Item 9.5 - Attachment 3

Summary table of submissions

Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and

Draft Development Control Plan (DCP) 2010

Summary and assessment of public submissions

Submission No	Reference No	Submission relates to the following property(s) or area	Suburb	Description of Issue	Comments	Recommendation
1	454	181 James Ruse Drive	Camellia	In relation to land at 181 James Ruse Drive Camellia, it is suggested that the proposed permitted uses within the B5 (Business Development) zone are inconsistent with the zone objectives relating to specialised retail uses. It is suggested that a more comprehensive list of permitted uses be incorporated to be consistent with Council's resolution of 9 March 2009.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That the land use table for the B5 Business Development zone be amended to include additional uses permitted with consent. That Council not permit the term retail premises as a permitted use within the B5 Business Development.
2	468	181 James Ruse Drive	Camellia	Has submitted a letter supporting the proposal to expand the list of permitted use on the site at 181 James Ruse Drive, Camellia and the site being used for a clean, non-industrial land use.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That the land use table for the B5 Business Development zone be amended to include additional uses permitted with consent. That Council not permit the term retail premises as a permitted use within the B5 Business Development.
3	479	181 James Ruse Drive	Camellia	Supports the proposed zoning of the former James Hardie site at Camellia as a B5 Zone to permit bulky goods retailing and other appropriate uses. Camellia is well located next to the Camellia railway station, enjoys good access to the major arterial road network and will provide for substantial employment. This is a gateway to Parramatta and a clean non industrial use of the site is strongly supported and will be a major step towards realising Parramatta's strategic Twenty 25 plan.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That the land use table for the B5 Business Development zone be amended to include additional uses permitted with consent. That Council not permit the term “retail premises” as a permitted use within the B5 Business Development.
4	489	181 James Ruse Drive	Camellia	The submission supports the proposed rezoning of the former James Hardie site at 181 James Ruse Drive Camellia as B5 Business Development zone, permitting a range of bulky goods and specialised retail uses.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That the land use table for the B5 Business Development zone be amended to include additional uses permitted with consent. That Council not permit the term retail premises as a permitted use within the B5 Business Development.
5	578	181 James Ruse Drive	Camellia	This submission objects to the draft planning controls in relation to land at 181 James Ruse Drive Camellia. It suggests that the proposed permitted uses within the B5 (Business Development) zone are inconsistent with the zone objectives relating to specialised retail uses. It is suggested that a more comprehensive list of permitted uses be incorporated to be consistent with Council's resolution of 9 March 2009. This submission also tables other letters of support from surrounding local businesses. There are 16 letters of support which who support the proposal as suggested above.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That the land use table for the B5 Business Development zone be amended to include additional uses permitted with consent. That Council not permit the term retail premises as a permitted use within the B5 Business Development.
6	584	181 James Ruse Drive	Camellia	Supports the proposed zoning of the former James Hardie site at Camellia to permit bulky goods retailing as well as commercial retailing. This submission indicates this position is consistent with the ACCC and Productivity Commission reports and recent government announcements. It will provide an opportunity to upgrade services and facilities available to residents and business people of Parramatta. The submission suggests an absence of suitable alternative sites within the city centre. Camellia is well located next to the Camellia railway station, enjoys good access to the major arterial road network and will provide for substantial employment. This is a gateway to Parramatta and the proposed rezoning as well as submissions to further broaden the range of permissible uses on the former James Hardie factory site are supported.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That the land use table for the B5 Business Development zone be amended to include additional uses permitted with consent. That Council not permit the term retail premises as a permitted use within the B5 Business Development.
7	585	181 James Ruse Drive	Camellia	Has submitted a letter supporting the proposal to expand the list of permitted use on the site at 181 James Ruse Drive, Camellia and the site being used for a clean, non-industrial land use.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That the land use table for the B5 Business Development zone be amended to include additional uses permitted with consent. That Council not permit the term retail premises as a permitted use within the B5 Business Development.
8	150	Western side of Charles Street	Carlingford	Comments that the Western site of Charles Street, Carlingford is zoned as follows: · No 1 to 7 is proposed R4 High Density Residential · No 9 to 25 - R3 Medium Density Residential States that the eastern side of Charles Street is already over developed and to allow the proposed zoning of the western side would further add to existing problems. The street is already parked out with cars. Further development will significantly increase the number of residents, traffic in the street and will place a huge strain on public utilities. Suggests properties should be zoned as follows: · No 1 to 7 -- R3 Medium Density Residential · No 9 to 25 – R2 Low Density Residential	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
9	235	Marshall Road	Carlingford	Seeking that dual occupancies be permitted in the R2 Low Density Residential zone or that area be rezoned to R3 Medium Density Residential.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia Gardens Estate). That dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to Special Character areas.
10	311	32 Mobbs Lane	Carlingford	Objects to the loss of development potential to carry out dual occupancy development and town house development. The inability to carry out dual occupancy development or town house development will worsen housing affordability in Sydney.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia Gardens Estate). That dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to Special Character areas.
11	343	7 Coleman Avenue	Carlingford	That Council reconsider the proposed R2 Low Density Residential zone affecting 7 Coleman Ave. This on the basis that their site adjoins R4 High Density Residential and it is accessible to well established infrastructure such as trains, shops, schools, shops, medical centres, child care and aged care facilities.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
12	429	372 Pennant Hills Road	Carlingford	The draft Parramatta LEP and DCP 2010 have not attempted to accommodate the forecasted population growth through up-zoning and increasing densities throughout the LGA, in particular the subject site (Carlingford Village Shops) given its ideal location to accommodate an increase in housing density. Figures released by the Department of Planning for the North-East SLA, an area that includes the Carlingford area, is predicted to have a population of 57,900 by 2036. The submission questions the ability of the proposed zoning, in general and in the Carlingford study area, to achieve the dwelling target set by the Metropolitan Strategy.	Satisfactory documentation was provided to the DoP for it to be satisfied that that proposed plan provided for sufficient opportunities for redevelopment and increased densities. It is noted that a number of areas have been 'deferred' in the RDS process which will provide for further exploration of opportunities for increased densities in appropriate locations.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010.
