Agenda of Regulatory Council

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

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 11.3

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 that ‘The 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

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).

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:

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.

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.

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.

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 20^th 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 22^nd August and 5^th 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.

10. No objection is raised to the increased clearance of the approved smaller awning above the footpath to 3 metres.

Strategic Asset Management

11. The pedestrian laneway adjoining the site to the south is Council-owned land. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Strategic Asset Management (SAM) Unit for consideration. SAM’s conclusions are outlined below.

12. The application does not propose any changes to the existing and approved outdoor dining seating arrangements on the footpath adjacent to 317 Church Street, Parramatta, as noted in DA/342/2006/A.

13. In the new Outdoor Dining Policy it is noted that there are changes in relation to minimum width requirements for pedestrian egress. This now requires 2 metres width of access (not 1.8 metres as per the previous policy).

14. Since the outdoor dining was approved against the requirements of the now superseded policy, under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, Council cannot require the outdoor dining to now comply with the new policy.

15. According to the plans, a clearance of 2.3 metres will remain available between the outer edge of the tables and the wall of the adjoining building. Each table features two chairs, with the tables and chairs parallel to the wall, rather than protruding further into the laneway.

Section 96(2) Assessment

Environmental Impact

16. In this regard, it is concluded that the development relating to the façade would have minimal environmental impact, subject to continued compliance with the original conditions of consent.

Is the development as modified substantially the same development?

17. The works in respect of the façade are considered to relate to the DA as approved and as modified previously and are capable of being dealt with under section 96 of the Act.

Has the application been notified in accordance with Council policy or the Regulation?

18. The development application was placed on public notification between 22^nd August and 5^th September, 2008 in accordance with Council’s Notifications DCP.

Assessment of issues raised in submissions

19. No submissions were received.

Section 79C Assessment

20. An assessment of the proposal against the matters for consideration prescribed by Section 79C of the Act concludes that only that part of the proposal relating to the façade is satisfactory. It is recommended that the enlarged awning be deleted from the proposal as it compromises the heritage integrity of the building.

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Plans & Elevations	1 Page
3View	History of DA	1 Page
4View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	8 Pages
5View	Previous delegated reports	16 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.9

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.9

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

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to an existing boarding house.

REFERENCE DA/547/2008 - lodged 4 August 2008

APPLICANT/S Mr J Tanna

OWNERS R, J, J & G Tanna

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Development Application No. 547/2008 seeks approval to the internal reconfiguration of an approved 18 bedroom boarding house to provide 20 bedrooms, with a maximum capacity of 30 persons in the boarding house. The DA has been referred to Council due to the building being an item of local heritage significance. No objections have been received in respect to this development application.

The proposed alterations and additions to the boarding house are 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 works will have no adverse impact on the heritage integrity of the building and are not visible from the street. Accordingly, approval of the development application is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant its consent to DA/547/2008 for internal alterations and additions to the boarding house at 6 Boundary Street, Parramatta, subject to standard and the following extraordinary conditions:

1. The new rooms shall each be subject to a maximum occupancy of 1 person only.

Reason: To control the intensity of the development.

2. The split rooms (Rooms 1 and 2 and Rooms 3 and 4) are to be used in association with the boarding house and not for tourist accommodation. In this regard, the premises shall be the occupant’s principle place of residence.

Reason: To ensure that the use of the rooms is consistent with the use of the premises as a boarding house.

3. The works shall not displace any person residing upon the premises. In this regard, works to the bedrooms shall only take place when the affected rooms are vacant or where alternative accommodation is found within the property for residents.

Reason: To ensure that no persons are displaced.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site is known as 6 Boundary Street, Parramatta (Lot 45 in DP 868115). The site is located on the northern side of Boundary Street, between its intersections with Railway Street to the west and Denison Street to the east. The surrounding area is mostly residential, with detached dwelling houses within the subject street block and 3 storey residential flat buildings to the west.

2. It is not known how long the premises has operated as a boarding house, but according to Council records, the use has been subject to development consents dating back to at least 1993.

3. The site is a regular shaped allotment, with an area of 1,400m² and a frontage to Boundary Street of 30.54 metres and a depth of 45.85 metres.

4. The site contains a principle building (formerly a dwelling house) at the front of the site and a detached building at the rear used as boarding rooms in association with the original building.

PROPOSAL

5. The proposal involves providing an internal division within the 2 front bedrooms of a boarding house, so as to create 2 additional bedrooms.

6. The purpose of the proposal is to provide residents of these bedrooms with additional privacy, as in the current scenario, up to 3 persons occupy these single oversized bedrooms.

7. The internal works (stud walls) will not extend to the ceiling and are reversible. The gap between the top of the wall and the ceiling will be filled with a compressible fibre in order to address any potential privacy issues.

8. Each of the boarding rooms will have access to natural light and ventilation.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 10 (Retention of Low-Cost Accommodation)

9. SEPP 10 was gazetted on 6 July 1984. Its aim was to allow retention of low cost rental accommodation. The Policy applies to the state.

10. Clause 7 of SEPP 10 states:

“(1) A person must not do any of the following in relation to a boarding house or hostel:

(a) demolish the boarding house or hostel,

(b) alter or add to the structure or fabric of the inside or outside of the boarding house or hostel,

(c) change the use of the boarding house or hostel to another use (including, in particular, a change of use to backpackers accommodation),

(d) strata subdivide the boarding house or hostel,except with the development consent of the council of the area in which the boarding house or hostel is situated.

(2) A person must not do any of the following in relation to a residential flat building referred to in clause 3A (1) (c):

(a) alter or add to the structure or fabric of the inside or outside of the residential flat building,

(b) strata subdivide the residential flat building,except with the development consent of the council of the area in which the residential flat building is situated.

(3) A council may not give development consent referred to in subclause (1) or (2) except with the prior concurrence of the Director-General.”

11. The fabric of a building consists of the building's roof, floor slabs, walls, windows, and doors, and controls the flow of energy between the interior and exterior of the building.

12. In this instance, the new partitions to be installed will be completely reversible and will be attached to the existing walls with brackets and 100mm short of the ceiling. This gap will be sealed with compressible fibre to ensure fire retardation and noise attenuation between individual bedrooms.

13. The development is not considered to add or alter the fabric of the building and therefore, the concurrence of the Director-General is not required.

14. In this regard, it is further noted that the development will not reduce the capacity of the premises to accommodate those on low incomes.

15. The proposal is considered to satisfy the aims of the Policy and is therefore recommended for approval.

Parramatta LEP 2001

16. The site is zoned Residential 2(b) and the proposed alterations and additions to the boarding house are permissible in the zone, with the consent of Council. The proposed development is considered consistent with the objectives of the zone and the LEP.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

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

CONSULTATION

18. The development application was placed on public notification between 20 August and 10 September, 2008. The notification generated no submissions.

REFERRALS

Heritage

19. Council’s Heritage Advisor has assessed the proposal and made the following conclusion:

19.1 “I have reviewed the application and am of the opinion that it will have no impact on the heritage values of the place.”

Traffic

20. Council’s Traffic Engineer has assessed the proposal and made the following conclusion:

20.1 “The proposal indicates internal modifications to the existing boarding house and no traffic impact is expected to occur within the road network.”

ISSUES

Acoustic privacy

21. The internal alterations and additions to the premises are unlikely to result in increased noise emanating from the site.

Carparking

22. 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.

23. The stacked parking arrangements for vehicles currently provided `is considered adequate and the development is unlikely to increase the demand for parking on the site.

Amenity of boarding house residents

24. A boarding house is required to provide adequate light and ventilation, fire safety measures and sufficient space for recreation, washing, sanitary facilities and the like. The recommended development consent is conditioned to require the applicant to ensure that all relevant safety and amenity standards are met in relation to the newly created rooms.

25. There are no minimum room sizes prescribed by NSW planning legislation or the Building Code of Australia. The figures adopted by the City of Sydney are those which are prescribed by Section 22 of the Public Health (General) Regulation 2002 vis-à-vis “the maximum number of persons accommodated in a bedroom…must not exceed the number determined by allowing a minimum floor area within the bedroom…of 5.5 square metres for each persons staying for more than 28 consecutive days or 3.25 square metres or more for each person staying 28 consecutive days or less.” The rooms created by this development would have a minimum internal area of approximately 14.3m² (being Bedrooms 1 and 3).

26. Whilst it is not appropriate to compare the 2 local government areas (vis-a-vis, public transport opportunities are more prevalent in the Sydney City area and the status of the clientele is likely to be different), the general rooms size proposed in this application is considered appropriate for this area bearing in mind that occupants traditionally have few possessions with them.

27. These rooms do not have sinks in them. However, there is no requirement under the Public Health Act, 1991, Local Government Act, 1993, the Building Code of Australia or the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 for the individual rooms to make provision for sinks. Communal facilities are provided within the building for residents.

28. Each of the rooms to be created will have access to natural light and ventilation.

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Plans & Elevations	2 Pages
3View	History of DA	1 Page
4View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	1 Page
5View	2008 Fire Safety Statement	5 Pages
6View	Furniture layout plan	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.10

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.10

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

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

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

APPLICANT/S Mr J Rou

OWNERS Ms R Jia

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

To provide Councillors with a summary of the issues discussed at the on-site meeting held on 20 November 2008 and to determine Development Application 634/2007 that seeks consent for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of an attached two storey dual occupancy with Torrens title subdivision.

The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received. Eleven objections and three petitions with a total of 71 signatures have been received in respect of this application.

The application seeks approval for an attached 2 storey dual occupancy development. The proposed development is supported by planning staff as it is consistent with the objectives of the Residential 2A Zone and is generally consistent with the development controls and standards of both PLEP 2001 and PDP 2005 as they relate to dual occupancy development. It is also held that the development will not result in any adverse streetscape or amenity impacts.

This is a long standing application and the applicant has made a number of amendments during the assessment process seeking to address the issues that have been raised by residents in height, bulk and scale. The application was first reported to Council in June 2008 and 3 on-site meetings have been held to discuss the application.

The applicant when questioned at the site meeting on 20 November 2008 as to whether they would excavate the site any further or reduce the height of the building. It was made clear from their comments that no further amendments would be made as they complied with the planning controls of the DCP and that would incur additional costs.

It is clear that the residents do not support the application and that the applicant is unlikely to amend the application any further. Accordingly, there would be no utility in deferring this application for any further site meetings as it is not likely that the matter will be resolved to the satisfaction of the residents. The application has been with Council for 16 months and it is therefore recommended that Council determine the application on the basis of the plans submitted to Council.

RECOMMENDATION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

“(a) That consideration of this matter be deferred for an on site meeting be held at 1 Wyuna Place, Oatlands with arrangements being left in the hands of the Council Officers and all residents in Wyuna Street and surrounding streets that sent in letters be notified of the proposed meeting.

(b) Further, that a report be provided as to whether letters passed on to the Development Department by Councillor Chedid had been provided with a response.

2. An acknowledgement letter was forwarded to the objector on 16 September 2008. The submission contained objections to the height, the stepping of the first floor and the paling fence. These issues have all previously been addressed in previous Council reports.

ONSITE MEETING

3. In accordance with Council’s resolution, a third on-site meeting was held on Thursday 20 November 2008. Present at the meeting Clr McDermott (Chair), Clr Bide, Clr Barber, Clr Wearne, Clr Chedid, Clr Lack, Clr Lim, Brad Delapierre - Team Leader Development Assessment Team, Denise Fernandez - Development Assessment Officer, the applicant and approximately 30 residents.

4. The following issues, which were previously discussed at the on-site meeting in February and June were re-raised and discussed at the meeting:

· Bulk, scale and height

· Parking, Traffic and Safety

· Shadowing

· Overlooking and privacy

· Overdevelopment

· Cutting in the site

5. These issues have been assessed within the Council reports considered at the Regulatory Council Meeting of 10 June 2008 and is attached as Attachment 2 and Regulatory Council Meeting of 10 November 2008 and is attached as Attachment 3.

6. New issues raised and discussed at the November meeting included the following:

Landscaping

7. Concern was raised that the minimum landscaping requirement was being compromised and incorrectly calculated as a result of including stormwater structures which PDCP 2005 excludes from the calculation of landscaping area. The objector requested Council to define ‘stormwater structures’ and if the OSD system would be considered as a stormwater structure.

8. Council staff in response clarified that this depended on the type of stormwater structure. If it is an underground OSD system where landscaping can be accommodated on the surface, then the landscaping on the surface could be calculated. However, if it is an above ground OSD system where no landscaping is possible, then such a structure would not be included in the calculation of the landscaping. It is noted that this issue had been previously addressed in the further report which was considered at the 10 November 2008 Regulatory Meeting.

9. The proposed development has been provided with of 422.5m2 of landscaping which equates to 47% of the site which complies with the requirement of PDCP 2005.

Access handle and the driveway

10. Concern was raised that Council policies require lots with access handles to provide vehicle maneouvering to ensure that vehicles enter and leave the site in a forward direction.

11. Council staff clarified that this particular requirement was not appropriate for the subject site given that it is not a battle axe site. When the resident objected that nowhere in the policy did it state that it was a requirement for battle axe sites only, Council staff replied that access corridors are a feature only on battle axe sites and as the subject site is not a battle axe site this particular requirement was not applicable.

Amendments are insufficient

12. Concern was raised that the amendments that have been made as a result of the previous site meeting are insufficient given that the proposed development still looks the same. The proposed development presents as ‘boxy’, as a result of insufficient articulation.

13. It is noted that Councillors were also asked whether they had the delegation to force changes on the proposal. Councillor Wearne replied that the Council Chamber upon reviewing recommendations made by Council Planners has the option of moving to refuse, approve or recommend changes to be made. Council Chambers cannot force any changes to the proposal.

14. The applicant was requested to reply to the issue that further amendments were required to ensure that the proposed development was of an appropriate design for the site. The applicant stated that they have met Council’s requirements in terms of the front setback and the floor space ratio. Additional amendments such as further articulation is not feasible as any changes to the depth would compromise the design. The applicant also compared the proposed height of the development at 7.8 metres with adjoining developments which were at 8.2 metres.

Further cutting into the site

15. Concern was raised that the proposal required more cut to ensure that the perception of bulk and scale are minimized and also improve its presentation.

16. The applicant replied that Council had a maximum requirement of 500mm cut and therefore could not cut into the site any further. Council staff corrected that information and stated that whilst it is not stipulated in any of Council’s controls, fill is to be a maximum of 500mm with excavation excepted beyond 500mm if appropriate.

17. Councillor Chedid noted that this was the third on-site meeting for the proposed development and summed up the issues as being the bulk and scale were inappropriate. He asked whether the applicant was willing to make any changes to ensure that it is appropriately designed to fit into the site. In particular, Councillor Chedid asked whether the applicant was willing to further cut into the site. The applicant replied that any further cut into the site will incur additional costs as it would require higher retaining walls.

18. There are no further matters to be considered in the assessment of this proposal.

Referral of Letters to Development Services Unit

19. In accordance with resolution (b), perusal of Council records reveal that the letter forwarded by Councillor Chedid on behalf of an objector was received by the Personal Assistant to the Manager of Development Services on 16 September 2008. A reply via email was sent to Councillor Chedid on 16 September 2008 and he was advised that the letter of objection had been forwarded to the Development Assessment Officer for consideration as per the requirements of the EP&A Act.

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Previous Further Report and attachments. Item 12.1 - Council Meeting 10 November 2008	18 Pages
2View	Previous Report including all attachments. Item No. 13.10 - Regulatory Council Meeting 10 June 2008	28 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.11

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.11

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

DESCRIPTION Section 96(2) Modification to an approved multi-unti development containing 3 townhouses. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/994/2003/B - Submitted: 3 July 2008

APPLICANT/S Mr P A Sutton

OWNERS Mr R P Khozoei and Mr F Ostad

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

Executive Summary:

To determine an application to modify Development Consent No. 994/2003. This consent granted approval to demolish the existing dwelling and the construction of a 3 x 2 storey townhouse units. The modifications involve the relocation of the detention tank which includes the supply, installation and extension of Council’s drainage network, the relocation of the driveway and the reconfiguration of Unit 1 from a 3 bedroom unit to a 2 bedroom unit and Unit 3 from a 2 bedroom unit to a 3 bedroom unit.

The modifications are supported as the stormwater system of the subject site at 25 Carson Street, Epping, will be improved as will Council’s drainage network. In addition, the reconfiguration of the internal floor plans to provide better connection to the private open space area will benefit the future occupants of the town houses. The relocation of the driveway is considered necessary to improve sightlines of the vehicles exiting the site and as such, ensuring public safety. Accordingly, approval is recommended.

The application has been referred to Council due to the number of submissions received. Nine (9) objections have been received in respect of this application.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council modify Development Consent No. 994/2003 dated 9 December 2004 in the following manner:

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

The development is to be carried out in compliance with the following plans as amended in red and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp.

Drawing N^o	Dated
Concept Stormwater Plan for 25 Carson Street, Epping. As Amended	March 2008
Site and Ground Floor Plan for 25 Carson Street, Epping.. As Amended	November 2007
Elevations for 25 Carson Street, Epping. As Amended	November 2007
Interlot Drainage Longitudinal Section for 25 Carson Street, Epping.	23 June 2008
Interlot Drainage Plan for 25 Carson Street, Epping.	23 June 2008

Note: In the event of any inconsistency between the architectural plan(s), the subdivision plan and the site management plan shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

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

And that the following condition be added:

1 (a). The three gates which open to the property to the south marked in red on the approved plans are not to be installed. Amended plans submitted with the Construction Certificate shall include that a boundary fence with no openings will be installed.

Reason: To maintain privacy and to ensure the work is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

1 (b). The court yard surfaces for each of the units are to remain porous.

Reason: To reduce surface water run-off.

1 (c). The street front kerb shall be maintained at ground levels at all times.

Reason: To maintain appropriate street presentation.

1 (d). The drainage pipe and associate work for its construction shall be carried out to the satisfaction of and at no costs to the Council.

1 (e). A work-as-executed drawing shall be provided to Council prior to the Council accepting transfer of ownership.

1 (f). A deed of agreement shall be entered into to formalize the dedication of the drainage pipe and associated work.

1 (g). All the Council’s costs including but not limited to legal costs shall be borne by Winter and Sutton Investments Pty Ltd.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is known as 25 Carson Street, Epping and is located on the western side of Carson Street near the intersection of Miller Avenue. The property description is Lot 11 DP 31179. The site has a frontage of 27.026 metres to Carson Street. The site is relatively uniform in shape and has a trapezoidal character. The northern boundary has a length of 53.642 metres, the southern boundary has a length of 58.934 metres, and the western boundary has a length of 23.819 metres. The subject site has an area of 1132m2.

BACKGROUND

2. Council approved DA/994/2003 with a proposed easement indicated as DP 31179. However, upon further investigations by the new owners, it was revealed that that the easement was not registered and that there were no options to register the easement.

3. A subsequent modification application (DA/994/2003/A) was lodged with Council to remedy the drainage situation by directing the stormwater to Dobson Street via the pathway adjacent to the property. However, this modification application was refused as the private pipe was not connected to a Council or public stormwater facility at the reserve and was therefore not in the public interest.

PROPOSAL

4. The Section 96 (2) modification seeks approval to modify condition No 1 of Development Consent No. 994/2003. In particular it is proposed to convert the detention tank from an underground tank to an above ground storage basin in addition to supplying and installing additional drainage pits to extend Council’s drainage infrastructure. The Section 96 (2) modification also seeks to relocate the driveway to the crest of the site frontage and to reconfigure Unit 1 to be a 2 bedroom unit instead of a 3 bedroom unit and Unit 3 to be a 3 bedroom unit from a 2 bedroom unit. It is noted that the overall number of units and bedrooms remains the same. The scale and the development footprint of the development will not be altered as a result of the modifications.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

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

6. The proposed modifications to convert the detention tank, extend the Council stormwater infrastructure, relocate the driveway and reconfigure the floor plans will result in substantially the same development as that originally approved under DA/994/2003 and can be dealt with pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Act.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

7. The site is zoned Residential 2B under the provisions of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The proposed modifications to convert the detention tank, extend the Council stormwater infrastructure, relocate the driveway and reconfigure the floor plans are permissible in the zone and satisfy the objectives of the Parramatta LEP 2001.

REASONS FOR MODIFICATIONS

8. The current modification to extend Council’s drainage infrastructure will reduce the overland flow across Lot 35 (Council Pathway) and minimise significant erosion problems while avoiding overloading drainage systems in Carson Street and Dobson Street which is currently nearing capacity. The relocation of the detention tank will also improve the amenity of the open space for Unit 3.

9. Due to safety reasons, the driveway is to be relocated to the top of the crest of the site frontage to improve visibility for both the residents leaving the site and motorists turning right into Carson Street from Miller Street. The current driveway arrangement is located at the lowest point of the frontage and does not minimise driver sight lines. The relocation will also ensure that the headlights of exiting vehicles will not shine into the adjoining property’s windows.

10. The original application approved Unit 1 with 3 bedrooms and Unit 3 with 2 bedrooms. The modifications to reconfigure the bedrooms will improve the indoor/outdoor flow from habitable room to the open space available to the respective units. Currently, Unit 1 has 59sqm of courtyard space and Unit 3 has 95.3sqm of courtyard space. It is noted that the size of the open space for the individual units will not change as a result of the modifications.

CONSULTATION

11. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised and notified for 14 days between 16 July and 30 July 2008. Nine individual submissions were received in regards to the proposed modifications during the notification period. The issues raised within the submissions are addressed below.

12. Concern is raised to the level of disruption to the acoustic amenity of Carson Street due to the townhouse developments.

The Section 96 Modification application for the relocation of the detention tank, extension of Council’s drainage network, relocation of the driveway and the reconfiguration of bedrooms for Unit 1 and Unit 3 will not result in an increase in the level of acoustic amenity. The original application for the townhouses considered the acoustic impacts of the development under Section 79C of the EP&A Act, deeming such impacts to be acceptable.

13. Concern is raised that the local traffic network will not cope with the additional vehicles. In addition, concern is raised that there is insufficient on-street parking.

The Section 96 Modification application does not provide additional floor space or extra bedrooms which would require additional on-site parking. The development continues to provide 4 on-site spaces which have been provided as illustrated on approved plans, thereby reducing any need to park vehicles on Carson Street. Assessment of the original application considered that the local road network has the ability to cater for the additional traffic that will be generated by this townhouse development. No changes to traffic generation will result from the modifications.

It is noted that at the on-site meeting held on 2 October 2008, Councillor Wearne suggested that if the residents of the street would like on-street parking conditions to change (i.e. “No Stopping” etc), the residents could petition Council. Council can only respond to such requests which are then forwarded to the Parramatta Council Traffic Committee for review.

14. Concern is raised that due to the position of the driveway closer to the crest, that it is a safety concern for people driving in and out of the subject site and pedestrians.

The subject Section 96 Modification includes the relocation of the driveway to the crest of the road to improve sightlines for vehicles entering and exiting the site and to ensure pedestrian safety. Council’s development engineer supports the revised location of the driveway.

15. Concern is raised that due to an additional window on the southern elevation, that it would provide increased opportunities for overlooking and therefore compromising privacy.

The additional window on the southern elevation resulting from the reconfiguration of the floor plan will not increase opportunities for overlooking. The approved development currently has a 6 metre setback from the southern boundary in addition to the 3.2 metre laneway adjoining the subject site. The combined 9.2 metre side setback is sufficient to ensure that privacy is maintained for adjoining properties and to the residents of the development. In addition, screen planting to the southern boundary will provide increased measures to ensure privacy is maintained.

16. Concern is raised that there are insufficient footpaths along Carson Street and that without a footpath pedestrian safety is compromised as pedestrians have no option but to walk on the road.

The pedestrian footpath is not an element of the subject Section 96 modification and is therefore not a consideration under Section 79C of the EP&A Act.

17. Concern is raised that the submitted plans show three gates that open into the northern property.

At the on-site meeting of 2 October 2008, the applicant clarified that the submitted plans were incorrect and that there was no intention to install these gates. The applicant stated that they had used the plan submitted to Council previously which included the gates to work off when drawing the modification plan. Council staff also stated that there will be a condition on the consent prohibiting the installation of the gates. A non-standard condition is included in the recommendation.

18. Concern is raised the proposal involves using the public access pathway on the southern boundary as a drainage easement.

The modification seeks to extend Council’s drainage network which involves an above ground storage basin to the rear with 45m3 capacity where a discharge control pit will slowly release stormwater to the newly installed Council kerb inlet pit. The current application does not involve using the adjoining pathway as an easement. It is noted that a previous modification application proposed to use the pathway as an easement and was refused under delegation.

19. Concern is raised that there is insufficient engineering details submitted to Council which leads to the public being misinformed.

At the development application stage, the applicant is only required to submit concept engineering plans. Detailed engineering plans will be required from the applicant at the Construction Certificate stage. Council’s development engineer has reviewed the plan and advises that the concept plan is satisfactory.

20. Concern is raised that the approved development exceeds the permissible height (9 metres maximum) as per Council’s DCP.

The proposed modification will not increase the height of the building.

