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	13 July 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – Ordinary Council - 22 June 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 Enforcement Policy and Parking Policy

8 Culture and Leisure

8.1 2009/2010 Requests for Fee Subsidy for the use of Public Halls, Community Centres and Meeting Rooms

9 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION

10 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD

11 Reports - Domestic Applications

11.1 21 Angus Avenue, Epping
(Lot 11A DP 21846) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

12 Reports - Development Applications

12.1 32 Berry Street, Clyde (Lot 1 in DP 799094) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

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

12.3 1/110-112 Ballandella Road Pendle Hill (Lot 1 SP 37905) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

12.4 7 Rossiter Street Granville (Lots 4 & 5 DP 7404) (Woodville Ward)

12.5 135 - 137 Spurway Street Ermington (Lots 102 and 103 DP 36536) (Arthur Philip Ward)

13 DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION

14 Closed Session

14.1 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.

15 QUESTION TIME

Regulatory Council 13 July 2009

Item 7.1

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 7.1

SUBJECT Variations to Standards under SEPP 1

REFERENCE F2009/00431 - D01232685

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To provide Council with information each month on development applications determined where there has been a variation in standards under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 or similar provisions under the standard instrument.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received and noted.

REPORT

In accordance with the reporting requirements prescribed in Planning Circular

PS 08-014 issued by the NSW Department of Planning, two (2) development applications have been determined where there has been a variation in standards under SEPP 1 or similar provisions under the Standard Instrument, during the period 28 May 2009 to 30 June 2009. All of these applications were approved at the Regulatory Council Meeting of 9 June 2009, as shown in Attachment 1.

Louise Kerr

Manager Development Services

Attachments:

1View

Development Application Variations under SEPP 1 - June 2009

1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 13 July 2009

Item 7.2

REGULATORY

ITEM NUMBER 7.2

SUBJECT Enforcement Policy and Parking Policy

REFERENCE F2009/01489 - D01240299

REPORT OF Manager. Regulatory Services

PURPOSE:

To present to Council for consideration and adoption the regulatory enforcement and parking enforcement policy.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopt the draft enforcement policy and the draft parking enforcement policy for public exhibition.

(b) That a further report be prepared for Council to consider matters raised from the public exhibition.

BACKGROUND

1. At the Ordinary meeting held on the 23^rd of March 2009 Council resolved;

a) That Council resolve to report to a workshop the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution - Prosecution Guidelines for all PCC prosecutions including Parking Officers/Rangers.

(b) That Council immediately provide 2 parking spaces in front of the Council Chamber Building 1 disabled and 1 for drop off.

(c) That a Code of Conduct be implemented for Parking Officers/Rangers to protect our council and officers.

(d) Further, that a workshop be convened within 28 days to develop a new Parking Infringement Policy and mechanisms for review.

2. Item (b) above has been completed and the remaining items have been carried out in the preparation of the draft policies.

3. The draft policies were prepared and a workshop was held on the 13 May 2009.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. Sinc Solutions were engaged to undertake a review of the Rangers Service area which identified the need for a Parking Enforcement policy to be adopted in consultation with all key stakeholders.

5. The issues identified were a need for change to review the current policies and work practices relating to the regulatory roles of Council and in particular to parking related matters. It was also identified that there is a need to change the community perception of parking enforcement matters which included, rebranding to change the image of Council staff, introduction of an education program and enhanced training program for staff.

6. The Department of Local Government has written to all Council suggesting they adopt a parking policy.

7. The introduction of an enforcement policy and parking policy will provide a framework for Council and staff undertaking the difficult role of regulatory enforcement to ensure consistency and enable clear operational procedures and guidelines.

8. The purpose of the policies is to provide a hierarchy under the umbrella of the enforcement policy. This will provide the framework for the parking enforcement policy and any future policies standard operating procedures and operational guidelines that will form a suite of policies for all regulatory matters.