	429	372 Pennant Hills Road	Carlingford	The draft Parramatta LEP 2010 is based on the Residential Development Strategy (RDS), a document which is flawed because of its assumption that the Metropolitan Strategy population figures are overestimated. The recently released Metropolitan Strategy review has revealed that not only is the assumption incorrect, but that the population figures are actually underestimated. In addition, regardless of the population targets, the RDS does not provide any indication as to how many dwellings can actually be accommodated into the RDS study areas that it has recommended for increased densities. Given that land releases are tightly controlled, it would be far more accurate for housing requirements to be determined based on forecasted population growth rather than an analysis of the housing market, which was relied upon in the Housing Market Study.	During the development of the RDS, analysis on an area and LGA wide basis was carried out to determine the potential development yield using a range of 'take-up' rates i.e. 40%, 50%, 75%, 90%. This was done in conjunction with analyses of other potential constraints to development (e.g. existing new development, heritage items etc) and it was found that target set by the DoP were met in most cases with only a 60% take up rate of development. This was found to be the Departments satisfaction in whether to issue a Section 65 certificate for public exhibition.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	429	372 Pennant Hills Road	Carlingford	Hornsby Council has adhered to urban renewal policies encouraged in the Metropolitan Strategy, by recommending that Carlingford be rezoned to allow 5 storey residential flat buildings to revitalise the centre. Parramatta Council needs to reciprocate by increasing the zoning and densities on its side of the Carlingford border. The subject site would be capable of supporting a density of 3:1 which will not detract from the amenity of the surrounding area (including nearby heritage items) and would allow it to be more in character with the development proposed by Hornsby Council. The absence of residential development at the subject site's immediate boundary eliminates the potential for unacceptable overshadowing, privacy and noise impacts.	In consideration of the site in question, PCC applied zoning, height and FSR controls that it is considered best provide for some incentive for development opportunities whilst maintaining the character of the low density environments located immediately to the east and north east. It is also noted that planning controls prepared by neighbouring Hills and Hornsby Shire Councils allow for significant increases in residential densities and will also accommodate demand for housing in the wider Carlingford area.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
13	434	262 Pennant Hills Road	Carlingford	Object to the loss of development potential in the proposed R2 Low Density Residential zone as the site at 262 Pennant Hills Road is located on a busy road and is adjacent to a nursing home and high density development.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia Gardens Estate). That dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to Special Character areas.
14	503	Pennant Hills & Jenkins Rd, Mosley St	Carlingford	Does not support the provisions in the draft Parramatta LEP 2010 for the area bounded by Pennant Hills Rd, Jenkins Rd and Moseley Street given the following: a) Hornsby Council's proposal for an increase of 655 dwellings, increasing population and vehicles. b) The Hill's Council proposal to provide an additional 7,000 people and approximately 2,000 vehicles c) The varying proposed height limits; together these developments can only lead to further gridlock on the narrow local roads, burden an already struggling Pennant Hills Road d) Inappropriate public transport in the area; existing traffic congestion on the local road network which can not cope with additional traffic. e) Carlingford Court has difficulty catering for the parking needs of the current population let alone the proposed growth. f) There is a lack of jobs in the local area to support additional growth g) Local facilities will not cope with proposed growth. No further development should occur on the border of the 3 councils until adequate public transport, commercial, educational and recreational infrastructure is in place to support it.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	503	Pennant Hills & Jenkins Rd, Mosley St	Carlingford	Of utmost priority is the commencement of the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link. This will significantly reduce the need for private motor vehicle usage by existing and proposed residents.	Council has and will continue to lobby State and Federal Governments to provide public transport infrastructure to service the residents of the LGA.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010.
15	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Carparking is an issue in the Housing NSW Telopea Renewal project and in the curvilinear subdivisions of Dundas Valley in general. Street parking is not feasible and parking must be on site. Parking guidelines must be improved for on site parking, including for visitors in residential developments, including duplexes medium and high density housing. Parking requirements for industrial areas must not be reduced.	The Telopea Renewal Project is being undertaken by Housing NSW as a Part 3A Major Project. Council is not the determining authority for the application, but has submitted comments to the State Government in relation to various aspects of the proposal, including adequacy of car parking. In relation to the comments regarding industrial rates for car parking in the draft Parramatta DCP 2010, the rates have not been reduced and retain those contained in the current Parramatta DCP 2005.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Carlingford Precinct: Submission disagrees with the Desired Future Character statement for the Carlingford precinct, including increased height and development potential and refers to previous comments concerning traffic on Pennant Hills Rd, Adderton Rd and nearby streets in this precinct. Objects to increased height on ridgelines due to overshadowing impacts and view loss. Proximity to proposed increased development in Carlingford in the Hills and Hornsby Council areas will destroy the community feel and the precinct will become a slum. Telopea precinct: Submission disagrees with transition mentioned from higher density to surrounding lower density and the draft Parramatta LEP height proposals surrounding Redstone heritage property in Adderton Rd. Accessible pathway connections need to be secured now through the Housing NSW precinct, before there is any private uptake of any of that land. The proposed linkages in the draft Parramatta DCP for Telopea are not regarded as suitable due to slope and failure to link all the requirements of the precinct. The suggested new street connecting Manson St and Shortland St to connect with Marshall Rd is not supported as it will create a difficult intersection. Objects to desired new lane suggested adjacent to the railway station at Telopea as this may preclude rail line duplication. Suggests some alterations to the key principles for the investigation area in the Telopea precinct (HousingNSW precinct) with regard to road widenings, accessible pathways, interface of buildings to railway, greater rate of carparking.	