Agenda of Regulatory Council

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 7.1

SUBJECT Draft LEP for 181 James Ruse Drive, Camellia and Granville RSL site.

REFERENCE F2006/01198 - D01147173

REPORT OF Project Officer - Land Use and Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

To report to Council’s resolution of 15 December 2008 concerning the proposed zoning of two sites in Camellia and Granville.

RECOMMENDATION

In relation to 181 James Ruse Drive, Camellia

(a) That an amendment to Schedule 1 of the Parramatta draft comprehensive LEP be made, prior to the public exhibition of the plan, to include in accordance with clause 2.5 of the draft LEP, a reference to the Costco outlet as a restricted retail premises.

(b) That Council not support the following:

(i) Increasing the extent of retail uses permitted in the B5 Business Development zone.

(ii) Increasing the height and FSR controls to 21 metres and 2.5:1 respectively.

In relation to Granville RSL (5 Memorial Drive, Granville)

(a) That the proponent be invited to make a detailed planning submission in relation to the request for increased height and floor space provisions for the Granville RSL site.

(b) That any submission received be considered by Council staff and reported to Council following exhibition of the LEP.

BACKGROUND

1. At the Council meeting of 15 December 2008, a report on draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2008 was considered. Council resolved to defer consideration of this matter to the February 2009 meeting. Council also resolved:

“(a) That, consideration of this matter be deferred to the Council Meeting to be held on 23 February 2009 and the application for rezoning submitted by Granville RSL be considered in the meantime.……

(c) Further, that in relation to the land on the eastern side of James Ruse Drive presently shown as B5, that a report be brought forward commenting on the submission which has been received by Council resulting out of the internal discussions which have been held between council staff, the Department of Planning and the applicant.”

2. This report provides Council with information on these rezoning submissions.

181 James Ruse Drive, Camellia

3. The rezoning submission for 181 James Ruse Drive, Camellia requests an amendment to Council’s draft Parramatta LEP 2008 that aims to:

(a) permit big box bulky goods retailing (including a Bunnings, Officeworks and Costco stores) and other speciality retail development.

(b) increase the range of permissible land uses in the B5 Business Development zone.

4. Further information on the development concept is provided in Attachment 1 – detailed report.

5. The site at 181 James Ruse Drive is proposed under the comprehensive Parramatta draft LEP to be B5 Business Development. The purpose of the zone is to provide a mix of business, warehouse and specialised retail uses that require large floor areas that support the viability of centres. The zone permits land uses that provide support services to the CBD and industrial precinct of Camellia as well as some limited access to retail facilities such as bulky goods or small convenience stores to support local needs.

6. Part of the rezoning request is consistent with land uses proposed in the B5 Business Development zone under Draft LEP 2008. However, the proposed Costco development is not permitted. The development has many parallels with conventional bulky goods retailing in that it sells goods that are predominantly large and require large floor space to accommodate there products. However, the standard LEP template does not contain a suitable definition to permit this use apart from a “retail premises” definition. It is recommended that an amendment be made to the draft plan to accommodate only the Costco development as an additional use and not allow retail premises more generally.

7. Allowing retail premises in the B5 Business Development zone would contravene the objectives of the zone and place pressure on the viability of existing centres. It is not recommended that Council support increased height and FSR controls which are considered excessive for the site in its context.

Granville RSL site

8. Two submissions received in relation to the Granville RSL site (Attachment 3), request that Council adopt controls which allow for a greater density of residential development on the site than that currently proposed.

9. No detailed site specific studies have been received, however, it is requested that the site be able to achieve a height of 9-12 storeys (27-36m). It is noted that the surrounding height limits proposed range between 12-20m.

10. It is acknowledged that the site benefits from good access to public transport and services, being located approximately 400m from Granville Town Centre. It is recommended that the proponent be invited to make a detailed submission during the exhibition of the LEP and that this will be further considered at this time.

11. Further discussion on the site is contained in Attachment 2 of this report.

Neal McCarry Marcelo Occhiuzzi

Project Officer – Land Use Manager Land Use and Transport Planning

Attachments:

1View	Detailed Report : Spot rezoning proposal for former Sydney Water Site – James Ruse Drive, Camellia	9 Pages
2View	Detailed report: Granville RSL	4 Pages
3View	Submissions for the Granville RSL site	4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

none

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 7.2

SUBJECT Processing and Administration of Development Applications

REFERENCE F2004/06472 - D01137751

REPORT OF Manager Land Use and Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement of strategies which will assist in improving processing times and customer service for development applications including delegations, site meeting processes and fast tracking of certain types of development applications. This report also discusses various internal reforms that staff will commence in order to achieve these objectives.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council note the following improvements to processes proposed within the Development Services Unit:

a) Fast tracking of minor DAs

b) Expediting internal referrals

c) Improving the “clearing house” process

d) Performing a “blitz” on determining DAs that have been in the system for over 80 days

e) Improving responsiveness associated with pre lodgement meetings

f) Commencing a process of defining a policy position on how to proceed with incomplete or deficient DAs.

