Item 9.4 - Attachment 1

Detailed Report






1.      The draft DCP partners and supports the draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (LEP) by providing the more detailed planning and design guidelines. The State Government’s planning reforms require that councils consolidate their DCPs into one document, such that only one DCP applies to any parcel of land.  This requirement must be met by the time that the new LEP is gazetted.


2.      Currently, the Parramatta local government area is affected by six (6) DCPs (excluding the Parramatta City Centre DCP 2007) which relate to different locations and types of development. The draft Parramatta DCP has been based on the format of Parramatta DCP 2005. Draft Parramatta DCP is made up of the following DCPs consolidated into the one DCP:


Ø  Parramatta DCP 2005

Ø  Parramatta Heritage DCP 2001

Ø  Harris Park DCP 2002

Ø  Parramatta Notification DCP 2004

Ø  Parramatta Child Care Centres DCP 2007

Ø  Parramatta DCP for Sex Services and Restricted Premises.


3.      The draft Parramatta DCP has also incorporated the provisions within the Local Floodplain Risk Management Policy and the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 (Parramatta) (specifically design controls from the Camellia, Harris Park, Rydalmere and Westmead precincts).


4.      The intention of this consolidation is to reduce the number of development control plans applying within each LGA, to make it easier to identify the controls that apply to a site.  The updated consolidated DCP represents one of the initial steps in the plan review process for developing a comprehensive planning framework for Parramatta LGA.




5.      The process of consolidating the DCPs into one document began as a “like-for-like” exercise of carrying over the existing controls.  Council adopted an early version of the draft DCP on 30 May 2007.  Further work to the document has involved some revisions and additional controls in response to changes to the draft LEP, Council resolutions, Land and Environment Court judgements and internal staff consultation.  Notwithstanding, it should be noted that the fundamental controls remain unchanged.


6.      Councillor workshops were held on 29 June and 6 July 2009 to provide an update on the progression of the draft DCP and to discuss the changes made since adoption of the early draft.  Discussions were based on the following topics:


Councillor Workshop 29 June 2009

Background and update on the preparation of the draft Parramatta DCP

Draft Sex Services and Restricted Premises provisions

Amended Waste Management provisions


Councillor Workshop 6 July 2009

Draft Boarding Houses provisions

Draft Deemed to Comply- Stormwater Drainage provisions

Draft Sustainable Transport provisions

Draft Places of Public Worship provisions


Discussion Paper

Discussion at the workshops resulted in further refinement of the draft DCP. A discussion paper was circulated on 16 November to update and brief Councillors of revisions made to the draft DCP ahead of this report.




7.      Section 1.3 of the DCP details the land in which this plan will apply. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 provides for master plans that existed immediately before the commencement of a local environmental plan to continue to apply to land and become known as a deemed DCP.  As such, the draft comprehensive DCP will not apply to these areas and the master plans continue to apply to the land and are applied as if they were a DCP. The location of the deemed DCPs is shown on the map on page 5 of the draft DCP.


8.      One of the deemed DCPs is the Rosehill Master Plan which applies to land bounded by Hope Street, James Ruse Drive, Weston Street and Arthur Street, Rosehill.  The Master Plan was initially adopted by Council in September 2003 and provides for both mixed use development and medium density residential development.  The height controls within the draft Parramatta LEP have since changed and differ from those in the Master Plan and as such, there is a need to update the Master Plan. When this review occurs, it would be appropriate to convert the controls within the deemed DCP and incorporate them into the comprehensive DCP to ensure their compatibility with the provisions of the draft Parramatta LEP. It is anticipated this work can occur prior to finalising the comprehensive DCP and if necessary, this component of the draft DCP may be exhibited separately.




9.      The sequence of the various sections of the draft DCP has been refined to ensure a logical progression that mirrors the design process and steps in the preparation of a development application.  The structure of the draft DCP is demonstrated in the table of contents included at the front of the draft DCP and is summarised as follows:


Part 1 Introduction -                          Explains what the DCP is and where it applies.

Part 2 Site Planning -                      Promotes best practice by assisting applicants to identify the opportunities and constraints of their site prior to commencing the design process.