Within the Parramatta LGA, the Carlingford RDS Precinct proposes to locate increased residential development in proximity of the local centre on Pennant Hills Rd, Carlingford railway station and Pennant Hills Rd bus routes. Topography and road patterns reduce walkability to these nodes and therefore, the areas of increased density are located towards the ridge line of Pennant Hills Rd and are somewhat limited in extent and modest in scale (generally 14 metres - 4 storeys). The Hills Council proposes more significant density increases north of Pennant Hills Rd, but this is not under the control of Parramatta City Council. Views and access to sunlight are considered as part of the consideration of development applications. The Telopea RDS precinct includes a zoning and height buffer (Low Density Residential, height limit of 9 metres) to the heritage item "Redstone" which is considered to be adequate and represents a reduction in development potential from the current zoning of surrounding properties (which would allow town house development to a height of 11 metres). Desired pedestrian linkages and potential road and laneway patterns represented in the draft Parramatta DCP would not take precedence over major infrastructure upgrades such as the duplication of the rail line. Council has provided comments to Housing NSW in respect of its major project concept plan for Telopea with regard to pedestrian connectivity and road patterns.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Submission refers to the Land Sensitivity Clause found in the draft Parramatta LEP and mapping of land slip. Submission queries why the draft Parramatta LEP does not recognise the potential slip zone on the western side of Marsden Rd, Dundas.	The land slip areas mapped in the draft LEP are sourced from Parramatta LEP 2001 and reflect a translation of existing controls into the draft LEP. If an area that is not mapped may be potentially unstable, this would still be a relevant consideration in the assessment of any application for development of that land.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Provisions in the Draft Parramatta DCP related to views should include Eric Mobbs lookout, K13 memorial. Labels on view photographs in the Draft Parramatta DCP need to be checked for accuracy.	District views from Mobbs Hill and in the vicinity of K13 Memorial are included in the draft Parramatta DCP in Appendix 2. Views and Vistas on Map 2.2.1. Some typographical errors have been found on the labels to the view photographs and will be corrected.	Typographical errors including labels will be corrected in the draft Parramatta DCP.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Cook Street & Fullarton Street, Dundas Valley, should be single storey and zoned R2 Low Density Residential as these streets have minimum width.	Cook Street and Fullarton Street are proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The proposed height limit in the draft LEP of 9 metres would permit two storey dwelling houses. A single storey height limit as suggested would not necessarily reduce traffic generation and is not supported.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Buildings are too high on privacy grounds and overshadowing in the Housing NSW Telopea Precinct in Marshall Rd, Field Place, Sophie Street and the Polding Precinct. Heights represented are also unsuitable on south facing slopes, with damp and slippery soils.	Heights represented on the draft Parramatta LEP maps are the potential maximum permissible, rather an 'as of right' building height. Maximum building height will not be achieved in all circumstances or uniformly across development sites. Other considerations, including slope, access to sunlight, privacy, proximity to heritage items may require the stepping of building heights or setbacks of upper storeys in order to satisfy other assessment criteria.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Hillside Estate Ermington - unique subdivision, potential association with Garden City Movement (Ebenezer Howard). Can this be verified?	Hillside Estate Ermington is included in the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 as a Special Character Area, recognising the distinctive curvilinear layout of the subdivision, acquired by the Housing Commission in 1945. The land surveyors Lockie, Gannon, Worley and Campbell designed the subdivision.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Interpretation of clause in the draft LEP: Clause 2.6C Earthworks - seeks clarification of who determines what earthworks of a 'minor nature' are and suggests that any planting in the vicinity of heritage or aboriginal sites be prohibited.	Clause 2.6C Earthworks - The consent authority, as referred to in sub-clause (2) of Cl 2.6C (generally Council), would assess when earthworks are of a minor nature and therefore do not require development consent. The objectives of the clause, which seek to ensure earthworks do not have a detrimental impact on the environment, including neighbouring uses or heritage items, would assist to determine what is regarded as minor. This clause is based on Clause 23 of Parramatta LEP 2001. Development that would disturb or alter a heritage item or aboriginal place of heritage significance requires development consent under Clause 5.10 of the draft LEP.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Draft LEP maps do not have contours on them. This is the basis of planning and should be shown.	The format in which Council is required to prepare the maps accompanying the new LEP is standardised by the State Government. Council is not permitted to show contour information on LEP maps. However, Council's GIS system contains contour information which is available as a tool for planning and development matters.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	The zoning below K13 Memorial, Carlingford should be R2 Low Density residential along the railway and abutting the lookout. Tiptree Ave should be downgraded to R3 Medium Density Residential.	Land below K13 Memorial and across the railway line fronting Tiptree Avenue is zoned R4 High Density Residential with a 14 m height limit in the draft LEP. In addition, the K13 Memorial site is heritage listed and its significant district views are recognised in Section 2.4.1 and Appendix 2 of the draft DCP. The rezoning of land zoned R4 is not considered necessary. It is likely that development to a height of 9 m under a R2 Low Density Zone could also obscure views as do trees and vegetation on public and private property. Some views will continue to be enjoyed over land zoned R2 fronting Kenny Place and Marshall Road. The issue of view protection is not considered to have any affect on the heritage significance of the K 13 Memorial site.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Plan does not progress potential outstanding heritage listings in the Dundas locality, previously raised by submitter with Council. These include: 1. Views at Eric Mobbs lookout, Rose Cottage (15-17 Honor St Ermington), the K13 Memorial, Carlingford. 2. Surveyed historic boundaries in Galaringi Reserve e.g: the First Crown Grant intersects should be heritage listed, not just the vegetation. Also list the remnant cleared area that was the take off and landing place of the rare autogiro aircraft. 3. Site of the former Carlingford Memorial Hall. 4. 77 Evans Rd & 23 Hart St Dundas for historical connections to subdivision. 5. Is 39 Honiton Ave Carlingford the once home of William Cox? 6. list Dundas Diatreme - the escarpment, as a separate listing to the quarry itself. 7. List the cone shaped hill, Sir Thomas Mitchell reserve - geological heritage. 8. Acknowledge the site of the former Quarry master's cottage with a plaque. 9. Portion 193 for association with convict workers at the quarry. 10. List the site of the camp for convict quarry workers (The Stockade) 11. 