2. That the Chief Executive Officer be delegated the functions of Council to:

a) Approve development applications (including section 96 applications) provided:

(i) There are not more than 7 objections to the development; or

(ii) The development application does not relate to land in which Council holds, or has recently held, a direct pecuniary interest; or

(iii) The development application does not fall within the terms of reference of the Central Parramatta Planning Committee; or

(iv) The development application is not known to have been made, or relate to a property owned by a member of staff or Councillor; or

(v) The development application does not seek a variation of more than 10% to a standard under the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007; or

(vi) The development application does not seek to demolish a heritage item; or

(vii) The development application does not relate to a brothel, massage parlour, sex services premises, restricted premises, tattoo parlour or place of public worship; or

(viii) The application does not seek a review of determination under section 82A.

(ix) The application is lodged as a “Fast Track DA” (i.e., swimming pools, garages, carports, awnings, decks, pergolas, change of use and similarly small scale DAs) even if 7 or more objections are received.

2. That Council reaffirm the following delegations to the Chief Executive Officer to:

i) Approve complying development certificates.

ii) Exercise the assumed concurrence of the Director-General in relation to objections made pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards.

iii) Refuse development applications and complying development certificates.

Note - Individual households are to represent only one objection to a development application irrespective of the number of individual objections received or signatures provided on behalf of that household for the purpose of determining 1(a)(i) above.

3. That site meetings be held for the following Development Applications prior to a determination being made:

i) Where 10 or more objections have been made.

ii) For all other DAs where 2 Councillors request that a site meeting be held.

4. That the current practice of referring proposed meeting dates and times for site meetings to Council for endorsement be replaced by such meetings being organised by staff in the Development Services Unit and notified to Councillors on a monthly basis.

5. Council commence 6 monthly ‘Industry Forums’ commencing in early 2009. The purpose of the ‘Industry Forums’ is to receive feedback from regular customers on the Development Assessment Service and local planning issues including architects, designers and developers.

6. Council suspend the current practice of referring Development Applications for child care centres to the Local Engineering Advisory Committee and Traffic Committee for comment in cases where on-street car parking is not being relied upon to comply with the car parking controls.

7. Amendments being made to the standard notification letter advising stakeholders that individual households are to represent only one objection to a development application irrespective of the number of individual objections received or signatures provided on behalf of that household. In addition, advice being included indicating that if objections are received from a significant distance to the proposal, the objector should state their interest in objecting.

8. That Council staff prepare a policy on how incomplete and deficient DAs should be dealt with by Development Assessment staff as a matter of policy having regard to balancing customer service and efficiency and timeliness of the of the process.

9. That a report be presented to Council in 6 months which outlines the progress of the changes proposed in this report and improvements to processing times and identification of any further changes required.

10. That monthly reports be prepared for Council identifying number of DAs in the system, median processing times, trends over time and other statistics that will keep Council informed of key statistics in DA processing and administration.

BACKGROUND

1. The Department of Planning (DoP) releases annual comparative data on the development assessment functions of Councils. The report titled ‘Local Government Development Performance Monitoring 2007-2008’ was released on 3 November 2008 and provides comparative data for the 2007/2008 financial year.

2. The report showed that both the gross and net processing times for DAs at Parramatta City Council were well above the NSW state average. The NSW net mean processing time for DAs is 46 days compared with Parramatta City Council’s 75 days. Clearly this is unacceptable and needs to be addressed.

3. Council staff and Councillors participated in a workshop on 19 November 2008 to discuss development application processing and administration issues with the aim of identifying ways in which processing times and customer service could be improved.

4. This report identifies some potential solutions as a package to improve both processing times and customer service. This should be an ongoing process of refinement. It should also be noted that paramount in the development assessment process is the imperative to ensure good governance. Good governance of the process should not be compromised in the pursuit of reducing processing times.

5. This report is divided into internal reforms to improve processing times and customer service as well as amendments to existing delegations and site meetings criteria.

INTERNAL REFORMS

6. This report identifies potential improvements that can be made to the development assessment process in regard to:

§ Review of the entire DA process, where time lags are occurring and strategies put in place to address them

§ Fast tracking of minor DAs

§ Expediting internal referrals

§ Improving the “clearing house” process

§ Performing a “blitz” on determining DAs that have been in the system for over 80 days

§ Improving responsiveness associated with pre lodgement meetings

§ Commencing a process of defining a policy position on how to proceed with incomplete or deficient DAs.

OBJECTIONS

7. The issue of objections and when to consider whether they are legitimate, is a difficult one. It is problematic to attempt to categorise types of objections that may be considered irrelevant or not valid as this may alienate genuine objectors and places too much discretion in staff to make quite subjective judgements.