The policies set out to achieve clear guidelines to ensure consistent application of the law and general standards of behaviour. The Parking policy also sets out the methods of enforcement, guidelines and legislative requirements.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

9. As a result of the Council resolution, the Sinc solution reports recommendations and the request from the Department of Local Government the draft policies were prepared taking all of the relevant matters into consideration.

10. The draft policies were presented to the Councillors at a workshop held on the 13^th May 2009. A number of issues were raised as outlined in the memo from the Group manager Outcomes and Development dated 18 May 2009. The policies have been amended taking these matters into consideration.

11. Other issues were identified during the workshop relating to rebranding of Rangers and Parking officers. These matters are being investigated and reported back to the Group Manager and CEO on an individual basis. The rebranding is to consist of a uniform and name change together with new high visible signage for ranger vehicles.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

12. The introduction of the enforcement and parking policies will have minimal impact on the financial implications for Council.

Laurie Whitehead

Manager Regulatory Services

Attachments:

1View	Enforcement Policy	16 Pages
2View	Parking Policy	45 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 13 July 2009

Item 8.1

CULTURE AND LEISURE

ITEM NUMBER 8.1

SUBJECT 2009/2010 Requests for Fee Subsidy for the use of Public Halls, Community Centres and Meeting Rooms

REFERENCE F2004/07903 - D01241028

REPORT OF Service Manager Recreation Facilities

PURPOSE:

The report details the process and recommendations for 2009/2010 Fee Subsidies for the use of Public Halls, Community Centres and Meeting Rooms by annual hirers.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the report on requests for fee subsidies for the use of public halls, community centres and meeting rooms by annual hirers for 2009/2010 be received and noted.

(b) That Council approve the annual fee subsidies to be granted as recommended in the 2009/2010 Fee Subsidy Assessment Sheet.

(c) That Council defer consideration of the request for a fee subsidy from the Rydalmere-Ermington Senior Citizens to enable further consultation with the group regarding their eligibility for subsidy.

(d) That the applicants, who have been unsuccessful in receiving a full exemption, be contacted to negotiate a payment program.

(e) That the invoices be issued to those groups who are required to pay fees for their use of Public Halls, Community Centres and Meeting Rooms.

(f) Further, that a review of the assessment criteria be undertaken in the next 12 months, with a discussion paper prepared for Councillor input prior to the matter being reported formally to Council for decision.

BACKGROUND

1. At its meeting of 23 September 2002, Council endorsed the assessment criteria and procedure for managing requests for fee exemptions and reductions.

2. At its meeting of 29 March 2005, Council approved delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive Officer to award subsidies outside of the annual process where groups fully meet the endorsed criteria.

3. At its meeting on the 22 June 2009, Council deferred the report for the 2009/2010 Fee Subsidies for the use of Public Halls, Community Centres and Meeting Rooms. Since then Council has received an additional application from the Parramatta Schizophrenia Support Group which has now been included within this report.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. Council agreed in 2002, on a policy for fee subsidies for Public Halls, Community Centres and Meeting Rooms. This report implements this policy for 2009/2010.

5. All annual hirers were invited to apply for a fee subsidy in their booking confirmations.

6. There were forty three (43) requests for application forms. A copy of the application form is Attachment 1. A copy of the accompanying letter is Attachment 2.

7. Thirty nine (39) applications for fee subsidies were received this year.

8. There were 3 new applicants from previous years applying for a fee subsidy.

9. Council Officers have assessed the applications against the endorsed criteria Attachment 3. A table that summarises the applications, the groups' demonstrated contribution to the community and inability to pay is at Attachment 4. The subsidies recommended for consideration by Council appear in the second last column of the table.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

10. The assessment process undertaken for this year’s fee subsidy, consisted of an assessment panel of Council officers from the Community Capacity Building Team and the Recreation Programs and Facilities Team.

11. Thirty seven (37) applications currently meet the assessment criteria. Two (2) applications do not meet the assessment criteria.

12. Where applications do not meet the criteria, Council may choose to subsidise these applications at their discretion.

13. The first of these applications that does not meet the criteria is the Rydalmere-Ermington Senior Citizens as they have the ability to meet the cost of their hire. Although the activities of the group operate in a deficit, the group have a modest bank balance and it has been confirmed in discussions with the applicant, that these funds have not been allocated to a particular purpose. However given the age of the participants of the group and the potential difficulties that they face to fundraise into the future, further discussions are taking place regarding their appropriateness for a fee subsidy. It is recommended that consideration of this application be deferred.

14. The second of these, the Young Christian Workers group does not meet the essential criteria. According to the financial details provided by the applicant, the group receives sufficient income annually to cover their operating expenses (including hall hire) and still achieve a profit.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

15. Of the applications that currently meet the assessment criteria, it is determined that the total subsidy required to be granted is $108,969.62.

16. Last year, the total subsidy granted was $98,329.81. The 2009/2010 budget allocates an amount of $65,649 based on the budget allocated in 2008/2009.

17. Management of the difference between the allocated budget and the total recommended subsidy will be reported to Council through the September 2009 quarterly review process.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATION

18. The process for subsidies for 2009/2010 includes for the first time, applications from the regular hirers of the facilities at Granville Youth and Community Recreation Centre (GYCRC). Previously, applications for subsidies were assessed by the GYCRC Advisory Committee. The consolidation of the subsidy process ensures that requests from all hirers of Council facilities are managed with equity and fairness.

19. There were 4 subsidy applications received from GYCRC hirers (3 of which are recommended) totalling $9,659.42.

20. The fee subsidy criteria Attachment 3 was developed and endorsed by Council in 2002.

21. It is timely that a review of the assessment criteria is undertaken in the next 12 months. The review will consider Strategic Asset Management Principles, the criteria used to establish an accredited list of community organisations and the alignment with Council’s strategic priorities. A discussion paper will be prepared for Councillor input prior to the matter being reported formally to Council for decision.

Nick Wright

Service Manager Recreation Facilities and Programs

Attachments:

1View	Attachment 1 - Fee Subsidy - Application Form	3 Pages
2View	Attachment 2 - Fee Subsidy - Request Letter	2 Pages
3View	Attachment 3 - Fee Subsidy - Assessment Criteria	1 Page
4	Attachment 4 - 2009 / 2010 Fee subsidy assessment sheet	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 13 July 2009

Item 11.1

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.1

SUBJECT 21 Angus Avenue, Epping
(Lot 11A DP 21846) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION Construction of a new dwelling house

REFERENCE DA/269/2009 - Submitted 1 May 2009

APPLICANT/S Kenneth Todd Dewey & Jung Bok Park

OWNERS Kenneth Todd Dewey & Jung Bok Park

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application has been referred to Council as the proposal seeks a SEPP 1 variation of greater than 10% to Clause 39 ‘Height limits in residential zones’ in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for the construction of a new dwelling house.

The proposal results in a dwelling house that will be 3 storeys in height by definition instead of 2 storeys as required under the development standard. The non compliance is a technical non compliance due to the definition of a storey under PLEP 2001 which includes any subfloor area greater than 1.2m above ground level as a storey. 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.

No submissions have been received in respect of this application.

The proposed works are consistent with the objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005. The proposed dwelling house will not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining properties. The SEPP 1 can be supported as the non compliance with the height development standard will not result in any adverse privacy, shadowing or bulk and scale impacts on adjoining sites. The non compliance is a technical non compliance due to the definition of a storey under PLEP 2001 which includes any subfloor area greater than 1.2m above ground level as a storey. The dwelling house has a proposed subfloor area of up to 1.4m in part and is therefore non compliant.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council support the variation to Clause 39 of the PLEP 2001 under the provisions of SEPP 1.

(b) Further, that Development Application No. 269/2009 for the construction of a new dwelling house on land at 21 Angus Avenue, Epping be approved subject to conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of this report.