23 Ryan Street - no information provided about reason for potential listing. 12. Site of Adderton former residence from 1890. 13. Wells and springs need to be recorded as they affect development. 14. Site of Heness' Bridge 15. Dundas, Rydalmere and Camellia Stations (Dundas is already listed) 16. Find survey Point 'A' in rock Alexander St and list 17. Correction of names of existing listings e.g Rose Farm Wharf is named incorrectly. 18. Heritage significance of Our Lady of Way church.	The following comments are made of numbered points of the submission: 1. The protection of significant district views in the Parramatta LGA is provided for in Section 2.4.1 and Appendix 2 of the draft Parramatta DCP. This includes views from Mobbs Hill at the corner of Pennant Hills Road and Marsden Road and K13 Memorial at the corner of Pennant Hills Road and Addington Road. It is not considered necessary to provide for the protection of views from Rose Farm Cottage. 2. The whole of Galaringi Reserve at 130 Evans Rd, Carlingford is listed of State significance in the draft LEP. It is not considered necessary to separately list matters associated with the reserve such as the first Grant intersects and the remnant cleared area that was the take off and landing place of the rare autogiro aircraft. However, consideration should be given to adding information on these matters to the heritage inventory for the site as part of Council's comprehensive heritage review. 3. Carlingford Memorial Park at 362 Marsden Rd is listed as local significance in the draft Parramatta LEP. Therefore, there is no need to consider separate listing of the site of the Carlingford Memorial Hall. Consideration can be given to adding information on the hall to the heritage inventory for 362 Marsden Rd as part of Council's comprehensive review. 4. The submitter considers that 77 Evans Rd and 23 Hart St should be heritage listed as they are the only properties that put the original layout of Dundas Valley into context and are lined up one to the other. Part of the original David Street still exists in the backyard of 23 Hart St. It is noted that 77 Evans Rd, built in the early 1900s, is somewhat modified whilst 23 Hart St, built possibly in the interwar period, is rather plain but in an intact condition. There is doubt as to the heritage significance and values of these houses and the historic importance of their relationship to the original subdivision and roads in the area. However, further investigation of these properties is recommended as part of Council's comprehensive heritage review to see if listing is justified. 5. The house at 39 Honiton Ave, Carlingford, built in the early 1900s can be readily identified as part of the historic building stock of the area, making an important contribution to the streetscape and generally presenting as intact when viewed from a street. The house may have an historic connection to a notable person who lived on the site. The house at 19 Honiton Ave, whilst understood to have been at one time the family home of the Mobbs family influential in the district, has been greatly altered with a second storey addition and is not considered suitable for consideration for listing. 6. The whole of Sir Thomas Mitchell reserve, including the area of the Dundas Diatreme which is a significant geological feature, is heritage listed of State significance in the draft Parramatta LEP. There is no need to consider separate listing of the Dundas Diatreme. However a statement as to the importance of the Dundas Diatreme can be added to the heritage inventory for the site as part of Council's comprehensive heritage review. 7. The cone shaped hill, effectively part of the Dundas Diatreme, is also listed as part of Sir Thomas Mitchell Reserve and separate listing is unwarranted, although information on this feature should also be added to the heritage inventory. 8. The Quarry Masters Cottage on Quarry Road has been demolished and there is no justification for the listing of the site. The submitter's suggestion to acknowledge the cottage with a plaque and photograph has been referred to Council's Arts and Cultural Project Officer -- Parramatta stories for consideration. 9. Portion 193, located in Dundas Park near the corner of Quarry Road and Fullford Street, appears to have been a clean water source for the first settlers, convict quarry workers and farmers who came after them. It is also stated to be the site of ripple fossils, showing at one time this was a sea shore. The land form of the Dundas Park has been greatly modified to create playing fields with no known evidence of heritage relics and structures or archaeological remains. Therefore, and despite the Park’s strong historic connections, consideration to heritage listing as part of Council's comprehensive heritage review is not considered to be warranted, although interpretation of historic activities would be desirable. 10. The former Government Reserve where convict quarry workers and later other labour camped in the early 19th century is generally situated to the south of Dundas Park and generally occupied by roads and housing with no known evidence of heritage structures or archaeological remains. Consequently, and despite its historic connections, it would be inappropriate to give consideration to heritage listing of this former reserve. However, the interpretation of this reserve could be provided in association with Portion 193 of Dundas Park. 11. 23 Ryan St is a single storey house built in the 1990s and no reason is seen for its heritage listing. 12. Adderton, was formerly a substantial dwelling situated on Manson Street opposite its junction with Chestnut Avenue. Whilst heritage listing is inappropriate its location could be marked with a plaque. This suggestion has been referred to Council's Arts and Cultural Project Officer -- Parramatta Stories for consideration. 13. The location of all wells and springs in Dundas are unknown and they are not considered to justify heritage listing. If circumstances arose where through a development assessment or through another means they were discovered, Council may consider its heritage significance on a case by case basis. 14. The stone bridge (Heness' Bridge) in Fitzgerald Forest at the rear of 71 and 74 Honiton Ave is already heritage listed of local significance in the draft LEP. 15. Both the Dundas and Rydalmere stations are heritage listed in the draft Parramatta LEP. However, the historic station at Rydalmere has been removed and the need for its listing is being reviewed as part of Council's comprehensive heritage study. The Camelia Station is a relatively modern simple structure and no reason is seen to consider its heritage listing. 16. It is considered there is insufficient explanation or justification to consider listing of Survey Point ‘A’ in rock on Alexander Street. 17. The names of the various heritage listed wharves in Ermington, Rose Farm Wharf, Spurway Street Wharf and Ermington Wharf reflect names in the heritage inventories and there is no reason to believe they are incorrect. However, they will be further investigated as part of Council's comprehensive heritage review. 18. ‘Our Lady of the Way’ church was erected on land near the corner of Pennant Hills Road and Evans Road in 1956 but dismantled in 1962. Consequently, and particularly having regard to its short history, the former church site is not considered to justify heritage listing.	