Part 3 Development Principles -    Contains the development controls that apply to all development types.  This section identifies the three dimensional building envelope that applies to various development types and the further controls which refine this envelope.

Part 4 Special Precincts -               Contains the place-based controls that apply to certain places requiring special consideration.

Part 5 Other Provisions -                 Contains the development specific controls that apply to specific uses such as child care centres, sex services premises etc.


Additional and Revised Provisions Flooding (Water Management)


10.    The Flooding section of the draft DCP predominantly contains provisions relating to mainstream flooding which have been carried across from Parramatta DCP 2005. Certain provisions from Council’s Local Floodplain Risk Management Policy have also been incorporated in this section to strengthen existing controls. Whilst mainstream flooding is a significant problem, the NSW Floodplain Development Manual (FDM) also regards local overland flooding as a significant problem that needs to be considered along with mainstream flooding.


11.    Although the FDM does not specifically deal with local drainage, councils are required to consider the principles in the manual when addressing these problems, particularly given the prime responsibility for local planning and land management rests with councils. For this reason, a new control has been inserted in the draft DCP to ensure proposed developments consider the impact of flooding resulting from Local Overland Flooding whether it is a result of local drainage or major drainage.


12.    Refer to Section of the draft DCP for the flooding provisions and the Glossary for definitions of the above flood terms.


3.1.3 Preliminary Building Envelopes


13.    The Preliminary Building Envelope controls for Business zones in Part 3 of the draft DCP have been simplified to contain a single set of controls for each zone or building type.  These are the controls that apply to a development unless more specific controls are specified for that location in Part 4 of the DCP.


14.    Section 3.1.3 of the draft DCP indicates the draft proposed building envelope controls for the Business zones and shop top housing.  Of particular note, are the changes made to the preliminary building envelopes for mixed use development.  The current Parramatta DCP 2005 specifies 5 sets of mixed use building envelope controls relating to different locations.  These have been consolidated and simplified into a single control for the B4 Mixed Use zone.  This has the effect of changing some controls as follows:


Ø  The height of buildings is specified in draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan in the Height of Buildings map rather than in the draft DCP as required by the standard LEP. The front setback has been increased from nil to 3m except where otherwise specified in Part 4 or where the predominant street setback is less.

Ø  Side setbacks currently range from nil to 6m.  The draft DCP provides that side setbacks are to be determined on merit having regard to amenity impacts on adjoining development.

Ø  Rear setbacks currently range from 6m to 10m and from 15% length of site to 40% length of site.  The draft DCP provides that rear setbacks are 15% of the site length for the residential component and/or where the boundary adjoins a residential development or a residential zone and otherwise on merit.

Ø  The consolidation of controls for the B4 Mixed Use zone provides a more consistent approach to this form of development.


Secondary dwelling and Boarding house controls


19.    Boarding houses were discussed at the Councillor workshop on 6 July 2009 with Councillors raising several issues.  Since the workshop, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 came into effect (on 18 September 2009) and has implications for the controls relating to both boarding houses and secondary dwellings (granny flats).  Councillors received a memo dated 24 August 2009 regarding this SEPP.  As a result, some of the desired boarding house controls in the draft DCP cannot be legally implemented.  The majority of the controls that were drafted by staff prior to the release of the SEPP have been incorporated into the draft DCP, however, some changes have been made in response to the SEPP.


20.    The controls relating to secondary dwellings (granny flats) and boarding houses have been inserted into the draft DCP as follows:


3.1.3 Secondary Dwellings


          The terminology of a granny flat has been changed to that of a secondary dwelling in line with the terminology used in State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 “the SEPP” and the definition within the standard LEP.  The SEPP provides for the development of secondary dwellings in all residential zones, excluding heritage listed properties.  The SEPP allows secondary dwellings to be considered as Complying Development, provided they comply with the standards within the SEPP.  Alternatively, they can be considered through a Development Application in which case, the standards contained within Council’s DCP can be applied.


