Agenda of Regulatory Council

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

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

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

Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services			Assistant Minutes Clerk – 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, Deputy Lord Mayor 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 - Woodville Ward	Clr Chiang Lim – Arthur Phillip Ward

Staff

GALLERY

Regulatory Council	9 June 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – Ordinary Council - 25 May 2009

2 APOLOGIES

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4 Minutes of Lord Mayor

5 Public Forum

6 PETITIONS

7 Regulatory Reports

7.1 Variations to Standards under SEPP 1

7.2 Nominations for the Joint Regional Planning Panel

7.3 Draft Local Environmental Plan 2008

8 Environment

8.1 Parramatta River Foreshore Plan Review

9 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION

10 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD

11 Reports - Domestic Applications

11.1 3/2 Horwood Place, Parramatta
(Lot 3 SP 21579) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

12 Reports - Development Applications

12.1 Section 82A Review - 15 Virginia Street, Rosehill.
(Lot 19 Sec 1 DP 1775)

12.2 88 Arthur Street Rosehill (Lot E DP 15599) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

12.3 Section 82A Review - 24-26 Lindsay Street, Wentworthville (LOTS 27, 28 & 29 DP 263185) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

12.4 21 Daking Street, North Parramatta (Lot 1 in DP 621423) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

12.5 2 - 6 Pennant Hills Road and 34 Albert Street North Parramatta
(Lots 11 and 12 DP 1052593) (Arthur Philip Ward)

12.6 431 Church Street, Parramatta, (Lot 1 in DP 998949 ) (Arthur Phillip Ward) Part of Fennell Street Carpark

12.7 353D Church Street, PARRAMATTA, Prince Alfred Park (Pk 15) (Lot 1 DP 724837), (Arthur Phillip Ward)

13 Notices of Motion

13.1 Council's Wage System

14 DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION

15 Closed Session

15.1 Legal Matters Monthly Report to Council

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (g) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

16 QUESTION TIME

Regulatory Council 9 June 2009

Item 7.2

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 7.2

SUBJECT Nominations for the Joint Regional Planning Panel

REFERENCE F2005/01801 - D01211060

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To provide Council with information on the commencement of Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPPs) and to consider the appointment of two (2) interested councillors to represent Parramatta City Council on the Sydney West Region Joint Regional Planning Panel.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council nominate two (2) interested councillors to represent Parramatta City Council on the Sydney West Region Joint Regional Planning Panel for the period 1 July 2009 to 30 September 2010.

OVERVIEW

One of the planning reforms introduced by the NSW Government is to establish a series of Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPPs) across the state. On 1 July 2009, the JRPPs will commence operation.

JRPPs will be the consent authority for regional development applications and can be requested by the Minister for Planning to provide advice on matters pertaining to planning, development or environmental planning instruments. They can also be given roles in the Local Environmental Plan making process.

It is proposed to have six (6) regions for JRPPS that correspond to existing Department of Planning regions. Matters within the Parramatta local government area will be considered by the Sydney West Region Joint Regional Planning Panel.

The JRPPs will be made up of three (3) members appointed by the Minister for Planning (State members) who will deal with matters across the region and a further two (2) members appointed by the relevant Councils who will undertake JRPP functions for planning matters in their particular local government area.

The information package for Council nominees can be found in attachment 1.

Functions of Joint Regional Planning Panels

The functions of JRPPs are to:

1. Exercise certain consent authority functions in regard to regional development applications; and

2. Where requested, advise the NSW Minister for Planning on planning or development matters or environmental planning instruments in respect of JRPP regions.

Regional development applications will include:

· Commercial, residential, retail and tourism with capital investment vale (CIV) between $10 million and $100 million;

· Public and private community infrastructure and ecotourism with a CIV of more than $5 million eg. schools, community halls, libraries etc;

· Designated development;

· Certain major coastal developments; and

· If Council is the proponent or is conflicted in relation to a development with a CIV of more than $5 million.

Membership of Joint Regional Planning Panels

The JRPPs are to consist of five (5) members as follows:

State Members: Three (3) state members appointed by the Minister, each having expertise in one or more of the following: Planning, architecture, heritage, the environment, land economics, traffic and transport, law, engineering, tourism and public administration.

In appointing the State members, the Minister is required to have regard to the need to have a range of expertise represented among the panel’s members. One of the State members will be appointed as the Chairperson of the JRPP.

Council members: Two (2) Council members appointed by each Council that is situated in a part of a state in which a JRPP is appointed. At least one Council nominee is required to have expertise in one or more of planning, architecture, heritage, the environment, urban design, land economics, traffic and transport, law, engineering or tourism.’

Additional selection criteria are listed as follows for Council nominees:

· Senior level experience in dealing with multiple stakeholders

· High level communication skills

· Capability to drive high profile outcomes in a credible and authoritative manner

· High level analytical skills; and

· Knowledge of the assessment of complex development and planning matters.

Councils may also nominate an alternative to stand in for a Council member.

In nominating a Council member to a JRPP, the Department of Planning have suggested that Councils require nominees to declare any private interests that may conflict with the public duties they would be required to perform if nominated to a JRPP.