§ Incorporate additional information on the heritage inventories for Galaringi Reserve, recognising first grants and a rare aircraft takeoff area; Sir Thomas Mitchell reserve, recognising the Dundas Diatreme and the cone shaped hill and Carlingford Memorial Park recognising the former memorial hall. § Investigate the possible heritage listing of 77 Evans Rd, 23 Hart Drive and 39 Honiton Ave and the names of various wharves at Ermington as part of Council’s, comprehensive heritage review. § Request Council's Open Space and Environment Unit to investigate the feasibility of providing interpretive facilities on Dundas Park for Portion 193 and the former Government reserve.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Seeks to extend the R2 Low Density Residential zoning near the heritage listed Redstone (The Winter House) at 34 Adderton Rd, Telopea by an additional lot in Winter Street and Manson Street to protect the siting of Redstone. Also seeks reduced height to single storey for the two lots to the south in Manson Street and reduced heights for the Housing NSW Polding Street precinct to the north.	The buffer zoning of R2 Low Density Residential adjoining the heritage listed property of Redstone and including 1 and 3 Manson Street, 36 Adderton Road and 2 Winter Street will provide an adequate and enhanced level of protection for the site. It is not considered necessary to extend this buffer zoning further to the east and the north or to consider reducing the height of buildings in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone to the south of Redstone or the R4 High Density Residential zone for the area north of Redstone.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Brand Street Dundas Valley is substandard and has road visibility problems. Dual occupancy development approvals in Brand Street should be 'reversed'.	Valid development consents issued by Council for dual occupancy development in Brand Street cannot be 'reversed'. Brand Street is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential in the draft LEP and dual occupancies are not permissible in the R2 zone under the exhibited draft LEP. Were dual occupancies to be permissible, consideration would be given to driveway access locations and traffic considerations as part of the DA assessment.	That dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia Gardens Estate). That dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to Special Character areas.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Seeks recognition of the site of the former Kishnaghur estate, (being an early land grant and former house near the intersection of Tilley St and Osborne St Dundas Valley and Acacia Park) with a low density residential zone and single storey height limits in the vicinity of the park to preserve the views from the park as the views were an important aspect of the estate. Also seeks to have Acacia Park heritage listed as the site of Kishnaghur and renamed to reflect this history.	Kishnaghur is stated to have been a fine house built by Capt Thomas Henry Baylis in 1836 - 7, with extensive sandstone cellars and over looking a large circular driveway near the present corner of Osborne Avenue and Tilley Street, Dundas Valley. By 1891 Kishnaghur was one of two large estates in Oatlands, but by the end of the second world war the house appears to have been demolished or destroyed. It is believed that archaeological remains of the house (or part of it) and possibly of the cellars are situated in the south west corner of Acacia Park near the corner of Osborne Avenue and Tilley Street. Given the evidence of possible archaeological remains it is recommended that heritage listing of Acacia Park as an archaeological site should be considered as part of Council's comprehensive heritage review and that in addition Council should consider the provision of suitable interpretation of the site. Land to the south and east of Acacia Park is zoned R2 Low Density Residential with a height limit of 9 m whilst land to the west is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential with a height limit of 11 m in the draft LEP. It is considered that these planning provisions are appropriate and will not cause any loss of heritage values of a possible listing of Acacia Park as an archaeological site. Council has previously decided, following community consultation, that Acacia Park should not be renamed after Kishnaghur.	That: • the heritage listing of Acacia Park as an archaeological site should be considered as part of Council's comprehensive heritage review and that in addition the provision of suitable interpretation of the site should be considered • there should be no change to the planning controls for properties surrounding the site • there should be no change to the name of Acacia Park.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Submission comments that Clauses 5.10 Heritage Conservation is inadequate for protection of archaeological sites and heritage, including on areas of open space managed by Council. Raises the question of whether Council's Parramatta Historical Archaeological Landscape Management Study (PHALMS) is on public display and identifies Kishnaghur.	The submission relates to the implementation of heritage and archaeological site protection during Council works, rather than the clause itself (which is a mandatory clause required by the Standard Instrument). Such matters have been the subject of discussion and correspondence between the submitter and Council's Open Space Unit. PHALMS is available at the Parramatta library & Heritage Centre as well as on the Heritage Office website and provides information about potential archaeological sites.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Proposed zoning of Galaringi Reserve/Cox Park at Carlingford as RE1 Public Recreation and E2 Environmental Conservation does not reflect the actual land uses and should be represented by the same zoning as the 2001 LEP, plus the historical subdivision pattern. The RE1 zone has some endangered species.	It is acknowledged that the zoning boundary between the RE1 Public Recreation and E2 Environmental Conservation for Galaringi Reserve/Cox Park at Carlingford does not reflect the delineation of active recreation and bushland conservation in this location. The zoning was required to be altered by the Department of Planning as a condition of its section 65 certificate allowing public exhibition of the draft LEP. The land is in Council's ownership/control and both zones include objectives for protection and enhancement of the natural environment, however, it would be preferable for the E2 zone to cover all areas of endangered bushland.	That the Department of Planning be advised that their directions for zoning of land within the RE1 Public Recreation and E2 Environmental Conservation zones for Galaringi Reserve/Cox Park at Carlingford does not allow Council to adequately reflect the delineation of the active recreation areas and bushland conservation areas within the park.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Proposed R3 Medium Density Residential zoning in Sophie Street Dundas Valley is inappropriate due to narrow, steep, curving nature of the street and no capacity for increased zoning density.	The current zoning of Sophie Street is 2B Residential. The proposed R3 Medium Density zoning proposed in the draft LEP is a translation of the existing zoning and does not represent an increase in development potential.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Objection to increase in development potential in various parts of Dundas Valley, Telopea & Carlingford. Soil type, slope, southerly aspect of most slopes, elevation and prevailing winds, inadequate roads for existing populations, poor pedestrian and vehicle access and connectivity, impacts on archaeological and heritage sites or other places of historic interest, lack of infrastructure, all mean that the area should be zoned for the lowest density.	