          It would normally be expected that the complying development standards within the SEPP would be more restrictive than the DCP provisions applicable to a merit assessment of a development application.  However, this is not the case for all controls in the current Parramatta DCP 2005.  Some provisions of the SEPP are more restrictive than the DCP whilst others are more permissive and vice versa.  As such, some changes have been made to the draft DCP controls to provide a logical and appropriate relationship between the complying development standards in the SEPP and the controls that would apply to a merit assessment under Council’s DCP.  The changes that are proposed to be made to Council’s draft DCP are:


Ø  Council’s current DCP only permits secondary dwellings to achieve a height of 4.5m except where they face a laneway or are attached to the principal dwelling and aren’t within the rear building setback in which case the height may be increased to 8m. The SEPP permits secondary dwellings to achieve a height of 8.5m as complying development therefore, the height control applying to secondary dwellings in the draft DCP has been increased to 8.5m.   A change to the height control necessitates an increase in the rear setback control.  The current rear setback control for secondary dwellings is 3m in all cases.  It is proposed that it be changed to 3m for single storey secondary dwellings and 6m for two storey secondary dwellings.  It is also proposed that the side setback controls be changed from 900mm in all cases, to 900mm for single storey secondary dwellings and 2m for two storey secondary dwellings.

Ø  Council’s DCP currently only permits the development of a secondary dwelling in the case that the allotment has a minimum size of 550m2.  The SEPP permits secondary dwellings on smaller allotments as complying development being those with a minimum size of 450m2.  The draft DCP has been changed to reflect the less restrictive standard of the SEPP. It should be noted that the minimum building setbacks will still be applied, so the smaller minimum lot size will not reduce other standards.


5.1 Boarding Houses


Ø  Concern was raised by Councillors about permitting boarding houses in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.  It was noted that boarding houses are a mandatory permissible use in the R2 zone and a possible compromise was seen to be to only permit small, Class 1(b) boarding houses in the R2 zone.  While the draft DCP cannot permit and prohibit and uses in the manner of an LEP, a control has been included which limits the number of bedrooms and residents to 12 in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

Ø  The minimum room size for a 2 person room has been reduced from 17.5m2 to 16m2 in accordance with the controls in the SEPP.

Ø  A note has been inserted into the draft DCP advising that State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 contains separate controls for boarding house development and where there is an inconsistency between the SEPP and the DCP, the SEPP will prevail.

Ø  Councillors requested that all boarding houses be required to provide an on-site resident manager.  The draft DCP proposes that an on-site manager is required in the case that there are more than 20 lodgers consistent with the requirement of the SEPP.

Ø  Councillors raised concern that the car parking rates for boarding houses within 400m from public transport should be increased to 1 space per 5 people and 1 space per 3 people where the boarding house is greater than 400m from public transport.  However, the SEPP provides that applications for boarding houses cannot be refused for providing not more than 1 parking space per 10 residents and 1 parking space per employee (ie. a maximum rate).  Council’s proposed controls included in the draft DCP utilise a minimum car parking rate (one space per 10 residents and one space per boarding room) in anticipation of the majority of boarding house applications being located in residential areas.  The proposed controls do not differentiate between car parking requirements for boarding houses within or beyond 400m of public transport. Council’s control will be a guideline, however, the SEPP will prevail in the event of any inconsistency.

Ø  Requirements for bicycle parking and motor bike parking are included in the draft DCP at a rate of one space per 5 rooms.  This is provided as a minimum rate and is consistent with the SEPP.

Ø  Controls relating to building form and appearance (such as no boarding room to exceed 25m2), private open space and fire safety have been altered to correspond with the SEPP.


Security Shutters


23.    In October 2008, Council made a resolution requesting that council’s DCP include guidelines as to appropriate designs of security features for buildings.


24.    Additional provisions have been incorporated into the DCP (specifically sections 3.2.2 Building Facades and Articulation and 3.4.3 Safety and Security) to provide clarity on Council’s position to not support roller doors and security shutters where they are not integrated with the facade design or are solid in form.