Kate Lafferty

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Section 79C Report	24 Pages
2View	Location Map	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	6 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 13 July 2009

Item 12.1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.1

SUBJECT 32 Berry Street, Clyde (Lot 1 in DP 799094) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Section 96 Application (DA/1679/2002/C) - modification of the internal layout of the ground floor of an approved brothel.
Section 96 Application (DA/1679/2002/D) - increase in the number of employees.

REFERENCE DA/1679/2002/C - lodged 6th November, 2008 and DA/1679/2002/D lodged 9th March, 2009

APPLICANT/S Stewart Planning Group

OWNERS Mr Mark Palmer

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Brothel applications.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Two applications have been received by Council that relate to the existing brothel located at 32 Berry Street. The brothel was approved by Council subject to conditions on 11^th December, 2002 via Development Consent No. 1679/2002. Both of the applications seek to modify Development Consent No. 1679/2002 via section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

One of the applications (DA/1679/2002/C) seeks to modify the internal layout of the brothel. The extent of works relate to a new corridor extending from the hallway to the staff waiting room resulting in reduced area for Rooms 4 and 5, a new walk-in robe in part of the former hallway and a new alcove area preventing client access to the staff recreation room. The works do not increase the number of client rooms of the brothel. The works have been completed and the applicant is seeking retrospective approval to the completed works. The Section 96 application was submitted to Council on 6^th November 2008.

The other application (DA/1679/2002/D) seeks to increase the number of workers employed at the brothel from the approved 6 to 8. The Section 96 application was submitted to Council on 9^th March, 2009.

The two applications despite relating to the same property and land use are not related or dependent on one another. One application seeks approval to internal changes that will not increase the intensity or capacity of the brothel, whilst the other application seeks to increase the number of employees thereby intensifying the use.

The application that seeks to modify the internal layout (DA/1679/2002/C) has been assessed by Council’s Strategic Crime & Corruption Officer. The following comments have been made in relation to the application:

‘I have reviewed all the material submitted by the Applicant in support of the subject D.A. which seeks to carry out Section 96 modifications, by way of internal renovations. These modifications are in concert with DA /1679/2002/D which seeks intensification of the subject brothel with an increase in the authorised number of sex workers by two sex workers. There is no concern or objection to the internal modifications proposed. All issues of concern have been addressed in the review contained within DA/1679/2002/D.’

The application was also referred to the NSW Police for comment. No response has been provided from NSW Police on this matter. No public submissions have been received objecting to the DA. There are no planning issues that would warrant refusal of the application. Accordingly DA/1679/2002/C is recommended for approval.

The application that seeks to modify the number of employees at the brothel (DA/1679/2002/D) has also been reviewed by Council’s Strategic Crime & Corruption Officer. The following conclusions have been made:

“Having considered all the relevant circumstances and in particular public interest considerations pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, I recommend that the Section 96 application be refused on the basis that it is not in the public interest to permit intensification of a brothel within an area that already has a cluster of brothels and where the current operation has displayed disregard for existing conditions of consent, evident through the number of breaches detected. I recommend against the approval of any additional increase in the number of sex workers.”

One submission has been received objecting to the Section 96 application to increase the number of employees. For the reasons outlined by Council’s Strategic Crime & Corruption Officer (namely, the public interest), the proposal is regarded as being inconsistent with the objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, Parramatta Development Control Plan 2001 and the objectives of the Employment 4 zone. Accordingly, DA/1679/2002/D is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Section 96 Application No. 1679/2002/C for modification to the internal layout of the ground floor of an approved brothel be approved, subject to the conditions in Attachment 1 of this report.

(b) That Section 96 Application No. 1679/2002/D for modification to the number of employees be refused for the reason outlined in Attachment 2 of this report.

Alan Middlemiss

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Section 79C report for DA/1679/2002/C	5 Pages
2View	Section 79 report for DA/1679/2002/D	9 Pages
3View	Locality Map	1 Page
4View	Floor Plan	1 Page
5View	Copy of current approved plan	1 Page
6View	Strategic Crime & Corruption Officer review of DA/1679/2002/C	1 Page
7View	Strategic Crime & Corruption Officer review of DA/1679/2002/D	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 13 July 2009

Item 12.2

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.2

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

This item was deferred from the 9 June 2009 Council meeting.