The RDS proposed to increase residential density in Dundas, Carlingford and Telopea in proximity of local centres and public transport. Beyond these RDS precincts, large parts of Dundas Valley are proposed to be down zoned to permit low density residential development, rather than medium density residential development (e.g townhouses).	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Manson Street width, slope and visibility problems, awkward curves mean that the proposed Medium Density Residential R3 and High Density Residential R4 zonings in this street should be downgraded. Also, Manson Street should be widened at its narrow point.	Council's s94A plan includes provision for funding from developer contributions for road widening in Manson Street.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Suggests the proposed height limit on the east side of Honor Street Ermington, south of the heritage listed Rose Farm House at 15-17 Honor St, to George Kendall Reserve; and for several lots to the north, should be single storey. This is to protect the siting, original views, and sunlight to the heritage item..	Rose Farm House at 15 - 17 Honor Street, Ermington ihas State heritage significance in the current and draft LEP (but is not included on the State Heritage Register). Properties adjoining the site are zoned R2 Low Density Residential with a 9 m height limit in the draft LEP. These planning provisions, together with the large curtlilage comprising the property, will ensure adequate protection of the heritage values of this heritage item. In addition, any future development applications on adjoining land will be required to consider the impacts of development on the heritage listed property.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	The proposed B4 Mixed use zone in Evans Rd Dundas Valley does not correspond to the Housing NSW Telopea Urban Renewal Project. It is also not desirable due to traffic movements in Evans Rd and encouragement of further pedestrian movements across Evans Rd in conflict with traffic. Suggests a R2 Low Density Residential zone for this location.	The proposed B4 zone is a flexible zone that permits a mix of uses, including residential flat buildings and shop top housing. In the longer term it will provide the opportunity for expansion of shops and businesses in the Telopea Precinct as the local population increases. It would be desirable that the design of the Housing NSW residential flat buildings in this location include an adaptable design of the ground floor to accommodate changes in land use in the future.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Need to make provision for accessible pathways to connect with public transport and retail centres in the vicinity of Dundas Valley. Also need better connections through Galaringi reserve for education value and environmental experience. The desired laneways and pathways in the Telopea Precinct in the draft DCP do not address the slope and do not correlate with the Housing NSW Telopea Urban Renewal Project. Alternate connections are suggested. Clause 6.8 Incentive for the provision of improved public domain and access - Urban Design Panel should consider linkages proposed by submitter.	The DCP provisions showing desired pedestrian connections in various precincts are intended as a guide to desirable improvements in pedestrian linkages within precincts of proposed increased density. Alternate connections may be considered depending on the development parcels that eventuate in these areas, if these are acceptable to Council. Council has provided comments to Housing NSW in respect of its major project concept plan for Telopea with regard to pedestrian connectivity and road patterns.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Road capacity and configuration in Dundas Valley is inadequate for existing development and will be unable to cater for traffic associated with increased development potential proposed in the draft LEP, and will also be impacted by increased development potential planned by the Hills Council and Hornsby Shire Council for Carlingford. The draft LEP should make provision for road widening at various places, including Shortland St, Adderton Rd, Manson St, Pennant Hills Rd, Sturt St, King St, Yates Ave, Victoria Rd bridge at Rydalmere, Grand Ave Bridge Camellia. Winter St should be closed at Adderton Rd and be extended to connect with Sturt St. Circulation of traffic at the Telopea (Waratah) shops needs to be improved. Traffic management needs to be addressed to improve traffic flow at: King St & Yates Ave; Kissing Point Rd between Sturt St & Timor Barracks in Stewart St; Coleman Ave at Pennant Hills Rds; Evans Rd at Pennant Hills Rd; Jenkins Rd/Oakes Rd.	Council's Section 94A plan makes provision for funding of road and traffic improvements in the Dundas Valley locality, including roundabouts at the intersections of Manson Street/Adderton Road, Evans Road/Sturt Street and road widening in Manson Street. The RTA has a road widening reservation along Pennant Hills Rd at Adderton Rd and has had proposals for the intersection of Marsden Rd and Stewart St. Road widening of Marsden Rd approaching Pennant Hills Rd is also feasible and is a matter for the RTA.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Bicycle Routes - suggests that Council should reverse priority from recreation routes to safe routes addressing activity areas, such as work, schools, retail centres, event areas. State Government should make provision for bicycles on buses.	This issue is outside the scope of the draft LEP and draft DCP. However, Council has an adopted bike plan with route selection criteria and prioritisation.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Plantings at K13 Memorial Park and Eric Mobbs Memorial Park are obstructing views at these public look outs.	This issue is outside the scope of the draft LEP & draft DCP but has been referred to Council's Open Space and Natural Resource Team for review..	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Due to traffic considerations (proximity with Pennant Hills Rd and width of Adderton Rd), the zoning of Adderton Rd north of Homelands Ave should be R2 Low Density Residential, not R3 Medium Density Residential & R4 High Density Residential as proposed. LEP should make provision for the widening of Adderton Rd in this locality.	Provisions are included in the draft Parramatta DCP for the Carlingford Precinct to address traffic issues related to development at the intersection of Adderton Rd and Pennant Hills Rd. The RTA has a road widening reservation along Pennant Hills Rd at Adderton Rd.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	421		Carlingford, Dundas, Telopea	Lobby the State Government for duplication of the Carlingford Rail Line & future servicing of North Rocks, West Pennant Hills, Castle Hill, Kellyville. Also, a pedestrian tunnel from upper Brand Street would encourage greater use of Carlingford station. UWS urgently requires improved rail access. Granville should be the main interchange in upgrades to the rail services to avoid further congestion at Parramatta. Bus routes and train services in Dundas Valley are inadequate for the increased development in the Telopea Urban Renewal Project of Housing NSW.	Council held a transport forum in July 2010 to focus on the need for improved public transport based on the role of Parramatta as Sydney's second CBD. The Epping to Parramatta rail link and other rail and bus improvements are part of Council's lobbying of the State Government.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
16	530		Carlingford, Ermington and Wentworthville	Submissions are on behalf of owners of land at: · 32 Rickard Street, Carlingford · 8 Blakeford Ave, Ermington · 337 Kissing Point Road, Ermington · 8 Warra Street, Wentworthville. The owners object to the R2 Low Density Residential zoning of these sites on the basis that the uses of the existing zone (Special Uses) include places of public worship, centre based child care, demolition and subdivision. All these uses will be prohibited under the R2 zone. Requests that the R2 zone include places of public worship as a permissible use. Reasons in support or amplification of the submissions are that: a) No planning report is available on Council's website indicating the reasons why places of public worship are prohibited. b) The Department of Planning has advised councils to limit special purpose zones and zone lands the same as adjoining zone where those uses are permissible. On the subject sites this would not be an issue if the adjoining land was zoned R3 as the uses are permissible in that zone. c) A basic planning principle of the earliest planning controls in NSW has included within residential zones a number of social and community uses such as schools, churches, hospitals as well as dwellings. These uses are acceptable to the fabric of residential lifestyle d) The seven councils adjoining Parramatta all permit places of worship in the low density residential zones and other equivalent zones. Template LEPs and urban areas presently gazetted all include places of public worship in the R2 zone as well as child care centres as permissible uses. e) Many councils include a special uses zone which provides for land uses that are not provided for in other zones. f) The R2 zone permits hospitals, educational establishments, exhibition villages and neighbourhood shops all of which create a very different character and traffic over a greater period of operation than places of worship. g) The existing approved places of worship will continue under existing use rights but with limited if any potential for change. h) The Section 65 Certificate provided to Council by the Department of Planning for exhibition of the draft LEP contains terms and conditions which the prohibition of places of worship in the R2 zone appears to fail. The Schedule to the Certificate provides that where under current controls i.e. permissible uses are not fully represented by the proposed zone, then the equivalent zone of the new template should be used. In this case SP1 Special Activities. Council is also required to zone special use lands to the adjoining zones but these should not be more restrictive on uses nor create existing uses or anomalous uses.	For the issue about Places of Public Worship refer to the discussion under the relevant heading of the detailed report to Council. With regard to the issue raised regarding the Section 65 certificate issued by the Department of Planning, the author of the submission is correct in stating that the conditions of the section 65 certificate require that the maps be amended so that zones be removed that do not represent a translation of current controls. However, the Department of Planning are aware that the draft LEP 2010 is not a direct translation of controls from the current planning instruments. As such, they issued further clarification which specifically states the mapping amendments that were required. This clarification is contained in the final section 65 certificate issued by the Department on 15 February 2010 and does not require any changes to the zoning of properties containing existing places of public worship. This final certificate is included with the LEP exhibition material. With regard to the permissibility of other land uses, in the majority of cases, car parking spaces and drainage are considered to be ancillary uses to the relevant dominant land use on site and as such are permissible. This accords with the requirements of Planning Circular PS 09-011 which requires that ancillary uses not be listed in the land use table. In relation to the absence of listing of subdivision and demolition in the land use table, these uses are dealt with in clauses in the LEP and are permitted in all zones as required by the standard instrument. Child care centres are prohibited in the R2 Low Density Residential zone which is a deliberate change in policy on Council's behalf and has been supported by the Department of Planning for the purpose of public exhibition.	That Places of Public Worship be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low Density Residential zone and that the limit on seating capacity of 250 in the residential zones be included in draft DCP 2010. Further, that any change adopted to the PPW DCP relating to car parking rates, should be incorporated into the draft Comprehensive DCP.
17	58	12 Hector Street	Chester Hill	Asks whether property is affected by draft LEP.	The draft Parramatta LEP applies to the land at 12 Hector Street, Chester Hill, known as Lot 11 DP 26193 and Lot 17 DP 659301. A letter (D01480058) was sent to the landowner on 9 March 2010 stating that the draft LEP does apply to the property and the proposed zone is R2 Low Density Residential. A copy of the draft land use table was also provided.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
18	619	86 Ferndell Steet	Chester Hill	The submission is made on behalf of the land owner of No. 86 Ferndell Street and seeks that the land be rezoned from IN1 General Industrial to R3 Medium Density Residential. The justification for this includes the changing nature of industrial uses in Parramatta LGA means the economic life of the existing building has reached its end; the Parramatta LGA (including Chester Hill) is not realising any demand for traditional industrial uses such as warehouse and distribution given their isolation from the major regional network (M2, M5, M7); that existing housing (including medium density housing) is located opposite the site to the east.	Under the draft LEP, 86 Ferndell Street is proposed to be zoned IN1 General Industrial and forms part of the South Granville/Chester Hill Industrial area to the north. Adjoining land to the east is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential, land to the west is proposed to be zoned RE1 Public Recreation and land to the south comprises the Sydney Water Pipeline which forms the southern Parramatta LGA boundary. The area is currently zoned Employment 4 under Parramatta LEP 2001.This employment land has been reviewed under the NSW State Government's Draft Subregional Strategy for the West Central Subregion and by the Parramatta Industrial Lands Study prepared for Council. Under the draft Subregional Strategy, the sites falls within the industrial area defined as ‘South Granville/Chester Hill’. The strategy identifies the land as Category 1 Industrial Land, that is land to be retained for industrial purposes and also describes the area as ‘highly prosperous'. In August 2005 an Employments Land Study was prepared for Council by Hill PDA. Under this study the land falls within ‘Precinct 14 –South Granville’ and states that ‘South Granville should remain an industrial area to accommodate and consolidate a range of light industrial activities. The precinct is well defined, has reasonable accessibility and generally has intact industrial land uses. The precinct is quite large, employs a reasonably large workforce and enjoys a fairly strong agglomeration of industries. The precinct is well defined and further reduction in the size and therefore the long term viability of the precinct by residential or other zoning in or at the edge of the precinct should not be permitted. Council’s draft LEP is in line with the draft Subregional Strategy and the Parramatta Industrial Lands Study as the land maintains an industrial zoning. It is recommended that land remain within the IN1 General Industrial zone, and that Council at a future date undertake a further Employment Lands review of employment lands across the LGA. It is also recommended that the range of land uses within the IN1 General Industrial zone be reviewed to provide a greater range of permissible uses. As the area does not fall within one of Council RDS areas it is not considered suitable for future medium or high density development.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
