the bowling alley which outlines the responsible service of alcohol, measures to prevent the sale of alcohol to minors, measures to control patron behaviour within a licensed environment, details of maintaining patron security such as the use of CCTV and measures to ensure patron safety in an event of a fire and complaint handling and management to adequately ensure the safety of patrons when visiting the bowling alley. Given the security and management measures in place, the culminative impacts of the proposed modifications are confined to the subject premises.

13. Accordingly, NSW Police raised no objection to the proposed extended hours of operation on Friday and Saturday evenings. Having regards to this, taking into account that the sites is on a portion of Church Street where Council is encouraging the activation of the area with the partial removal of the mall and considering that the proposal may not be economically viable without the minor increase in operating hours, approval of the extra 90 minutes of operation is recommended.

CONSULTATION

14. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 24 September 2008 and 8 October 2008. No submissions were received.

ISSUES

Heritage and Conservation

15. The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for assessment as the site is listed as heritage item of local significance under Schedule 5 of the City Centre LEP. Upon review of the modification, Council’s Heritage Adviser makes no objections to the proposed modifications.

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

NSW Police

17. The application was referred to the Police for comment. After a review of the modification, NSW Police raises no objections to the proposed modifications.

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

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	History of Development Application	1 Page
3View	Police Comments	1 Page
4View	Security and Management Plan	9 Pages
5View	Item 12.4 of Regulatory Council Meeting 14 July 2008 (Original Report)	6 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 10 November 2008

Item 12.5

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.5

SUBJECT Further Report - 4 Blakeford Avenue, Ermington (Lot 9 DP 203438) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of 4 detached single storey in-fill self care dwellings under SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (Locality Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/185/2007 - Submitted 13 March 2007

APPLICANT/S ARDesign

OWNERS Aged Care and Living Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Development Application No.185/2007 seeks approval to the demolition of the existing dwelling and other structures, tree removal and construction of 4 detached single storey in-fill self care dwellings under State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 at No.4 Blakeford Avenue, Ermington.

This is a long-standing application that has undergone amendments to address Council’s planning controls and is now ready for determination.

Five (5) objections were received in response to the first notification of this application with 6 objections being received in response to the second notification of this application.

This report is to provide Council with a further report on matters relating to garbage disposal, restrictive covenants on title, stormwater disposal, proximity to banking and medical services and other issues raised in objections.

All the above matters are now satisfactorily resolved by submission of additional information and amended plans.

The proposed SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 development 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 grant consent to Development Application No 185/2007, subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

1. The development is to comply with the relevant design standards specified under Schedule 3 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. These include design requirements relating to siting standards, security, letter boxes, private car accommodation, accessible entry, interior: general, bedroom, bathroom, toilet, surface finish, door hardware, ancillary items, living room and dinning room, kitchen, laundry and storage for linen.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

2. The creation of a restriction as to use of land in accordance with section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, restricting the occupation of the premises to:

(a) seniors or people who have a disability,

(b) people who live within the same household with seniors or people who have a disability,

(c) staff employed to assist in the administration of and provision of services to housing provided, as defined under Clauses 8 and 9 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

3. All advertising, signage, marketing or promotion of the sale of the dwellings in this development shall make clear reference to the fact that this is a State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 development and that at least one occupier shall be aged 55 or over or have a disability.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

4. The development is to remain as Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability within the meaning of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

5. The proposed concrete footpath from the site to Kissing Point Road along Blakeford Avenue is to be designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s current Paving Policy having regard to existing trees. This design is to be verified by Council’s Design Services Section prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

Reason: To ensure a suitable access pathway is provided in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 and to preserve the environmental amenity of the area.

(b) That Council support the SEPP No.1 objection to Clause 40(3) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 with respect to the non-compliance with the minimum site frontage.

BACKGROUND

1. At the regulatory meeting on 10 December 2007, Council considered a report which recommended approval of an application for the demolition of the existing dwelling and associated structures and construction of 4 detached single storey in-fill self care dwellings under State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. At this meeting it was resolved:

(a) That Item No.7 of Development Applications regarding the development application submitted for 4 Blakeford Avenue, Ermington be deferred pending an on-site meeting to be held on 9 February 2008 at 10.30am between interested Councillors, relevant staff, the applicant and objectors.

2. In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 9 February 2008 commencing at 10.30am. This will be discussed in detail in paragraphs 5 to 34 below.

3. At the regulatory meeting on 11 February 2008, Council gave further consideration of the proposed development including adjacent residents’ concerns raised at the on-site meeting on 9 February 2008. At this meeting it was resolved:

(a) That consideration of this matter be deferred to enable further review of issues such as garbage disposal, restrictive covenants on title and stormwater disposal.

(b) That in the meantime, Council officers investigate the policy for senior living accommodation and proximity to services such as banking, medical and the like.

(c) Further that Council officers also give consideration to the letter tabled at the on site meeting from Mr Charles Duthie dated 10 February 2008.

These matters will be discussed in detail in paragraphs 35 to 61.

4. A flood study and amended stormwater and architectural plans have been submitted to resolve residents’ concern regarding stormwater disposal of the site have resulted in rasing the finished floor levels of Unit 1, 2 and 3 by 550mm, 300mm and 300mm respectively. Other amendments include replacing the colorbond roof with a tiled roof which will be better in keeping with the streetscape. The building footprints and internal configurations of the dwellings largely remain unaltered. Issues relating to the amended proposal will be further discussed in paragraphs 62 to 77.

ON-SITE MEETING

5. In accordance with Council’s resolution on 10 December 2007, 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 9 February 2008, commencing at 10.30am.

6. Present at the meeting were Councillor Lorraine Wearne (Chair) and Councillor Maureen Walsh, Council’s Team Leader Development Assessment, the applicant (6 representatives) and 10 residents. The following issues were discussed at the meeting:

Increased Traffic in the area

7. Objectors raised concern that this villa development would increase traffic problems in the vicinity of the site. Residents advised that as the street is very narrow, the potential for accidents occurring with people parking along the street is high.

8. Aged and disabled persons’ housing developments are likely to generate 2 vehicle trips per dwelling per day or 0.2 vehicle trips per dwelling during evening peak hours, according to the RTA guidelines “Guide to Traffic Generating Developments”. This will result in a total of 8 vehicle trips per day or 0.8 vehicle trips during evening peak hours from the proposed development. Vehicles generation rates would be less all other times. Traffic generation to this degree would have negligible impacts on traffic flow and safety in the locality.

Parking

9. Residents expressed concern that this development will lead to an increase in parking along Blakeford Avenue. As a result of the existing villa complex in the street and the Korean Church in Cowells Lane parking spaces are often limited. This development will exacerbate the problem.

10. Concern was also expressed that as each of the 4 villas has 3 bedrooms, as well as taking into consideration visits from doctors etc that the parking spaces on site will be insufficient to cater for the likely future demand, resulting in additional cars parking along Blakeford Avenue.

11. Clause 50 of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 provides non-discretionary planning standards that cannot be used to refuse development consent for self-contained dwellings. This includes the parking provision that requires:

(i) 0.5 car spaces for each bedroom where the development application is made by a person other than a social housing provider, or

12. The development proposes 6 parking spaces for a total of 12 bedrooms. One visitor space is also provided. This complies with both the requirements of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 and Council’s DCP 2005 requirements for multi-unit developments. Under the circumstance, the development is not likely to cause undue impact on street parking and in accordance with the requirements of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 the application cannot refused on lack of car parking.

Density

13. Concern was raised about the number of bedrooms in the units. The applicant advised that the likely future owners of the villas were present at the meeting and that it was their intention that 1 person would live in each of the villas and the reason for the additional bedrooms was to provide accommodation for visiting family from outside Sydney.

14. Staff were requested to review whether a management plan or covenant could be placed on the site limiting the length of stay of visitors to the complex.

15. It would not be legitimate for Council to limit the length of stay of visitors to the any of the proposed dwellings. SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 is to provide suitable housing for persons over 55, families with persons over 55 or persons with a disability who may require supporting family members or carers whether within the same household or not. In this regard, the length of stay of visitors should not be restricted. It is also noted that the assessment of this application has been based on all bedrooms being occupied.

Future Residents

16. Residents requested to be advised as to who could occupy the villas. It was advised that the villas had to be occupied in accordance with the requirements of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 that requires at least one of the occupants of each villa to be either over the age of 55 or have a disability.

17. Clarification was requested as to whether at least one of the owners of each villa was required to be over the age of 55 or have a disability.