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

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 13 July 2009

Item 12.3

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.3

SUBJECT 1/110-112 Ballandella Road Pendle Hill (Lot 1 SP 37905) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION DA/136/2009 - alterations and additions to existing Brothel
Section 96AA application - (DA/103/2003/A) - deletion of condition 12

REFERENCE DA/136/2009 - Section 96AA - Submitted 19 September 2008 and DA/136/2009 - submitted 17 March 2009

APPLICANT/S Song Li

OWNERS Mr Girolamo Chiddo & Mrs Maria Chiddo

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Brothel applications.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Two applications have been received by Council that relate to the existing brothel located at 1/110-112 Ballandella Road, Pendle Hill. The brothel was approved by the Land & Environment Court in January 2004 subject to conditions via development consent number 102/2003.

One of the applications is a section 96AA application that seeks to delete condition 12 of Development Consent No.102/2003. Condition 12 requires the installation of stair lift to the first floor. The section 96AA application was submitted to Council on 19 September 2008. It is not clear as to the reason for this condition, other than it is likely to have been included to permit access to the first floor of the brothel by persons with a mobility disability.

The other application is a development application (DA/136/2009) that seeks approval to alterations and additions to the approved brothel by providing a disabled access client room on the ground floor and converting an existing client room located on the first floor into a waiting area. The application does not increase the number of client rooms at the brothel. DA/136/2009 was submitted to Council on 17 March 2009.

Despite the two applications being lodged independent of one another and 6 months apart, they are interrelated in that if approval was granted to the disabled access client room on the ground floor it would be reasonable to delete the requirement to provide a stair lift to provide access to the first floor as disabled access would be provided to the premises (ie ground floor) and would satisfy DDA requirements.

However, if approval is not granted to the disabled access client room on the ground floor it would not be appropriate to delete condition 12 of Development Consent No.102/2003.

The assessment of both applications has been carried out separately and on their own merits, with independent recommendations which is an appropriate way of treating each application. These assessment reports and recommendations are attached separately.

Four submissions have been received objecting to the section 96AA application and two submissions have been received objecting to DA/136/2009.

Both applications have been assessed by Council’s Strategic Analyst Crime and Corruption. In relation to the section 96AA application to delete condition 12 the following comments were provided:

‘Given that the reasons provided are reasonable in the circumstances I now have no objection to the removal of condition 12 from the section 96 application.’

In relation to the DA for alterations and additions the following conclusions were made:

‘Having considered all the relevant circumstances and in particular public interest considerations pursuant to section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, I recommend that the subject application be strictly restricted to the installation of disabled access and a disabled service room only. I recommend against the approval of any additional staff rooms or staff rest rooms. Therefore in the circumstances that Council approves the proposed development, I recommend that the subject application is restricted and consent conditions recommended be imposed to prevent any attempts at intensification of the subject development.’

The full comments are contained in the section 79C assessment reports.

The NSW Police were also invited to make comment on DA/139/2009. No formal comment has been received from the NSW Police in relation to this DA.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council determine DA/136/2009 that seeks approval to alterations and additions to the existing brothel by providing a disabled access client room on the ground floor and converting an existing client room into a waiting room prior to determining the section 96AA application (DA/102/2003/A) that seeks deletion of condition No,12 of Development Consent No.102/2003.

(b) If DA/136/2009 is refused by Council, it is recommended that the request to delete condition no.12 of development Consent No.102/2003 be refused, as deletion of condition 12 would prohibit access to the brothel by persons with a mobility disability which would be contrary to DDA requirements.

Jonathan Goodwill

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	S79C Assessment Report for DA/136/2009	23 Pages
2View	S79C Assessment Report for s96(AA) DA/102/2003/A	9 Pages
3View	Locality Map	1 Page
4View	Plans and Elevations	4 Pages
5	Comments from Strategic Crime & Corruption Officer	4 Pages

Regulatory Council 13 July 2009

Item 12.4

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.4

SUBJECT 7 Rossiter Street Granville (Lots 4 & 5 DP 7404) (Woodville Ward)

DESCRIPTION Demolition and construction of a 37 place 2 storey child care centre with a basement carpark.

REFERENCE DA/846/2008 - Submitted 7 November 2008

APPLICANT/S Mr J Nehme and Mrs S Nehme

OWNERS Mr J Nehme and Mrs S Nehme

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

More than 7 submissions have been received.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Development Application No. 846/2008 seeks approval for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of a 2 storey child care centre with a basement carpark for 8 vehicles. The child care centre would provide 6 places for children aged 0-2 years and 31 places for children aged between 2-5 years. The proposed hours of operation are 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and the minimum number of employees will be 6.

2. The impact of the development on adjoining properties has been minimised through a basement car park and the absence of play room windows on the side elevations. Noise impacts have been addressed through the internal planning of the centre and the provision of acoustic barrier fencing. The development addresses ESD principles through suitable solar control for north facing windows and a rainwater collection tank.

3. Four individual objections letters and a petition with signatures from 9 households located on Rossiter Street have been received in respect to this application.

4. The application has undergone several amendments as a result of discussions with Council staff. The final plans demonstrate that the centre will provide a learning environment of high standard as required by the Child Care Centres DCP and the Best Practice Guidelines produced by the Department of Community Services. This is a long standing application that is now ready for determination.

5. The proposed development is permissible in the Residential 2(b) zone and will not have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of the area, and is therefore recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Development Application No. 846/2008 for demolition and construction of a 37 place child care centre with basement car parking be approved subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 3 of this report.

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

Jonathan Goodwill

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Plans and Elevations	5 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	S79C Assessment Report	42 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Regulatory Council 13 July 2009

Item 12.5

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.5

SUBJECT 135 - 137 Spurway Street Ermington (Lots 102 and 103 DP 36536) (Arthur Philip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of a seniors living development containing 6 apartments and 5 villas.

REFERENCE DA/935/2008 - Submitted 9 December 2008

APPLICANT/S Resitech Australia

OWNERS Department of Housing

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The exhibition of the development application has attracted 12 submissions objecting to the proposal.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The application seeks approval for demolition, tree removal and construction of a seniors living development containing 6 apartments and 5 villas.

2. The proposal is a Crown Development. Clause 116C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires the applicant to provide concurrence to any proposed conditions of consent. In addition under Clause 116C Council can not refuse its consent to the application, except with the written approval of the Minister. The applicant has reviewed the proposed conditions and has raised no objections.

3. The proposal is housing specifically designed for aged persons or persons with a disability and who are seeking housing through the Department of Housing. The proposal has been designed to ensure minimal impacts occur to adjoining properties through careful placement of windows and balconies. The proposed development will not adversely impact upon the adjoining properties in Spurway Street.

4. Twelve individual objection letters have been received in respect to this application.

5. The application has undergone several amendments as a result of discussions with Council staff. The final plans demonstrate that the seniors living development will provide housing of a high standard as required by the Seniors Living SEPP. This is a long standing application that is now ready for determination.

6. It is noted that under the Infrastructure SEPP housing provided by the Department of Housing can be carried out by the Department of Housing without development consent. The applicant has advised they wish to proceed with Council as the consent authority for this application. It is noted the subject application complies with the provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP.

7. The proposed development is permissible in the Residential 2A zone and will not have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of the area, and is therefore recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That development application (DA/696/2008) which seeks consent for demolition, tree removal and construction of a seniors living development containing 6 apartments and 5 villas be approved, subject to the conditions of consent contained in Attachment 2 of this report following concurrence of the conditions from the applicant.

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

Sara Matthews

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Locality Plan	1 Page
2View	Section 79C Assessment Report	35 Pages
3View	Plans and Elevations	9 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL