Agenda of Council (Development)

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
Gregory Smith – Group Manager Corporate			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

GALLERY

Council (Development)	10 May 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Council (Development) - 12 April 2010

2 APOLOGIES

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4 Minutes of Lord Mayor

5 Public Forum

5.1 Delegation to Chief Executive Officer for Determination of Development Applications

6 PETITIONS

7 Economy and Development

7.1 Functions Delegated to the Chief Executive Officer related to the Determination of Development Applications

7.2 Variations to Standards under SEPP 1

7.3 Amendments to the DCP for Sex Services and Restricted Premises

7.4 Telstra Tower Relocation - Mobbs Lane, Epping

8 Environment and Infrastructure

8.1 Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta City Centre

Note

Memorandum to be provided under separate cover providing details on issue raised by Councillor Lim.

9 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION

10 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD

11 Reports - Domestic Applications

11.1 5 Oakes Road, Winston Hills
(Lot 26 DP 219495) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

11.2 317 Guildford Road, Guildford
Lot 1 DP 514 685 (Woodville Ward)

11.3 Suite 2, Level 2, 110 Church Street, Parramatta
(Lot 1 DP 228112)

11.4 1/76 Phillip Street, Parramatta
(Lot 1 SP 75329) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

11.5 Section 82A Review - 17/38-42 Wynyard Street, Guildford (Lot 17 SP 78153) (Woodville Ward)

11.6 2 Cumberland Street, Epping
(Lot 8 Sec 14 DP1026) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

12 Reports - Major Applications

12.1 Woolpack Hotel, 19 George Street, Parramatta (LOT 1 DP 74937) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

12.2 2/34 Waratah Street Melrose Park (Lot 2 SP 33610) (Lachlan Macquarie ward)

Note

Memorandum to be circulated under separate cover providing additional photos.

13 Notices of Motion

13.1 Future ANZAC Day Celebrations in Parramatta

13.2 Parramatta Cenotaph

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 2010 Community Grants Program

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) 10 May 2010

Item 5.1

PUBLIC FORUM

ITEM NUMBER 5.1

SUBJECT Delegation to Chief Executive Officer for Determination of Development Applications

REFERENCE F2004/06174 - D01522317

REPORT OF Administrative Support Officer

FROM Mr Bruce Berry

“My submission concerns the proposed extension of delegated authority for the approval of development applications by staff, instead of by the public’s elected representatives, the Councillors.

Unless 7 submissions are received on a DA, it will not be considered by Councillors. The sole purpose seems to be the speeding up of assessment. Are there any statistics to show that this will be the case?

Council’s Notification Policy shows that in some situations not even 7 neighbouring residents are notified of DA’s on adjoining properties, as in the case of dual occupancies and single dwellings. I have had good reason to question staff on its assessment of DA’s. This has led to uncovering of errors and the introduction of policies and procedures to correct them. However, my efforts to monitor the processes have been frustrated by staff failure to provide statistics and other information I had requested.

Recently, staff error resulted in the appointment of an independent consultant to assess a DA. It revealed several important matters that the staff assessment had not taken into account. Although the consultant did not recommend refusal of the DA, she brought about improvements in it that staff had overlooked or ignored. Apart from this, she disagreed with staff calculation of the floor space ratio, even though staff has claimed to me that it has introduced a special process to avoid inaccuracies. The difference between the two calculations was approximately the combined floor area of two of the bedrooms. Management have shrugged off all the issues, saying there are no unresolved matters.

Why is it that proposed changes on established policy, such as this one on delegated authority, are not exhibited for public comment? We had the same situation with the Compliments and Complaints Policy, with Council claiming that the changes are only minor. I disputed this, as well as other matters. Both of these policies are very important to the residents and ratepayers. By contrast, the Outdoor Dining Policy was exhibited for two months.

I am not confident in the increased delegation of authority to staff while so many issues such as these remain unanswered.

Could I please have a full response to these matters and not just to the specific questions I have asked?”

RESPONSE

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Council (Development) 10 May 2010

Item 7.1

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.1

SUBJECT Functions Delegated to the Chief Executive Officer related to the Determination of Development Applications

REFERENCE F2004/06472 - D01508533

REPORT OF Group Manager Outcomes and Development

PURPOSE:

To obtain Council endorsement and re-affirmation of functions delegated to the Chief Executive Officer relating to the determination of development applications.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council re-affirm the decision of 9 March 2009 regarding the functions delegated to the Chief Executive Officer that relate to the determination of development applications, being:

(a) Approve development applications (including section 96 applications)

provided:

i. There are not more than 7 objections to the development; or

ii. The development application does not relate to land in which Council holds, or has recently held, a direct pecuniary interest; or

iii. The development application is not known to have been made, or relate to a property owned by a member of staff or Councillor; or

iv. The development application does not seek to demolish a heritage item; or

v. The development application does not relate to a brothel, massage parlour, sex service premises, restricted premises, tattoo parlour or place of public worship; or

vi. The application does not seek a review of determination under section 82A review; or

vii. The application is lodged as a ‘Fast Track DA’ (i.e. swimming pool, garages, awnings, decks pergolas, change of use and similarly small scale DAs) even if 7 or more objections are received.

With the following exceptions:

i. section 96(1a), section 96(2) and section 96(AA) applications where the original development application was determined by the elected Council; and

ii. where an application located on a heritage item, three (3) Councillors may request in writing that an application be ‘called’ to Council for determination. This written request is to be made no late than 1 week after the conclusion of the public notification/exhibition period.

BACKGROUND

1. Council at the meeting of 22 March 2010 deferred consideration of this matter for 2 weeks to obtain further information regarding the delegations that were given in the past 12 months. A copy of the Council resolution of 9 March 2009 can be found in Attachment 1. A further report was presented to Council at the meeting of 12 April 2010. The matter was again deferred for a further 2 weeks. A decision was made by the Executive Team at the following agenda review committee for the report to be relisted on the agenda for the May Regulatory Meeting.

REPORT

2. Council on 9 March 2009 considered a report on processing and administration of development applications. Arising from that report Council delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to determine certain categories of development applications for a 12 month period.

3. The 12 month period has passed and the operation of the delegation has been reviewed. In the 12 months prior to March 2009, 1110 development applications were determined by Council, of these 86% were determined under delegation. In the last 12 months, 1176 development applications were determined by Council, of which 91% were determined under delegation. Currently a DA determined by Council takes on average 63% longer than a DA determined under delegation, 131 gross mean time compared with 80 days gross mean time. It is considered appropriate to maintain the current delegations and it is thus recommended that Council re-affirm its previous decision of 9 March 2009.

4. However, in response to concerns raised by Councillors in relation to heritage items it is proposed to introduce a ‘call-up’ provision for heritage applications.

5. It is suggested that the ‘call-up’ provision would be available when three (3) Councillors request in writing that an application that relates to a heritage item be determined by the elected Council, rather than staff. To facilitate the ‘call up’, notice of all development applications submitted for these types of applications would be distributed to Councillors on a weekly basis in the Councillor Information Booklet.

6. A ‘call-up’ provision is suggested rather than a mandatory trigger that requires all applications that relate to heritage item being referred to Council for determination, as a large majority of DAs that relate to heritage items are for minor matters, such as change of use applications where there is no community interest in the matter.

7. If Council supports this approach, the following wording is suggested for the instrument of delegations:

‘Call up’ provision – where an application is made to modify an application to an approved place of worship’ or to modify an existing development consent on a heritage item’ or an application located on a heritage item, three (3) Councillors may request in writing that an application be ‘called’ to Council for determination. This written request is to be made no later than 1 week after the conclusion of the public notification/exhibition period.

8. In an effort to address some issues raised by Councillors regarding the determination of section 96 applications where the elected Council determined the original development application it is recommended that all section 96(1a), 96(2) and 96(AA) applications where the original development application was determined by Council be referred to council for determination.

Sue Weatherley

Group Manager Outcomes & Development

Attachments:

1View

MINUTE Processing and Administration of Development Applications (Regulatory Council - 9 March 2009)

4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 10 May 2010

Item 7.3

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.3

SUBJECT Amendments to the DCP for Sex Services and Restricted Premises

REFERENCE F2009/01146 - D01523075

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer

PURPOSE:

To finalise the amendments to the DCP for Sex Services and Restricted Premises

following public exhibition.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopt the amendments to the DCP for Sex Services and Restricted Premises (Attachment 1).

(b) Further, that a notice be published in the local newspapers to give effect to the amendments.

BACKGROUND

1. Council, on 8 March 2010 resolved to prepare and exhibit amendments to the DCP for Sex Services and Restricted Premises, The amendments are shown track changed and in blue text in the DCP (Attachment 1) and relate to the following matters:

(a) To extend the application of the DCP in Section 1.2 to all land within the Parramatta LGA and include reference to the Parramatta Regional Environmental Plan in Section 1.3

(b) To amend the information requirements in Part 2 for medical and therapeutic massage premises

(c) To increase the separation distance from 100 to 200 m in Part 5, 5.1 , S.1 and S.3 between existing and proposed sex services premises, restricted premises, adult entertainment premises and licensed premises

(d) To limit the consent in Part 2 for massage related services to two years.

2. The amendments were placed on public exhibition from 24 March to 23 April 2010. No submissions were received.

ISSUES

3. It is recommended that the amendments to the DCP for Sex Services and Restricted Premises be adopted by Council. The amendments will have final effect once a notice is published in the newspapers.

Paul Kennedy Sue Stewart

Project Officer Land Use Planning Senior Project Officer Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1View

DCP for Sex Services incorporating amendments

13 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 10 May 2010

Item 7.4

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 7.4

SUBJECT Telstra Tower Relocation - Mobbs Lane, Epping

REFERENCE F2010/01038 - D01523252

REPORT OF Property Program Manager

PURPOSE:

This report recommends Council to enter into a licence agreement with Telstra for the installation of a temporary telecommunication facility at Mobbs Lane Epping (outside the former Channel 7 studio at 61 Mobbs Lane Epping).

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council resolve to enter into a licence agreement with Telstra to approve the installation of a telecommunication facility at Mobbs Lane Epping on terms as stated in the report.