21. Concern is raised that the size of the basin is insufficient, the earth mound is not detailed on the plans and that the soft soil zone is reduced by the OSD.

As the modification involves engineering and stormwater changes, the subject modification application was referred to Council’s Engineers. Upon review of the modifications, Council’s Engineers raised no objections to the modifications. The following comment was also provided:

In terms of the aboveground OSD system, I have no objections to the proposal. Considering council’s requirement for soft soil areas, the above ground detention basin will not be affecting the soft soil area requirement. Furthermore, the detention basin will be designed in such a way that the overflows from the detention basin will be directed to the laneway and drained into the proposed laneway drainage pit.

Considering the concerns raised by the rear property occupants, in my opinion, as far as the storm water runoff from this development site is concerned, the proposed development will significantly improve the situation. The entire development site (about 97% of the site) is drained into the detention basin and discharged into the proposed laneway drainage pit. Any overflows from this detention basin will also be drained into the laneway.

It should also be noted that for the proposed laneway drainage system, the applicant has already submitted the detailed drainage plans to Council’s Catchment Management Engineers as per Council’s previous request and the Construction Plans have now been approved. With these approved drainage plans, the applicant will be able to commence drainage works outside the development site. This will be indicated in the DA condition of consent.

Accordingly, the above comments will be reflected in the conditions of consent.

22. Concern is raised that the Section 96 Modification application is misleading as it is a ruse to get an approval with the true intentions was to always follow with the modifications.

The proposed modifications are considered to be of a minor nature. Had the modifications been proposed for the original DA, it would not affect the outcome of the original DA as it is considered to be minor and would not contribute to any adverse impacts on the environment, built or otherwise.

REFERRALS

Drainage Engineers

23. The proposed modification was referred to Council’s Engineer. After a review of the modifications, Council’s Engineers raises no objection.

Property

24. The proposed modification was referred to Council’s Property Manager. After a review of the modifications, Council’s Property Manager raises no objection. The following comments were also made.

The amended drainage proposal (drawing no. 08.006.01) over the Council reserve (footpath) is in response to a meeting with the developer on 17 March 2008.

The proposed dedication of the drainage work to the Council can be recommended subject to the developer agreeing to the terms in a letter of even date (D01006002) sent to them. Formal approval of the Council is required.

25. It is noted that correspondence from the applicant dated 18 August 2008 was received by Council agreeing to the terms sent by Council 12 August 2008 in regards to the proposed dedication of drainage work to Council.

On-site Meeting

26. Due to the number of submissions, an on-site meeting was held on Thursday 2 October 2008 commencing at 5:00pm. Present at the meeting were Councillor Wearne (Chair), Councillor McDermott, Danielle Woods – Acting Service Manager Development Assessment Services and Denise Fernandez – Development Assessment Officer, 10 residents, the applicant and the owner. The following issues were discussed at the meeting.

Late notice of the on-site meeting

27. Concern was raised that there was insufficient notice of the on-site meeting. The residents were not notified until early in the week which was considered to be unacceptable given that it was the school holidays and interested parties had already made plans.

28. In response, Councillor Wearne stated that there was a miscommunication with Council staff not sending out the invitation to the applicant and those who had lodged a submission until the newly elected Councillors were known. However, due to the miscommunication and therefore the late notices, Councillor Wearne offered that if required, another on site meeting could be arranged to ensure that all issues were heard. It is considered that having regards to the attendance at the meeting and the written submissions received that a further meeting is not warranted.

Two metre wall as a result of the on site detention basin

29. Concern was raised that the height of the on site detention basin will result in a 2 metre wall against the property to the rear and whether the basin has had the proper approval from Integral Energy.

30. The applicant confirmed that the basin has previously been approved by Integral Energy which has been submitted to Council. The applicant also stated that approval from Integral Energy was required by Council as per the conditions of the original consent. In regards to the 2 metre wall, the applicant confirmed that the basin will not result in a 2 metre wall and that at the most, the basin wall will result in a maximum height of 800mm.

Concern was raised that the stormwater from the development will be discharged to the sewer.

31. Both the applicant and Council strongly disagreed with this concern stating that Council has never allowed such a connection and never will. The applicant also stated that such a connection has never been proposed.

Concerns were raised that the current position of the detention basin as it may result in increased overflow to the property to the rear.

32. The applicant in response stated that the position of the basin was suggested by Council Engineers. There would be excavation up to 1 metre to ensure the basin does not overflow. The applicant also stated that if necessary, the will revert to an underground on site detention system if the current proposal for an above ground detention system was unacceptable. The applicant also clarified that the current proposal for the above ground detention system will be constructed of earth and that apart from a small portion of the back corner (which is to be soft soil), the remaining development will be serviced by the basin.

Concerns were raised that there is insufficient parking and that the proposed development will create traffic hazards due to the nature of the topography and street pattern.

33. Council Staff stated that while the original development cannot be revisited and that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Section 96 Modifications, Council can confirm that the Section 96 Modification application does not involve additional floor space or extra bedrooms which would require additional on-site parking. The development was required to provide 4 on-site spaces which have been provided as illustrated on approved plans and thereby reducing any need to park vehicles on Carson Street.

34. In regard to a potential traffic hazard with on-street parking, Councillor Wearne suggested that if the residents of the street would like on-street parking conditions to change (i.e. “No Stopping” etc), the residents have to petition Council. Council can only respond to such requests which are then forwarded to the Parramatta Council Traffic Committee for review.

Concerns were raised in regards to the lack of privacy as a result of the development

35. Council Staff reiterated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Section 96 modification and not to revisit the previous application and approval. The applicant also commented that the development has sufficient setbacks which are more than sufficient in ensuring that privacy is maintained for the residents of the development and those in adjoining properties. There is also screen planting which will assist in maintaining the privacy for adjoining neighbours.

Concerns were raised that the plans submitted to Council showed gates that open to the adjoining property.

36. The applicant clarified that this was not the case and that they do not intend to install the gates. The applicant stated that they had used the plan submitted to Council previously which included the gates to work off when drawing the modification plan. Council also stated that there will be a condition on the consent prohibiting the installation of the gates.

Concerns were raised that the development did not meet the adaptable housing provisions.

37. Council Staff reiterated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Section 96 modification and not to revisit the previous application and consequent approval. However, Council did state that such considerations for the provision of adaptable housing were considered during the assessment process of the original development application.

Concerns were raised in regards to the state of the kerb and street front

38. The applicant assured the residents that the state of the kerb will be redesigned which will incorporate the existing drain. The landscaping will ensure that the development presents suitably to the street which would improve the amenity of the area. In addition, Council will also place a condition of consent to ensure that the street front and kerb shall be maintained at ground level.

Concerns were raised in regards to the viability of the on site detention system to hold the capacity that it proposes.

39. The applicant noted that the volume of the detention system is 45m3 and that the system includes a discharge control pit which would assist in releasing stormwater from the basin, therefore the basin would not allow it to be filled to capacity.

40. The applicant also noted that if the proposed stormwater arrangements were not acceptable, they were willing to revert back to the underground natural pit as was approved by the original consent.

41. Council staff also that a condition will be placed on the consent that will keep the courtyard surface as porous so that overflow to the adjoining properties from the development does not increase. This is included as a non-standard condition.

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Plan	1 Page
2View	Plans	5 Pages
3View	History of Development Application	1 Page
4View	Internal property comments and correspondence	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.12

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.12

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

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to the Heritage listed War Memorial Building. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/913/2007 - Submitted: 29 October 2007

APPLICANT/S Paul Davies Pty Ltd

OWNERS The Uniting Church Property Trust

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

Executive Summary:

To determine Development Application No. 913/2007 which seeks approval for alterations and additions to the heritage listed War Memorial Building.

The subject site is bound by James Ruse Drive to the west and Pennant Hills Road to the north. The proposal includes various alterations to the heritage listed War Memorial building and the construction of a part 2 and part 3 storey building attached to the south-east corner of the heritage item with basement car parking for 34 spaces. The premises will continue to be used as the administrative headquarters for Uniting Care Burnside. The addition will accommodate office space, meeting and training rooms and has a floor space area of 0.38:1. The proposed alterations and additions 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 Schedule 1 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan as well as the number of submissions. Five objections and one petition with 11 signatures have been received in respect of this application.

It is also noted that on 17 October 2008 a Class 1 appeal was lodged with the Land and Environment Court against Council’s deemed refusal of the application.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 913/2007 subject to standard conditions as well as the following extraordinary conditions:

(i) 34 off-street parking spaces (including 1 disabled parking space) plus 1 loading bay to be provided, permanently marked on the pavement and used accordingly. The dimensions for staff and customer parking spaces and aisle width to be in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004 (2.4m wide x 5.4m long clear of columns plus 300mm clearance adjacent walls & 6.2m aisle width minimum). The disabled parking space dimensions to be 3.8m wide x 5.5m long according to Council’s DCP 2005. The loading bay dimensions should be in accordance with AS 2890.2-2002 for commercial vehicles.

Reason: As per legislative requirements

(ii) A combined entry & exit (6.0m wide, as shown on the DA plan, with 300mm clearance both sides between kerbs) to be provided and constructed according to AS 2890.1- 2004 and Council’s specification.

Reason: As per legislative requirements

(iii) Driveway and ramp gradients shall comply with Clause 2.5.3 and Clause 3.3 of AS2890.1-2004.

Reason: As per legislative requirements

(iv) Column locations to be in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004.

Reason: As per legislative requirements

(v) The minimum available headroom clearance is to be signposted at all entrances and clearance is to be a minimum of 2.2m (for cars and light vans including all travel paths to and from parking spaces for people with disabilities) measured to the lowest projection of the roof (fire sprinkler, lighting, sign, and ventilation), according to AS 2890.1-2004.

Reason: As per legislative requirements

(vi) A convex mirror to be installed within the ramp access (one near the entry driveway & one at the bottom of the ramp access) with its height and location adjusted to allow an exiting driver a full view of the driveway in order to see if another vehicle is coming through.

Reason: To ensure proper traffic flow and traffic safety

(vii) For footpath construction and/or restoration, if included as part of the final DA Consent Conditions, shall require a Road Occupancy Permit and Road Opening Permit. The applicant shall submit an application for a Road Occupancy Permit through Council’s Traffic & Transport Services and a Road Opening Permit through Council’s Restoration Engineer, prior to carrying out the construction/restoration works.

Reason: As per legislative requirements

(viii) All noise generated by the proposed development is to be attenuated to prevent levels of noise being emitted to adjacent premises which possess tonal, beating and similar characteristics or which exceeds background noise levels by more than 5dB(A).

(ix) The use of the premises not giving rise to:

(a) transmission of unacceptable vibration to any place of different occupancy,

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

Reason: To prevent loss of amenity to the area.

(x) The proposed use of the premises and the operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an 'offensive noise' as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

(xi) The days and hours of operation are restricted to Monday to Friday, 7.30am to 9.30pm, Saturday 9.30am to 5:00pm. No operation on Sundays. Any alterations to the above will require further development approval.

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

(xii) A final Acoustic Report is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the Construction Certificate being issued.

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

BACKGROUND

1. A Class 1 appeal was lodged with the Land and Environment Court against Council’s deemed refusal of the application on 17 October 2008. A Statement of Facts and Contention was tendered to the Land and Environment Court on 14 November 2008. At the call over for the matter, Council’s legal representative advised that if amended plans were to be submitted to Council by no later than 19 November 2008 addressing staff concerns, a report on the application would be prepared for a Council meeting on 8 December 2008 Regulatory Committee. Accordingly, amended plans were submitted to Council on 19 November 2008.

SITE & LOCALITY

2. The subject site is located on the corner of James Ruse Drive and Pennant Hills Road. The site has a total area of 5,935m2 and contains a 2 storey heritage listed building known as the Burnside War Memorial Building. The subject site is irregular in shape with the immediate area surrounding the site predominantly residential. The closest residential property is to the south.

PROPOSAL

3. The proposed alterations and additions consist of alterations to the heritage listed War Memorial building which include the removal of partitions to improve the open floor plan, create new openings in internal walls, reopen previously closed walls, create new openings to the rear wall to provide the connection for the new attachment wing and the replacement of the altered ceiling with plasterboard.

4. The addition of new part 2 and part 3 storey building to the south-east of the existing building which is to be attached to the rear wing of the building and will contain staff facilities such as meeting rooms, general office space, open workstation areas and a lift system.

5. The proposal also includes a basement car parking with 34 park spaces, an on-site stormwater detention system, an open courtyard and additional landscaping.

6. The general hours of business in the building are 8.30am to 5.30pm, Monday to Friday. However, meetings and training sessions will vary and may commence as early as 7.30am with after training hours concluding at 9.30pm. Training sessions may also occur on Saturday from 9.30am to 5.30pm. It is noted that one event per month will attract a maximum of 70 people to the premises.

7. The premises are currently being used as the administrative headquarters for Uniting Care Burnside. This use will continue upon the construction of the proposed works.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

8. The site is zoned Residential Special Uses 5 under the Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2001. The proposed alterations and additions to the heritage listed War Memorial building are permissible in the zone and satisfy the objectives of the Parramatta LEP 2001.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

9. The provisions of the Parramatta DCP 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the plan.

CONSULTATION

10. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, the proposal was advertised and notified for 21 days between 14 November 2007 and 5 December 2007. Upon receipt of amended plans, the proposal was re-notified between 15 July 2008 and 29 July 2008. In response, five (5) individual submissions and 1 petition with 11 signatures were received. The issues raised within the submission are addressed below.

Concerns were raised that the proposed development is insufficiently set back from the residential premises to the south of the site.

11. The application initially proposed a minimum setback from the southern boundary of 4.3 metres. Upon review of the application, Council staff considered the proposed setback to be insufficient in providing an adequate buffer to mitigate any adverse impacts between the new development and the residential premises to the south. Council in a letter dated 2 May 2008 sent to advise the applicant that a minimum 6 metre setback from the boundary to the new development would be an appropriate buffer. Amended plans were submitted on 8 July 2008 which increased the setback from 4.3 metres to 6 metres. The increase to the setback is sufficient to mitigate any likely impacts on the residential properties.

Concerns were raised that the proposed new development will result in a loss of solar access to the residential premises to the south.

12. The shadow diagrams lodged with Council shows that the adjoining residential properties to the south will have a reduction in solar access from 3pm onwards in midwinter. The residential properties to the south will receive the minimum 3 hours of solar access required per PDCP 2005 during the morning hours. In addition, Council requested that the setback between the new development and the southern boundary be increased to 6 metres. The result of the increase in setback has improved the solar access to the residential properties to the south.

Concerns were raised that the proposed development will result in excessive noise during construction.

13. To ensure that the surrounding properties do not experience excessive noise during construction, conditions will be placed on the consent restricting construction activity between certain hours of the day.

14. It is noted that the subject site is bounded by James Ruse Drive to west and Pennant Hills Road to the north. These are arterial roads which carry heavy traffic and as a result, the subject site and surrounding properties are regularly exposed to certain degrees of noise levels.

Concerns were raised that the proposed development will result in more vehicles on the premises and an increase in local traffic.

15. The applicant has submitted a Traffic Report which was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for review and comment. Upon review of the application, Council’s Traffic Engineers has stated that “…based on the traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development and the parking provision on-site in addition to the traffic volume and parking demand, the proposed development is not considered to have a significant traffic impact on Blackwood Place and its surrounding road network.”. Accordingly, Council’s Traffic Engineers raises no objections to the proposed development subject to standard conditions of consent.

Concerns were raised that the proposed development is not located within an appropriate zone given that the surrounding properties are predominantly residential.

16. The subject site is zoned Special Uses under the PLEP 2001 which allows institutions to provide community facilities. ‘Community Facilities’ is defined as ‘…building or a place owned or control by the Council, a public authority, a religious organization or a body of persons associated for the physical, social, cultural, economic, intellectual or religious welfare of the community which may include: a) a public library, rest rooms, meeting rooms, recreation facilities, a child care centre, cultural activities, social functions or any similar building, place or activity, or b) a community club, being a building or used by persons sharing like interests, but not a registered club, whether or not that building or place is also used another purpose”. Given that the proposed development will be operated by an organisation (The Uniting Church) for the purposes of meeting rooms, the proposed development is permissible with Council consent on the subject site.

Concerns were raised that the proposed development will reduce the views to the site and the heritage item.

17. It is acknowledged that the proposed development will restrict views from the adjoining residential properties to the heritage item. Notwithstanding this, the proposed siting of the new building is appropriate. The location of the building ensures that the historical views to the site and of the heritage item from Pennant Hills Road are retained. In addition, the location of the building ensures that historical setbacks from Pennant Hills Road remain consistent and preserved with the remaining Burnside homes.

Concerns were raised that the proposed development will reduce the level of privacy currently enjoyed by the occupants of the residential properties to the south

18. Amended plans submitted to Council increased setbacks from the boundary to the new building. The amended proposal therefore has a minimum 6 metre separation from any residential development to the south. The 6 metre setback provides appropriate separation to minimise privacy impacts into the adjoining residential properties. The amended plans also show an increase in the sill heights of the first floor windows to 2.1 metres; solid screening to the southern balconies and screen planting along the southern boundary which should maintain privacy to adjoining properties.

Concerns were raised that the proposed development will result in an increase in noise levels due to the increase in activity on the site

19. The applicant has submitted an Acoustic Report which was referred to Council’s Health Officer for review and comment. Upon review of the application, Council’s Health Officer has stated that they have no objections to the proposal subject to conditions of consent.

20. It is also noted that the subject site and the residential properties to the south are bounded by two arterial roads, James Ruse Drive and Pennant Hills Road. These roads already carry a high volume of traffic and that noise from this traffic already reduces the level of amenity in the area.

Concerns were raised that the proposed development is of an excessive bulk and scale.

21. There are no maximum height requirements or a maximum floor space ratio for the type of development proposed. However, the Parramatta Heritage DCP stipulates that the development should not “…overwhelm the original building and would most certainly need to be no larger in size than the original building” as per Section 3.2.2 which ensures that the main focus is on the heritage item. The heritage item has a 993m2 gross floor area whilst the additions have a 1,275m2 gross floor area. Whilst the addition is slightly larger in gross floor area than the heritage item, considerations are made in context of its environment. Due to the topography, the existing heritage item is located at a higher point than the proposed development which is located at a lower topography. The particular location for the proposed development maintains location prominence for the heritage item. In addition, architectural features such as the roof form and the tower feature to the front of the heritage item are visually dominant especially when viewed from Pennant Hills Road which has significant heritage significance. It is also noted that the subject site is 5,935m2. Given the extensive land size and the location of the proposed development behind the heritage item, the proposed development is perceived to be in proportion to the heritage item.

Concerns were raised that the proposed development will result in an extensive loss of landscaping around the curtilage of the heritage item.

22. Council requires that 40% of a development site to be landscaped which includes 30% of soft soil. The proposed development provides approximately 3667m2 of landscaping which equates to 61% of the total area. The landscaping provided is sufficient in ensuring that an appropriate amount of landscaping is provided around the curtilage of the heritage item. It is noted that most of the landscaping affected by the proposed development is to the rear of the heritage item. Significant landscaping to the front of the heritage item will not be affected by the proposed development. In addition, Council correspondence dated 2 May 2008 requested that a Landscaping Plan be prepared as a significant portion of the existing landscaping will be disturbed. A Landscaping Plan was submitted which was referred to Council’s Landscaping Officer. Upon review of the Landscaping Plan, Council’s Landscaping Officer raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions of consent.

Concerns were raised that the proposed development will result in a loss of property values for neighbouring properties.

23. Property values are not a matter for consideration under S79C of the EP&A Act.

Concerns were raised that the proposed development is not in the public interest and that such a development would be better suited elsewhere.

24. The subject site is zoned Special Uses which under the PLEP 2001, allows institutions to provide community facilities. ‘Community Facilities’ is defined as ‘…building or a place owned or control by the Council, a public authority, a religious organization or a body of persons associated for the physical, social, cultural, economic, intellectual or religious welfare of the community which may include: a) a public library, rest rooms, meeting rooms, recreation facilities, a child care centre, cultural activities, social functions or any similar building, place or activity, or b) a community club, being a building or used by persons sharing like interests, but not a registered club, whether or not that building or place is also used another purpose”. Given that the proposed development will be operated by an organisation (The Uniting Church) for the purposes of meeting rooms, the proposed development is permissible with Council consent on the subject site.

25. It is noted that provided that the proposed development is permissible, Council can only assess a development application and the likely impacts that may result from its development. Council does not comment nor speculate on the decisions or intentions of the applicant to locate their activities to the subject site.

Concerns were raised that the proposed development does not relate to the character and form of the heritage item.

26. The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser. Upon review of the application, Council’s heritage adviser whom provided the following comments:

The applicants had to address separately the issues raised in their meeting with the NSW Heritage Council and the separate issues raised by the Parramatta Council's planning and heritage staff.

Further to a careful analysis, I can agree that in essence the position, size and volume of the building are acceptable not as ideal, but as a compromise between heritage, planning and program issues.

Regarding the protruding triangular elements on the building edges make no contribution to the applicants program. However, they do present as unusual elements which are hard to reconcile with the "muted" forms that NSW Heritage Council requested. In my opinion, these elements should be removed.

Regarding the semi-circular awning above the entrance is equally hard to understand as a "muted" form, and should be removed.

27. Accordingly, amended plans were submitted on 19 November 2008 which illustrate that the protruding triangular elements and the semi-circular awning above the entrance have been deleted. Given that the proposed development has complied with heritage requirements, Council’s Heritage Adviser raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions of consent. The following comments were received from Council’s Heritage Adviser:

“I am satisfied that the current form of the proposal addresses all the previously raised issues and comments. I would have no further comments on the proposal”

REFERRALS

External - NSW Heritage Office

28. The proposal was referred to the NSW Heritage Office. It is noted that whilst referral to the NSW Heritage was not required under PLEP 2001, the proposal was referred to the NSW Heritage Office due to the magnitude of the development and the possible impacts of the proposal on the heritage item. Comments received from the Heritage Office are as follows:

· The relationship and connection between the existing and proposed building requires further design analysis. The massing and architectural character of the War Memorial Home could be further expressed in the relationship to the new building. A revised proposal has the opportunity to the proposed building less awkwardly behind the War Memorial Home, creating a more consistent rhythm of ‘solid and void’ spaces incorporated into the new soft landscaped area.

· While the proposal has been informed by existing heritage features, the bulk and detailing of the new entry is considered inappropriate. The current form crowns a new ‘independent entry’, while the architecturally expressed ‘starting point’ for the entire complex should rest with the War Memorial Home to which the new building is a part.

It is recommended;

· The physical connection between the proposed building and the existing building should be lighter, have more transparency and designed in a way that enables a greater ability to appreciate the existing building ‘in the round’.

· Further design analysis be given to the new entry to reduce its visual dominance,

· Further design analysis be given to the spatial relationship of the existing building, proposed building, and proposed new soft landscaped area in the rear corner of the site,

· A proposal for the ongoing maintenance and conservation of heritage fabric is submitted to works commencing, and

· You are also advised of the relic’s provisions of the Heritage Act and the necessity to apply for an excavation permit.

29. Council was also verbally informed by the Heritage Office that the application will be referred to the NSW Heritage Council Approvals Committee. It is noted that as the heritage item is not on the State Heritage Register, the Heritage Council is not the consent authority and therefore does not have a statutory role in the planning process but has provided the following comments to assist Council in its assessment.

1.) The Committee supports the continuity of the historical use on the site and recognises the need for additional facilities to support this function.

2.) Due to its close proximity, the new structure by necessity is an addition to the heritage building. In regard to the current proposal the Committee provides the following comments to assist in the finalisation of the design:

a.) More muted form and material so the building is seen as a backdrop to the heritage building.

b.) Roof forms do not need to reflect existing roof forms and the design should allow the building to be less assertive.

c.) Revision of planning at the juncture of the new and old buildings to allow for their grater separation. This could be achieved by relocation of lifts and stairs away from the old building.

d.) The removal of the tower as an element I the composition of the new building to minimise visual impact.

30. Accordingly, the applicant has amended the plans which was submitted to Council on 8 July 2008 which integrate a muted form and material, a roof form that ensures that the building is less assertive, the lift has been relocated to the new building and the tower element has been deleted.

External - Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA)

31. The proposal was referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) who has reviewed the proposal. Upon review, the RTA raises no objections subject to conditions of consent.

Internal - Environment and Health (Acoustics)

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

Internal - Traffic

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

Internal - Drainage

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

Internal - Landscaping

35. The proposal has been referred to Council’s Landscaping Officer who has reviewed the proposal. Upon review, Council’s Landscaping Officer makes no objections subject to conditions of consent.

Internal - Heritage

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

On-site Meeting

37. Due to submissions received during the notification period, the application was subject to an on-site meeting. The on-site meeting was scheduled for Saturday 23 August 2008 commencing at 12midday. However, as only one Councillor accepted the invitation, the scheduled on-site meeting was cancelled.

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	History of Application	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	12 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.13

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.13

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

DESCRIPTION Subdivision of existing site to create 3 allotments, Lot 101 will contain an existing McDonalds Restaurant, Lot 102 will be acquired by Parramatta City Council for Open Space and Lot 103 will be dedicated to Parramatta City Council for road purposes. (Location Map - Attachment 2).