25.    Data has not been able to be located that gives a breakdown of vandalism or broken shopfronts which currently have shutters in place however it is held that the provisions contained in the DCP are explicit in their intent. Stormwater Drainage (Water Sensitive Urban Design)


26.      The philosophy of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) promotes connection of site water to detention and/or retention facilities that reduce pollutant loads and stormwater volume entering the natural waterways. The requirements for “WSUD Deemed to Comply” which were introduced to Councillors at the Councillor Workshop on 6 July 2009 have been tested, revealing that on-site detention (OSD) provisions would be required for all development, where currently some smaller development types are exempt from providing OSD.


27.       Following consultation with Council’s Development Assessment staff, neighbouring Ryde and Blacktown Councils and three stormwater industry consultants, it was determined that the “Deemed to Comply” requirements would be too onerous on ‘mum and dad’ residential developers and costly for Council.


28.       BASIX currently has water and energy requirements for new dwellings and it is therefore unnecessary to introduce additional requirements in the draft DCP.  Further, the government will introduce from May 2011, a requirement that all homes have a green star rating for energy, water and greenhouse performance before being sold or leased. This will provide incentives for owners to make environmental improvements in order to get a higher market premium for their homes (new and existing). Furthermore, ensuring these systems are functional and operational would be very costly for Council from a compliance perspective.


29.       For these reasons, the “Deemed to Comply” requirements propose less burdensome stormwater drainage requirements, largely applying to commercial and industrial developments as well as large residential developments. Please refer to Section of Attachment 2.


30.    Furthermore, concern was raised at the Councillor workshop regarding the insertion of controls relating to Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). BOD and COD are typically measured (or required) when there are high organic loadings in the subject water / waste water. They are used in industries such as sewage treatment and industrial processing which are licenced by the NSW Environment Protection Authority. The draft DCP is largely dealing with stormwater runoff and as a result these two parameters are not recommended.


3.3.7 Waste Management


31.    The waste management controls have been carried across from Parramatta DCP 2005 and strengthened for two reasons. Firstly, to ensure an adequate and consistent level of consideration is given to each stage of development, and secondly to comply with the criteria of the Waste Service Performance Improvement Payment Certificate to ensure Council receives $500,000 for the 2008/2009 period from NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change.


32.    Currently the waste management plans are located on Council’s website which often results in applicants not fulfilling all the requirements of a development application. All waste controls (e.g. design principles, performance criteria and waste management plans) are now located in the draft DCP.


33.    The strengthening of the controls and positioning of all waste management requirements in the one document will result in a better environmental outcome and make it clearer for the applicant to know from the outset what waste provisions need to be addressed, in turn making it a more efficient process.


34.    Concern was raised at the Councillor workshop that more appropriate terminology regarding use of the term “waste” in the section on waste management might be explored.  Staff have investigated this further to determine what terminology is most commonly in use in similar documents.  The term “waste” appears to be contemporary and appropriate within the context of the draft DCP for the following reasons:


Ø  The relevant State Government legislation is contained within the “Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act, 2001.”

Ø  Best Practice is established by the Department of Environment and Climate Change “Model Waste Not Development Control Plan 2008” and “Better Practice Guide for Waste Management in Multi-unit Dwellings 2008.”

Ø  Waste is the common terminology used on the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change website,


3.6.1 Sustainable Transport


35.    A new section relating to Sustainable Transport (refer to Section 3.6.1) is proposed to be included in the draft DCP. Council has set a strategic goal of increasing sustainable transport in the local area and for the journey to work. Sustainable transport includes walking, cycling, the use of public transport and car sharing initiatives. Sustainable transport aims to reduce car trips and hence decrease congestion, save time and money and reduce the environmental impact of transport.


36.    The new provisions relate to new larger developments providing opportunities to support and encourage the use of sustainable transport through the provision of car share parking and developing travel plans.


37.    The first component of this section is “Carshare”. In December 2008, Council made a resolution requesting that new provisions for car sharing in the draft DCP be investigated.  A control is proposed to be incorporated into the DCP for large residential and business developments within close proximity to a railway station and certain bus stops to provide a carshare parking space.


38.    Concern was raised at the Councillor workshop regarding the rate of carshare spaces that can be provided in lieu of car parking spaces. The rate has been reduced from 1 carshare space in lieu of 6 car parking spaces, to 1 carshare space in lieu of 3 car parking spaces to ensure viability of the carshare scheme.