(b) Further that the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer be authorized to execute and affix the council seal to the agreement.

BACKGROUND

1. Telstra (together with Optus and 3GIS) has telecommunication equipments on the lattice mast at the former Channel 7 studio. Following recent sale of the Channel 7 studio site, Telstra and others have been given notice to vacate by early June 2010 to allow demolition of the structures for redevelopment.

2. In order to have continuity of mobile phone service for the customers in Epping, Eastwood and Carlingford area, Telstra has proposed pending investigation of a permanent site to relocate the facility to install a temporary mobile phone base station at the road reserve of Mobbs Lane Epping outside the former Channel 7 studio site.

3. Telstra has submitted that the Commonwealth telecommunication legislation allows the installation of temporary mobile phone base station in such “emergency” situation, as customers of the network seeking to contact emergency service organisations for help would be compromised if the temporary mobile phone base station is not built.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

4. The Council’s General Counsel has advised that Council can grant consent to the installation of temporary mobile phone station at Mobbs Lane under s.138 of the Roads Act 1993.

5. An agreement has now been reached with Telstra to install the temporary mobile phone base station at Mobbs Lane for a period up to 12 months at above market site fee.

6. Council has the option to resolve to enter into a licence agreement with Telstra allowing the proposed temporary mobile phone base station. A fee for the duration of the licence will be received.

7. Council has also the option to reject the Telstra proposal for a licence agreement to use the road reserve of Mobbs Lane in which case Telstra may have to negotiate with private land owners to install the temporary mobile phone base station on private land.

8. Telstra if it so wishes, can exercise its power under the Commonwealth Telecommunication Act 1997 and serve Council a Land Access and Activity Notice to establish a low impact telecommunication facility at Mobbs Lane. Such a notice takes time to have effect and is not helping Telstra to deal with the emergency relocation of its facility. In this instance, Council is able to negotiate with Telstra to resolve its emergency need for a temporary facility at Mobbs Lane at above market site fee.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

9. Telstra will pay licence fee to the Council if the proposal is approved.

Steve Montgomery

Manager Strategic Asset Management

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 10 May 2010

Item 8.1

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ITEM NUMBER 8.1

SUBJECT Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta City Centre

REFERENCE F2006/01143 - D01522830

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer - Transport Planning

PURPOSE:

This report was deferred from the Council Meeting held on 27 April 2010.

To seek Council adoption of the Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta city centre following the exhibition of the draft in November and December 2009.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council adopts the Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta city centre considering the comments received following the public exhibition.

(b) That Council notes in the State Government’s Metropolitan Transport Plan the loss of the Sydney Metro and the continued deferment of the Parramatta to Epping Line, and their retention in the Integrated Transport Plan as essential public transport improvements.

(c) That Council considers the projects contained within the Plan during the 2010/11 budget bid process and subsequent financial years.

(d) Further that, Council forwards a copy of the Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta city centre to local State and Federal MPs and the relevant State Government agencies.

BACKGROUND

1. The Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta City Centre was on public exhibition from 4 November to 1 December 2009. It is in response to the Parramatta City Centre Plan (2007) which sets out the planning framework for an additional 30,000 jobs and 20,000 residents by 2031. This planned growth will generate significant travel demand to Parramatta city centre. The Integrated Transport Plan recommends a strategy plan to manage the existing and future sustainable transportation. Moving away from the reliance of car use towards sustainable transport of walking, cycling and public transport use, is the key issue addressed in the draft Plan.

2. The key elements of the Plan are:

(a) Ongoing lobbying for NSW State Government commitment for improved public transport including the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link, Parramatta to Castle Hills Rail Link, commuter ferry service from the Inner West to Parramatta, within a more acceptable timeframe than the current policy.

(b) A Pedestrian & Cycle Amenity Zone in the city centre to improve pedestrian and cycle accessibility and safety through new facilities and a lower speed limit.

(d) Relocating commuter car parking to the periphery of the city centre and development of park & ride facilities.

3. The Plan sets out possible future transport planning policy for the next 5 years. There are a number of recommended strategies that require additional budget beyond Council’s existing programs and can be considered at the appropriate time by Council as is the normal budget process.

RECENTLY ANNOUNCED CHANGES TO TRANSPORT

4. The Metropolitan Transport Plan was announced on 20 February 2010 and deferred the West Metro until 2020 along with the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link. The loss of these two projects will have a significant impact on Parramatta and its ability to grow and expand without the continued reliance on the private and the existing traffic congestion. The Integrated Transport Plan retains both these projects. Council’s submission to State Government responding to the Metropolitan Transport Plan will be considered by Council at its meeting on 27 April 2010.

5. Other significant changes include the Department of Transport & Infrastructure’s new ticketing system “MyZone” to be introduced on 23 April 2010. New Hopkinsons’ bus services are also scheduled to be introduced from 22 March 2010.

PUBLIC EXHIBITION RESPONSES RECEIVED

6. A total of twelve (12) submissions were received mostly from State and Local Government and one each from a resident, car share provider, transport interest group and a consultant.

7. The majority of submissions from the State Government agencies raised minor corrections to facts. There was a significantly number of respondents who were generally supportive of the measures to encourage sustainable transport while reducing the reliance on private car use, particularly the local Council submissions. A summary of the key comments and their response, are shown below.

Comment	Response
Support decreasing reliance on car use and increased use of sustainable transport.	Support noted.
Revised 2009 State Plan has set a target of 50% of journey to work trips to Parramatta city centre by public transport by 2016.	Noted and included.
That a Transport plan be prepare for all local centres.	A Transport Plan for Granville has been adopted. A draft Transport Plan for Westmead has been prepared and the recommendations will be incorporated into the Vision document for Westmead which will also include land use and urban design work. A Transport Plan for Epping is linked to the DoP’s funding to undertake joint planning work with Hornsby Shire Council.
The importance of additional transport links to the North West, particularly public transport. Considering that approximately of 5% of residents in the Hills LGA use the bus to travel to work in Parramatta and the planned residential growth is 100,000 by 2031. Also recognising the importance of Parramatta as the closet regional city.	Highlight the importance of bus lanes on Windsor Road and inclusion of a Parramatta to Castle Hill Rail Link connecting to the North West Rail Line to Rouse Hill.
Support for additional bus priority measures and cycle routes.	Noted.
Completion of the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link.	Noted.
Support for additional bus priority.	Noted.
Improvements to bus stops.	Noted.
Additional pedestrian guard railing within the Interchange.	This is an operational issue for RailCorp who manages the Interchange. This is supported
The proposed Pedestrian & Cycle Amenity Zone needs careful consideration and may diminish the outcomes for public transport	Noted.
No support for cross-city bus services at present.	This was discussed with State Government and bus operators at a meeting in January 2010. It also discussed the decreasing capacity of bus layover spaces and the suggestion of cross-city bus services as solution to this problem. The meeting noted that the eastern layover (Station St) operates overcapacity but just about manages to operate satisfactory at most times as Charles Street (leased by the RTA from Council) is used as a spill-over layover. One of the operators present was opposed to cross-city services while another was supportive of further exploration, neither of whom made a submission. State Government agencies at acknowledged the need to investigate the issue and recognised that cross-city routes was one solution.
Lack cycle infrastructure is the biggest factor to overcome to encourage cycling.	Noted.
Revised 2009 State Plan has set a target for Metropolitan Sydney of 5% of trips by bicycle by 2016.	Noted and included.
Need to develop better connections to the North West. Extend the Carlingford Line to Granville rather than Parramatta and to the North West rather than Epping.	Highlight the importance of bus lanes on Windsor Road. Parramatta is the preferred western alignment for the Carlingford Line extension as it is a regional city with a significant number of jobs as opposed to Granville which is town centre. Epping is the preferred eastern alignment as it provides a direct route to jobs in Macquarie Park and Sydney. A new rail link from Parramatta to Castle Hill has been added. It is suggested that service could be provided from Rouse Hill to Leppington via Castle Hill, Parramatta and Liverpool.
Against proposal to convert one-way streets to two-way as it will reduce traffic speeds.	The aim of the two-way streets scheme is support the 40kph Pedestrian & Cycle Amenity Zone and increased vehicle accessibility within the city centre that the current one-way streets restricts.
Suggest operating buses on east-west streets of Philip St, George St and Macquarie St to avoid the use of Church St due to the noise and pollution.	The noise and pollution of buses has decreased as the regulations on emissions increases. It is best practice to operate two-way bus routes rather than one-way to better understand the bus network. Sydney Buses and Hillsbus bus routes were investigated in depth over 4 years and the current arrangement is the outcome of that process which included several irritations. In additional to run bus from the north and north-east along the east-west streets and avoiding using Church St would significantly increase the bus operating costs.
Lack of spatial analysis.	Noted. Consultant promoting skills and services.
Strong support for cycling.	Noted.
Increase car sharing spaces.	Noted. Council has invited car share operators to identify and apply for additional locations.
Continue to limit the provision of car parking within the city centre.	Noted.
Further investigation of proposed new traffic signals.	Noted. This is part of the normal due process.
Use of CCTV to enforce bus lanes requires change of legislation.	Noted and included.
Road network improvements on State roads require detailed traffic modelling and funding support.	Noted. This is part of the normal due process.
Plan should identify a framework to monitor performance of the road network and identify schemes and funding to improve the network	Council has limited funding to monitor traffic flows and implement road improvements. The RTA is best placed to monitor traffic flows using its network of CCTV cameras in the city centre and also the RTA controls traffic signals which are key to the road network performance. Increasing road network performance in isolation will induce additional traffic flows, against the key object of the Plan which is decreased car reliance and increased use of sustainable transport.

OTHER CONSULTATION

8. The draft Summary Plan was circulated to Councillors for comment as a Green Paper on 27 August 2009, no comments were received. The draft Integrated Transport Plan (October 2009) was considered for public exhibition on 19 October 2010 and adopted with objective E3 removed. The draft Integrated Transport Plan (March 2010) was considered by Council on 22 March 2010 and deferred for one month.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

9. Budget bids as per the recommendations of this report have been lodged through Council’s budget preparation process. These will need to be assessed against competing demands

David Gray

Senior Project Officer, Transport Planning

Attachments:

1View

Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta City Centre Detailed Report

4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Copies of the “Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta City Centre” (full report) (in black and white as colour copies have been previously circulated) and “Summary Integrated Transport Plan for Parramatta City Centre” will be distributed to Councillors and senior officers under separate cover. Further copies of the full report and summary report can be obtained from David Gray.