Responsibilities of Members of Joint Regional Planning Panels

The responsibilities of JRPP members are to:

· Exercise their functions in accordance with statutory requirements as set out in the EP&A Act and associated regulations

· Comply with the approved JRPP Code of Conduct

· Promote a sense of confidence in the JRPP as independent decision making bodies

· Establish and maintain effective working relationships with the Councils in the relevant JRPP region

· Foster a positive working relationship with other JRPP members, the Panel Secretariat and the Department of Planning

· Follow approved JRPP procedures and participate in regular reviews of procedures, to ensure efficient and affective practices are adopted

· Perform their functions with integrity, impartiality, honesty, conscientiousness, care, skill, diligence, and

· Participate in/chair panel meetings or hold public hearings or panel meetings in a timely, efficient and cost-effective manner while having proper regard to the issues.

The term of appointment for Council panellists is up to three (3) years, Councils may nominate a shorter time period if they desire.

A JRPP member is entitled to be paid such remuneration (including travelling and subsistence allowances) as the Minister may time to time determine.

Persons appointed as panel members will be required to attend a training program that will be provided by the NSW Department of Planning.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PARRAMATTA CITY COUNCIL

Council nominations

Councils have been requested to nominate two (2) persons to become members of the relevant JRPP by Friday 5 June 2009. Each Council has also been requested to nominate an alternate member who may replace the Council nominee if unavailable for any reason.

In addition to the technical expertise required for JRPP members, additional selection criteria for nominees have been identified by the Department of Planning that include:

· Senior level experience in dealing with multiple stakeholders

· High level communication skills

· Capability to drive high profile outcomes in a credible and authoritative manner

· High level analytical skills; and

· Knowledge of the assessment of complex development and planning matters.

The guidelines produced by the Department of Planning would indicate that Council nominees need not be Councillors or Council staff, with advice being provided that Councils may wish to undertake an Expression of Interest (EOI) process seeking nominations for JRPP membership. Insufficient time is available for local Councils to undertake an EOI process seeking nominations prior to 5 June 2009 and to seek formal resolution of nominees to be put forward.

The only option available to Council in the short term is for either elected Councillors or staff to be nominated as members for the JRPP. In nominating persons to be members of the JRPP it must be recognised that any person nominated to the JRPP will be an independent member of the JRPP. As such they should not be subject to influence by other Council officers or Councillors on matters that are determined by a JRPP.

It is not considered appropriate for a member of staff (especially staff within the Development Services Unit) to be nominated as a member of the JRPP for the reason that they are directly or indirectly responsible for the assessment and recommendations put forward to the JRPP for determination.

Accordingly, it is recommended that Council nominate two (2) members of the elected Council (who meet the selection criteria) to the JRPP as an interim arrangement for the period 1 July 2009 to 30 September 2010.

If however Council would like to seek Expressions of Interest from community members, it is recommended that Council nominate two elected Councillor’s to the JRPP for a shorter period, whilst the EOI process is being carried out.

Council’s role in relation to matters under consideration by the Joint Regional Planning Panel

The Department of Planning are currently finalising the procedures for the operation for JRPPs. These procedures are expected to provide further information to Councils on how the JRPPs will operate; the roles of both JRPPs and local Councils; and the procedures that need to be followed by local Councils in assessing regional development applications.

What is known is that the assessment of regional development applications to be determined by JRPPs is to be undertaken by the relevant Council officer in which the proposed development is located. The Council officers are to submit their assessment report and recommendations to the JRPP for determination within 60 days.

Whilst the Council will not be the determining body for JRPP matters, the Council will have the opportunity to provide its views about any matters that are to be considered by a JRPP. The Council’s view may be provided to a JRPP by way of a submission in the same way that any other submissions about the matter are provided to a JRPP for its consideration in determining a matter. The JRPP must however consult with the Council prior to determining a matter which is likely to have significant financial implications for the Council.

Due to the 60 day timeframe in which regional development applications are to be assessed and referred to the JRPP for determination, there will be insufficient time for the assessment report to be tabled to a Council meeting for consideration to seek views on a regional development application prior to referral to the JRPP.

As a result, it suggested that upon the receipt of a regional development application notification will be provided to all Councillors of the receipt of the application and an opportunity will be provided for the elected Council to provide a written submission to the JRPP for their determination.

The JRPPs have a unique relationship to Council and it can direct council and staff as required to report and take direction from the JRPP. This includes sanctions to the General Manager for failing to carry out the directions of the JRPP.

There will be internal administrative changes that will need to be put in place to service the JRPP. It is not expected that the workload and administrative changes will be significantly different from current operations however this will be monitored upon commencement of the JRPPs.

The Department of Planning, based on data obtained from local Councils in 2007/2008 estimate that the Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel will determine approximately 77 applications per year. Based on current trends it is expected that Parramatta Council will receive approximately 10 regional development applications per year.

The legislative amendments that have been made state that local Councils will fund the operation of the JRPPs, however the Director General of the Department of Planning is considering a number of other options to cover the costs of the JRPPs in response to concerns raised by local Councils. Some of these options include, planning reform funds, increasing DA fees and sharing the costs between state and local government. To date no final decision has been made by the government.