39.    The second and final component of this section is “Travel Plans”. A Travel Plan is a package of measures designed to reduce car trips and encourage the use of sustainable transport. It works best in locations where there is a good level of public transport provision. Therefore, it is proposed that large developments within close proximity to a railway station and certain bus stops will be required to prepare a Travel Plan.


3.6.2 Parking and Vehicular Access


40.    Several revisions are proposed to be made to Section 3.5.2 Parking and Vehicular Access.  To summarise, the revisions include:


Design Principles and Controls


Ø  The definition of basement car parking has been changed to reflect the definition from the standard LEP.   The current Parramatta DCP 2005 allows basements to project a maximum of 1.2 metres above natural ground level.  However, the standard LEP defines a basement as meaning the: “…space of a building where the floor level of that space is predominantly below ground level (existing) and where the floor level of the storey immediately above is less than 1 metre above ground level (existing).”  As such, the draft DCP has been changed to reduce the projection of basements to 1 metre.

Ø  The design principle requiring that developments including both residential and non-residential uses provide separate access to the basement car park for the residential use has been deleted.  This has been replaced with 3 new principles relating to meeting the relevant Australian standards, vehicular ramp width and minimising headlight glare.  A note has also been added referring to the section on waste management should a private waste collection vehicle be required.

Ø  The design principle requiring vehicles to leave sites on arterial roads in a forward direction has been expanded to require vehicles to leave all sites (other than dwelling houses) in a forward direction.

Ø  The design standard requiring the car parks of multi-dwelling housing developments to provide storage areas has been expanded to require all types of car parking for multi dwelling developments to provide storage areas, not only basement car parks.

Ø  Additional design standards relating to industrial developments have been added which require the submission of a traffic management plan and the provision of adequate facilities for trucks and large vehicles.

Ø  Currently, under the Parramatta DCP 2005, retail premises may count on-street car parking at the frontage of the site when calculating parking provision.  This has been expanded to include business premises, however, in all cases must be supported by a parking survey.

Ø  A new Design Principle has been included as follows: “Where properties have access to a rear lane or secondary street frontage (including desired lanes), parking and servicing access should be provided from the secondary street/lane.”

Ø  The bicycle parking rate has been increased and disconnected from car space provision to promote the use of sustainable transport. The proposed changes are detailed below.



Existing Parramatta DCP 2005 Control

Proposed Draft DCP Control

Residential flat buildings

1 bicycle space per 3 dwellings

1 bicycle space per 2 dwellings

Business, office, retail and industrial development

1 bicycle space per 20 motor vehicle spaces

1 bicycle space per 200sqm of floor space


Car Parking Rates


41.    Currently, under SREP 28, the areas of Camellia, Rydalmere and Harris Park are subject to maximum car parking rates.  These areas are proposed to be subject to minimum car parking rates consistent with all areas affected by the draft DCP.  (It is proposed to hold a workshop with Councillors at a future date to discuss options for maximum parking rates for appropriate locations in the local government area).


42.    Under DCP 2005, multi dwelling housing is subject to its own set of car parking rates.  It is proposed that the parking rates for multi dwelling housing be the same as those for residential flat buildings distinguished by whether the development is within or beyond 400m of a railway station or transit way bus stop.  It should be noted that the car parking rates for multi dwelling housing remain relatively unchanged with a comparison between existing and proposed controls summarised in the table below.


Parramatta DCP 2005

Draft DCP

All multi dwelling housing

1 space per 2 bedroom unit

Multi dwelling housing within 400m of public transport

1 space per 2 bedroom unit


Multi dwelling housing beyond 400m of public transport

1.25 spaces per 2 bedroom unit


All multi dwelling housing

1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

Multi dwelling housing within 400m of public transport

1.2 spaces per 3 bedroom unit


Multi dwelling housing beyond 400m of public transport

1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

Residential flat buildings or the residential component of Mixed use development (greater than 400m from public transport)


No control for 4 bedroom unit

Residential flat buildings, multi dwelling housing or the residential component of Mixed use development (greater than 400m from public transport)