18. Pursuant to Clause 18 of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, Council is required to impose a condition of consent restricting future occupation of the senior’s housing to:

(a) seniors or people who have a disability,

(b) people who live within the same household with seniors or people who have a disability,

(c) staff employed to assist in the administration of and provision of services to housing provided under this Policy.

19. Council is also required to be satisfied that a restriction as to user will be registered against the title of the property in accordance with section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919. In this regard, appropriate conditions of consent have been recommended. (Condition Nos.1 to 4 above)

Infrastructure Provision

20. It was indicated that infrastructure including power, water and sewage may not be able to cope with the additional demand that will be generated by this development.

21. Residents were advised that standard conditions would be imposed on the development requiring the applicant to liaise with service authorities to ascertain whether amplification of existing services is required prior to construction commencing.

Stormwater

22. Concern was raised that after heavy rain, Blakeford Avenue often floods and this development was likely to exasperate the problem. Residents asked how stormwater from the site would be disposed. The on-site detention plan for the site was not on the hard copy file and it was advised that this issue would be reviewed.

23. In this regard, the applicant has submitted a flood study and an amended stormwater plan. Council’s Development Engineer has made the following comment in support of the flood study and the amended stormwater plan:

“The amended stormwater plan accommodates appropriate overland flow based on a sound flood study using both the DRAINS and HEC-RAS computer models and therefore the development will not impose additional strain on the downstream properties in the event of a heavy storm. Providing the appropriate overland flow in accordance with the flood study makes the site more practical and sustainable.”

24. In compliance with the flood study, the finished floor levels of Unit Nos.1, 2 and 3 have been raised by 550mm, 300mm and 300mm respectively to ensure the development is above the 1 in 100 year flood level. Adjoining neighbours were notified of the floor level changes.

Precedent for future development in the area

25. Residents advised that approval of this development could set an undesirable precedent for further unwanted development in the area. It was suggested that the future occupants of this development could live in the seniors living development under construction in Kissing Point Road.

26. Seniors living development on the subject site is permissible under SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. Also, the proposed FSR of the development (0.26:1) is well below the maximum FSR of 0.5:1 permitted under the SEPP. This is comparable to the maximum FSR provided under Council’s Development Control Plan 2005 for single dwelling development. The proposal is not overdevelopment of the site and will not set an undesirable precedent. Any future Development Application of this kind in the area will be assessed against the relevant planning instruments on a case by case basis and on merit.

Property Values

27. Objectors advised that the value of their properties was likely to decrease if this development proceeds.

28. It was advised that in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 reduced property values is not an issue that can be considered as part of the assessment of a development application.

Tree Removal

29. Residents requested to be advised as to whether the pine tree at the front of the site was retained.

30. It was advised that as the drip line of the tree was within the building footprint of Unit 1 it was proposed to be removed and replaced with three native trees. Council’s Landscape Officer raises no objection to the removal subject to replacement trees.

Garbage Bins

31. Residents expressed concern that the garbage truck had difficult turning in Blakeford Avenue and that this development may have difficulty being serviced by council’s contractor. Given this the applicant was asked to consider the possibility of providing bulk bins to service the development.

32. The amended architectural plans indicate 2 x 240litre garbage bins and a 120litre green waste bin for each unit individually located near the rear court yard. These bins will be placed on the nature strip on collection days.

33. Council’s Waste Management Planning Officer reconsidered the amended proposal and raises no objection to the proposed waste management arrangement.

34. The meeting concluded at 11:25am with all parties being advised that the application may be considered at a Council meeting on 11 February 2008.

SECOND REGULATORY MEETING

35. At the regulatory meeting on 11 February 2008, Council gave further consideration of the proposed development including adjacent residents’ concerns raised at the on-site meeting on 9 February 2008. At this meeting it was resolved:

(a) That consideration of this matter be deferred to enable further review of issues such as garbage disposal, restrictive covenants on title and stormwater disposal.

(b) That in the meantime, Council officers investigate the policy for senior living accommodation and proximity to services such as banking, medical and the like.

(c) Further that Council officers also give consideration to the letter tabled at the on site meeting from Mr Charles Duthie dated 10 February 2008.

Resolution (a) – garbage disposal, covenants on title and stormwater

36. The issues relating to resolution (a) are discussed elsewhere in this report. Paragraphs 31 to 33, 55 to 56 and 69 to 70 deals with garbage disposal, paragraphs 16 and 19 and Condition Nos. 1 to 4 deals with restriction on title and paragraphs 22 to 24 discusses about stormwater issue respectively.

Resolution (b) – proximity to service

37. With regard to resolution (b), Clause 26 of SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 (as amended on 18 January 2008) states:

26. Location and access to facilities

(1) A consent authority must not consent to a development application made pursuant to this Chapter unless the consent authority is satisfied, by written evidence, that residents of the proposed development will have access that complies with subclause (2) to:

(a) shops, bank service providers and other retail and commercial services that residents may reasonably require, and

(b) community services and recreation facilities, and

(c) the practice of a general medical practitioner.

(2) Access complies with this clause if:

(b) in the case of a proposed development on land in a local government area within the Sydney Statistical Division—there is a public transport service available to the residents who will occupy the proposed development:

(i) that is located at a distance of not more than 400 metres from the site of the proposed development and the distance is accessible by means of a suitable access pathway, and

(ii) that will take those residents to a place that is located at a distance of not more than 400 metres from the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1), and

(iii) that is available both to and from the proposed development at least once between 8am and 12pm per day and at least once between 12pm and 6pm each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive),

and the gradient along the pathway from the site to the public transport services (and from the public transport services to the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1)) complies with subclause (3),

(3) For the purposes of subclause (2) (b), the overall average gradient along a pathway from the site of the proposed development to the public transport services (and from the transport services to the facilities and services referred to in subclause (1)) is to be no more than 1:14, although the following gradients along the pathway are also acceptable:

(i) a gradient of no more than 1:12 for slopes for a maximum of 15 metres at a time,

(ii) a gradient of no more than 1:10 for a maximum length of 5 metres at a time,

(iii) a gradient of no more than 1:8 for distances of no more than 1.5 metres at a time.

(4) For the purposes of subclause (2):

(a) a suitable access pathway is a path of travel by means of a sealed footpath or other similar and safe means that is suitable for access by means of an electric wheelchair, motorised cart or the like, and

(b) distances that are specified for the purposes of that subclause are to be measured by reference to the length of any such pathway.

(5) In this clause:

bank service provider means any bank, credit union or building society or any post office that provides banking services.

38. The subject site is located 230m from a bus stop in Kissing Point Road for State Transit Service Bus No.513 that can transport the future residents to either Carlingford or West Ryde town centre where all the facilities specified under Clause 26(1) are located within the required distances. The bus operates 8 times before 12pm and 8 times between 12pm and 6pm from Monday to Friday which complies with subclause (2)(b)(iii).

39. Also, the applicant proposes to construct a 1.2m wide concrete footpath to connect between the subject site and the existing Council’s footpath in Kissing Point Road so as to provide a suitable access pathway in accordance with subclauses (3) and (4) above. As demonstrated on the site analysis, the gradients along the footpath are well within the required maximum (i.e. the overall average gradient along the pathway is around 1:30 with a maximum gradient of 1:12 for less than 15 metres).

Resolution (c) – Mr Charles Duthie’s letter

40. With regard to resolution (c), Mr Charles Duthie raised the following issues:

Parking space for the disabled

41. Concern is raised that no parking space for people with disability is provided.

42. SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 requires 5% of the total number of car parking spaces (or at least 1 space if there are fewer than 20 spaces) to have the width of the spaces to be 3.8 metres.The amended proposal provides a car space which has 3.8 metres in width to comply with the requirement.

Non conforming street frontage

43. State Environmental Panning Policy No. 1 (Development Standards) provides flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary, or tend to hinder the attainment of the aims and objectives specified in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

44. The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection to vary the planning standard (the minimum street frontage of 20 metres in this case). This was discussed in paragraphs 19 to 21 of the original Council report dated 10 December 2007.

Garage door forward of the predominant building façade

45. Concern is raised that the garage doors should be set back a minimum of 1 metre behind the predominant building façade on both the street frontage and common driveways to comply with “Seniors Living Policy – Urban Design Guidelines for infill Development” published by the Department of Planning under SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

46. The objective of this control is to minimise visual dominance of car parking structures in the streetscape.

47. The garage door of Unit No.1 is 9 metres behind the front building line when viewed from the street and the garage door of Unit No.2 is 3 metres behind the building façade when viewed from the common driveway. These garages comply with the Guideline.

48. In contrast, the garage doors of Unit Nos.3 and 4 are forward of the building lines of the respective units. Despite the numerical non-compliance, the proposed development can be supported for the following reasons:

(a) The garage door of Unit No.3 will not be seen from the street and therefore will have no adverse impact on the streetscape. Also, the garage door will be behind the building line of Unit No.2 and will not be visually dominant when vehicles or pedestrians proceed into the premises.

(b) The garage door of Unit No.4 is about 50 metres away from the street frontage and is in line with the front porch on the left hand side. Visual impact on the streetscape will be minimal. Additionally, the garage has a width of 4 metres which represents less than 32% of the overall building width. This is not considered to result in undue visual dominance. Sufficient landscaping is also proposed on either side of the driveway forward of the garage door of Unit No.4 so as to reduce the visual impact.

Unrelieved, long and straight driveway

49. Concern is raised that the proposed driveway is long and straight and does not comply with “Seniors Living Policy – Urban Design Guidelines for infill Development” to avoid visual dominance.

50. The proposed driveway is considered acceptable as it allow vistas with appropriate tall trees and other vegetation including a 12 metre high Spotted Gum and 15 metre high Forest Red Gum and a mixture of 2 to 5m high shrubs along either side. This provides visually relief of the driveway. Also, the width of the driveway has been limited to the minimum (i.e. 4.2 metres including a 1.2 metre wide pedestrian walkway).

No separate pedestrian access with the site

51. Concern is raised that there is no pedestrian access for people with a disability.

52. A separate pedestrian access of 1.2 metres wide has been provided on the amended plans connecting from the street frontage to each unit.

Provision of obvious and safe pedestrian link to the public transport service and local facilities

53. Concern is raised that there is no footpath either side of Blakeford Ave to provide a suitable and safe means of access to the public transport service and local facilities for residents.

54. A new concrete footpath will be provided by the developer along the full length of Blakeford Avenue.

Waste collection

55. Concern is raised that there is inadequate street frontage for collection of the rubbish and recycling.

56. Council’s Waste Management Planning Officer confirms that 4 garbage bins and 4 recycling bins can be placed within the frontage of the site and can be collected as normal even with cars parked along the kerbside of the cul-de-sac.

Excessive number of bedrooms in each unit

57. Concern is raised that three bedrooms for each unit are excessive and the units should be limited to 2 bedrooms each.

58. SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 does not contain any provisions that restrict the number of bedrooms in senior’s housing dwellings but allows it to be occupied by:

(a) seniors or people who have a disability,

(b) people who live within the same household with seniors or people who have a disability,

(c) staff employed to assist in the administration of and provision of services to housing provided under this Policy.

59. The development also provides sufficient car parking spaces (0.5 space per bedroom) in accordance with the SEPP.

60. Under the circumstances, it would be unreasonable for Council to restrict the number of bedrooms in each unit.

61. It is noted that Council is required to impose a condition of consent restricting future occupants of the senior’s housing to those specified above and the occupants will be registered against the title of the property in accordance with section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919. (Refer Condition Nos.1 to 4 above)

CONSULTATION

62. In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the amended proposal was renotified between 27 August and 10 September 2008. The notification generated five written submissions. The matters raised in the submissions are addressed below.

The proposed modification to raise the floor level will make flooding problem worse.

63. Raising of the floor levels is to provide adequate freeboard so as to ensure residents’ safety in the event of a flooding. An appropriate overland flow path has been provided in accordance with the flood study which has been supported by Council’s Development Engineer. An on-site detention system has also been provided to control peak volume of water. Therefore, the development is expected not to have adverse impact on local flooding in the area.

No pedestrian footpath within the development

64. A pedestrian footpath within the site connecting from the front boundary to each unit has been provided on the amended plans.

No footpath in Blakeford Avenue

65. A concrete footpath has been proposed between the subject site and Kissing Point Road.

A 3 metre wide driveway is too narrow for seniors’ housing

66. A 3m wide driveway complies with “Seniors Living Policy – Urban Design Guidelines for infill Development” published by the Department of Planning under SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

No obvious and safe pedestrian link to the public transport service has been provided.

67. This has been addressed in detail in paragraphs 37 to 39.

Non conforming street frontage

68. This has been addressed above in paragraphs 43 to 44.

Waste collection

69. Concern is raised that there is inadequate street frontage for collection of the rubbish and recycling which would make garbage collectors get off the truck and manually empty the bins. This would result in an additional noise impact.

70. Council’s Waste Management Planning Officer confirms that it is common practice for garbage collectors to manually empty bins when cars parked along the kerbside. The additional noise from the truck staying a bit longer is not considered unacceptable.

Visitor parking space is not sufficient

71. SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 requires one visitor parking space for development of 6 or less dwellings. The proposed development is for 4 dwellings and provides one visitor parking space in compliance with the requirement.

Overshadowing, noise, air and privacy impact

72. Concern is raised that Unit No. 4 will result in overshadowing, noise, air and privacy impacts on No.392 Kissing Point Road.

73. The existing dwelling at No.392 Kissing Point Road is located approximately 20 metres from the common boundary with the subject site. The proposed dwellings are all single storey in height and will not result in undue overshadowing or privacy impacts on adjoining properties.

74. Unit No.4 has no building element (such as outdoor BBQ, swimming pool, etc) that could cause undue noise impact on No.392 Kissing Point Road.

75. The development is not expected to cause on-going air pollution in the area.

There is no emergency exit out of Blakeford Avenue in the event of a flooding

76. The finished floor levels of the proposed dwellings are 500mm higher than the 1 in 100 year flood level. Therefore, residents will be able to stay in the dwellings in the event of a flooding until safely evacuated.

REFERRALS

Development Engineer

77. Having reviewed the submitted flood study and subsequent amendment to the finished floor levels of the dwellings, Council’s Development Engineer can support the proposed development subject to appropriate conditions.

ISSUES

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

James Kim

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Plan	1 Page
2View	Amended Plans and Elevations	8 Pages
3View	Stormwater Drawing	1 Page
4View	Previous Council Report from 10 December 2007	6 Pages
5View	Objection letter from Mr Charles Duthie	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 10 November 2008

Item 12.6

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.6

SUBJECT 38 Charles Street, Parramatta (land surrounding the Port Bar, adjacent to Parramatta Wharf) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION New outdoor dining area in lieu of landscaped terrace, including new retaining walls, balustrade, 6 umbrellas (with supporting columns) and a coffee cart. The new outdoor dining area is proposed to accommodate a maximum of 30 tables and 120 chairs. (Attachment 1 - Locality Map)

REFERENCE DA/149/2008 - Submitted 4 March 2008

APPLICANT/S TNT Investments Pty Ltd

OWNERS Parramatta City Council

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Development Application No. 149/2008 seeks approval for the construction of a new outdoor dining area for a maximum of 120 diners in association with the existing restaurant (Port Bar). The DA has been referred to Council due to the construction of the raised retaining wall within the public domain and that Council is the owner of this land. Two objections have been received in respect of this application.

The proposed outdoor dining area is consistent with the objectives of Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007, Parramatta City Centre DCP 2007 and Council’s Outdoor Dining Policy 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 site.

This application did not require assessment by an independent consultant as the land in question is not part of any pecuniary interest of Council, there would be no building constructed upon the land and outdoor dining (even where it involves permanent works within the public domain) has always been able to be assessed by Council officers as a relevant matter for consideration under Council’s Outdoor Dining Policy 2005.

The proposed outdoor dining area is consistent with the desired future character of the area; promotes activation of the public domain and complies with the numerical requirements that to outdoor dining. Accordingly, approval of the development application is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grants a ‘Deferred Commencement’ consent under the provisions of s.80(3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, as amended. The consent shall not operate until the applicant satisfies the Council as to the following matters contained in Part A of this consent:

Part A – Deferred Commencement

1. A lease-agreement being entered into between the applicant and Parramatta City Council in relation to that part of the proposal being located over Council’s reserve (Lot 2 in DP 869816).

2. Details of the proposed planter boxes, including their location, being submitted to Council’s Strategic Asset Management Unit prior to installation.

3. Details of the texture, type and colour of the proposed pavers shall be submitted to Council’s Strategic Asset Management Unit prior to installation.

(b) That upon satisfactory completion of the above, a final consent will be issued, including standard and the following extraordinary conditions contained in Part B below.

Part B

1. The applicant is to ensure that all relevant approvals of the Liquor Administration Board are secured, prior to the use commencing.

Reason: To ensure compliance with relevant legislation.

2. This approval shall only apply to those works proposed within the 140m² outdoor area and does not include any notation relating to any other land.

Reason: To ensure that the consent relates to what was sought.

3. The outdoor dining area subject of this development application shall only be used between 7.00am and 11.00pm, 7 days. Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

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

4. This consent limits the number of tables to 30 and the number of chairs to 120.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the terms of this consent.

5. The applicant must ensure that disabled access is maintained at all times around the perimeter of the outdoor dining area.

Reason: To ensure equitable access.

6. The coffee cart is not to be a fixed structure. It must be wheeled into the building after hours.

Reason: For security reasons.

7. The proposed works are to be carried out so that:

(i) no materials are eroded, or likely to be eroded, are deposited, or likely to be deposited, on the bed or shore or into the waters of the Parramatta River; and

(ii) no materials are likely to be carried by natural forces to the bed, shore or waters of the Parramatta River.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of NSW Maritime.

8. Any material that does enter the Parramatta River must be removed immediately.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of NSW Maritime.

9. Best practice methods shall be adopted for the on-site control of runoff, sediment and other pollutants during and post construction. Methods shall be in accordance with the relevant specifications and standards contained in the manual Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, issued by the NSW Department of Housing/Landcom in 2004 and any other relevant Council requirement.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of NSW Maritime.

10. The erosion, sediment and pollution controls shall be installed and stabilised before commencement of site works. This does not include the works associated with the construction of the appropriate controls.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of NSW Maritime.

11. The proposed system for erosion, sediment and pollution control is to be effectively maintained at or above design capacity for the duration of the works until such time as all ground disturbed has been stabilised and rehabilitated so that it no longer acts as a source of sediment.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of NSW Maritime.

12. The foreshore is to be fully protected for the duration of the works. This includes preventing the storage of any machinery, materials, equipment, supplies or waste receptacles within the inter-tidal area.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of NSW Maritime.

13. Access for delivery and removal of materials to and from the site is not to make use of the waterway and the adjoining foreshore, nor private land adjoining the site.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of NSW Maritime.

14. No works are to be undertaken on land owned by NSW Maritime (i.e below MHWM) without the relevant approvals being granted by NSW Maritime.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of NSW Maritime.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is located adjacent to egress points for Parramatta Wharf and the existing restaurant.

2. The adjoining land is shared by outdoor dining and access for commuters/tourists, but is mostly utilised by disabled and the elderly, parents with prams etc, as it leads to the ramp access to the wharf. The landscaped area itself is not trafficked.

3. Surrounding development includes retail and commercial. Parramatta Wharf is utilised by commuters and tourists, whilst parklands are also located nearby.

4. The approved restaurant that this outdoor dining area will be used in association with has a prominent location adjacent to the ferry wharf and is a very important element in Parramatta.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

5. The Sydney Harbour Catchment REP applies to development adjoining or within the tidal component of the Parramatta River. Subject to conditions of consent, the proposal would not impact on the Parramatta River either physically or visually.

6. The Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area DCP applies to the site. The proposal does not compromise the objectives of the DCP.

Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007

7. Under Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 the land is zoned Public Recreation (RE1). Restaurants are permissible in the zone, whereas they used to be only permissible where they adjoin permissible development within an adjoining zone under the former REP provisions.

8. The site is subject to a maximum FSR of 0:1 and no height limit is prescribed by the LEP. Regardless of this, the proposal does not constitute floor area and the maximum height of any structures (being the umbrellas and associated supporting columns), would be approximately 3.2 metres above existing ground level.

Local Government Act 1993

9. The land is classified ‘community’ (Lot 2 in DP 869816). This is best illustrated on the survey plan included as Attachment 3 to this report. Council cannot enter into a lease agreement without getting the approval of the NSW State Government. Alternatively, such arrangements can be undertaken if the land in question is subject to a Plan of Management (POM) that allows for such development to occur. In this case, the land is subject to a generic POM and it does not go far enough in detail to allow Council to be able to determine the DA as it now stands.

10. A revised POM has been approved by Council, addressing the restaurant's occupation of land zoned Public Recreation over community land along the foreshore and its use of the footpath leading to the ferry terminal, subject to a satisfactory lease agreement being put in place.

11. A lease of 21 years has gone to tender and Council’s Strategic Assets Management Unit are in the final stages of lease negotiation. Importantly, the DA may proceed, albeit with a recommendation that the DA be approved, subject to a deferred commencement consent, under Section 80(3) of the EPAA 1979, with the development consent becoming operational subject to a lease agreement being entered into.

12. Council at its meeting of 23 April 2007 resolved in the following manner:

“(a) That Council adopt the Plan of Management for land categorised as General Community Use which incorporates community land located at 36a and 38 Charles Street in Parramatta.

(b) Further, that copies of the new General Community Use Plan of Management be made available to the public at Council’s libraries and on Council’s website.”

13. The use of this land was put to tender with Council approving the preferred tenderer (T.N.T Investment Group) at its meeting of 23 July 2007.

Integrated Development

14. NSW Maritime advised by way of letter dated 4^th September, 2006 that a permit under Part 3A of the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 (now the Water Management Act 2000) is not required for works of such nature provided that materials are not deposited or likely to be deposited in the Parramatta River.

15. Many of the conditions recommended by NSW Maritime are not of particular relevance to the proposal, but have been included in the recommended development consent in order to ensure completeness.

Parramatta City Centre DCP 2007

16. The provisions of Parramatta City Centre DCP 2007 have been considered in the assessment of this proposal. The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the DCP.

Parramatta Council Outdoor Dining Policy December 2005

17. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council’s Outdoor Dining Policy and found to be satisfactory. A measure of the proposal’s compliance against the provisions of the Policy is contained in Attachment 4.

18. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the aims and objectives of the Policy.

Council Delegation:

19. The General Manager is delegated the authority to determine this DA other than to the extent of the raised retaining wall, in accordance with Council’s resolution of 25^th July, 2005, as the land in question is regarded in the same manner that leases are undertaken with respect to outdoor dining on Council land or the construction of awnings over Council land.

20. The leasing of the land has been put to tender, the public has been informed through the media and the plan of management amended and adopted in order to allow for the proposal to proceed.

21. Council has no direct pecuniary interest in this land, as such land is surplus access to and from the ferry wharf.

CONSULTATION

22. The application was placed on exhibition for a 21 day period, being 19 March to 9 April 2008. Two objections were received. These are addressed below.

Meriton’s land not to be used for access during construction

23. Concern was raised that the construction of the dining area may result in access being obtained over Meriton’s land to the south of the site. In this regard, a standard condition of consent is recommended to be imposed stating that access for works on the site must not utilise the Parramatta River, its foreshores or adjacent private property. It is noted that the DA only relates to land depicted on the plans, not to any adjoining land.

Loss of landscaped area for commercial gain

24. An assessment has been undertaken by Council officers weighing up the loss of landscaped area against the proposal. On balance, it is considered that the loss of this area will not be detrimental to the amenity of the area. The foreshores of the Parramatta River provide sufficient landscaping, such that the loss of this 140m² will not be unreasonable.

25. The landscaped area sits within an allotment of 2,707m². The loss of this landscaping represents approximately 5% of the total land size. More significant and useable landscaped area is available to the east of the restaurant.

26. In its capacity of land owner, Council’s Strategic Assets Management Unit has expressed no objection to the removal of the landscaped area.

Social impact assessment to be lodged

27. There is no requirement for a “Social Impact Assessment” to be undertaken in relation to outdoor dining provision. The specific applications that require the submission of a ‘Community Impact Statement’ are outlined at Section 48 of the Liquor Act 2007.

Noise impact on residential properties across the river

28. Concern has been raised that the proposal will result in excessive noise being received at residential premises on the northern side of the Parramatta River.

29. In this regard, it is noted that the proposal involves outdoor dining only and no public entertainment. The extent of additional noise is not likely to unreasonably impact the amenity of residents on the other side of the river and is able to be suitably managed by way of management of the premises and conditions of consent.

Danger to pedestrians from objects falling from the dining area

30. Concern was raised that items may fall from the raised terrace area and fall on people below. The distance above the footpath level will vary between 1.1-2.2 metres, raised by approximately 650mm above that existing. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that this will be an issue with the development and it is not a reason that warrants refusal or modification of the proposal. The plans have been amended to include a 1.2 metres high balustrade around the perimeter of the outdoor dining area to stop larger objects from falling onto the footpath and to minimise this concern.

No public consultation

31. The use of the outdoor area, including this part of Council’s land has been the subject of public tender. Details were advertised in the media and notification of the subject DA has occurred in accordance with Council’s Notifications DCP, between 19 March and 9 April 2008. The extent of public notification is considered appropriate.