Louise Kerr

Manager Development Services

Attachments:

1View

Information package for Council nominees

10 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 9 June 2009

Item 7.3

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 7.3

SUBJECT Draft Local Environmental Plan 2008

REFERENCE F2006/01198 - D01218651

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek clarification from Council on the process it wishes to follow to progress the draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and in particular the proposed community update (informal exhibition).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council consider the options outlined in this report and determine how it wishes to proceed with the public information process (informal exhibition) and the formal public exhibition of the draft LEP.

BACKGROUND

1. On 23 March 2009, Council resolved to endorse the Draft Parramatta LEP, including 36 amendments and conduct an informal public information process to update the community prior to the formal exhibition of the plan.

2. Council’s land use planning staff have been preparing for the display of the draft LEP on Council’s web site, in Council’s offices, libraries and community venues and preparing a draft letter and information brochure to be sent to all land owners. (Councillors were emailed a draft copy of the letter and brochure on 18 May 2009).

3. It was intended to commence the community update in July 2009. It was also estimated that the formal exhibition of the draft LEP would subsequently not commence until early 2010, after receipt of the Section 65 certificate (approval to exhibit the draft plan).

4. There are approximately 25 Council owned sites which Council is still to finalise for inclusion in the draft LEP. On 25 May 2009, Council resolved to defer consideration of these sites pending a workshop, further advice and information. Consequently, the community display of the draft LEP will not proceed on the dates proposed in the draft material circulated to Councillors, given that the planning controls for these 25 sites are yet to be determined.

ISSUES

5. The delay in determining the draft LEP proposals for zoning, height, floor space ratio and reclassifications for Council owned land has implications for the timing of the community update (informal exhibition) on the draft LEP. It is likely to delay this process for several months.

6. A further uncertainty is the Department of Planning’s response to the 36 amendments sought by Council in adopting the draft LEP on 23 March 2009. At the time of preparing this report, formal advice has not been received. However, discussions between senior officers of Council and the Department of Planning have indicated that it is likely that the Department will not agree to some of the Council’s proposed amendments and other proposals may require further investigation (and possibly be dealt with as future amendments after the LEP is made). By the time the community update takes place, the Department’s advice will have been received and there may be proposals in the draft LEP display that Council will then be aware of that the Department will not agree to.

7. This report discusses some options as to how Council may proceed with the draft LEP having regard to the above matters.

OPTIONS

8. Option 1: Council can wait until the details of Council owned land are finalised for the draft LEP and then carry out the community update. This is a transparent way of showing the community Council’s proposals for all land under the draft LEP.

9. This is likely to delay the community update by 2 - 3 months (further delays may mean a clash with the Christmas/New Year holiday period) and will also extend the timeline before the formal public exhibition of the plan takes place. Additionally, the draft LEP will not be as transparent if the community update includes proposals the Department of Planning will not agree to.

10. Option 2: Council can wait until the details of Council owned land are finalised for the draft LEP and consider a further report once the Department of Planning’s advice is received to decide if it wishes to make further amendments to the draft LEP considering this advice.

11. The benefit of this approach is that Council can provide the community with a display of a more comprehensive update of draft LEP that is more transparent. The considerable disadvantage of this option is that it will extend the delay before the community update can take place for a longer period, possibly 3 – 4 months, depending on the extent of changes and will extend the timeline before the formal public exhibition of the plan takes place. This could mean that this process may need to be conducted in early 2010, given the Christmas/New Year holiday period.

12. Option 3: Council can proceed with the community update without including the proposals for Council owned land and indicate to the community that it is working towards future proposals for its own land that will be included in the formal public exhibition. Council could also advise that the draft plan is likely to be subject to other changes as required by the Department of Planning before the formal exhibition. This would mean less delay to the LEP timeline, but a major concern would be the lack of transparency, especially with Council’s proposals for its own land. There would be greater uncertainty for the community in understanding the draft plan.

13. Option 4: Council can proceed to the formal exhibition as soon as possible after determining the proposals for Council owned land and once the Department of Planning’s requirements are resolved by Council, without carrying out the community update (informal exhibition).

14. The proposals for Council owned land would be finalised following the process adopted by Council on 25 May 2009, which may take 2 – 3 months. This would then be referred to the Department of Planning for comment. A further report would be prepared to advise Council of the Department of Planning’s responses to the 36 amendments adopted by Council on 23 March 2009 and any other issues it raises, to give Council the opportunity to make any further changes to the draft plan if it wishes. This could occur in approximately a month of receiving the Department’s advice.

15. Council could seek a section 65 certificate from the Department, once it includes the proposals for Council owned land in the draft LEP. (Note: Council can leave some sites to be dealt with as future LEP amendments if it wishes as the Department of Planning has advised that this is reasonable). The advantage of this option is that the formal public exhibition occurs at the earliest opportunity and provides the community with more clarity about the content of the draft LEP. It is also the most time effective option.

16. Following Council’s decision on 23 March 2009 to endorse the draft LEP for an informal information process, there has been a build up of community anticipation to view the draft plan. Public enquiries to Council’s planning staff about the draft LEP indicate that many residents are awaiting the formal public exhibition as the opportunity to lodge their submission about the draft LEP.