Council (Development) 10 May 2010

Item 11.1

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.1

SUBJECT 5 Oakes Road, Winston Hills
(Lot 26 DP 219495) (Caroline Chisholm Ward)

DESCRIPTION 82A Review - Construction of a carport in the front setback

REFERENCE DA/807/2009 - Section 82a review submitted 15 March 2010

APPLICANT/S Mr. F. Van Winden and Mrs. H. L. Van Winden

OWNERS Mr. F. Van Winden and Mrs. H. L. Van Winden

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL 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 its refusal to grant consent to construct a double carport in the front setback. The original Development Application was refused on 22 December 2009 under delegated authority for the following reasons:

· The proposed double carport does not respond to the existing character and urban context of the surrounding area in terms of setback, bulk and scale as the carport is located forward of the building line and such structures are not a predominant feature within this part of Winston Hills.

· It is not consistent with the existing special character area – Winston Hills.

· The proposal is contrary to the public interest.

Amended plans were received with the Section 82A Review indicating the following amendments:

· Increase the side setback from 100mm to 200mm;

· Reduce the carport depth from 6.5m to 5m, thereby increasing the front setback from 4.3m to 5m.

No submissions have been received in respect of this application.

The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of Section 5.1.7 Winston Hills – Special Precinct Area of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005, and is considered unsatisfactory in terms of streetscape, setback, bulk and scale. Furthermore, the proposed carport is considered to be inappropriately sited as it is located forward of the building line, being inconsistent with the existing character of the Winston Hills Special Character Area.

Accordingly, it is recommended that Council confirm its previous determination and refuse Development Application No 807/2009.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council confirm its previous determination and refuse Development Application No 807/2009 to construct a double carport in the front setback.

Bernadette Robertson

Senior Development and Certification Officer

Attachments:

1View	Section 82A Assessment Report	15 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Plans	2 Pages
4View	Previous Section 79C Assessment Report	17 Pages
5View	Streetscape Photographs	2 Pages

Council (Development) 10 May 2010

Item 11.2

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.2

SUBJECT 317 Guildford Road, Guildford
Lot 1 DP 514 685 (Woodville Ward)

DESCRIPTION Fitout and use of existing premises as a fruit & vegetable grocery shop

REFERENCE DA/97/2010 - DA/97/2010 submitted 18 February 2010

APPLICANT/S Gingers Australia

OWNERS Mr P Lee & Mrs I Lee

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The matter is referred to Council as a petition with 39 signatures and one submission were received.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Development Application DA/97/2010 seeks approval for the fitout and use of the existing premises as a fruit and vegetable grocery shop. The proposed hours of operation are 7am to 9:00pm, 7 days a week. Onsite parking is provided at the rear with twelve (12) parking spaces shared amongst the shop owners, staff and patrons at 317 Guildford Road.

In response to the notification, one petition with (39) signatures and one submission were received. Issues raised included; competition and price wars, ongoing financial burden of recently completed Guildford Road works, heritage conservation, visual and noise intrusions, negative impact upon the urban design of the area, public amenity and safety and increased crime and prevalence of gang related activity.

These issues have been considered in the assessment of the proposal and found

not to warrant refusal of the application.

The application is supported by Council’s Traffic and Transport Services based on availability of on-street parking spaces in areas surrounding the proposed development. It should also be noted that the development is in close proximity to the railway station, bus stops and Council carparking area as well as availability of 1-hour on-street parking facilities fronting the retail shops in this section of Guilford Road. As the site is also close to a residential area, it is to be noted that some residents can get to the site by walking or cycling.

Concerns have been raised by Councils Heritage Officer, regarding the design of the shop front façade. It is noted the former façade was demolished without consent. In late 2009 Council issued a Notice of Intention to give an order and on the 8^th January 2010 Council issued the Order to reinstate the shop front façade. To date, no reconstruction works have begun. Council’s Heritage Officer has recommended that the shop front be reconstructed to that of the previous shop front design. It is recommended that a deferred commencement consent be issued.

The site is zoned 3(a) Centre Business and the proposed shop is consistent with the aims and objectives of Parramatta LEP 2001, Parramatta LEP 1996 (Heritage and Conservation), Parramatta Heritage DCP 2001 and Parramatta DCP 2005. The proposed shop will not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the area subject to conditions and will maintain the character of Guildford Road by providing a local service for local residents, while not generating adverse noise, traffic or social impacts.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval, subject to a deferred commencement condition listed in schedule 1.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant a ”Deferred Commencement” consent under the provisions of s.80 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, as amended to DA/97/2010 for the change of use and fitout for a fruit and vegetable grocery shop. The consent shall not operate until the applicant satisfies the Council as to the following matters contained in Part A of this consent, with such matters being satisfied within 12 months of the date of this consent:

Schedule A – Deferred Commencement:

Pursuant to the provisions of S. 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the development application be granted a Deferred Commencement Consent subject to the completion of the following:

The shopfront display windows are to be reconstructed as far as technologically feasible based on the evidence surviving in situ and the available photographs.