REFERENCE DA/892/2007 - Submitted 19 October 2007

APPLICANT/S McDonald's Australia Ltd

OWNERS McDonalds Properties (Aust) Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Development Application No. 892/2007 seeks approval for the subdivision of the existing site to create 3 Torrens title allotments to include Lot 101 to contain an existing McDonalds Restaurant, Lot 102 to be acquired by Parramatta City Council for Open Space and Lot 103 to be dedicated to Parramatta City Council for road purposes.

This is a long-standing application that has undergone amendments to address Council's planning controls and is now ready for determination. The application has been assessed by an independent consultant town planner and referred to Council due to Council acquiring Lot 102. No objections have been received in respect of this application.

The proposed subdivision will facilitate the acquisition by Council of part of the land for the purpose of open space. There are no concerns with the proposed subdivision and approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 892/2007 subject to standard conditions.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site is legally described as Lot 1 DP 848247, known as 152 Woodville Road, Merrylands.

2. The site is approximately 6,000m² in area with an 88m frontage to Woodville Road and a 66m frontage to Merrylands Road. The northern portion of the site currently accommodates a McDonald’s restaurant and associated car parking and landscaping. The southern section of the site is largely vacant, grassed land with a concrete slab and area of bitumen at the western end. The frontage of the lot to Woodville Road has been developed for a deceleration lane into the McDonalds car park and a public footpath.

3. To the south and west, the site adjoins Granville Park which includes passive open space and playing fields. Other surrounding land use is largely residential and commercial.

BACKGROUND

4. At the Council meeting held on 29 October 2007, Council approved the proposed acquisition of Lot 1 DP 848247 at 152 Woodville Road, Granville (F2006/01028). The subject land is to be classified as Community Land and action taken to have it included in Granville Park and categorised as Sportsground under the Generic Plan of Management for Sportsgrounds.

PROPOSAL

5. The proposal consists of the subdivision of Lot 1 DP 848247 into three lots as shown on the Plan of Proposed Subdivision (ref. 30658PS) and detailed in the table below.

Table 1: Proposed Lots

Lot No.	Area	Proposed Use
101	3,878 m²	Maintain existing use as McDonalds Restaurant.
102	1,662 m²	Proposed future acquisition by Parramatta City Council for open space use.
103	459.5 m²	Dedication to Parramatta City Council for road widening. Consists of a deceleration lane into the McDonalds driveway and public footpath.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

6. Under PLEP 2001 the subject site is zoned partly 3A Centre Business and partly 9A Open Space (Proposed). Subdivision is permissible with consent in these zones.

7. Clause 12 of PLEP 2001 deals with the acquisition and development of reserved land and states that:

The owner of land reserved for future acquisition may, by notice in writing, request the appropriate acquisition authority to acquire that land.

The clause also sets out the appropriate acquisition authority for certain land, being:

7.1 Parramatta City Council for land zoned 9A Open Space (Proposed), 9C Local Road (Proposed) and 9D Environment Protection (Proposed); and

7.2 Roads and Traffic Authority for land zoned 9B Transport (Proposed).

8. Proposed Lot 102 which is zoned 9A Open Space (Proposed) is to be acquired by Council in accordance with Clause 12 of PLEP 2001.

9. Proposed Lot 103 is not zoned 9B Transport (Proposed), therefore the RTA is not required to acquire this land. Proposed Lot 103 is to be dedicated to Parramatta City Council at no cost.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

10. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of DCP 2005 and is considered to be generally consistent with the relevant design principles and standards.

REFERRAL – Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA)

11. The original proposal indicated that Lot 103 was to be dedicated to the RTA.

12. The proposal was referred to the RTA who commented the following:

12.1 “The RTA has no proposal that requires any part of the subject property for road purposes. Therefore there are no objections to the development proposal on road grounds.

12.2 The RTA believes that transferring the title of Lot 103 to the RTA before being dedicated as public road is unnecessary. The RTA would prefer that Lot 103 be dedicated as road by private subdivision (road vests in Council).

12.3 No access from Woodville Road to Lot 102 is accepted.

12.4 All work associated with the proposed development shall be at no cost to the RTA.”

13. Due to the above, the dedication of Lot 103 is to be dedicated to Council instead of the RTA subject to the concurrence of Councils Property and Civil Infrastructure sections.

REFERRAL – Property

14. The proposal was referred to Councils property section who raises no objection to the proposed development and provides the following comments:

14.1 “The subdivision should be in accordance with Drawing No. 15726 to include the following Right of Way in favour of Proposed Lot 102:

14.1.2 Proposed ROW 6.5m wide from Merrylands Road

14.1.2 Proposed ROW variable width from Woodville Road (ingress only)

14.2 A Condition of consent shall be imposed to ensure that the land for dedication will be without any encumbrances and be at conditions satisfactory to the Council for accepting dedication.”

It is not appropriate to impose the above condition, but the applicant will be advised of this to allow negotiation to commence prior to the subdivision of land occurring.

REFERRAL – Civil Infrastructure

15. The proposal was referred to Council’s Civil Infrastructure section who raises no objection to the proposed development and provides the following comments:

15.1 “The damage of the footpath and pavement is not included within Lot 103.

15.2 Civil Infrastructure has no issues regarding Council accepting this asset.

15.3 The McDonalds sign is in Lot 103 and Council would require either the removal of the sign and footings or an easement for it to stay.”

It is not appropriate to impose the above condition, but the applicant will be advised of this to allow negotiation to commence prior to the subdivision of land occurring.

CONSULTATION

16. Adjoining landowners were notified of the proposal and given 14 days within which to provide comments to Council. During the notification period (12 November to 26 November 2007) no submissions were received.

ISSUES

17. The proposal consists of the subdivision of an existing lot into three lots and does not involve any physical works. There will be no clearing of vegetation, disturbance of land or erection of structures, therefore the potential impacts of the proposal are minimal.

18. The use of the site as a McDonalds Restaurant will remain unchanged by the proposal and access to and from this part of the site will also be unaltered. Proposed Lot 102 at the south of the site is to be acquired by Council and incorporated into the adjoining public open space area of Granville Park, adding to the total area of land available for passive and active recreation. Proposed Lot 103, along the Woodville Road frontage has already been developed for a deceleration lane into the McDonalds car park and will be dedicated to the Parramatta City Council in line with this use. Overall, the proposal will result in the rationalisation and efficient use of the site in line with the current zoning and potential adverse impacts are considered to be negligible.

ENSR Australia Pty Ltd

Independent Planning Consultant

Attachments:

1View	Subdivision Plan	1 Page
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	History of Development Application	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.14

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.14

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

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to an existing heritage listed building and use as a non-licensed restaurant. (Location Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/544/2008 - Submitted 1 August 2008

APPLICANT/S G & A Unit Trust

OWNERS Mr F P Melhem

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Development Application No.544/2008 seeks approval to alterations and additions to a heritage item and use as a non-licensed restaurant. The application has been referred to Council as the site is identified as a heritage item of local significance under SREP 28 – Parramatta. One objection has been received in respect of this application.

The restaurant is located within a residential zoned area under SREP 28, however Clause 29B of SREP 28 permits restaurants and variety of other non-residential activities within this part of Harris Park. The potential impacts of the development and the use of the site on the amenity of the area are considered to be acceptable. The proposed development is also consistent with the aims and objectives of the zone and the design requirements of Harris Park Precinct DCP so as to preserve the heritage significance of the item. Accordingly, approval of the application is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No.544/2008 subject to standard conditions as well as the following extraordinary conditions:

1. The signage on the subject site is restricted in the following manners:

(a) The proposed two signs, one located on the front gable (2m x 0.6m) and the other located at the right angle to the front wall adjacent to the corner, not be permitted.

(b) Only one post/pole sign is permitted within the front garden adjacent to the front gates.

(c) The sign and pole(s) are to be visually compatible with other approved signs within the Harris Park West Conservation Area.

(d) The permitted sign under (b) is to have a maximum area of 0.75m² and is to be placed so that the top of the sign is no higher than 2m above the existing ground level.

(e) The permitted sign under (b) is not to be illuminated in any form and is not to contain third party advertising.

Reason: To preserve the heritage significance of the heritage item and the Harris Park West Conservation Area.

2. The following components/elements of the original building are to be retained:

(a) nibs of at least 200mm on all sides of the wall corners of all internal walls proposed to be removed,

(b) all the existing historic ceilings,

Reason: To preserve the heritage significance of the heritage item and the Harris Park West Conservation Area.

3. To minimise the acoustic impacts of the development on adjacent properties, the following measures are to take place:

(a) No amplified music is to be played at any time when the fold-back doors on the northern side of the restaurant are open.

(b) No outside dinning in any area of the property is to be permitted. In this regard the proposed seating at the front verandah is to be deleted.

(c) The windows on the Wigram Street elevation are to remain closed when the restaurant is in operation and are to be fitted with another sheet of 6.38mm laminated glass behind the existing glass. The existing window frames are to be protected.

(d) Refrigeration compressors must be located in a mechanically ventilated acoustic enclosure with an R_w of 40 within the ceiling cavity in accordance with the Noise Assessment Report, prepared by RSA Acoustics Consultants and numbered Report No.3606B.

(e) The kitchen exhaust fan be vented above roof level and fitted with a pod silencer.

Reason: To preserve the amenity of the area.

4. Signs must be placed in clearly visible positions within the premises requesting patrons upon leaving the premises to do so quickly and quietly, having regard to maintaining the amenity of the area. The management staff must ensure that the behaviour of patrons entering and leaving the premises does not detrimentally affect the amenity of the neighbourhood. In this regard, the management must be responsible for the control of noise and litter generated by patrons of the premises and must ensure that patrons leave the vicinity of the premises in an orderly manner to the satisfaction of Council. If so directed by Council, the management/licensee is to employ private security staff to ensure that this condition is complied with.

Reason: To prevent loss of amenity to the area.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is rectangular in shape and is located on the eastern side of Wigram Street. The site has a total area of 411sqm with a depth of 30.68m and a width of 13.41m.

2. The site has a frontage to both Wigram Street and Gordon McKinnon Lane.

3. The site contains a single storey Californian bungalow style dwelling house which is listed as a heritage item of local significance under Sydney Regional Plan No.28 – Parramatta.

4. The locality is characterised by a mixture of residential dwelling houses, home businesses, commercial development and restaurants. The closest residential property is located at the rear of the premises at No.5 Albion Street.

PROPOSAL

5. Approval is sought to alterations and additions to the heritage item and use of the building as a non-licensed 97 seat restaurant. The proposed alterations and additions comprise:

(a) demolition of the rear portion of the existing building,

(b) removal of internal walls of the existing building,

(d) provision of a restaurant service area, WCs, kitchen, cool room and dry storage.

6. Consent is also sought for:

§ provision of a car park space at the rear,

§ installation of two internally illuminated acrylic panel signs, one is proposed to be located above the front verandah roof which measures 2000mm x 600mm in size and the other one to be fixed to the front wall of the building which measures 1200m x 450mm in size.

7. The proposed hours of operation of the restaurant are:

Monday to Wednesday 10am to 10pm

Thursday to Saturday 10am to 12 midnight

Sunday 10am to 10pm

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 - Parramatta

8. The site is zoned Residential 2(a) under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta. The proposed alterations and additions and use of the premises as a restaurant is permissible under the Clause 29B which allows ‘refreshment rooms’ within the Harris Park West Conservation Area. It is noted that ‘refreshment rooms’ is defined 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 the objectives of the SREP No. 28.

Harris Park DCP

9. 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

Notification

10. In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was advertised and notified for a period of 21 days between 20 August and 10 September 2008. The notification generated one submission. The matters raised in the submission are addressed below.

Concern is raised that another restaurant in the area will create further parking problems in Wigram Street for other businesses

11. Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer considers the development acceptable in relation to car parking in the area. Car parking issues will be discussed in detail in paragraphs 32 to 42.

Concern is raised that rubbish and drink bottle litter by restaurant patrons overnight creates uprightly and unhealthy situation

12. Council can not assume people will litter illegally on the street. Nevertheless, a condition of consent has been recommended requiring the management of the restaurant to remind patrons to leave the site quietly and not to disturb residents in the locality. (Refer condition No.4)

Concern is raised that noise and frequent gathering of the public at the restaurant would be a risk and threat to security of No.65 Wigram Street (security contract business)

13. The existing business at No.65 provides corporate, commercial and industrial security services including alarm and intercom installations, community policing, surveillance cameras, bodyguarding, risk management and staff security training service.

14. The proposed restaurant is not considered to cause unreasonable security problems if the security business operates in accordance with their security policies which they are specialised in.

15. Nevertheless, the imposition of Condition No.4 recommended above will ensure that adverse amenity impacts on adjacent properties are minimised.

Concern is raised that storage of firearms on premises at No.65 Wigram Street (security contract business) could be at high risk due to operation of a new restaurant next door

16. The proposed restaurant is not considered to unreasonably cause risk to the storage of firearms at the next door if the firearms are stored and handled strictly in accordance with relevant legislation.

REFERRALS

Heritage Advisor

17. Council’s Heritage Advisor was initially concerned about the removal of the important internal elements of the heritage listed building. The applicant was advised of this concern and provided amended plans to address these issues.

18. Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the amendments and provided the following comment in support of the application.

“The modified proposal is acceptable from the heritage perspective. A condition of consent is recommended to ensure retention of the following internal elements of the building:

(a) nibs of at least 200mm on all sides of the wall corners of all internal walls proposed to be removed,

(b) all the existing historic ceilings,

(c) all the upper portion (overhead) of the walls including at least 300mm from the ceilings”

Condition No.2 has been recommended in this regard.

Traffic Engineer

19. Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigations Engineer considers the submitted car parking and traffic impact assessment report acceptable and raises no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of appropriate standard conditions.

Building Surveyor

20. Council’s Building Surveyor can support the development subject to standard conditions relating to fire safety upgrade and provision of appropriate amenity facilities including disabled toilet. The proposal is satisfactory in relation to provision of number of closet pans, urinals and washbasins for all persons.

Waste Management Officer

21. The submitted waste management plan in relation to demolition and construction stages are satisfactory. Council’s Waste Management Planning Officer can support the development subject to conditions.

22. With regard to management of on-going waste, the applicant proposed to provide four 240litre bins. Three of these will be for general waste and the other one for recycling. It is intended that the bins will be collected on a daily basis. The waste storage area will be provided with an enclosure consisted of brick walls with sealed concrete floor and metal roof cover. This is considered satisfactory.

Health Officer

23. Council’s Health Officer supports the development subject to standard conditions.

ISSUES

Heritage

24. The proposed alterations and additions are mainly to the rear of the heritage building and will not alter the distinctive original building façade of the Californian Bungalow when viewed from the street. The rear extension will be of a skillion roof and will have face brick finish to match with the original building. The rear extension is compatible with the majority of existing buildings in the vicinity in terms of bulk, scale and height and is in line with the existing building setbacks relative to the side boundaries to retain views between buildings which are consistent with the provisions of Harris Park DCP.

25. Council’s Heritage Advisor is satisfied with the proposed alterations and additions subject to appropriate conditions. (Conditions No.2)

26. With regard to the signage, the development proposes to install two internally illuminated acrylic panel signs which measure 2m x 0.6m and 1.2m x 0.45m in sizes. One will be located on the front gable and the other will be at the right angle to the front wall adjacent to the corner.

27. Council’s Heritage Advisor considers the signs are excessive and inappropriate within the Harris Park West Conservation Area. He advises that signage for heritage listed buildings within the conservation area should be placed in the traditional locations such as immediately to the side of the front door or a sign on post(s) within the front setback area. In the case of No.65A Wigram Street, a post sign is considered more appropriate. This sign should not be internally illuminated so as not to detract from the heritage significance of the item and the conservation area.

28. A condition of consent has been recommended to ensure this. (Condition No.1)

Acoustic Impact

29. The submitted Acoustic Assessment Report demonstrates that the development will not have unacceptable noise impacts on adjacent properties if the following measures take place so as to minimise noise emissions:

(a) No amplified music is to be played at any time when the fold-back doors on the northern side of the restaurant are open.

(b) No outside dinning in any area of the property is to be permitted. In this regard the proposed seating at the front verandah will be deleted by a condition of consent. (Refer Condition No.3)

(e) The kitchen exhaust fan should be vented above roof level and fitted with a pod silencer.

30. The report concludes that the noise impact of the proposed restaurant will be acceptable at all nearby residential areas provided the recommended measures take place.

31. Condition No.3 has been recommended in regard to this. It is noted that this condition reduces the maximum number of patrons from 97 to 90 as it permits no outdoor seating due to acoustic impacts.

Car Parking and Traffic

32. Clause 57 of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 28 (Parramatta) requires the number of car parking spaces provided for the proposed development not to exceed the lesser of 10 spaces per 100sqm of gross floor area or 1 space per 4 seats. The proposed restaurant has a gross floor area of 205.5sqm (requiring car spaces not to exceed 20) and has 90 seats excluding the outdoor seatings in accordance with paragraph 29 (requiring car spaces not to exceed 22).

33. It is therefore calculated that the number of car parking spaces provided for the proposed development is not to exceed 20. The development provides 1 on-site car space which satisfies the objectives set out in Clause 56 of the SREP which include:

(a) to ensure that public transport becomes the most important and efficient means of moving people to and within the Parramatta City Centre,

(b) to encourage commuting by public transport to the Parramatta City Centre in order to reduce the number of motor vehicles travelling through and to the Parramatta City Centre, and to improve overall environmental quality and pedestrian amenity,

34. The site is located 280m from Harris Park Station and 650m from Parramatta Station which is readily accessible by train.

35. Notwithstanding the development’s numerical compliance with the SREP controls, Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigation Engineer has reviewed the application and the accompanying Car Parking and Traffic Impact Assessment Report to establish whether the cumulative impacts of the development is acceptable as there are approximately 10 restaurants currently in operation in the immediate locality and there are 2 new restaurants proposed in the area under DA/296/2008 at No,69 Wigram Street (83 seats) and DA/311/2008 at No.110 Harris Street (68 seats).

36. Having reviewed the information Council’s Traffic and Transport Investigation Engineer provides the following comment in support of the proposal:

37. “The accompanying traffic report has been submitted in succession to a Development Application for a 99 seat restaurant at No.69 Wigram Street Harris Park under DA/296/2008. Therefore, the base case conditions for assessment purposes would consider the exclusion of 17 on-street parking spaces during lunch hours and 30 on-street spaces during dinner hours.

38. (It is noted that the maximum number of patrons has been reduced from 99 to 83 for No.69 Wigram Street due to acoustic concerns. Hence the number of available on-street parking spaces to be excluded should be 14 and 25 respectively.)

39. The parking survey provided within the report takes into consideration the availability of on-street parking spaces on the western side of Harris Park railway station and northern side of Parkes Street. For the purpose of assessment of this application 400m was considered as a reasonable walking distances for patrons of the restaurant from their parked vehicles. Accordingly only the available spaces within this 400m distance were considered for determination of this assessment.

40. Analysis of parking survey for available on-street parking spaces has revealed that there were about 160 on-street parking spaces available at 6.00pm on Thursday and about 130 on-street parking spaces available at 10.00am on a Saturday within 400m of the proposed development.

41. Taking into account the parking demand for the proposed development at No.69 Wigram Street and the allowances of the parking demand for the subject proposal, it is concluded that there will still be a considerable number of surplus on-street parking spaces within the 400m walking distance available for this proposed development.

42. It is also considered that the proposal will not have significant traffic impacts on Wigram Street and its surrounding road network.”

Residential Amenity Impact

43. The area is characterised by a mixture of residential and variety of non-residential uses including numerous restaurants. SREP 28 specifically permits “restaurants” as a permissible use together with “professional office suites” and “shops” despite the area being zoned for 2A Residential which would otherwise be prohibited in a 2A Residential zone in all other areas across Parramatta Local Government Area. Under the circumstances, one would expect high levels of non-residential activities associated with these land uses and potential impacts of the proposed development will not be detrimental to the existing amenity of the area.

44. The proposed hours of operation are compatible with other restaurants in the area approved by Council previously.

45. There are no other matters and issues associated with this development application.

James Seong Kim

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Location Map	1 Page
2View	Plans and Elevations	2 Pages
3View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.15

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.15

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

DESCRIPTION Restoration including alterations and additions to a heritage listed dwelling for use as a 39 place child care centre. Construction of 6 X 3 bedroom townhouses contained within three single storey with loft buildings. Community title subdivision of the site. (Locality Map attachment 2)

REFERENCE DA/80/2008 - Submitted 8 February 2008

APPLICANT/S KSP Property Group - Peter Karvon

OWNERS Mr G Coppolino, Mrs M Altuna and Mrs L Onton

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Development Application No. 80/2008 seeks approval for restoration including alterations and additions to an existing heritage listed dwelling for the use as a child care centre for 39 children. It is also proposed to construct 6 townhouses within three single storey with loft buildings each containing 2 X 3 bedroom townhouses. The use of the site as a child care centre is permitted with consent in the Residential 2(a) zone however the erection of townhouses is a prohibited development. The applicant has sought approval for the townhouses under Clause 17 of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation) which relate to heritage conservation incentives. Council officers have sought a legal opinion on the matter regarding the conservation clause and advice has been received that the use of this clause in this case is appropriate.

The heritage item is in a poor state of repair and requires costly conservation works. The proposed development of the site (use as child care centre and townhouses) will ensure the long term survival of the heritage item whilst having minimal impact on the heritage significance of the item and the amenity enjoyed by the residents of adjoining properties. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation) and is supported by Council’s Heritage Advisor. The application has been referred to Council for determination because the site is heritage listed.

Four objections have been received in respect to this application.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Development Application No. 80/2008 be approved subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

1. The proposed 1.5m high acrylic glazed fence to the perimeter of the playground within the child care centre be deleted. A 1.2m high timber picket fence with vertical palings is to be provided in lieu of the 1.5m high acrylic glazed fence.

Reason: The proposed acrylic glazed fencing is not a suitable form of fencing for the heritage item and the fencing is not required for acoustic purposes.

2. The south and west facing windows of the 3-6 year old playroom shall be fixed windows that are unable to be opened. This room shall be mechanically ventilated.

Reason: To preserve the amenity of the adjoining dwelling.

3. An occupation certificate or interim occupation certificate for the multi-unit housing component of the development or any part thereof shall not be issued by the Principal Certifying Authority unless and until Council is satisfied that all works identified in the Conservation Management Plan prepared by Perumal Murphy Alessi dated August 2008 in respect of the heritage item on the site have been completed and Council has stated in writing that it is so satisfied.

Reason: To ensure that the restoration works to the heritage item are carried out.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is known as No. 54 Binalong Road Toongabbie and contains a single storey heritage listed dwelling known as Joseph Knox Cottage. The site has a depth of 79.25m, frontage to Binalong Road of 36.68m and site area of 3,550m2. The width of the site across the rear boundary is 52.73m. The frontage of the site is of lesser width than the rear boundary due to a previous subdivision in 1984 which created a separate allotment in the north eastern corner of the site. A single storey dwelling has since been constructed on this allotment.

2. The heritage listed dwelling is located on the southern side of the site and has a setback from the street of approximately 30m. Landscaping within the site consists of grass and fruit trees with two canopy trees being located in close proximity to the front boundary. A two storey dual occupancy at No. 52 Binalong Road adjoins the southern boundary of the site. The predominant character of the locality is residential.

PROPOSAL

3. Restoration including alterations and additions to the heritage item to use the building as a 39 place child care centre. The child care centre would provide 5 places for 0-2 year olds and 34 places for 2-6 year olds. The proposed hours of operation of the centre are 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Friday. The applicant also seeks approval to open 4 Sundays a year for special events.

4. The proposed works include the removal of intrusive fabric including portions of the building which have limited heritage significance such as the existing dining room/laundry. The proposed work includes underpinning, replacement of the roof and general repairs to the heritage item. A single storey extension to the rear of the building is also proposed. A ‘U’ shaped driveway is provided with a total of 10 car spaces allocated to the child care centre. The outdoor play areas for the centre are on the southern, eastern and northern sides of the building.

5. It is also proposed to construct 6 townhouses within three single storey plus loft buildings each containing 2 X 3 bedroom townhouses. For each townhouse, one bedroom is provided at the ground floor level and two bedrooms are located in the loft. A single garage is provided for each townhouse and space is provided on the driveway to park an additional vehicle. Each townhouse has a courtyard with an area of more than 40m2. Units 1-4 are located in the north-western portion of the site and units 5-6 are located in the south western portion of the site behind the heritage item.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

6. The site is zoned Residential 2(a) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. It is proposed to develop the site as a child care centre and multi-unit housing. The development could also be defined as mixed use development as one or more dwellings are proposed to be located on the same parcel of land as a non residential use. Both multi-unit housing and mixed use development are not permissible forms of development in the Residential 2(a) zone. The applicant has requested that Council exercise the conservation incentives clause prescribed in clause 17 of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation) to allow the otherwise prohibited use of multi-unit housing/mixed use development on the site.

7. Clause 40 of PLEP 2001 restricts the floor space ratio of a development for the purposes of multi-unit housing to a maximum of 0.6:1. The gross floor area of the development is 1197m2 which represents a floor space ratio of 0.34:1. It is also noted that more than 50% of the site area is landscaped. The density of the proposed development is significantly less than what is generally permitted in the locality. The development is consistent with the aims and objectives of Parramatta LEP 2001.

Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation)

8. The site is identified in Schedule 2 of PLEP 1996 as a heritage item of local significance. Council’s Heritage Advisor has provided the following comments:

In accordance with the current proposal, the significant original house is to be retained and conserved, as per the schedule of works in the Conservation Plan submitted. The proposed use as childcare centre is considered "light" on the fabric and generally suitable for historic former residences. The addition of the townhouses at the rear allows retention of the open character of the front lawn, with important views from the direction of Binalong Road. The design of the townhouses however is distinctively modern, yet suitable as a background for the historic item in that it would not compete visually nor tend to dominate the item. The additions to the house are within the acceptable limits for size and position as per the Heritage DCP requirements, and the design of these additions utilises suitable forms and details.

9. Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) contains conservation incentives (Clause 17) which allow heritage buildings to be used for a purpose which would otherwise be prohibited. The proposed use seeks to utilise cl17 (1) of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) which is as follows:

The consent authority may grant consent to the use for any purpose of a building that is a heritage item, or of the land on which a heritage item is erected, even though the use would otherwise not be allowed by an environmental planning instrument, if:

(a) it is satisfied that the retention of the building or item depends on the granting of consent, and

(b) the proposed use is in accordance with a conservation management plan which has been approved by the consent authority, and

(c) the granting of consent to the proposed use would ensure that all necessary conservation work identified in the conservation management plan is carried out, and

(d) the proposed use would not adversely affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or its setting, and

(e) the proposed use would not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding area otherwise than to an insignificant extent.

10. The proposal satisfies cl17 (1) of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation) for the following reasons:

Dependence of retention of building on granted consent

11. The applicant intends to renovate the building to a state similar to its original condition. The proposed works are expensive and not feasible if the property were used for a permissible purpose. The reasons the proposed development of the site for multi-unit housing/mixed use development is supported include:

11.1 The building has been modified over time in a way that departs from its original form. The development includes the removal of intrusive fabric and restoration of the front of the building including the front verandah to its original form.

11.2 The building has several structural defects and requires expensive rectification works. The proposed works will ensure that the building can be retained for future generations. If the works were not carried out the building would fall into further state of disrepair and the heritage significance of the building could be lost.

11.3 The site could be developed for a permissible purpose such as subdivision and the creation of new allotments for new single dwellings or dual occupancies. It is likely that this form of development would have a greater impact on the amenity of neighbours and the significance of the heritage item than the proposed multi-unit housing. The multi-unit housing option allows for a more cohesive development of lower density and scale.

Conservation Management Plan

12. The use will be in accordance with the proposed conservation management plan that has been submitted with the application. The proposed work includes:

12.1 Removal of concrete roof cladding and replacement of all roof cladding with corrugated steel cladding, replacement of roof members where required;

12.2 Front verandah reinstated to original form with new timber posts and new floor;

12.3 Full underpinning of the piers and replacement of timber flooring, framing of floor coverings where required;

12.4 Opening up the eastern and western wings of the building which have previously been divided

12.5 Restoration of rendered walls including repairs to air vents, patching up of cracks and repainting;

12.6 Restoration of existing French doors, sidelights and thresholds to the façade of the building

13. Further details of the proposed conservation works are attached to this report.

Completion of work in Conservation Management Plan

14. A condition of consent is to be imposed as an extraordinary condition which will ensure that all necessary conservation work identified in the conservation management plan is carried out.

Heritage impact

15. The proposed use will not adversely impact the heritage significance of the building as approval will ensure that the proposed works in the Management Plan will restore the building and provide for its long term contribution to the heritage of the Parramatta Local Government Area.

Amenity impact

16. The use will not adversely impact the amenity of the surrounding area. The proposed development has been designed to be sensitive to the amenity of adjoining properties and is of a significantly lower density than that permitted in the area. The acoustic report submitted with the application verifies that the child care centre would not have an unreasonable noise impact on adjoining dwellings. Car parking has been provided for the child care centre and boundary fencing will ensure that the development has minimal noise impact on adjoining properties.

Legal Advice

17. Council staff have sought legal advice on whether the use of Clause 17 ‘Conservation incentives’ is appropriate for the proposed development. The advice from Council’s solicitors is that the use of Clause 17 ‘Conservation incentives’ is appropriate in this instance. Council’s solicitors have also recommended the imposition of an extraordinary condition of consent to ensure that the restoration works to the heritage item will be carried out. The legal advice is attachment No. 8.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

18. The proposal achieves compliance with the numerical requirements of the plan and is also consistent with the aims and objectives of the plan. The proposal does not comply with the solar access, height and rear setback controls that apply to multi-unit housing developments. These non compliances are addressed in the ‘ISSUES’ section of this report.

Parramatta Child Care Centres DCP

19. The proposal does not comply with the site selection requirements in section 3.1 of the DCP. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the DCP with respect to car parking, indoor play areas, outdoor play areas and acoustic considerations.

20. The development does not comply with the site selection criteria specified in Part 3.1 of the development control plan. The site is not adjacent to a school or neighbourhood centre, nor within 300m of a railway station.

21. Part 1.5.1 of the Child Care Centres Development Control plan states that, ’If there is any inconsistency between the provision included in this DCP and those contained in the relevant environmental planning instrument, the provision in the environmental planning instrument shall prevail’.

22. The conservation of environmental heritage is a stated objective of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation). The proposed development incorporates significant restoration work and the implementation of a Conservation Management Plan. The use of the site as a child care centre and multi unit housing provides the economic incentive to carry out the restoration and structural work to the heritage item. The site selection controls of the Child Care Centres DCP are contrary to the objectives of PLEP 1996 as they prevent the use of the site for a purpose that would facilitate the conservation of the heritage item.

23. The objectives of PLEP 1996 with regard to the preservation of environmental heritage prevail over the site selection controls of the Child Care Centres Development Control Plan.

24. The proposed child care centre provides 39 places, including 5 places for 0-2 year olds and 34 places for 2-6 year olds. The child care centre has 10 car spaces as required by the DCP and is compliant with the indoor and outdoor space requirements. The proposal is for a smaller size centre located on a large site and is consistent with the objectives of the child care centres DCP. The child care centre will have a minimal impact on the amenity of the area in terms of traffic, noise and privacy impacts.

ISSUES - Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

Solar Access

25. Parramatta DCP 2005 requires that 50% of private open space areas receive 3 hours solar access on the winter solstice. The DCP requires that a townhouse has a courtyard with a minimum area of 40m2. Unit No. 6 has a 55m2 courtyard, the courtyard is on the southern side of the building and adjoins the fence to the rear of the child care centre. The courtyard would receive some solar access between the hours of 11am and 12pm, but would not receive solar access at other times of the day.

26. The other courtyards within the development receive solar access in accordance with the 3 hour DCP control. The majority of the courtyards are significantly larger in area than the 40m2 required by the DCP. As the density of the development is considerably less than the maximum permitted and that the courtyard of unit 6 is larger than the minimum requirement, the non compliance with the 3 hour solar access control is considered acceptable.

Rear Setback

27. Parramatta DCP 2005 requires that multi-unit housing developments have a rear setback equivalent to 15% of the depth of the site. In this instance the DCP would require a rear setback of 11.85m. The western walls of the townhouses have a setback of between 3.4m to 4.2m from the rear boundary. The townhouses must be located behind the heritage item to minimise their impact on the significance of the building. Compliance with the 15% rear setback control would require the deletion of at least two townhouses. The reduction in the number of units would make the development uneconomic and would not allow for the restoration of the heritage item. The rear setback will not have a significant privacy impact on the adjoining properties to the west of the site because the only window at the loft level which faces these properties is a highlight window that serves a bathroom. The rear setback will not have a adverse visual impact on the adjoining properties to the west of the site because the buildings are less than 7.5m in height. The non compliance with the setback control is considered acceptable in this instance.

Height

28. Parramatta DCP 2005 states that the rear row of townhouses are limited to a maximum height of one storey plus attic. The townhouses do not comply with this control because the loft level does not comply with the definition of ‘attic room’ provided by the LEP. The floor area of an attic room is limited to 25m2 and the loft’s have a floor area of approximately 50m2.

29. The loft level contains 2 bedrooms, an ensuite and a bathroom. The objective of the height control is to reduce the visual impact of buildings located towards the rear of allotments. Traditionally this part of an allotment has contained single storey outbuildings or open backyard space. The non compliance with the height controls needs to be seen within the context of the site. The location of the heritage item limits opportunity for development at the front of the site. To require full compliance with the DCP controls is likely to render the site unsuitable for a density of development which would provide the economic incentive to restore the heritage item.

30. The lofts are set back approximately 6m from the rear boundary and the ridge of the townhouses is approximately 7.5m higher than the natural ground level. The height of the buildings will not unduly compromise the significance of the heritage item or the amenity of the adjoining sites. The constraints of the site with respect to the location of the heritage item and the need to protect its significant require a pragmatic approach to the DCP controls. A variation of the height control in the unique circumstances of this case would not create a negative precedent.

31. The variation of the DCP height control is consistent with the underlying intention of the control and the objectives of the LEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation) with respect to facilitating the conservation of heritage listed buildings.

CONSULTATION

32. In accordance with Council’s Notification Development Control Plan, the proposal was notified between 27 February 2008 and 19 March 2008. Four submissions were received. The following issues were raised in the submissions.

The multi-unit housing component of the development is prohibited

33. Multi-unit housing is listed as a prohibited form of development in the Residential 2(a) zone. Parramatta LEP 1996 enables Council to grant consent for multi-unit housing subject to a proposal satisfying the Conservation incentives requirements of clause 17 of the LEP.

The development will have a negative impact on the heritage significance of the building

34. The application includes substantial restoration work to the heritage listed building and a conservation management plan which will guide future conservation works has also been submitted. The development will not have a negative impact on the heritage significance of the building and has the support of Councils Heritage Advisor.

The development would have a negative impact on the privacy and amenity of adjoining properties

35. The development has been designed to minimise the impact on the heritage significance of the item. For this reason the townhouses have a height of a single storey plus attic. Attic rooms only contain bedrooms and bathrooms, people using these rooms will protect their privacy through the use of curtains or blinds. Bedrooms and bathrooms are not highly trafficable rooms and are generally occupied at night or for short lengths of time. The development would not have an unreasonable impact on the privacy and amenity of adjoining properties.

The development would impact on the viability of other child care centres in the area

36. The impact of a development of the profitability of a similar use is not a relevant matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The development will increase traffic

37. Binalong Road is a local collector road. The development will result in a marginal increase in traffic which will not have a significant impact on traffic congestion or road traffic noise. Council’s Traffic Section have raised no objection to the proposed development.

ON SITE MEETING

38. Council, at its meeting of 25 May 2008, resolved that all applications for child care centres be subject to a site inspection prior to being determined at a Regulatory Meeting.

39. In accordance with the above resolution, an invitation to Councillors, Council officers, the applicant and people who made submissions was sent in relation to the inspection to be held on 26 July commencing at 9.00am. In accordance with the resolution of Council acceptance of the invitation from two Councillors was received prior to the invitations being sent out to residents.

40. Present at the site meeting were Brad Delapierre – Team Leader, Development Assessment Services, Jonathan Goodwill – Senior Development Assessment Officer, the applicant and 7 residents. No Councillors attended. The following issues were discussed at the meeting:

Viability of the proposed child care centre

41. The owner of a nearby child care centre advised that there were 5 existing centres in the area and they were at 60%-80% of capacity. He said that a number of centres had opened recently and that the proposed centre would not be economically viable. It was stated that an additional centre in the area may cause existing centres to close down.

42. In response to this concern the applicant advised that the child care centre was the only viable economic use and that he understood that it may take between 1-2 years to reach capacity.

43. The economic viability of a proposed use is not a relevant matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Retention of the building

44. A representative from the Toongabbie Heritage Society advised that they supported the proposal because it allowed for the retention of the building and provided appropriate curtilage with no new buildings forward of the item. The representative commended the owner’s decision to retain the heritage item.

Permissibility

45. The resident of No. 54A Binalong Road raised concern that the development for multi unit housing was not permissible in the zone.

46. Council staff explained that the planning controls for heritage items allowed uses that were not permissible in the zone.

A rezoning is required

47. The resident of No. 9 Burrabogee said that a rezoning was required for the multi unit housing and that this process would involve greater consultation with neighbours.

48. Council staff advised that a rezoning application was not required because the applicant was seeking to use clause 17 ‘Conservation Incentives’ of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation).

Compliance with child care DCP

49. The resident of No. 54A Binalong Road raised concern that the development did not comply with the site selection criteria of the Child Care Centres DCP.

50. It is acknowledged that the development does not comply with the site selection criteria of the development control plan in that the site is not adjacent to a school or neighbourhood centre, nor within 300m of a railway station.

51. Part 1.5.1 of the Child Care Centres Development Control plan states that, ’If there is any inconsistency between the provision included in this DCP and those contained in the relevant environmental planning instrument, the provision in the environmental planning instrument shall prevail’.

52. The conservation of environmental heritage is a stated objective of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation). The proposed development incorporates significant restoration work and the implementation of a Conservation Management Plan. The use of the site as a child care centre and multi unit housing provides the economic incentive to carry out the restoration and structural work to the heritage item. The site selection controls of the Child Care Centres DCP are contrary to the objectives of PLEP 1996 as they prevent the use of the site for a purpose that would facilitate the conservation of the heritage item.

53. The objectives of PLEP 1996 with regard to the preservation of environmental heritage prevail over the site selection controls of the Child Care Centres Development Control Plan.

Acoustic and privacy Impacts of the child care centre

54. The resident of No. 54A Binalong Road raised concern that the child care centre would impact on the privacy and amenity of her property due to the activities of the child care centre and the increased vehicle movements. The resident was concerned that the unit adjoining the rear boundary of No. 54A Binalong Road would overlook the back room of her house.

55. The resident was advised that a single highlight window to a bathroom at the loft level faced her property and that the sill height of the window would prevent a person from viewing her dwelling. The resident was also advised that a 1.8m high lapped and capped timber fence would be constructed along the shared property boundaries and that an acoustic report had verified that the fence would reduce the noise impacts from additional vehicle movements to acceptable levels.

Traffic

56. The resident of No. 54A Binalong Road raised concern that the increased traffic from the site would make it difficult to leave her dwelling.

57. The traffic generated by the development would not significantly reduce the gaps in the traffic which provide opportunities for people to leave their driveways.

Retention of the building

58. A resident who previously lived in the house during the 1940’s advised that she supported the proposal because the heritage item was in a poor state of repair, the development included the restoration of the heritage item and the townhouses are segregated from the heritage item. She had no issue with the child care use as 10 children had previously lived in the house.

Concerns raised by the resident of No. 9 Burrabogee Road

59. The southern side boundary of the subject site adjoins the rear boundary of the objectors property which has frontage to Burrabogee Road. The objector was concerned with the height of the proposed extension to the heritage item and the potential privacy and noise impacts. The objector also raised concern with the impact of the development on the value of his property and light spill from the townhouses. His preference was for four units to be constructed with the unit to the rear of the heritage item deleted.

60. The rear boundary of No. 9 Burrabogee Road adjoins the southern side boundary of the development site. Council staff explained that the extension to the rear of the heritage item is single storey in height. Two bedrooms windows at the attic level face No. 9 Burrabogee Road. Bedroom windows generally seek to protect their privacy through the use of curtains or blinds. The townhouses have a minimum setback of 4m from the boundary shared with No. 9 Burrabogee Road and it is unlikely that light spill would have any impact on the amenity of adjoining sites. The impact of a development on property values is not a matter for consideration under S79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

Maintenance of heritage item

61. A question was asked as to who would maintain the heritage item and who could a neighbour contact if there was an issue with the building. The applicant advised that the owner of the lot containing the child care centre should be approached as they would be responsible for the maintenance of the building. Council staff advised that a conservation management plan for the building had been prepared and would form part of any development consent.

General amenity concerns

62. The residents of both No. 9 Burrabogee Road and No. 54A Binalong Road were concerned that when they had purchased their properties the site was quiet and peaceful, and that the new child care centre would affect their privacy.

63. Council staff explained at the on site meeting that the first floor level of the townhouses is located within the roof and contains bedroom and bathrooms only. Development of the site is permissible under the planning controls and the density of the development is significantly lower than that which would be permitted for a non heritage listed site. The impact on the amenity of adjoining sites is considered to be acceptable.

Jonathon Goodwill

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	2 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Development Application History	1 Page
4View	Extract from Conservation Management Plan	11 Pages
5View	Plans and Elevations	9 Pages
6View	Child Care Centres Compliance Table	2 Pages
7View	Multi-unit housing Compliance Table	1 Page
8View	Legal Advice RE: Use of clause 17 'Conservation incentives'	5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.16

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.16

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

DESCRIPTION Restoration and adaptive reuse of a heritage-listed building and construction of a 2 storey building with basement parking for combined use as a 40-place childcare centre.

REFERENCE DA/648/2008 - DA lodged 9 September, 2008

APPLICANT/S Sak Emporium Pty Ltd

OWNERS Messrs J, M, C & M Papas.

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Development Application No. 648/2008 seeks approval for the restoration and adaptive reuse of a heritage-listed building and construction of a 2 storey childcare centre with basement parking for 11 cars. The proposed childcare centre will accommodate 40 children (30 x 0-2 year olds and 10 x 3-5 year olds) and proposes to operate between 7.00am and 7.00pm, Sunday to Saturday.

The application is referred to Council for determination as it involves development relating to a child care centre and as the existing building on the site is a heritage item. It is noted that Council resolved at its meeting of 10 November 2008 that this DA not proceed to an on-site meeting. One objection from a resident not located in proximity to the site was received.

By virtue of the extent of general compliance with the relevant planning controls, the merits of the proposal and the absence of objections to the development application from the immediate local community, it is considered that the development in its present form (subject to conditions of consent) would not compromise the public interest.

Accordingly, approval of the development application is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 648/2008 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

1. The childcare centre shall cater for a maximum of 40 children at any one time and comprise of a minimum of 10 places for 0–2 year olds and a maximum of 30 places for 3–5 year olds. The notations on the plans shall be amended to reflect these figures, the plans currently show 48 children to be in care.

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

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

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

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

Reason: For security purposes.

4. The proposed on-street parking space shall be deleted from the plans.

Reason: The proposed on-site parking provision is considered sufficient and complies with the Childcare Centres DCP.

5. In relation to the structural integrity of the existing heritage-listed building on the site, a geotechnical report shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate demonstrating the following:

- recommendations as to appropriate temporary and permanent site support and retention measures relating to the existing heritage-listed building on the site;

- predict ground settlements in areas adjacent to excavation resulting from temporary and permanent site support and retention measures and demonstrate that settlement will have no adverse impact on the existing heritage-listed building;

- that there will be no adverse impact on the existing heritage-listed building on the site as a result of vibration created by the method of construction used for the development. As a minimum, reports must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of AS2187.2-1993 Appendix J;

- recommend appropriate plant, equipment and construction methods to be employed.

- an implementation plan for the development. The implementation plan will comprise of the monitoring program, contingency plan and construction methodology in relation to the structural integrity and protection of the existing heritage-listed building on the site.

The report shall be prepared by a geotechnical engineer or an engineering geologist listed on the National Professional Engineers Register Level 3 (NPER-3), or a current Member or Fellow of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists and who has a minimum of five years experience as a geotechnical engineer, or engineering geologist, advising on building works & the geotechnical issues in the area.

Reason: To ensure adequate visibility and safety.

6. A 1.8 metres high perimeter fence of timber material, lapped & capped, shall be constructed along the northern, southern and western boundaries.

Reason: To mitigate noise impacts in accordance with the recommendations of the acoustic report.

7. The first floor office space shall only be used in connection with the approved childcare centre.

Reason: To comply with the terms of this consent.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is known as No. 52 Railway Street (Lot 141 in DP 997970) and is located on the western side of the street. The site is rectangular with a frontage to Railway Street of 15.175 metres, a depth of 66.45 metres and a total site area of 1,008m².

2. The site is currently occupied by a single storey heritage-listed building formerly used as a retail or commercial premises. The building is currently vacant. The surrounding area is characterised by detached dwellings with a number of multi-unit housing also located nearby. The site is located less than 300 metres to the north of Wentworthville Railway Station.

PROPOSAL

3. Approval is sought for the following:

3.1 alterations and additions to the existing single storey heritage-listed building for adaptive reuse as part of a new childcare centre;

3.2 to construct a new 2 storey building at the rear for use as a child care centre, with basement level under for 11 cars and one on-street space;

3.3 to use the development as a 40-place child care centre with 4 play areas for 0-3 year olds (30 children) 1 internal play area for 3-5 year olds (10 children);

3.4 provision of a cot room, kitchen and toilets;

3.5 first floor of the new building to be used for office space associated with the childcare centre;

3.6 the proposed hours of operation are proposed to be 7:00am to 7:00pm, 7 days a week;

3.7 southern boundary single width driveway access to the 11 parking spaces with passing bay provided.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

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

5. Subject to conditions, including a reduction of the days of operation, the proposal is regarded as being consistent with the LEP and the zone.

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 1996 (Heritage & Conservation)

6. The building being retained and restored is listed as an item of local heritage significance in Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation). The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the LEP.

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

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

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

Child Care Centre Development Control Plan

9. The development is subject to the requirements of the Parramatta Child Care Centre Development Control Plan. The proposed development is inconsistent with the hours of operation control as it includes weekend operation and the landscaping control (side boundary strip) but is generally consistent with the objectives of the Child Care Centre DCP, as will be explained in this report.

Parramatta Heritage Development Control Plan 2001

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

11. 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”.

12. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the plan, reinstating a use to the building which is of public benefit.

Consultation

13. In accordance with Council’s Notifications DCP, the development application was advertised and notified to surrounding residents between 29 September and 15 August 2008. One objection was received from a resident from outside of the area who is unlikely to be directly affected by the proposal. A further submission was received from a neighbour who supports the proposal.

14. The issues raised in the objection are addressed below.

Tree Removal

15. Concern was raised by the objector that the application includes the removal of trees.

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

17. Council’s Landscape Officer has considered the landscape plan and made the following comments:

“There is a large Ficus microcarpa var. Hillii (Hills Weeping Fig) located in the adjacent property at the rear of the development. Tree roots could become evident when installing the proposed acoustic fence and shade structure.

The Landscape Plan by Monaco Designs (Job No - 2108) dated 7 August 2008 submitted to Council has been completed in accordance with Councils DCP and should be incorporated into the development consent. The plan has addressed the issues of screening and tree replenishment using a mixture of native and exotic plant species.”

18. A number of standard conditions of consent are included in the recommended development consent.

Demolition

19. Concern was raised by the objector that the application incorporates demolition and waste from the demolition should be recycled.

20. The development site contains a heritage-listed building that is proposed to be adaptively reused, no demolition work is proposed.

Issues

Heritage

21. The site is listed as an item of local heritage significance under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (Heritage and Conservation) 1996. The site is significant as the building is an example of rural commercial building from the early 20^th Century, when rural activity dominated the suburb of Wentworthville.

22. The building is today merely a shell. It contains no internal partitions or dividing walls and little that will be adversely affected by the proposal.

23. A heritage impact statement, prepared in accordance with the requirements of Clause 11 of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation), has been prepared by Rappoport Pty Ltd and submitted with the development application. The report concludes:

“We are of the opinion that the proposed modifications on the subject site would not generate a negative impact upon the significance of the heritage item. Rappoport supports the proposal for a single carriage driveway to provide entry to the site as this respects the setting of the heritage building in that it allows for soft landscaping to abut the building rather than hard paving. In this manner, the setting of the building would not be dominated by a large paved area at the front of the site. We reiterate that an assessment of the structural and other conservation works required for the existing building would need to be provided to Rappoport in order to make a complete assessment of the impact the proposed works would have on the heritage significance of the place”.

24. The heritage report outlines the matters to be addressed as prescribed by Clause 11(5)(a)(i)-(v) of Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage & Conservation), namely:

24.1 “the heritage significance of the item as part of the environmental heritage of the City of Parramatta, and

24.2 the impact that the proposed development will have on the heritage significance of the item and its setting, including any landscaping or horticultural features, and

24.3 the measures proposed to conserve the heritage significance of the item and its setting, and

24.4 whether any archaeological site or potential archaeological site would be adversely affected, and

24.5 the extent, if any, to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the form of an historic subdivision.”

25. A conservation management plan is not required to be submitted in relation to this proposal, as the item is not of significance in a state or regional context and such a plan is not required under the NSW Heritage Manual (Conservation Management Documents) 1996.

26. The works will involve retention and repair of existing fabric, including the timber awning over the footpath, the facebrick exterior, fenestration and internal finishes. The detailed specifics of this work will be submitted with the construction certificate and the work will be undertaken under the supervision of the applicant’s conservation architect.

27. Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the proposal and has raised no objections, subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the protection of the existing heritage fabric, noting the concerns of the applicant’s Structural Engineer who has indicated:

“It should be noted that on the site stands a single storey brick building with an attached enclosed awning. Upon inspection, the building on site is noted to be in poor condition and needs to be attended to. Given the state of the existing building, it would be recommended that any excavations be away from the building, in order not to jeopardise its structural integrity, which is already in poor condition and may cause it to collapse.”

28. Accordingly no objections are raised on heritage grounds, subject to the imposition of geotechnical conditions addressing the method of excavation in proximity to the heritage-listed building on the site.

Car parking

29. The DA was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer for consideration. Council’s Traffic Engineer expressed no concerns with the proposal and provided the following comments:

*Description*	*Council’s CCC DCP 2007/SREP 28/RTA TGD/ AS 2890.1 – 2004 Requirements*	*Proposal*	*Comments*
Parking Provision	10 parking spaces	11 parking spaces (including 1 disabled parking space) in the basement level & 1 on-street parking proposal (15 minute parking)	Considered acceptable The proposed 15 minute parking on-street is to be deleted as it is surplus to the development’s requirements
Access Arrangement	3.0m – 5.5m wide combined entry & exit driveway	3.25m wide separate entry & exit driveway	Considered acceptable Note the proposed waiting bay near the ramp driveway is considered acceptable
Other issues: Aisle width (90 degree angle parking –two way direction) Bicycle parking space Pedestrian Access	5.8m-6.2m wide 2 bicycle parking spaces	6.0m wide Nil DA Plan shows 1.155m access near carparking area	Considered acceptable Considered unsatisfactory Considered unsatisfactory Council’s DCP specifies 1.2m width

29.1 Railway Street is a local street with a road width of 12.8m between kerbs and provides access to residential and commercial properties in the area. The site is also located close to Wentworthville Railway Station. There are existing combined parking and bicycle lanes on both sides of Railway Street and centre linemarking. Parking along this part of Railway Street is unrestricted. The proposed development would involve provision of a child care centre for 40 place children within 0-5yrs old. The proposed operating hours will be from 7:00am to 7:00pm.

29.2 The Traffic Report accompanying the DA indicates that “Railway Street has a peak traffic volume of about 200 vehicles per hour and the traffic to be generated by the proposed development is unlikely to cause significant environmental problems”.

29.3 Parking requirements according to Council’s Child Care Centre (CCC) DCP 2007:

§ 1 space per 4 children – 10 parking spaces required

§ 1 disabled parking space per 10 spaces; if parking spaces are less than 10, then at least 1 space must be provided

29.4 There are 10 parking spaces proposed in the basement level and 1 on-street “15 Minute Parking”.” The proposed 15 minute parking on-street space is to be deleted from the plans.

29.5 At least 1 secure bicycle parking space for each development at a rate of 1 space per 25 children according to Council’s CCC DCP June 2007. Hence, 2 bicycle parking spaces are required.

29.6 Council’s CCC DCP June 2007 specifies that pedestrian access that is separated from vehicular access is to be provided from the street to the building and from all spaces to the building (it is essential that children using the centre do not need to walk past the reverse turning circle of a car). All pedestrian pathways in the development should have a minimum width of 1.2m to allow easy circulation throughout the site.

29.7 The pedestrian access provided on the DA plan is only 1.155m wide and should be widened to 1.2m. As this pathway is adjacent to the parking spaces, it is considered that “wheel stops’ should be provided for all parking bays for pedestrian safety reasons.

29.8 Traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development would be as follows:

*Time*	*Rate (Trips per child)*	*No. of children*	*Peak vehicle trips (veh/hr)*
7:00am-9:00am	0.8	40	32
2:30pm-4:00pm	0.3	40	12
4:00pm-6:00pm	0.7	40	28

29.9 Based on the traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development in addition to the existing traffic on Railway Street and its surrounding road network, the proposed development is not considered to have a significant traffic impact on Railway Street and its surrounding road network.

Recommendation

29.10 Should this DA be approved, no objection is raised to the proposal on traffic and parking grounds subject to conditions.”

30. The minimum car parking requirement for childcare centres is 1 space per 4 children. The proposed development comprises 40 children and generates a maximum requirement for 10 car parking spaces. The proposal provides on-site parking for 11 spaces and 1 additional space on the street immediately outside the premises. The space on the street shall be deleted, as the proposed basement parking on the site provides for sufficient parking to cope with the use and is in compliance with the requirements of the Childcare Centres DCP.

31. The development requires a Type 1 driveway construction consistent with Section 6 of the RTA’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments and AS2890.1, servicing a site with less than 25 carparking spaces. A condition to this effect is included in the Recommendation.

32. The width of the driveway must be no less than 3 metres and in this case, the proposal complies having a width of 3.25 metres. On a two-way ramp, the minimum width is required to be 5.5 metres between kerbs, but in this instance, the driveway is short (17.3 metres from the property boundary to the basement entrance) and a passing bay is provided.

33. The proposed driveway gradient would achieve a level entry (0%) for the first 6 metres, then a transition of 10% over 2 metres, a fall of 11% over 7.3 metres before another transition of 10% levelling to the basement, The gradients comply with the requirements of AS2890.1:2004 (Parking Facilities).

34. There are no objections with the proposal based on carparking.

35. It is also noted that the site is located within 300 metres of Wentworthville Railway Station and the location is well suited for the proposed use.

Noise

36. The application was accompanied by a Noise Assessment prepared by RSA Acoustics that addresses the centre with typical hours of 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Friday. The report concludes “While the children may be audible to the local residents, acoustically the predicted noise levels should be able to operate within acceptable LAeq, 15 min noise limits. The proposed childcare centre building will contain the internal noise. The 1.8 metre side fencing will reduce the external noise emissions in these directions. Provided the recommended acoustic measures included in this noise assessment report are implemented, the childcare centre at 52-54 Railway Street, Wentworthville should be able to operate in accordance with Department of Community services guidelines and without significant loss of acoustic amenity to local residents”.

37. The acoustic report also provides an assessment of the potential impacts of motor vehicles used in association with the use and concludes:

37.1 “The fence can taper down from 1.8 metres at 5 metres from the front boundary to 1 metre at the front boundary, without reducing its acoustic effectiveness while not detracting from the visual quality for the neighbouring properties.

37.2 Staff, parents and guardians should be requested to enter and leave the carpark in a quiet and orderly manner and with consideration for neighbours. Primary contact staff should be instructed in the importance of being good neighbours, and in controlling the level of noise emissions from the external educational play activity area.

37.3 No airconditioning condenser units should be placed along the southern or northern boundaries adjacent to the proposed childcare centre building. Airconditioning condenser units for the centre will need to be located so as not to exceed Council’s noise limits.”

38. Council’s Childcare Centres DCP is flawed in that it provides a maximum noise measurement in relation to the source and not to the receiver. In this instance, the DCP requires a maximum level of noise of 75dB(A) 1 metre from the source and at a height of 1 metre. The requirement to undertake a noise assessment at the source (and not the receiver) is not articulated in the DCP, other than in relation to the acoustic report addressing the issue.

39. The DCP requires the acoustic report to address matters such as ‘quantification of the existing acoustic environment at the receiver locations’, without providing a level to which this background noise may be exceeded without unreasonable impact.

40. A search of other Council’s DCPs indicates that 5dB(A) above background noise levels is a common measurement criteria for not only childcare centres, but also for other non-residential land uses, as it is also in the Department of Environment and Climate Change’s NSW Industrial Noise Policy to which the DCP refers to.

41. In this instance, the proposal would meet these requirements for indoor activity and in relation to external play based on the recommendations relating to fencing, airconditioning and management techniques.

42. It is also noted that the acoustic report is required to address matters included in ‘Best Practice Guidelines in Early Childhood Physical Environments.’ This policy provides acoustic considerations to take into account the acoustic impact on a childcare centre, not those created by the children in care. The acoustic report adequately deals with these issues, noting that the site is not located in proximity to a main road or other significant noise source (i.e airport, mine etc).

43. The acoustic report is required to identify sensitive noise receivers to be potentially affected. This has been done, identifying neighbouring dwellings to the sides and to the rear.

44. Overall, the site is well suited for the proposed use. It contains a heritage-listed building that is proposed to be retained and assists in shielding noise from neighbours and the street.

45. The installation of boundary fencing at the proponent’s expense, as well as operational matters discussed in the statement of environmental effects, will ensure that the proposed use is unlikely to result in any unreasonable impacts in terms of aural privacy.

Landscaping

46. The Childcare Centres DCP requires provision of a minimum 1 metre landscape buffer along the side and rear boundaries. The proposal fails to achieve full compliance with this control with landscaping being provided along the boundaries adjacent to the new building, but not adjacent to the retained heritage building or the driveway.

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

48. A landscaping plan was submitted with the application. The plan depicts sufficient detail in relation to species and growth and in this regard, appropriate species have been proposed.

49. The landscaping plan shows that there will be approximately 457m² of outdoor play area provided, whereas the Childcare Centres DCP requires 280m², based on 7m² per child. The extent of non-compliance (with the perimeter landscaping) is not considered to be unreasonable and the impacts not likely to be noticeable.

Design Qualities

50. The objectives of the Residential 2(b) Zone are to encourage redevelopment of low density housing forms, and certain non-residential development including childcare centres, where the redevelopment will not compromise the amenity of the surrounding area and is in character with the surrounding built environment.

51. The subject site is located within an established residential area and is well suited for such a use. Parramatta DCP 2005 encourages development to be consistent with the built form objectives and controls under the DCP in terms of scale, design and materials. The proposal complies with the relevant objectives of Parramatta LEP 2001, Parramatta DCP 2005 and the Childcare Centres DCP.

52. The table in Attachment 3 of this report summarises the proposal’s compliance with the specific requirements of the Childcare Centres DCP.

53. What is demonstrated is that the proposal would comply with the building envelope controls relevant to the site, with setbacks, height and floor space ratio consistent with the requirements for such development.

54. In addition to this, the development protects the heritage fabric of the building and the additions to the rear would be undertaken in a sympathetic manner.

Days of operation

55. Matters relating to days of operation that were raised at the pre-lodgement meeting held on 18 June 2008 have not been adequately addressed by the applicant, hence a recommendation that the centre only be used Monday to Friday has been provided.

56. The applicant was advised by Council officers to provide an explanation and details of the frequency and hours of operation on weekends. This has not been fully detailed in the submission, instead referring to occasional use on weekends between 7.00am and 7.00pm.

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Plans & Elevations	8 Pages
3View	Compliance Table	2 Pages
4View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	1 Page
5View	History of DA	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.17

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.17

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

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to the UWS Library including the provision of additional floor space within the undercroft area of the Library Building. (Location Map- Attachment 2)

REFERENCE DA/779/2008 - Submitted 17 October 2008

APPLICANT/S Mr T Gofers

OWNERS Dept of Sustainable Natural Resources

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

Executive summary:

To determine Development Application No. 779/2008 which seeks approval for alterations and additions to the UWS Library including the provision of additional floor space within the undercroft area of the Library Building.

The application has been referred to Council as the site is listed as a Heritage Item under Schedule 6 of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28. No objections have been received in respect of the application. It is also noted that the application is a Crown Development.

The additional floor area will provide additional staff and student facilities. In addition the student capacity for the Library will increase from 660 students to 1120 students.

The proposed works are specifically for the Whitlam Library Building and no adverse impacts will occur to any heritage items on the site. Accordingly, approval of the DA is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council grant consent to Development Application 779/2008 subject to standard conditions once concurrence from the applicant has been received for the imposed conditions.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is known as 171 Victoria Road, Rydalmere and the site is bounded by Victoria Road, James Ruse Drive, the Carlingford Railway Line and Parramatta River. The Whitlam Library is located in the south east quadrant of the site near the Carlingford Railway Line and Parramatta River.

2. The site is 21.1 hectares and has been used as a University since 1998. It has a current student population of approximately 6,600 students and 650 staff. The site has significant heritage value, derived from a number of periods of historical development, from the establishment of the Female Orphan School in 1818 to the site’s adaptation as the Rydalmere Psychiatric Hospital.

PROPOSAL

3. The proposal is for the alterations and additions to the UWS Library including the provision of additional floor space within the undercroft area of the Library Building.

4. The proposed development can be summarised as follows:

Lower Ground

4.1 Consolidate the Library loading dock with the existing loading dock for the Student Union office

4.2 Reconfigure driveway access

4.3 Provide new student study and breakout space and office space for Library Administration

4.4 Provide vertical circulation to the ground floor

4.5 New staff amenities comprising staff room and bathroom facilities.

Ground Floor

4.6 Minor interior refurbishment works and creation of a new void element to visually connect the lower ground floor to the main library floor

4.7 The current loading dock area at the northern end of the building is to be relocated to the lower ground floor allowing this area to be developed as an outdoor landscaped reading courtyard.

Mezzanine Level

4.8 The existing staff area will be relocated to the lower ground floor and the area refurbished as student study and IT spaces.

4.9 Staff amenities will be converted to student amenities

External Works

4.10 New façade on the lower ground level to the south and east

4.11 A stand enclosure for condenser units associated with the new air conditioning plant for the lower ground floor.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

5. The site falls under the control of SREP 28 and SEPP 56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Tributaries. As required under both SREP 28 and SEPP 56 a master plan for the site is required to be submitted to the consent authority for endorsement.

6. The REP and SEPP contain objectives and provisions, to:

Þ Allow for optimum growth of the University

Þ Protect the heritage values of the site

Þ Preserve and enhance landscape features, including riparian vegetation along Vineyard Creek and Parramatta River.

7. The site is listed as a Heritage Item under Schedule 6 of SREP 28. A Section 60 exemption has been approved by the NSW Heritage Office for the proposed alterations and additions to the library, accordingly the Heritage Office have raised no objections to the current proposal.

8. A master plan for the site has been submitted and Council at its meeting of 13 December 2004 resolved to adopt the master plan subject to conditions.

Masterplan

9. In accordance with SREP 28 and SEPP 56 a Masterplan for the site has been prepared. Council at its meeting of 13 December 2004 resolved to adopt the master plan subject to conditions.

10. The master plan provides for the expansion of the University, whilst meeting the objectives and provisions of the REP and SEPP. These include the protection of heritage buildings of the site, the enhancement and protection of the landscape and riparian corridors along Parramatta River and Vineyard Creek, achievement of a high standard of architectural design and ecological sustainability for the site.

11. Areas for future expansion of the University have been identified that recognise major site constraints. Development is provided for generally around the periphery of the site as follows:

Þ Adjacent to James Ruse Drive Development up to five storeys high

Þ Adjacent to the railway line, up to eight storeys high

Þ A small area adjacent to Victoria Road up to three storeys high.

12. The master plan allows the gross floor area of the site to be increased from 25,000 square metres to 143,870 square metres.

13. The proposal is for alterations and additions to the existing Whitlam Library to utilise the under croft area for additional floor space for the library. The additional area will be utilised for additional staffing facilities and student facilities, and will almost double the capacity of the library for students.

14. The library is located within the Railway zone where under the Masterplan the height of the building can be 3 to 8 storeys. The building is essentially 4 storey and achieves compliance with the height requirements.

15. It is considered the proposed works to amend the existing Whitlam Library is within the scope of the approved master plan. The alterations and additions have been designed to maintain the existing architectural style of the Library and the existing colour scheme will be continued. The design respects the history of the site and is not considered to impact upon the heritage buildings on the site. The proposal will not impede on the existing traffic movements within the University; staff parking is readily available surrounding the library whilst student parking is located in two carparks near Victoria Road. The location of the library will not result in any adverse noise impacts on adjoining properties nor on the remainder of the campus. Accordingly the refurbishment of the building is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

16. It is also noted the University has a draft Masterplan with Council for assessment. The masterplan is proposed to supersede the current masterplan and focuses on the longevity of the University with residential accommodation and new teaching facilities. Under the draft Masterplan currently under assessment (RZ/1/2007) the library building is proposed to be retained. Therefore this application is consistent with the draft masterplan which maintains the existing building, however enhances the building for greater use and flexibility.

CONSULTATION

17. The application was advertised from 29 October to 19 November 2008. No submissions were received.

ISSUES

Heritage

18. The Whitlam Library Building is not listed as a building of heritage significance. The entire site is listed on the State Heritage Register and accordingly a referral has been forwarded to the NSW Heritage Office, who has raised no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions through the Section 60 exemption permit.

19. The alterations and additions to the Whitlam Library are not considered to be of heritage significance. Accordingly, no objections are raised on heritage grounds.

Planning

20. The alterations and additions to the Whitlam Library are considered to compliment the current architectural style of the building and campus. The new works are not considered to be visually dominate and will maintain the existing building materials of construction and colour scheme. The proposal will not result in any adverse impacts on the campus in terms of additional traffic generation or noise. The refurbishment of the library will assist students and staff in accessing resources without impacting on the amenity of the area and approval of the application is recommended.

Sara Matthews

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Plans and Elevations	8 Pages
2View	Locality Plan	1 Page
3View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	1 Page
4View	History of Development Application	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.18

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.18

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

DESCRIPTION New Years Eve event in Prince Alfred Park for three years (2008 to 2010) (Locality Map - Attachment 1)

REFERENCE DA/684/2008 - 19 September 2008

APPLICANT/S Parramatta City Council - Civic Events Team

OWNERS Parramatta City Council

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The application seeks approval for a New Years Eve festival to be held at Prince Alfred Park on 31 December for 3 years being 2008-2010. The festival also involves fireworks being set off from the Phillip Street car park and temporary road closures to Market Street, Marsden Street, Phillip Street and a service lane between George and Philip Streets and closure of the Phillip Street car park.

The application has been assessed by an independent planning consultant and referred to Council as the property is listed as a Heritage Item of local significance under schedule 5 of Parramatta City Centre LEP and has been made by Parramatta City Council. One submission in support of the application has been received.

The proposal is considered to be acceptable, of public benefit, and will not have an adverse impact on the heritage item. Accordingly, it is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

That, Development Application No. 684/2008 be approved subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

1. The applicant shall bear the cost of all restoration works to Prince Alfred Park necessary due to damage caused during the event, its setup or is dismantling, including revegetation of damaged areas of landscaping. The applicant shall advise Council, in writing, of any existing damage to Prince Alfred Park before commencement of the event.

Reason: To ensure that any damage to the park is restored.

2. Access for people with disabilities within Prince Alfred Park is to be maintained throughout the event and care is to be taken in the location and erection of the temporary structures and barricades to ensure current accessible paths are not blocked.

Reason: To ensure the provision of equitable and dignified access for all people in accordance with disability discrimination legislation and relevant Australian Standards.

3. Temporary toilets are to be provided prior to the commencement of the event. If a permanent accessible toilet does not exist on the site, a temporary accessible toilet is to be provided for use during the event.

Reason: To ensure an appropriate provision of toilet facilities for the event.

4. No streets are to be closed and the use of on-street parking spaces is not to be restricted during the event.

Reason: To ensure an appropriate level of access is maintained to the site.

5. Amusement rides for the event are to be limited to those targeted at small children (such as jumping castles and small children’s rides) and no rides targeted at teenagers or adults are to be provided.

Reason: To ensure an appropriate level of amenity to surrounding properties.

Prior to the Event Occurring

6. The event organiser directly notifying relevant bus companies, tourist bus operators and taxi companies operating in the area and all the residences and businesses affected by the proposed road closures for/ the event at least two weeks prior to the event; The applicant undertaking a letter drop to all affected residents and businesses in the proximity to the event, with that letter advising full details of the event; a copy of the correspondence be submitted to Council.

Reason: To minimise the impact of the event upon the access through the area.

7. The event organiser assessing the risk and addressing the suitability of the entire route as part of the risk assessment, considering the possible risks for all participants that may travel on winding, narrow, uneven gravel roads with steep roadside embankments and sharp bends; This assessment should be carried out by visual inspection of the route/site by the event organiser prior to the event.

Reason: To ensure the safety of the detour route.

During Construction or Works:

8. Any damage to Council assests that impact on public safety, that occurs during the erection/dismantiling of the temporary structures, is to be rectified immediately by the applicant. Care is to be taken in the location of structures to ensure no damage occurs to infrastructure, landscaping of structures within the park.

Reason: To protect public safety.

9. All works for the erection of temporary structures may only be carried out between the hours of 7.00 am to 7.00 pm on 31 December 2008. All works for the removal of temporary structures may only be carried out between the hours of 9.00 pm to 11.00 pm on 31 December or between the hours of 8.00am to 6.00pm on 1 January. All temporary structures and equipment must be removed from the park by 6.00pm on 1 January.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

Use of the Site:

Hours of Event

10. The event is to occur only between the hours of 6.30pm and 9.30pm on 31 December.

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

11. This consent applies to New Years Eve celebrations in the years 2008 to 2010, inclusive, only.

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

12. A minimum of eight (8) security staff are to be on the site at all times between the hours of 6.30pm and 10.00pm on 31 December 2007. The security staff are to ensure that patrons displaying inappropriate behaviour are required to leave the site to ensure the safety and enjoyment of other patrons. At the end of the event, security staff are to ensure patrons leave the site in an orderly manner and in a timely fashion.

Reason: To minimise the impact on the amenity of the area and ensure the safety of the event.

13. The operation of any food business activity in association with the event is to be in accordance with the food safety standards adopted under the NSW Food Act. In complying with the above, the event organiser and all food businesses intending to operate as part of this event shall refer to the NSW Food Authority’s publication “Food handling guidelines for temporary events” (Version 1/06) prior to the setting up of any food stall or placement of any vehicle used to prepare or display food for sale. Any departures from this guide are to be directly negotiated with Council’s nominated Environmental Health Officer and a statement of clearance issued by Council prior to the commencement of the event.

All food businesses and the event organiser shall undertake prior notification of the event and their business activity to the NSW Food Authority.

Reason: To ensure a supply of safe and suitable food for the event.

14. The operation of the event not giving rise to environmental emissions of air impurities, liquids or solid matter in contravention of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Any emissions from the event must not cause a nuisance from odours, nor be hazardous to human health or the environment.

Reason: To prevent loss of amenity to the community.

15. Access is to be maintained for businesses, residents and their visitors at all times during the set-up, removal and duration of the event.

Reason: To ensure adequate access is maintained.

16. In accordance with the submitted TMP and associated TCP, appropriate advisory signs, shall be placed at the event organiser's expense after all the required approvals are obtained from the relevant authorities, and traffic control devices shall be placed during the event along the route under the direction of a traffic controller holding an appropriate certification as required by the RTA.

Reason: To ensure the safety of traffic flow in the area.

17. All roads and marshalling points are to be kept clean and tidy, with all directional signs to be removed immediately on completion of the activity.

Reason: To ensure the safety of traffic flow in the area.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is known as Lot 1 DP 724837, Prince Alfred Park (Pk 15) 353D Church Street, Parramatta and occupies the street block bound by Church Street, Victoria Road, Marist Place and Market Street. The site is surrounded by mainly retail, commercial and church uses, with some residential uses located at the upper level of some buildings.

BACKGROUND

2. Council granted approval for the same New Years Eve event in Prince Alfred Park last year. It is noted that the current proposal is somewhat different as the location of the fireworks display is different and the current proposal also seeks to close some local roads and a car park for the event.

PROPOSAL

3. Approval is sought to use Prince Alfred Park for a Council New Years Eve Event. The event is aimed at families and is proposed between 6.00pm and 9.30pm. Entertainment for children will be provided on a temporary stage. A small number of children’s rides will be provided together with a few kiosks providing for such things as face painting, balloon artists, clowns, temporary tattoos and food and drink. Families will be encouraged to bring a rug and enjoy a picnic. A fireworks display is to be provided as the finale at 9.15pm (to be set off from Phillip Street car park). For public safety, the car park will be closed from 9am to 11pm on 31 December. During the closure of the car park authorised traffic controllers will man the closure admitting authorised personnel, emergency services and shop owners and delivery vehicles to those properties that are accessed via the car park.

4. The application also seeks approval for the road closure of Market Street between Marist Place and Church Street in order to allow for the staging of the entertainment. A proposed detour via Marist Place to Victoria Road and east to Church Street is proposed between 9am and 5pm on 31 December. At 5pm Marsden Street between Victoria Road and George Street will be closed and traffic will be detoured in a westerly direction to O’Connell Street, George Street and then Marsden Street. Traffic wishing to enter Marsden Street from a southerly direction will be detoured in an easterly direction to Church Street, Victoria Road and then to Marsden Street. The detour will remain in place until 11pm on 31 December. Philip Street between Marsden Street and Church Street will be closed between 5pm and 11pm on 21 December and a detour will direct west bound traffic on Philip Street, to Church Street, George Street, Smith Street, Macquarie Street then to Marsden Street. North bound traffic on Church Street wishing to turn west into Phillip Street will be detoured along the Church Street detour. It is proposed that authorised traffic controllers will man the Church and Philip Street barricades to allow authorised personnel and emergency services access.

5. Finally, a service lane between George Street and Philip Street will be closed at Philip Street, with traffic being returned south to George Street.

