NOTICE OF Regulatory Council MEETING

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Robert Lang

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Parramatta – the leading city at the heart of Sydney

 

30 Darcy Street Parramatta NSW 2150

PO Box 32 Parramatta

 

Phone 02 9806 5050 Fax 02 9806 5917 DX 8279 Parramatta

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

 

“Think Before You Print”



COUNCIL CHAMBERS

 

 

The Lord Mayor Clr Antoine (Tony) Issa, OAM – Woodville Ward

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

 

 

 

 

Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services

 

 

 

Assistant Minutes Clerk – Erin Lottey

 

 

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

Text Box:   Press

 

Staff

 

 

Staff

 

GALLERY

 


Regulatory Council

 8 December 2008

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM                                                         SUBJECT                                              PAGE NO

 

1       CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Ordinary Council - 24 November 2008

2        APOLOGIES

3        DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4        Minutes of Lord Mayor

5        Public Forum  

6        PETITIONS  

7        Development Applications Referred For On-Site Meetings

7.1     List of proposed onsite Meetings.      

8        City Leadership and Management

8.1     Federal Government Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program 2008-09  

9        DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION

10      DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD

11      Reports - Domestic Applications

11.1   343 - 345, Shop 1, Guildford Road, Guildford. (Lot 23 DP 129060 Subj to Row) (Woodville Ward)

11.2   6 Prince Street, North Parramatta. (Lot 14 DP 979533) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

11.3   Shop 13/49-52 Beecroft Road, Epping. (Lot A DP 325036) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

11.4   206 Kissing Point Road, Dundas. (Lot 1 DP 223756) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

12      Reports - Development Applications

12.1   Section 82A Review DA/640/2006 292 Railway Terrace Guildford. Lot 16D DP 404160 (Woodville Ward)

12.2   10-12 Russell Street, Granville (Lot 1 in DP 900091, Lot 1 in DP 900091 and Lots 1 & 2 in DP 127379) (Woodville Ward)

12.3   44-46 Weston Street and 101B Alfred Street, Rosehill. (Lots 1-3 DP 1093536) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.4   467-469 Church Street, Parramatta. (Lot 7 & 8 DP 834791) (Arthur Phillip Ward).

12.5   Section 82A Review DA174/2007 17-21 Woodville Road and 2-4 Milton Street Granville. (Lot 100 DP 1013005) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.6   110 Harris Street, Harris Park. (Lot 60 DP 735064) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.7   479 Kissing Point Road, Ermington (Lachlan Macquarie Ward) (Lot A in DP 440585)

12.8   317 Church Street, Parramatta (Arthur Phillip Ward) (Lot 1 in DP 87514)

12.9   6 Boundary Street, Parramatta (Lot 45 in DP 868115) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

12.10  1 Wyuna Place, Oatlands. (Lot 13 DP 31813) (Elizabeth Macathur Ward)

12.11  25 Carson Street, Epping. (Lot 11 DP 31179) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

12.12  96 Pennant Hills Road, Oatlands. (Lot 1001 DP 718083) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.13  McDonalds, 152 Woodville Road, Merrylands. (Lot 1 DP 848247) (Woodville Ward)

12.14  65A Wigram Street, Harris Park. Lot B in DP 348320. (Arthur Phillip Ward)

12.15  54 Binalong Road, Toongabbie. (Lot 2 DP 703749) (Caroline Chisholm Ward).

12.16  52 Railway Street, Wentworthville (Lot 141 in DP 997970) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

12.17  171 Victoria Road Rydalmere (University of Western Sydney). (Lots 100 and 101 DP 816829, Lot 1 DP 836958) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward).

12.18  353D Church Street, Parramatta - Prince Alfred Park (Lot 1 DP 724837) (Pk 15) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

12.19  236 Church Street Parramatta (Lot 1 DP 128437) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

12.20  Oatlands Golf Course (Lot 39 DP 808581) 94 Bettington Road, Oatlands & Vineyard Creek Reserve (Lot 93 in DP 846814) Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.21  Upstream weir, Parramatta River, Parramatta (Part Lot 1 and Part Lot 2 in Section 78 BK 1801 N) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

13      Notices of Motion

13.1   Civic Events Committee   

14      QUESTION TIME

 

 

  


Regulatory Council

 8 December 2008

 

 

 

On-Site Meetings

 

08 December 2008

 

7.1    List of proposed onsite Meetings.


Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 7.1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REFERRED FOR ON-SITE MEETINGS

ITEM NUMBER         7.1

SUBJECT                   List of proposed onsite Meetings.

REFERENCE            F2004/08629 - D01084538

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To provide Councillors with a list of proposed onsite meetings for development applications.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That the list of proposed onsite meetings appended in attachment 1 to this report be adopted.

 

(b)     Further, that the Councillor Support Officer’s forward invitations for each onsite meeting in line with individual Councillors requirements.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      Council at its meeting held on 14 July 2008 resolved:-

 

(a)     That in future regulatory Meetings of Council, the agenda contain a separate item at the end which lists all DA’s which staff and Councillors deem onsite meetings maybe necessary, along with a recommended date and time as to when these meetings might be held, i.e. subject to the concurrence of Councillors. This may also include DA’s which are listed on that particular agenda for debate. Included with the suggested date and time for the meeting, is to be the reason why it is considered an onsite meeting is necessary.

 

(b)     Further, that following the settling of the dates and times of the meetings, these be forwarded onto the CSO’s for them to forward invitations in line with individual Councillor’s requirements.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

2       In accordance with the above resolution, a list of future onsite meetings has been developed by Development Assessment Services. The list is appended as Attachment 1 of this Report.

 

3       Subject to Council approval, the Councillor Support Officer’s will forward invitations for each onsite meeting listed in Attachment 1 of this Report, in line with individual Councillor’s requirements.

 

CONCLUSION

 

4       The list of proposed onsite meetings for development applications to take place in the next month is placed before Council for its consideration and/or adoption.

 

 

 

Louise Kerr

Manager Development Services

 

 

Attachments:

1View

List of proposed onsite meeting.

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

       


Regulatory Council

 8 December 2008

 

 

 

City Leadership and Management

 

08 December 2008

 

8.1    Federal Government Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program 2008-09


Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 8.1

CITY LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM NUMBER         8.1

SUBJECT                   Federal Government Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program 2008-09

REFERENCE            F2007/01165 - D01085863

REPORT OF              Manager City Assets and Environment       

 

PURPOSE:

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the detail of the recently announced Federal Government Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program 2008-09 and to recommend a process for deciding which projects will be funded.  As the deadlines for submission of funding proposals will fall before the first Council meeting of 2009, project funding decisions must either be made at the Council meeting of 15 December 2008, or an arrangement put in place for decision by delegation.

 

The grant is in two parts; the first is a $250m allocation for short term projects which must be completed before 30 September 2009. PCC has been granted $893 000 under this program, and Council is required to advise the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government which projects it will fund, by 30 January 2009.  To enable a thorough consultation and analysis process to be undertaken prior to the final list being submitted, it is recommended that a sub-committee of Councillors be nominated and given delegated authority to approve the list in late January.  The report outlines a proposed process for developing and approving the project list.

 

The second part of the program is a $50m allocation for ‘Strategic Projects’ with a project value of over $2m, for which construction must commence by September 2009.  Councils across Australia will have to compete for these funds, with funding applications due by 23 December 2008.  In order to develop a competitive application which complies with the onerous timeframes and guidelines of this program, it is necessary to identify a project for which planning is already well underway but which is not included in the 2008/09 Management Plan.  It is recommended that Council submit a funding application for Stage 3 of the redevelopment of South Street, Granville.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council appoint a sub-committee of the Lord Mayor (or his delegate) plus four Councillors who shall have delegated authority to approve a list of projects for funding under the Federal Government Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program 2008-09.

 

 (c)    That Council submit an application for funding under the Federal Government Regional and Local Infrastructure Program – Strategic Projects 2008-09 for Stage 3 of the redevelopment of South Street, Granville.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.         On 18 November 2008, the Australian Government announced a new grant program valued at $300m which is aimed at stimulating economic growth through rapid spending on community infrastructure.

 

2.         The program is in two parts; the first is a $250m allocation for short term projects which must be completed before 30 September 2009. PCC has been granted $893 000 under this program. The second part is a $50m allocation for ‘Strategic Projects’ with a project value of over $2m, for which construction must commence by September 2009.  Councils across Australia will have to compete for these funds.

 

3.         Key elements of the two programs are;

 

(a)    Short Term Projects

 

I.        Funding is for ‘additional and ready to proceed community infrastructure projects’ or additional stages of existing projects;

II.       Details of projects to be funded must be forwarded to the Department by 30 January 2009;

III.       Funds must be fully expended by 30 September 2009;

IV.      Projects must be consistent with a supplied list (see Annexure A of guidelines at Attachment 1);

V.       Funding is not available for ongoing costs such as maintenance;

VI.      Funding is not available for transport infrastructure such as roads or related infrastructure;

VII.     Funding is available for footpaths provided that they are not associated with Roads to Recovery projects and form part of a streetscape but not part of a road;

VIII.    There does not appear to be an upper or lower limit on the size of projects.

 

(b)     Strategic projects

 

I.        There will be a minimum Commonwealth contribution of $2m. The maximum project value is not defined, but larger projects and those which include partnership funding will be given preference;

II.       Applications for funding will close on 23 December 2008;

III.      Only one application may be submitted by Council;

IV.      Successful projects will be announced by the Department in February 2009;

V.      A Funding Agreement is to be finalised 4 weeks after the formal written advice of the announcement;

VI.      Construction must commence within 6 months of signing the Funding Agreement, i.e. September 2009;

VII.     Projects must be consistent with a supplied list (see Annexure A of guidelines at Attachment 1);

VIII.    Funding is not available for transport infrastructure such as roads or related infrastructure covered by the Roads to Recovery or Black Spots programs;

IX.      Council can also apply on behalf of a not-for-profit organisation

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

4.         The critical element in each of the programs is the very short time frames, both for submission of funding applications and for expenditure of funds.

 

Short Term Projects

 

5.         Council is obliged to provide the Department its list of short term projects by 30 January 2009. As this date precedes the first Council meeting of the new year, it is essential that the list either be approved by Council at the meeting of December 15 2008, or that Council resolves to allow the list to be approved under delegation.

 

6.         So that a thorough consultation and analysis process can be undertaken, it is preferred that the final list is approved by delegation in late January. This will allow time for projects to be nominated, properly costed and assessed against the program guidelines, before a final list is prepared and approved.

 

7.         It is recognised however, that this will require decisions to be made over the January leave period where not all Councillors are available.  Ideally, Council should establish a decision making process which allows for input by all Councillors prior to the leave period, but provides for a final decision in late January. The following decision making process and timeline is therefore proposed;

Step 1 – Council appoints a sub-committee of 5 Councillors and delegates final approval to the sub-committee

8 December 2008

Step 2 – sub-committee meets to agree selection criteria

Week ending 12 December 2008

Step 3 – Councillors and Leadership Team (CEO, Group Managers and Unit Managers) asked to submit proposals which conform to the agreed selection criteria

15 December – 22 December 2008

Step 4 – Manager City Assets and Environment coordinates the development of proposals and provides them to the sub - committee

Week ending 16 January 2009

Step 5 – Sub-committee meets to review proposals and agree final list

Week ending 23 January

Step 6 – List submitted

30 January 2009

 

Strategic Projects

 

8.         The timeframes for the Strategic Projects are more critical and onerous than those of the short term projects. The application, which requires significant detail regarding costs and planning approval for the project, must be submitted by 23 December 2008. Construction must commence by September 2009. These timeframes do not allow for nomination of entirely new proposals. In order to submit a high quality submission (to a very competitive process) and achieve the commencement deadline, Council must nominate a project for which planning is already well advanced, but is not already funded in the 2008/09 Management Plan.

 

9.         The only project that has been identified that meets the above requirements and is both large enough to qualify (>$2m) and complies with the program guidelines, is Stage 3 of the Redevelopment of South Street, Granville under Council’s Better Neighbourhood Program.

 

10.      Stage 3 of the project comprises streetscape works, paving, tree planting and landscaping between Diamond Avenue and William Street (Stage 3a) and streetscape and landscaping works between Mary Street and Russell Street. (Stage 3b) (Attachment 2)

 

11.      Stage 1 of the project comprised of paving works between Mary Street and Russell Streets and was completed in 2003. Stage 2 of the project, which is comprised of streetscape works, paving, tree planting and landscaping between Diamond Avenue and Mary Street, is funded in Council’s 2008/09 Management Plan and is scheduled for construction in May 2009.

 

12.      Elements of the project which contribute to a competitive submission are;

 

a)    The project is consistent with the guidelines category ‘Enhancement of main streets and public squares’

b)    Design work is sufficiently advanced for high quality graphics to be included in the submission.

c)    Detailed cost estimates can be prepared before the submission date (initial estimates exceed the $2m minimum).

d)    The project doesn’t require a DA.

e)    Heritage and traffic approvals for Stage 3a have already been granted. Approvals for Stage 3 will be straight forward.

f)     There should be no delays due to extended consultation, as Stage 3 is consistent with Stage 2, for which broad community and business consultation is already well advanced

g)    A detailed and realistic project plan which includes a commencement date in September 2009 will be included in the submission.

h)    Council has already made a very significant contribution to the project ($1.7m for Stage 2), so will be given preference under the partnering conditions.

 

13.      Council identified Stage 3 of this project as a priority for the Better Neighbourhood Program in December 2007 with the intention of considering the project in 2009/10 Management Plan.  If Council is able to attract Federal funding for this project, the Better Neighbourhood Program funds could be made available for neighbourhood improvements elsewhere in the LGA.

 

 

 

Tom O’Hanlon

Manager City Assets & Environment

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Regional & Local Community Infrastructure Program 2008-09 Guidelines

6 Pages

 

2View

South Street Granville - Streetscape, Tree Planting & Landscaping Works

4 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Regulatory Council

 8 December 2008

 

 

 

Domestic Applications

 

08 December 2008

 

11.1  343 - 345, Shop 1, Guildford Road, Guildford. (Lot 23 DP 129060 Subj to Row) (Woodville Ward)

 

 

 

 

11.2  6 Prince Street, North Parramatta. (Lot 14 DP 979533) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

 

 

 

 

11.3  Shop 13/49-52 Beecroft Road, Epping. (Lot A DP 325036) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

 

 

 

 

11.4  206 Kissing Point Road, Dundas. (Lot 1 DP 223756) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)


Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 11.1

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         11.1

SUBJECT                   343 - 345, Shop 1, Guildford Road, Guildford. (Lot 23 DP 129060 Subj to Row) (Woodville Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Use of premises as a nail artist and beauty salon. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE            DA/669/2008 - Submitted 16 September 2008

APPLICANT/S           Lulu Nail

OWNERS                    Mr L Palivos & Mrs A Palivos

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

Executive summary :

 

To determine Development Application No. 669/2008 which seeks approval for the use of the existing building for the purpose of a nail artist and beauty salon.

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination as the site is identified in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation), as a heritage item and is listed in Schedule 2 Heritage items of local significance (Inventory Number 263). 

 

No 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 Centre Business 3(a) zone applying to the land, and is consistent with the aims and objectives contained within Council’s LEP 2001, LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation), DCP 2005 and Parramatta Heritage DCP 2001.

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 669/2008 subject to standard conditions.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The subject site is located on the northern side of Guildford Road. The site was previously used for the sale of shoes and is currently vacant. The site is rectangular in shape, has a frontage of 3.8m, a depth of 18.6m, and an area of 70m².

 

2.      Buildings located on the site at 343-351 Guildford Road are listed as heritage items under schedule 2 of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation) (Inventory Number 263).

 

3.      Surrounding development consists of retail shops.

 

PROPOSAL

 

4.      Details of the proposed development are as follows:

 

4.1    Use of the existing shop for the purpose of a nail artist and beauty salon.

 

4.2    Proposed signage comprises of an under awning light box (2000mm x 500mm) and awning façade sign (6100mm x 600mm).

 

4.3    Proposed hours of operation are as follows:

Monday          9:30am      to      6:00pm

Tuesday                   9:30am      to      6:00pm

Wednesday             9:30am      to      6:00pm

Thursday                  9:30am      to      8:00pm

Friday                      9:30am      to      6:00pm

Saturday                  9:30am      to      4:00pm

 

4.4    Two staff are proposed to work onsite

 

4.5    No change is proposed to existing carparking, with 2 spaces at the rear of the site available

 

4.6    The following internal works are proposed:

 

4.6.1     Replace existing flooring with tiles

 

4.6.2     General painting to walls and roof

 

4.6.3     Installation of stud walls and glazed partition

 

4.6.4     Installation of new lighting and washbasins

 

5.      Apart from signage no other external alteration is proposed to accommodate the proposal. The existing door and glazing to the shop front is to remain unchanged.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

6.      The site is zoned Centre Business 3(a) under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. It is considered that the proposed use of premises as a nail artist and beauty salon is permissible. The use is defined as a commercial use and is consistent with the objectives of the zone.

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage & Conservation)

 

7.      The site is part of a listed item of heritage significance, being one of the group of shops at 317-337 and 343-351 Guildford Road, Guildford

 

8.      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 Heritage Development Control Plan 2001

 

9.      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.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

10.    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.

 

CONSULTATION

 

11.    In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised for a twenty one day period between 1 October 2008 and 22 October 2008. In response no submissions were received.