The shopfront display windows should be in keeping with the original style and Interwar architectural period of the building. The floor plan is to follow the surviving marks on the terrazzo floor in situ, indicating that it should have two passageways between the shopfronts to the shop entrances. The shopfront display windows should feature an opaque lower portion, placed on a recessed base, and a transparent and glassed upper portion topped with a thick frame. In this regard the following is to occur:

i).Detailed drawings of are to be prepared by a suitably qualified heritage consultant and submitted to Council’s satisfaction.

ii).The above drawings, once approved by Council are required to be carried out.

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

Michael Tully

Development and Certification Officer

Attachments:

1View	Report	29 Pages
2View	Plans	4 Pages
3View	Locality map	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 10 May 2010

Item 11.3

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.3

SUBJECT Suite 2, Level 2, 110 Church Street, Parramatta
(Lot 1 DP 228112)

DESCRIPTION Occupation and fitout of suite 2, level 2 as a Chinese health clinic, including acupuncture and remedial massage. No sex services are proposed.

REFERENCE DA/126/2010 - 26 February 2010

APPLICANT/S JLA Arhcitects

OWNERS Sharisha Pty Ltd & Ors

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for the fit out and use of Suite 2, Level 2 of 110 Church Street as a Chinese health clinic including acupuncture and remedial massage, comprising of 3 curtain partitioned booths and three employees. The hours of operation are 9:30am to 6:30pm, 7 days a week. The fitout of the premises has occurred but is exempt development under SEPP Exempt and Complying Development 2008. The use of the premises has commenced without consent.

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

The proposal is defined as business premises under Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 and is permissible subject to consent 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 application was referred to Council’s Community Crime Prevention Officer who required additional information confirming the intended use, prior to providing comments. The applicant has submitted a statement confirming that the premise will not be used for sex services. Council’s Community Crime Prevention Officer supports the application subject to the imposition of a trial period.

The applicant has provided documentary evidence of their qualifications relating to massage therapy, and has also provided written documentation stating that no sexual services will be provided at the premises. There is no evidence before Council that indicates that the purpose for which consent is sought is for a use other than massage. Notwithstanding this, it is appropriate for Council to place conditions on the consent that limit the usage to a period of 2 years to monitor the impacts of the proposed development, restrict the trading hours of the business, specifically prohibit the use of the premises for sexual services and require the operator of the business to provide details of all relevant insurance related documents prior to the use commencing to satisfy the concerns raised by the Community Crime Prevention Officer.

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Development Application 126/2010 for the fitout of the premises and use as a Chinese health clinic in suite 2, level 2 on land at 110 Church Street, Parramatta be approved subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of this report.

Michael Tully

Development &Certification Officer

Attachments:

1View	Report	19 Pages
2View	Location map	1 Page
3View	Plan	1 Page
4	Community Crime and Prevention Officer's Comments	3 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 10 May 2010

Item 11.4

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.4

SUBJECT 1/76 Phillip Street, Parramatta
(Lot 1 SP 75329) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Use of existing premises as a restaurant including outdoor dining.

REFERENCE DA/85/2010 - 15 February 2010

APPLICANT/S Metropolis Alliance & Positioning Solutions

OWNERS Aladdin (Australia) Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application is being referred to Council for determination as 6 submissions have been received and the site is a listed heritage item.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approval is sought to use the premises as a Japanese and Korean restaurant.

The restaurant comprises both indoor and outdoor dining areas. The indoor area comprises 8 tables and 16 chairs as well as 11 seats surrounding a ‘sushi train’ type arrangement. The outdoor dining area is to comprise 9 tables and 18 chairs. The restaurant is proposed to accommodate a maximum of 45 patrons (27 located inside the premises and 18 located within the outdoor dining area). It is noted that the proposed outdoor dining area is located wholly within the site boundaries of the property and is not located on Council’s footpath area.

The proposed hours of operation for the indoor area of the restaurant are Monday and Tuesday 6.00am until 1.00am, Wednesday and Thursday 6.00am until 2.00am and Friday to Sunday 6.00am until 3.00am. It is proposed to operate the outdoor area component of the restaurant from 10.00am until 10.00pm Monday to Sunday.

The restaurant proposes to employ a total of 16 employees being waiters and chefs. The employees will work at different times during trading hours.

The site does not provide off-street parking.

It is proposed to install 1 protruding illuminated sign on the front of the building with the name and logo of the restaurant.

The use of the restaurant has commenced without consent and the sign has been erected.

Six objections from the public have been received in relation to this application raising concerns of noise, anti-social behaviour and excessive hours of operation.

The proposal is defined as a ‘restaurant’ under Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 and is permissible subject to consent in the B4 Mixed Use Zone.

The proposed trading hours are not supported and it is recommended that the hours of operation of the indoor component of the restaurant be limited to 8.00am until 11.00pm Sunday to Wednesdays and 8am to 1pm Thursdays to Saturdays. These reduced hours of operation are commensurate of those of other restaurant uses and are compatible with the mixed use zoning applying to the land and the ‘city centre’ nature of the area.