ISSUES

Siting & Design:

32. The outdoor dining area will provide improved amenity for diners and will be subject to the same conditions as the existing restaurant, including, but not limited to the hours of operations being restricted to 7.00am to 11.00pm, 7 days.

33. The extended terrace area will accommodate additional tables and chairs and will not inhibit pedestrian access to or from the ferry.

34. The proposal also includes the provision of a small re-locatable coffee cart to be used in conjunction with serving the diners.

35. The proposal has been amended (in response to objections) to include a 1.2 metres high balustrade to protect diners and to define the area more appropriately.

Landscaping, tree removal, flora & fauna:

36. There will be a loss of turfed landscaped area from the site as a result of the proposal. However, there is sufficient landscaping in the immediate vicinity. This area is not highly trafficked and its loss in order to provide additional seating capacity and further activation of the public domain is supported. No tree removal is proposed.

Strategic Assessment Management Unit (SAM)

37. SAM’s comments on this DA are as follows:

“No objections subject to a pre-commencement condition being included that suitable lease agreement be entered into with Council over the subject land. In this regard contact should be made with Council’s Strategic Asset Management Unit. The lease will be for the purposes of conducting a restaurant and a lease fee will be charged on a per square metre basis, not on the number of tables located there.

Please note that the post tender negotiations are drawing to a close. The proposal is that, subject to compliance with S47 of the Local Government Act, Council will enter into 21 year lease agreements with TNT for leases in respect of the at-grade portion of the current outdoor dining area (a), a stratum immediately above, the balance of (a) for a micro-brewery plus for the subject area.

I note that no overall dimensions have been shown on the plans for height of the umbrellas. I think a stratum of 2.8 - 3.0 metres high would be sufficient encompass umbrellas.

I have no objection to a coffee cart subject to it being operated within the area/s proposed for lease and no objections regarding the fence.”

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Plans & Elevations	4 Pages
3View	Survey Plans	2 Pages
4View	Outdoor Dining Policy Compliance Table	1 Page
5View	History of DA	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 10 November 2008

Item 12.7

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.7

SUBJECT 68 Marguerette Street, Ermington. (Lot 317 DP 16170) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of a detached two-storey dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision

REFERENCE DA/904/2007 - Submitted: 25 October 2007

APPLICANT/S Residential Logistics Pty

OWNERS Mr H K Carelsen and Mrs M Carelsen

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

To determine Development Application No. 904/2007, which seeks approval for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a detached two storey dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision. The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received.

The applicant has made significant amendments to the proposal in response to concerns raised by staff regarding the architectural presentation of the building. The revised design is of a contemporary design and will contribute positively to the character of the area. The development satisfies the objectives of Council’s planning controls for dual occupancy development and will not result in any adverse amenity impacts.

This is a long-standing application that has undergone amendments to address Council's planning controls and is now ready for determination

As a result, approval of the development is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant a deferred commencement consent (drainage easement required) to Development Application No. 904/2007 subject to standard conditions.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site is located on the eastern side of Marguerette Street on the corner of Trumper Street. The site is a corner allotment with a frontage width of 15.85 metres to Marguerette Street and 41.15 metres to Trumper Street. The site has a total area of 818.3 square metres and contains a one storey cottage. The subject site is irregular in shape and adjoins a drainage reserve to the east. The immediate area surrounding the site is predominantly residential.

PROPOSAL

2. Approval is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling, tree removal and the construction of a detached dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

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

4. It is noted that, Clause 38(4A) of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 allows the subdivision of lots where approval for a dual occupancy has been obtained.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

5. The provisions of PDCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal achieves compliance with all of the numerical requirements of the plan apart from the side setback controls. The development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan.

CONSULTATION

6. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal has been notified on two occasions. The first notification was between 12 November 2007 and 16 November 2007. One individual submission and one petition with four signatures was received. Amended plans were notified to adjoining properties between 25 July 2008 and 8 August 2008. One individual submission was received. The issues raised in all of the submissions are outlined below.

Front setback for Dwelling B

7. Concern was raised that the minimum 3 metre front setback proposed for Dwelling B which faces Trumper Street is inadequate as it is not consistent with the prevailing setbacks of adjoining developments in Trumper Street.

8. Section 3.1 of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 requires Dual Occupancy developments located on a corner allotment to provide a minimum 3 metre front setback. The plans originally submitted showed a 3 metre setback to Trumper Street for dwelling B. Despite compliance with the numerical control the applicant was requested to consider increasing the setback of Dwelling B by 2 metres. The applicant submitted amended plans that increased the front setback for Dwelling B from 3 to 5 metres. This modification improves the relationship between the proposed development and the adjoining development on 25 Trumper Street and is satisfactory.

Bulk and Scale

9. Concern is raised that the proposed development, particularly Dwelling B will be excessively bulky which is exaggerated by an inadequate front setback to Trumper Street.

10. The proposed development considers the site constraints and has addressed these constraints with an appropriate design response. Amended plans have increased the setback of Dwelling B from 3 metres to 5 metres and reduced the length of the southern (side) elevation of Dwelling B from 15.51 metres to 10.45 metres.

11. The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 4.7:1 which is less than the 0.6:1 maximum floor space ratio permitted for dual occupancy development by Clause 40 of the PLEP 2001. In addition, the proposed dual occupancy complies with other Council requirements such as building articulation and building height which ensure that the proposed dual occupancy does not result in the overdevelopment of the site. In this regard, the proposed dual occupancy is considered to be of an appropriate bulk and scale relative to the size of the site.

Size of Private Open Space

12. Concern is raised that the proposed development has insufficient private open space.

13. Section 4.3.1 of the PDCP prescribes the size and dimensions required for private open space for dual occupancy developments. A private open space area of 100m2 with minimum dimensions of 6 metres are required. Dwelling A proposes a private open space area of 101m2 and 106.9m2 for Dwelling B. The minimum dimension for the open space for Dwelling A is 9.8 metres, whilst the minimum dimension for the private open space for Dwelling B is 5 metres. The minor non-compliance for Dwelling B is acceptable given that the rear open space area has been reduced as a result of increasing the front setback. Despite the dimension non-compliance the proposed development provides the minimum area required of 100m². The courtyard is usable and will meet the recreational needs of occupants of the dwelling.

Overshadowing to No. 27 Trumper Street

14. Concern is raised that the proposed development will result in unacceptable loss of solar access to No. 27 Trumper Street. It is noted that 27 Trumper Street is located two properties away from the subject site.

15. The proposed dual occupancy development is approximately 25 metres from the objector’s property. Given the distance, the proposed dual occupancy on 68 Marguerette Street will not impact on solar access received by 27 Trumper Street, being the objector’s property.

Length of Driveway

16. Concern is raised that the length of the driveway of Dwelling B is insufficient and that this would result in any vehicles parked in the driveway to overhang into the reserve.

17. The applicant has submitted amended plans showing an increased front setback to Dwelling B and therefore an increase in the length of the driveway from 3.45 metres to 5.82 metres. This length ensures that any vehicles parked on the driveway will not overhang in the road reserve.

Infestation of mosquitoes within the vicinity

18. The objector raises concern in regards to the proposed dual occupancy and that it will increase the number of mosquitoes in the area as it is on higher ground and that it will impact the existing airflow through the objector’s backyard.

19. The likely source of mosquitos would be the Parramatta River which is approximately 800 metres from the site.

Side setback of Dwelling B is insufficient

20. Concern is raised that the side setback for Dwelling B on the Southern elevation is insufficient.

21. Section 3.1 of PDCP 2005 requires a dual occupancy development to provide a 1.5 metre side setback. The applicant has amended the proposal which increases the side setback of Dwelling B from a minimum of 943mm to 1.093 metres to the rear of Dwelling B. The non-compliance with the numerical control applies only to the rear portion of the development with the side setback of the front portion of Dwelling B setback 1.5 metres. In addition, the adjoining property on No. 25 Trumper Street has a side setback of 2.8 metres. Given the generous existing side setback at No. 25 Trumper Street, it is considered that any visual and amenity impacts are limited and therefore, the minor non-compliance is acceptable.

Maximum Height for two-storey developments

22. Concern is raised that the proposed height of the development is unacceptable and would result in adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining property at No. 25 Trumper Street.

23. Section 3.1 of the PDCP states that the minimum height of dual occupancy developments is 9 metres. Dwelling B has a maximum building height of 7.90 which complies with Council’s requirements and is acceptable. The proposed height of Dwelling B cannot be lowered any further as the finished floor levels are dictated by the requirements of the Flood Study and Council Engineering requirements.

Zone Objectives

24. Concern is raised that the proposed development does not satisfy the objectives of the Residential 2A Zone. In particular, the objective which stipulates that a Residential 2A Zone is “to encourage redevelopment of low density housing forms, including dual occupancy development, where such redevelopment does not compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential areas”. The objector is concerned that due to the unacceptable bulk and scale of the proposed development, that the amenity of the streetscape is compromised.

25. The applicant has submitted amended plans that increase the front setback of Dwelling B by 2 metres and the length of the southern elevation of Dwelling B is reduced by 5 metres. In this regard, the perceived bulk and scale have been reduced. As previously mentioned, the height of the dwellings cannot be lowered as the finished floor levels are dictated by the requirements of the Flood Study. In addition, the detached nature of the dual occupancy development ensures that single dwelling low density housing forms is continued and therefore reducing adverse impacts to the amenity of the surrounding residential areas.

Landscaping

26. Concern is raised that insufficient landscaping has been provided along the boundary between Dwelling B and No. 25 Trumper Street and that the minimal landscaping would result in a loss of acoustic and visual amenity.

27. The applicant has amended the proposal which increases the side setback of Dwelling B to 1.093 metres at the rear of Dwelling B. In addition, the adjoining property at No. 25 Trumper Street has a side setback of 2.8 metres. Given the generous existing side setback at No. 25 Trumper Street, the dual occupancy on 68 Marguerette Street is not expected to generate noise that would be excessive and it is unlikely that objector’s properties would experience noise levels beyond normal residential acoustics. It is also noted that vegetation is a poor absorbent of noise.

28. In respect to landscaping measures to ensure amenity impacts are minimised, Council’s Landscape Officer advised that screen planting along the side setback of Dwelling B is not feasible as there is insufficient space to accommodate such vegetation. However, a condition will be placed on the consent that a 300mm lattice screening be placed on top of the 1.8 metre boundary fence between Dwelling B and No. 25 Trumper Street to assist in minimising the visual impact to the adjoining property.

On-site Meeting

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

30. In accordance with the above resolution an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 9 February 2008 commencing at 1:30pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Wilson, Service Manager of Development Assessment Services Mark Leotta, Assessment Planner Denise Fernandez, 6 residents and the owner. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

Demolition – Asbestos

31. Concern was raised regarding demolition processes and asbestos removal.

32. Council officers explained that specific conditions would be placed on any consent requiring contractors to hold a NSW WorkCover license to undertake demolition works per WorkCover practices. As part of the standard conditions, any application for the demolition of an existing structure will be enclosed and an asbestos sign placed on the site notifying the public of the works.

Secondary Setback – Trumper Street

33. Concern was raised that the secondary setback to Trumper Street was insufficient given that the proposed 3 metres would be inconsistent with the existing street setback. In addition, given that the proposed dual occupancy is of a detached nature, the primary setback control of 5 to 9 metres should be applicable to the detached dwelling fronting Trumper Street.

34. This would have implications for the practical application and compliance of soft soil (to the front), the rhythm of the streetscape, traffic and manoeuvrability.

35. Council staff stated that the application of the secondary setback controls in practice would treat the lot as one lot notwithstanding the intentions of subdividing the lot into two properties upon completion of the development. Council officers reiterated that whilst it may comply numerically, a further merit assessment of the application will be undertaken to ensure the application of the controls are practical in the current situation to achieve desired objectives. The assessment resulted in the amended plans being submitted.

Bulk and Scale

36. Concerns were raised that the southern elevation of the dwelling fronting Trumper Street provides no relief for 15 metres, and that it would increase the bulk and scale of the proposed development. Concern is raised that this would affect overshadowing and property values for adjoining neighbours. In addition, due to the 1.5 metre boundary setback to the south of the site, tree plantings along that elevation would not be feasible which would ensure that no relief is achieved from the 15 metre elevation for adjoining neighbours.

37. Council officers reiterated that the affects of bulk and scale of the proposed development would be considered in the assessment of the application and if the further assessment warrants a redesign of the proposed development, then the applicant will be notified. Council officers also reiterated that property values and whether the proposed development would have such an affect is not a matter of consideration under S79C of the EP&A Act. It is considered that the amended plans satisfactorily address this issue.

Flipping Dwelling B so that relief is achieved to the southern elevation

38. Neighbours had suggested that Dwelling B which faces Trumper Street be flipped so that the private open space was closer to the adjoining neighbour to the south as it would solve the bulk and scale issue and any other amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.

39. Due to the orientation of the site that the applicant has chosen to maximise this by opting to design the private open space to where it is currently located. However, Council officers also asked the applicant if they were willing to consider a redesign of the application to resolve the issues raised in the meeting. The applicant was open to any suggestions and would await any Council advice and instructions should any be forthcoming.

ISSUES

Side Setback

40. Whilst the minimum 1.094 side setback to Dwelling B is a numeric non-compliance with the setback control, it is noted that the non-compliance applies only to the rear portion of the development. The proposed side setback to the front portion of Dwelling B is 1.5metres and complies with Council requirements. In addition, the adjoining property on No. 25 Trumper Street has a side setback of 2.8 metres. Given the generous existing side setback at No. 25 Trumper Street, it is considered that any visual and amenity impacts are limited and therefore, the non-compliance is considered to be acceptable.

Fences

41. A maximum 1.8m high front fence is proposed along the Marguerette Street elevation and Trumper Street elevation. Whilst it is non-compliant with Council requirements, it is considered acceptable to ensure privacy to the private open space to the rear.

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	Numerical Compliance Table	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	11 Pages
4View	History of Development Application	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 10 November 2008

Item 12.8

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.8

SUBJECT 104 Oakes Road, Toongabbie. (Lot 1 in DP 559006 and Lot 1 in DP 620256) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to the Baxter Health Care facility, including an extension to the main manufacturing building, refurbishment of the office area and re-routing of the drainage easement. (Locality Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/267/2008 - DA lodged 21 April 2008

APPLICANT/S Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd

OWNERS Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Development Application No. 267/2008 seeks approval for alterations and additions to the Baxter Healthcare facility at 104 Oakes Road, Toongabbie, including a 1,095m², 8.8 metres high extension to the south-western side of the existing pharmaceuticals manufacturing building; internal alterations and additions; refurbishment of existing office areas; relocation of Council’s drainage easement and associated drainage and landscaping works. The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received. Five objections have been received in respect of this application.

The proposed development 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 works are consistent with the scale of the existing buildings on the site; are of a design that is suitable to the site and its buildings; relates to a use of significant public interest and comply with the numerical requirements of Parramatta LEP 2001 and Parramatta DCP 2005.

The proposal involves no additional employees and no additional traffic movements, therefore the use of the site will not result in an intensification of the current situation and no additional impacts on neighbours.

Approval of the development application is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Development Application No. 267/2008 be approved, subject to standard and the following extraordinary conditions.

(1) The on-site detention system shall be designed by a practising structural engineer and is to be structurally adequate to carry the designated load. Detailed structural plans are to be submitted with the construction certificate.

(2) The applicant shall demonstrate on the construction certificate plans that the overland flow path analysis up to 1 in 100 year events and the proposed overland flow path within the development area and on Council land has enough capacity to safely convey overland flows through the site.

(3) Water sensitive urban design principles, including re-use of rainwater, are to be incorporated into the final design of the stormwater drainage system. These shall include permeable pavement, vegetated swales, rainwater re-use and landscaping and shall be shown on the construction certificate plans and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

(4) Connection of the new drainage line to the existing drainage pipeline shall be done by using a concrete pit or chamber and the means of protection of the existing stormwater pipe system through the site that may be affected by excavation or construction shall be depicted on the construction certificate plans and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

(5) Prior to the issue of the occupation certificate, the applicant must create a ‘restriction-on-use’ on the title of the property. The restriction is to be over Council’s drainage easement of 4.57m wide running through the site as identified on drainage plan No. 08S026C-01 Rev D dated 5/09/08 and drawn by Hughes Trueman and must prevent the placement of any structures, walls, fences, fill or other items which may impede the 100 year ARI flow, within that zone. No building encroachment or structural overhang is allowed upon the drainage easement. Parramatta City Council is to be named as the Authority whose consent is required to release, vary or modify the restriction.

(6) A positive covenant and a restriction shall be created on the property title under the provision of the Conveyancing Act 1919, to ensure that the required on-site detention system will be adequately maintained. A copy of the typical covenant may be obtained from the Council's Development Services Unit.

(7) The registration of the proposed Council’s drainage easement of 4.57m wide running through the site, located and identified as Line 2 on plan No. 08S026C-01 Issue D dated 05/09/2008 (prepared by: Hughes Trueman Consulting Engineers), shall be created in favour of Parramatta City Council at the cost of the applicant.

(8) Proof of registration shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority then to Council prior to occupation or use of on-site.

Note: The covenant is to be submitted to Council for approval prior to lodgement with the Land and Property Information Service of NSW.

Reason: To ensure maintenance of on-site detention facilities.

Note: The applicant should give consideration to the re-use of the driveway accessing Old Windsor Road. Such use will require the further approval of Council and the RTA. The width of the vehicular footpath crossing on Old Windsor Road would require to comply with AS2890.2 - 2002 for heavy rigid vehicle and subject to the Road and Traffic Authority requirements.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is located within a self-contained industrial precinct. Development in the surrounding area is predominantly residential.

2. The site adjoins a large electricity substation to the northwest and is located on the north-eastern side of Old Windsor Road. A public reserve and Toongabbie Creek adjoin the site to the north and this is from where the extensions would be most visible.

3. Residential properties are located to the south-east of the site on the opposite side of Oakes Road, as well as to the south-west on the opposite side of Old Windsor Road.

4. The site contains two lots, with areas of 5.631 hectares (Lot in DP 559006) and 1.03 hectares (Lot 1 in DP 620256), resulting in a total site area for the facility of 6.661 hectares. The proposed development would fall partially across both allotments.

5. The site is of an irregular shape, bound by Old Windsor Road, the electricity substation, Oakes Road, Toongabbie Creek and Oakes Reserve. The site has a history of manufacturing medicine dating back to 1973 and currently operates 24 hours a day.

PROPOSAL

6. Approval is sought for the following development:

6.1 alterations and additions to the existing building;

6.2 refurbish existing office space;

6.3 1,095m² extension of the main building for the purposes of pharmaceuticals manufacturing (relocated from another part of the existing building);

6.4 relocation of a Council drainage easement closer to the south-western boundary of the site, in order to allow for the extensions;

6.5 operation of the extensions between 7.00am and 11.00pm Mondays to Saturdays.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

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

7. A preliminary investigation of the potential for contamination of the land was carried out in accordance with the “Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines SEPP No 55 – Remediation of Land” 1998 (see Clause 7 of SEPP No. 55) in 2001.

8. The redevelopment is not one which could be considered sensitive and is a continuation of non-residential use of the site. Soil to be removed from the site is to be disposed of in an appropriate manner. Such soil is to be tested to determine its cleanliness prior to its disposal.

9. The site contamination report submitted with the application concludes that the entire site is suitable for continued industrial use.

10. Council’s Health Officer was asked to comment on the proposal and has not raised any issues with the proposal.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

11. The site is zoned Employment 4 under Parramatta LEP 2001 and the proposed alterations and additions are permissible with the consent of Council.

12. As the site exceeds 5,000m², Clause 30 and Schedule 4 of PLEP 2001 require that a masterplan be prepared prior to the lodgement of a DA. There are exceptions to this and the applicant refers to such exceptions in the submission.

“The development is of an extremely minor nature when viewed in the context of the established and substantial Baxter Healthcare complex, which has existed on the site since 1973. A site analysis study has been prepared in relation to the proposed development which demonstrates that the proposed development is the best solution for the site. No environmental constraints prevent the extension to the existing building in the proposed location”.

13. The detailed site analysis submitted with the DA indicates that the site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed development and clearly details that the proposal does not unreasonably impact on adjoining residential properties or the context of the surrounding area. The density proposed is less than what PLEP 2001 allows for similar development in the zone and the extensions would operate for fewer hours than the remainder of the facility and with no additional employees or vehicular movements.

14. Given the masterplanning measures already undertaken by the applicant in relation to this and the previously acceptable and approved DAs, it is considered that a masterplan is not warranted in this instance.

15. Clause 44 – Office Development in the Employment 4 zone requires Council not to grant its consent to development with offices in the Employment 4 zone, unless it is ancillary to a permissible use on the site.

16. The applicant submits that the proposal provides for the majority of the development to be industrial or warehousing in nature. The proposed office refurbishment contributes only a small proportion of the overall development and is clearly related to the predominant use of the site.

17. The proposal complies with the requirements of the LEP in relation to office development in the Employment 4 zone.

18. The height limit for a building is 12 metres in this locality (under the DCP) and the maximum FSR is 1:1 (under the LEP).

19. The height of the proposed extensions would be 8.8 metres and the overall FSR of the site would be well below 0.5:1. At its closest point, the additions would be located 7.5 metres off the south-western boundary of the site. The works would not be located in proximity to residential land.

20. The proposal satisfies the relevant objectives of the zone and the LEP and the DCP, it’s height and scale are appropriate for the site and it would not be highly visible from the street. The extensions and alterations/additions would also be consistent in height with other buildings on the site.

CONSULTATION

21. The development application was placed on public notification between 7 and 28 May, 2008. The notification generated 5 objections to the proposal, raising the following issues:

Expansion of the facility & additional impacts

22. While the facility will be expanding in terms of floor area as a result of this development, there will be no additional impacts as there are no additional employees and no additional vehicular movements, other than those associated with the construction aspect of the development.

Increased noise and traffic on Oakes Road

23. Other than during the construction phase of the development, there will be no additional traffic and no additional noise resulting from the proposal.

Use of the driveway accessing Old Windsor Road

24. There is a driveway located adjacent to Old Windsor Road that appears to be rarely, if ever, used. This driveway would require some work to be functional for larger vehicles, particularly B-doubles, and would then result in often difficult access directly onto an arterial road.

25. The use of this driveway does not form part of this DA and given that the development does not involve additional staff or additional vehicular movements for the operational aspects of the development, Council cannot require that Baxter Healthcare utilise this driveway without the applicant including this as part of the DA and gaining the approval of the RTA.

26. Any future redevelopment of this driveway and increased use will also require the consent of the Roads and Traffic Authority and Parramatta City Council, the latter because most of the existing driveway traverses a public reserve (over a distance of 30.65 metres) between the site and Old Windsor Road. This reserve runs a length of 94.929 metres adjacent to Old Windsor Road and the development site.

No notification of previous remodelling of the roundabout on Oakes Road

27. According to Council’s records, a concept design for the new roundabout was prepared in 2003, following a submission from Baxter Healthcare that the roundabout at that time posed a safety risk to road users.

28. Kerb and gutter reconstruction and demolition works commenced towards the end of December 2004, followed by asphalt works on 5 January 2005 and completion on 14 January 2005 at a total cost of nearly $140,000 with Baxter Healthcare contributing $65,000 towards its construction.

29. Surrounding residents were consulted in relation to the roundabout, with Council’s letter to the Member for Baulkham Hills, dated 27 November 2006 noting:

“I refer to …….. Council’s letter dated 25 October 2006 regarding the proposed changes to the roundabout at the intersection of Oakes Road and Baxter Drive, Old Toongabbie.

Council notes the resident’s concern regarding the changes to the roundabout and that these were made to accommodate the turning movements of heavy vehicles from Baxter Drive. To address this issue and to further improve traffic safety, it is proposed to install rumble bars along Oakes Road to the approach and departure sides of the roundabout. These rumble bars are intended to improve pedestrian and traffic safety and reduce speed at the intersection.

The affected residents and businesses will be consulted shortly regarding the proposal. A copy of the concept design plan showing the proposed changes will be circulated to them for their consideration.”

30. Surrounding residents were subsequently advised by letter dated 15 December 2006 stating:

“Dear Sir/Madam

Proposed Rumble Bar Treatment in Oakes Road near the Roundabout at Baxter Drive, Winston Hills

Council has drafted a plan for provision of traffic calming devices for consultation with the residents. The design plan includes the construction of a slow point using rumble bars. These works are intended to improve pedestrian and traffic safety and reduce speed.

Rumble bars will also be provided on the centre of the road, west of the slow point with gaps for vehicles to access driveways.

A copy of the design plan is attached for your consideration along with a reply paid envelope. If you have any comment regarding the proposal, please respond to Council by Monday 15 January 2007.”

Noise from ‘rumble bars’ used on roundabout

31. Council introduced ‘rumble bars’ upon the roundabout’s pavement during 2007, subsequent to a survey being undertaken in the area. It is noted that Baxter Healthcare’s submission to Council at the time the survey was undertaken in February 2007, that these devices do result in additional noise.