SUMMARY

17. All of the options have advantages and disadvantages. However, given the delay in commencement of the community update for at least several months, resulting from Council’s decision on 25 May 2009 and the comments that will be forthcoming from the Department of Planning, Option 4 appears to provide the most clarity and transparency to the community and will also progress the draft LEP in the most timely manner.

Marcelo Occhiuzzi Sue Stewart

Manager Land Use & Senior Project Officer

Transport Planning – Land Use Planning

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

None.

Regulatory Council 9 June 2009

Item 8.1

ENVIRONMENT

ITEM NUMBER 8.1

SUBJECT Parramatta River Foreshore Plan Review

REFERENCE F2006/01282 - D01218689

REPORT OF Acting Waterways Systems Manager

PURPOSE:

NOTE: This item was deferred from the Council meeting held on 25 May 2009 pending further information action numbers together with an appropriate action plan/ timeline. This information will be forwarded to Councillors in due course

This report outlines the results of the review and public exhibition of the draft Parramatta River Foreshore Plan and recommends the document be adopted by Council.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the Parramatta River Foreshore Plan 2009-16 be adopted by Council.

(b) That actions identified in the Plan be implemented as funds are provided in future annual Council Management Plans.

(c) Further, that the community and stakeholder workshop participants be advised of the outcome of Council’s decision and thanked for their efforts in providing valuable input into the plan.

BACKGROUND

1. The initial Parramatta River Foreshore Plan was prepared in 1994 with the aim of providing a consistent approach to managing and developing the river foreshore corridor between O’Connell Street, Parramatta and Wharf Road, Ermington. The plan outlined the major issues and values relating to the river, including the themes of: Circulation and Access; Planning and Management Controls; Image and Visual Quality of the Foreshore; Recreation, Tourism and Use; and Natural Conservation and Regeneration. The river corridor was divided into a number of management precincts, each with a number of actions to be implemented in response the identified issues and values.

2. In 2007, a review of the 1994 plan (Attachment) was initiated to assess its achievements to date and to provide a prioritised list of recommended actions for the future management of the river. Environmental Partnership Pty Ltd was engaged to undertake the review at a cost of $63,000.

3. The review established that 79 actions had been implemented to date, with an approximate cost of $8.78M. These actions mainly related to improved access through the provision of pedestrian and cycleways. Other implemented actions included habitat restoration, water quality management, landscaping, public art, development controls, events, interpretation, policy and planning. Full details of the works completed to date are included in Section 9.2 of the plan.

4. During the review process, a number of changes were made to the scope of the plan, including:

i. Western boundary extended from O’Connell Street to Lake Parramatta so that the plan would be inclusive of the full length of the river foreshore within the Parramatta LGA;

ii. Three (3) additional precincts were created to reflect the extended area, including Lake Parramatta, North Parramatta, and Parramatta Park;

iii. Modification of the original management themes to reflect current management practices, including; Access and Transport; Landscape, Visual Quality and Future Urban Form; Recreation and Events; Cultural Heritage; Habitat; and Water Management; and

iv. Identification of additional funding sources to assist implementation of the new actions.

ISSUES / OPTIONS / CONSEQUENCES

5. Almost one hundred (100) future actions have been identified during the review of the 1994 plan, equating to approximately $12.5 million of capital works, studies and land acquisition over a seven (7) year period. A majority of these works are allocated under current operating and rolling program budgets. Additional grant funding will be sought annually using the existing budgets as leverage. The renewal of Council’s Special Rates, including the Suburban Infrastructure (Environment Improvement Program) and CBD Infrastructure Enhancement Special Rates will be necessary for implementing a number of restoration and revitalisation projects along the foreshore.

6. Parramatta River is recognised as having significant potential as the central focus for both the community and visitors to the city. A coordinated approach to the development and management of the river is required to realise this potential. The revised river foreshore plan aims to guide this through a coherent approach to the implementation of identified priority actions, including the preparation of integrated concept plans for each foreshore precinct, and the preparation of an interpretation framework for the river. Implementation of the plan will be coordinated between: City Assets and Environment; City Strategy; Land Use and Transport Planning; and Recreation, Tourism and City Culture units.

CONSULTATION / TIMING

7. This review has been developed in collaboration with management and staff in the relevant stakeholder units within Council, including:

- City Strategy Unit (Environmental Outcomes and Place Management teams)

- City Assets and Environment Unit (Open Space and Natural Resources teams)

- Land Use and Transport Planning Unit (Urban Design and Transport Planning teams)

- City Culture, Tourism and Recreation (Events, Arts/Culture and Recreation teams)

8. Consultation has been an important component in the development of the revised plan. Councillors, relevant stakeholders and the community were engaged through the following key methods:

i. Authority and stakeholder information session on 18 July 2007. The purpose of the forum was to provide information on the review and to engender discussion on the issues and priorities for the foreshore. It was attended by 16 participants from a range of organisations who were engaged in discussions on key issues and priorities for the foreshore.

ii. Community Workshops held 21 July 2007

iii. Two workshops were attended by 23 participants from Council’s Resident Panel, who provided their views on:

- the best and worst aspects of the river;

- why they would/wouldn’t use the river; and

- their vision for the foreshore.

iv. Councillor Workshop / River Cruise. The cruise enable Councillors to experience the issues currently affecting the river, with the workshop providing additional information regarding the review, and to determine their issues and priorities.

9. The draft plan was placed on exhibition in Parramatta Central Library, on Council’s website, and within the customer service centre during the period 4 June 2007 to 2 July 2008. Five (5) submissions from residents and stakeholders were received and considered during this period. Following these submissions and feedback from internal staff, the report underwent substantial re-formatting including a rationalisation of the number of maps.

10. Evaluation of implemented actions from the adopted Plan will occur on an annual basis. This work will be conducted by Council’s City Strategy Unit.

Alison Parr Troy Holbrook

Acting Waterways Systems Manager Recreation Planner

Attachments:

Attachment will be forwarded under separate cover due to the size of the file.

70 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

None.

Regulatory Council 9 June 2009

Item 11.1

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.1

SUBJECT 3/2 Horwood Place, Parramatta
(Lot 3 SP 21579) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Fitout and use of the existing premises for the purposes of a Natural Therapy Chinese Massage and Reflexology Centre

REFERENCE DA/926/2008 - 3 December 2008

APPLICANT/S Wendy's Natural Massage

OWNERS Ms C C Ng

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

Reason for The proposal seeks approval to use an existing premises for referral TO the purposes of a Natural Therapy Chinese Massage and COUNCIL Reflexology Centre

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The application seeks approval for the fitout and use of an existing premises for the purposes of a Natural Therapy Chinese Massage and Reflexology Centre.

The application is being referred to Council for determination as the application seeks approval for a massage and reflexology centre.

No objections from the public have been received in relation to this application.

The development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the B3 Commercial Core zone applying to the land, and is generally consistent with the aims and objective’s contained within Council’s City Centre LEP and City Centre DCP.

The use of the ground shop as a natural therapy centre (business premises) is a permissible land use in the B3 Commercial Core zone and satisfies the objectives of the commercial zone. The applicant has provided documentary evidence of their qualifications relating to massage therapy, and has also provided written documentation stating that no sexual services will be provided at the premises. There is no evidence before Council that indicates that the purpose for which consent is sought is for a use other than remedial massage and reflexology. Notwithstanding this, it is appropriate for Council to place conditions on the consent that specifically prohibit the use of the premises for sexual services and require the operator of the business to provide details of staff qualifications, employee details, ABN number, etc prior to of the use to satisfy the concerns raised by the Strategic Crime and Corruption Officer.

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Development Application 926/2008 for a change of use to a Natural Therapy Chinese Massage and Reflexology Centre on land at 3/2 Horwood Place, Parramatta be approved as a ‘Deferred Commencement’ Consent subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of this report.

Maya Sarwary

Senior Development and Certification Officer

Attachments:

1View	Section 79C Report	16 Pages
2View	Location Map	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 9 June 2009

Item 12.1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.1

SUBJECT Section 82A Review - 15 Virginia Street, Rosehill.
(Lot 19 Sec 1 DP 1775)

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling including a proposed garage and the construction of a two storey dwelling to create a detached dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision.

REFERENCE DA/568/2008 - Submitted 8 August 2008 (Section 82A Review Submitted 13 February 2009)

APPLICANT/S J Frangieh

OWNERS J Frangieh

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR

REFERRAL TO

COUNCIL Section 82A Review

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

1. This Section 82A Review application seeks Council’s reconsideration of its refusal to grant consent for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling including a proposed garage, and the construction of a two storey dwelling to the rear to create a detached dual occupancy development with Torrens Title subdivision.

2. The Section 82A Review application has been amended to reposition the garage and driveway of Dwelling B (rear dwelling). A commitment has also been made by the applicant to seal the existing laneway located to the rear of the site at their expense.

3. The site has an area of 475.3m2 and is located between Rosehill Public School and a large undeveloped allotment at 5 Virginia Street. The size of the site and its location between 2 large allotments limits the development potential of the site. The applicant in their section 82A submission has indicated that negotiations with the owner of 5 Virginia Street to acquire part of the site have not been successful. It is on this basis that the current application has been prepared.

4. The constraints of the site are particularly highlighted by the large number of departures proposed to Council’s development standards and planning controls. Some of the controls that are to be varied include:

- Minimum allotment size of 600m2 that is required for dual occupancy

development under clause 29R(2)(b) of SREP 28.

- Minimum site width, building separation and open space controls in the Harris Park DCP.

5. While it is acknowledged that the site has limited development potential, the number of planning controls to be varied in the application and the level of variation proposed to the planning controls is significant.

6. No objections have been received in respect of this application.

7. For the reasons outlined in this report, it is recommended that Council not change its previous decision and refuse to grant consent to the Section 82 Review application.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority uphold its previous decision and refuse to grant development consent to Development Application No. 568/2008 for alterations and additions to existing residence including a proposed garage and retention of existing dwelling and construction of a two storey dwelling to create a detached dual occupancy including Torrens title subdivision at 15 Virginia Street, Rosehill, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal fails to comply with Clause 29R (2)(b) – Minimum allotment sizes of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 28 – Parramatta and a SEPP 1 objection cannot be supported as the departure of 124.7m2 from the minimum allotment size standard of 600m2 and results in a density, scale, bulk and form that is unsuitable given the site constraints and contrary to the objectives of the development standard.

2. The proposal fails to comply with Section 8.2 – Dual Occupancy of the Harris Park DCP. In particular the proposal does not comply with the minimum site width for dual occupancy developments with two street frontages.

3. The proposal fails to comply with Section 8.2 – Dual Occupancy of the Harris Park DCP. In particular the proposal does not comply with the minimum building separation for dual occupancy developments on sites with two street frontages.

4. The proposal fails to comply with Section 6.2 – Private Open Space of the Harris Park DCP as the proposal provides only 52m2 for Unit A and 41.m2 for Unit B which are substantial departures from the required 100m2 and result in inadequate provision of outdoor areas for active and passive recreation.

5. The proposal fails to comply with Section 5.7 – Roof Design of the Harris Park DCP as the roof design is inconsistent with the existing pitched roof patterns of adjoining developments.

6. The proposal is not considered to be in the public interest.

Denise Fernandez

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Section 82A Assessment Report	15 Pages
2View	Section 82A Plans and Elevations	21 Pages
3View	Original Plans and Elevations	20 Pages
4View	Locality Map	1 Page
5View	Previous S79C Report	11 Pages
6View	Notice of Determination	2 Pages
7View	Pre-Lodgement Advice	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 9 June 2009

Item 12.2

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.2

SUBJECT 88 Arthur Street Rosehill (Lot E DP 15599) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Construction of a 3 storey multi-unit housing development containing 3 dwellings.

REFERENCE DA/603/2008 - Submitted 21 August 2008

APPLICANT/S Mr Joe Wehbe

OWNERS Ms Tania Wehbe and John Sarkis Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR

REFERRAL

TO COUNCIL: SEPP 1 variation greater than 10%.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

1. The application seeks approval for the construction of a 3 storey multi-unit housing development containing 3 dwellings.

2. The site is within the Harris Park Precinct under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28. The site has an area of 552m2 and is zoned residential 2(c).

3. The application has been referred to Council as the proposal seeks a SEPP 1 variation of greater than 10% to Clause 29Q ‘Site Frontage’ of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28. The site has a frontage of 13.715m and SREP No. 28 requires a minimum frontage of 18m for multi-unit housing. The application is seeking a variation of 23.8% or 6.285m to the development standard for site frontage.

4. In accordance with a Planning Circular released by the Department of Planning in November 2008 on ‘Reporting Variations to Development Standards’ variations to development standards greater than 10% should be determined by Council.

5. One submission was received in response to the notification of the development. The issue of privacy impact raised in the submission does not warrant refusal or amendment of the development application.

6. The proposed development is in scale and character with surrounding residential development, consistent with the zone objectives, and is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council support the variation to Clause 29Q ‘Site Frontage’ of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 under the provisions of SEPP 1

(b) That development Application No. 603/2008 for the construction of a 3 storey multi-unit housing development containing 3 dwellings be approved subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 3 of this report.

Jonathan Goodwill

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Plans and Elevations	5 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	S79C Assessment Report	31 Pages

Regulatory Council 9 June 2009

Item 12.3

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.3

SUBJECT Section 82A Review - 24-26 Lindsay Street, Wentworthville (LOTS 27, 28 & 29 DP 263185) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Consolidation of 2 lots and Torrens title subdivision into 3 lots.

REFERENCE DA/26/2008 - Submitted 15 January 2008 (Section 82A Review Submitted 10 November 2008)

APPLICANT/S Ms A Monisse & Mr D J Shosho

OWNERS Ms A Monisse & Mr D J Shosho

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REPORT to council: Section 82A Review

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

1. This Section 82A Review application seeks Council’s reconsideration of its refusal to grant consent for the consolidation of two lots and Torrens title subdivision into three lots. The original Development Application (DA/26/2008) was refused on 4 September 2008 on the basis that no stormwater plans were submitted and the site is flood prone.

2. The Section 82A Review application is also considered to be unacceptable due to insufficient and inaccurate information having been lodged with the application. In this regard, the subject site is flood affected and the stormwater plan differs from the subdivision plan as it does not indicate accurate details of the number of lots, beneficiaries of the right of way, and the drainage easement for Council’s consideration.

3. No submissions have been received in response to this application.

4. For the reasons outlined in this report and Attachment 1, it is recommended that Council uphold its previous decision and refuse to grant consent to the Section 82A Review application.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council as the consent authority uphold its previous decision and refuse to grant consent to DA/26/2008 for the consolidation of 2 lots and Torrens title subdivision into 3 lots on land at 24-26 Lindsay Street, Wentworthville for the following reasons:

1. No SEPP 1 was lodged in respect to the non-compliance with minimum site width.

2. Council has not received sufficiently accurate information to enable a proper assessment of the application to be conducted under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. In this regard, the site is flood affected and the following differences are noted between the submitted stormwater plan and subdivision plan:

· The subdivision plan proposes the consolidation of 2 lots and Torrens title subdivision into 3 lots and labels the proposed lots as 271, 272 and 273. The right of way has been incorporated into lots 271 and 272.

· The stormwater plan proposes the consolidation of 2 lots and Torrens title subdivision in 3 lots and labels the lots as 27, 28 and 29 with the right of way forming the access handle of lot 28.

· A drainage easement has been noted on the stormwater plan and not on the subdivision plan.

· The beneficiaries of the right of way have not been identified on both the stormwater plan and the subdivision plan.

3. The applicant has not provided plans indicating satisfactory stormwater drainage for the site.

4. The applicant has not provided an assessment against Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 regarding the compliance of the existing 2 single dwellings that are to remain on the site.

5. The proposal is not in the public interest.

Sophia Chin

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Section 82A Assessment Report	9 Pages
2View	Section 82A Plans	2 Pages
3View	Locality Map	1 Page
4View	Previous S79C Report	8 Pages
5View	Original Plans	2 Pages
6View	Notice of Determination	2 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 9 June 2009

Item 12.4

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.4

SUBJECT 21 Daking Street, North Parramatta (Lot 1 in DP 621423) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Designated Development - change of use of an industrial building to a metal recycling facility with associated signage.

REFERENCE DA/696/2008 - lodged 24th September, 2008

APPLICANT/S Parramatta Scrap Metal

OWNERS D & V Mifsud

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR

REFERRAL TO

COUNCIL The exhibition of the development application has attracted 76 submissions objecting to the proposal.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

NOTE: This item was deferred from the Council meeting held 11 May 2009.

Parramatta Scrap Metal (PSM) owns and operates a metal recycling facility at No.12 North Rocks Road, North Parramatta and has recently purchased a property at No.21 Daking Street, North Parramatta for the recovery and recycling of waste (metal recycling).

PSM proposes to utilise an existing premises without the need for alterations and additions, and to operate a small scale metal recycling facility for the recovering of recyclable non-ferrous metal products for reuse in the manufacturing process.

Metals would be transported to the site in private vehicles (usually vans, utilities and the like) by the general public. A small flat-bed truck owned by PSM will also be used to collect material from off-site.

Once on-site, materials will be sorted, weighed and crushed where appropriate and non-metal products stripped away. The facility will be capable of handling up to 15 tonnes of material per day, employing 6 people and with a capital investment value of $2 million. The premises will have operating hours of 7.30am to 4.00pm Mondays to Fridays and 7.30am to Noon on Saturdays. The processing of metals will not involve the use of any chemicals.

The proposal is Designated Development as the activities to be undertaken are identified in Part 1, Schedule 3 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, as “32. Waste management facilities or works” and located within 100 metres of Hunts Creek.

The use of the site as a waste management facility or works is a permissible use in the Employment 4 zone and the site is suitable for the relocation of the existing business from its current location in North Rocks Road.

The development application is presented to Council for determination as the exhibition attracted 76 submissions objecting to the proposal, principally raising concerns of noise, traffic, parking and the proximity of the premises to St Monica’s Catholic School (primary school) adjacent to the site, to the west.

The potential impacts of the development have been subject to a thorough assessment by Council and in the Environmental Impact Statement which accompanied the application.

The application seeks to address the impacts raised in objections by limiting the extent of operating hours, introducing acoustic measures to minimise noise and to operate the facility in a similar manner to that of the existing facility in North Rocks Road.

Council Officers have assessed the proposal and are satisfied that any environmental impacts can be mitigated and managed to achieve acceptable levels of environmental performance, and that the facility would provide a range of environmental and economic benefits for the locality, by continuing to recycle metal waste.

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is in the public interest and consent to the development application is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That development application (DA/696/2008) which seeks consent for the change of use of an industrial building to a metal recycling facility and the installation of business identification signs be approved, subject to the conditions of consent contained in Attachment 2 of this report.

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

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Director-General's Requirements	5 Pages
2View	Section 79 Assessment Report	29 Pages
3View	Locality Map	1 Page
4View	Plans & Elevations	11 Pages

Regulatory Council 9 June 2009

Item 12.5

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.5

SUBJECT 2 - 6 Pennant Hills Road and 34 Albert Street North Parramatta
(Lots 11 and 12 DP 1052593) (Arthur Philip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Tree removal and construction of a 14 storey mixed use development containing 3 commercial tenancies and 55 apartments over 3 levels of basement car parking with strata subdivision.

REFERENCE DA/968/2008 - Submitted 22 December 2008

APPLICANT/S Loulach Developments Pty Limited

OWNERS Loulach Developments Pty Limited

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

Reason for

referral to

council: The application seeks variation through the use of Clause 24 of the City Centre LEP, to the building separation control (clause 22D) in the City Centre LEP by more than 10%.

executive summary:

1. This application seeks approval for tree removal and construction of a 14 storey mixed use development containing 3 commercial tenancies and 55 apartments over 3 levels of basement car parking with strata subdivision.

2. The application seeks variation to the building separation control in Clause 22D of the City Centre LEP by more than 10%. The application also seeks variation by up to 10% for maximum building height for which the proposal has been the subject of a Design Excellence Competition.

3. The application has been reviewed by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel and the applicant has suitably addressed the concerns raised by the Panel.

4. Four written submissions and a petition with 11 signatures have been received in relation to the application. None of the issues that have been raised in the submission would warrant refusal of the application. All government agencies that have reviewed the application raise no objections to the proposal.

5. Despite the non compliances with the building separation requirements of the Parramatta City Centre LEP and DCP, the proposal is consistent with the zones objectives and is now recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

a) That Council support the variation to Clause 22D (building separation) of the City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007.

(b) That development application (DA/968/2008) which seeks approval for tree removal and construction of a 14 storey mixed use development containing 3 commercial tenancies and 55 apartments over 3 levels of basement car parking with strata subdivision be approved subject to a conditional consent as outlined in Attachment 1 of this report.

Sara Matthews

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Section 79C Assessment Report	52 Pages
2View	Locality Plan	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	24 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 9 June 2009

Item 12.6

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.6

SUBJECT 431 Church Str eet, Parramatta, (Lot 1 in DP 998949 ) (Arthur Phillip Ward) Part of Fennell Street Carpark

DESCRIPTION Installation of a mobile food van for use as a Harry's Café de Wheels diner within part of the Fennel Street Car Park

REFERENCE DA/523/2008 - submitted 23 July 2008

APPLICANT/S Harry's Café de Wheels

OWNERS Parramatta City Council

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR Referral to council:

Council owned land and number of submissions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

1. The application seeks approval for the installation of a mobile food van for use as a Harry’s Café de Wheels diner with associated outdoor seating within part of Fennel Street Car Park. The diner is to be located on the portion of the Fennell Street car park fronting Church Street and immediately adjacent to the BP Service Station. It is proposed to operate the diner between 9am and 10pm Sunday to Thursdays and 9am to midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. It is recommended that trading beyond 10pm until midnight on Fridays and Saturdays be limited to a trial period until February 2010.

2. Six submissions and one petition containing 71 signatures were received objecting to the original proposal. The amended proposal (with reduced hours of operation) was not renotified due to the reduced impacts of the amended proposal.

3. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 and Development Control Plan and is consistent with the zone objectives. Whilst the proposal is not strictly consistent with the urban design requirements of clauses 22A, 22B and 22D, the proposal is considered to be acceptable as a temporary use of the site subject until such time as the site is redeveloped and Church Street is widened, subject to strict conditions and time limitations. Further, additional information is required to finalise some aspects of the proposal and as such deferred commencement consent is recommended. The deferred commencement conditions require the applicant to supply additional information in relation to the amended layout for the portion of the Fennel Street Car Park that is affected by the proposal, details of toilet facilities for use by staff and confirmation of a lease of the additional portion of the car Fennel Street Car Park required for the provision of 4 parking spaces for the exclusive use of staff and patrons of the diner.

4. Accordingly, the application is recommended for deferred commencement consent and a restricted consent period of 24 months.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Development Application No 523/2008 for the installation of a mobile food van for use as a Harry’s Café de Wheels diner with associated outdoor seating at 431 Church Street Parramatta, be granted deferred commencement consent subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of this report.

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

Attachments:

1View	Locality Map	1 Page
2View	Plans and Elevations	2 Pages
3View	Photograph of site	1 Page
4	Section 79C report	23 Pages

Regulatory Council 9 June 2009

Item 12.7

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.7

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

DESCRIPTION Use of Prince Alfred Park for a NAIDOC Burramatta Family Fun Day event.

REFERENCE DA/119/2009 - Submitted 9 March 2009

APPLICANT/S Parramatta City Council- Civic

OWNERS Parramatta City Council

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The proposal involves Council owned property.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The application seeks approval for a NAIDOC Burramatta Family Fun Day event to be held at Prince Alfred Park on 5 July 2009 between 11.00am and 4.00pm. It is anticipated that the event will attract between 1,500 and 2,000 persons and no alcohol will be available on site. The event will be a celebration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and will include stage entertainment, amusements, information stalls, food stalls, traditional arts/crafts activities, workshops and a sports drill clinic. The festival also involves the temporary road closure of Market Street on the day of the event between 9.00am and 6.00pm the road closure is supported by the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group (TEAG) subject to conditions.

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

The proposal is consistent with the objectives and relevant controls of State Environmental Planning Policy (Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment) 2007 and of the City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 and associated Development Control Plan. The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives and is an appropriate use of Prince Alfred Park. Appropriate measures are proposed to deal with the road closure of Market Street, the security of the event, noise and the removal of waste from the event.

The proposal is considered to be acceptable and of public benefit, will not have an adverse impact on Prince Alfred Park as a listed heritage item, and as such is recommended for approval.

It is noted that the application has been assessed by an independent planning consultant

RECOMMENDATION

That development Application No. 825/2009 for the use of Prince Alfred Park for a NAIDOC Burramatta Family Fun Day event to be held on Sunday 5 July 2009 be approved subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of this report.

Kerry Gordon

Independent Planning Consultant

Attachments:

1View	Section 79C Report	14 Pages
2View	Location Map	1 Page
3View	Plan	1 Page
4View	Photograph of site	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL