NOTICE OF Council (Development) MEETING
The Meeting of Parramatta City Council will be held in the Council Chamber, Fourth Floor, 2 Civic Place, Parramatta on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 6:45pm.
Dr. Robert Lang
Chief Executive Officer
Parramatta – the leading city at the heart of Sydney
30 Darcy Street Parramatta NSW 2150
PO Box 32 Parramatta
Phone 02 9806 5050 Fax 02 9806 5917 DX 8279 Parramatta
ABN 49 907 174 773 www.parracity.nsw.gov.au
“Think Before You Print”
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
|
|
The Lord Mayor Clr Paul Garrard - Woodville Ward |
Dr. Robert Lang, Chief Executive Officer - Parramatta City Council |
|
|
Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services |
|
|
Assistant Minutes Clerk – Joy Bramham |
|
|
|
|
|
Minutes Clerk – Grant Davies |
|
|
Sue Weatherley–Group Manager Outcomes & Development |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clr Paul Barber – Caroline Chisholm Ward |
|
|
Clr Lorraine Wearne, Lachlan Macquarie Ward |
|
|
Clr Mark Lack – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward |
|
|
Clr John Chedid – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward |
|
|
Clr Glenn Elmore – Woodville Ward |
|
|
Clr Scott Lloyd – Caroline Chisholm Ward |
|
|
Clr Pierre Esber– Lachlan Macquarie Ward |
|
|
Clr Andrew Wilson – Lachlan Macquarie Ward |
|
|
Clr Prabir Maitra – Arthur Phillip Ward |
|
|
Clr Andrew Bide – Caroline Chisholm Ward |
|
|
Clr Julia Finn – Arthur Phillip Ward |
Clr Michael McDermott - Elizabeth Macarthur Ward |
Clr Antoine (Tony) Issa, OAM – Woodville Ward |
Clr Chiang Lim, Deputy Lord Mayor – Arthur Phillip Ward |
|
|
Staff |
|
|
Staff |
GALLERY
|
Council (Development) |
9 November 2009 |
|
|
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO
1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Council (Development) - 12 October 2009
2 APOLOGIES
3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
4 Minutes of Lord Mayor
5 Public Forum
5.1 Support of DA/258/2008 for 86 Tintern Ave Telopea
6 PETITIONS
7 Regulatory Reports
7.1 Planning proposal for 'housekeeping' amendments to Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2007
7.2 Variations to Standards under SEPP 1
7.3 Director General's Requirements for Concept Plan and Part 3A Application for Telopea Urban Renewal Project
8 Roads Paths Access and Flood Mitigation
8.1 Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting minutes held on 8 October 2009
8.2 Traffic Engineering Advisory Group minutes held on 8 October 2009.
9 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION
10 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD
11 Reports - Domestic Applications
11.1 Part of Market Street road reserve and Lot 1 DP 724837, Prince Alfred Park (Pk 15) 353D Church Street, PARRAMATTA, NSW 2150 (Arthur Phillip Ward)
11.2 10A Owen Street, Wentworthville
(Lot 1 DP 854863) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
11.3 292 Church Street, Parramatta
(Lot 100 DP 803945) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
12 Reports - Major Applications
12.1 Section 82A Review - 86 Tintern Avenue and 23B Robert Street Telopea (Lots 2 & 3 DP 1070878) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
12.2 57 High Street Parramatta (Lot 434 DP 786912) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
12.3 83 Wentworth Avenue, Wentworthville NSW 2145 (Lot 2 DP 329885) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
12.4 2 Darcy Road Westmead (Lot 1 DP 1095407) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
12.5 12 Union Street Parramatta (Lot 21 DP 1182) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
12.6 182 Windsor Road, Winston Hills (LOT 2 DP 540754) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)
12.7 Boronia Park (Park 7) 37A Bridge Street, EPPING NSW 2121 (Lot 7013 DP 1123441, Lot 2 DP 866176, Lot 44 DP 6385, Lot 7 DP 6229, Lot B DP 160976) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward) (Location map - Attachment 2)
12.8 41 Onslow Street, Granville NSW 2142 (Lot 3 DP 128510) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
12.9 45 George Street Clyde (Lot 19 DP 612994) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
12.10 16 Muriel Avenue, Rydalmere (Lot 299 in DP 14244) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
13 Notices of Motion
13.1 Naming of the new Pathway between Denham Place and Kissing Point Rd
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.
14.2 Tender 21/2009 - Parramatta Town Hall - Instillation of Air Conditioning to the Charles Byrne and First Floor Meeting Rooms and Associated Works.
This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.
15 DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION
16 QUESTION TIME
|
Council (Development) |
9 November 2009 |
|
|
|
Public Forum
09 November 2009
5.1 Support of DA/258/2008 for 86 Tintern Ave Telopea
|
Item 5.1 |
PUBLIC FORUM
ITEM NUMBER 5.1
SUBJECT Support of DA/258/2008 for 86 Tintern Ave Telopea
REFERENCE DA/258/2008 - D01349541
REPORT OF Administration Officer
|
FROM Ms Flossie Rutter
Ms Rutter has not spoken and this topic has not previously been addressed at Public Forum.
My Points to Council are as follows:- In regards to the development of 86 Tintern Ave Telopea.
1. Section 82A, Our legal advice is that the application is substantially the same and the LEC will accept this.
2. Streetscape, Plans to conform to all requirements of the LEP.
3.DCP. 1) The Site does not comply at all points with the 24-metre width. As a corner site this requirement is not absolute and the application does conform to the LEC planning principals for width. 2) Site consolidation: The adjacent sites can be developed in consolidation with sites fronting Tintern or under SEPP for affordable housing. 3) The streetscape:- All vegetation to be retained and enhanced. 4) Balconies can be removed if required. 5) There is no privacy intrusion into the adjacent house. The only unprotected window is a kitchen window which is screened by trees and fencing. Alternative exempt and complying houses would Have no privacy screening requirements at all. 6) There is level access for disabled access from Tintern Ave, Town house one is can be an adaptable residence (also known as a universal house). 4. 1) All Robert St trees are retained, 2) Is not validated, 3)Expert advice is contrary to concerns, 4)Expert advice is contrary to concerns, 5) Expert advice is contrary to concerns. 5. Greater public interest. 1. Houses are high quality housing. 2. In a metro in fill area with good transport. 3. Good social and physical amenities such as schools and parks. 4.Houses are six and seven star energy rating, with many additional environmental attributes. 5. Contained in plans are social and environmental features such as disabled access, universal house considerations, indoor-outdoor North facing living areas, Water tanks and recycling, and bike storage in garage. We have had meetings with the sustainability officers, which included the discussion of including a large common area vegetable garden and we would welcome further discussion.
We would rather not waste everybody’s time or money in a court when a better solution may be found by further discussion.
|
|
|
There are no attachments for this report.
|
Council (Development) |
9 November 2009 |
|
|
|
Regulatory
09 November 2009
7.1 Planning proposal for 'housekeeping' amendments to Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2007
7.2 Variations to Standards under SEPP 1
7.3 Director General's Requirements for Concept Plan and Part 3A Application for Telopea Urban Renewal Project
|
Item 7.1 |
REGULATORY
ITEM NUMBER 7.1
SUBJECT Planning proposal for 'housekeeping' amendments to Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2007
REFERENCE F2009/01146 - D01337854
REPORT OF Project Officer
|
PURPOSE:
This report seeks to finalise the planning proposal for ‘housekeeping’ amendments to Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 after its public exhibition.
|
|
(a) That Council not support the submission from the Urban Task Force Australia. (b) Further, that the planning proposal as per attachment 1, be adopted by Council and forwarded to the Department of Planning for finalisation and making of the plan amendments.
|
BACKGROUND
1. On 22 June 2009, Council resolved under section 54 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, to prepare a draft LEP to the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 generally to:
· include markets as exempt development and to alter parking standards to maximums. These proposed amendments are in accordance with a Council resolution after exhibition of the city centre LEP, but which were not included in the gazetted LEP
· exclude security shutters from exempt development in accordance with a Council resolution of 7 October 2008
· remove the prohibition of advertisements on land zoned B3 Commercial Core and B4 Mixed Use
· remove a number of reservations for road widening and regional open space where the land has already been acquired and amend/add a reservation for road widening to achieve a future laneway from Marsden Street to George Street.
· include an appropriate FSR and height limit for land at 36 Charles Street and an appropriate FSR for land within the Riverbank block.
2. Shortly after Council's resolution, a new process for preparing LEPs was introduced by the State Government. Under this process, a council first prepares a planning proposal which is considered by the Department of Planning (the Gateway Determination), at which stage the Department gives approval to publicly exhibit the proposal. After public exhibition, the Department arranges for the drafting of a local environmental plan to give effect to the planning proposals, following which the Minister may make the LEP.
3. The Director General of Planning advised on 14 September 2009 that the planning proposal (Attachment 1) should proceed and be placed on public exhibition for 14 days. The planning proposal was publicly exhibited from 30 September to 16 October 2009 at Council's administration building, the Central library and on Council's web site. One submission was received from the Urban Task Force. The Urban Task Force is a non-profit organisation representing prominent property developers and equity financiers.
4. Councillors were advised by memo on 24 August 2009, that recent work in the development of a laneways strategy for the City Centre by Council’s Urban Design Team suggests that it may be premature to propose acquisition to achieve the linkage from Marsden Street to George Street and that progression of this element of the housekeeping amendment should be deferred pending further work on the laneways strategy. This element of the planning proposal has therefore been removed.
5. As part of the resolution of 22 June 2009, Council also resolved to prepare a number of separate and minor housekeeping amendments to the Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan 2007. These are currently on public exhibition, being required to be exhibited for a longer period of 28 days than the 14 day period for the planning proposal, and will be reported to Council in the near future.
ISSUES
6. The Urban Taskforce states in its submission (Attachment 2) that it is concerned at the proposal to amend clause 22C of the plan to set a maximum number of car parking spaces for development in the city centre for reasons outlined as follows:
· The setting of mandatory limits on residential car parking will not reduce car ownership. The benefits of compact pedestrian friendly communities around public transport nodes will not be reduced car ownership; the benefit is more likely to be lower car usage. Where parking is limited, there are major social impacts caused by the lack of off-street parking.
· The proposed parking restrictions on shops will make most such development unviable. Limiting shops to one parking space for every 30 square metres of gross floor area will cripple many development opportunities. For example, most retail development requires one car parking space for every 20 square metres in order to be viable.
· Neither minimum, nor maximum car parking provisions are appropriate for commercial development, shops, restaurants or drive-in take-away food and drink premises
· Parramatta Council has misinterpreted the current provisions of the local environmental plan. The REP’s car parking provisions were accompanied by an objectives clause to ensure that public transport becomes the most important means of moving people to and within the Parramatta City Centre which will reduce the number of motor vehicles travelling to the city Centre and to improve overall environmental quality and pedestrian amenity. In addition, in explaining how the gross floor area is calculated for the purposes of the table, the LEP clearly contemplates the possibility that underground car parking might be provided in excess of the car parking mandated by the table.
· Developers should be free to provide car parking sufficient to meet local needs, subject to the traffic studies required in the development assessment process. There is a large body of evidence from inner Sydney experience to demonstrate that limiting car parking is an ineffective tool in encouraging public transport use. North Sydney and City of Sydney (and the former South Sydney Council) have attempted to use this tool for some time.
7. The following responses are made on the points raised following review of the Urban Task Force submission:
· It is anticipated that the setting of mandatory limits on residential car parking will be both reduced car ownership and lower car usage. Households living in the city centre may opt for the ownership of one rather than two cars. In addition, it is predicted that the use of car share services will increase to meet the demand for occasional use of a car. To require a minimum number of car spaces would be contrary to Council's objectives resulting in increased cost of accommodation, and an increased number of vehicles travelling into the city centre and lower support and use of public transport. The city centre has a finite traffic capacity with very little scope for any significant increase and the road network can not cope with higher parking rates for the amount of development proposed in the city centre. The current levels of traffic congestion in parts of the city centre are directly related to the parking provision as clearly demonstrated by the level of traffic congestion in streets around Parramatta Westfield. Allowing excessive parking provision in any location where traffic capacity is limited leads to congestion and will in turn undermine future development opportunities.
· No evidence is given that centres with good public transport needs one parking space for every 20 square metres of retail floor space. It is considered that a maximum standard for commercial premises of one space for every 100 m is appropriate. The Urban Task Force submits that the car parking provision for some activities such as restaurants and take-away food bars are excessive. With the amendment proposed such premises will have the choice to provide a reduced number of parking spaces. It is also worth noting that most of the existing retail, outside Westfields, has little or no on-site parking and operates successfully serving local employees, residents and those using public transport. The parking rates in Parramatta CBD that apply to retail and residential are in line with RTA guidelines for parking rates that also apply to smaller centre with less public transport, the main difference is that Parramatta sets these rates as maximums. The parking rates for commercial development in the Parramatta CBD are appropriate for the road network constraints and public transport service.
· The city centre LEP 2007 includes objectives to promote public transport use and to reduce unnecessary car traffic. Clause 2 (f) of the City Centre LEP includes the objective to, ‘enhance access to Parramatta, particularly by public transport, walking and cycling’. Furthermore, Future Action 5 of the City Centre vision ‘is to create a pedestrian friendly city by improving the public transport mode share’. Included in the rationale for this action is the statement: ‘This plan builds upon the projects already delivered and addresses ways to improve access and amenity for pedestrians and bicycles, reduced commuter car traffic and unnecessary through traffic, encourage public transport use’. Clause 22 (b) of the City Centre LEP allows underground parking to be exempt from a building’s gross floor area but not to exceed the parking standard.
· The amendments proposed will give developers a degree of choice in meeting local needs by being able to provide parking to the maximum or to a lesser amount.
8. The growth of the Parramatta CBD needs to be managed in a sustainable manner and the position of maximum parking rates is significant in achieving this outcome. This need is reflected in Council's recently adopted Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta City Centre 2009/10 -- 2000 14/15 that states, ‘The key issue for Parramatta City Centre is moving away from the reliance of car use towards more sustainable transport of walking, cycling and public transport’. The submission is therefore not supported.
Paul Kennedy Sue Stewart
Project Officer Land Use Planning Senior Project Officer Land Use Planning
|
1View |
Planning proposal for amendments to Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 |
23 Pages |
|
|
2View |
Submission from the Urban Task Force Australia |
4 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Item 7.2 |
REGULATORY
ITEM NUMBER 7.2
SUBJECT Variations to Standards under SEPP 1
REFERENCE F2009/00431 - D01343536
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.
|
|
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, three (3) 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 1 October 2009 to 27 October 2009. All (3) development applications were approved at the Regulatory Council Meeting of 12 October 2009, as shown in Attachment 1.
Louise Kerr
Manager Development Services
|
1View |
Development Application Variations under SEPP 1 - October 2009 |
1 Page |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Item 7.3 |
REGULATORY
ITEM NUMBER 7.3
SUBJECT Director General's Requirements for Concept Plan and Part 3A Application for Telopea Urban Renewal Project
REFERENCE F2007/02152 - D01340331
REPORT OF Manager Land Use and Transport Planning
|
PURPOSE:
To seek Council endorsement for the preliminary Council staff submission to the Director General of the Department of Planning’s requirements for Concept Plan and Project Application for the Telopea Urban Renewal Project made by Housing NSW.
|
|
(a) That Council endorse the preliminary submission made by Council staff as included in attachment 10.
(b) Further, that a report be prepared for Council’s consideration when the Concept plan and/or Part 3A application(s) is referred to Council for comment.
|
BACKGROUND
1 The Department of Planning (DoP) recently advised Council it had declared that the redevelopment of the Housing NSW holdings in Telopea would be the subject of a Part 3A development process under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.
2 The DoP’s Director General has now prepared draft Environmental Assessment Requirements (“DGR’s”) which it seeks input from Council. These requirements form the basis of the applicant’s preparation of the concept plan and application for development. The DoP correspondence and associated applicant’s submission is included at attachment 1 and 2. The applicant’s preliminary environmental assessment is also included at attachment 3-9.
3 A preliminary staff submission (attachment 10) has been made to the DoP to meet its timelines, on the understanding that such submission had not been endorsed by Council.
4 In terms of process, Council will be provided with a copy of the application, once it has been lodged, for its comment.
5 The DGRs that the DoP seeks feedback on is not an application for development, but rather represents the matters that a future application will need to address and be assessed against.
Director General’s Requirements
6 Part 1 of the DGRs includes reference to all existing planning instruments including state planning policies as well as local policies such as Council’s LEP and DCP. This will therefore cover a very broad range of matters that Council would ordinarily assess development against. The Council’s previously adopted draft DCP (not yet exhibited) should also be included as a matter for consideration as it related to the Telopea precinct specifically. In addition, the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004.
7 The draft DGR’s are weak on social considerations. Given that many of the new residents will be vulnerable members of the community that will be accommodated by HousingNSW, the concentration of such new residents should require that a social impact statement be submitted as part of the process. This should include:
a. Population characteristics:
§ There is a need to understand the present population and expected change (age, gender, family type etc - this will determine types of housing/ types of local services required).
§ Cultural diversity (community harmony consideration, need for culturally specific design/services).
§ Present and future employment/ income characteristics.
§ How will incoming residents be 'distributed' within the redevelopment and the mix between Housing NSW tenants and private residents?
b. Community and Institutional structures/resources:
§ What are the local employment opportunities currently/in the future – how will these be impacted as a result of incoming population?
§ What local services currently exist and what new services/social infrastructure will be required as a result of the incoming population? (eg access to transport, education, childcare, health, police, voluntary, religious, interest groups).
§ Will there be access to more/ less open space? Will the open space provided cater for the needs of the current and future population?
§ How do the above structures/ resources support/ interact with each other?
c. Social Resources
§ Is there leadership capacity within the community?
§ What is the present population's historical experience with change? (this could determine their reactions/support needs)
§ What degree of consultation/change management regime will be undertaken with present/ future community members over and above simply advising of changes to the built form in the area? There should be a demonstration that existing residents are offered an opportunity to comment on the proposal.
§ What opportunities exist for current/ future community members to become involved in any/ all stages of the redevelopment?
d. Individual and Family
§ What are the current factors which influence the daily life or individuals, families in the area? Will these change?
§ What kinds of friendship/ support networks currently exist? How will these be impacted as a result of the changes proposed?
§ What are the communities' current perceptions of risk, health, safety etc in the area? How will these change and be managed?
§ What are the displacement/ relocation concerns of existing residents?
8 In addition, Council has previously discussed at length, the potential mix of Housing NSW tenants versus the dwellings that will be sold to the private market. The preliminary staff submission makes reference to this point.
9 The area is relatively well serviced by public transport, however, the capacity of existing services and their patronage should be assessed against any large scale redevelopment as proposed.
10 Any land that is to be developed as a park or road, should identify whether it is proposed to be dedicated to Council. In any case, any open space areas should also identify a plan of management for its ongoing care and maintenance.
11 The transition between existing development and new development especially in terms of height, bulk and other amenity impacts should be addressed. Of particular concern is the potential isolation of sites in Figtree Avenue. The Department of Planning should encourage the inclusion of these sites into the concept plan.
12 The Department should encourage the highest possible standards of urban design and architecture of the precinct given its scale and defining role of the future character of the precinct.
13 Housing NSW should be requested to consider a voluntary planning agreement to provide for public infrastructure including consideration of potential improvement to community facilities such as the Dundas Library and Community Centre.
14 Council will be advised when the Part 3A application is referred to Council for its comment.
Marcelo Occhiuzzi
Manager, Land Use
and Transport Planning
|
1View |
Draft Director General's Requirements and Associated Applicant Submission |
1 Page |
|
|
2View |
Draft Director General's Requirements and Associated Applicant Submission |
5 Pages |
|
|
3View |
Applicant's Premlimary Environmental Assessment 1 of 7 |
4 Pages |
|
|
4View |
Applicant's Premlimary Environmental Assessment 2 of 7 |
4 Pages |
|
|
5View |
Applicant's Premlimary Environmental Assessment 3 of 7 |
2 Pages |
|
|
Applicant's Premlimary Environmental Assessment 4 of 7 |
2 Pages |
|
|
|
Applicant's Premlimary Environmental Assessment 5 of 7 |
2 Pages |
|
|
|
Applicant's Premlimary Environmental Assessment 6 of 7 |
1 Page |
|
|
|
Applicant's Premlimary Environmental Assessment 7 of 7 |
2 Pages |
|
|
|
10View |
Preliminary Council staff response |
3 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Council (Development) |
9 November 2009 |
|
|
|
Roads Paths Access and Flood Mitigation
09 November 2009
8.1 Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting minutes held on 8 October 2009
8.2 Traffic Engineering Advisory Group minutes held on 8 October 2009.
|
Item 8.1 |
ROADS PATHS ACCESS AND FLOOD MITIGATION
ITEM NUMBER 8.1
SUBJECT Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting minutes held on 8 October 2009
REFERENCE F2008/05091 - D01336867
REPORT OF Manager Traffic and Transport
|
PURPOSE:
That Council give consideration to the minutes of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 8 October 2009
|
|
That the minutes of the Parramatta Traffic Committee meeting held on 8 October 2009 be adopted.
|
|
1View |
Parramatta Traffic Committee |
5 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Item 8.2 |
ROADS PATHS ACCESS AND FLOOD MITIGATION
ITEM NUMBER 8.2
SUBJECT Traffic Engineering Advisory Group minutes held on 8 October 2009.
REFERENCE F2008/05098 - D01336878
REPORT OF Manager Traffic and Transport
|
PURPOSE:
That Council give consideration to the minutes of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group held on 8 October 2009.
|
|
That the minutes of the Traffic Engineering Advisory Group held on 8 October 2009 be adopted.
|
|
1View |
Traffic Engineering Advisory Group meeting minutes held on 8 October 2009 |
8 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Council (Development) |
9 November 2009 |
|
|
|
Domestic Applications
09 November 2009
11.1 Part of Market Street road reserve and Lot 1 DP 724837, Prince Alfred Park (Pk 15) 353D Church Street, PARRAMATTA, NSW 2150 (Arthur Phillip Ward)
11.2 10A Owen Street, Wentworthville
(Lot 1 DP 854863) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
11.3 292 Church Street, Parramatta
(Lot 100 DP 803945) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
|
Item 11.1 |
DOMESTIC APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 11.1
SUBJECT Part
of Market Street road reserve and Lot 1 DP 724837, Prince Alfred Park (Pk 15)
353D Church Street, PARRAMATTA, NSW 2150 (Arthur Phillip Ward)
DESCRIPTION Use of Prince Alfred Park and closure of Market
Street for New Years Eve and Burramatta Fun Day events to be held on 31
December 2009, 2010 and 2011 and the first Sunday in July 2010, 2011 and 2012.
REFERENCE DA/597/2009 - 1 September 2009
APPLICANT/S Parramatta City Council
OWNERS Parramatta City Council
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
|
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
The application is referred to Council as the land subject of the proposal is owned by Council.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Approval is sought for the use of Prince Alfred Park and the closure and use of Market Street for New Years Eve and Burramatta Fun Day events to be held between 6pm and 9.30pm on 31 December 2009, 2010 and 2011 and between 11am and 4pm on the first Sunday in July 2010, 2011 and 2012. As Council is the landowner and applicant for the Development Application, the application has been assessed by an independent town planner.
No submissions to the application have been received.
The site is part zoned RE1 Public Recreation Open Space and part uncoloured Road zone under Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007. The use is an ancillary use to the use of the park as a recreation area and is permissible with consent under the RE1 Public Recreation Open Space zone. Pursuant to clauses 13 and 15A of Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007, the temporary use of the road for the events is permissible with consent. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 and Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan 2007 and is consistent with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment).
Conditions of consent have been recommended to minimise noise, traffic and parking impacts upon the amenity of the area and to ensure the safety of patrons and park users.
Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.
|
|
That Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent to Development Application No. DA/597/2009 for a community New Years Eve event to be held on 31 December in 2009, 2010 and 2011 and a community Burramatta Fun Day event to be held on the first Sunday in July in 2010, 2011 and 2012 on part of Market Street and land at 353D Church Street, Parramatta, as shown on the approved plans, subject to the recommended conditions in Attachment 1.
|
Kerry Gordon
Consultant Town Planner
Kerry Gordon Planning Services Pty Ltd
|
1View |
Section 79C Report |
16 Pages |
|
|
2View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
|
3View |
Plans |
2 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Item 11.2 |
DOMESTIC APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 11.2
SUBJECT 10A
Owen Street, Wentworthville
(Lot 1 DP 854863) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of a 2 storey dwelling house (Location Map - Attachment 3)
REFERENCE DA/552/2009 - Submitted 18 August 2009
APPLICANT/S Mr M Makhoul
OWNERS Mr H Hazzouri & Mrs L Hazzouri
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
|
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
The proposal seeks a SEPP 1 variation of greater than 10% to the lot size and frontage requirements of Clause 38(1)(b) ‘Minimum Allotment Sizes’ in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The application seeks approval for demolition, tree removal and the construction of a 2 storey dwelling house.
The application has been referred to Council as the proposal seeks a SEPP 1 variation of greater than 10% to the lot size and frontage requirements of Clause 38(1)(b) ‘Minimum Allotment Sizes’ in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The proposed dwelling house is to be constructed on an allotment of land with a site area of 354.7m², being less than the required 550m² and a frontage of 11.96m, being less than the required 15m pursuant to Clause 38(1)(b) of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The allotment of land was approved as a subdivided Torrens titled lot on 9 December 1994.
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.
One (1) submission has been received in respect of this application raising concern with privacy and overshadowing.
The proposed works are consistent with the objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005, and is considered satisfactory in terms of design, bulk and scale. There is sufficient landscaping and open space areas provided as part of the proposal, and the new dwelling is considered to be appropriately sited without impacting upon the streetscape or adjoining properties.
Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.
|
|
(a) That Council support the variation to Clause 38(1)(b) of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 under the provisions of SEPP 1.
(b) That Development Application No 552/2009 for demolition, tree removal and the construction of a 2 storey dwelling house at 10A Owen Street, Wentworthville be approved subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of this report.
(c) Further that the person who objected to the development application be advised of the determination of the application.
|
Kate Lafferty
Senior Development Assessment Officer
|
1View |
Section 79C Report |
27 Pages |
|
|
2View |
Plans |
4 Pages |
|
|
3View |
Location Map |
1 Page |
|
|
4 |
Confidential Plan |
1 Page |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Item 11.3 |
DOMESTIC APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 11.3
SUBJECT 292
Church Street, Parramatta
(Lot 100 DP 803945) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
DESCRIPTION To regulate the use of a portion of level 1 of the premises as a pole dancing fitness training centre. (Location Map - Attachment 2)
REFERENCE DA/209/2009 - Submitted 6 April 2009
APPLICANT/S Miss Suzie Q Pty Ltd
OWNERS Mr R J Scarf & Mr M J Scarf
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
|
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
The application has been referred to Council for determination as it seeks approval for a pole dancing fitness training centre.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The application seeks to regulate the use part of level 1 of the premises as a pole dancing fitness training centre. The use is currently in operation and this development application was submitted to Council following an investigation of Service Request No. 601976 (created 17 October 2008) as the premises was operating without development consent.
The site is currently occupied by a three storey commercial building. The use is located on level 1, above the "Sicilian" restaurant. Access to the first floor studio is either via stair cases located at both the front and rear of the ground floor restaurant or by an elevator located at the rear of the building.
The training centre consists of 2 main rooms and a reception area. One room, 180sqm, is equipped with 18 poles for pole dance lessons. Studio B is 70sqm, and will be used for cardio workouts and pilates.
The hours of operation of the fitness centre are 10.00am to 10.00pm 7 days a week. The use currently runs 4 to 5 classes per day. Classes run for approximately 1 hour and will consist of a maximum 18 students at any one time.
Fitness classes range from one off casual visits to a whole term, which consists of weekly classes over an eight week period. In addition, group entertainment classes are offered for ‘hens’ nights which include dinner and cocktail packages in conjunction with the Sicilian Restaurant located on the ground floor.
The Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the application states there will be no sale of alcohol, however advertising material mentions alcohol is offered with ‘hens’ packages. A condition of consent is recommended to ensure no alcohol is consumed or sold on level 1 within the dance studio/fitness centre.
No submissions have been received in respect of this application.
The proposal is defined as a “business premises” under Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 and is permissible in the B4 Mixed Use Zone. The development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone applying to the land, and is also consistent with the aims and objectives contained within Council’s City Centre DCP.
The applicant has provided details of the operations of the business. There is no evidence before Council to suggest that the purpose for which consent is sought is anything other than described in the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE). In addition the floor layout is consistent with the nature of the proposed use.
The application has been referred to Council’s Crime and Corruption Officer for comment. The Crime and Corruption Officer has raised concerns with the risks associated with unlawful activities associated with related sex services being conducted from the site. To minimise these risks he suggested that a condition be imposed on the consent prohibiting nudity or striptease or lap dancing or table dancers at the premises.
Another issue identified during the assessment was fire safety. A report was prepared on behalf of the applicant by BCA Logic and submitted to Council as part of the development application. It is considered that fire safety to the occupants of the level 1 tenancy will be adequate subject to the upgrade works proposed in BCA Compliance Report prepared by Allan Harriman of BCA Logic Pty Ltd dated 16 October 2009 being completed.
Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
|
|
That Development Application 209/2009 to regulate the use of a portion of level 1 of 292 Church Street, Parramatta as a pole dancing fitness training centre be approved subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1.
|
|
1View |
Section 79C Assessment Report |
14 Pages |
|
|
2View |
Location Map |
1 Page |
|
|
3View |
Floor plan |
1 Page |
|
|
4View |
Crime and Corruption Analyst comments |
2 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Council (Development) |
9 November 2009 |
|
|
|
Major Applications
09 November 2009
12.1 Section 82A Review - 86 Tintern Avenue and 23B Robert Street Telopea (Lots 2 & 3 DP 1070878) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
12.2 57 High Street Parramatta (Lot 434 DP 786912) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
12.3 83 Wentworth Avenue, Wentworthville NSW 2145 (Lot 2 DP 329885) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
12.4 2 Darcy Road Westmead (Lot 1 DP 1095407) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
12.5 12 Union Street Parramatta (Lot 21 DP 1182) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
12.6 182 Windsor Road, Winston Hills (LOT 2 DP 540754) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)
12.7 Boronia Park (Park 7) 37A Bridge Street, EPPING NSW 2121 (Lot 7013 DP 1123441, Lot 2 DP 866176, Lot 44 DP 6385, Lot 7 DP 6229, Lot B DP 160976) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward) (Location map - Attachment 2)
12.8 41 Onslow Street, Granville NSW 2142 (Lot 3 DP 128510) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
12.9 45 George Street Clyde (Lot 19 DP 612994) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
12.10 16 Muriel Avenue, Rydalmere (Lot 299 in DP 14244) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
|
Item 12.1 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.1
SUBJECT Section 82A Review - 86 Tintern Avenue and 23B Robert Street Telopea (Lots 2 & 3 DP 1070878) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of a multi-unit housing development containing 6 townhouses over basement carparking with strata subdivision.
REFERENCE DA/258/2008 - Submitted 7 September 2009
APPLICANT/S Longhill Projects Pty Ltd
OWNERS Ms Anne McCusker
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
|
REASON FOR REPORT to council:
The application is referred to Council as it is an application under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This Section 82A Review application seeks Council’s reconsideration of the previous refusal to grant consent for the demolition, tree removal and construction of a multi-unit housing development containing 6 townhouses over basement carparking with strata subdivision. The original Development Application (DA/258/2008) was refused on 11 November 2008 under delegated authority for a number of reasons including failure to satisfy zone objectives, inadequate site frontage, non compliant attic levels, impact on the streetscape, inadequate landscaping, loss of privacy for adjoining dwellings, creation of isolated sites and failure to provide adequate disabled access.
With the lodgement of the Section 82A Review application the applicant has amended the application in an attempt to address some of the issues that were identified in Council’s refusal of the application. In particular the following amendments have been made:
· The development has been split into 3 buildings each containing 2 townhouses, previously the development consisted of 2 buildings each containing 3 townhouses · Originally the buildings had a staggered setback of 3.0-3.25m from the Robert Street property boundary, the revised development provides 3 buildings with setbacks of 3.25m, 4.0m, and 5.0m from the Robert Street property boundary. · The third floor level of each dwelling has been deleted. Each dwelling now contains 2 floor levels. · The basement has been reduced in size, the number of car spaces reduced from 13 to 11 and the garages deleted. The basement entrance has been relocated from the eastern end of the Robert Street property boundary to the centre of the Robert Street property boundary and the driveway has been reduced in width from 5.8m to 4.2m.
Section 82(A)(C) of the Act requires that the consent authority must be satisfied that the application as amended is substantially the same development as the development described in the original application. The amendments to the application are significant and the development as amended is not substantially the same as the development originally determined. Refusal of the application is warranted as it fails to satisfy the requirements of section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979.
Five submissions have been received in response to this section 82A review application raising issues which warrant refusal of the application.
For the reasons outlined in this report, it is recommended that Council uphold its previous decision and refuse to grant consent to the Section 82A Review application.
|
|
(a) That Council as the consent authority uphold its previous decision and refuse to grant development consent to Development Application No. 258/2008 for the demolition, tree removal and construction of a multi-unit housing development containing 6 townhouses over basement carparking with strata subdivision, for the following reasons:
1. The application fails to satisfy the requirements of Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as the amendments to the development result in a proposal that is not substantially the same as the proposal that was originally determined.
2. The development is inconsistent with the objectives (a), (b) and (c) of the Residential 2(b) zone under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. In particular:
(1)The proposed development will have detrimental impact on the streetscape and amenity of the residential area in the vicinity. The proposed buildings are set back only 3-5m from Robert Street and the presentation of the development is inconsistent and incompatible the existing and desired future character of the area. The setback and separation between buildings is inconsistent with the spatial qualities of development in the locality and provides insufficient space for the planting of canopy trees consistent with the landscape setting of the area.
(2)The subject site is not suitable for multi-unit housing due to the allotment frontage failing to comply with the minimum requirement of 24m. The proposed setback from the northern boundary fails to achieve the 4.5m requirement specified by the DCP and the development would have an unacceptable visual and privacy impact on No. 84 Tintern Avenue.
3. The development is inconsistent with Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005, in particular:
(1) Section 3.1 “Preliminary Building Envelope”, as the site has a frontage of 16.5m to Tintern Avenue which is significantly less than the required minimum of 24m. The development also fails to satisfy the 4.5m side setback control which applies to developments which predominantly address side boundaries. The insufficient site frontage has resulted in an inadequate setback of 3-5m to Robert Street and 3.6m to the northern boundary shared with No. 84 Tintern Avenue.
(2) Section 4.1.11 “Site Consolidation and Development on Isolated Sites” as the development will result in creation of isolated sites that could not be developed in compliance with Parramatta DCP 2005. The requirements that documentary evidence be provided to demonstrate that a genuine and reasonable attempt has been made to purchase the isolated site(s) based on a fair market value and that the isolated site(s) could be developed in an orderly and economic manner by detailing an envelope with height, setback, resultant site coverage and relationship between the proposed development and isolated site(s) have not been satisfied.
(3) Section 4.2.1 “Streetscape”, as the development fails to provide an adequate building setback to Robert Street so as to be consistent with prevailing setbacks of adjacent buildings along Robert Street which are greater than 17m for the No. 23 Robert Street and 14m for No. 21 and No. 19 Robert Street.
(4) Section 4.2.4 “Building Facades and Articulation” as the proposed balconies facing Robert Street project more than 800mm into the front setback area. The balconies add unnecessary additional bulk to the development.
(5) Section 4.3.2 “Visual and Acoustic Privacy”, as the development will result in an unacceptable privacy impact on No. 84 Tintern Avenue. The first floor windows of the proposed units allow for a direct overlooking into No. 84 Tintern Avenue and the 1m shrubs proposed for the side boundary will not provide adequate privacy screening.
(6) Section 4.4.3 “Housing Diversity and Choice”, as the development does not provide dedicated disabled access from the visitor car parking spaces to the dwellings within the development.
4. The proposed landscaping and tree retention plan is considered inappropriate for the following reasons:
(1) The development fails to provide adequate deep soil zones on the Robert Street frontage for the planting of canopy trees consistent with the landscape character of the area.
(2) Tree/shrubs have been marked for retention despite proposed stormwater pipes and retaining walls impacting on the trees/shrubs.
(3) On site planting of canopy trees is unrealistic and unsustainable, for example the proposal includes the planting of 20m tall trees within planter boxes with a soil depth of only 500mm.
(4) The scale of screen planting to the northern boundary is unacceptable and will not provide an adequate visual buffer to the adjoining property.
(5) The application has not addressed the impact of the development on two trees located within No. 84 Tintern Avenue.
5. The proposal is not in the public interest.
(b) Further that objectors be advised of Council’s decision.
Jonathan Goodwill Senior Development Assessment Officer
|
|
1View |
Section 82A Assessment Report |
26 Pages |
|
|
2View |
Plans and Elevations |
7 Pages |
|
|
3View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
|
4View |
Previous Section 79C Assessment Report |
18 Pages |
|
|
5View |
Floor Plans |
2 Pages |
|
|
Item 12.2 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.2
SUBJECT 57 High Street Parramatta (Lot 434 DP 786912) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to an approved 4 storey mixed use development, including an increase in the number of apartments from 22 to 28, revised floor layouts, decreased building height, increased building footprint and additional car parking.
REFERENCE DA/246/2009 - Submitted 22 April 2009
APPLICANT/S Geomech Developments Pty Ltd
OWNERS Geomech Developments Pty Ltd
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
|
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
The proposal seeks a variation of greater than 10% to the development standards for building separation and car parking within clause 22D and clause 22C of the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The application seeks approval for alterations and additions to an approved 4 storey mixed use development containing 22 apartments. Additions include 6 additional apartments and 4 additional car spaces. Alterations include modifications to the internal layout of the building and a 500mm reduction in the height of the building.
The original application (DA/1621/2002) was approved having regard to the height and floor space ratio controls contained within Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28. These controls limited the floor space ratio (FSR) to a maximum of 1.5:1. Development Consent No.1621/2002 was issued for a 5 year period and the consent will cease to operate on 24 November 2009 unless building, engineering or construction work relating to the development is physically commenced on the land before 24 November 2009.
The application the subject of this report (DA/246/2009) is reliant on DA/1621/2002 not having lapsed. This means that in the event that the applicant does not physically commence works on the site prior to 24 November 2009, any consent granted to the current DA/246/2009 will also lapse.
It should also be noted that the determination of DA/246/2009 will not preserve or extend the term of Development Consent No.1621/2002.
Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 was gazetted on 21 December 2007, replacing Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28. This plan increased the floor space ratio applicable to the site to a maximum of 2:1. The application seeks approval to increase the floor space ratio to 1.81:1. The plan also introduced a new method for calculating the height of a building. The building has been reduced in height by 500mm to comply with the new definition of building height.
The application has been reviewed by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel and the applicant has suitably addressed the concerns raised by the Panel.
The development is consistent with the objectives of the City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 and City Centre Development Control Plan 2007 despite the variation of the building separation requirements of clause 22D and the car parking requirements of clause 22C.