32. However, the issue of ‘rumble bars’ is separate to this development application.

Loss of views as a result of the extensions

33. The proposed development will achieve a maximum height of 8.8 metres, thereby complying with the height limit of 12 metres nominated by Parramatta DCP 2005. Under these circumstances, it would be unreasonable to refuse to grant consent to this DA based on those grounds.

34. The additions will not result in the loss of any significant views from any nearby residential property.

No notification took place north of the site

35. Residents of Goliath Avenue, north of the site, who, in the opinion of Council may potentially be affected by the proposal, were notified of the development application. The extent of notification was in accordance with Council’s Notifications DCP.

36. A copy of the notification map is included in this report as Attachment 4.

ISSUES

Drainage easement

37. Council’s Strategic Assets Management Unit provided the following comments in relation to the drainage easement:

“The existing drainage easement 4.57 m wide over Lot 1 DP 620656 was created in favour of the Council via DP 638539. Subject to the agreement and requirement of Council's Catchment Management Unit, the drainage easement and pipe can be relocated / realigned at no costs to the Council. Approval of the Council is required for extinguishment of the existing drainage easement.

The width of the new drainage easement, which should be 4.57 m wide or similar, is to be stipulated in the engineering conditions.

As discussed, building encroachment upon the drainage easement should not be allowed.”

38. Council’s Development Engineer has recommended a number of conditions to be imposed on the development. The non-standard conditions are included in the Recommendation.

39. Council’s Catchment Management Unit assessed the plans and provided the following comments:

“New detail engineering survey needs to be submitted in order to show existing infrastructure including all underground services.

Detailed hydrologic & hydraulic calculations at pre and post development scenario need to be submitted to demonstrate that the proposed relocated stormwater drainage systems would not adversely impact upon the current system performance up to 100 years storm events.

OSD calculation sheet as per Trust handbook needs to be submitted to demonstrate that the specified storage volume has been adequately provided within the development. Development Control Pit (DCP) detail also needs to be submitted with the submission.

Applicant needs to demonstrate that overland flowpath analysis up to 1 in 100 year events that the proposed overland flow-path within development area and within Council area has enough capacity to safely convey overland flows through the site. In addition the V*D factors should not exceed 0.4 through the overland flowpath.

Stormwater drainage pipe/ pit details including surface and invert level at pre and post development scenario need to be submitted in order to justify that pipe systems can be laid without obstruction.

Details of stormwater drainage system (line 4) need to be submitted and showing how existing drainage pipe system (line 4) will be protected under proposed Baxter Healthcare building. It is to be noted that Councils existing stormwater drainage pipe system/easement shall be free of any building encroachments.

Water sensitive urban design principles are to be incorporated into the design of stormwater drainage, on site detention landscaping and in the orientation of the development.

I don't see any problem with conditioning the DA to finalise details prior to release of CC in regard to relocation of Council stormwater drainage line. Our focus in this case will be to ensure that relocated route will not be obstructed by utilities services and that overland flow path will not potentially cause future stormwater drainage problem for new facility or adjacent areas.

WSUD and stormwater reuse/recycling should be encouraged. I don't see any

problem with similarly conditioning DA in this regard.”

40. The plans were revised and following the receipt of amended plans on 16 October 2008, a number of conditions of consent are recommended. These are included in the Recommendation.

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Plans & Elevations	10 Pages
3View	History of DA	1 Page
4View	Notification Map	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 10 November 2008

Item 12.9

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.9

SUBJECT 2 Phillip Street Parramatta (Lot 1 and 2 DP 986344) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Section 96(1a) modification which seeks approval to modify a development consent for alterations and additions to two existing restaurants. The application seeks approval for the installation of an air-conditioning unit, the demolition of two waste storage sheds, the construction of a new waste storage room and the deletion of condition No.5. (Location Map attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/944/2007/A - Submitted 26 May 2008

APPLICANT/S Bavarian Hospitality Group Pty Ltd

OWNERS Kyrod Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The application seeks approval to modify a development application which granted consent for alterations and additions to two existing restaurants to facilitate the future use of the site as a Bavarian Bier Complex. The amendments include the demolition of an existing waste storage room and shed and the construction of a new waste storage room between the rear of the former church hall and the rear boundary. The application also seeks approval for the installation of a new air conditioning unit.

No objections have been received in respect of this application.

The application has been referred to Council for the determination because the site is listed as a heritage item. The proposed amendments would not have a negative impact on the heritage significance of the heritage item and approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

That development consent No. 944/2007 be modified in the following manner:

1. The following new condition be added to the consent.

1a. The installation of the new garbage room and air conditioning unit is to be carried out in compliance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:

Drawing N^o	Dated
DA210 Revision B – Proposed Elevations	1/05/08
DA211 Revision A – Proposed External Elevations	5/04/08
DA100 Revision C – Proposed Ground Floor Layout Plan	1/05/08
DA801 Revision A – Waste/Recycling Store	5/04/08

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

2. Further, that condition No. 5 be deleted.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is known as No. 2 Phillip Street Parramatta. The site contains two buildings, the former St Andrews Presbyterian Church (the church) located on the western portion of the site with frontage to both Marsden Street and Phillip Street and the former Margaret Houison Hall (the hall) located to the east of the site and with frontage to Phillip Street. The church has existing approval for use as a restaurant and the hall has existing approval for use as a restaurant/nightclub. Both the church and the hall are listed as heritage items in Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007.

PROPOSAL

2. The ‘La Porchetta’ restaurant previously located in the former church utilised a brick shed attached to the rear of the building for the storage of their waste bins. The ‘Echo lounge’ restaurant/nightclub located in the former church hall used a shed located between the rear of the former church hall and the northern boundary to store their waste bins. Both the former church and former church hall are now occupied by a single tenant. It is proposed to remove both existing waste storage sheds and construct a new waste storage room to the rear of the former church hall. The existing sheds do not have any heritage significance because they were constructed within the last 15 years.

3. The approved development application granted approval for the removal of several air conditioning units attached to the outside of the former church. The application seeks approval to provide a single conditioning unit to the western side of the former church. A timber screen will be provided around the air-conditioning unit to screen it from the street.

4. In development application No. 944/2007 the applicant sought consent for internal and external refurbishment of both buildings and the demolition of a waste storage shed attached to the rear of the former church. Condition No. 5 of the development consent stated that no approval was granted for the demolition of the waste storage shed. This condition was imposed because a replacement waste storage shed was not shown on the plans.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (The Act).

5. The Act requires that an application modified under section 96 must be substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted. The modifications to the development consent are minor and the development consent as modified will be substantially the same as the consent which was granted.

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

6. The consent as modified will be consistent with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone.

CONSULTATION

7. In accordance with the requirements of the Notification DCP the application was advertised from 11 June 2008 to 25 June 2008. No submissions were received. The application is consistent with the public interest.

ISSUES

Heritage

8. Council’s Heritage Advisor reviewed the application and provided the following comments:

“I am of opinion that the impact of the proposal is acceptable, including the

creation of the new garbage room and the installation of a new external air-conditioning unit.”

9. Accordingly there are no objections to the proposal from a heritage perspective.

Planning

10. The new waste storage room will provide improved waste storage facilities for the restaurants and the new air-conditioning unit replaces a previous arrangement which utilised multiple units attached to the exterior of the heritage listed former church. The proposed modifications represent an improved environmental planning outcome and are considered worthy of approval.

Jonathon Goodwill

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Plans and Elevations	4 Pages
3View	Development Application History	1 Page
4View	Previous Council Report from 11-2-2008	16 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services			Assistant Minutes Clerk – Michael Wearne
Geoff King – Acting Group Manager Corporate			Minutes Clerk – Grant Davies
Marcelo Occhuizzi – Acting Group Manager Outcomes & Development

Clr Paul Barber – Caroline Chisholm Ward			Clr Lorraine Wearne - Lachlan Macquarie Ward
Clr Mark Lack – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward			Clr John Chedid – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward
Clr Glenn Elmore – Woodville Ward			Clr Andrew Wilson – Lachlan Macquarie Ward
Clr Pierre Esber– Lachlan Macquarie Ward			Clr Scott Lloyd – Caroline Chisholm Ward
Clr Prabir Maitra – Arthur Phillip Ward			Clr Andrew Bide – Caroline Chisholm Ward
Clr Julia Finn – Arthur Phillip Ward	Clr Michael McDermott - Elizabeth Macarthur Ward	Clr Paul Garrard, Deputy Lord Mayor – Woodville Ward	Clr Chiang Lim – Arthur Phillip Ward

Regulatory Council	10 November 2008

Regulatory Council	10 November 2008

Regulatory Council	10 November 2008

Regulatory Council	10 November 2008