No objection is raised to the proposed operating hours of the outdoor component of the restaurant being from 10am until 10pm Monday to Thursday and on Sundays. It is recommended however, that the extent of operating hours of the outdoor area on Fridays and Saturdays be reduced from 11.00pm to 10.00pm given its vicinity to residential areas and potential amenity impacts in respect to noise.

An external BBQ area and stage are shown on the plans but are not supported in order to ensure appropriate amenity for surrounding residents.

It is also noted that retrospective approval cannot be given for the fitout or signage as these works have been completed. The applicant will need to lodge a Building Certificate application to regularise these works.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Development Application 85/2010 to use the existing premises as a restaurant including outdoor dining at 1/76 Phillip Street, Parramatta be approved subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of this report.

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

(c) Further that the applicant be advised that a Building Certificate Application is to be lodged in respect of the internal fitout of the premises and for the existing signage on the building.

(d) Further that the matters in respect to the incorrect issuing of the CDC No CF09340CD01 and Occupation Certificate issued by Advance Building Approvals (PCA) for the internal fitout of the restaurant be referred to Council’s Compliance Section, which may result in the PCA being referred to the Building Professionals Board for investigation.

Maya Sarwary

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Section 79C Report	18 Pages
2View	Plans	2 Pages
3View	Location Map	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 10 May 2010

Item 11.5

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.5

SUBJECT Section 82A Review - 17/38-42 Wynyard Street, Guildford (Lot 17 SP 78153) (Woodville Ward)

DESCRIPTION Section 82A review for alterations and additions to a townhouse. Including a new window and extension to the attic.

REFERENCE DA/375/2009 - 26 October 2009

APPLICANT/S Attic & Roof Conversions

OWNERS Mr P C H Locke and Mrs J Locke

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL 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

Council considered the Section 82A Review at the meeting of 8 March 2010 and

resolved that the matter be deferred for two weeks. The applicant prior to the Council meeting of 22 March 2010 requested that the matter be deferred again. Council resolved to defer for a second time.

Following the Council meeting of 22 March, the applicant has prepared amended plans to address the issues raised by planning officer’s.

The amendments include the provision of an external privacy screen

to be fixed underneath the attic window and project up towards the window at a 45

degree angle to prevent overlooking downwards and into the private open space

areas of adjoining properties. The applicant is still seeking Council to allow a sill

height of 800mm above the floor level of the attic and a window height of 1.2m.

This application seeks a review of Council’s determination of Development Consent No. 375/2009 issued on 21 August 2009 for alterations to townhouse 17 including a new window and extension to the attic. In particular the applicant has sought a review of condition No. 2 of the Determination Notice which currently reads:

‘The proposed attic window shall have a minimum sill height above the floor level of the attic of 1.4 metres, a maximum window height of 1.0 metres and a maximum width of 2.0 metres.’

One submission has been received objecting to the application for privacy reasons.

For the reasons outlined in the report, it is recommended that Council amend its previous decision and modify condition No. 2 to allow for a sill height of 800mm above the floor level of the attic and a window height of 1.2m, subject to the provision of the proposed external privacy screen as recently suggested by the applicant.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council amend its previous decision and modify Condition No.2 to allow for a sill height of 800mm above the floor level of the attic and a window height of 1.2m together with the construction of a privacy screen to be fixed underneath the attic window, subject to the conditions outlined in attachment 1 of this report.

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

Lina Dabebnah

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Section 82A Assessment Report	16 Pages
2View	Plans	1 Page
3View	Locality Map	1 Page
4View	Previous Section 79C Assessment Report	14 Pages
5	Statement of Environmental Effects	4 Pages
6	Confidential plan for 42 Wynyard St DA.375.2009	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 10 May 2010

Item 11.6

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 11.6

SUBJECT 2 Cumberland Street, Epping
(Lot 8 Sec 14 DP1026) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION Section 82A review to seek reconsideration of Council's refusal for the demolition, tree removal and the construction of a 2 storey attached dual occupancy development

REFERENCE DA/816/2009 - Section 82A Submitted 18 March 2010

APPLICANT/S Pretech Consulting Pty Ltd

OWNERS Miss S J Foley & Mr A C McDowell

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL 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 its refusal to grant consent for the demolition, tree removal and the construction of a 2 storey attached dual occupancy development. The original Development Application was refused on 5 February 2010 under delegated authority for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the Residential 2(a) zoning applying to the land as the proposed works do not enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area and the building form incorporating the triple garage is not in character with the surrounding built environment.

2. The proposed dual occupancy is not consistent with the requirements of Section 4.5.1 of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 as the garages are greater than 50% of the street elevation of the building and dominate the building design. In this regard, the proposed triple garage will adversely impact upon the visual appearance of the dwelling house and upon the streetscape amenity.

3. The principles of CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) have not been satisfied within the design in accordance with Section 4.4.2 of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005. In this regard, the entry to Unit 2 is located 6.5m behind the garage and is obstructed from view from the street by the entry porch. The elements of natural surveillance and guardianship are compromised due to the proposed design which is contrary to CPTED principles.

4. The proposed development is contrary to the public interest.

Amended plans were received with the Section 82A Review indicating the following amendments:

· Reduction in the garage width from 8.5m to 6.8m

· Relocation of the pedestrian entry to Unit 2 closer to the building line.

The amended plans have addressed the previous reasons for refusal and were made following a meeting with Council officers.

One (1) submission has been received in respect of this application. The issue raised within that submission relates to potential overlooking from a bedroom window. The issue raised does not warrant refusal of the application.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council change its determination and approve Development Application 816/2009 for the demolition, tree removal and the construction of a 2 storey attached dual occupancy development on land at 2 Cumberland Street, Epping, subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1 of this report.

(b) Further, that the person who lodged a submission be advised of Council’s determination of the application.

Kate Lafferty

Acting Team Leader

Development & Certification Team

Attachments:

1View	Section 82A Assessment Report	32 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Plans & Elevations	3 Pages
4View	Previous Section 79C Assessment Report	18 Pages
5	Confidential plans	5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 10 May 2010

Item 12.1

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.1

SUBJECT Woolpack Hotel, 19 George Street, Parramatta (LOT 1 DP 74937) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Alterations and additions to the heritage listed Woolpack Hotel to include the extension of the existing external gaming area.

REFERENCE DA/223/2010 - Submitted 24 March 2010

APPLICANT/S Mr J Purks

OWNERS J P Enterprises (NSW) Pty Ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application has been referred to Council as the proposal involves works to a site which is listed as a Heritage item of State significance under Schedule 5 of Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The subject application seeks approval to alterations and additions to the heritage listed Woolpack Hotel to include the extension of the existing external gaming area.

The proposed works include the following:

· Fixed metal screens in the existing courtyard sectioning off the outdoor gaming terrace area.

· Metal roof in the existing courtyard over the outdoor gaming terrace area.

· Removal of existing timber banquette seating and replace with the extension of the outdoor gaming area with an area of 15sqm.

· Building identification sign facing George Street reading “Woolpack Hotel”.

One submission has been received from a member of Parramatta City Council’s Heritage Committee. The issue raised in the submission is not relevant to this application as it relates to modifications made to the building in the early twentieth century and is a desire to see reinstatement of original doors and windows to the exterior. This submission has no relationship to the works proposed under this application.

The application has been reviewed by Council’s Heritage Advisor and Community Crime Prevention Officer who both raise no concerns or objections to the application subject to a condition of consent imposed to delete the building identification sign facing George Street reading “Woolpack Hotel”. It is noted that there is no increase in patron numbers or the footprint of the building.

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 and Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan 2007 and there will be no likely unacceptable impacts with the extension of the outdoor gaming area. The proposed modifications will not have any undue impact on the heritage value of the site and will not be visible from the street. There will be no alteration to the exterior façade of the building.

Accordingly, approval of the application is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. 223/2010 for the alterations and additions to the heritage listed Woolpack Hotel to include the extension of the existing external gaming area on land at 19 George Street, Parramatta with a lapsing period of three (3) years from the date on the Notice of Determination subject to the conditions contained within Attachment 1. No approval is granted to the proposed sign.

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

Sophia Chin

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Section 79C Report	17 Pages
2View	Locality Map	1 Page
3View	Plans and Elevations	2 Pages

Council (Development) 10 May 2010

Item 12.2

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 12.2

SUBJECT 2/34 Waratah Street Melrose Park (Lot 2 SP 33610) (Lachlan Macquarie ward)

DESCRIPTION Occupation and fitout for the purposes of a mortuary.

REFERENCE DA/909/2009 - Submitted 23 December 2009

APPLICANT/S Zaly Pty Ltd (TJ Andrews Funeral Services)

OWNERS Mr G Moses

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

Number of submissions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for the occupation and fitout of a vacant industrial/warehouse building for the purposes of a mortuary. The mortuary would have a staff of 7 people, 16 car spaces, and core hours of operation of 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday.

Nine submissions and a petition with 7 signatures were received in response to the notification of the application. The concerns raised in the submissions include the impact on students attending Melrose Park Public School and residents living in Wharf Road and Lancaster Avenue.

The use of the site as a mortuary is permissible within the industrial zone, whilst it is understandable that some people may have personal issues with a mortuary these personal views and concerns should not be used to restrict development that is permissible under the town planning regime. There is no evidence to support the notion that the use would have a significant impact on students attending Melrose Park Public School as students are unlikely to be aware that the premises is a mortuary and all hearses will access the premises from Hope Street.

The application is for a discreet use that would have minimal impact on the area by way of additional traffic or noise impact. Accordingly approval of the application is recommended subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority grant development Consent to Development Application No. 909/2009 for the occupation and fitout for the purposes of a mortuary of the premises at 2/34 Waratah Street Melrose Park (Lot 2 DP 33610) for a period of three (3) years from the date of determination subject to the conditions of consent in Attachment 1.

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

Jonathan Goodwill

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1View	Section 79C Assessment Report	18 Pages
2View	Plans and Elevations	3 Pages
3View	Locality Map	1 Page