Item 7.1 - Attachment 1

Previous Report to Council



ITEM NUMBER†††††††† 12.4

SUBJECT†††††††††††††††††† 2 Darcy Road Westmead (Lot 1 DP 1095407) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION††††††††† Section 96(1A) application to modify Development Consent No. 853/2008. The modification includes amendment to condition 30 which requires a financial contribution under Section 94A of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

REFERENCE††††††††††† DA/853/2008/A - Submitted 10 September 2009

APPLICANT/S†††††††††† Catholic Education Office

OWNERS††††††††††††††††††† Trustees of Roman Catholic Church Diocese of Parramatta

REPORT OF††††††††††††† Manager Development Services

PREVIOUS ITEMS††††††††††††† 12.6 - 2 Darcy Road Westmead Lot 1 DP 1095407 (Arthur Phillip Ward) - Regulatory Council - 14 April 2009††† ††




It is proposed to modify the contributions payable under Councilís Section 94A Development Contributions Plan.




Council on 14 April 2009 granted development consent to the refurbishment as well as alterations and additions to 2 existing high schools (Catherine McAuley and Parramatta Marist) and the construction of a new primary school for 420 students and construction of a 50 place out of school hours centre subject to conditions.


Condition No. 30 of the Development Consent requires the payment of section 94A contributions as required under Parramatta City Council Section 94A Contributions Plan 2007 (Section 94A Contributions Plan). This section 96 application seeks to modify condition No. 30 requesting that section 94A contributions only be payable in relation to the new primary school rather than the alterations and additions to the existing schools and the alterations to the internal traffic network. The modification of the condition would result in the applicant having to pay approximately $36,000 in section 94A contributions rather than $410,000.


The Section 94A Contributions Plan commenced operation on 9 April 2008 and repealed the Parramatta Comprehensive Section 94 Contributions Plan. The principal difference between the two plans is that the new Plan levies contributions as a proportion of the total cost of development and the previous Plan levied fixed contributions as a result of the increased number of dwellings and/or additional floor space area.


The section 96 application has been submitted on the basis of the applicantís opinion that the levy should only be required with respect to the new primary school and not the alterations and additions to the existing schools or the alterations to the internal traffic network. Amongst other things, this opinion is based on the fact that the new primary school is the only part of the development likely to generate an increased demand for services and/or infrastructure within the Parramatta Local Government Area.


The methodology proffered by the applicant is one that could be applied to any development subject to section 94A contributions. For example it would be equally applicable to any application that seeks the demolition of existing dwellings and replacement with multi-unit housing developments or residential flat buildings. If the applicantís methodology were adopted, calculating contributions would become complex, particularly due to section 94A levies being based on a percentage of the cost of works, rather than being a fixed levy based on the amount of additional floor area or dwellings. Applying the applicantís methodology would also result in a significant reduction in the amount of section 94A contributions collected by Parramatta City Council.


The underlying intent of Councilís Section 94A plan and Section 94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is to reduce complexity and uncertainty in the collection and application of development contributions. Approval of the current application to modify condition 30 would be contrary to the intent of the Section 94A contributions plan and would set a precedent that would adversely affect the integrity of the plan and introduce uncertainly into the development assessment process in the Parramatta Local Government Area. Therefore it is recommended that the applicantís request to modify condition No. 30 be denied and the Section 96(1a) application be refused.






That the application to modify condition No. 30 of Development Consent No. 853/2008 be refused for the following reasons:


1.†††††††† The proposed modification to condition No. 30 is contrary to the requirements of Councilís section 94A contributions plan as the development does not fall under a category of development that is exempt from the section 94A levy.

2.†††††††† The proposed modification would set an undesirable precedent for all future development within the Parramatta Local Government Area that is subject to section 94A levies.

3.†††††††† The proposed modification would undermine the integrity of Councilís section 94A contributions plan.

4.†††††††† The proposed modification is not in the public interest.






Jonathan Goodwill

Senior Development Assessment Officer




Section 79c assessment report

9 Pages



Item 7.1 - Attachment 1

Previous Report to Council