8. This report recommends that further advice be contained in Council’s standard advice in notifying local residents of a development proposal advising that individual households will be considered as single objections regardless of the number of objections from occupants. Further, advice will be included that requires objectors from a significant distance from a proposal, to articulate the nature and reason for their objection.

DELGATIONS AND SITE MEETINGS

9. This report finds that significant processing time is spent in preparing reports to Council that may not need determination by Council. Parramatta City Council determined 14.6% of all DAs received in the 2007/08 financial year. This is much higher than all adjoining Councils and that vast majority of determinations are consistent with recommendations. The statistics show that gross processing times of those DAs determined under delegated authority are about half those referred to Council for determination.

10. An important component of improving processing times is the need to increase the number of applications determined under delegated authority. Sensitive DAs and those that register significant public interest will still be referred to Council for determination.

11. On site meetings, whilst often useful, are sometimes not well attended and therefore of questionable value. This report recommends that the triggers for on site meetings be limited to significant public interest only as well as requests from 2 or more Councillors. This as opposed to the list of types of applications which may not be controversial or complex. In addition, the practice of formally resolving to conduct on site meetings should be replaced by staff simply organising such meetings to save time.

INDUSTRY MEETINGS AND MONITORING

12. Conducting regular industry meetings with frequent users of the development assessment process is a valuable way of both receiving feedback and disseminating information. This report recommends that such meetings be organised commencing in early 2009 on a 6 monthly basis.

13. Staff will prepare regular monthly reports commencing in early 2009 to update Council on processing times, applications in the system and statistical trends in order that Council can be kept well informed of the periodic results and trends of the reform process.

Marcelo Occhiuzzi Louise Kerr

Manager, Land Use Manager, Development Services Unit

and Transport Planning

Attachments:

1View

Detailed Report

9 Pages

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.1

SUBJECT 197 Church Street, Parramatta (Cor Lot 1 DP 710335) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Section 96(2) modification to approved internal and external alterations to a heritage listed commercial building including the provision of an additional awning and alterations to the external color scheme.

REFERENCE DA/35/2008/A - Submitted 27 October 2008

APPLICANT/S Grant Simmons Architects Pty Ltd

OWNERS Holdmark Properties Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To determine an application to modify development Consent No.35/2008 which granted approval to internal and external alterations to an existing commercial building.

The current application seeks to amend the development consent in the following manner:

· Modify condition 1 to reflect amended plans;

· Modify condition 22 to allow for the repainting of the Church Street façade and to correct an error regarding the description of the façade.

· Deletion of condition 23 as no advertising panels are proposed to be erected.

· Modify condition 26 to allow for the erection of a glazed awning along the Marsden Street frontage.

· Erection of a wall sign along the Marsden Street frontage.

· Painting of the Macquarie Street façade.

The proposed modifications are minor and are acceptable. They will not result in any detrimental impacts on the heritage significance of the building or the locality. The modifications are generally consistent with the City Centre LEP 2007 and City Centre DCP.

No objections have been received in respect of the application and the application has been referred to Council as the building is listed as a heritage item in Schedule 5 of the City Centre LEP 2007. Accordingly, the application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor whom raises no objection to the modifications subject to conditions of consent. Approval of the application is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council modify Development Consent No. 35/2008 dated 14 July 2008 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 and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:

Document	Dated
Proposed Elevations – Marsden Street frontage. Project No. 0710. Drawing No. 09. Issue B	21 October 2008
Ground Floor Plan – Project no. 0710. Drawing No. 06. Issue B	21 October 2008
Level 1 Plan – Project no. 0710. Drawing No. 07. Issue C	21 October 2008
Marsden Street Sections – Project no. 0710. Drawing No. 10. Issue B	21 October 2008

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

Condition No. 22 is to be modified to read as follows;

No internal works shall be undertaken to the south-eastern portion (portion with the Church Street/Macquarie Street frontage) of the site as marked in red.

Reason: To limit the internal works to the north-western portion of the site to maintain the heritage significance of the building.

Condition No. 26 is to be deleted.

And that the following conditions are to be added to the consent:

1a) The vertical wall sign which appears on Drawing No. 09, Project No. 0710, Issue B is not to be installed as marked in red. A separate application is to be obtained for this sign.

Reason: To ensure consistency with the approved plans.

1b) The colours used for the repainting of the Macquarie Street façade are to be similar to the colour schedule which currently appears on the façade.

Reason: To ensure an appropriate colour palette for the the heritage item.

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

19 February 2009

Attachments:

1View	Assessment Report	8 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	4 Pages
4View	Previous Council Report	6 Pages

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.4

SUBJECT FURTHER REPORT: 13-15 Kleins Road and 30-36 Briens Road Northmead (Lots 1-5 DP 15342 and Lot B DP 320582) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Demolition and construction of a 2 storey mixed use development containing a supermarket and 9 residential units over basement parking for 66 vehicles.

REFERENCE DA/212/2008 -

APPLICANT/S Milestone Management Pty Ltd

OWNERS See Executive Summary for Owners

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PREVIOUS ITEMS 9.2 - 13-15 Kleins Road and 30-36 Briens Road Northmead (Lots 1-5 DP 15342 and Lot B DP 320582) (Arthur Phillip Ward) - Ordinary Council - 24 November 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

OWNERS

Mr K Lewis, Mrs K Scully, Ms D Esber, Mr N Esber, Councillor P Esber, Mr D Petratos, Mrs P Petratos, Mr E Jones, Mrs M Campbell

To provide Councillors with an update as to the progress of the application following the deferral of the application at Council’s Ordinary meeting of 24 November 2008 for a conciliation meeting, and to determine Development Application No. 212/2008 which seeks approval for demolition and the construction of a mixed use development containing 9 residential units and a supermarket.

At the ordinary Council meeting of 24 February 2009 Council resolved that the Traffic Committee urgently consider traffic issues relating to the road network in proximity to the development site. These issues included the introduction of a no right turn from Kleins Road into Balmoral Road, an additional lane on the eastern side of Kleins Road northbound, relocating the disabled car spaces to the southern end of the on street car parking area on the western side of Kleins Road, the introduction of a resident parking scheme for all the 'B' streets in Northmead, extending the no parking restrictions on Balmoral Road to 7 days a week and changing the phasing of the traffic lights at the Kleins Road/Briens Road intersection.

The next Traffic Committee meeting will be held on 6 April 2009. The issues to be addressed by the Traffic Committee do not directly relate to the works proposed as part of this development application and the application can be determined prior to the Traffic Committee's consideration of these issues.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Development Application No. 212/2008 for demolition and the construction of a mixed use development containing 9 residential units and a supermarket be approved, subject to standard and the following extraordinary conditions:

1. Deliveries to the supermarket may only occur between the hours of 7.00am to 2.30pm, and between the hours of 6.00pm to 10.00pm. From Monday to Friday only one articulated vehicle delivery is permitted during the hours of 7.00am to 8.30am.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjoining residential flat building in Howard Avenue and to ensure that deliveries occur at appropriate times.

2. The trading hours of the supermarket are restricted to 7.00am to 9.00pm daily.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

3. The fence/wall to the southern side of the patios for units 2-8 is to have a minimum height of 1600mm above the level of the adjacent pedestrian pathway.

Reason: To provide adequate privacy to the patios.

4. One of the proposed units is to be an adaptable dwelling in accordance with the Australian Standard No. 4299. Revised plans demonstrating compliance with this requirement are to be submitted for the approval by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Reason: To ensure compliance with Part 4.4.3 ‘Housing Diversity and Choice’ of Parramatta DCP 2005.

5. The garbage compactor shall only be used during the hours of 7.00am to 10.00pm.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area.

6. A roundabout is to be constructed at the intersection of Kleins Road and Balmoral Road, and a concrete median island is to be provided in Kleins Road from the proposed roundabout at the intersection of Balmoral Road and Kleins Road to the intersection of Kleins Road and Briens Road.

A detailed plan for the construction of the roundabout and the concrete median island, including associated signposting and linemarking, is to be submitted to Council for approval at least 4 months prior to occupation of the building. The approval for the construction of the roundabout is to be obtained prior to the issue of the construction certificate. The construction of the roundabout and concrete median island is to be completed to Council’s satisfaction prior to occupation of the building.

All costs associated with the design and construction of the roundabout and the median are to be borne by the consent holder.

Reason: Traffic Safety.

7. Seventy-four (74) off-street parking spaces (including 2 disabled parking spaces) are to be provided, permanently marked on the pavement and used accordingly, as per the approved plans. The dimensions for resident’s 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 spaces are to have dimensions of 3.8m wide x 5.5m long in accordance with Parramatta DCP 2005 as indicated on the approved plans.

Reason: Traffic Safety.

8. The combined entry and exit driveway for the at grade parking area and loading dock access, plus the driveway for basement access is to be provided in accordance with the approved plans. The driveway is to be constructed according to AS 2890.1- 2004 and Council’s specification. Traffic calming devices (speed humps or similar) are to be provided within the carparking area in the basement for safety reasons.

Reason: Traffic Safety.

9. Driveway and ramp gradients shall comply with Clause 2.5.3 and Clause 3.3 of AS2890.1-2004. Column locations to be in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004. Traffic facilities, such as; wheel stops, bollards, kerbs, signposting, pavement markings, lighting and speed humps, shall comply with AS2890.1-2004. Details of compliance with this condition are to be included on the plans submitted with the application for construction certificate.

Reason: Traffic Safety.

10. Clear sight lines shall be provided at the property boundary line to ensure adequate visibility between vehicles leaving the carpark and pedestrians along the Kleins Road footpath (in accordance with Figure 3.3 of AS 2890.1-2004). Any landscaping, fences or walls in this area are to be no greater than 0.6m higher than the boundary level at the driveway. Details of compliance with this condition are to be included on the plans submitted with the application for construction certificate.

Reason: Traffic Safety.

11. The minimum available headroom clearance for the basement carpark 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. Details of compliance with this condition are to be included on the plans submitted with the application for construction certificate.

Reason: Traffic Safety.

12. A convex mirror to be installed within the ramp access for the basement carpark (one near the entry driveway and 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. Details of compliance with this condition are to be included on the plans submitted with the application for construction certificate.

Reason: Traffic Safety.

13. 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: Traffic Safety.

14. Full time "No Stopping" restrictions are to be implemented along the Briens Road frontage of the development site. This restriction should be implemented prior to the commencement of any demolition works relating to the proposed development. Prior to the installation of the parking restrictions, the applicant is to contact the RTA's Traffic Management Services on phone: (02) 8849 2030 for a works instruction.

Reason: Traffic Safety.

15. Full time "No Stopping" restrictions to be installed along the site's entire Kleins Road frontage and full time "No Parking" restrictions to be installed along the site's entire Howard Avenue frontage, subject to the approval of the Parramatta Traffic Committee under Delegated Authority, prior to final occupation of the premises. Details are to be submitted to Council for approval at least 4 months prior to occupation of the building. The “No Stopping” and “No Parking” restrictions are to be implemented prior to occupation of the building.

Reason: Traffic Safety.

16. A pedestrian crossing is to be marked on the pavement from the at grade staff parking area to the kerb ramp that provides access to the pedestrian ramps. The at-grade car parking spaces are to be used and signposted for employees only. The linemarking and provision of signage is to occur prior to the issue of the occupation certificate.

Reason: Traffic Safety.

17. Prior to the issue of a construction certificate a detailed plan showing the surface treatments for the at grade car park shall be submitted to Council for approval. The plan shall include details of the colours and/or textures that will be used to provide an aesthetically appealing surface treatment to the car park.

Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable impact on the visual qualities of the streetscape.

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

BACKGROUND

1. On 24 November 2008 Council considered a report that recommended approval of a development application for a 2 storey mixed use development containing a supermarket and 9 residential units over basement car parking.

2. Council made the following resolution:

(a) That Development Application DA/212/2008 be deferred to a conciliation meeting at an available council chamber building meeting room with the applicant, council officers and objectors to address the following:-

1. The traffic impact from the delivery hours;

2. The noise impact from the garbage compactor operating during the hours up to 10pm;

3. The possible further traffic congestion derived from the combination of the latent popularity of Aldi supermarkets, its site being on an arterial road, its access being off an arterial road, and the existing “D” level of service as rated by the SIDRA traffic analysis programme.

(b) Further, that this development application be again referred to the Parramatta Traffic Committee seeking their opinion and/or proposals should this application create an “E” or “F” level of service particularly for Kleins Road by the SIDRA traffic analysis programme.

CONCILIATION MEETING

3. In accordance with the resolution of Council a conciliation meeting was arranged for Monday 2 February 2009 commencing at 8.30pm. The meeting was attended by Council’s Group Manager Outcomes and Development (Chairperson), Councils Service Manager Development Assessment Services, Councils Senior Development Assessment Officer, Councillor Bide, Councillor Lim, Councillor Maitra, Councillor McDermott, the applicant, and approximately 30 residents.

The following issues were discussed at the meeting:

The traffic impact from the delivery hours

4. The applicant explained that a maximum of 4 deliveries would be required per day and that Council staff had recommended a condition of consent which allowed only one delivery during the morning peak hours and no deliveries during the afternoon peak hours. In terms of the existing traffic flows it was considered that the impact of a single truck delivery in the morning peak hours would not have an appreciable impact on the operation of the road network.

The noise from the garbage compactor operating during the hours up to 10pm

5. The applicant explained that an acoustic report which examined the noise impact of the garbage compactor had been submitted with the development application and that the conclusion of the report was that the noise generated by the compactor would be within acceptable levels. It was noted that a condition has been recommended restricting the times when the garbage compactor can be used.

Traffic Congestion

6. The resolution of Council required the following issue to be addressed: ‘The possible further traffic congestion derived from the combination of the latent popularity of Aldi supermarkets, its site being on an arterial road, its access being off an arterial road, and the existing “D” level of service as rated by the SIDRA traffic analysis programme’.

7. The applicant explained that the traffic generation rates used in their traffic report were based on figures taken from actual Aldi supermarkets and were a couple of years out of date. The applicant explained that individual Aldi stores were more popular at this time because there were fewer Aldi supermarkets in New South Wales. The applicant also explained that it was not unusual for Aldi stores to be located off arterial roads and that there are several other Aldi stores in the area. The applicant did not expect the location of the store to result in additional traffic over that which would ordinarily be expected. It was the applicant’s view that the traffic generation rates they used are on the conservative side and that the store may generate less additional traffic than predicted.

8. The applicant also advised that they had been investigating the provision of a left turn slip lane onto Briens Road. This lane would be located on the south-western corner of the intersection and would require the removal of existing on street car spaces that service the local shops on the western side of Kleins Road. The applicant advised that the RTA’s traffic modelling had shown that the provision of this lane would significantly improve the operation of the intersection and reduce queuing times for vehicles turning left onto Briens Road. The applicant advised that the investigation into the feasibility of the slip lane was at a preliminary stage and that the cost of the works and the number of on street car spaces that would be lost were not known at this time.

Kleins Road median island

9. Concern was raised that the proposed median island in Kleins Road will make it difficult for trucks to manouvre into and out of the site

10. The applicant explained that all trucks arriving at the site will be coming from the Aldi warehouse in Minchinbury, for this reason they will be travelling in an easterly direction along Briens Road and will make a right turn into Kleins Road at the intersection. The applicant explained that trucks may be required to cross the median to make right turns.

Whilst this concern was noted the median would not prevent trucks from making a left turn and proceeding back to Briens Road via Boundary Road and Church Street. As the southern portion of Kleins Road and Boundary Road contain non residential land uses the additional travel time required is not considered to outweigh the potential negative impacts of the trucks crossing the median island.

Roundabout at the Kleins Road / Balmoral Road intersection

11. Concern was raised that the proposed roundabout at the Kleins Road / Balmoral Road intersection will not help to ease traffic congestion

12. The purpose of the roundabout is to allow vehicles forced to turn left out of the site by the median island to turn around and proceed back to Briens Road without having to make a ‘U’ turn at the intersection of Balmoral and Kleins Road.

Size of supermarket

13. A resident stated that the proposed supermarket is larger than a standard Aldi store, and asked whether does this meant that Aldi believe that the supermarket will be busier than a normal Aldi store.

14. The applicant advised that Aldi supermarkets have increased in size over the years and that in comparison to more recent Aldi supermarkets the proposed store is smaller than the average.

Were buses included in the traffic assessment?

15. The applicant advised that buses were considered in the traffic assessment and that they were not aware of any complaints from Westbus as to the impact of the development.

Cars run red lights at the intersection

16. This is an existing issue and not related to the proposal.

Draft sub-regional strategy

17. A resident asked whether the development is consistent with the draft Sub-regional strategy prepared by the Department of Planning?

18. The applicant advised that the proposal was supported by the Department of Planning and that the Department identified the area as being slated for a significant increase in population and that these new residents would require services such as supermarkets.

Will there be a fee to park in the Aldi car park?

19. The applicant advised that there would be a fee but people who purchased an item at the store would have their ticket validated and would not be required to pay the parking fee.

Council should build a public car park in the area.

20. This issue does not relate to the proposed development.

Demand for supermarket

21. Concern as raised that there is no demand for an Aldi supermarket and it should be located at Northmead Plaza.

22. The fact that there may be other sites suitable for a supermarket is not relevant to the assessment of the subject development application. The applicant advised that the site was chosen on the basis of the planning controls permitting the construction of a mixed use development.

Opening hours

23. A resident of Balmoral Street requested that the store close at 7.30pm so his children can go to bed.

24. The applicant advised that the store would only operate until 9.00pm on Thursday nights and would cease trade at 7.30pm on other nights.

25. The applicant has requested that the operating hours be restricted to 7.00am to 9.00pm daily to provide flexibility to change the operating hours in the future. The acoustic report submitted with the application concluded that the development would not increase road traffic noise by beyond 2dBA as specified by the ‘Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise’. Road traffic noise is not a reason which could be used to restrict the operating hours. As there is minimal congestion after 7.30pm it is considered unlikely that Balmoral Road would experience a significant increase in traffic levels during the evening. At times when there is minimal congestion it is more likely that people would choose the most direct route to Briens Road which is to use Kleins Road.

Impact on Balmoral Road

26. Residents advised that on the weekend Balmoral Road has only a single traffic lane because parking restrictions only apply during the week.

27. This is an existing issue that will discourage supermarket customers from using Balmoral Road on the weekends.

Location of vehicle access

28. Residents asked why the entry or exit is not located on Howard Avenue.

29. The applicant advised that as Howard Avenue was a residential no through road it is not a desirable location for the vehicle access due to the impact this would have on the amenity of the street. The applicant also advised that the proximity of Howard Avenue to that part of Briens Road where traffic is merging from the Church Street on ramp and where the speed limit drops from 90kph to 70kph makes Howard Avenue an unsafe location for vehicular access.

ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY REFERRAL

30. On 15 January 2009 Councils Traffic Engineer wrote to the RTA regarding the resolution of Council at the 24 November 2008 meeting. In particular the issue of whether the development would create an ‘E’ of ‘F’ level of service was raised and what could be done to improve the operation of the intersection. By way of letter dated 16 January 2009 the RTA provided new comments on the application and advised that their previous letter dated 13 August 2008 was superseded by these new comments. The letter from the RTA required the applicant to investigate the feasibility of providing a left turn slip lane from Kleins Road into Briens Road and prepare a Road Safety Audit for review by both the RTA and Council.

Left turn Slip Lane

31. The applicant’s Traffic Report included an assessment of the impact of the development on the operation of the intersection by using the SIDRA traffic analysis programme. This assessment concluded that the intersection currently operates at a ‘D’ level of service with an average delay of 50 seconds in the weekday PM peak and that the additional traffic from the development would result in a delay of 52 seconds, which also falls within the ‘D’ level of service. A ‘D’ level of service is defined as, ‘satisfactory but operating near capacity’.

32. The RTA has also undertaken an assessment of the intersection using the SIDRA traffic analysis programme. The RTA’s assessment concluded that the intersection currently operates at an ‘E’ level of service with an average delay of 65.2 seconds in the weekday PM peak and that the additional traffic from the development would result in a delay of 71.8 seconds, which falls within the ‘F’ level of service. An ‘E’ level of service is defined as, ‘At capacity and requires another control mode, an ‘F’ level of service is defined as, ‘Unsatisfactory and requires other control mode’.

33. The RTA has suggested that the applicant undertake a feasibility study into the construction of a left turn slip lane from Kleins Road into Briens Road. The RTA’s traffic modelling indicated that the provision of a left turn slip lane would reduce average delays at the PM peak by 21.3 seconds from 65.2 seconds to 43.9 seconds. This would place the operation of the intersection within level of service ‘C’, a level of service defined as, ‘Satisfactory but accident study required’.

34. Whilst a final feasibility study into the cost of the left turn lane has not been submitted to Council, the applicant has estimated that constructing the left turn slip lane will cost approximately $250,000. The RTA has advised that, ‘The RTA believes that the abovementioned cost is not an unreasonable amount to impose upon ALDI and we would request that the left turn improvement works be imposed’. However the RTA has acknowledged that it would be reasonable for the applicant to argue that the cost of the improvement works should only be limited to that required to return the operation of the intersection to a level consistent with that experienced prior to the development commencing. The RTA has also advised that they are not able to provide any funding for the works at this point in time. The applicant has advised that they are willing to contribute $50,000 towards the construction of the slip lane providing that it is constructed prior to, or shortly after the occupation of the supermarket.

35. The construction of a left turn slip lane would require further investigative works and community consultation, particularly due to the anticipated loss of 5 to 7 on street parking spaces for the local shops on the western side of Kleins Road. The majority of the costs associated with designing and constructing the lane would be borne by Parramatta Council because RTA has advised that they are currently unable to fund the works. The construction of a left turn slip lane is not part of Council’s current work program and the RTA usually provides the funding for the upgrading of intersections along RTA controlled roads.

36. Whilst limited details are available is it noted that Aldi have previously been involved in a Land & Environment Court hearing where they applied to the Court to have a condition of development consent which required the construction of a roundabout to be deleted. It was noted during the hearing that the intersection concerned currently operated at a level of service ‘F’ with an average delay of 78.8 seconds and the Aldi development would increase this delay to 112 seconds. The Court did not impose the condition on the basis of the limited impact of the development in terms of road safety, that the site was zoned for use as a supermarket, and that;

‘Under these circumstances, my assessment is that it is unreasonable for Aldi to be fully responsible for the construction of the new intersection, which is now required if the LOS is to be increased to a satisfactory level for the benefit of the general community, irrespective of the Aldi development’.

37. It is clear from this Court judgement that a great deal of caution needs to be exercised when considering whether to require a developer to undertake road upgrade works, in particular a strong nexus needs to exist between the impact of the development and the need for the road works. This nexus relates to both fact, i.e. that the works are required as a direct result of the development, plus degree, i.e. that the scale of the works is in proportion to the impact of the development. The Land and Environment Court have made it clear that it is not reasonable for Council’s to impose conditions requiring upgrade works that will result in improvements that go beyond the pre construction state of the road network. The Court judgement also suggests that where proposed development is consistent with the planning controls contributions for infrastructure improvements should be on the basis of a formal contributions scheme (i.e. Section 94 contributions).

38. The report considered at the 24 November Ordinary Council meeting recommended approval of the application without any requirements to construct or make a partial contribution towards the construction of a left turn slip lane. The position of Council staff is that in terms of traffic impact the development is acceptable subject to the conditions requiring the construction of the median island and roundabout. These traffic control measures relate directly to potential traffic safety impacts of the development and are measures that can be legitimately required by the imposition of consent conditions. Whilst the left turn slip lane would improve the operation of the intersection and the proposed development will result in an increase in queuing times, the proposed development is of a type anticipated by the planning controls and well below the maximum floor space area.

39. To promote public confidence in the development assessment process development contributions must be levied in an equitable, open, and consistent manner. This is best achieved through the use of formal planning instruments such as section 94 contribution plans. Section 94 contributions will be levied for this development in accordance with the relevant section 94 plan. It is not standard Council practice to require developers to make adjustments to road infrastructure to ensure that their developments have a neutral impact on the operation of intersections. It is considered that there is no statutory basis for Council to require the developer to make a contribution towards the construction of the left turn slip lane and that such a requirement would represent a significant departure from Councils long standing approach to such issues.

Road Safety Audit

40. The Road Safety Audit was submitted to Council on 6 February 2009. The Road Safety Audit is attachment No. 3. The audit identified the following issues; the development will contribute to additional queuing in Kleins Road, vehicles are making illegal lane changes westbound in Briens Road, road dimensions are not sufficient for large vehicles making left turns into Kleins Road from Briens Road, and the location of the change of speed limit on Briens Road.

41. Both the RTA and Council’s Traffic Engineer have completed a review of the Road Safety Audit. The issue of queuing in Kleins Road could be addressed by the installation of a left turn slip lane. This issue is discussed above.

Vehicles are making illegal lane changes westbound in Briens Road

42. Illegal lane changes were identified as being an exiting issue in Briens Road. Vehicles have been observed crossing the chevron line marking that separates the Church Street off ramp and Briens Road. This issue has been identified in the past during the assessment of a development application for a mixed use development at No. 20-22 Briens Road. A condition of this development consent required the developer to install a median island in place of the chevron line marking. A final occupation certificate issued by a private certifier has been obtained for this development but the median island has not been installed. Council staff are currently investigating this issue.

43. The RTA have recommended that a condition be imposed requiring that the median island be installed prior to occupation of the development and that the applicant seek reimbursements of these costs from the developer of No. 20-22 Briens Road. It is not considered reasonable for the applicant to install the median island when a condition of another development consent requires the installation of the median and that the developer has not complied with this condition. Concern is also raised that there is not a sufficient nexus between the Aldi development and the illegal lane change issue for Council to require the applicant to pay for the rectification of this issue.

Road dimensions are not sufficient for large vehicles making left turns into Kleins Road from Briens Road

44. The Council’s Traffic Engineer is of the opinion that this is an existing issue that will not be made worse by the proposed development and that the proposed median island will be designed to accommodate heavy vehicles making left turns into Kleins Road. The RTA would prefer that the proposed median island in Kleins Road extend to Briens Road to minimise right turn movements in Kleins Road and that the south eastern corner of the intersection should be shaved back rather than reducing the length of the median. As Kleins Road is a road under the control of Council the views of Council’s Traffic Engineer will be incorporated into the design of the median island as required by condition No. 6 contained in the above recommendation.

Location of the change in speed limit from 90kph to 70kph on Briens Road

45. This is an issue for the RTA to consider. The RTA has advised that this issue will be referred to the relevant staff member in the Road Safety Section for consideration.

Jonathan Goodwill

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Previous Council Report	71 Pages
2View	Minute from Council meeting of 24 November 2008	1 Page
3View	Road Safety Audit	18 Pages
4View	RTA Comments dated 16 January 2009	4 Pages

Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services			Assistant Minutes Clerk – Joy Bramham
Geoff King – Acting Group Manager Corporate			Minutes Clerk – Grant Davies
Sue Weatherley–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 Scott Lloyd – Caroline Chisholm Ward
Clr Pierre Esber– Lachlan Macquarie Ward			Clr Andrew Wilson – Lachlan Macquarie 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

1View	SEPP 1 Table	2 Pages
2View	Planning Circular	2 Pages

1View	S.79C Assessment Report	22 Pages
2View	Plans	8 Pages
3View	Location Map	1 Page

1View	S.79C Assessment Report	32 Pages
2View	Plans	5 Pages
3View	Location Map	1 Page

1View	Previous Report	6 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	2 Pages
4	Previous Council Report for DA/114/2008	7 Pages

1View	Assessment Report	21 Pages
2View	Locality Plan	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	8 Pages

1View	Assessment Report	25 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	3 Pages
4View	Heritage and Inventory Sheet	1 Page
5View	Council Report for Original DA 1091/2005 - DSU 16/2006	6 Pages

1View	Assessment Report	12 Pages
2View	Location Plan	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	4 Pages
4View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	1 Page

1View	S79C Assessment Report	28 Pages
2View	Plans and Elevations	10 Pages
3View	Locality Map	1 Page

1View	Assessment Report	13 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	2 Pages
4View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	3 Pages

1View	Assessment Report	15 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	2 Pages

1View	S79C Assessment Report	14 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	19 Pages
4View	Design Review Panel comments	3 Pages
5	S79C Report for original development application	30 Pages