A total of 3 submissions were received in response to the notification of the application. All issues raised have been addressed in the report and are not considered to warrant refusal of the application.
Despite the non compliance with the building separation and car parking requirements of Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives and maintains appropriate levels of privacy and solar access for adjoining sites. Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval.
|
|
(a) That Council support the variations to Clause 22C (Car Parking) and Clause 22D (Building Separation) of the Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007.
(b) That development application DA/246/2009 which seeks approval for alterations and additions to an approved 4 storey mixed use building, including an increase in the number of apartments from 22 to 28, revised floor layouts, decreased building height, increased building footprint and additional car parking, be approved subject to the conditions consent as outlined in Attachment 1 of this report.
(c) Further, that the objectors be advised of Councils decision.
Jonathan Goodwill Senior Development Assessment Officer
|
|
1View |
Section 79C Assessment Report |
43 Pages |
|
|
2View |
Plans and Elevations |
11 Pages |
|
|
3View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
|
4 |
Confidential plans |
3 Pages |
|
|
Item 12.3 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.3
SUBJECT 83 Wentworth Avenue, Wentworthville NSW 2145 (Lot 2 DP 329885) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
DESCRIPTION Demolition, alterations and additions and use of the premises as a Place of Public Worship. Approval is also sought for the construction of a carpark at the rear of the site and associated signage.
REFERENCE DA/442/2009 - Submitted 10 July 2009
APPLICANT/S Sydney Kalibari Inc
OWNERS Mr P Hatzis
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
|
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
Place of Public Worship.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Development Application DA/422/2009 seeks approval for demolition, alterations and additions and use of the existing warehouse building as a Place of Public Worship. Approval is also sought for the construction of a carpark at the rear of the site and associated signage.
One submission has been received in response to this Development Application raising issues that are not related to this application.
The place of public worship is to operate between the hours of Monday to Friday 7am to 1pm, 4pm to 9pm with a maximum number of 50 people to be in attendance at any one time. On Saturday and Sunday the hours of operation will be on the weekend periods 8am to 9pm. A maximum number of 50 people are to be in attendance at any one time.
For special events including an annual celebration and/or fundraising days, the number of these events are to be restricted to 3 times per calendar year with a maximum number of 150 people to be in attendance at any one time.
The proposal includes socio-religious activities including a soup kitchen and counselling services. There will be a maximum 3 staff preparing a maximum of 50 meals per week for approximately 30 to 50 clients per week. Food preparation for the soup kitchen will be from 8am to 1pm on Saturdays and Sundays. Deliveries for the soup kitchen will be a maximum 2 times per month and on weekends during operating hours. It is noted that the food prepared from the soup kitchen will not be eaten on site and will be either delivered or collected from the site. On site counselling services for fresh migrants will be carried out on Saturdays from 10am to 12pm. There will be a maximum of 2 staff and 3 to 5 clients. The applicant has noted that most counselling services will not be held on site and will be via telephone or internet. The socio-religious activities are considered ancillary to the use of the site as a place of public worship and it is not considered that there will be any undue environmental impacts in regards to additional noise or traffic generation.
Eight off-street car parking spaces (including 1 disabled parking space) are to be provided in the rear car parking area.
Subject to conditions of consent, the proposal is considered to be acceptable as it is consistent with the aims and objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 and Draft DCP for Places of Public Worship. The proposal will not adversely impact surrounding development in terms of traffic flow, parking demand, visual and acoustic impact. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.
|
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council grant consent to Development Application No. 422/2009 for the demolition, alterations and additions and use of the existing warehouse building as a Place of Public Worship and construction of a carpark at the rear of the site and associated signage on land at 83 Wentworth Avenue, Wentworthville as shown on approved plans, for a period of three years from the date of the Notice of Determination, subject to conditions of consent contained in Attachment 1.
|
Sophia Chin
Development Assessment Officer
|
1View |
Section 79C Report |
41 Pages |
|
|
2View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
|
3View |
Plans and Elevations |
8 Pages |
|
|
Item 12.4 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
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
|
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
It is proposed to modify the contributions payable under Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s methodology would also result in a significant reduction in the amount of section 94A contributions collected by Parramatta City Council.
The underlying intent of Council’s 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 applicant’s request to modify condition No. 30 be denied and the Section 96(1a) application be refused.
|
|
RECOMMENDATION
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 Council’s 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 Council’s section 94A contributions plan. 4. The proposed modification is not in the public interest.
|
Jonathan Goodwill
Senior Development Assessment Officer
|
1View |
Section 79c assessment report |
9 Pages |
|
|
Item 12.5 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.5
SUBJECT 12 Union Street Parramatta (Lot 21 DP 1182) (Arthur Phillip Ward)
DESCRIPTION Alterations to an approved two storey commercial building including changes to the external facade, addition of a first floor balcony and provision of 250m2 of office space to the ground floor.
REFERENCE DA/587/2009 - Submitted 28 August 2009
APPLICANT/S Australian Consultant Architects Pty Ltd
OWNERS C Chiha and J B Chiha and Bitar Investments Pty Limited, and 12 Union Street Pty Limited
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
|
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
The proposal seeks a variation of greater than 10% to the development standard for car parking contained within clause 22C ‘Car Parking’ of Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This application seeks approval for alterations to a 2 storey commercial building including conversion of the ground floor car park into commercial floor space, upgrade of the Union Street façade, and the addition of a first floor balcony to the rear of the building.
One submission has been received in relation to the application. This submission requested that the external finishes of the proposed extensions be rendered and painted to match the adjoining building. The issue raised in the submission does not warrant refusal of the application.
The development is required to provide 5 car spaces in accordance with the requirements of clause 22C ‘Car Parking’ of the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. The development will provide no on site car spaces as a result of the conversion of the carpark to commercial space and the applicant has submitted a formal request for Council to consider a variation to the development standard for car parking. Having regard to the proximity of the site to public transport the absence of any on site car spaces is considered acceptable.
The development substantially complies with the objectives of the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 and the Parramatta City Centre DCP 2007. The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives and is recommended for approval.
|
|
(a) That Council support the variation to Clause 22C (Car Parking) of the Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007.
(b) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. 587/2009 for the alterations to an approved two storey commercial building including changes to the external facade, addition of a first floor balcony and provision of 250m2 of office space to the ground floor on land at No. 12 Union Street Parramatta for a period of three (3) years from the date on the Notice of Determination subject to the conditions of consent outlined in attachment No. 1 of this report.
(c) Further, that the objector be advised of Council’s decision.
Jonathan Goodwill Senior Development Assessment Officer
|
|
1View |
Section 79C Assessment Report |
18 Pages |
|
|
2View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
|
3View |
Plans and Elevations |
3 Pages |
|
|
Item 12.6 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.6
SUBJECT 182 Windsor Road, Winston Hills (LOT 2 DP 540754) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)
DESCRIPTION Section 96(2) modification to an approved 80 place childcare centre. It is proposed to modify condition No.62 to delete the requirement to provide a sliplane.
REFERENCE DA/1384/2004/A - 26 June 2009
APPLICANT/S Mr D C Wilson
OWNERS Mrs M R Wilson and MR D C Wilson
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
|
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
The matter is referred to Council as fifteen individual objections and six separate petitions have been received.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The application seeks approval to modify Development Consent No. 1384/2004 under s96(2) of the Act. It is proposed to modify condition No. 62 to delete the requirement for the provision of a slip lane fronting Windsor Road. The other requirements of condition No.62 will remain (i.e. the median strip and concrete island.
15 individual objection letters and 6 seperate petitions have been received objecting to the proposal.
The objector’s concerns relate to an increase in on street parking, accumulation of traffic and compromise of safety. In addition, concerns were raised that the reduction in on-site parking spaces and the deletion of the slip lane along Windsor Road will impact on the safety of motorists and pedestrians.
It is noted that the section 96 modification also sought approval to increase the number of off street parking spaces by 3 to a total of 23 and to modify the off street parking layout.
However, the applicant in a letter dated 18 October 2009 stated that they no longer wanted to pursue the amendments to the parking layout or additional parking spaces. Accordingly, the application before Council for consideration is to modify condition No.62.
Both Council’s Traffic Engineer and the RTA raise no objection to the deletion of the slip lane. It is noted that during the assessment of the original development application in 2005 both the RTA and Council’s traffic engineers did not support the provision of a slip lane at this location.
The appropriateness of a slip lane being provided in front of a child care centre located along Windsor Road (234 Windsor Road) was challenged in the Land & Environment Court [Lawson vs Parramatta City Council]. The court upheld that appeal and removed the condition that required a slip lane. It was found by the court that the volume of traffic using Windsor Road, together with the traffic likely to be generated by the child care centre did not necessitate the provision of a slip lane. It is noted that the child care centre at 234 Windsor Road caters for a maximum of 79 children, which is consistent with the number at the subject site (80).
It is expected that the same principles would be applied if condition 62 of Development Consent No.1384/2004 were challenged in the Land & Environment Court.
Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.
|
|
That Council as the consent authority, modify Development Consent No. 1384/2004 in the following manner:
‘The design requirements of the central concrete median island and driveway shall be in accordance with the RTA Road Design Guide and other Australian Codes of Practice. The certified copies of the design plans shall be submitted to the RTA for consideration and approval prior to the release of the construction certificate by Council and commencement of road works. The developer shall be responsible for all public utility adjustment/relocation works, necessitated by the above work and as required by the various public utility authorities and/or their agents. The RTA fees for administration, plan checking, civil works inspections and project management shall be paid by the developer prior to the release of the approved road design plans. In addition to the above, the applicant may be required to enter in to a “Works Authorisation Deed' with the RTA. Reason: To comply with RTA requirements.’
|
Lina Dababneh
Development Assessment Officer
|
1View |
s79c Report |
16 Pages |
|
|
2View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
|
3View |
RTA Comments for Section 96 |
8 Pages |
|
|
4View |
Council Resolution for the orginal application |
2 Pages |
|
|
5View |
Planner's report for the original application |
8 Pages |
|
|
6View |
Approved Plans |
4 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Item 12.7 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.7
SUBJECT Boronia Park (Park 7) 37A Bridge Street, EPPING NSW 2121 (Lot 7013 DP 1123441, Lot 2 DP 866176, Lot 44 DP 6385, Lot 7 DP 6229, Lot B DP 160976) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward) (Location map - Attachment 2)
DESCRIPTION Use of Boronia Park on Sunday 13 December 2009 for a "Carols in the Park" event to be run as a community event by the combined churches of Epping and Carlingford and the Epping Rotary Club
REFERENCE DA/657/2009 - Submitted 24 September 2009
APPLICANT/S Combined Churches Community Carols
OWNERS Department of Lands
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
|
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
The site is owned by the Department of Lands and is in Parramatta City Council’s care, control and management as the proposal involves Council owned property.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Approval is sought for the use of Boronia Park on Sunday 13 December 2009, between 5pm and 9.30pm, for a “Carols in the Park” event to be run as a community event by the combined churches of Epping and Carlingford and the Epping Rotary Club. The application has been assessed by an independent planning consultant as Council controls and manages the park.
One submission to the application had been received at the time of writing the report, which supports the event.
The site is part zoned part 6(a) Public Open Space and part 2(c) Residential under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001, though the event is to be held wholly within the open space zoning. The use is a permissible temporary use pursuant to clause 50 of LEP 2001. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 and is consistent with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment).
Conditions of consent have been recommended to minimise noise, traffic and parking impacts upon the amenity of the area and to ensure the safety of patrons and park users.
Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.
|
|
(a) That Council as the consent authority, grant development consent to Development Application No. DA/657/2009 for the use of part of Boronia Park for a “Carols in the Park” community event on 13 December 2009 on land at 37A Bridge Street, Epping, as shown on the approved plans, subject to the recommended conditions contained in Attachment 1.
(b) Further, that the submitter be advised of Council’s decision.
|
Kerry Gordon
Consultant Town Planner
Kerry Gordon Planning Services Pty Ltd
|
1View |
S79C Assessment Report |
13 Pages |
|
|
2View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
|
3View |
Photographs of site |
2 Pages |
|
|
Item 12.8 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.8
SUBJECT 41 Onslow Street, Granville NSW 2142 (Lot 3 DP 128510) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of a 2 storey dwelling.
REFERENCE DA/555/2009 - Submitted 19 August 2009
APPLICANT/S Oakworth Developments
OWNERS Mrs N N Pomery
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
|
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
The proposal seeks a SEPP 1 variation of greater than 10% to Clause 38 ‘Minimum allotment sizes’ in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant seeks approval for the demolition, tree removal and construction of a 2 storey dwelling.
The application has been referred to Council as the proposal seeks a SEPP 1 variation of greater than 10% to Clause 38 ‘Minimum allotment sizes’ in Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. The proposed dwelling is to be built on an allotment of 329.7sqm being less than the required 550sqm required for an allotment of land for a dwelling house. The allotment of land was registered on 6 October 1994.
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, and is considered satisfactory in terms of design, bulk and scale. There is sufficient landscaping and open space areas provided as part of the proposal, and the new dwelling is considered to be appropriately sited without impacting on the streetscape or adjoining properties.
Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.
|
|
(a) That Development Application No. 555/2009 for the demolition, tree removal and construction of a 2 storey dwelling at 41 Onslow Street, Granville be approved subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of this report.
(b) Further, that Council support the variation to Clause 38 of the PLEP 2001 under the provisions of SEPP 1. |
Sophia Chin
Development Assessment Officer
|
1View |
Section 79C Report |
27 Pages |
|
|
2View |
Plans |
8 Pages |
|
|
3View |
Location Plan |
1 Page |
|
|
4 |
Confidential Plan |
1 Page |
|
|
Item 12.9 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.9
SUBJECT 45 George Street Clyde (Lot 19 DP 612994) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
DESCRIPTION Occupation of existing premises as a brothel and associated outcall/escort services. The proposed hours of operation being 24 hours/7days a week and a maximum of 16 sex workers.
REFERENCE DA/484/2009 - Submitted 27 July 2009
APPLICANT/S John Boers Consulting
OWNERS Smartspace Consultants Pty Ltd
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
|
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
The application relates to a brothel.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This application relates to a vacant premises at 45 George Street Clyde. The application seeks approval for alterations and additions to the premises and to change the building use to a brothel operating 24 hours/7 days a week with 16 sex workers, receptionist, and a cleaner. Whilst the building appears single storey from the street it incorporates a mezzanine level which the application seeks to extend to allow for additional work rooms. A total of 16 work rooms are proposed at the brothel.
Two submissions including a petition with 8 signatures were received objecting to the DA.
On 15 October 2009 a class 1 appeal was lodged with the Land and Environment Court against Council’s deemed refusal of the application.
The application fails to achieve compliance with Council’s planning controls including the requirements of Parramatta DCP 2005 and the Policy for Sex Services and Restricted Premises. The proposal would result in an excessive demand for on street car parking that would adversely affect existing businesses located on George Street.
Accordingly DA/484/2009 is recommended for refusal, for the reasons outlined below.
|
|
(a) That Council as the consent authority refuse development consent to Development Application No. 484/2009 for a brothel incorporating alterations and additions on land at 45 George Street Clyde for the following reasons:
1. The application fails to comply with clause 6 of SEPP 1 (Development Standards) as the SEPP 1 objection does not state that compliance with the development standard within clause 24 ‘Brothels’ of Parramatta LEP 2001 is unnecessary or unreasonable.
2. The application fails to satisfy objective (a) of the Employment 4 zone as it fails to provide an adequate number of suitably designed car spaces to cater for the likely demand for car parking in daytime periods.
3. The application fails to satisfy the requirements of part 4.1.4 ‘Water Management’ of Parramatta DCP 2005 as water conservation and re-use measures have not been incorporated into the design of the premises.
4. The design of the car park, the hours of operation and the proposed security measures fail to satisfy the requirements of part 4.4.2 ‘Safety and Security’ of Parramatta DCP 2005.
5. The application fails to satisfy the requirement of Part 4.3.5 ‘Waste Management’ as a waste management plan was not submitted with the application.
6. The application fails to satisfy the requirements of part 4.5.1 ‘Parking and Vehicular Access’ of Parramatta DCP 2005. The number of car spaces provided is inadequate and the design of the car park is unsafe and fails to achieve compliance with AS2890.1.
7. The application fails to comply with the requirements of Council’s Policy for Sex Services and Restricted Premises. The number of employees exceeds the maximum permitted, the hours of operation do not comply with the requirement that premises be closed between 2.00am and 7.00am, the proposed security measures are insufficient having regards to the proposed 24 hour operation, the number of suitably designed car spaces is insufficient and a car space has been placed directly in front of the pedestrian entrance to the premises which would comprise the safety of pedestrians.
8. The application is not in the public interest as it will contribute to creating a ‘red-light precinct’ and is likely to create and generate crime within the immediate area with an increased risk to the workers within the area becoming potential victims of crime.
(b) Further, that the objectors be advised of Council’s decision.
|
Jonathan Goodwill
Senior Development Assessment Officer
|
1View |
Section 79C Assessment Report |
35 Pages |
|
|
2View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
|
3View |
Plans and Elevations |
3 Pages |
|
|
4View |
Comments from Strategic Crime and Corruption Officer |
5 Pages |
|
|
Item 12.10 |
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ITEM NUMBER 12.10
SUBJECT 16 Muriel Avenue, Rydalmere (Lot 299 in DP 14244) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)
DESCRIPTION Change of use of a two storey industrial/ warehouse building to a brothel containing 16 client work rooms, 16 sex workers and operating 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
REFERENCE DA/483/2009 - lodged 29th July, 2009
APPLICANT/S John Boers Consulting Pty Ltd
OWNERS Convert It Data Services
REPORT OF Manager Development Services
|
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
This application is referred to Council as it involves a change of use to a brothel.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This application seeks approval to the change of use of a two storey industrial building at 16 Muriel Avenue, Rydalmere to a brothel that is proposed to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The number of sex workers proposed is 16 and the number of client service rooms is 16. Seven carparking spaces are provided on-site.
Council has requested, by way of letter dated 4th August, 2009, further information to be submitted in relation to this development application. This letter, followed up by an email dated 21st October, 2009, have gone unanswered.
The development application has been assessed by Council’s Strategic Crime & Corruption Officer. The following conclusions have been made in relation to the application:
“Therefore, in all the circumstances, having considered all the relevant circumstances and in particular Public Interest considerations pursuant to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, I recommend against approval of this Application on the basis that:-
· The proposed development is likely to create and generate crime within the immediate area.
· The proposed development will in all likelihood substantially increase competition amongst the existing brothels within the area and further lead to extended soliciting by sex workers from these premises.
· The proposed development will consolidate Rydalmere as a ‘red-light’ district.
· There is an increased risk of workers within the area, particularly from Rheem Australia, becoming victims of crime.
· There is no material submitted by the Applicant that addresses or identifies any of these issues. This indicates a lack of understanding of the impact of the proposed development on crime and social issues.
· There is a complete absence of any accredited risk assessment of this proposed development is accordance with Standard AS/NZS 4360.”
The application was also referred to the NSW Police for comment. No response has been provided from the Police on this matter.
One submission has been received objecting to the development application, primarily on the basis that the brothel would be located in close proximity to a dwelling house at No. 10 Muriel Avenue, Rydalmere.
On 15th October, 2009, an appeal was lodged with the Land & Environment Court of NSW against Council’s deemed refusal of the DA. A Callover in relation this matter is listed for 9.30am, 13th November, 2009.
The proposal has been assessed against the criteria prescribed by Parramatta LEP 2001, Parramatta DCP 2005, Regulation of Brothels DCP and Council’s recently adopted Policy for Sex Services and Restricted Premises, where it is concluded that due to the inadequacy of the submitted information, the planning issues arising and the reasons outlined by Council’s Strategic Crime & Corruption Officer that there are sufficient reasons to warrant refusal of the application. Accordingly DA/615/2008 is recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined below. |
|
(a) That Development Application No. DA/483/2009 for the change of use of a two storey building at 16 Muriel Avenue, Rydalmere to a brothel be refused for the following reasons:
1. That the degree of information submitted with the development application is deficient in a number of areas, in particular:
· security of the premises; · carparking; · signage; · external lighting, and · compliance with, and an assessment against, the relevant criteria prescribed by Parramatta Council’s Regulation of Brothels Development Control Plan;
2. That the development application fails to adequately address Clause 79 of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Parramatta ) No.28 in relation to:
· Whether the operation of the brothel will be likely to cause a disturbance in the neighbourhood
3. That no parking and traffic study has been submitted with the development application and there is insufficient detail to be able to formulate a thorough assessment of the proposal.
4. The application fails to comply with the requirements of Council’s Policy for Sex Services and Restricted Premises. In this regard, the number of employees (18, inclusive of sex workers and support staff) exceeds the maximum permitted (10), the hours of operation do not comply with the requirement that premises be closed between 2.00am and 7.00am and the proposed security measures are insufficient having regard to the proposed 24 hour operation.
5. The proposed development is likely to create and generate crime within the immediate area.
6. The proposed development will in all likelihood substantially increase competition amongst the existing brothels within the area and further lead to extended soliciting by sex workers from these premises.
7. The proposed development will consolidate Rydalmere as a ‘red-light’ district.
8. There is an increased risk of workers within the area, particularly from Rheem Australia, becoming victims of crime.
9. There is no material submitted by the applicant that addresses or identifies any of these issues. This indicates a lack of understanding of the impact of the proposed development on crime and social issues.
10. There is a complete absence of any accredited risk assessment of this proposed development in accordance with Standard AS/NZS 4360.
11. That the proposed brothel is located within close proximity to the dwelling house at No. 10 Muriel Avenue, Rydalmere and that such proximity is unacceptable.
12. For the reasons raised by the objector.
13. That granting consent to the development application would not be in the public interest.
(b) Further, that the objector be advised of Council’s decision.
|
|
1View |
Section 79C Report |
23 Pages |
|
|
2View |
Locality Map |
1 Page |
|
|
3View |
Plans & Elevations |
4 Pages |
|
|
4View |
Strategic Crime & Corruption Officer's comments |
3 Pages |
|
|
Council (Development) |
9 November 2009 |
|
|
|
Notices of Motion
09 November 2009
13.1 Naming of the new Pathway between Denham Place and Kissing Point Rd
|
Item 13.1 |
NOTICE OF MOTION
ITEM NUMBER 13.1
SUBJECT Naming of the new Pathway between Denham Place and Kissing Point Rd
REFERENCE F2006/00231 - D01336481
REPORT OF Councillor M D McDermott
|
a) That council names the recently upgraded pathway between Denham Place and Kissing Point Road, “Molly’s Way”, in historical recognition of Mrs Molly Denhan.
b) Further that Council provides wooden signage similar to the adjacent Vineyard creek signage, on the Denham place end of the reformed track and that staff liaise with local residents to determine the preferred placement of that signage.
|
|
The creation of this new pathway was a significant project on the part of local residents in response to safety concerns about the existing de-facto track that had been used. It has been an extremely positive community outcome.
The name "Molly's Way" was requested by residents as this is the way local identity, Molly Denham, accessed her house, by driving off Kissing Point Road, and up the bush track. It is felt that naming it Molly’s way will add additional Character and further resonate the history of the area.
The type of wooden signage that residents have requested would be similar to the adjacent Vineyard Creek signs albeit slightly smaller.
Comment from Manager City Assets and Environment
As the proposal is only to rename a track within a reserve, Council may resolve to take this action with out reference to the Geographical Names Board. It has however been our practice to undertake public consultation, particularly with local bushcare groups and historical societies, prior to adopting any new names in parks or natural areas. Council may wish to resolve that the name Molly’s Way be adopted following a period of public exhibition and comment.
|
There are no attachments for this report.