 

ISSUES

 

Heritage  

 

12.    The application has been referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor as buildings located on the site at 343-351 Guildford Road are listed as heritage items under schedule 2 of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation) (Inventory Number 263). The following comments were provided by Council’s Heritage Advisor:

 

“The place is part of a listed item of heritage significance, being one of the group of shops at 317-337 and 343-351 Guildford Road, Guildford. It would appear that the place has previously been substantially modified, albeit the description in the Council's Heritage register refers to it as "intact". 

 

The current proposal is for change of use, with subsequent modifications to the interior of the place, shop front and associated signage. The applicants have provided a Statement of Heritage Impact, prepared in accordance with the Guidelines issues by the NSW Heritage Office. 

 

Having reviewed the available documents, I am of opinion that the proposal will have only a negligible impact on the heritage values of the place.  It would comply with the applicable requirements of the Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 2001. It is noted that the applicant have proposed to install an isolation layer to protect the historic floorboards, which is a commendable action.

 

The proposal is thus supported from the heritage perspective.”

 

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

 

Health      

 

14.    The application has been referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer. The following comments were provided:

 

“Following appraisal of the plans submitted with the application, no objection to the proposal is made subject to the following conditions being included on the development consent."

 

15.    Accordingly, there are no objections to the proposal on health grounds subject to standard conditions being imposed on the development consent.

 

 

 

Nicholas Clarke

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

2View

Plans

4 Pages

 

3View

Application History

1 Page

 

4View

Heritage Inventory

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 11.2

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         11.2

SUBJECT                   6 Prince Street, North Parramatta. (Lot 14 DP 979533) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a carport and awning attached to the existing heritage listed dwelling. (Location Map - Attchment 1)

REFERENCE            DA/747/2008 - Submitted 9 October 2008

APPLICANT/S           Mr F Jimenez

OWNERS                    Mr F Jimenez

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

Executive summary :

 

To determine Development Application No. 747/2008 which seeks approval for the construction of a carport and awning attached to an existing heritage listed dwelling.

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination as the site is identified in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation), as a heritage item in Schedule 2 Heritage items of local significance (Inventory Number 444). 

 

No 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 2(a) zone applying to the land, and is consistent with the aims and objectives contained within Council’s LEP 2001, LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation), DCP 2005 and Parramatta Heritage DCP 2001.

 

Furthermore the proposal will not impact adversely on the heritage significance of the dwelling, on the streetscape character, the amenity of the locality or the adjoining properties.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 747/2008 subject to standard conditions.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The site is known as 6 Prince Street, North Parramatta and has a total area of 560 square metres with a frontage of 12.19 metres and a site depth of 45.9 metres.

 

2.      The site is surrounded by low density residential development comprising of a mixture of single storey and two storey dwellings.

 

PROPOSAL

 

3.      Approval is sought for the following:-

3.1     Construction of a carport and awning attached to the existing dwelling being a heritage listed dwelling.

 

3.2     The proposed carport is located 15m behind the front building line and is irregular in shape, with a total area of approximately 19sqm. The proposed carport setback is 240mm off the eastern boundary. The carport is proposed to be constructed of a Colorbond steel frame with a flat steel roof sheet. The columns, beams and roofing are to be a Sand Dune colour with a rainforest green gutter. All works are to take place over existing hard surfaces.

 

3.3     The awning is located behind the rear building line and is irregular in shape with an overall area of approximately 18sqm. The awning is proposed to be constructed of a Colorbond steel frame with a flat steel roof sheet. The columns, beams and roofing are to be a Sand Dune colour with a rainforest green gutter. All works are to take place over existing hard surfaces.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

4.      The site is zoned Residential 2(a) under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. It is considered that the proposed construction of a carport and awning attached to the  existing heritage listed dwelling is permissible. The works are defined as ancillary structures and are consistent with the objectives of the zone.

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage & Conservation)

 

5.      The site is listed in Schedule 2 as an item of local significance.

 

6.      The provisions of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage & Conservation) have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal achieves compliance with the requirements of the LEP and is consistent with the general principles of the plan.

 

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 compliance with the requirements of the DCP and is consistent with the general principles of the plan.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

8.      The provisions of the PDCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposed works are consistent with the aims and objectives of the Plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

9.      In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, owners of surrounding properties were given notice of the application for a fourteen day period between 20 October 2008 and 3 November 2008. In response no submissions were received.

 

ISSUES

 

10.    The application has been referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor as buildings located on the site are listed as heritage items of local significance under Schedule 2 of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation) (Inventory Number 444). The following comments were provided by Council’s Heritage Advisor:

 

“Having reviewed the proposal, I am of opinion that it complies with the requirements of the Parramatta Heritage DCP in that the proposed carport is

-        Located at the rear of the house, where it will not be visually prominent,

-        Lower than the gutter of the house,

-        Utilises appropriate light materials including roofing.

 

I therefore have no objection to the proposal from the heritage perspective, subject to your evaluation against the planning criteria.”

 

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

 

 

 

Nicholas Clarke

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

2View

Plans

3 Pages

 

3View

Application History

1 Page

 

4View

Heritage Inventory

1 Page

 

5View

Numerical Compliance

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 11.3

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         11.3

SUBJECT                   Shop 13/49-52 Beecroft Road, Epping. (Lot A DP 325036) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Change of use of Shop 13 to a natural therapy centre including therapeutic massage. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE            DA/626/2008 - Submitted 2 September 2008

APPLICANT/S           Mr J Zhen

OWNERS                    Epping RSL Sub Branch & Community Club

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

Executive summary :

 

To determine DA No.626/2008 which seeks approval to the use of Shop 13 which is located on the ground floor of a retail arcade at 49-52 Beecroft Road, Epping as a natural therapy centre. Services provided within the 31.8m2 shop include therapeutic massage & acupuncture.

 

No objections have been received to the application from the community, however the DA is referred to Council for determination following a direction from the CEO on 21 November 2008 that all DAs for brothels and massage parlours are to be referred to Council for determination.

 

The use of the ground shop as a natural therapy centre is a permissible land use in the Business Centre 3A zone and satisfies the objectives of the commercial zone. The applicant has provided documentary evidence of their qualifications relating to massage therapy and has indicated that approval is only being sought for one employee at the site. The applicant has provided written documentation stating that the no sexual services will be provided at the shop. There is no evidence before Council that indicates that the purpose for which consent is sought is a sham.

 

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

(a)     That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 626/2008 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

 

1.      A waste management plan shall be submitted to the PCA prior to any works/fitout commencing onsite.

Reason:   To ensure appropriate waste disposal.

 

2.      The premises shall not, at any time, be used for the purpose of prostitution or any other sexual or sex-related activity.

Reason:   To ensure that the premises are not as used as a brothel.

 

3.      The conduct of any skin penetration techniques, including acupuncture, on clients may only be done where the premises comply with the requirements of the Public Health Act, Regulations and associated guidelines. Notification of any such activity must be given to the Council prior to any commencement of that procedure.

Reason: To ensure the activities comply with the legislative requirements.

 

4.      The days and hours of operation are restricted to:

Monday                        9:30am      to      7:30pm

Tuesday                       9:30am      to      7:30pm

Wednesday                 9:30am      to      7:30pm

Thursday                      9:30am      to      7:30pm

Friday                           9:30am      to      7:30pm

Saturday                       9:30am      to      7:30pm

Sunday                         10:00am    to      6:00pm

 

Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

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

 

5.      The number of persons employed on the premises is not to exceed one employee at any time.

Reason:   To ensure compliance with this consent

 

6.      The shop front glazing to remain clear and unobstructed.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The subject site is located on the western side of Beecroft Road. The subject shop is one of a collective group of shops within the arcade known as The Epping Club Walk. Shop 13 has a floor space of approximately 31.8sqm and is currently vacant. Surrounding development consists of retail shops.

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.      Details of the proposed development are as follows:

 

2.1    To occupy Shop 13 as a natural therapy centre including therapeutic massage and accupuncture.

 

2.2    The floor area is approximately 31.8sqm (6m x 5.3m) and located at ground level within an arcade.

 

2.3    Proposed signage comprising of window stickers only. No external signage is proposed.  

 

2.4    Proposed hours of operation are as follows:

Monday                        9:30am      to      7:30pm

Tuesday                       9:30am      to      7:30pm

Wednesday                 9:30am      to      7:30pm

Thursday                      9:30am      to      7:30pm

Friday                           9:30am      to      7:30pm

Saturday                       9:30am      to      7:30pm

Sunday                         10:00am    to      6:00pm

 

2.5    The following internal works are proposed:

Installation of a new washbasin

 

2.6    3 massage tables and 1.8m high removable privacy screens, set back 2m from the shop front for privacy, are proposed.

 

2.7    The proposed operator of the business will be a sole practitioner. Copies of documentation indicating qualifications of the sole practitioner have been provided with the application. 

 

2.8    No car parking is provided as part of the application. Street carparking is available along Rawson Street and a Council car park is located on Rawson Street also.

 

2.9    It is noted that the applicant has stated in writing that they do not intend to conduct and/or offer sexual activities of any nature on the premises.

 

3.      The proposed hours of operation are in keeping with businesses operating within the arcade, most of which rely on passing trade from commuters using Epping train station, which is located opposite the subject site, on the eastern side of Beecroft Road.

 

4.      The proposed use is appropriate for the site due to the varying types of commercial and retail businesses that operate within the arcade.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

5.      The site is zoned Centre Business 3(a) under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. It is considered that the proposed use of premises as a natural therapy centre is permissible. The use is defined as a commercial use and is consistent with the objectives of the zone.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

6.      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.

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

7.      In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised for a twenty one day period between 17 September 2008 and 1 October 2008. No submissions were received.

 

ISSUES

 

On Site Meeting

 

8.      Council at its meeting of 26 May 2008 resolved that all applications involving massage parlours be subject to a site inspection. In accordance with this resolution an on site meeting was held on Saturday 1 November 2008 commencing at 12:00pm. The on site meeting notes are detailed as follows:

 

Present

Councillors: –Clr Wearne (chair)

The applicant

Council Staff- Danielle Woods.-Team Leader Development and Certification, Mario Triffiro Team Leader Construction

 

Proposed use

Danielle Woods states thatThe site inspection highlighted that the use is a legitimate massage therapy centre due to the minimum floor area of the shop, being located at ground floor level and within an arcade, which allows surveillance from both the occupants and the pedestrians using the arcade. The subject shop forms a collective group of shops within the arcade varying in uses. Furthermore the floor plan layout as nominated on the plans submitted with the DA highlights the shop will be used for the intended use.

Discussions were held with the applicant to the type of services provided, including laser acupuncture.

 

In summary I advised that the DA does not need to be presented to Council due to no submissions and staff delegations allow the assessing officer to determine the application with a peer review, by the team leader.

 

 I advised that I would arrange for Nicholas Clarke to contact the applicant with a date/time frames in which the DA will be determined.

 

Meeting concluded at 12.30pm.’

 

9.      Since the on-site meeting delegation for development applications of this type has been removed from staff level to Council as per written correspondence provided by the CEO on 21 November 2008.

 

EHO

                  

10.    The application was referred to Council’s Environment & Health Officer and a response was received on 18 November 2008 stating that there are no regulated inspections for remedial massage centres and accordingly there are no special requirements or conditions from EHO to be imposed on the consent.

 

11.    Accordingly, there are no objections to the proposal on health grounds.

 

Waste

                            

12.    The application was referred to Council’s Waste Officer and a response was received on 17 October 2008. A waste management plan is required to be submitted and will be a condition of consent.

 

13.    Accordingly, there are no objections to the proposal on waste grounds subject to standard conditions.

 

Crime & Corruption          

                                   

14.    The application was referred to Council’s Crime and Corruption Officer Mr Nicholas Mamouzelos, who reports as follows:

 

Review from Crime & Corruption Officer re DA/626/2008

Natural Therapy - Massage Clinic

Shop 13,49 Beecroft Road - EPPING

 

Issue

I have reviewed all the material submitted by the Applicant in support of the D.A. I make the following comment in relation to this D.A having carefully considered all the relevant issues that arise from the proposed development.

 

At the outset it should be noted that as this is an application for a relaxation & massage clinic, there is a prerequisite requirement that this D.A goes before Council for determination pursuant to the wishes of the Chamber and endorsement of this policy by the CEO of Parramatta City Council.

 

Background

This proposed development application from Mr. Zhen is devoid of any detail describing the type of activities and services that are proposed, the number of staff, medical or therapeutic qualifications of staff and other documentation which would, when examined, would indicate an application for a genuine Development Application for a therapeutic massage clinic. There are no details of any relevant compulsory insurances, or other documentation indicating a genuine business in accordance with the proposed D.A.

 

Comment

There is presently a proliferation of Oriental origin traditional and therapeutic massage & treatment establishments within the Parramatta Local Government Area.

 

Many of these establishments have a contemporary history of providing additional sexual related services in addition to their core services. Enforcement action within the past twelve months within the Parramatta Local Government Area has provided the basis for this assertion.

 

Investigations into the issue of unauthorised brothels and premises providing sexual related services provide compelling argument that they, in the majority of cases, have their inception as D.A approved Asian therapeutic massage & relaxation clinics, gaining their Development Approval by deception.

 

These businesses are not profitable without the provision of sexual related services.

 

Therefore the ongoing viability of these establishments is directly linked to the provision of additional sexual related services.

 

There are five registered physiotherapy clinics directly within the suburb of Epping and another six registered physiotherapy clinics within adjacent suburbs. These facilities exist as an 'essential' service health provider. Given the difficult economic conditions, the viability of a 'relaxation & massage' clinic which requires discretionary spending by clients is not sustainable without the provision of sexual related services.

 

This is typical from Oriental massage clinics which tend to operate on a cash basis with little regard for governance issues. Whilst not suggesting that this Applicant would operate the proposed business in this fashion, there are numerous cases of other Oriental clinics within the Parramatta LGA that do and I have to consider the indicators of this proposal strongly point to running a business without full compliance.

 

A request from the PCC Planner in this matter for additional information from Mr Zhen resulted in Mr Zhen providing a response, dated 17 September 2008 with scant detail. Mr. Zhen advises that there will be 'no sexual activity. Currently there are no employees but in the future I will be searching for capable staff. '

 

This response from the Applicant demonstrates to me that the Applicant does not have the necessary business acumen which is commensurate with the operation of a bona-fide business and provides an indication of a lack of a genuine business plan; all in all pointing to the creation of a business that will conduct unauthorised activities.

 

Determination

Therefore, in all the circumstances I strongly recommend against the granting of the proposed DA as I am of the belief that activities of the nature of sexual related services, in addition to those specified within the DA submission are likely to take place.

 

15.    The matters that Council is entitled to take into consideration in the assessment of a development application are set out in section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The Land & Environment Court has made it clear that consent authorities are not as a general matter, permitted to consider matters personal to an applicant, such as whether the applicant might or might not be considered to have sufficient business skills to operate the business, or the economic viability of a proposed business.

 

16.    The following matters which have been identified by the Strategic Analysts as reasons why the DA should be refused are not proper matters for consideration under section 79C:

 

·   That the applicant for the DA is not considered to have adequate business acumen;

·   That the presence of other massage and physiotherapy centres in the Epping area may result in the proposed natural therapy centre not being viable;

·   That due to the current difficult economic conditions, the viability of a massage clinic which requires discretionary spending by clients is not sustainable without the provision of sexual related services.  

 

17.    Legal advice which has been provided to Council in the past on similar matters indicates that Council could not defend a decision to refuse a development application for the use as a legitimate massage by reference to the matters set out above.

 

18.    Council must assess the application on the basis of the documentation submitted with the application; for the use as applied for; and not based on assumptions on what it ‘may’ be used for. The applicant has provided written documentation that no sexual services will be provided at the shop and submitted documentary evidence of their massage qualifications and the range of services that will be provided at the shop. The legitimacy of the use was also discussed at length during the on-site meeting held on Saturday 1 November 2008, which was attended by Councillor Wearne, staff and the applicant.

 

19.    The documentary evidence together with the fact that the shop is located on the ground floor of a retail shopping arcade, the small floor area of the shop (31.8m2) and the internal floor plan of the shop show that there is no evidence before Council that the proposed use of the shop is not legitimate and that the application is a sham.

 

20.    It is legitimate for Council to accept assurances made by an applicant in a development application ie that the premises will not be used to provide sexual services. A condition is to be placed on the development consent prohibiting sexual services being conducted at the shop. An extraordinary condition will also be placed on the consent that requires the shop front glazing to remain clear and unobstructed so as to allow pedestrians to see into the shop front. If there is a breach of the condition, Council would be entitled to bring proceedings in Class 4 or 5 of the Land & Environment Court. 

 

 

 

Nicholas Clarke

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

2View

Plans

2 Pages

 

3View

Application History

1 Page

 

4View

Applicant Qualification

2 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 11.4

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         11.4

SUBJECT                   206 Kissing Point Road, Dundas. (Lot 1 DP 223756) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Alterations and addiitons to an existing dwelling. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE            DA/662/2008 - Submitted 12 September 2008

APPLICANT/S           Adcorp Constructions

OWNERS                    Mr M D McDermott and Mrs E A McDermott

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

The application seeks approval for ground and first floor alterations and additions to an existing dwelling.

 

The proposed works involve:

 

§ Demolition of part of rear kitchen wall;

§ Extension for a kitchen along the western side of the rear deck and conversion of existing kitchen into a family room;

§ Internal alterations including new wardrobes, doors, ensuite, cupboards, removal of walls, block up openings in walls, laundry and provision of new stairs to first floor addition;

§ Demolish walls inside garages and convert back into garages;

§ Provision of new garage doors;

§ Re-clad wall adjacent to garage;

§ Provision of new front verandah posts;

§ New stairs between rear decks;

§ Replacement of existing roofed structure over the deck with a new pergola, with polycarbonate sheeting over, and balustrade; and

§ Replacement/provision of new windows.

 

The proposal is acceptable and will have no significant impacts in relation to loss of solar access or privacy upon adjoining properties, and is therefore recommended for approval.

 

The application has been assessed by an independent planning consultant and referred to Council as the site is owned by an elected Councillor. No objections have been received in respect of this application.

 

 

RECOMENDATION:

 

That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 662/2008 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary condition:

 

i)          Notwithstanding the detail shown in the approved plans, the structure to be erected over the rear deck is to be a new pergola with polycarbonate sheeting over. Gutters are to be provided to this roofing, which are to be connected to the existing stormwater system.

Reason:        To clarify the extent of the approved works.

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The site is known as Lot 1 DP 223756, No. 206 Kissing Point Road, Dundas and is located on the northern side of Kissing Point Road, four blocks to the east of its intersection with Stuart Street. The site has a gentle fall to the rear and a street frontage of 21.27m to Kissing Point Road, with an area of 800.64m2. The site is adjoined to the sides and rear by detached dwelling houses.

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.      DA662/2008 is for proposed alterations and additions to an existing dwelling at ground and first floor level as are detailed following. The amended ground floor will comprise a double garage, 3 bedrooms, lounge, family room, new kitchen, laundry, bathroom and ensuite. The existing rear and side deck and front verandah will be retained. The ground floor addition is to have a setback from the western boundary of 1.2m and from the rear boundary of 10m. The following work is proposed:

 

§  Demolition of part of rear family wall;

§  Extension for kitchen at western side of rear deck;

§  Internal alterations including new wardrobes, doors, ensuite, cupboards, removal of wall, block up opening in wall, laundry and provision of new stairs to first floor addition;

§  Demolish walls inside garage;

§  Provision of new garage doors;

§  Reclad wall adjacent to garage;

§  Provision of new front verandah posts;

§  New stairs between rear decks;

§  Replacement of existing roofed structure over the deck with a new pergola, with polycarbonate sheeting over, and balustrade; and

§  Replacement/provision of new windows.

 

3.      It is proposed to construct a new first floor to contain 3 bedrooms, a bathroom, WC and open rumpus area adjacent to the stairs. The first floor is to align with the western and main front wall of the dwelling, but does not project as far forward as the western side of the front façade at the ground level. The eastern wall of the first floor is to align with the eastern wall of the ground floor of the dwelling (not projecting over the garage).The northern wall of the first floor is to partially overhang the side deck and be roughly in line with the rear wall of the ground floor but is not to overhang the family room. As such, other than the western wall, which is 8m long, each wall of the first floor is provided with articulation through a series of setbacks to each façade. The first floor addition is to have a setback of 1.2m from the western boundary and a minimum setback of 14.5m from the rear boundary.

 

4.      It is noted that the plans are not clear in relation to the type of treatment of the structure over the rear deck. Clarification with the applicant confirmed it is proposed to provide a new pergola with polycarbonate sheeting over. In order that this component of the consent is clear a condition of consent to this effect is recommended.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

5.      The site is zoned Residential 2(b) and dwelling houses are permissible in the zone with the consent of Council. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Residential 2(b) zone, with the proposed alterations and additions adding to the amenity of the dwelling on the site, without any significant impact upon the amenity or character of the area or neighbouring properties.

 

6.      Clause 39 sets a maximum height for a dwelling of 2 storeys and a maximum FSR of 0.5:1. The proposed dwelling as altered will have a maximum height of 2 storeys and a floor space of 259.2m2 on a site area of 800.64m2, giving a FSR of 0.32.1, complying with the control.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

7.      The following controls apply to the site and the level of compliance of the application is detailed in the numerical compliance table attached (Refer to Attachment 4). Where the proposal does not comply with applicable controls, the variations are discussed below.

 

8.      The Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 stipulates that a minimum 30% of the length of site be dedicated to the rear setback. The ground floor addition and proposed pergola have a setback of only 10m, breaching the control by 1.4m.The breach of the setback control has been justified by the applicant on the basis that an existing deck already breaches the control in the same location and is currently roofed and as such there will be no detrimental impact as a result of the breach. The kitchen extension would result in the dwelling on the subject site projecting further to the rear than the adjoining properties on either side by 2.4m and 4.5m (to the deck). Were the development required to comply with the control, the kitchen would be reduced in length to 3.2m, but could not be increased in width due to the location of the access doors from the dwelling to the deck. Given the loss of amenity to the proposed dwelling that would result from requiring compliance with the control, given the existing building on the site already breaches the control and given the ongoing breach results in no additional impacts upon neighbouring properties, the breach is supported in this instance.

 

9.      The ground floor addition is to have a floor to ceiling height of 2.4m, breaching the control. However, the control allows continuation of the floor to ceiling height of the existing dwelling and the kitchen continues the skillion roof line of the family room and as such is acceptable.

 

CONSULTANTION

 

10.    In accordance with the requirements of the Notification DCP, the application was advertised between 25 September 2008 and 9 October 2008. No submissions were received in response to the notification of the application.

 

REFERRALS

 

Engineering

 

11.    The application was referred to Council’s Drainage Engineer for comment and it was indicated that as the addition will not increase the existing impervious area, the stormwater can be connected to the existing stormwater disposal system. Therefore the proposal is supported subject to the inclusion of an extraordinary condition.

 

ISSUES

 

Streetscape

 

12.    The alterations and additions are in character with the built environment, which includes other two storey dwellings, and the articulation proposed by way of setbacks of the first floor walls ensures the proposal is acceptable in the streetscape.

 

Privacy

 

13.    The additions are designed such that only a window to a WC in the first floor faces the nearest neighbour, ensuring retention of privacy. The windows proposed to the rear are to a bedroom, hallway and bathroom and are setback a minimum of 14.5m, ensuring appropriate privacy is maintained. Finally, a new window is proposed to the family room, which is a highlight window, ensuring appropriate privacy is maintained to the neighbouring property.

 

Overshadowing

 

14.    The shadow diagrams show the additions will result in additional shadowing in the morning only to a non-habitable room (bathroom) of the adjoining dwelling at 204 Kissing Point Road. No additional shadowing will fall on the rear yard, complying with the design principle.

 

15.    No adverse amenity impacts will occur as a result of this application.

 

 

 

Kerry Gordon

Independent Planning Consultant

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Location Map

1 Page

 

2View

S79C Assessment Report

11 Pages

 

3View

Architectural Plans

3 Pages

 

4View

Numerical Compliance Table

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

  


Regulatory Council

 8 December 2008

 

 

 

Development Applications

 

08 December 2008

 

12.1    Section 82A Review DA/640/2006 292 Railway Terrace Guildford. Lot 16D DP 404160 (Woodville Ward)

 

 

 

 

12.2    10-12 Russell Street, Granville (Lot 1 in DP 900091, Lot 1 in DP 900091 and Lots 1 & 2 in DP 127379) (Woodville Ward)

 

 

 

 

12.3    44-46 Weston Street and 101B Alfred Street, Rosehill. (Lots 1-3 DP 1093536) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

 

 

 

 

12.4    467-469 Church Street, Parramatta. (Lot 7 & 8 DP 834791) (Arthur Phillip Ward).

 

 

 

 

12.5    Section 82A Review DA174/2007 17-21 Woodville Road and 2-4 Milton Street Granville. (Lot 100 DP 1013005) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

 

 

 

 

12.6    110 Harris Street, Harris Park. (Lot 60 DP 735064) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

 

 

 

 

12.7    479 Kissing Point Road, Ermington (Lachlan Macquarie Ward) (Lot A in DP 440585)

 

 

 

 

12.8    317 Church Street, Parramatta (Arthur Phillip Ward) (Lot 1 in DP 87514)

 

 

 

 

12.9    6 Boundary Street, Parramatta (Lot 45 in DP 868115) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

 

 

 

 

12.10  1 Wyuna Place, Oatlands. (Lot 13 DP 31813) (Elizabeth Macathur Ward)

 

 

 

 

12.11  25 Carson Street, Epping. (Lot 11 DP 31179) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

 

 

 

 

12.12  96 Pennant Hills Road, Oatlands. (Lot 1001 DP 718083) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

 

 

 

 

12.13  McDonalds, 152 Woodville Road, Merrylands. (Lot 1 DP 848247) (Woodville Ward)

 

 

 

 

12.14  65A Wigram Street, Harris Park. Lot B in DP 348320. (Arthur Phillip Ward)

 

 

 

 

12.15  54 Binalong Road, Toongabbie. (Lot 2 DP 703749) (Caroline Chisholm Ward).

 

 

 

 

12.16  52 Railway Street, Wentworthville (Lot 141 in DP 997970) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

 

 

 

 

12.17  171 Victoria Road Rydalmere (University of Western Sydney). (Lots 100 and 101 DP 816829, Lot 1 DP 836958) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward).

 

 

 

 

12.18  353D Church Street, Parramatta - Prince Alfred Park (Lot 1 DP 724837) (Pk 15) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

 

 

 

 

12.19  236 Church Street Parramatta (Lot 1 DP 128437) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

 

 

 

 

12.20  Oatlands Golf Course (Lot 39 DP 808581) 94 Bettington Road, Oatlands & Vineyard Creek Reserve (Lot 93 in DP 846814) Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

 

 

 

 

12.21  Upstream weir, Parramatta River, Parramatta (Part Lot 1 and Part Lot 2 in Section 78 BK 1801 N) (Arthur Phillip Ward)


Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.1

SUBJECT                   Section 82A Review DA/640/2006 292 Railway Terrace Guildford. Lot 16D DP 404160 (Woodville Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing 6 units above a basement car park.

REFERENCE            DA/640/2006 - Submitted 22 September 2008

APPLICANT/S           Rudder, Littlemore and Rudder Pty Ltd

OWNERS                    J.P Benson Pty Ltd

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

To review Council’s determination of the refusal of Development Application No. 640/2006 pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. The development application seeks approval for the construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing 6 units above a basement car park.

 

One objection has been received in respect of this current Section 82A review application.

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination as the original determination was made at Council Officer level. The application does not satisfy the requirements of Parramatta LEP 2001 or Parramatta DCP 2005, will result in adverse privacy impacts and streetscape impacts, and refusal is recommended.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council uphold its refusal of Development Application No. 640/2006 and refuse to grant its consent for the construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing 6 units above a basement car park for the following reasons:

 

1.      The development is inconsistent with objective (a) of the Residential 2(c) zone because the proposal is an over-development of the site and will compromise the amenity of the residential area due to the excessive bulk of the building, lack of adequate landscaped area, projection above natural ground level, lack of adequate car parking, and negative impact on the privacy of the adjoining dwelling to the north of the site.

 

2.      That the proposal does not comply with Clause 40 (Floorspace ratio for development) of Parramatta LEP 2001 and that no SEPP 1 objection has been submitted addressing the non-compliance.

 

3.      That the projection of the basement car park above the natural ground level does not satisfy the requirements of Part 4.1.10 and Part 4.5.1 of Parramatta DCP 2005.

 

4.      That insufficient information has been submitted with the development application in relation to the economic and orderly use of land as a result of development on a site with a frontage that does not comply with the 24 metres minimum required by Part 3.1, and the Design Principles in Part 4.1.11, of Parramatta DCP 2005.

 

5.      That the proposal fails to comply with or address the minimum deep soil and landscaped area requirements of Part 4.1.10 of Parramatta DCP 2005.

 

6.      The proposed development fails to satisfy the minimum 4.5m side setback requirement of Part 3.1 ‘Preliminary Building Envelope’ of Parramatta DCP 2005.

 

7.      The proposed development fails to satisfy the minimum parking and storage space          requirements of Part 4.5.1 ‘Parking and Vehicular Access of Parramatta DCP 2005.

 

8.      The proposed development fails to satisfy the requirements of Part 4.3.2 ‘Visual and Acoustic Privacy’ of Parramatta DCP 2005 due to the likely privacy impact of the elevated communal walkway on the northern side of the development.

 

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

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The site is located on the eastern side of Railway Terrace and is opposite the rail line. The site is within 400m walking distance of Guildford Railway Station. The site adjoins the Guildford Library to its southern side and a single storey dwelling house to its northern side. The eastern boundary of the site adjoins a Council car park.

 

2.      The site has a frontage of 18.475m, depth of 35.16m and site area of 670m2. The site is currently vacant.

 

PROPOSAL

 

3.      Approval is sought for the construction of a 3 storey residential flat building over a basement car park containing 6 car parking spaces. The building will contain 1 X one bedroom unit, 4 X 2 bedroom units and 1 X 3 bedroom unit.

 

BACKGROUND

 

4.      Development Application No. 640/2006 was refused by Council staff under delegated authority on 14 March 2008, for the following reasons:

 

‘1.   That the proposed development is an over-development of the site and thereby compromises the objectives of Parramatta LEP 2001, specifically:

 

(i)    to encourage a variety of housing types, including residential flat buildings, where such development does not compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential areas or the natural and cultural heritage of the area.

 

2.    That the proposal does not comply with Clause 40 (Floorspace ratio for development) of Parramatta LEP 2001 and that no SEPP 1 objection has been submitted addressing the non-compliance.

 

3.    That the basement level carparking projection above ground level does not satisfy Part 4.1.10 of Parramatta DCP 2005 (in relation to basement carparking and deep soil zone).

 

4.    That insufficient information has been submitted with the development application in relation to the economic and orderly use of land as a result of development on a site with a frontage that does not comply with the 24 metres minimum required by Part 3.1, and the Design Principles in Part 4.1.11, of Parramatta DCP 2005.

 

5.    That the proposal fails to comply with or address the minimum soft soil landscaping area required by Part 4.1.10 of Parramatta DCP 2005.

 

6.    Matters raised by the objector and that granting consent to the proposal would not be in the public interest.’

 

5.      An application to review the above determination pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, was lodged with Council on 22 September 2008.

 

6.      The additional information and amended plans are included in Attachment 2. The amendments to the plans included a reduction in the footprint of the basement car park, a reduction in the number of car spaces and a 2m2 reduction in the floor area of the development.

 

7.      Further amendments were submitted to Council on 6 November 2008, however staff have advised the applicant that the plans are not substantially the same and can’t be considered as part of the S82A review.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 – Section 82A Review of Determination

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

12.    An assessment of the Section 82A review application is provided below.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards

 

13.    A maximum floor space ratio of 0.8:1 applies to development for the purposes of a residential flat building. The floor space ratio of a development is calculated in accordance with the definition of ‘floor space area’ provided by Parramatta LEP 2001. Measured in accordance with the requirements of Parramatta LEP 2001 the development has a floor space ratio of 0.85:1 thus exceeding the 0.8:1 maximum specified by the LEP. A variation to a development standard is only permissible if a SEPP 1 objection to the development standard has been submitted and the SEPP 1 objection is deemed to be acceptable by the consent authority.

 

14.    The applicant has not submitted a SEPP 1 objection and claims that Council is not calculating the floor space ratio in accordance with the correct definition of floor space area. The applicant claims that, ‘stairs, corridors or stores’ are not included within an FSR calculation. The applicant relies on Part 01 ‘Floor Space Ratio’ of the Residential Flat Design Code to support this view.

 

15.    The Residential Flat Design Code is not a statutory planning document. The residential flat code is a design guideline produced by the Department of Planning. The intent of the Residential Flat Design Code is to ‘…provide additional detail and guidance for applying the design quality principles outlined in SEPP 65’. The Code did not go through the procedures set out in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act for the document to qualify as an environmental planning instrument.

 

16.    The floor space area of a building must be calculated in accordance with the definitions contained within the relevant environmental planning instrument. The floor space ratio requirement is contained within Parramatta LEP 2001 and floor space area must be calculated in accordance with the definitions provided by the LEP.

 

17.    The applicant has not submitted a SEPP 1 objection to request a variation of the development standard of 0.8:1 for FSR prescribed by Clause 40 of Parramatta LEP 2001. In the absence of a SEPP 1 objection to the FSR development standard prescribed by Clause 40 of PLEP 2001, the proposal cannot lawfully be approved.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings

 

18.    The application was considered by the Design Review Panel on 21 October 2008. The Design Review Panel made the following comments:

 

1.    The Panel recommends that the basement carparking is redesigned to allow a three point turn to be made by all cars to drive out from the car park in a forward direction.  A bay on the northern side of the existing aisle may resolve this.

 

2.    The Panel observes that the floor area exceeds the floor space ratio in the Parramatta Development Control Plan (DCP) 2005 A reduction in floor area to comply would reduce the bulk of the building.

 

3.    The side setbacks comply predominantly with DCP setbacks, however, there are small projections into the setbacks.

 

4.    It is recommended that the development is designed to comply with the DCP controls, including floor space ratio, setbacks and open space.

 

5.    The applicant should follow the DCP processes for demonstrating that purchase of the adjoining property has been proposed, to support any proposal for reduction in the site width control for this site.

 

6.    The landscape area is required to be calculated in accordance with Council’s DCP. 

 

7.    The proponent has agreed to update and liaise with Council to confirm calculations submitted.

 

19.    During the Design Review Panel meeting Council staff informed the applicant that the proposal was not supported because the reasons for refusal had not been addressed and the development did not address the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005. The applicant was advised that the proposal would be recommended for refusal.

 

20.    Contrary to the advice of Council staff the applicant submitted amended plans to Council which were received on 6 November 2008. The amended plans were not in accordance with the requirements of S82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as they result in a development that is not substantially the same as the development originally determined. The applicant was advised that Council staff did not consent to the amendment of the application.

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

21.    The site is zoned Residential 2(c) under Parramatta LEP 2001 and the proposed development is permissible within the zone, subject to the consent of Council. As demonstrated in this report, the proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of PLEP 2001.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

Projection of the basement car park

 

22.    The development site is relatively flat with a rise of approximately 900mm from front to rear. The finished floor level of the ground floor is RL25.30. The proposed finished floor level is 1000mm above the existing natural ground level at the front of the site and 500mm above the existing natural ground level at the rear of the site.

 

23.    Part 4.1.7 ‘Development on Sloping Land of Parramatta DCP 2005 contains the objectives and principles for the development of sloping land. Objective No. 2 encourages buildings to be designed to respond sensitively to natural topography. Part 4.5.1 ‘Parking and Vehicular Access’ of Parramatta DCP 2005 states that basement car parking is to be located, ‘fully below natural ground level’.

 

24.    The site has a gradual slope and the excessive projection of the basement carpark results in a poor environmental planning outcome. The design of the building does not sensitively relate to the topography of the site and the projection of the basement exacerbates the bulk and scale of the development and its overshadowing impact. The projection of the basement also results in the pedestrian paths within the development being significantly elevated above the natural ground level resulting in overlooking of the adjoining property to the north.

 

Allotment frontage and site consolidation

 

25.    Parramatta DCP 2005 requires a development site for a residential flat building to have a minimum frontage of 24m. The objective of this control is to encourage lot consolidation so that developments can comply with the building envelope controls in Part 3.1 of the DCP. These controls include a minimum side setback requirement of 4.5m.

 

26.    Should a development application be submitted for a site which does not comply with the minimum required frontage the applicant is required to demonstrate that they have made a reasonable effort to purchase an adjoining site. The procedures that are to be carried out are detailed in Part 4.1.11 ‘Site Consolidation and Development on Isolated Sites’ of Parramatta DCP 2005. Because the adjoining site to the south is not zoned residential a valuation of the adjoining site to the north No. 286 Railway Terrace is required to be submitted to Council and an offer made to purchase the property.

 

27.    The owners of No. 286 Railway Terrace advised Council by letter dated 4 June 2007 that they had not been approached by the applicant to purchase their property. The applicant has not submitted to Council a valuation of No. 286 Railway Terrace or evidence of an offer being made to purchase this property.

 

28.    The development fails to satisfy the minimum frontage requirement for a residential flat building as specified by Part 3.1 of Parramatta DCP 2005. The development also fails to satisfy the requirements of Part 4.1.11 ‘Site Consolidation and Development on Isolated Sites’ of the DCP.

 

Landscaped area and deep soil area

 

29.    Part 4.1.10 ‘Landscaping’ of Parramatta DCP 2005 requires that 40% of the site area for a residential flat building be landscaped area and 30% of the site area be deep soil area. Landscaped areas must have minimum dimensions of 2m and deep soil areas must have minimum dimensions of 4m.

 

30.    Measured in accordance with the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005, the landscaped area is 28% of the site area and the deep soil area is 24% of the site area. The proposal does not make an adequate contribution to the landscaped character of the area and fails to provide sufficient space for the planting of large and medium sized trees. The development fails to satisfy the requirements of Part 4.1.10 ‘Landscaping’ of Parramatta DCP 2005.

 

Car Parking

 

31.    Part 4.5.1 ‘Parking and Vehicular Access’ of Parramatta DCP 2005 contains the parking requirements for the proposed development. The DCP provides reduced parking rates for residential flat buildings located within 400m walking distance of a railway station. The DCP requires that 2 visitor parking spaces and 7 resident parking spaces be provided for the proposed residential flat building. The proposed development contains 6 resident parking spaces and no visitor parking spaces. The proposal does not make adequate provision for on site car parking and will result in a loss of on street car parking spaces. The development is inconsistent with the requirements of Part 4.5.1 ‘Parking and Vehicular Access’ of Parramatta DCP 2005.

 

CONSULTATION

 

32.    In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 10 October and 31 October 2008. One submission was received. The issues raised in the submission are addressed below;

 

Tree Removal

 

33.    Concern has been raised that the application includes the removal of trees.

 

34.    The application does not seek approval for the removal of any trees.

 

Demolition

 

35.    Concern has been raised that the application incorporates demolition and waste from the demolition should be recycled.

 

36.    The development site is vacant, no demolition work is proposed.

 

 

 

Jonathan Goodwill

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Numerical Compliance Table

1 Page

 

2View

Cover letter and revised plans

13 Pages

 

3View

Application History

1 Page

 

4View

Previous Section 79C Assessment Report

14 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.2

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.2

SUBJECT                   10-12 Russell Street, Granville (Lot 1 in DP 900091, Lot 1 in DP 900091 and Lots 1 & 2 in DP 127379) (Woodville Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Change of use from 2 dwelling houses to 2 boarding houses.

REFERENCE            DA/443/2008 - DA lodged 19 June 2008

APPLICANT/S           Mr R Shrestha

OWNERS                    Peter Sleiman Investments Pty Ltd

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

Development Application No. 443/2008 seeks approval for the use of two semi-detached terrace houses for the purposes of individual boarding houses containing 9 bedrooms in total. Both premises will be used for student housing, with No. 10 Russell Street containing 5 bedrooms (including two bedrooms within the caretaker’s unit) and No.12 Russell Street containing 4 bedrooms. Each building would contain a reception area, bath and toilet facilities and common meals/kitchen areas. No.10 Russell Street provides stacked parking for up to 4 cars (including one undercover) and No.12 Russell Street provides for three in a similarly stacked arrangement (also with one undercover space). No building work is proposed.

 

The development application has been referred to Council due to the dwellings both being listed as heritage items of local significance in Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

 

The proposed boarding houses are consistent with the objectives of Parramatta LEP 2001, Parramatta LEP 1996 and Parramatta DCP 2005. 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 use is consistent with the intensity of two dwelling houses each with a reasonably sized family; is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the streetscape; has not attracted any submissions and satisfies the objectives of Parramatta LEP and its DCP.

 

Accordingly, approval of the development application is recommended.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant consent to DA/87/2008 for the use of two terrace houses for the purposes of 2 boarding houses containing a total of 9 bedrooms (including 2 bedrooms in the caretaker’s unit) at Nos. 10-12 Russell Street, Granville, subject to standard and the following extraordinary conditions:

 

1.         The boarding houses shall be limited to a maximum occupancy of 10 (exclusive of staff), being a maximum of 1 person per room, except the larger rooms at first floor level and the bedroom of No.12 Russell Street closest to the street where the maximum occupancy is 2.

Reason: To control the intensity of the development.

            

 

 

2.         The outdoor areas shall not be used (other than for access) after 10.00pm and before 6.00am, 7 days per week.

Reason: To protect neighbour amenity.

 

3.         A 24-hour phone number shall be supplied to each occupant so that contact may be made with the manager.

Reason: To ensure proper management of the premises.

 

4.         The manager shall ensure that a notice is placed near the entrance to the property in a visible position to the public advising of his/her name and contact number.

Reason: To ensure proper management of the premises.

 

5.         The premises shall require licensing pursuant to the Youth and Community Services Act 1973 should one or more occupant be diagnosed as having a disability.

Reason: Legislative requirement.

 

6.         That each occupant shall be furnished with a set of house rules and a copy of this consent and that no variation shall be permitted without the further approval of Council.

Reason: To ensure proper management of the premises.

 

7.         That the manager shall maintain a computer record of all residents with details of their names, length of stay, number of persons in each room, and that such record shall be made available to Council when requested.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate records are kept.

 

8.         All residents in the boarding house are to sign a lease or licence agreeing to comply with the boarding house rules, with the length of the lease to be determined by the management on the explicit understanding that accommodation is not to be provided on a temporary basis to tourists. The length of lease considered appropriate is to be not less than 3 months.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate records are kept.

 

9.         The manager, upon signing of the lease or licence agreement, shall provide boarders with a key to their individual room and common areas.

Reason: To ensure tenant amenity.

 

10.      Additional house rules shall be prepared by the manager of the premises and furnished to Council, in relation to such matters as the keeping of pets, noise, cleaning of outdoor areas and general use of outdoor areas.

 

11.      A copy of the house rules shall be placed in prominent locations on the site, including in all communal areas, behind doors in bedrooms, and upon the rear façade of the dwelling, in order to familiarise residents of the boarding house with acceptable activities.

Reason: To ensure that residents of the boarding house are familiar with the local house rules.

 

12.      Individual rooms are to be restricted to plug-in appliances such as microwave oven, toasters, kettles and the like.

Reason: Fire safety.

 

13.      The individual rooms and common areas are to be maintained in a clean and tidy state and individual’s rubbish is to be placed in the appropriate receptacles.

Reason: To ensure proper management of the premises.

 

14.      No fire, candles or naked flames are permitted within individual rooms – this includes smoking.

Reason: Fire safety.

 

15.      Any advertising of the property shall clearly state that it provides a principle place of residence for residents and not temporary stay accommodation for persons on recreational pursuits, with tariffs displaying cost per week, not per night.

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

 

16.      Dining shall be encouraged within one of the ground floor internal common areas, so as not to isolate residents.

Reason: To ensure suitable amenity for occupants.

 

17.      All lighting on the site shall be designed to ensure no adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding residential development by light overspill. Lighting shall comply with Australian Standard 4282-1997: Control of the Intrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.

Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

 

18.      An operational plan of management in one complete document shall be submitted prior to the use commencing and submitted to Council to form part of this consent, addressing such matters as:

 

-      minimisation of anti-social behaviour;

-      site security;

-      noise management;

-      lighting;

-      fire safety;

-      any other management/operational issue raised by these conditions of consent.

Reason: To ensure that management details are contained in one document.

 

19.      The kitchen shall be made available for residents 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and the applicant shall ensure that basic facilities in good working order are provided, including, but not limited to:

 

·       a large refrigerator;

·       a regular and a microwave oven;

·       dishwashing facilities;

·       waste disposal;

·       personal hygiene (soap, paper towels and the like);

·       food storage space;

·       a bench top for food preparation.

 

Reason: To protect the amenity of boarding house residents. 

 

20.      Smoke alarms must be installed on or near the ceiling in every bedroom and in every corridor or hallway associated with a bedroom, or if there is no corridor or hallway, in an area between the bedrooms and the remainder of the building.

Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of Part 3.7.2.4 of the Building Code of Australia (Location).

 

21.      The applicant shall supply a single bed for each single occupancy room (including base, a mattress with a minimum dimension of 800mm x 1900mm and a mattress protector).

Reason: To ensure suitable amenity for occupants.

 

22.      The manager shall reside on the premises and shall be a responsible person over the age of 18.

Reason: To ensure appropriate management of the premises.

 

23.      In addition to the above, the applicant shall also ensure that each room is provided with the following basic facilities:

 

·       Wardrobe;

·       Mirror;

·       Table & Chair;

·       Small bar fridge;

·       A night light or other approved illumination device for each bed;

·       Coffee and tea making facilities;

·       Waste container;

·       An approved latching device on the door;

·       Curtains, blinds or similar privacy device;

 

All room furnishings shall be detailed in the Plan of Management.

Reason: To provide suitable amenity for occupants.

 

24.      The premises shall comply with fire safety regulations pertinent to a Class 1b building, being a boarding house with less than 13 occupants.

Reason: To comply with the BCA.

 

25.      In relation to each of the two laundries, the following are to be provided:

 

o  One 5kg capacity automatic washing machine and one domestic dryer;

o  At least one large laundry tub with running hot and cold water; and

o  30 metres of clothesline in an outdoor area (can be retractable).

 

Reason: For the amenity of occupants.

 

26.      The applicant/developer shall contact Council’s Waste Unit to discuss the provision of a 240 litre bin for the collection of waste and the provision of a 240 litre bin for recycling for both dwellings. Services over and above the frequency and volume provided by Council shall require a private contracting service.

Reason: To ensure adequate waste removal.

 

27.      The boarding house and immediate surrounds shall be kept in a tidy and sanitary condition at all times.

Reason: To maintain the amenity of the area.

 

28.      The premises is not to be used as a brothel.

Reason: To ensure compliance with this consent.

 

29.       Smoke alarms must comply with AS3786 and be hard-wired or powered by a non-removable battery with a minimum life expectancy of 10 years that is connected to the smoke alarm.

                        Reason: To comply with legislative requirements.

 

30.       A fire safety schedule shall be submitted to the Principle Certifying Authority, prior to issue of an occupation certificate, addressing the following criteria:

 

-   automatic fire suppression systems;

-   fire hose reels;

-   fire hydrants;

-   smoke detection and alarm systems;

-   fire doors;

-   fire extinguishers;

-   solid-core doors;

-   smoke exhaust systems;

-   exit signs;

-   fire drenchers;

-   emergency lighting; and

-   exit systems and paths of travel to exits

                       

Reason: To ensure that fire safety issues relevant to a Class 1b building are suitably addressed prior to the use commencing and to comply with legislative requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 an Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

31.       All fire safety measures shall be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia. Should this involve works affecting the fabric of the building, further approval of Council is required.

                        Reason: To ensure that the premises and occupants is adequately    protected against the spread of fire.

 

32.       All new fire safety measures identified in the fire safety schedule shall be maintained in working condition at all times.

Reason: Protection of life and to comply with legislative requirements.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The subject site is known as Nos. 10-12 Russell Street, Granville (Lots 1 & 2 in DP 127379, Lot 1 in DP 900090 and Lot 1 in DP 900091). The site is located on the southern side of Russell Street, to the west of its intersection with South Street and to the east of Carlton Street. The surrounding area is a mix of residential, retail and commercial. The Main Western railway line is located to the north of the site and Granville Railway Station in close proximity to the north.

 

2.      The site comprises three rectangular-shaped allotments, with an overall site area of 630m² and a frontage to Russell Street of 17.86 metres. The site contains 2 x 2 storey semi-detached traditional terrace houses. The dwellings are currently vacant and were previously used as a brothel.

 

PROPOSAL

 

3.      The proposed development involves the change of use of 2 dwelling houses (semi-detached) to a boarding house containing 9 bedrooms (including a caretaker’s residence itself containing 2 bedrooms), 2 reception areas and common kitchen and meal areas (1 for each property).  No building works are proposed. 

 

4.      No.10 Russell Street provides stacked parking for up to 4 cars (including 1 carport space) and No.12 Russell Street provides for 3 in a similarly stacked arrangement (also with 1 carport space).

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

5.      Both sites are zoned Centre Business 3a under Parramatta LEP 2001 and the proposed use as a boarding house is permissible with the consent of Council.

 

6.      The proposal satisfies the relevant objectives of the zone and the LEP.

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation)

 

7.      The dwellings are listed as items of local heritage significance in Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the LEP.

 

8.      The description and significance of the heritage items is described in the inventory sheet at Attachment 4.

 

Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 2001

 

9.         The provisions of the Heritage DCP have been considered in the assessment of this proposal.

 

10.       The DCP outlines a number of general principles relating to development of heritage items. Of relevance includes:

 

-      “Use: The best use for a building is usually the one for which it was built. Where this is not possible, a use which requires minimal alterations will be more compatible”.

 

11.       The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the plan, reinstating a residential use to both of the terraces.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

 

12.    The development is subject to the requirements of this plan. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005.

 

CONSULTATION

 

13.    The development application was placed on notification and advertising for  a 21 day period between 9 and 30 July, 2008. No submissions were received.

 

REFERRALS

 

Traffic & Parking

 

12.    On the basis that boarding houses are traditionally regarded as a form of low-cost accommodation the incidence of car ownership is low compared with other forms of residential accommodation. The rationale behind this statement is that occupants of boarding houses are quite often one step away from homelessness and the likelihood of car ownership is low.

 

13.    The provision of 7 stacked parking spaces for this development is considered adequate, although possibly more than is required.

 

14.    A maximum occupancy of the boarding house based on the size of the bedrooms will also serve to ensure that the demand for carparking by future occupants of the boarding house is suitably controlled.

 

15.    The proposal is not likely to generate a significant amount of traffic and the local road network is capable of coping with whatever traffic generation is provided.

 

16.    Council’s Traffic Engineer has considered the proposal and recommended that the following conditions be imposed in the Recommendation:

 

“Should this DA be approved, no objection is raised to the proposal on traffic and parking grounds subject to the following traffic related conditions:

 

a)   7 off-street (stacked) parking spaces (via the side access to each property) to be provided and used accordingly. 

 

b)   Stacked or tandem parking spaces to be allocated to a single tenant, boarder or resident.” 

 

Heritage

 

17.    The sites are listed as item of local heritage significance under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (Heritage and Conservation) 1996. The site is significant as the dwellings are examples of intact housing, part of a group which makes a notable contribution to townscape due to similarities in age, design, use and materials. The dwellings were built in the early 1890s.

 

18.    A heritage impact statement has been prepared and submitted with the development application. The report concludes:

 

“No work is being carried out on the property. There will be no impact on heritage”.

 

19.    Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the proposal and has raised no objections, provided that no changes to the fabric of the place are proposed under the current DA, and thus no changes should be approved.  

 

NSW Police

 

20.    NSW Police was notified twice of this application and has not raised any issues.

 

ISSUES

 

Acoustic privacy

 

21.    The proposed use is for residential purposes and with the capacity of the facility being only 10 persons in 2 buildings, it is considered that noise will not be any more of an issue that would be the case for any other residential development.

 

22.    All residents in the boarding house are to sign a lease or licence agreeing to comply with the boarding house rules, with the length of the lease to be determined by the management on the explicit understanding that accommodation is not to be provided on a temporary basis to persons on recreational pursuits. The length of lease considered appropriate is to be not less than 3 months.

 

23.    Conditions of the recommended consent relating to the operational aspects of the proposal also deal with the issue of noise minimisation, especially the outdoor areas.

 

24.    It is noted that the first floor verandahs facing the street are accessible only via the front bedrooms. These are likely to be infrequently utilised and minimising hours of use is not considered necessary (noting also the zoning of the land).

 

 

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

Attachments:

1View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

2View

Plans & Elevations

4 Pages

 

3View

History of DA

1 Page

 

4View

Heritage Inventory Sheet

1 Page

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.3

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.3

SUBJECT                   44-46 Weston Street and 101B Alfred Street, Rosehill. (Lots 1-3 DP 1093536) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Section 96(1a) modification to an approved 75 place childcare centre including changes to the internal layout and external facade. (Location Map - Attachment 2)

REFERENCE            DA/432/2006/A - Submitted 2 July 2008

APPLICANT/S           JPM Developments

OWNERS                    J P & M Developments Pty Limited

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

To determine Section 96 (1A) Application No. 432/2006/A which seeks approval for the modification of an approved 75 place childcare centre including changes to the internal layout and external façade.

 

The application has been referred to Council as the application relates to a childcare centre. No objections have been received in respect of this application. 

 

The application seeks approval to modify the internal layout of the centre and to increase flexibility to cater for future uses by allowing up to 28 children to attend the centre between the ages of 0-3. The current consent allows for 25 children to attend the centre below the age of 0-3. The overall number of children will not change.

 

The proposed internal modifications will allow for a variation to the number of children at any one time and will cater for a variety of children’s age groups according to demand. The proposed modifications are consistent with the objectives of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 28 – Parramatta, and Development Control Plan – Harris Park Precinct. Accordingly, approval of the application is recommended.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council modify Development Consent No. 432/2006 in the following manner:

 

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

 

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

Drawing No

Dated

S96-01 Ground Floor Plan for 44 Weston Street, Harris Park – Issue A

2 June 2008

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

2.      Condition No. 47 is modified to read as follows:

 

The premises shall provide child care services for a minimum of 25 children aged between 0 and 3 years old and a maximum number of 28 children aged between 0 and 3 years old, and a maximum number of 50 children aged between 3 and 5 years old. The number of children on the premises is not to exceed 75 children at any one time. Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

Reason:   To ensure the number of children are not exceeded.

 

 

PROPOSAL

 

1.      The Section 96(1A) modification seeks approval to modify the approved development by:

 

1.1    dividing the play areas into 4 separate sections enabling smaller independent groups of children to be supervised simultaneously;

1.2    relocate internal amenities to provide direct access from each play area;

1.3    provide store rooms attached to each play area;

1.4    relocate the staff room, office, and dining rooms into the existing building;

1.5    provide nappy changing tables and bath rubs to cater for the 0 to 3 year olds;

1.6    provide a cot room to accommodate 16 cots;

1.7    provide adult and junior craft sinks.

 

2.      It is noted that there will be no increase in floor space area or the number of children approved in the original consent. The current approval allows for 25 children between the age of 0-3 to attend the centre and 50 children between the ages of 3-5 years. This modification seeks approval to have the flexibility to cater for up to 28 children attending the centre between the ages of 0-3, with overall children numbers not exceeding 75.

 

SITE AND LOCALITY

 

3.      The site is known as 44-46 Weston Street and 101B Alfred Street, Rosehill (Lots 1-3 in DP 1093536). The site is a rectangular shaped allotment with a frontage of 40.45m to Weston Street and a frontage of 50.47m to Alfred Street. The site has a total site area of 2035.7m2.

 

4.      The site is currently under construction for a single storey building to be used as a childcare centre for 75 children.  The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of residential dwellings and residential flat buildings along Alfred Street and residential dwellings along Weston Street. Adjoining the site at No. 42 Weston Street is a 40 place childcare centre.

 

5.      The site is located within the Elizabeth Farm Conservation Area.

 

BACKGROUND

 

6.      Development Application No. 432/2006 for the partial demolition of an existing residence and shed, tree removal and construction of single storey child care centre, for 75 children with associated car parking and landscape works was approved by Council on 14 May 2007.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

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

 

8.      The proposed modification seeks approval to modify the approved 75 place childcare centre to include changes to the internal layout and external façade. The overall number of children will not change. The proposed modifications will result in substantially the same development as that originally approved and can be dealt with pursuant to Section 96(1A) of the Act.

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta

 

9.      The site is zoned residential 2A (Harris Park Precinct) under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 28 – Parramatta and childcare centres are permissible within the zone with consent of Council.

 

10.    Subject to conditions of consent, the proposal is regarded as being consistent with the SREP 28 – Parramatta and the zone.

 

Parramatta Development Control Plan – Harris Park Precinct

 

11.    The development is subject to the requirements of Parramatta Development Control Plan – Harris Park Precinct. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and controls contained within the Parramatta DCP – Harris Park Precinct.

 

12.    Appendix 4 of Parramatta DCP – Harris Park Precinct includes Guidelines for the Elizabeth Farm Conservation Area. The proposed development is consistent with the guidelines contained within Appendix 4 of Parramatta DCP – Harris Park Precinct.

 

Parramatta Childcare Centres Development Control Plan

 

13.    The development is subject to the requirements of the Parramatta Child Care Centre Development Control Plan. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives and controls contained within the Child Care Centre DCP.

 

14.    It is noted that the development is inconsistent with the locality controls and maximum number of children within the current Child Care Centre DCP. At the time when the original application was lodged, the Child Care Centre DCP was not in force. Taking this into account as well as the fact that the number of children is not increasing, the application can be supported.

 

CONSULTATION

 

15.    In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 11 July 2008 and 25 July 2008. No submissions were received.

 

ISSUES

 

Modifications

 

16.    The proposed modifications are as follows:

 

16.1  dividing the play areas into 4 separate sections enabling smaller independent groups of children to be supervised simultaneously;

16.2  relocate internal amenities to provide direct access from each play area;

16.3  provide store rooms attached to each play area;

16.4  relocate the staff room, office, and dining rooms into the existing building;

16.5  provide nappy changing tables and bath rubs to cater for the 0 to 3 year olds;

16.6  provide a cot room to accommodate 16 cots;

16.7  provide adult and junior craft sinks.

 

17.    The proposed internal modifications will allow for a variation to the number of children at any one time and will cater for a variety of children’s age groups according to demand. The current approval allows for 25 children between the age of 0-3 to attend the centre and 50 children between the ages of 3-5 years. This modification seeks approval to have the flexibility to cater for up to 28 children attending the centre between the ages of 0-3, with overall children numbers not exceeding 75. It is noted that there will be no increase in floor space area or the number of children approved in the original consent.

 

18.    The proposed modifications are consistent with the objectives of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 28 – Parramatta, and Development Control Plan – Harris Park Precinct.

 

 

 

Sophia Chin

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans

1 Page

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

3View

History of Development Application

1 Page

 

4View

Previous report DSU 12/09 of Council meeting 14 May 2007

14 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.4

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.4

SUBJECT                   467-469 Church Street, Parramatta. (Lot 7 & 8 DP 834791) (Arthur Phillip Ward).

DESCRIPTION          Section 96 (AA) modification to a Land & Environment Court approved development comprising of alterations and additions to 2 existing dwellings (including the heritage listed Norfolk House), demolition and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building. Development Application No. 1212/2004/A seeks approval to modify the heritage listed Norfolk House to include minor internal alterations to provide additional bathrooms, reduction of the rear awning from 2 storey height to single storey height and provision of balustrades to rear windows.

REFERENCE            DA/1212/2004/A - Submitted 12 August 2008

APPLICANT/S           Dr N G Malouf

OWNERS                    Dr N G Malouf and Dr G M Malouf

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

To determine a Section 96AA application which seeks to modify a Land and Environment Court approval. Modifications include internal alterations to Norfolk House to provide additional bathrooms, reduction of the rear awning from 2 storey to single storey and provision of balustrades to rear windows. The application has been referred to Council as the property is listed under Schedule 1 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) as a Heritage Item of State or regional significance. One objection has been received in respect of this application. 

 

The works proposed as part of this application are minor. The provision of the bathroom/ensuite will not compromise existing fabric as it has been previously extensively replaced due to termite damage, ‘wear and tear’ and general decomposition. The approved verandah and awning are to be replaced with a verandah and awning that are lower in height.

 

Councils Heritage Advisor has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to the proposed works. The proposed modification to the Court approval is consistent with the objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). Accordingly, approval of the application is recommended.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council modify Development Consent No. 1212/2004 in the following manner:

 

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

 

 

Drawing No

Dated

Site Plan (Drawing No. 0403.06/S9601) for 467 Church Street, North Parramatta

Revision A

4 August 2008

Ground Floor Plan (Drawing No. 0403.06/S9602) for 467 Church Street, North Parramatta

Revision A

4 August 2008

First Floor Plan (Drawing No. 0403.06/S9603) for 467 Church Street, North Parramatta

Revision A

4 August 2008

Roof Plan (Drawing No. 0403.06/S9604) for 467 Church Street, North Parramatta

Revision A

4 August 2008

East & West Elevation Plan (Drawing No. 0403.06/S605) for 467 Church Street, North Parramatta

Revision A

4 August 2008

North & South Elevation Plan (Drawing No. 0403.06/S9606) for 467 Church Street, North Parramatta

Revision A

4 August 2008

Section Plan (Drawing No. 0403.06/S9607) for 467 Church Street, North Parramatta

Revision A

4 August 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The site is known as No. 467-469 Church Street, Parramatta (Lot 7 & 8 DP 834791). The site is located on the north-west corner of Albert Street and Church Street. The site is accessed from Albert Street by a private right of way over No. 463 Church Street and has an area of 626sqm.

 

2.      The site is currently occupied by a large two storey Victorian house of stuccoed brick with hipped corrugated iron roof known as “Norfolk House” listed under Schedule 1 of the Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) as a Heritage item of State or regional significance.

 

3.      The site is in the vicinity of other heritage items of significance listed under Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). These sites include a Roman Catholic Cemetery at 502 Church Street, Parramatta and cottages at 30 and 32 Albert Street, Parramatta.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

4.      Development Application No. 1212/2004 was approved by the Land and Environment Court on 21 April 1996 for demolition, tree removal and the construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing 12 apartments. The development also involves alterations and additions to 2 heritage items including the conversion of 1 heritage listed dwelling into 2 units and an addition of a garage to the other. Access to the site is via Albert Street.

 

PROPOSAL

 

5.      The Section 96AA modification seeks approval to modify the heritage listed Norfolk House to include minor internal alterations to provide additional bathrooms, reduction of the rear awning from 2 storey height to single storey height and provision of balustrades to rear windows.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

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

 

7.      The proposed modification seeks approval to modify the approved development to include minor internal alterations to provide additional bathrooms, reduction of the rear awning from 2 storey to single storey and provide balustrades to the rear windows. The proposed modifications will result in substantially the same development as that originally approved and can be dealt with pursuant to Section 96(AA) of the Act.

 

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

 

8.      The site is zoned Residential 2C under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and alterations and additions are permissible within the zone with consent of Council. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the PLEP 2001.

 

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

 

9.      The provisions of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) and the Heritage Development Control Plan 2001 apply to this site as “Norfolk House” is listed as a Heritage item of State or regional significance under Schedule 1 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).      

 

10.    The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) and the Heritage Development Control Plan 2001

 

REFERRALS – HERITAGE

 

11.    The Section 96(AA) modification seeks approval to modify the heritage listed Norfolk House to include minor internal alterations to provide additional bathrooms, reduction of the rear awning from 2 storey height to single storey height and provision of balustrades to rear windows

 

12.    The application was referred to Councils Heritage Advisor who has no objection to the proposal and comments that “the proposed changes are generally in keeping with the works previously approved under the original development application.”

 

CONSULTATION

 

13.    In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was notified between 27 August 2008 and 17 September 2008. One submission has been received in response to this proposal. The submission is not from a property in the immediate locality of the proposal. The issues raised within the submission are discussed below.

 

Demolition, Waste Production and Non-Preservation of Heritage

 

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

 

15.    The “Norfolk House” building is listed as a Heritage item of State or regional significance under Schedule 1 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation).

 

16.    The application was referred to Councils Heritage Advisor who has no objection to the proposal and comments that the proposed changes are generally in keeping with the works previously approved under the original development application. In addition, a satisfactory waste management plan was approved with the original consent.

 

Tree Removal and Attack on Natural Environment/ Pollution

 

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

 

18.    This issue is not related to this application.

 

Increase in Housing and Industrial Density

 

19.    Concern is raised over any increases to housing and industrial densities and overburdening of utilities as well as provision of sufficient space for children to play and not be run over.

 

20.    This issue is not related to this application.

 

Section 96 Applications

 

21.    Concern is raised over the submission of Section 96 modification applications which the submitter believes are done so to avoid the submission of a staged development application, or the submission of amended plans. Additional concern is raised over amended Masterplans or Section 96 applications to modify approvals.

 

22.    The proposed development is a Section 96 modification to modify DA/1212/2004 for the minor internal alterations to provide additional bathrooms, reduction of the rear awning from 2 storey height to single storey height and provision of balustrades to rear windows. It is not considered that the Section 96 modification application was lodged to avoid the submission of amended plans with the original proposal. Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 allows an applicant to make an application to modify a development consent granted by the Court through a consent authority.

 

Modified Hours and Noise Generation

 

23.    Concern is raised that there should be no increase to the approved hours of operation for commercial or industrial activity adjacent to residential areas to maintain the amenity of the areas.

 

24.    This issue is not related to this application.

 

ISSUES

 

Modifications

 

25.    It is considered that the proposed development to increase the number of bathrooms will increase the useability and amenity of the dwelling for future occupants.

 

26.    The reduced height of the awning will provide additional views to the heritage significant fabric to the rear of the dwelling.

 

27.    The proposed modification to the Court approval is consistent with the objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). Accordingly, approval of the application is recommended.

 

 

Sophia Chin

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Plans and Elevations

6 Pages

 

2View

Locality Map

1 Page

 

3View

Heritage Inventory

3 Pages

 

4View

History of Development Application

1 Page

 

5

Land and Environment Court Judgment

4 Pages

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.5

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.5

SUBJECT                   Section 82A Review DA174/2007 17-21 Woodville Road and 2-4 Milton Street Granville. (Lot 100 DP 1013005) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Demolition and construction of a 3 storey commercial building containing a motor showroom over 2 levels of basement parking and a 3 storey commerical building containing a mechanical workshop, auto retail store, cafe and two levels of commercial suites over one level of basement parking.

REFERENCE            DA/174/2007 - Submitted 7 October 2008

APPLICANT/S           Loui Nicholas

OWNERS                    Loui Nicholas - Winpeg Pty Ltd

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services

PREVIOUS ITEMS             PF17/08 - Development Application - 17-21 Woodville Road and 2-4 Milton Street, Granville - Regulatory Council - 11 August 2008      

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

To review Council’s determination of the refusal of Development Application No. 174/2007 pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. The development application seeks approval for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a 3 storey commercial development in 2 buildings on the site.

 

Five objections and a petition with 5 signatures have been received in respect of this application.

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination as the previous determination was made by Council. Reasons for the refusal included noise, heritage, traffic and visual impacts.

 

The issues that have been raised in the refusal can be adequately addressed by extraordinary conditions of consent which are now proposed. The application satisfies the requirements of Parramatta LEP 2001 and Parramatta DCP 2005 and approval is recommended.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council change its previous determination and grant consent to the application subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

 

1.    No approval is granted for the proposed outdoor dining area attached to the café. The outdoor dining area is to be deleted from the plans.

Reason:   Owners consent for the use of this land has not been obtained.

 

2.    A vehicle exhaust collection system is to be installed within the mechanical workshop. The system is to include collection points at each vehicle hoist and the outlet is to be vented to the roof of the building. Details of the proposed system are to be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

Reason:   To minimise the impact of noise and vehicle fumes on the amenity of the adjoining residential property.

 

3.    A carport is to be constructed over the dealership wash bay in lieu of the proposed fabric shade. The carport is to incorporate an impermeable screen on its northern end that extends from the ground level to the underside of the roof. The carport may have a maximum height and width of 3m.

Reason:   To preserve the amenity of the adjoining dwelling.

 

4.    Car spaces within the development are to be allocated in the following manner, motor showroom – 14 spaces, mechanical workshop including associated office space – 27 spaces, auto retail store – 8 spaces, café – 12 spaces, commercial suites – 22 spaces. The remaining car spaces may be allocated as the developer sees fit. Car spaces within the development are to be used in accordance with this condition.

Reason:   To ensure compliance with the car parking requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005 and the RTA’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments.

 

5.    The acoustic barrier located on the northern boundary is to be of masonry construction and constructed in accordance with the requirements of section 3.2 ‘Car Parking Noise’ of the acoustic report referred to in condition No. 1 of the development consent. The acoustic barrier is to be maintained at all times.

Reason:   To ensure that an adequate and long lasting acoustic barrier is provided.

 

6.    Vertical louvred sunshades are to be provided to the west facing windows on the first and second floor levels of the commercial suites, and horizontal sunshades are to be provided over the north facing windows on the second floor level of the motor showroom. Revised plans addressing this issue are to be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

Reason:   To ensure compliance with part 4.2.6 ‘Energy Efficiency’ of Parramatta DCP 2005.

 

7.    (a) A "No Parking and Loading Zone" on Halsall Street shall be installed fronting the development site subject to the approval of the Parramatta Traffic Committee under Delegated Authority.

(b) A “No Right Turn from 3pm to 7pm" restriction on Halsall Street on to Woodville Road shall be installed in addition to the existing "No Right Turn Buses and Taxis Excepted" restriction, subject to the approval of the Parramatta Traffic Committee.

 

The applicant shall submit an application to Council's Traffic & Transport Services Manager through the Parramatta Traffic Committee regarding the regulatory restrictions in Halsall Street , as specified in Items (a & b) above, at least 6 months prior to the completion of the construction works so that a report can be prepared for consideration by Council's Traffic Committee prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

Reason:             To ensure that the appropriate traffic management arrangements for the development are in place.

 

8.    The applicant shall apply to the Roads & Traffic Authority's Regional Freight Co-ordinator for approval to use an articulated car carrier in excess of 19m long through Halsall Street, Milton Street and Railway Street, then Bold Street on to Parramatta Road according to the RTA Route Assessment Guidelines for Restricted Access Vehicles. Due to route constraints it is possible that the RTA will not approve a heavy vehicle route. Should the RTA not approve the heavy vehicle route all vehicles displayed or sold at the premises shall be individually driven to the site.

Reason:   To ensure that the appropriate traffic management arrangements for the development are in place.

 

9.    All vehicle testing shall take place within the mechanical workshop with the use of the vehicle exhaust collection system. A sign reflecting this requirement shall be placed within the parking area on the northern side of the site.

Reason:   To protect the amenity of the adjoining property.

 

10.  The specific use or occupation of each component or tenancy within the development shall be the subject of further development approval for such use or occupation. The site shall not be occupied until the required development consents have been obtained.

Reason:   To ensure development consent is obtained prior to that use commencing.

 

11.  Garbage trucks may only access the site between the hours of 9.00am and 5.00pm.

Reason:   To protect the amenity of the adjoining dwelling.

 

12.  The balustrade on the northern side of the first floor car display area in the motor showroom is to be increased in height to 1.8m by the addition of obscure glass or glass bricks to the top of the balustrade.

Reason:   To protect the amenity of the adjoining dwelling.

 

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

 

 

SITE AND LOCALITY

 

1.      The site has an ‘L’ shape and is located on the eastern side of Woodville Road, with frontages to Halsall Street, Milton Street and Woodville Road. The western portion of the site contains a car sales yard with frontage to Woodville Road and Halsall Street. The car sales yard consists of an open car display area and two single storey buildings. Two mechanical workshops are located on the eastern side of the site. The workshops consist of two brick buildings and concrete hardstand facing Milton Street. The legal property description is Lot 100 DP 1013005, Lot 1 DP 743270, and Lot 2 DP 210565. The site is generally known as 17-21 Woodville Road and 2-4 Milton Street Granville.

 

2.      Two allotments adjoin the development site and contain a heritage listed single storey dwelling at No. 15 Woodville Road and a 2 storey commercial building at No. 136 Railway Parade. Both allotments are zoned Centre Business 3(a). A petrol station and industrial building are located to the south of the site on the northern side of Halsall Street.

 

3.      The street block bounded by Woodville Road, Railway Parade, Milton Street and Garden Spring Road are zoned Centre Business 3(a). The properties on the eastern side of Milton Street are zoned Residential 2(b).

 

PROPOSAL

 

4.      Demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a 3 storey development consisting of two buildings. The first building is a 3 storey motor showroom with frontage to Woodville Road and Halsall Street. The building has an L shape and an open car park is located on the northern side of the building. Vehicle access is provided from Halsall Street. The building has curtain wall glazing to Woodville Road and the corner of Woodville Road and Halsall Street. A ramp from the car park at the rear provides access to the first floor level where both external and internal car display areas are located. Vehicle access is not provided to the third floor level and this space will be used as offices for the motor showroom. A two level basement is located beneath the building providing parking for 44 vehicles, including two car wash bays. The basement car park provides parking for the motor showroom, commercial suites and the mechanical workshop.

 

5.      The second building has frontage to Halsall Street and Milton Street. Vehicle access to the building is provided from Halsall Street. A mechanical workshop with 4 work bays, an auto retail store with a mezzanine level, and a cafe is provided at the ground floor level. The café is located on the corner of Milton Street and Halsall Street. The first and second floor levels contain commercial suites. Each commercial suite is provided with a kitchen and bathroom. The suites are configured so that multiple suites can be occupied by a single tenant. Two suites on the first floor level are to be used as offices for the mechanical workshop. A staircase provides direct access from the workshop to the office area. 

 

BACKGROUND

 

6.      On 11 August 2008 Council considered a report which recommended approval of Development Application No. 174/2007. Councillors refused the application for the following reasons:

 

1.      Unacceptable noise impacts of having a motor vehicle repair shop in close proximity to residential properties.

 

2.      Unacceptable impact on heritage items in the vicinity.

 

3.      Unacceptable impact of vehicle movements into the street and that no adequate assessment has been made of existing businesses such as Premier Cabs.

 

4.      Visual impact on rear of adjacent property.

 

5.      Unacceptable height of the proposal in the neighbourhood.

 

6.      That the garbage bay is unacceptably located beside the adjacent residence.

 

7.      Generation of noise to 92dBA level is unacceptable.

 

7.      An application to review the above determination pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, was lodged with Council on 7 October 2008.

 

8.      The application was accompanied by a statement from a consultant Town Planner which addresses the reasons for refusal. The statement is included in this report as Attachment 2.

 

9.      The following commentary is provided in response to the reasons for refusal.

 

Unacceptable noise impacts of having a motor vehicle repair shop in close proximity to residential properties.

 

10.    The development application was accompanied by an acoustic report which addressed the impact of the noise from the motor vehicle repair shop on the adjoining dwellings. The acoustic report concludes that the noise from the motor vehicle repair shop is within the acceptable range as specified by the Industrial Noise Policy.

 

11.    It is noted that the existing motor vehicle repair shop consists of an open parking area and workshops that face Milton Avenue. The proposed repair shop is fully enclosed and an extraordinary condition of consent will require the installation of an exhaust collection system within the workshop to ensure that all repair work can be conducted within the building. An acoustic wall will also be constructed between the boundary of the development site and the adjoining dwelling.

 

Unacceptable impact on heritage items in the vicinity.

 

12.    The adjoining dwelling to the north of the site is listed as a Heritage Item in Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation). A splay has been incorporated into the north-western corner of the development to maintain views of the heritage item from the street. The development has been amended in accordance with the advice of Council’s Heritage Advisor and is considered acceptable.

 

Unacceptable impact of vehicle movements into the street and that no adequate assessment has been made of existing businesses such as Premier Cabs.

 

13.    A Traffic Report prepared by a qualified Traffic Engineer was submitted with the development application. Council’s Traffic Engineer also completed a review of the application and comments were received from the RTA. Subject to the imposition of the recommended extraordinary conditions of consent including the creation of a loading zone on Halsall Street the development would not have an adverse impact on the operation of the road network. 

 

Visual impact on rear of adjacent property.

 

14.    The planning controls that apply to the proposed development allow the construction of a building 3 storeys in height. The first and second floor levels of the development have a 3m setback from the rear boundary of the adjacent dwelling. The existing 2 storey building has a nil setback from the rear boundary. A portion of the existing 2 storey building has a nil setback from the southern boundary of the adjacent dwelling adjoining the backyard. The proposed 3 storey building has a 2m setback on the western end of the southern boundary and a 11.2m setback to the middle and eastern end of the southern boundary.  Whilst the proposed development would have a greater impact on the outlook from the windows at the front of the house which face south, the development would have a lesser visual impact on the outlook from the backyard of the adjacent property.

 

Unacceptable height of the proposal in the neighbourhood.

 

15.    The height of the development is consistent with the 3 storey height limit stipulated by Parramatta DCP 2005.

 

That the garbage bay is unacceptably located beside the adjacent residence.

 

16.    The door to the garbage bay is in the opposite direction to the adjacent residence and the door to the garbage bay is 8m from the boundary of the adjacent residence. The garbage bay will not have a negative impact on the amenity of the adjacent residence.

 

Generation of noise to 92dBA level is unacceptable.

 

17.    An Acoustic Report prepared by a qualified Acoustic Consultant was submitted with the development application. Whilst the noise levels generated within the workshop will be high, it is the impact of the noise on adjoining properties that is of relevance to the suitability of the proposal. The noise level of 92dBA relates to the sound power level of a rattle gun. The acoustic report demonstrates that with a rattle gun operating at 92dBA and the roller shutter to the workshop open the noise level within the backyard of the adjacent residence will be 56dBA. The measured background noise levels at the rear laneway that adjoins No. 15 Woodville Road were between 58-59dBA on 3 August 2007 and 51-56dBA on 4 September 2007. The predicted noise level of 56dBA complies with the background plus 5dBA amenity criterion recommended by the Industrial Noise Policy. Subject to the implementation of appropriate amelioration measures the noise from the workshop will not have a negative impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

CONSULTATION

 

18.    In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the Section 82A review was advertised and notified between 22 October 2008 and 5 November 2008. Six submissions including a petition with 5 signatures were received. It is noted that a large number of the issues raised were also raised during the original notification of the development application. The issues raised in the submissions are addressed below;

 

Impact on character

 

19.    Objectors raised concern that the scale of the development is inappropriate and will change the character of the area.

 

20.    The site is zoned Centre Business 3(a). This zone allows for developments of higher density than existing, with a height of up to 3 storeys and a floor space ratio of 2:1. The development standards that apply to the Centre Business 3(a) zone promote higher density development. The proposed development will replace an existing car sales yard and mechanical workshop with a modern development with enhanced streetscape appeal. The proposed development is consistent with the planning controls and the desired future character of the area.

 

Privacy Impacts

 

21.    Objectors raised concerns that the development would have a detrimental impact on the privacy of adjoining properties. Specific concerns have been raised regarding 34 windows located on the western elevation of the commercial building, the windows on the northern elevation of the motor showroom and the overlooking from the car display area on the first floor level of the motor showroom.

 

22.    It is noted that the development adjoins a single residential property at No. 15 Woodville Road which is to the north of the site. Residential properties located to the east of the site are located on the opposite side of Milton Street. The separation between the commercial suites and the residential dwellings on Milton Street is greater than the 12m required by the DCP and the development would not have a negative impact on the privacy of the dwellings located on the eastern side of Milton Street.

 

23.    All the windows on the western elevation of the development facing in the direction of No. 15 Woodville Road consist of a fixed portion of obscure glass to a height of 1.8m above the floor level with a clear openable portion above. These windows are located on the first and second floor levels of the commercial suites. The clear portion of the windows is higher than the average eye level of a person. The windows will not allow any overlooking of No. 15 Woodville Road. In addition to the obscure glazing a condition of consent requires vertical sun shading louvres to be affixed to all of the west facing windows, these louvres will further reduce the perception of overlooking from this elevation of the development.

 

24.    Four windows are located on the northern elevation of the building, the windows are 11.3m from the boundary shared with No. 15 Woodville Road. Two windows serve offices and two windows provide light to the ramp that provides car access to the first floor level. The windows have a sill height of 1.6m above the floor level. The windows would not allow any overlooking of No. 15 Woodville Road.

 

25.    An outdoor car display area is located on the first floor level of the motor showroom. The rear of the car display area faces No. 15 Woodville Road. To prevent overlooking from the car display area a condition will be imposed requiring the balustrade to be increased in height to 1.8m by the addition of obscure glass or glass bricks to the top of the balustrade.

 

Car wash bay

 

26.    The residents of No. 15 Woodville Road have raised concerns with the car wash bay located within the at grade parking area. Concerns have been raised that the car wash bay would contaminate adjoining properties with mist containing soapy chemicals.

 

27.    The car wash bay is not adjacent to any windows of No. 15 Woodville Road and a 1.8m high wall will be located on the western end of the car wash bay. The plans indicate that the car wash bay will be covered with shade cloth. It is agreed that the regular washing of vehicles in the car wash bay is likely to result in water being sprayed over the fence and resulting in dampness at No. 15 Woodville Road. A condition is recommended requiring a car port with an impermeable screen on the northern end to be constructed over the car wash bay.

 

Traffic

 

28.    Objectors have raised concern that the development will generate increased traffic and that a heavy vehicle route through Milton Street and Railway Parade will be required for the semi trailers which deliver vehicles to the site.

 

29.    The development was referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority and Council’s Traffic and Transport section for comment. A traffic report prepared by a suitably qualified person was also submitted with the development application. Neither the RTA nor Councils Traffic and Transport sections raised concerns regarding the increased traffic generated by the development. A separate application to the Traffic Committee will be required for the heavy vehicle route through Milton Street and Railway Parade. Due to issues with heavy vehicle access it is common for car yards in Sydney to drive vehicles to the point of sale rather than having them delivered by truck. Should the heavy vehicle route not be approved all vehicles displayed or sold at the premises will be required to be driven to the site.

 

Noise and Emissions

 

30.      The residents of No. 15 Woodville Road have raised concerns that vehicles being serviced at the mechanical workshop will be tested in the open parking area resulting in additional noise and fumes.

 

31.       An acoustic report addressing the issue of noise from vehicles using the open car park and from tools used within the workshop was submitted with the application. The report concludes that the construction of a 1.8m barrier along the northern side of the parking area will ameliorate the noise impacts. It is agreed that workshop personnel are more likely to test vehicles in the parking area than within the workshop. A condition is recommended requiring a vehicle exhaust collection system to be installed within the workshop. These systems connect to the exhaust pipes of vehicles and allow vehicles to be run within the building thus preventing additional noise and fumes from impacting on the amenity of No. 15 Woodville Road. The condition will be worded so that the system is required to discharge to the roof of the building.

 

32.      The acoustic consultant has advised that the acoustic barrier may be constructed of either timber or masonry. To ensure the longevity of the acoustic barrier it is recommended that the fence be constructed of masonry rather than timber. A condition will be imposed to ensure that this occurs.

 

The acoustic report does not accurately reflect the noise generated by the development

 

33.      The acoustic report states that the noisiest equipment used in a workshop is the impact wrench. The report has assessed the noise impact of the workshop on the sound power levels of this device and recommended that no equipment in the workshop may have a sound power level when measured over 15 minutes greater than 92dBA.  A standard condition will be imposed requiring compliance with the recommendations of the acoustic report.

 

Over development of the site

 

34.    Residents have raised concern that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site. 

 

35.    The maximum floor space ratio for development in the Centre Business 3(a) zone is 2:1. The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 1.83:1. The floor area of the development is 365m2 less than the maximum permitted in the zone. The proposal is not an overdevelopment of the site.

 

Management issues

 

36.    Residents have raised concern that the development contains too many different uses that will not be able to operate at the same time. Concern has been raised that the mechanical workshop may generate up to 120 car movements per day at an average of 1 car movement every 4 minutes and that 24 cars would be serviced each day.

 

37.    The resident has based these calculations on the RTA requirement that each vehicle hoist in a mechanical workshop be provided with 6 car parking spaces. The RTA parking rate is based on the car parking needs of a mechanical workshop, including staff parking. It is highly unlikely that 24 vehicles would be serviced every day. To service 24 vehicles in an 8 hour working day, each service would have to take a maximum of 80 minutes and there could be no gap between the end of one service and the start of another.

 

38.    Notwithstanding the opinion that it is unlikely that 24 vehicles would be serviced each day, the conclusion of the acoustic report is that noise from vehicles movements within the site would not exceed the levels recommended by the Industrial Noise Policy.

 

Use of Halsall Street for U-turns

 

39.    The resident of No. 15 Woodville Road has raised concern that Halsall Street will be used by the premises for their internal vehicle movements.

 

40.    The car spaces for the workshop are provided within the basement beneath the motor showroom. Access to this basement is provided from Halsall Street. To move a vehicle from the workshop to the basement the vehicles would exit the site, turn right, and then make a right turn into the driveway to the basement. This manoeuvre would take less than 10 seconds. It is highly unlikely that this vehicle manoeuvre would have any negative impact on the functioning of the road network.

 

Inadequate car parking is provided

 

41.    Residents have raised concern that inadequate car parking is provided to the development and that they were told during the on site meeting that most of the car parking within the basement below the motor showroom would be used for the storage of vehicles.

 

42.    Parramatta DCP 2005 and the RTA’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments suggest that 82 car spaces are required to be provided on site. The development provides 85 car spaces in compliance with the relevant controls. It is note that the distribution of car parking is not in accordance with the DCP and RTA rates. A condition will be imposed to ensure that car parking is allocated as in accordance with the DCP and RTA rates. The planning controls which apply to the development verify that adequate car parking has been provided.

 

The garbage room is inappropriately located and poorly designed

 

43.    The residents of No. 15 Woodville Road have raised concern that the garbage room will impact on the amenity of the dwelling.

 

44.    The doors to the garbage room face in the opposite direction to No. 15 Woodville Road and are a minimum of 8m from the shared boundary. Whilst the side wall of the garbage room has a setback of 2m from the boundary shared with No. 15 Woodville Road the concrete wall to the garbage room would prevent the release of any odours. The doors to the garbage rooms will be of a self closing type. The location and design of the garbage rooms will ensure that the likelihood of odours impacting on No. 15 Woodville Road is kept to a minimum.

 

Noise from the garbage truck

 

45.    The residents of No. 15 Woodville Road have raised concern that the noise from the garbage truck will disturb their amenity and that cars will need to be moved from the car spaces to allow the garbage truck to access the site.

 

46.    The acoustic report submitted with the application acknowledges that the noise from the garbage truck will exceed the noise goal set for the site by 6dBA. To resolve this problem the acoustic barrier situated on the northern boundary would need to be increased in height from 1.8m to 2.7m. A 2.7m high fence would have a significant visual and amenity impact on No. 15 Woodville Road.

 

47.    The applicant has agreed to restrict garbage delivery times to between 9.00am and 5.00pm daily. Restricting garbage trucks to these times will minimise the likelihood of garbage trucks awakening sleeping residents.  It is noted that the garbage truck requires the loading zone situated on the eastern end of the parking area for manoeuvring purposes and therefore cars will not need to be removed from the car spaces to allow access for the garbage trucks.

 

Solar Access

 

48.    The residents of No. 15 Woodville Road have raised concern that the proposed acoustic fence, motor showroom building and landscaping will reduce daylight within their dwelling.

 

49.    The windows on the southern wall of No. 15 Woodville Road face in a south easterly direction and the acoustic fence is only proposed along that part of the northern boundary which adjoins the parking area. The windows on the southern wall of No. 15 Woodville Road do not face the acoustic fence, the windows will face the northern wall of the motor showroom. This wall has a setback of 2m from the side boundary. The controls within Parramatta DCP 2005 allow a 2 storey dwelling to have a side setback of 900mm. The proposed 2m side setback for the 3 storey motor showroom would have an equivalent if not lesser impact on ambient light levels within No. 15 Woodville Road than a 2 storey dwelling with a 900mm side setback. For development on sites zoned Centre Business 3(a) the side setback is ‘Dependant on the impact on amenity of adjoining development’. Having regards to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of No. 15 Woodville Road, the proposed side setback of between 2m and 11.3m is considered acceptable.

 

Construction Concerns

 

50.    The residents of No. 15 Woodville Road have raised concern with the duration of the construction works. 

 

51.    Standard conditions will be imposed regarding the noise and dust emissions during construction works. In the absence of any evidence that the site is particularly unique and that a restriction on the length of construction works is necessary Council is unable to specify a time limit for the completion of construction works.

 

Alteration to ground levels

 

52.    The residents of No. 15 Woodville Road have raised concern that the development includes the illegal alteration of existing ground levels.

 

53.    The section drawing placed on notification from 4 June 2008 to 25 June 2008 showed that the ground level will be the same as the floor level of the workshop. The new ground level will be a maximum of 1m above the existing natural ground level of No. 15 Woodville Road. The alteration of existing ground levels is not a prohibited form of development and the plans clearly show that the ground level will be altered.

 

Encroachment onto Council property

 

54.    Residents have raised concerns that portions of the development overhang Council property.

 

55.    The ground floor plan shows an outdoor dining area attached to the southern wall of the café. A condition will be imposed stating that no approval is granted for the outdoor dining area.

 

Noise Impact

 

56.    The residents of No. 15 Woodville Road have raised concern that no noise impact studies have been conducted into increased street traffic noise due to the glazed facades of the development.

 

57.    The glazed facades of the building have frontage to Woodville Road and a petrol station on the opposite side of Halsall Street. The glazed facades of the building are unlikely to make a perceptible difference to noise levels in an area already subject to a high level of traffic noise.

 

Setbacks

 

58.    Concern has been raised that the setbacks of the development are inadequate. The resident of No. 15 Woodville Road is of the opinion that a nil setback cannot be permitted due to the precedents created by other developments on Woodville Road.

 

59.    The development has a nil setback as specified by Part 3.2 ‘Preliminary Building Envelope’ of Parramatta DCP 2005. Recent mixed use developments on Woodville Road also have nil setbacks. The appropriateness of the proposed setback is based on the development being in compliance with the requirements of the relevant planning controls. That there are other developments on Woodville Road with nil setbacks demonstrates that Council has been consistent in requiring developments to comply with DCP controls.

 

Glazed frontage to Woodville Road

 

60.    Residents have raised concern that it will be difficult to clean the glass windows that face Woodville Road and that the windows will be constantly dirty.

 

61.    Glazed facades to motor showrooms are commonly located in close proximity to major roads. Numerous motor showrooms with glazed facades are located on Parramatta Road in the suburbs of Five Dock, Burwood, Ashfield, Leichhardt and Petersham. The glazed facades of these buildings are not constantly dirty. Companies which specialise in cleaning hard to access glass areas are located throughout the Sydney region.

 

Height

 

62.    Residents have raised concern that the building is four storeys in height due to the mezzanine level within the auto retail shop and that a 4 storey development is prohibited by the DCP.

 

63.    The ground floor of the commercial building fronting Milton Street has a ceiling height at the ground floor level of 4.9m due to the vehicle hoists located within the mechanical workshop. The developer has used the increased ceiling height to provide a mezzanine level within the auto retail shop, mechanical workshop and cafe which are also located on the ground floor level of the building. The mezzanine levels do not increase the height of the building despite the building being technically classified as 4 storeys in height. Whilst the ceiling height within the ground floor auto retail shop and café will not comply with the 3.3m minimum ceiling height requirement specified by the DCP, the specialised nature of the proposed uses negates the need for a ceiling height greater than 2.4m.

 

No Bicycle Parking

 

64.    Standard conditions of consent will require the provision of bicycle storage within the development

 

No disabled Parking

 

65.    Concern has been raised that no disabled parking has been provided.

 

66.    Standard conditions of consent will require the provision of disabled car spaces within the development

 

Lack of disabled access to the commercial tenancies

 

67.    Residents have raised concern that only 4 of the commercial tenancies have disabled access

 

68.    Disabled access is provided to the motor showroom, mechanical workshop, auto retail shop, café, and 4 of the commercial tenancies. Having regard to the scale of the development, it is not considered reasonable to require the provision of 3 additional lifts to provide disabled access to all of the commercial tenancies, that, unlike shops, are not accessible to the public.

 

Acoustic Fence

 

69.    The resident of No. 15 Woodville Road has raised concern that the acoustic fence dividing the car park of the development and the backyard or her property will be 3.7m in height as viewed from within her property.

 

70.    The proposed acoustic fence is 1.8m in height and the ground levels within No. 15 Woodville Road are 1m lower than the finished levels within the development. The fence will have a maximum height of 2.8m as viewed from within No. 15 Woodville Road. As part of the proposed acoustic fence replaces a 7m long section of a 7.12m high wall that directly adjoins the southern boundary of No. 15 Woodville Road the visual impact of the proposed 1.8m acoustic fence is considered acceptable.

 

Garbage truck manoeuvring

 

71.    The resident of No. 15 Woodville Road has raised concern that the proposed rainwater tank will prevent a garbage truck from accessing the site.

 

72.    The rainwater tank is to sit on an extension of the slab which forms the at grade parking area.  The plans have been amended to clearly show the location of the rainwater tank. The rainwater tank will not obstruct the swept path of a garbage truck.

 

Bathroom windows

 

73.    The resident of No. 15 Woodville Road has raised concern that no details of the bathrooms windows on the northern elevation of the motor showroom have been submitted with the application.

 

74.    The architectural plans do not show any windows to the bathrooms within the motor showroom. As the northern wall to the bathrooms is less than 3m from the side boundary, windows cannot be provided unless they have a fire resistance level specified by the Building Code of Australia. The Building Code of Australia allows bathrooms to be mechanically ventilated and provided with artificial lighting. Windows are not required and none have been provided. 

 

 

 

Jonathon Goodwill

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Correspondence prepared by applicant's Town Planner

6 Pages

 

2View

Previous Council Report

15 Pages

 

3View

History of Section 82A Review Application

1 Page

 

4View

Plans and Elevations

14 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.6

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.6

SUBJECT                   110 Harris Street, Harris Park. (Lot 60 DP 735064) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION          Fit-out and use of an existing heritage item as a non-licensed restaurant. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE            DA/311/2008 - Submitted: 2 May 2008

APPLICANT/S           Mr P Melchiorsen

OWNERS                    Tenaco Pty Limited

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

Executive Summary:

 

To determine Development Application No. 311/2008 which seeks approval to the fit-out and use of the heritage listed premises as a non-licensed restaurant.

 

The restaurant is located within a residential zoned area. Clause 29B of SREP 28 allows restaurants within this residential area. The closest residential property to the site is across the road. This small scale restaurant will not unduly impact on the amenity of the area.

 

The application has been referred to Council as it is a heritage listed development under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 in addition to the number of submissions it has received.

 

Six (6) objections and one petition with 25 signatures have been received in respect of this application.

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 311/2008 subject to standard conditions as well as the following extraordinary conditions:

 

(i)      The days and hours of operation are restricted to Monday to Thursday, 10:00am to 10:00pm, Friday and Saturday 10.00am to 12 midnight. No trading on Sundays. Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

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

 

(ii)     No waste is to be disposed into the external waste bins after 9.30pm.

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

 

(iii)    All deliveries to the premises shall take place between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm and shall take place within the designated loading and unloading area located at the laneway to the rear of the premises.

Reason:   To protect the amenity of the area.

 

(iv)    All tables, chairs and other materials shall be from the same family kept within the allotment boundaries at all times.

Reason:   To provide a consistent appearance and protect the amenity of the area.

 

(v)     No entertainment or music is permitted within the premises or within the outdoor dining area.

Reason:  To ensure compliance with Council’s Policy.

 

(vi)    The total number of seats shall not exceed 68 seats.  Any increase in proposed seating shall be the subject of a further Development Application to the Council.

Reason:   To ensure the development does not expand beyond that approved.

 

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

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The subject site is located on the corner of Harris Street and Una Street. The site has a frontage width of 16.6 metres to Harris Street and 27.155 metres to Una Street. The site has a total area of 483.8m2 and contains a one-storey Victorian house which is heritage listed. The subject site is regular in shape with the immediate area surrounding the site a mixture of residential and small commercial offices. The closest residential property is across the road with the property to the south occupied by a dental surgery. It is noted that the site is located within the Harris Park Conservation Area.

 

PROPOSAL

 

2.      Approval is sought for the fit-out and use of the heritage listed premises for the purpose of a non-licensed 68 seat restaurant. The proposed hours of operation are Monday to Thursday, 10:00am to 10:00pm and Friday and Saturday from 10:00am to 12 midnight. No trading is proposed on Sunday.

 

3.      In addition, one (1) sign is proposed which measures 2000(h) x 550 (w) x 100 (d) to be internally illuminated with a timer control and is to be illuminated during business hours. The signage is to be located on the front façade of the premises.  

 

4.      It is noted that the premises is currently vacant.

 

STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 - Parramatta

 

5.      The site is zoned Residential 2(a) under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta and is located in the Harris Park West Conservation Area. The proposed fit-out and use of the premises as a restaurant is permissible under Clause 29B which allows ‘refreshment rooms’ within the Harris Park West Conservation Area. It is noted that ‘refreshment rooms’ as defined in the SREP as “premises which meals or light refreshments are served to the public for profit or reward, whether or not they are also used for live entertainment”. The proposed development is consistent with this definition and satisfies objectives of SREP No. 28.

 

Harris Park DCP

 

6.      The provisions of the Harris Park DCP 2002 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the plan.

 

CONSULTATION

 

7.      In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised and notified for 21 days between 21 May to 11 June 2008. Six individual submissions and 1 petition with 25 signatures were received. The issues raised within the submissions are addressed below.

 

Concerns were raised that the noise omitted from the outdoor dining and noise generated after hours by the patrons will be disruptive to the amenity of adjoining residential properties.

 

8.      The applicant has submitted a satisfactory management plan which details noise sources from within the premises. The management plan has stipulated that no music will be played at any time within the premises. The application also details that no alcohol will be sold or served on the premises limiting the opportunity for undesirable behaviour and unnecessary patron noise. In addition, there is approximately 2 metres between the veranda at the subject premises and the wall of the adjoining property to the south that is used as a dental surgery. This is considered to be a sufficient separation to mitigate any adverse noise impacts from the restaurant. The applicant also proposes timber screening on the southern boundary to contain acoustics and visual impacts within the subject premises. It is also noted that Harris Street carries a high volume of traffic and that the noise from this traffic already reduces the level of amenity in the area.

 

Concerns were raised that the proposed restaurant is located too close to a dangerous intersection (Harris Street and Una Street) and that the patrons to the restaurant will be placed at risk.

 

9.      The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer. Upon review of the application, Council’s Traffic Engineers has stated that “sight distance for traffic turning into Harris Street from Una Street is considered acceptable.  Drivers turning right or left into Harris Street have a sight distance of approximately 70m and 85m from Una Street respectively.  Likewise, drivers turning right or left into Harris Street have a sight distance of approximately 87m and 75m from Ruse Street respectively”. Accordingly, Council’s Traffic Engineers concluded that based on the traffic and parking assessment of the proposed development, the development “…is not expected to have a significant impact on Harris Street and its surrounding road network”.

 

Concerns were raised that the proposed development has insufficient on-site parking which will force patrons to the restaurant to use the visitor parking reserved for the private use of adjoining properties.

 

10.    The subject site is covered under SREP 28 which provides maximum requirements for car parking. Under the SREP, a restaurant 400 metres from a railway station and a transit corridor can provide a maximum of the lesser of 15 spaces per 100 square metres of development (gross floor area) or 1 space per three seats. The gross floor area of the development is approximately 165.77m2 and proposes 68 seats within the restaurant. Based on the SREP car parking requirements, the proposed development is to provide a maximum of 15 spaces. Currently, the site provides 5 on-site parking spaces which comply with the SREP requirements.  

 

11.    Notwithstanding the numerical compliance, Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigation Engineer has reviewed the application and whether the cumulative impacts of the development is acceptable as there are approximately 10 restaurants currently in operation and two additional proposals for similar uses under DA/296/2008 (83 seats) and DA/544/2008 (97 seats).

 

12.    Upon review of the proposal Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigation Engineer provided the following comment in support of the proposal, “…the provision of 5 parking spaces on-site is considered acceptable and complies with the Parramatta SREP 28” and that the development “…is not expected to have a significant impact on Harris Street and its surrounding road network”.

 

Concerns were raised that delivery trucks will make deliveries during non-business hours which will result in increased traffic congestion and noise.

 

13.    To ensure the amenity of the area is maintained, Council will place a condition on the consent restricting delivery hours to business hours.

 

Concerns were raised that the cooking process of the proposed restaurant will omit odours that would be inappropriate within the local area.

 

14.    The application was referred to Council’s Environment and Health Department for review. Council’s Health Officer has raised no objections subject to conditions being included in the consent relating to conditions relating to conditions prohibiting the restaurant from emitting air impurities which contravene the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 relating to odour emission. In addition, Council’s Health Officer have provided conditions that relate to mechanical ventilations systems to ensure that it satisfies Australian Standards relating to odour emissions.

 

Concern was raised that the proposed development is inconsistent with the existing development currently on Harris Street. Objectors are concerned that the proposed restaurant is out of place and is outside of the restaurant precinct. The objectors pointed out that there are no restaurants in the area and that the proposed restaurant would therefore be out of character.

 

15.    Restaurants are permissible in the Residential 2A Zone in the Harris Park Precinct of the SREP and in the Harris Park West Conservation Area. The proposed restaurant would not be inconsistent with the character of the area.  

 

REFERRALS

 

Environment and Health

 

16.    The proposal has been referred to Council’s Environment and Health Officer who has reviewed the proposal. Upon review, Council’s Health Officer raises no objections subject to conditions of consent.

 

Traffic

 

17.    The proposal has been referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer who has reviewed the proposal. Upon review, Council’s Traffic Engineer raises no objections subject to conditions of consent.

 

Heritage

 

18.    The proposal has been referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser who has reviewed the amended proposal. Upon review, Council’s Heritage Adviser makes no objections subject to conditions of consent.

 

On-site Meeting

 

19.    Due to the number of submissions received an on-site meeting was held on Saturday 23 August 2008 commencing at 8:30am. Present at the meeting were former Councillor Jamal (chair), Sara Matthews – Acting Team Leader Development Assessment, Denise Fernandez – Development Assessment Officer, 4 residents, the owner and the architect. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

 

Concern was raised that not everyone who submitted objections to the proposed development received notification letters stating that an on-site meeting was to be held on the 23 August 2008.

 

20.    Council officers investigated the above concern and upon perusal of Council records, can confirm that all seven individual petitioners and the head petitioner were notified of the on-site meeting. The letters advising the objectors of the on-site meeting was sent on 15 August 2008.

 

The proposed development is inconsistent with the existing development on Harris Street and the local area.

 

21.    Concern is raised that the proposed development is inconsistent with the existing types of development currently on Harris Street. Objectors are concerned that the proposed restaurant is out of place and is outside of the restaurant precinct. The objectors pointed out that there are no restaurants in the area and that the proposed restaurant would therefore be out of character.

 

22.    Restaurants are permissible in the Residential 2A Zone in the Harris Park Precinct of the SREP and in the Harris Park West Conservation Area. The proposed restaurant would not be inconsistent with the character of the area.  

 

The odour omitted from the premises is considered to be undesirable given that it is within close proximity to residential properties and doctor’s surgery.

 

23.    Council officers explained that the proposal has been referred to Council’s internal Environment and Health Department for review. Council’s Health Officer has commented on the proposal and raises no objections. Council’s Health officer has provided specific conditions that relate to odour emissions. In addition, Council’s Health Officer has provided conditions that that ensure mechanical ventilation systems should comply with Australian Standards to ensure offensive odours are not omitted from the premises.

 

Illegal parking and adjoining parking areas reserved for visitor parking are going to be used by the patrons to the restaurant

 

24.    Council Officers stated that as the site is located under SREP 28 (which provides maximum requirements for car parking) and that, the proposed development does not have to provide additional paring spaces. The objectives of the maximum parking provisions of the SREP encourages the utilisation of public transport and therefore providing more than the maximum would defeat the objectives of the control.

 

Noise from outdoor dining will be disruptive to the nearby residential properties.

 

25.    Council Officers clarified that the applicant had submitted a noise management plan for assessment. The plan is satisfactory. In addition, the applicant has also stipulated that no alcohol will be served on the premises and that no music will be played within the premises which limit the noise sources within the premises. The restaurant contains 16 outdoor seats. As the closest residential property is on the other side of Harris Street, it is not considered that outdoor dining patrons will unduly affect the amenity of the area.

 

Traffic safety and in particular, the intersection adjoining the subject premises (Harris Street and Una Street)

 

26.    Council Officers at the on-site meeting stated that the application was currently being reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineers and are waiting for their comments.  It is noted that upon review of the application by Council’s Traffic Engineers, no objection is raised to the application stating that “sight distance for traffic turning into Harris Street from Una Street is considered acceptable.  Drivers turning right or left into Harris Street have a sight distance of approximately 70m and 85m from Una Street respectively”.

 

 

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Location Plan

1 Page

 

2View

Plans and Elevations

3 Pages

 

3View

Management Plan

3 Pages

 

4View

Heritage Impact Statement

10 Pages

 

5View

Heritage Inventory Sheet

1 Page

 

6View

History of DA

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.7

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.7

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

DESCRIPTION          Further report - Demolition of dwelling house and construction of a two storey boarding house containing 13 bedrooms (8 at ground floor level and 5 at first floor level).

REFERENCE            DA/255/2008 - lodged 17 April, 2008

APPLICANT/S           Mark Makhoul

OWNERS                    Tony & Eleanora Boyagi

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services

PREVIOUS ITEMS             12.4 - 479 Kissing Point Road, Ermington. (Lachlan Macquarie Ward) (Lot 18A in DP 440585). - Regulatory Council - 8 September 2008      

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

To provide Councillors with a response to the resolution of Council dated 8 September 2008, where the application was deferred until after the Council election and for the applicant to be requested to relocate the courtyard to the other side of the building.

 

The applicant has responded to Council’s request and would like the building to remain in its current design and provides reasons for this. Accordingly, the DA is referred back to Council for determination.

 

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 2 storey boarding house is consistent with the scale of nearby buildings and the desired future character of the area; is of a design that is suitable to the site and its surrounds; and complies with the numerical requirements of Parramatta LEP 2001 and Parramatta DCP 2005 as they would apply to a dwelling house.

 

Approval of the development application is therefore recommended.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)       That Council grant its consent to DA/255/2008 for the demolition of a dwelling house and construction of a two storey dwelling to be used as a boarding house at 479 Kissing Point Road, Ermington, subject to standard and the following extraordinary conditions:

 

1.    The boarding house shall be limited to a maximum occupancy of 15, with only Bedrooms 1 and 9 being capable of accommodating 2 persons. Bedrooms 2-8 and 10-13 shall be limited to 1 person only.

Reason: To control the intensity of the development.

 

 

2.    The outdoor areas shall not be used after 10.00pm and before 6.00am, 7 days per week.

Reason: To protect neighbour amenity.

 

3.    A 24-hour phone number shall be supplied to each occupant so that contact may be made with the manager.

Reason: To ensure proper management of the premises.

 

4.    The manager shall ensure that a notice is placed near the entrance to the property in a visible position to the public advising of his name and contact number.

Reason: To ensure proper management of the premises.

 

5.    The premises shall require licensing pursuant to the Youth and Community Services Act 1973 should one or more occupant be diagnosed as having a disability.

Reason: Legislative requirement.

 

6.    That each occupant shall be furnished with a set of house rules and a copy of this consent and that no variation shall be permitted without the further approval of Council.

Reason: To ensure proper management of the premises.

 

7.    That the manager shall maintain a computer record of all residents with details of their names, length of stay, number of persons in each room, and that such record shall be made available to Council when requested.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate records are kept.

 

8.    All residents in the boarding house are to sign a lease or licence agreeing to comply with the boarding house rules, with the length of the lease to be determined by the management on the explicit understanding that accommodation is not to be provided on a temporary basis to tourists. The length of lease considered appropriate is to be not less than 3 months.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate records are kept.

 

9.    The manager, upon signing of the lease or licence agreement, shall provide boarders with a key to their individual room and common areas.

Reason: To ensure tenant amenity.

 

10.  Additional house rules shall be prepared by the manager of the premises and furnished to Council, in relation to such matters as the keeping of pets, noise, cleaning of outdoor areas and general use of outdoor areas.

 

11.  A copy of the house rules shall be placed in prominent locations on the site, including in all communal areas, behind doors in bedrooms, and upon the rear façade of the dwelling, in order to familiarise residents of the boarding house with acceptable activities.

Reason: To ensure that residents of the boarding house are familiar with the local house rules.

 

12.  Individual rooms are to be restricted to plug-in appliances such as microwave oven, toasters, kettles and the like.

Reason: Fire safety.

 

13.  The individual rooms and common areas are to be maintained in a clean and tidy state and individual’s rubbish is to be placed in the appropriate receptacles.

Reason: To ensure proper management of the premises.

 

14.  No fire, candles or naked flames are permitted within individual rooms – this includes smoking.

Reason: Fire safety.

 

15.  Any advertising of the property shall clearly state that it provides a principle place of residence for residents and not temporary stay accommodation for persons on recreational pursuits, with tariffs displaying cost per week, not per night.

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

 

16.  Doors to the kitchen and common areas are to be clear glazed.

Reason: Safety reasons.

 

17.  Dining shall be encouraged within one of the ground floor internal common areas, so as not to isolate residents.

Reason: To ensure suitable amenity for occupants.

 

18.  All lighting on the site shall be designed to ensure no adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding residential development by light overspill. Lighting shall comply with Australian Standard 4282-1997: Control of the Intrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.

Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding residents.

 

19.  An operational plan of management in one complete document shall be submitted prior to the use commencing and submitted to Council to form part of this consent, addressing such matters as:

 

-        minimisation of anti-social behaviour;

-        site security;

-        noise management;

-        lighting;

-        fire safety;

-        any other management/operational issue raised by these conditions of consent.

Reason: To ensure that management details are contained in one document.

 

20.  The kitchen shall be made available for residents 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and the applicant shall ensure that basic facilities in good working order are provided, including, but not limited to:

 

·       a large refrigerator;

·       a regular and a microwave oven;

·       dishwashing facilities;

·       waste disposal;

·       personal hygiene (soap, paper towels and the like);

·       food storage space;

·       a bench top for food preparation.

Reason:   To protect the amenity of boarding house residents. 

 

21.  Smoke alarms must be installed on or near the ceiling in every bedroom and in every corridor or hallway associated with a bedroom, or if there is no corridor or hallway, in an area between the bedrooms and the remainder of the building.

Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of Part 3.7.2.4 of the Building Code of Australia (Location).

 

22.  The applicant shall supply a single bed for each single occupancy room (including base, a mattress with a minimum dimension of 800mm x 1900mm and a mattress protector).

Reason: To ensure suitable amenity for occupants.

 

23.  In addition to the above, the applicant shall also ensure that each room is provided with the following basic facilities:

 

·       Wardrobe;

·       Mirror;

·       Table & Chair;

·       Small bar fridge;

·       A night light or other approved illumination device for each bed;

·       Coffee and tea making facilities;

·       Waste container;

·       An approved latching device on the door;

·       Curtains, blinds or similar privacy device;

 

All room furnishings shall be detailed in the Plan of Management.

Reason: To provide suitable amenity for occupants.

 

24.  The premises shall comply with fire safety regulations pertinent to a Class 3 building, being a boarding house with greater than 12 occupants.

Reason: To comply with the BCA.

 

25.  In relation to the laundry, the following are to be provided:

 

·       One 5kg capacity automatic washing machine and one domestic dryer;

·       At least one large laundry tub with running hot and cold water; and

·       30 metres of clothesline in an outdoor area (can be retractable).

Reason: For the amenity of occupants.

 

26.  The applicant/developer shall contact Council’s Waste Unit to discuss the provision of a 240 litre bin for the collection of waste and the provision of a 240 litre bin for recycling. Services over and above the frequency and volume provided by Council shall require a private contracting service.

Reason: To ensure adequate waste removal.

 

27.  The boarding house and immediate surrounds shall be kept in a tidy and sanitary condition at all times.

Reason: To maintain the amenity of the area.

 

28.  That the sliding door adjacent to the western courtyard be deleted and replaced with windows of similar proportions to those depicted on the northern elevation.

Reason: To reduce activity in this area.

 

29.  That the proposed patio (courtyard) on the western side of the boarding house be deleted and replaced with landscaping. The landscaping shall be of a similar type and design as that already depicted along the western boundary of the site.

Reason: To reduce activity in this location.

 

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

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      Council, at its Regulatory Meeting of 8 September 2008, resolved the following:

 

“Motion:     Wilson/Wearne

 

(a)     That consideration of this matter be deferred until after the Council Elections (sic)

 

(b)     That the applicant be requested to relocate the courtyard to the other side of the building.

 

(c)     Further, that the proposed DCP for boarding houses address such issues as:

 

·               Noise control and use of outdoor areas;

·          Cleaning;

·          Proximity to transport;

·          Rubbish removal;

·          Common dining rooms;

·          External lighting;

·          Carparking; and

·          All other relevant matters.”

 

2.      Following discussions with Council’s Senior Development Assessment Officer, the applicant responded to Council’s resolution by way of letter dated 7 November 2008 (Attachment 2). No design changes have been made to the proposal and the applicant has provided reasons for this decision in his letter.

 

ISSUES

 

3.      In response to Resolutions (a), (b) and (c), the following comments are made.

 

Resolution (a)

 

“(a)    That consideration of this matter be deferred until after the Council Elections (sic)”

 

 

4.      The matter was deferred until after the Council election.

 

Resolution (b)

 

“(b)    That the applicant be requested to relocate the courtyard to the other side of the building.”

 

5.      In his letter, the applicant submits that the proposal was designed to ensure that suitable sunlight is available for the occupants of the boarding house and that by relocating the courtyard to the eastern side of the building (adjacent to the 3.3 metres high wall of the adjacent service station), solar access would be drastically reduced.

 

6.      The recommended conditions of consent require the use of the outdoor communal areas to cease after 10.00pm. This condition will ensure that use of the outdoor area will not be unreasonable having regard to he amenity of neighbours.

 

7.      The applicant also highlights that the central courtyard to the western side of the boarding house is the secondary outdoor space, with the primary area being located to the rear.

 

8.      The applicant has also suggested that to minimise the activity in this area, that the doors to this area be replaced by windows and that the area be landscaped in lieu of the courtyard.

 

9.      By doing this, a twofold result will be achieved. Firstly, it will retain solar access to the boarding house and secondly it will reduce noise impacts by reducing access.

 

10.    Appropriate conditions are included in the Recommendation in this regard.

 

Resolution (c)

 

“(c)    Further, that the proposed DCP for boarding houses address such issues as:

 

·               Noise control and use of outdoor areas;

·          Cleaning;

·          Proximity to transport;

·          Rubbish removal;

·          Common dining rooms;

·          External lighting;

·          Carparking; and

·       All other relevant matters.”

 

11.    Matters to be considered in any future DCP for boarding houses will include those criteria raised by Council.

 

12.    Council’s Land Use and Transport Planning team advise that in accordance with this resolution, controls are being incorporated into Council’s ‘Comprehensive DCP’ that is expected to be reported to Council by April 2009.

 

 

 

 

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

 

 

Attachments:

1View

Manager Development Services Report to Council 8 September 2008, including plans & elevations

23 Pages

 

2View

Applicant's submission dated 7 November 2008

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.8

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER         12.8

SUBJECT                   317 Church Street, Parramatta (Arthur Phillip Ward) (Lot 1 in DP 87514)

DESCRIPTION          Section 96(2) modification to approved alterations and additions of a restaurant. The modifications include changes to doors, windows and the awning.

REFERENCE            DA/342/2006/B - lodged 8 August 2008

APPLICANT/S           Mr P Sande

OWNERS                    Durnink Pty Ltd

REPORT OF              Manager Development Services       

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

The Section 96 application seeks to modify Development Application No.342/2006 by raising the clearance of the southern awning to 3 metres, extending the southern awning to within 100mm of the adjoining building to the south, providing of two additional windows in the southern elevation, retention of two sliding doors and two windows in the southern elevation. The DA has been referred to Council as the site is identified as an item of Local Environmental Heritage under Schedule 5 of Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007.

 

No submissions have been received in response to the notification of the development application.

 

Most of the proposed changes to the development consent are considered satisfactory. However, the works relating to the awning will compromise the integrity of the heritage-listing of the building and detract from its appearance and are not supported.

 

As a result, part approval of the Section 96 application is recommended and the changes to the awning are not supported.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council grant its consent to the following modifications to DA/342/2006:

 

-    window and door modifications; and

-    increasing the clearance of the approved awning to 3 metres.

 

(b)     Further, that Council refuse the following component of the application:

 

-    The increased awning size

 

The following condition is added to the consent:

 

(23)   The awning to the southern elevation of the building shall not be increased in size.

Reason: To protect the heritage integrity of the building and the adjoining heritage item to the south.

 

 

SITE & LOCALITY

 

1.      The site is located on the western side of Church Street, is located between Philip Street and the Parramatta River and in the heart of the Parramatta CBD. A restaurant adjoins the site to the south on the opposite side of a pedestrian right-of-way and a tattoo parlour to the north at first floor and an ice cream parlour at ground floor. A significant number of restaurants and cafes are located within this section of Church Street.

 

2.      The building was originally constructed as a shop or commercial premises and was approved for use as a restaurant on 20th June, 2005 via DA/346/2005.

 

PROPOSAL

 

3.      Approval is sought for the following modifications to the approved alterations and additions:

 

3.1    increase the size of the awning on the southern elevation to be located within 100mm of the northern elevation of the adjoining building;

3.2    increase the clearance of the enlarged southern awning to 3 metres; and

3.3    retain some original windows and doors and install new windows and doors in the southern elevation.

 

Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007

 

4.      The site is zoned Mixed Uses B4 and the proposed development is permissible in the zone with the consent of Council. Other than the increased awning size and its location on the southern side of the building, the proposed modifications are considered consistent with the objectives of the zone and the LEP.

 

5.      The building is listed as an item of local significance in Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the LEP other than in relation to the size and location of the proposed enlarged awning. The heritage inventory sheet for this property is included as Attachment 4.

 

Parramatta City Centre Plan Development Control Plan 2007

 

6.      The provisions of Parramatta City Centre Plan DCP 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. Other than in relation to the increased awning size and location, the proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the DCP.

 

CONSULTATION

 

7.      The development application was placed on public notification between 22nd August and 5th September, 2008. The notification generated no submissions.

 

REFERRALS

 

Heritage

 

8.      Council’s Heritage Advisor assessed the proposal and has made the following conclusions:

 

8.1    “In brief, the application contains two main changes compared to the previously approved DA and S.96 (DA/342/2006/A):

 

8.1.1.         It proposes a lesser removal of the historic wall fabric to the lane (side) of the building, which is supported from the heritage grounds due to its reduced material impact on the surviving (presumed original) fabric, and

 

8.1.2.         For creation of a wider awning to the side lane, which is not supported. The wider awning would not be highly visually prominent when viewed from the direction of Church Street. However, it would almost reach the adjoining building. This element would create a tunnel effect over the passageway, which would, in my opinion, have a negative impact on the streetscape values of Church Street. The wider element would also modify the building by seemingly creating a semi-encircling awning where there traditionally would not have been such an element, and it would thus impact on the presentation of the building to the general public.

 

8.2    My recommendation is to approve the new side wall elevation, but to delete the modified awning to the side lane.”

 

9.      The recommendations of Council’s Heritage Advisor are supported and it is recommended that Council not allow the increased size of the awning.