2 spaces per 4 bedroom unit

Residential flat buildings or the residential component of Mixed use development (within 400m of public transport)


No control for 4 bedroom unit

Residential flat buildings, multi dwelling housing or the residential component of Mixed use development (within 400m of public transport)


2 spaces per 4 bedroom unit


43.       The current car parking controls within the Parramatta DCP apply the Roads and Traffic Authority’s “Guide to Traffic Generating Developments” in the case where a particular land use is not addressed in the DCP.  The draft DCP continues this provision and adds the requirement for a traffic and parking survey where it is appropriate.


Part 4 – Special Precincts


44.    Part 4 Special Precincts contains the controls relevant to specific places in the local government area.  Any unnecessary duplication has been removed and only those controls which are not addressed in the previous sections of the draft DCP have been included in Part 4. Development located within a Special Precinct must comply with the objectives, principles and controls in Part 4 and any relevant objectives, principles and controls in Parts 2 and 3. Where there is any inconsistency part 4 will prevail.


45.    Some controls in Parts 2 and 3 have been strengthened to support the special precincts in part 4. These controls relate to streetscape, culture and public art, safety and security, and accessibility and connectivity.


4.1 Town and Neighbourhood Centres


46.    The first Special Precinct of Part 4 is the “town and neighbourhood centres” identified for development under Council’s Residential Development Strategy (RDS).  The format of the controls for each RDS centre have been standardised to follow a consistent pattern.  The RDS Centres contain a desired future character statement, specific objectives, building envelope controls and a plan indicating the setbacks and desired pedestrian connections and laneways. The RDS centres included in the draft DCP are:


1.      Carlingford Precinct

2.      Collet Park Precinct

3.      Dundas Precinct

4.      (East) Rydalmere Precinct

5.      Epping Town Centre

6.      Granville Town Centre

7.      Guildford Precinct

8.      Merrylands Precinct

9.      Morton Street Precinct

10.    South Granville Precinct

11.    Telopea Precinct


47.    When Council adopted the earlier version of the draft DCP in May 2007, the South Granville Precinct (centred on the Delwood Shops) provisions had not yet been prepared as the draft LEP controls for this area took some time to resolve. The draft LEP provides for opportunities for retail and business uses and shop top housing along Blaxcell Street and Pegler Avenue adjacent to the Delwood Shops, with residential flat buildings immediately surrounding the shops and multi dwelling housing beyond. Refer to Section 4.1.10 of the draft DCP.


48.    The section relating to the Morton Street Precinct may be revised in respect of the provisions for No 2 Morton Street, Parramatta which is the subject of a Planning Proposal which is proceeding separately to the draft Parramatta LEP and this draft DCP. There is proposed to be a separate community consultation process with regard to this site. Ultimately, the stand alone DCP controls for this site will be incorporated in the comprehensive draft DCP.


4.2 Special Character Areas


49.    The second Special Precinct is the “Special Character Areas”.  These areas have been substantially carried across from the existing Parramatta DCP 2005. The format of the controls for each Special Character Area has been standardised to follow a consistent pattern.


4.3 Strategic Precincts


50.    “Strategic Precincts” is the third component of Part 4. These provisions have been substantially carried across from SREP 28 with some revision as detailed below:


Ø  Currently the Parramatta Government Precinct is subject to a detailed Master Plan.  The Government Precinct covers the area known as the Cumberland Hospital campus and the existing provisions within the SREP and the draft LEP provide for redevelopment of the site for mixed use development.  The Master Plan was prepared since the commencement of SREP 28 and contains more recent and detailed provisions than the SREP.  As such, the SREP provisions have not been carried over into the draft DCP.  Instead, the site will be excluded from the DCP and the Master Plan will become the deemed DCP for the site.

Ø  The Camellia and Rydalmere Precincts are addressed in SREP 28 under separate sections with the controls duplicated for each area.  As the controls for both areas are the same, they have been combined and included within Part 4 of the draft DCP as “Strategic Precincts”.

Ø  SREP 28 also contains several “Special Areas” provisions most of which have been carried over into the draft DCP.  The exceptions are the River Special Area and the Rydalmere Station and Surrounds Special Area.  The provisions within the River Special Area are addressed by Clause 6.6 Foreshore Building Line and Clause 6.16 Environmental Protection within the draft LEP and within the Camellia/Rydalmere controls in the draft DCP.  The Rydalmere Station and Surrounds Special Area controls are based on the redevelopment of Rydalmere Station as part of the Parramatta Rail Link which has been abandoned by the State Government in favour of the Sydney West Metro.  A control has been included in the draft DCP requiring development near the proposed Metro Stations to consider the impacts on the delivery of this infrastructure in the future, as detailed in the following dot point.

Ø  Stations related to the proposed West Metro link will potentially be located within Westmead, Parramatta and Camellia and as such, development in the local government area may impact on the future delivery of this infrastructure.  It is important that any decisions about land within proximity to the proposed stations take a long term view and consider issues that will affect both the delivery of the west Metro and the integration between the station and surrounding land uses.  Sydney Metro has developed a number of planning and development principles for land around proposed metro stations relevant to the preparation of local environmental plans, development control plans and masterplans.  The principles address issues such as urban design, pedestrian linkages and sustainable travel behaviour.  A control is proposed to be inserted into Part 4 of the draft DCP, specifically to the Strategic Precincts of Camellia and Rydalmere, and Westmead requiring as follows:

Ø  “Land within proximity of the proposed Sydney West metro station is to be developed with consideration of the following:


·        The impact of the development on the delivery of the Sydney West Metro Link;

·        The impact of the proposed Sydney West Metro link on the development;

·        The integration and interface between the development and any proposed station;

·        The provisions of any relevant planning and development principles produced by Sydney Metro or its equivalent; and

·        The potential for land use to respond to the Sydney West Metro link in the future (e.g. maintain large development parcels without further subdivision in the short term).”


4.4 Heritage Conservation Areas


51.    The “Heritage Conservation Areas” form the last part of this section. The controls have been carried across from the Parramatta Heritage DCP 2005. The format of the controls for each Heritage Conservation Area has been standardised to follow a consistent pattern.


5.2 Child Care Centres


52.    On 28 of May 2007 Council adopted the Child Care Centres DCP. At this meeting it was also resolved that a review of the DCP be carried out after it had been in operation for twelve months. A review of the DCP was commenced in 2008 and involved; consideration of issues raised by assessment staff, community services staff, traffic and transport as well as applicants. An analysis of the built form attributes and streetscape presentation of centres approved under the new DCP was also carried out.


53.    There is a state government directive for all Councils to prepare one comprehensive Development Control Plan. Rather than present the child care centres review and recommended modifications as a separate report, the review outcomes are included for consideration in the draft comprehensive DCP.


54.    After consideration of all comments received, workshops with relevant internal staff and clarification from an external specialist consultant (acoustics), the review has resulted in the following changes being recommended for incorporation into the comprehensive DCP:


Ø  The removal of site selection criteria from Section 5.2.3 where it relates to land within the R2 zone. This is due to child care centres not being proposed to be permissible in the R2 zone in the draft Parramatta LEP as a result of Council’s resolution of 23 March 2009, and the Department of Planning’s certification of the draft LEP with this provision.

Ø  The broader site selection criteria will largely remain with some re-wording of some remaining site selection criteria to read as objectives rather than prohibitions.

Ø  Addition of acoustic controls to better clarify the technical measurements criteria to be used by acoustic consultants.

Ø  Several minor formatting and grammatical corrections as well as updating of references to planning documents that have since been either repealed or gazetted.


55.    The Child Care Centres DCP has generally been found to be an effective tool for both applicants and assessment officers in the preparation and assessment of development applications for child care centres. Child Care centres represent a challenge for most councils in striking the balance between providing for a land use for which there is often high demand within the community and maintaining a reasonable level of amenity and minimising character impact on local neighbourhoods. The DCP has been shown to be of high value in providing clear direction to applicants in planning for child care as well as expectations and quality of supporting documentation to be provided which has assisted in the assessment process.


5.3 Educational Establishments and Places of Public Worship


56.    Council, at its meeting on 19 October 2009 adopted a draft stand-alone DCP relating to places of public worship for exhibition.  Once adopted by Council, the stand-alone DCP will be in place as an interim measure until the commencement of the draft comprehensive DCP which will incorporate the same controls.  Joint controls relating to both educational establishments and places of public worship are proposed to be inserted within part 5 of the draft DCP.  The controls relating to Places of Public worship reflect those adopted in the draft stand-alone DCP.  It is considered the two land uses are comparable in terms of their potential to have significant impacts, particularly within residential areas and require specific controls to manage these.  The main controls included are as follows:


Ø  Places of Public Worship are proposed to be a prohibited use in the R2 Low Density Residential zone under draft Parramatta LEP.  Recent correspondence from the Department of Planning regarding their willingness to issue a section 65 certificate to allow Council to publicly exhibit the Plan indicates that they support this approach.

Ø  All applications for educational establishments and places of public worship are to be accompanied by an Operational Plan of Management which details the ongoing management practices to be employed by the proposed use to manage its impact on the neighbourhood.  This will be used both for the assessment of the application as well as to manage the ongoing operation of the premises through conditions of consent.

Ø  Applications are proposed to be subject to the same height, floor space ratio and envelope controls that are identified in the draft LEP and Part 3 of the draft DCP applicable to the permissible development within the relevant zone.

Ø  For Places of Public Worship, a control is proposed to apply as follows: “Any new development must predominantly serve the local community and have a maximum capacity of 250.”

Ø  A noise impact assessment statement prepared by a suitably qualified engineer will be required to be submitted with all applications for development within or adjoining residential zones.

Ø  All development applications are to be accompanied by a traffic impact statement, addressing, amongst other issues, the number of car parking spaces required on the basis of the use of the site.


5.6 Sex Services and Restricted Premises


57.    Council adopted the DCP for Sex Services Premises and Restricted Premises at its meeting on 23 November 2009.  The stand-alone DCP will be in place as an interim measure until the commencement of the draft comprehensive DCP which has incorporated the same controls.


Appendix 5 – Notification Procedures


58.    The requirements under the Notification DCP 2004 have been carried over to Appendix 5 of the draft DCP. A review of the Notification DCP is currently being prepared. The draft comprehensive DCP will incorporate any updates made to the Notification DCP once it has been adopted by Council.




59.    The draft DCP was referred to the Design Review Panel at its meetings on 19 June and 3 July 2007.  The Panel is appointed under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) and their role is to comment on development applications for residential flat buildings of 3 storeys in height and above and the related design content of draft local environmental plans and development control plans.   The Panel’s comments regarding the draft DCP are summarised below:


Ø  The height control expressed in metres rather than storeys can encourage flat-roofed buildings if the control is not sufficiently generous.

Ø  It would be preferable to require larger floor-to-ceiling heights than the minimum required by the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

Ø  It would be good to set site-specific building envelopes for certain sites, particularly where the land is sloping.

Ø  Concern was raised about the viability of the controls proposed within Granville in the area between the railway line and Parramatta Road.  The Panel questioned whether the area would be more suited to commercial rather than residential development and whether fragmentation of ownership may hamper delivery of the redevelopment of the area.

Ø  The indicative building envelopes in the Morton Street precinct encourage open courtyards within each development block.  Concern was raised that the courtyards will operate in an insular way and require better connections with the public domain.

Ø  Concern was raised that the 3 storey residential development proposed for the northern part of the precinct will not provide the incentive required for lot amalgamation and redevelopment.


60.    These comments have been addressed in the updated draft DCP.




61.    It is intended that the draft DCP will be publicly exhibited with the draft LEP. The methodology for the public exhibition of the draft DCP will be equivalent to that adopted by Council for the draft LEP.


62.    The draft DCP has been prepared in consultation with relevant units within Council including Development Services, Environmental Outcomes, Catchment Management and Waste Management.  In addition, internal briefings regarding both the draft LEP and draft DCP will be held with all relevant staff members during the public exhibition period providing staff education and enabling them to make further comment.