6. Approval is sought for the event to occur annually for three (3) years from 2008 to 2010, inclusive.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

State Environmental Planning Policy (Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment) 2007

7. SEPP (Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment) sets a series of matters for consideration related to total occupancy, impacts on amenity, hours of use, crime risk, location of structures, provision of toilets, impact on heritage items, duration of occupation of temporary structures and whether any conditions are required in relation to the removal of the structures. The application has been assessed against these matters and is considered acceptable. Of particular note, the duration of the occupancy of the structures and length of time of the event are limited, appropriate provision is made for toilets and security and an appropriate waste management plan and structures removal timeframe is proposed. Further, the disruption that will result from the road and car park closure is for an appropriately small timeframe and given the timing of the closures will not unacceptably impact upon accessibility and parking availability in the area.

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

8. The site is zoned RE1 Public Recreation under the City Centre LEP. The proposed use is ancillary to the use of the park as a recreation area (ie a public park) and given a recreation area is permissible with consent, so is the use of the park for the New Years Eve event.

Draft Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan 2006

9. The Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan provides provisions relate to waste and recycling and special area controls for Prince Alfred Park. The proposal makes appropriate provision for disposal of waste and recycling and the special area controls are only relevant for the erection of permanent structures.

CONSULTATION

10. In accordance with the requirements of the Notification DCP, the application was advertised between 1 October 2008 and 22 October 2008. One submission was received in support of the proposal. The proposed development is consistent with the public interest.

ISSUES

Noise

11. The use of the structures will result in noise generation due to the noise of the crowds of people attending, noise from patrons using the amusement rides and noise from amplification of music and a PA system. Noise will also occur when the fireworks explode. Whilst the noise generated by the use, particularly the fireworks, will be of sufficient volume to potentially cause impacts on surrounding development, the majority of that development is non-residential development and all such noise would cease by 9.30pm. As the event is to occur on New Years Eve, the community is generally more accepting of noise and given the early hour of the completion of the event, any noise impacts would be unlikely to significantly impact upon the amenity of the area.

Traffic

12. During the erection and removal of the structure and for the duration of the event there will be some disruption to traffic flow in the area and to the availability of parking in the Philip Street car park, however the disruption is for a relatively short period of time and is at a time where it is less likely to result in significant inconvenience. Further, the provision of persons at the blockages of the streets and car park will ensure appropriate access for residents, business operators, delivery drivers, emergency vehicles and authorized personnel.

Damage to the Park

13. The only potential for detrimental impacts upon the future use of the park would be damage to the landscaping and a condition of consent will require the replacement of any damaged landscaping and the removal of all rubbish.

Crowd Behaviour

14. There is some potential for increased crime as a result of the event, given the potential for intoxicated persons to attend. However, the event is targeted towards families and the early hour of the finish will assist in minimising the likelihood of intoxicated persons causing problems. Any problems caused by crowd behaviour will be addressed by the proposed security guards and the police presence. Alcohol will not be sold from the food stalls at the premises.

Heritage

15. As the structures to be erected are temporary, there will be no significant impact on the heritage significance of the site and/or its surrounds. Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the application and advises:

‘Having reviewed the proposal, I am of the opinion that it will have no adverse impact on the heritage values of the park or the wider area.’

Kerry Gordon

Independent Planning Consultant

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	1 Page
3View	Development Application History	1 Page
4View	Site Plan	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Park looking towards the location of the temporary stage.

Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.19

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.19

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

DESCRIPTION Change use of level 1 to restricted premises venue with public entertainment. (Locality Map attachment 3)

REFERENCE DA/438/2008 - Submitted 27 August 2008

APPLICANT/S Mondo Express Pty Ltd

OWNERS Messrs S & C Konstantopoulos and Mrs R Konstantopoulos

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Development Application No. 438/2008 seeks approval to the use of the first floor of 236 Church Street as a ‘restricted premises’ as defined in Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. Restricted premises are a permitted land use in the B4 Mixed Use zone. The City Centre LEP 2007 defines ‘restricted premises’ to mean a business premises or retail premises that, due to their nature, restrict access to patrons or customers over 18 years of age, and includes sex shops and similar premises but does not include hotel accommodation, a pub, home occupation (sex services) or sex services premises.

Documentation submitted with the DA indicates that the premises will be used as a meeting place for people in the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender and queer community (GLBTQ) to socialise in a safe venue. Lounge facilities will be provided, together with entertainment including TV, comedy acts, burlesque dancers and strippers. The premises will not be a licensed venue and no alcohol will be sold. The hours of operation of the premises will be 24 hours, 7 days a week. No signage, with the exception of the address of the premises is proposed to be erected. Despite the street address for the premises being 236 Church Street, access to the first floor is provided from a staircase at the rear of the site (via Horwood/Houison Place).

The applicant has disclosed that patrons of the premises may at times engage in sexual activities with other patrons and that the premises is intended to provide a safe and controlled environment for persons from the GLBTQ community to engage in sexual activities which are currently being conducted in a number of public places, known as ‘beats’ within the Parramatta CBD. The applicant is not seeking approval for the use of the premises as a brothel or ‘sex services premises’ which is a premises used for the primarily for the provision of sex services in exchange for payment.

Four written objections and a petition containing 380 signatures have been received objecting to the DA. Council’s Strategic Analyst Crime and Corruption and the Crime Prevention Officer of Parramatta Local Area Command also do no support the application. The reasons for the objection include:

· Likelihood that male prostitutes will frequent the premises;

· Patrons may be assaulted as many gangs carry out initiation rites against members of the GLBTQ community and related security issues;

· Patrons of premises such as these often indulge in the taking of illicit drugs and there is no way to enforce prohibition of drugs and drug dealers are attracted to these uses;

· The use will attract the undesirable elements of society.

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 development applications for uses such as the one proposed must not be refused simply because some members of the public may have a personal or moral objection to these use. Only planning matters are to be taken into consideration in the assessment of development applications.

The proposed use is permissible in the zone and is consistent with the objectives and development standards for both the zone and those relating to ‘Restricted Premises’. Conditions requiring CCTV to be installed and that no prostitution to take place are recommended to address the security issues that have been raised and concerns that the premises may be used for prostitution. Based on the town planning merits of the proposed development approval of the application is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That development application No. 439/2008 be approved subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

1. Prior to the commencement of the use the applicant is to supply written evidence to Council that the Aids Council of NSW have endorsed the premises in accordance with their voluntary code of practice for sex on premises venues.

Reason: To ensure that the practice of safe sex is promoted by the premises.

2. A surveillance camera is to be affixed to the rear wall of the premises facing Horwood/Houison Place. A sign is to be affixed to the wall advising that the area is under surveillance. The hard drive on which the footage from the camera is stored is to be made available to the Police and Council if requested.

Reason: To provide safety within the public area to the rear of the premises.

3. A sign indicating the address of the premises may be affixed to the door on the rear elevation of the building. No other signage visible from any public place may be provided.

Reason: To ensure that the business operates in a discreet manner.

4. Prostitution is not permitted on the premises at any time.

Reason: A development consent for a restricted premises does not permit prostitution.

5. Prior to the commencement of operations a detail plan of management setting out the cleaning procedures that will be followed within the premises is to be submitted to Council for approval.

Reason: To ensure that the business is operated in a safe manner.

6. No alcohol may be served or consumed on the premises at any time.

Reason: To ensure that the premises achieves the applicant’s objectives for it to be a safe venue.

7. No persons under the age of 18 may be permitted into the premises at any time.

Reason: To ensure that the use complies with the definition of restricted premises provided by Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007.

8. A maximum of 100 people are permitted within the premises at any one time.

Reason: To ensure the safety of patrons.

9. The disposal of contaminated waste is to be carried out by an appropriately licensed waste disposal contractor.

Reason: To ensure that proper waste disposal procedures are followed.

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The site is a two storey commercial building located at No. 236 Church Street Parramatta. The building contains two commercial tenancies. The ground floor tenancy used by a discount variety store has customer access from Church Street and employee access from Houison Place. The first floor tenancy is currently used for storage and is the site of the proposed use. The only access to the first floor tenancy is from the rear of the building within Houison Place. An existing stair ascender provides disabled access to the first floor tenancy. A licensed premises is located on the western side of Church Street opposite the site. Other nearby uses include restaurants, take away food premises, shops and offices. The site is not in close proximity to any dwellings.

PROPOSAL

2. The proposal is to use an existing commercial tenancy on the first floor level of the building as a restricted premises venue with public entertainment. The applicant has advised that the intention of the venue is to provide a safe environment for people from the gay and bi-sexual community to socialise. The applicant has stated that alcohol will not be served on the premises. A condition has been included in the recommendation prohibiting the serving of alcohol within the premises. The applicant is seeking approval for 24 hour operation and no signage apart from the address of the premises is proposed.

3. The tenancy is located on the first floor level of the premises and is above a discount variety store. The only access to the premises is from Houison Place. A single flight of stairs and a stair ascender provide access to the premises. The front wall of the premises is located above the street level and can only be viewed from the opposite side of Church Street. The windows in the front and rear walls will be blacked out and no signage will be provided. The layout of the premises provides for a lounge area to the rear and an entertainment area towards the front consisting of a stage and seating where adult entertainment (comedy, burlesque, strippers) will be provided. The applicant has discosed that patrons at the premises may at time engage in sexual activities with other patrons and that the premises is intended to provide a safe and controlled environment for person to engage in sexual activities.

4. The premises is not a brothel or sex service premises as the premises will not be used primarily for the provision of sex services.

5. The applicant has advised that the Aids Council of NSW (ACON) will be invited to accredit the venue in accordance with their Voluntary Code of Practice for sex on premises venues. ACON will provide safe sex literature for the customers and safe sex posters will be affixed to the walls within the premises. ACON will also provide the appropriate types of condoms and lubricant. A condition of consent will require the applicant to provide evidence that the premises have been endorsed by ACON prior to the commencement of operations.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007

6. The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use by Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. A restricted premises is a permissible use in the B4 Mixed Use zone. The proposed use could also be classified as an indoor recreation facility. An indoor recreation facility is also permissible in the zone.

7. Clause 29B of the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 provides the following controls for restricted premises:

(1) Development consent may be granted to the carrying out of development for the purpose of restricted premises only if the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) no part of the restricted premises, other than an access corridor, will be located within 1.5m (measured vertically) from any adjoining footpath, roadway, arcade or other public thoroughfare, and

(b) no part of the restricted premises or building in which the premises will be situated will be used as a dwelling unless separate access will be available to the dwelling, and

(c) any signage related to the premises will be of a size, shape and content that does not interfere with the amenity of the locality, and

(d) no other objects, products or goods related to the restricted premises will be visible from outside the premises.

8. The proposed use complies with all the requirements of clause 29B of the City Centre LEP 2007.

CONSULTATION

9. In accordance with the requirements of the notification DCP the proposal was notified from 2 July 2008 to 23 July 2008. Four submissions and two petitions with approximately 380 signatures were received objecting to the proposal. The following issues were raised in the submissions;

The use would bring the area into disrepute, is out of character with the area and is contrary to the efforts to revive the Church Street precinct

10. No signage is proposed which would identify the use of the premises. Access to the premises is from Houison Place and the absence of any signage means that a passer by would not be aware that a restricted premises is inside the building. It is noted that there are other restricted premises in Church Street. The proposed use is discreet, permissible in the zone, and therefore would not have a negative impact on the character of the precinct.

The use would attract undesirable elements of society

11. This concern is a matter of personal opinion and not a relevant town planning consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. No evidence has been provided to support the opinion that customers of the premises would have any impact on the safety or amenity of other pedestrians or residents in the area.

The use will discourage customers of the other businesses in the Church Street precinct and adversely effect the amenity of the community, employees and customers of other businesses

12. The majority of businesses in Church Street have their customer access from Church Street. The access for the proposed use is from Houison Place. It is unlikely that a pedestrian would be able to identify a patron of the restricted premises from any other pedestrian. The use will not discourage customers of the other businesses in the Church Street precinct. The fact that a person may be offended by the use is not a relevant planning consideration and could not be used as a valid reason to refuse the application.

The proposed use is not acceptable to the gay or heterosexual community, has no benefit for the community and does not promote health or safety

13. The proposed use is permissible in the zone and is located in a discreet location. Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires Council to consider the ‘Public Interest’ in the assessment of a development application. The ‘Public’, includes all members of the community, including those who attend sex on premises venues. Conditions of consent will be imposed requiring the applicant to provide evidence that the Aids Council of NSW have endorsed the premises in accordance with their voluntary code of practice for sex on premises venues. This code of practice includes requirements for the provision of information on HIV/AIDS, safe sex resources, minimum levels of lighting, cleanliness, and staff training.

On site meeting

14. Council, at its meeting of 26 May 2008, resolved that all applications subject to 7 or more submissions be subject to a site inspection prior to being determined at a Regulatory Meeting. In accordance with the resolution of Council an on site meeting was held of Thursday 4 September at 5.00pm. The meeting was attended by; Councillor Paul Barber, Councillor Julia Finn, Councillor Paul Garrard, Councillor Lorraine Wearne, Marcelo Occhiuzzi – Group Management Outcomes and Development, Nicholas Mamouzelos – Strategic Crime and Corruption Analyst, Sara Matthews – Senior Development Assessment Officer and Jonathan Goodwill – Senior Development Assessment Officer. The following issues were raised at the on site meeting:

How will persons under the aged of 18 be prevented from entering the premises?

15. The applicant advised that people’s ID would be checked prior to them being allowed to enter the premises.

Will the cubicles be rented out?

16. The applicant advised that the cubicles would not be rented out, but that customers would be entitled to use the cubicles.

17. Following the on site meeting the proposed cubicles were deleted from the development.

How will the cubicle system operate?

18. The applicant advised that this was difficult to explain and that if the person wanted to know exactly how they operated he should attend one of the other similar venues in Sydney.

19. Following the on site meeting the proposed cubicles were deleted from the development.

Concern was raised that the ‘Arrows’ gay mens establishment in Rydalmere was defined as a sex services premises and that this development was a similar use but had been defined as a restricted premises.

20. Council planning staff advised that Rydalmere is zoned under SREP No. 28 and that the subject site is zoned by Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. The proposed use is not defined as a sex services premises because sexual acts or sexual services in exchange for payment do not form part of the proposed use. Whilst the premises allows for sex between consenting people, sex in exchange for payment will not be permitted. The ‘Arrows’ premises in Rydalmere is classified as a recreation facility under the provisions of SREP No. 28 and the consent for this use was issued on that basis.

Councillors asked whether the potential employees of the premises have experience with these types of establishments.

21. The applicant advised that the employees have worked in other similar establishments in Sydney.

Councillors raised concern that the site was not safe because of the lack of activity/surveillance in Horwood and Houison Place and the 24 hour operation. Concern was raised that patrons of the premises would be targeted by violent people. A resident raised concern that the police should not have to deal with gay bashings.

22. The applicant advised that security guards would be provided on busy nights, and that the customers of the premises should be entitled to feel safe when they walk on the streets. The applicant advised that if people did not feel safe then they would not attend the premises.

A Councillor raised concern that there was no business case for the proposed use and that it would not be financially viable. The Councillor suggested that it should be a licensed venue with entertainment.

23. The applicant advised that he did not want to provide a licensed venue.

24. The likely economic success of a proposed business is not a relevant matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

A Councillor raised concern that the proposal did not comply with the fire regulations due to the distance to the fire exits.

25. As the classification of the proposed use under the Building Code of Australia is different to the classification of the existing use, the development would be subject to a standard condition requiring compliance with the Category 1 fire safety provisions that apply to the new use. Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Council cannot request information from the applicant which would usually be required at the construction certificate stage. The issue of compliance with fire safety provisions will be addressed at the construction certificate stage.

Concern was raised that the site is in proximity to two Churches.

26. Whilst patrons may walk past the Church located in Church Street mall or the Church located on Macquarie Street, the entrance to the premises is not visible from either of these churches as they are located a considerable distance away from the building. There are no planning controls which would support the refusal of the application because the patrons may walk past a church on their way to the premises.

A Councillor asked whether women would be allowed into the premises.

27. Council staff advised that the target market for the premises as stated in the application documentation was the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender community. The applicant advised that women would be permitted into the premises.

Councillors asked the applicant whether his client would be happy to delete the cubicles.

28. The applicant advised at the site meeting that he did not wish to delete the cubicles and that the focus of the premises was on providing entertainment but sex was also a component of the proposed use. The applicant advised that allowing sex on the premises would prevent people from having sex in public places. The applicant advised that the premises would be inspected and accredited by the Aids Council of NSW.

29. Following the on site meeting the applicant deleted the cubicles from the proposal.

Concern was raised that there was no need for the premises and that there was another premises in Rydalmere.

30. The applicant was of the opinion that the premises in Rydalmere was not in the Parramatta CBD and that there was a significant distance between Parramatta and Rydalmere. The applicant advised that public transport to Rydalmere was poor and that the subject site would provide better access to public transport.

31. The ‘need’ for a development is not a relevant matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

STRATEGIC CRIME AND CORRUPTION ANALYST REVIEW

32. The following concerns have been raised by Council’s Strategic Crime and Corruption Analyst who has recommended refusal of the application. The full comments of Council’s Strategic Crime and Corruption Analyst are attachment No. 4.

Gay Hate Crime

33. Concern is raised that the premises may become the focal point of violence by crime gangs against patrons of the premises. Concern has been raised that the entry to the premises is isolated and not subject to significant vehicular or pedestrian traffic and that the use will attract gang members to the Parramatta area.

34. The entry to the premises is located within a 1 minute walk of George Street and Macquarie Street. The site is located within close proximity to the Roxy Hotel on the corner of Horwood Place and George Street. Whilst there is a chance that the patrons may be the subject of gay hates crimes it must be acknowledged that physical violence upon any person is illegal and that all people regardless of their age, gender, sexuality or racial background have the right to walk the streets in safety. The applicant has chosen a premises in a discreet location where it will attract the least amount of attention. If it were in a more prominent location it would attract objections due to the prominence of the location. It would be unreasonable and discriminatory to refuse the application on the basis that the sexuality of the patrons may make them a target of crime.

35. The applicant has suggested that a surveillance camera could be attached to the rear wall of the building to monitor Houison Place. Having regards to the short distance between the exit of the premises and the main streets of George Street and Macquarie Street, the installation of a security camera to monitor Houison Place is considered a reasonable response to the security concerns. The security camera will be provide surveillance of the portion of Houison and Horwood Place that is not visible from George Street or Macquarie Street. A condition of consent has been imposed requiring the provision of the surveillance camera.

Illicit Drugs

36. The applicant has advised that people who are intoxicated or who appear to have been using drugs will not be allowed to enter the premises. The use of illicit drugs is a criminal matter and one in which the NSW are responsible for enforcing. Illicit drugs are used in a variety of places including bars, nightclubs, gyms and private homes and are not only used by members of the GLBTQ community. The potential for drugs to be used on the premises is not a valid reason which could be used to refuse the application.

ISSUES

Police Referral

37. The application was referred to the Police for comment. The Police objected to the proposed development on the basis of the safety of patrons, potential for illegal drug use, compliance with fire regulations, security measures and hours of operation. The concerns raised by the Police are addressed below, with a full copy of the Police comments being attachment No. 5.

Safety of Patrons

38. The Police have raised concern that the patrons may be targeted due to their sexual preference by groups wishing to exert themselves such as criminal gangs. Concern is also raised that the site is directly opposite two licensed premises, The Corporate Lounge and The Bank, and that the impact of these premises on surrounding uses is currently unknown. The Police also raised concern with the proximity of the Roxy Hotel and the Horwood place car park that is closed after midnight.

39. Whilst there is a chance that the patrons may be the subject of gay hate crimes it must be noted that physical violence upon any person is illegal and that all people regardless of their age, gender, sexuality or racial background have the right to walk the streets in safety. Whilst the venue or the patrons of the venue have the potential to be the victims of crime, the proposed use is a permissible use under the planning controls and appropriate measures have been taken to reduce the likelihood of physical violence against the patrons of the premises.

40. The applicant has suggested that a surveillance camera could be attached to the rear wall of the building to monitor Houison Place. A condition of consent has been imposed requiring the provision of the surveillance camera. The applicant has also amended the plans so that people are required to pass through two doors prior to entering the premises.

Potential for illegal drug use

41. The Police have raised concern that illicit drug use and prostitution may take place on the premises. Concern is raised that illicit drug use, prostitution and sexual activity amongst patrons is likely to lead to reports of sexual assault as is seen with similar premises. The Police claim that the provision of a sharps container is evidence that the applicant understands that illicit drug use will take place on site.

42. The applicant has advised that the sharps container is a requirement of the Aids Council of NSW and is for use by people with diabetes. The applicant has advised that in his experience of similar premises, reports of sexual assault are not common.

43. Whilst the concerns raised by the Police are not without merit, it is not the role of the planning system to prevent uses which may be subject to illegal activity. The proposed use is listed as a permissible use in the zone and the application cannot be refused because of the potential for illegal acts to occur on the premises.

Compliance with fire regulations

44. The Police have raised concern with the capacity of the premises and whether the premises complies with the fire regulations.

45. A condition of consent will require the building to comply with the category 1 fire safety provisions relevant to the new classification of the building under the Building Code of Australia.

Security Measures

46. The Police have raised concern with the staffing arrangements and are concerned that no security staff have been provided. The Police believe that security guards may be required to deal with problems such as harassment of patrons waiting to enter the venue or removal of unruly patrons. The Police believe that one security guard should be present on site at all times and two security guards should be present during busy times.

47. Two entrance doors have been provided to the premises, a door at the base of the stairs at street level and another door at the top of the stairs. People will only be permitted entry into the premises after being screened by staff at the top of the stairs. The entry to the premises will be monitored by CCTV and this will be a strong visual deterrent to people wanting to harass the patrons of the premises. The proposed use is not a licensed premises and for this reason it is not appropriate to apply onerous requirements such as full time security guards to the proposed use. No evidence has been provided to support the view that sex on premises venues require a significant security presence or that unruly behaviour requiring the intervention of security personnel is a common occurrence within these venues.

Hours of Operation

48. The Police have raised concern that the hours of operation are excessive and conducive to crime against both the venue and patrons. The Police have recommended that the hours of operation be reduced to a close of 10pm Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesdays, 12am Thursdays and 2am Friday and Saturdays. The Police have recommended an opening time of 10am.

49. The Police’s concern relates to the hours of operation making clients of the premises vulnerable to crime and that the use will be vulnerable to robberies due to it being open 24 hours.

50. The applicant has advised that the following security measures have been incorporated into the proposal:

50.1 Security personnel will be employed at peak times when entertainment is in progress.

50.2 CCTV will be installed.

50.3 The revised plans show the venue entrance is through a door located at the top of the stairs. Before staff allow entry, customers will be asked for age verification, checked for intoxication and other inappropriate behaviour, and have paid the entry fee. Staff inside the venue will communicate through a grille. Patrons will not be admitted if they are not deemed suitable.

50.4 The entry door and grille shall be constructed of materials able to repel an attempted forced entry.

50.5 Emergency telephone numbers will be displayed for staff use in a difficult situation.

50.6 Money transactions will be by EFTPOS and cash. Cash will be removed from the premises frequently. The till will contain only a float for change. A safe will be installed.

51. An equitable approach to the assessment of development applications is required. For example, service stations are a type of business often targeted by criminals. Service stations are vulnerable to armed robberies due to the amount of cash held on the premises and that they have extended hours of operation. It is not standard Council practice to limit the hours of operation for service stations due to service stations being vulnerable to armed robberies.

52. Whilst the patrons of the premises may be taking a risk by attending the premises late at night or in the early hours of the morning, this is a personal choice which does not relate to the town planning merits of the proposed use. If the proposed use was in proximity to dwellings or was licensed then there would be a case for reducing the hours of operation due to noise or other amenity considerations. The proposed use is not in close proximity to any dwellings, the site is within a CBD environment, and the use will not have a negative impact on the amenity of the area. There is no town planning basis for restricting the proposed hours of operation and the proposed 24 hour operation is considered acceptable for this reason.

Jonathan Goodwill

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Floor Plan	1 Page
2View	Development Application History	1 Page
3View	Locality Map	1 Page
4View	Comments from Council's Strategic Crime and Corruption Analyst	3 Pages
5View	Comments from the Police Crime Prevention Officer	5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.20

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.20

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

DESCRIPTION Excavation of the floor of the dam adjacent to, and part of, Oatlands Golf Course to increase the capacity of the dam from 30 to 53 megalitres; landscaping works and relocation of sewer pipe from the floor of the dam onto Vineyard Creek Reserve.

REFERENCE DA/953/2007 - Submitted 6 November 2007

APPLICANT/S Oatlands Golf Club

OWNERS Oatlands Golf Club, Sydney Water & Parramatta City Council

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This development application seeks consent for the excavation and increased capacity of an existing dam and associated landscaping and rehabilitation works. The increased water capacity is intended to augment water supply to the golf course in order to meet course maintenance requirements while reducing reliance on potable town water supply.

The site is adjacent to Council land (Vineyard Creek Reserve) and this land will be utilised for the altered placement of an existing Sydney Water sewer line. For this reason, the development application was referred to an independent consultant to assess.

The DA is before Council for determination as the proposal has attracted 17 objections including 2 petitions containing a total of 30 signatures and as the development includes some works over Council land.

The proposal is Integrated Development due to licensing requirements of the NSW Department of Water and Energy and of the NSW Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries). Both Departments have provided General Terms of Approval for the proposed development.

The use of the site for purposes related to private recreation use is a permissible use in the zone and the site is suitable for the use. Impacts on the Vineyard Creek ecosystem and the amenity of nearby residential development are the main issues of concern. The installation of a gravity drain to maintain regular baseflows to Vineyard Creek will be required.

The works are consistent with the use of the site as a golf course. There is some concern regarding the existing golf club dam having contributed to the degradation of the Vineyard Creek ecosystem and that the dam expansion would place an already stressed ecosystem under further pressure. However, it is considered that appropriate management of the excavation and baseflows to the creek, together with the proposed landscaping works would have a generally positive impact upon the health and amenity of the surrounding environment. The works will improve upon a degraded riparian area and are considered to be in the public interest. Likewise, the reduced need for potable water for irrigation is in the public interest.

Accordingly, approval of the development application is recommended.

This is a long-standing application that has undergone close scrutiny and a great deal of additional information in terms of addressing and mitigating potential environmental impact and is now ready for determination.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Development Application No 953/2007 be approved subject to standard, and the following non-standard, conditions:

Department of Water and Energy

Pursuant to Part 2 of the Water Act, the Department of Water & Energy, having reviewed the documentation associated with the development application, proposes to grant approval to DA/953/2007 (as presented). The general terms of the approval are set out below:

General and Administrative Issues

1. The location of the dam as shown on a plan retained in the office of the Department of Water and Energy shall not be altered. The installation of any further dams and/or enlargement of an existing dam beyond the current proposal may require further approval and/or an amended license from the Department of Water and Energy.

2. Subject to any access or flow condition contained in the licence, diversion of all or part of the stored water for irrigation or recreational purposes may be undertaken within annual licence limits.

3. The applicant shall not allow any tailwater drainage shall discharge into or onto :

- any Crown Land or adjoining public or crown road;

- any other persons land;

- any river, creek or watercourse;

- any groundwater aquifer;

- any area of native vegetation as described in the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997;

- any wetland of environmental significance.

4. Your attention is particularly drawn to the provisions of the above condition regarding disposal of drainage waters. The discharge of waters into a river or creek other than in accordance with the conditions of a license under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act may render the offender to prosecution and penalty.

5. The existing profile of the channel and bank of any watercourse or drainage depression must not be disturbed any more than is necessary in order to site and maintain the authorised work. Any area that is disturbed shall be stabilised and maintained by vegetation cover, stone pitching or any other approved material as directed to the Department of Water and Energy’s satisfaction to prevent the degradation and erosion.

6. Any spoil from the development must not be stockpiled but either discretely and beneficially redistributed across the property or removed from the property.

7. Works used for the purpose of conveying, distributing and storing water taken by means of the authorised work shall not be constructed or installed so as to obstruct the reasonable passage of floodwaters other than water to be impounded or obstructed.

8. The Pumping and ancillary equipment and pump site shall be, at all times, properly secure at all times and sealed so as to prevent any leakage of petroleum based products and/or noxious substances from entering any river or lake. Bunding shall be installed around the pumping site to eliminate the risk of water contamination through spills or leaks of oils, fuels or greases.

9. The existing profile of the channel and bank of any watercourse or drainage depression must not be disturbed any more than is necessary in order to site and maintain the authorised work. Any area that is disturbed when carrying out such work shall be stabilised and maintained by native vegetation cover, stone pitching or any other approved material as directed by and to the Department of Water and Energy satisfaction.

10. Any drainage channels or cross banks associated with the authorised works, or access roads to and from the works, shall have installed and maintained suitable erosion control devices to the Department of Water and Energy satisfaction. They shall be regularly inspected and maintained by the applicant, including after each run-off event, to minimise siltation reaching any river or lake.

11. The works shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as will ensure its safety and as will preclude the possibility of damage being occasioned by it, or resulting from it, to any public or private interest.

Conditions Specific to DA/953/2007

12. A diversion work is to be designed and installed to prevent low (environmental) flows from entering the storage. The diversion work (minimum 150mm diameter pipe or channel equivalent) is to divert flows around the storage and to release them back into the watercourse immediately below the dam wall. The design is to ensure that only runoff events that surcharge the capacity of the diversion work can flow into the reservoir for subsequent extraction and use.

13. All drainage lines shall be maintained with sufficient and suitable vegetation to ensure optimum water quality and riparian habitat.

14. The level of the dam wall/by-wash crest and the plan area (footprint) of the storage, as well as the annual extraction entitlement, monitoring and reporting requirements and other licence conditions (apart from the existing environmental flow provisions which will be replaced by the above) shall remain unchanged from that already licensed under 10SL055777.

Formal Application Issues

15. Upon receipt of any development consent from Parramatta Council, DWE will issue a new water licence under Section 10, Part 2 of the Water Act, 1912, commensurate with these General Terms

16. Such a licence (Part 2 of the Water Act 1912) would fall due for renewal every five years and be subject to administrative fees and annual water use charges as determined from time to time by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART).

Reason for all conditions: To abide by the general terms of the approval.

Sydney Water conditions

17. A Deed of Agreement with Sydney Water shall be entered into prior to the commencement of works relating to the deviation of the sewer main.

18. The applicant/proponent must engage the current or another authorised Water Servicing Coordinator (Coordinator) to manage the design and construction of the required works to Sydney Water’s standards and procedures. Before engaging another Coordinator, Sydney Water must first be advised in writing.

19. Following engagement of a Coordinator, the applicant/proponent shall sign and lodge both copies of the Deed with the nominated Coordinator. After Sydney Water has signed the documents, one copy will be returned to the Coordinator.

20. If there is a need to enter a neighbouring property to undertake the works, the written permission of the relevant property owner AND tenants must be obtained. Sydney Water’s Permission to Enter form(s) must be used for this. Copies of the forms can be obtained from the Coordinator or from the Sydney Water website. The Coordinator may act on behalf of the applicant/proponent.

21. All items on the form(s) must be addressed, including payment of compensation and whether there are other ways of designing and constructing that could avoid or reduce their impacts. The applicant/proponent will be responsible for all costs of mediation involved in resolving any disputes.

22. Work must not start on the existing sewer main or the proposed deviation until Sydney Water advises the Coordinator. This includes the placement of any temporary pipework. Before pipework can commence, the Coordinator shall be engaged to lodge an application that must include appropriate temporary pipework detail as well as the design of the proposed deviation/adjustment.

Sydney Water will then assess both designs and advise the Coordinator when they are approved and of any conditions to be met before pipe placement.

If any works on Sydney Water’s assets is carried out without that advice or final approval, Sydney Water will take action to have work on the site stopped. Sydney water will apply the provisions of Section 45 of the Sydney Water Act 1994.

23. When the works are being constructed, the applicant/proponent will need to pay project management, survey, design and construction costs directly to the suppliers. Other costs may include Sydney Water charges for:

- water main shutdown and disinfection;

- connection of new water mains to Sydney water system(s);

- design and construction audit fees;

- contract administration on project finalisation;

- creation or alteration of easements etc;

- some customer contract services

The Coordinator can advise of the specifics of these costs.

24. Because this work involves construction on a ‘live’ Sydney Water sewer main, the applicant/proponent must also:

- lodge an unconditional security bond from an acceptable financial institution that will cover Sydney Water’s risk for this work; and

- the applicant’s/proponent’s acceptance in writing to the bond conditions that will be provided in another agreement.

After Sydney Water receives a copy of the successful tender for the work, it can calculate the amount of this bond. Sydney Water will then send that other agreement which will outline this amount.

25. The bond and completed agreement with Sydney Water must be lodged prior to the commencement of works. The bond will be released after works have been completed (this includes lodgement of ‘Work As Constructed’ plans and production and/or recreation of documentation and reports and completion of all the excavation and landscaping works needed for the total project).

Extraordinary Council conditions

26. Environmental safeguards are to be used during construction of the proposed works to ensure there is no escape of turbid plumes into the aquatic environment.

Reason: To protect the environment

27. Prior to the release of a construction certificate a Preliminary Acid Sulfate Soil investigation shall be carried out in accordance with the Acid Sulphate Soil Assessment Guidelines as specified in the ‘Acid Sulfate Soil Manual – 1998’ and shall be submitted to and approved by Council. All works must be constructed in accordance with an Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan

Reason: To manage the incidence of acid sulfate soils

28. The implementation of this development shall not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood or interfere unreasonably with the comfort of surrounding properties by reason of the emission or discharge of noise, fumes, vapour, odour, steam, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, oil or other harmful products.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

29. Prior to release of a construction certificate, a Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council. The Plan is to include a Construction Noise Management Plan consistent with the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change Draft NSW Construction Noise Guidelines. All works must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

30. Construction activities associated with the development, including the delivery of material to and from the site, shall only be carried out 5 days a week, Monday to Friday between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm. No work is permitted to be carried out on weekends or Public Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjacent residential area.

31. Prior to release of a construction certificate, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be submitted to and approved by Council.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

32. The landscape maintenance of the site shall be undertaken in accordance with the Vegetation Management Plan for the Oatlands Golf Course prepared by BioDesign & Associates Pty Ltd on October 25 2007 and approved by Council.

Reason: To protect the amenity of area and the integrity of the adjacent bushland.

33. Design and implementation for drainage flows to the dam and Vineyard Creek should be undertaken in accordance with the Oatlands Golf Course Water Balance Analysis (report No. X06108.01-01) prepared by Brown Consulting in February 2008.

Reason: To protect the baseflows to Vineyard Creek

34. Prior to release of a construction certificate, the applicant shall provide Council with a Water Management Plan for the dewatering of the existing Dam during excavation. Council must approve the method of removal prior to the commencement of dewatering .

Reason: To adopt sustainable water practices and protect the baseflow to Vineyard Creek.

35. Prior to the issue of a construction certificate the applicant shall provide Council with a Safety Management Plan for the works. This Plan should include Construction and Post Construction Safety Management. The works are to be carried out in accordance with the Safety Management Plan.

Reason: Safety during and post construction for workers, golf course users and residents.

36. The applicant is to provide regular audits to Council, providing information on compliance with conditions of this consent and providing an assessment of the condition of the adjacent Vineyard Creek environment. These assessments are to be undertaken by a suitably qualified independent person, agreed to by Council. The first audit is to be submitted six months following the completion of construction and every six months following that. The timing of the subsequent audits may be subject to negotiation with Council.

Reason: Monitoring Compliance

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

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The subject site is known as Oatlands Golf Course, located at 94 Bettington Road, Oatlands (Lot 39 in DP 808581) and Vineyard Creek Reserve (Lot 93 DP in 846814). The golf course has an area of some 42 hectares and has been utilised as a golf club since 1932.

2. The club is privately owned by the members and comprises an 18-hole Championship course and associated facilities including a clubhouse, amenities, a Professional’s shop and other ancillary buildings and structures. The site includes Council owned land to the north of the golf course, within Vineyard Creek Reserve.

3. The site is bounded by Bettington Road to the west, Vineyard Creek Reserve to the east and residential areas to the north and south. Primary access to the clubhouse, Professional’s shop and car park is via Bettington Road.

4. The existing dam is located in the north-eastern section of the site. Vineyard Creek and an un-named tributary form the north-eastern boundary of the site and the dam is situated on this boundary, partly on land owned by the applicant and partly on land administered by Council. A bushland buffer with informal walking trails exists between the dam and nearby residential properties to the north. The existing dam has a capacity of 30 megalitres with a catchment area of some 89 hectares.

5. The topography of the site is such that it drains naturally to Vineyard Creek with stormwater run-off directed towards the existing dam via piped structures and overland flow paths. Vineyard Creek and its tributary form part of the Parramatta River Catchment and under current conditions are described as an ‘intermittent stream’, flowing only during periods of heavy/consistent rainfall (Claron Property Group Pty Ltd, November 2007).

PROPOSAL

6. The proposed works include the excavation of the existing dam, to increase capacity from 30 megalitres to 53 megalitres and associated rehabilitation/ landscaping works. The purpose is to increase the overall amount of irrigation to the course from a rate of 14 mm/month per square metre (part town water and part dam water) to 30 mm/month per square metre (dam water only). The applicant has indicated that the proposed increased irrigation rate will improve the playing condition of the golf course and maintain associated landscaping, in keeping with member requirements. The proposed expansion will allow for irrigation to be undertaken with no use of potable town water. The existing footprint of the dam will not be increased.

7. The works will require the relocation of an existing sewer main which laterally traverses the dam along the site’s boundary. It is proposed that the sewer main be diverted to the north to run along the northern bank of the dam on land owned by the Council. Sydney Water was consulted in this respect and has issued a letter of approval (ref. 109129) for the proposed relocation. Council’s Strategic Asset Management Unit has granted landowner’s consent for the lodgement of the application.

8. Construction works for the proposal are likely to comprise the following:

- removal of existing stored water;

- de-silting;

- relocation of sewer main as described above;

- excavation of base of dam;

- maintenance works to the spillway (if required);

- refill and commissioning of dam;

- placement of approximately 30,000m³ of excavated material within the site as shown on the Landscape Concept Plan;

- ancillary works associated with the landscaping including the removal of exotic vegetation, weed control, planting and mulching; and

- ongoing maintenance works.

9. Due to insufficient Councillor acceptance to the invitations sent in relation to a proposed on-site meeting to be held on Saturday 14 June , the on-site meeting was cancelled (in accordance with Council's Resolution of 26 May 2008 which required a minimum of 2 Councillors to advise of their attendance within three working days of the date of the invitation) on 10 June 2008.

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001

10. The golf course is zoned Private Open Space 6b and Vineyard Creek Reserve is zoned Environmental Protection (Bushland) 7 under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The development on the 6b zone is ancillary to the golf course which is defined as private recreation. The works within Zone 7 are drainage works. The proposed development is permissible within both zones with consent of Council. Landscaping is permissible without consent. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of PLEP 2001.

11. It is noted that the zone boundary coincides with the property boundary. Therefore, the centreline of the creek (and the dam) is not only the property boundary, but also separates private recreation from bushland. In this regard, approximately half of the dam is zoned Private Recreation 6b and half of it is zoned Environmental Protection (Bushland) 7.

12. Regardless of this, the development is permissible with consent across zones.

Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005

13. The Provisions of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 have been considered in the assessment of the proposal. The development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the DCP. Non-compliances with the provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

ISSUES.

Flows in Vineyard Creek

14. Environmental flows in Vineyard Creek are currently supplied through, “Volume in excess of the capacity of the dam” which passes into the creek via the constructed spillway. The Brown Consulting Water Balance Analysis (WBA) provided with the DA concludes that the proposed increase in capacity would not impact upon environmental base flows downstream of the dam in Vineyard Creek. However, the water balance analysis does not address the duration, frequency and timing of environmental flows which are critical to maintaining the ecological health of the waterway. Further, anecdotal evidence and observations of the condition of the creek downstream of the dam indicate that the existing dam has had a detrimental impact upon the health of the waterway with a decrease in flows and water quality with subsequent impacts upon the health of the ecosystem generally.

15. At the request of Council staff, the applicant has supplied some verification for data used in the WBA particularly in relation to selection of the Coefficient of Runoff Values (Cv) and rainfall data (Claron Property Group, September 2008). The applicant has also confirmed that the proposed works would include the installation of a 150mm diameter pipe around the dam and bored under the existing dam wall to the creek. A debris trap will be placed at the pipe inlet. This will divert environmental flows around the dam to accommodate base flows for Vineyard Creek. The current environmental flow regime is maintained by pumping from the dam during a flow period. This system requires intervention and is considered unreliable to maintain flows. The installation of a gravity fed drain will aim to ensure regular flows to the Vineyard Creek occur without the requirement to pump. It is anticipated that this would encourage a more frequent and reliable flow.

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health

16. It is noted that the applicant has proposed to undertake revegetation works along Vineyard Creek as a part of the proposal and that the proposed landscaping works would result in an overall improvement to the riparian areas which may contribute towards an improvement in the health of the waterway.

17. The Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) prepared by BioDesign and Associates Pty Ltd and submitted with the application, identifies key issues currently affecting the health of the riparian environment around where the works are to take place:

17.1 Soils

Soils have been seriously disturbed in many places by activities that have resulted in changes to levels, compaction, and natural topsoil being covered over with fill and introduced soil and chemical changes associated with maintenance of the golf course. The embankment of the creek along the edge of the 15^th tee consists of fill. A large mound of sandstone and rock has been created beside the dam from dumped spoil from previous excavations in the creek.

17.2 Run off and Drainage

There are areas of poor drainage in parts of the site and run-off from the golf course is either piped or allowed to flow overland into the creek system.

17.3 Trees

There are many dead trees in the vicinity of the 15^th tee and the mound beside the dam. There are also many others that are stressed. Trees have been and are continuing to be adversely impacted on by poor soil management (particular changes to soil levels and compacting activities associated with stockpiling of materials) and by competition from weeds.

17.4 Weeds

The creek system, including its embankments and the edges along the top, and the mound beside the dam are severely weed infested.

17.5 Degradation of remnant ecological communities

The site contains and adjoins remnant vegetation that is an important natural asset due to its rarity in this part of Sydney. The remnant indigenous vegetation on the site is generally extremely degraded. It consists mostly of a few trees in small groups of as individual specimens. There is a small area of relatively intact, undisturbed bushland to the north of the mound beside the dam.

18. It is noted that the applicant has not completed rehabilitation and maintenance works following previous works to the dam completed some 18 months ago. Observations made during the site inspection (carried out in February 2008) indicate that the dam and surrounding riparian areas exist in a degraded state, due in part to the impact of the existing dam and existing and past activities carried out on the golf course.

19. The subject site is adjacent to remnant bushland and some of the proposed works are to take place in the bushland. The flora assessment prepared by Teresa James Flora Consultant in November 1999 for the purposes of the application for the previous expansion makes similar observations of degradation with regard to the condition of vegetation in the area subject of the proposed works.

20. For the purposes of the current application, Blues Bros. Contracting Pty Ltd was commissioned to undertake a review of the flora assessment produced by Teresa James Flora Consultant in November 1999. The review noted little change in the plant numbers and species found, however the review states that Further negative impact on a percentage of plants/trees will occur within the change in soil level as understood from instructions given to me by Oatlands’ Staff. (Margot Blues, July 2007).

21. The VMP for Oatlands Golf Club prepared by BioDesign and Associates and submitted as part of the DA Landscape Plan, recommends that the approach to the future management of the site is based on minimising adverse environmental impacts on the creek system. Additional advice provided by the applicant (BioDesign letter 23 September 2008) identifies the whole basis of the landscape concept was to bring back bushland and biodiversity in the vicinity of the works. The VMP provides key recommendations for the golf club, to achieve the approach.

22. The VMP identifies that the key requirement for long-term success will be a commitment to a landscape maintenance program preferably through engaging persons with experience in bush regeneration. Compliance with the VMP and provision of monitoring requirements in relation to maintenance and bush regeneration would be required as part of any condition of consent.

Amenity and Safety Impacts

Noise

23. A significant issue in the submissions received for the works was concerning the extensive noise impacts experienced during previous expansion works at the site. The proposed works involve the excavation of the base of the existing dam by some 7.2 metres. This will involve the use of rock drilling and earth moving equipment. Additional advice supplied by the applicant (letter from Brown Consulting Pty Ltd, 27 October 2008) indicates use of the following heavy equipment:

- 2 x Bucket excavator;

- Rock hammer

- Bulldozer/ripper

- Dump trucks

24 The applicant has indicated the excavation period will be undertaken over a 4 month period with landscaping a further 12 months. The rock hammering would occur intermittently over an 8 week period and where possible the ripper would be preferably used to remove rock to reduce both noise and cost. The applicant has identified that a noise management plan and construction method statements will be prepared and that works will meet the Draft NSW Construction Noise Guidelines which requires noise level to the background level plus 10 dB(A) or a maximum of 75 dB(A). This would be placed as a condition of consent along with provisions for hours of operation.

Visual amenity

25. The site is located on the Oatlands Golf Course, and as such the occurrence of water bodies and dams would not be out of character with the surroundings. It is noted that the wall height of the dam is not to be increased as a result of the works; therefore additional visual impacts are not considered likely to occur post construction. Information regarding proximity and ‘line-of-sight’ of adjacent landowners and the general public is not provided by the applicant to determine the potential for visual impacts during construction.

Safety

26. There is a concern over the safety of the proposed development with the proposed dam site in proximity to public land. Site safety has not been addressed in the application with a significant increase in depth of the dam increasing the potential risk to course users and the general public. As identified in the designs the proposed works would include the excavation of the existing dam creating a near vertical wall (drop) of approximately 10 metres which would have the potential to pose a risk to human life. It has been noted in submissions received that children have been observed to swim in the existing dam, which raises concern over current security.

27. The applicant has advised (Claron Property Group Letter) that they would extend the existing perimeter chain wire fencing from the Club side to the public side of the dam. However, it is noted that such fencing will not prevent swimming use. It is considered appropriate for a condition of consent to be imposed to require the applicant to address safety issues prior to any construction. A ladder in the dam to ensure egress from the vertical drop may be one suitable option.

CONSULTATION

28. The application comprises ‘Integrated Development’ as defined by Section 91 of the EP& A Act 1979 (as amended) and requires approvals/permits under the following Acts:

· Fisheries Management Act 1994; and

· Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 (as it applied at the time).

29. In this regard, NSW Fisheries and the NSW Department of Water and Energy (DWE) were consulted and requested to issue General Terms of Approval (GTA) for the proposal. Both Departments raised no objections to the proposal and the GTAs issued for the application are included in the consent conditions.

30. The application was also placed on public exhibition for a period of 21 days from 21^st November to 12^th December 2007. A total of 17 submissions were received from members of the community including 2 petitions signed by a total of 30 persons. The key issues raised in these submissions are summarised below.

No justification for dam.

31. The applicant has provided that the existing dam is used for irrigation proposes for the maintenance of the golf coursed and the increased capacity will remove use of town for irrigation (currently half the watering)

Dam has resulted in degradation of bushland reserve.

32. There is some indication that the dam has resulted in degradation of the reserve. Improved reliance of environmental flows via a gravity drain and improved landscaping including some bushland regeneration may go some way to improving this, however it is noted that further degradation may ensue due to changed soil levels.

Dam reduces flows to Vineyard Creek. Pipe outlet not sufficient to supply flows to the creek.

33. The Department of Water and Energy has recommended the pipe outlet diameter to be sufficient for base flows to the Vineyard Creek.

Remedial work should be undertaken to restore flows to Vineyard Creek.

34. Improved, reliable flows to Vineyard Creek are proposed by way of a gravity drain.

No environmental studies have been carried out downstream of the dam.

35. Council has considered downstream effects as part of the assessment.

No consultation undertaken with Vineyard Creek Reserve Committee (VCRC).

36. The application was notified according to the requirements of the EP&A Regulation.

Further excavation of the dam would increase safety risk.

37. Safety has been considered as part of the assessment and conditions of consent have been proposed to ensure safety during and post excavation

Reduction in flow in Vineyard Creek leaving pools of stagnant water which have become breeding grounds for mosquitoes with subsequent health risks. Restricted flow and stagnant pools have detrimental impact upon various species and limits access to fresh drinking water for native fauna

38. Improved environmental flows to Vineyard Creek may reduce the impact of water pooling and stagnation.

Query whether Oatlands GC measures daily flows as required to do under its existing water licence.

39. This information was not submitted in the DA

Inflow and outflow to the dam are not matched and system for balancing inflow and outflow is ineffective and the diameter of outflow pump and pipe is inadequate to match inflow during rain periods. Pump is rarely operated.

40. The proposed gravity drain will remove the need for pumping.

The proposal is not in keeping with the aim of habitat preservation for the Powerful Owl, listed as vulnerable under the NSW Threatened Species Act 1995.

41. Habitat has the potential to be improved through bushland regeneration, regular environmental flows and landscaping. The applicant has advised that no significant habitat trees were surveyed within the proposed tree removal zone.

The proposal is not consistent with the vision set for the Creek under the Vineyard Creek Waterways Maintenance and Rehabilitation Master Plan (October 2003).

42. The applicant has advised that the Masterplan was addressed in the preparation of the landscape/revegetation documentation.

The degradation of the creek has lead to less community use of the creek and walking tracks.

43. Landscape improvements may go some way to rectifying this.

Extraction of water from Vineyard Creek for irrigation is unsustainable and environmentally harmful.

44. Irrigation extraction from the dam is an existing activity. The proposal aims to improve reliability of base flows to Vineyard Creek this may assist in a more sustainable approach.

Oatlands GC should explore other ways of servicing its water needs.

45. The applicant has advised that they have explored other water saving options, in consultation with Council, and have undertaken a number of water saving landscape management techniques aimed at reducing irrigation needs.

Proposed works will require the use of heavy machinery which will generate significant noise. Previous works took 12 months to complete.

46. The proposed excavation works are anticipated to take some 4 months to complete. Conditions will be placed on hours of operation and a Construction Noise Management Plan will be required to be submitted to Council prior to construction

Relocation of sewer main would require destruction of native habitat.

47. Sydney Water has approved the relocation of the sewer main.

Water in the dam and creek is polluted due to runoff from the golf course and cannot support native fauna.

48. The applicant has indicated that regular water testing results indicate that the nutrient levels are within accepted limits.

Dam and creek have become polluted and habitat for native fauna destroyed.

49. The applicant has indicated that the approach to the development of the landscape and revegetation plans is to preserve existing flora and fauna assets and to improve, in the long term, the environment to support them.

Appropriate rehabilitation work not undertaken with previous works on the dam.

50. Council notes the Golf Club has a poor history in maintaining rehabilitation works associated with the previous approval. A condition of consent will be required for the applicant to undertake rehabilitation and maintenance works in accordance with the Vegetation Management Plan.

The dam is rarely full and the need for the expansion is questioned.

51. The current irrigation requirements are sustained by both the dam water and town water.

Children swim in existing dam – safety concerns.

52. Safety requirements, including fencing will be required as part of the consent conditions.

REFERRALS

53. The Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust (PRCT)), and the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) were also consulted and given 14 days to provide any comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

54. Referrals were made to Council’s Catchment Management Supervisor and Council’s Senior Development Engineer. Responses have been incorporated into conditions of consent.

Strategic Asset Management Unit

55. The DA was referred to Council’s Strategic Asset Management Unit for consideration as the works involve relocating a sewer line from the floor of the dam to Vineyard Creek Reserve.

56. Use of the Council land for the proposed works can only be recommended when the Oatlands Golf Club Ltd agrees to indemnify Council against third party claim, action or demand for damages arise or may arise from use of Council land.

57. By way of letter dated 30 November 2007, the applicant did confirm that the club will take responsibility for using Council land during the proposed works, including public liability insurance and all maintenance matters.

58. A standard condition of consent is included requiring the applicant to ensure that any person or contractor undertaking works on public land takes out Public Risk Insurance with a minimum cover of $10 million in relation to the occupation of approved works within Council’s reserve, as approved in the recommended development consent. The Policy is to note and provide protection for Council as an interested party.

Maree Worthington-Alder

Independent Planning Consultant

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Detailed consultant's report	53 Pages
3View	Plans & elevations	7 Pages
4View	History of DA	2 Pages
5View	Department of Water and Energy - General Terms of Approval	5 Pages
6View	Department of Primary Industries - General Terms of Approval	1 Page
7	Sydney Water - letter of approval	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 8 December 2008

Item 12.21

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.21

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

DESCRIPTION Construction of a vertical slot fishway at the upstream weir.

REFERENCE DA/560/2008 - Submitted 7 August 2008

APPLICANT/S Parramatta City Council

OWNERS Administered by the Department of Lands

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Development Application No. 560/2008 seeks approval for the construction of a vertical-slot fishway on the upstream weir in the Parramatta River. The proposal includes the temporary use of adjacent land during construction and for ongoing maintenance requirements. The Council is the applicant and the Crown, as land owner, has given owner’s consent for lodgement of the DA.

The application has been assessed by an independent planning consultant and referred to Council as the application has been made by Parramatta City Council. One submission in support of the application has been received.

The proposed fishway is part of a larger scheme aimed at encouraging fish migration within the Parramatta River and to assist in the re-population of fish species that once utilised the river for breeding. Fishways have already been installed or approved in three other weirs in the Parramatta City Centre. This proposal will complete the project.

The proposed construction activities will partly occur on land operated by the Parramatta Park Trust (The Trust). The proposed development must comply with main objectives of conservation of natural and cultural heritage values of The Trust lands.

The development is on unzoned land within SREP 28. The weir borders land in Parramatta Council City Centre LEP 2007. The proposed use has no requirement for permissibility in SREP 28, being in unzoned land, however the use is consistent with provisions of the surrounding zones. The use is permissible without consent in the City Centre LEP, being environmental works. However heritage provisions provide that the application requires development consent. The application is consistent with the provisions of the City Centre LEP. Part of the development is subject to the controls set out in City Centre DCP 2007.

The works will improve the quality of the Parramatta River, as well as the quality of life of fish species within it and are considered to be in the public interest.

Accordingly, approval of the development application is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 560/2008 subject to standard conditions and the following extraordinary conditions:

1. An application shall be made to the Parramatta Park Trust for permission to use the Parramatta Park for access and temporary use of land for construction purposes. This application will be made in accordance with the Parramatta Park Trust Regulations 2007. No works are to commence until the appropriate approvals are provided to the applicant. The development must be undertaken in accordance with any conditions placed upon it by the Parramatta Park Trust.

Reason: To abide with the Parramatta Park Trust Regulations 2007

2. A plan of management shall be submitted to the satisfaction of Council, detailing the procedures and staffing for the monitoring, maintenance and repair of the weirs. The plan shall include timing and procedures for cleaning of the trash screens and detail funding allocated for such activities.

Reason: to protect the amenity of the area

3. The applicant shall provide evidence and a commitment that the development will not draw down the water level of the Upstream pond by greater than 100mm.

Reason: To protect the visual amenity of the area

4. The person acting on the consent shall provide additional information from a suitably qualified ecologist as to the viability of the construction plan for enabling fish migration. Particular reference is to be given to the downstream water level and the impact of the rock shelf on the migration of fish to the fishway.

Reason: To manage the impacts of development

5. A dredge and reclamation permit is to be obtained for the weir from the Department of Primary Industries. Permit fees shall be waived as the works are to rehabilitate fish passage at these sites.

Reason: to ensure compliance with other legislation

6. Silt curtains or silt booms are to be used during construction of the proposed works to ensure there is no escape of turbid plumes into the aquatic environment.

Reason: to protect the environment

7. Appropriate measures must be undertaken to avoid impacts to the rock platforms within the Parramatta River during the construction of the fishway.

Reason: to protect the environment

8. A qualified Archaeologist is to be present during the undertaking of excavation works. In the event that any historical relics are uncovered, excavation or disturbance of the area is to stop immediately and the appropriate authorities notified.

Reason: to protect heritage items

9. The person acting on the consent must ensure that should any Aboriginal objects be uncovered, excavation or disturbance of the area is to stop immediately and the Department of Environment and Climate Change is to be informed in accordance with Section 91 of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

Reason: to protect items or places of Aboriginal Heritage Significance.

10. The person acting on the consent must ensure that should any historical relics be uncovered, excavation or disturbance of the area is to stop immediately. In accordance with section 146(a) of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 the Applicant must ensure the Heritage Council of NSW is notified within a reasonable time of the discovery or location of these relics. Written notification should be forwarded unless the Applicant believes on reasonable grounds that the Heritage Council of NSW is aware of the location of these relics. Archaeological assessment and approval, or endorsement, may be required prior to works continuing in the affected area(s) based on the nature of the discovery.

Reason: to protect heritage

11. Construction Activities associated with the development, including material to and from the site, shall only be carried out 5 days a week Monday to Friday within the opening hours of the Parramatta Park. No work is permitted to be carried out on weekends or public holidays.
Notwithstanding the above, any building work hour’s condition placed upon the development by the Parramatta Park Trust will take precedent.

Reason: to protect the amenity of the area and to protect habitat of a threatened species

12. Land disturbed during construction shall be reinstated to its original condition.

Reason: to protect the amenity of the area

13. Any riparian vegetation cleared for these works require reinstatement with endemic native vegetation.

Reason: to protect the environment

(b) Further, that the relevant approval bodies be informed of Council’s decision.

SITE & LOCALITY

1. The Upstream Weir is located on the Parramatta River between Parramatta Park and the Cumberland Hospital. The weir is located within PT LOT 1 and PT LOT 2 SEC 78 BK 1801 N. The weir is located on the north eastern boundary of Parramatta Park. The Cumberland Hospital lands are to the north and east of the weir. The Weir is within land owned by the Crown and as such owners consent has been issued by the Minister for Lands, as delegated by the Crown.

2. The existing weir is a concrete structure measuring 42 metres in length and 1.5 metres in width. It is approximately 1.2 metres in height and creates a water level difference of some one metre, with water being retained on the northern side of the weir. The weir is built on a flat rock platform and extensive natural rock platforms exist on the south western side.

3. The surrounding environment maintains natural characteristics in association with Parramatta Park. There is substantial vegetation on the river banks consisting of grasses, vines, shrubs and trees.

4. The eastern bank (Cumberland Hospital) is steep and densely vegetated. Sandstone steps from the weir, up the eastern bank to the Cumberland hospital, are dilapidated and overgrown. A colony of Grey-headed Flying-foxes inhabits the trees alongside the eastern bank.

5. The western bank (Parramatta Park) adjacent to the weir features eroded slopes with less vegetation. The slope gradually recedes towards the south. At the time of the assessment, a large tree was fenced and declared as dangerous on the western bank.

6. The north eastern bank (Cumberland Hospital Wisteria Cottage and Gardens) is separated by a wrought iron fence, signifying the boundary with Parramatta Park and has sandstone steps leading to terraced gardens.

7. A stormwater drain located immediately south-east end of the weir. A small communications conduit is attached to the weir.

8. Main access to the weir is from Parramatta Park. A narrow, unformed path leads to the weir from the Kiosk Weir some 150 metres downstream. The path is surrounded by dense vegetation across uneven ground. Access to the weir from the eastern side (adjoining Cumberland Hospital) is extremely limited due to a steep slope and dense vegetation.

9. Vehicular access to the weir is limited to the western side of the River via Byrnes Avenue, a one way road within Parramatta Park. There are no roads adjacent to the weir due to the steepness of the banks and the weir is somewhat hidden or concealed from main/public view/vista. A carparking area is situated at the southern Kiosk Weir. Vehicular access to the aforementioned path is via a locked boom gate, located at the end of the car park. Vehicles could negotiate the path to within 80 metres of the weir. Road access within Parramatta Park is limited to park opening times.

PROPOSAL

10. The application seeks consent for the construction of a vertical slot fishway at the upstream weir including the temporary use of land adjacent to the weir (western side) during construction and for ongoing maintenance. The fishway would allow for the migration of depleted fish species upstream to breed and repopulate the river.

11. The vertical slot fishway would consist of a sloping concrete channel divided into a series of pools by several evenly spaced baffles. Narrow vertical slots would extend the full height of the baffle and allow water to flow through and angle across the pool to the opposite side, dissipating the energy of each pool through circulation. Fish would then be able ascend from pool to pool by swimming though the vertical slot at a depth at which they prefer.

12. The entrance to the fishway would be located at the downstream face of the weir, with the fishway structure contained within the upstream pool. The fishway structure is proposed to be 41.2 metres in length (including the 2.5 m long trash screen and deflectors), and would consist of 23 rectangular concrete pools arranged in a straight line perpendicular (approximately) to the weir wall. The pools would be separated by wooden baffles, each with a 150mm wide vertical slot. Each pool would have dimensions of 1.5m (length) by 1m (width) by minimum 0.45m (depth). The fishway would be set to slope at 1:30. At the headwater level of 5.9m (AHD), the height of the structure visible above the water surface would be 0.2m.

13. The upstream exit of the fishway would include a trash deflector, comprised of two arms, each 3.5 m in length, perpendicular to each other. A galvanised steel trash screen is proposed to prevent litter and debris blocking the fishway. Regular maintenance would ensure the removal of the accumulation of litter from the exit.

14. The fishway would be covered by a galvanised grid mesh decking for safety and to enable access and monitoring of the pools below. Two of the galvanised panels, one at either end of the fishway, would be removable to access the drop boards. The drop boards would enable the entrance and exit of the fishway to be blocked when maintenance is required to stop water flow or during periods where there is no flow in the river.

15. The proposal would require some demolition work for the removal of a minor section of the existing weir to install the fishway structure.

16. Construction related activities such as construction material delivery and storage, and parking of workers vehicles is anticipated to occur in the Parramatta Park along a pathway extending north from Kiosk Weir. There is expected to be minimal disturbance to the site. Construction will be undertaken within 28 days. Maximum number of workers is anticipated to be four. Construction related activities will only occur during normal working hours. Impacts may include minor noise generation, minor pruning, and installation of a temporary fence and the limiting of public access prohibition to the construction site. Approval will be required from the Trust for use of the Parramatta Park land.

17. The proposed development is deemed to be Integrated Development requiring approval from NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI); NSW Heritage Office and Department of Water and Energy (DWE).

STATUTORY CONTROLS

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999

18. Land adjacent to the proposed development is a roosting area for the grey-headed flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), a listed vulnerable species under the EPBC Act. Given the anticipated low impact of the development on the species and its habitat, an approval is not required under the provisions of the EPBC Act.

Parramatta Park Trust Act, 2001

19. Upstream Weir is located on the boundary of Parramatta Park, which is managed by the Parramatta Park Trust (The Trust) under the provisions of the Parramatta Park Trust Act 2001 (PPT Act) and the Parramatta Park Trust Regulation 2007 (PPT Regs). Access to the Weir and the temporary use of land during construction would be carried out on the Trust land.

20. The proposal has been developed in consultation with The Trust and is considered to be consistent with the objectives of The Trust. However, access to and use of Parramatta Park for construction purposes is subject to approval by The Trust in accordance with the PPT Act and PPT Regs

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

21. Section 5A of the EP&A Act identifies matters to be taken into account in deciding whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats

22. The river foreshore vegetation adjacent to the Upstream Weir provides for a permanent roosting colony of the grey-headed flying fox, a vulnerable species under Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act).

23. Given the minor and temporary nature of the proposed construction works in the river and on land adjacent to the river, the impact on the grey-headed flying fox population or habitat is considered negligible. Habitat will not be modified or fragmented and the development is unlikely to effect the life cycle of the species.

24. Given the minor nature of the proposed works, and the likely insignificant impact on the population or habitat of the grey-headed flying fox, a Species Impact Statement is not required for the proposed development.

Integrated Development

25. The proposed development is deemed to be Integrated Development, as prescribed by Section 91 of the Act. The proposed development requires approval from the following:

- NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI)

- NSW Heritage Office

- Department of Water and Energy (DWE)

Environmental Planning Instruments

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta

26. The upstream weir is on unzoned land within SREP 28. As such, there is no requirement for consent of the works. However, the application has been assessed against the provisions of the SREP 28, including the provisions for the adjoining Government Precinct and the adjacent Public Recreation RE1 zone (under Parramatta City Centre Plan 2007) and North Parramatta Mix Use zone (under SREP 28). The application is consistent with the provisions of the REP.

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

27. The upstream weir is located within the Sydney Harbour Catchment Area. Accordingly, the proposal is subject to the provisions of SREP 2005.

28. The proposed construction of the fish lock will contribute towards protecting the ecosystem of the Parramatta River and thus the natural assets of Sydney Harbour. The proposal will improve the health of the River thus contributing to a healthy sustainable environment and to the rehabilitation of a valuable watercourse – the Parramatta River. Therefore, the proposal is considered consistent with the aims of the SREP.

Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007

29. The Upstream Weir adjoins land within City Centre LEP. The land to be temporarily used and ancillary to the development for construction purposes is located within Parramatta Park and is within the boundaries of City Centre LEP. That land is within Zone RE1 - Public Recreation.

30. ‘Environmental protection works’ are permissible without consent in the RE1 Zone. The ancillary temporary use of land for construction purposes as part of that development is therefore permissible without consent in the zone.

31. However, Clause 25 relating to heritage identifies that altering a heritage item requires development consent. The upstream weir is listed as a local Heritage item and the adjoining lands are State significant heritage items. Therefore, consent is required.

32. The application is consistent with provisions of the City Centre LEP

Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan 2007 (PCCDCP 2007)

33. The subject land adjacent to the upstream weir (to its west) is zoned under the City Centre LEP and is therefore subject to the PCCDCP 2007, although the weir site itself is not subject to the DCP. The guidelines and controls are considered in relation to the land adjoining the site that may be used temporarily for access and storage during construction.

34. The application is consistent with the principles of PCCDCP 2007. Where minor inconsistencies occur these can be mitigated with consent conditions

CONSULTATION

35. The development application was placed on notification and advertising for a 21 day period between 27 August and 17 September, 2008. One submission was received in support of the proposal.

REFERRALS

36. The proposed development was notified in accordance with the EP&A Act. The proposed development is integrated development under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 and as such was referred to the administering agency (DPI) for approval. The proposed development was referred to the Heritage Office for concurrence requirements under the provision of SREP 28. In addition, given that the works were located within and surrounding the Parramatta River, the proposal was referred to DWE for opportunity to provide comments. The following responses were provided:

Parramatta Park Trust

37. The Parramatta Park Trust places significance in the maintaining and enhancing natural and cultural heritage values of the Parramatta River, and supports measures to encourage improvements in native fish stocks within it. The Trust commended the revision of fishway design from the previous rock ramp to the current vertical slot fishway, as it will achieve better conservation outcomes for the surrounding rock platforms.

38. The Parramatta Park Trust supports the Development Application; however, with the understanding that certain conditions regarding water level and construction approvals are met including:

- Certification provided by SMEC confirming the fishways on the weirs will not affect their structural integrity, be incorporated into the approval as a condition of consent due to the heritage significance of the Upstream Weir

- Commitment from the applicant not to draw down the Upstream pond greater than 100mm (as this would expose 300mm of the fishway wall)

- Access to and use of the Parramatta Park Trust Land for construction purpose (e.g. depots and stockpile sites) is subject to approvals by the Parramatta Park Trust in accordance with the Parramatta Park Trust Regulation 2007.

39. These concerns have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of consent.

Department of Water and Energy (DWE)

40. After reviewing documents for the proposed development, DWE decided that further assessment by their department is not required on the basis that the proposed works are exempt from the need to obtain a Controlled Activity Approval under the Water Management Act 2000 (The Applicant being Public Authority).

Department of Primary Industries (DPI)

41. After reviewing documents for the proposed development, the DPI had no objections provided the following conditions were met:

- a dredge and reclamation permit is obtained from the DPI;

- any riparian vegetation cleared for these works require reinstatement with endemic native vegetation;

- environmental safeguards - silt curtains or silt booms are to be used during construction of the proposed works to ensure there is no escape of turbid plumes into the aquatic environment

42. All other relevant authorities have no objections

ISSUES

Ecology

43. The proposal intends to improve the aquatic ecology of the Parramatta River through the installation of a fishway to promote fish migration and native fish repopulation of the river.

44. During the construction of the fishway, potential impacts to the terrestrial and aquatic ecology include:

- disturbance to the existing grey-headed flying fox colony through noise and vibration;

- disturbance to the aquatic ecology from turbidity / sedimentation of Parramatta River as a result of the small demolition of the weir and through the disturbance of the river sediment;

- disturbance to the aquatic ecology from turbidity / sedimentation as a result of erosion from the worksite and / or access track;

- potential removal of vegetation from the edges of the access track on the western bank to allow wider vehicles to utilise the access track

45. During the operation of the fishway, potential impacts to the ecology may include:

- The blocking up of the fishway by debris, preventing the fish from migrating throughout the river.

46. These impacts are anticipated to be minimal and may be mitigated by the introduction of conditions of consent

Noise

47. During the construction of the fishway, potential noise and vibration impacts include:

- disturbances to nearby sensitive receivers at the Cumberland hospital adjacent to the weir and to people utilising the Parramatta Park for recreational purposes; and

- disturbances to the grey-headed flying fox colony.

48. There are not anticipated to be potential noise impacts during the operation of the vertical slot fishway.

49. It is anticipated that noise impacts would be minimal and temporary in nature. However, conditions may be applied to the development, including the preparation of a Noise Management Plan to ensure that noise levels are maintained at acceptable levels to minimise impacts to the grey headed flying fox colony and nearby park users.

Soils and Geology

50. There is a large outcrop of sandstone rock on the downstream side of the weir. There is the potential for the rock outcrop to be damaged during construction works. Additionally, a trench or enlarged passage way may be required on the downstream side of the fishway to allow for efficient fish passage, which would result in damage to a small portion of the sandstone rock.

51. There is the potential for erosion to occur in the vicinity of the construction site and along the access track due to the movement of vehicles and plant during construction.

52. Appropriate measures should be to be taken to avoid impacts to the rock platform during the construction of the fishway. This may include the use of matting or similar material covering the rock surfaces that may be damaged by equipment and plant during construction.

53. Prior to construction, advice should be sought by a qualified ecologist to determine whether the downstream section of the fishway, along the rock platform, would require to be enlarged to allow for the adequate passage for fish.

54. A sediment and erosion control plan would be required prior to construction including appropriate safeguards to avoid and minimise erosion and sedimentation of the waterway. Additional issues regarding water quality are detailed below.

Water Quality

55. The proposed development would require the demolition of a small portion of the existing weir and the construction of a vertical slot fishway. There is the potential for impacts to water quality including

- contamination of Parramatta River from spills and mismanagement of concrete during the construction of the fishway;

- contamination of Parramatta River due to mismanagement of concrete wastes during the demolition phase of the works;

- turbidity of the waterway due to the disturbance of the river bed sediment; and

- contamination of the waterway from spills and leaks from vehicles and plant.

56. A Sediment and Erosion Control Plan would be required prior to construction ensuring appropriate sediment control devices are utilised throughout the construction phase as required by a recommended condition of consent. This would include the use of silt curtains or silt booms during construction of the proposed works to ensure there is no escape of turbid plumes into the aquatic environment.

Access and parking

57. There is the potential for access and parking issues to occur during the construction stage of the fishway. This may include:

- increases in traffic from construction vehicles (e.g. concrete truck, vehicles transporting certain plant) and personnel vehicles. The nature of the project and the duration of construction is not anticipated to generate an excessive amount of additional traffic to the park;

- difficulties in accessing the upstream weir as there is a sandstone outcrop present for a distance of approximately 30 metres between the access track and the weir. It may thus be required to utilise small, specialised plant to undertake the demolition and construction stages of the project;

- difficulties for large vehicles to utilise the existing access track due to vegetation impediments. Minor clearing of vegetation may be required to allow larger vehicles (e.g. concrete truck) to utilise the track, if such vehicles are necessary; and

- parking for personnel vehicles and construction vehicles is unlikely to pose significant impacts to parking within Parramatta Park due to the small number of vehicles anticipated to be required during the construction, in addition to the large number of existing car parking spaces available within the Park.

58. The construction site would also provide space for construction vehicles and equipment without impinging on public car parking. Public access to the upstream weir and possibly to the access track would be limited during the construction stage (approximately 28 days). However, it is understood that very few people utilise the weir as there are no existing formalised paths in the direct vicinity of the weir. Potential impacts would be temporary in nature. An alternative path to cross the cross river would be the nearby ‘Kiosk Weir’, which may be utilised be the public.

59. Consent for use of the land for access and parking during the construction works is required from the Parramatta Park Trust.

Hazard and Risk

60. During the site visit, a large tree with exposed roots was observed to be hanging dangerously from the eroded river embankment on the western side of the upstream weir. There is the potential for this tree to pose a hazard to construction vehicles and personnel if works are undertaken below the tree.

61. The sandstone outcrop present on the downstream side of the weir may be hazardous to vehicle/plant and personnel without appropriate safeguards.

62. There is the potential for flooding to occur after heavy rainfall which has the potential to endanger equipment and personnel.

63. Safeguards against hazard and risk can be introduced by requiring the submission and approval of a Safety Management Plan, prior to construction, which could include the following

- remove tree or place appropriate markers around the hazard area to ensure the safety of personnel and equipment.

- construction plan should adequately consider the presence of the sandstone outcrop to allow for the works to be undertaken in a safe manner.

- works should not be undertaken during heavy rainfall events or when the river is flooding.

- equipment should not be stored near the rivers edge, within the flood prone area.

Waste Management

64. The proposal would likely generate wastes including:

- Concrete and rock debris during demolition;

- River sediment if dredging is required for the construction of the fishway; and

- General waste from personnel and construction activities.

65. There is the potential that such wastes to result in adverse environmental impacts if they are not managed properly. The proposed fish lock structure includes a trash deflector which will collect trash and will therefore need to be cleared regularly.

66. It is recommended that a Plan of Management be submitted to Council’s satisfaction prior to construction detailing monitoring and maintenance of the fishway.

67. A Waste Management Plan should also be submitted and approved by Council prior to construction. Waste materials would need to be disposed of at a licensed facility and appropriate dredging permits may be required.

Heritage

68. The upstream weir is listed as having local Heritage Significance and the adjacent lands have State and National (Parramatta Park) Heritage Significance.

69. Given that the proposal will not alter the historically significant location of the weir, the impact of the proposal on the heritage value of the weir is not considered to be significant. The temporary use of the land for construction purposes will have minor impact on the State Heritage-listed land.

70. While there are no registered Items or places of Aboriginal heritage significance at the weir or construction site, there is potential to encounter or disturb unknown items or places during construction. It is recommended that an archaeologist be present during construction works to ensure the identification and protection of potential heritage items.

Maree Worthington-Alder

Independent Planning Consultant

Attachments:

1View	Locality map	1 Page
2View	Plans	7 Pages
3View	History of DA	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

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

Regulatory Council	8 December 2008

Regulatory Council	8 December 2008

Regulatory Council	8 December 2008

Regulatory Council	8 December 2008