19	233		Clyde	The submission raised issues relating to the safety of an existing brick wall at a local Council library (does not indicate which library) and also compliance issues with regard to the installation of 3 windows in a property in Rossiter Street, Granville without consent.	This issue is outside the scope of the draft LEP or draft DCP however the issues raised in the submission have been referred to Council's Manager City Assets & Environment and Manager Regulatory Services for investigation.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
20	195	52 Greenleaf Street	Constitution Hill	The submission expresses satisfaction with the proposed zoning of 52 Greenleaf Street, Constitution Hill.	The site is currently zoned Residential 2A. The proposed zoning R2 (Low Density) Residential represents a best translation to an equivalent zoning in accordance with the requirements of the Standard Instrument.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	195	52 Greenleaf Street	Constitution Hill	The submission requests more open space to be provided amongst areas of housing.	Council's broader strategic plan (Parra 2025) in conjunction with the Open Space Plan seeks to explore opportunities for optimising the provision of and use of areas of public open space.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
21	241	19 Caloola Road	Constitution Hill	No 17 and 19 Caloola Road, Constitution Hill together have a land area of over 3000 square metres. While battle axe subdivision is a reasonable use of the land, villas and townhouses are requested to be permitted as they have more street appeal than battle axe subdivision. We are constantly reminded of a real land shortage occurring in Sydney. A block of this size should be given special consideration and be developed in ways other than battle axe or duplex blocks.	The subject properties are zoned Residential 2A under PLEP 2001. Under draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS criteria for higher density residential development given that it is outside of the Wentworthville RDS precinct. It was therefore proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. Further, the draft DCP contains provisions to ensure the appearance of new buildings complement and enhance neighbourhood and streetscape character.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	241	19 Caloola Road	Constitution Hill	A battle axe subdivision would result in lot sizes around 800 square metres. These would be very large lot sizes by today's standards.	Clause 4.1 of the draft LEP specifies that the minimum lot size for the subdivision of land is 550 square metres, except for battle axe lots, which are required to be no less than 670 square metres (excluding the access corridor). The larger lot size for battle axe lots is to ensure a suitable level of residential amenity.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
22	246	4 Michelle Drive	Constitution Hill	Does not seem to be anything in the plan that in anyway benefits the existing residents of the area. In fact, virtually everything would appear to have a deleterious effect. Have endured past rezonings (increasing density resulting in increased traffic) which has led to deterioration in the general standard of living for existing residents. Dissatisfied with the proposed R2 zone for subject property and objects to adoption of draft LEP.	The subject property and immediate surrounds are currently zoned Residential 2A under PLEP 2001 and are proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential in the draft LEP. This is a translation of the existing low density Residential 2A zone, hence no increased development potential proposed. The proposed R2 zone proposes to prohibit child care centres, places of public worship and dual occupancies. These land uses are currently permitted with consent in the Residential 2A zone. The typical development in the proposed zone is single dwelling houses and the proposed zone will provide for a low density residential environment. The subject property is located in the deferred RDS study area of Wentworthville North and this area will be subject to further analysis in future stages of implementation of the RDS and is not being addressed in this LEP.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
23	271	23 Apple Street	Constitution Hill	Raises the following queries regarding neighbourhood shops: a) Does the size restriction of 80 square metres apply to each shop, or the total development? b) Will bottle shops have a problem seeking development approval in general and become ‘restricted premises’; it being noted that the shops are proposed for the B1 Zone.	Clause 5.4 of the draft LEP sets a maximum retail floor area of 80sq.m for a neighbourhood shop. There is nothing in the draft that prohibits more than 1 neighbourhood shop on each parcel of land, provided each shop does not exceed a maximum retail floor area of 80sq.m A ‘restricted premises ‘ is defied in draft LEP 2010 as a business premises or retail premises that due to their nature, restrict access to patrons or customers over 18 years of age, and includes sex shops and similar premises but does not include hotel or motel accommodation, a pub, home occupation (sex services) or sex service premises. A bottle shop would not fall within the ‘restricted premises’ definition.	That no change ne made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	271	23 Apple Street	Constitution Hill	It is queried whether ‘seniors housing’ under the draft LEP 2010 (not Seniors Living SEPP) needs to conform to the highest form of residential development permitted. That is, if dual occupancy is the highest form of residential development permitted in the zone, a seniors housing development would comprise no more than two dwellings/units.	Council does not have planning controls with respect to Seniors Housing. Where Seniors Housing is permitted in a zone, then the provisions of the Seniors Living SEPP apply. This may mean that the type of development provided may exceed the highest form of residential development. However, in order to undertake a Senior Housing development, an applicant must satisfy extensive criteria to ensure that such development is provided in the right locations and is compatible with surrounding development. This is otherwise known as a site compatibility certificate, issued by the Minister and is required for such applications.	That no change ne made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	271	23 Apple Street	Constitution Hill	The submitter queries whether Council, in proposing to remove dual occupancies from the R2 Zone: - has considered reduced land values and reduced development opportunity for people with lots in this zone - is trying to align the R2 zone and the previous 2(a) zone, which is the intention of the State Government's initiative to undertake a new LEP - has compared the R2 zone with other local government areas like Penrith and Blacktown - has considered allowing dual occupancy development, subject to controls such as floor space ratio, building height, lot width etc. - Further points out that: - it is not appropriate that lots in excess of 700 square metres with 12 m frontages should be prohibited from a dual occupancy - there is a precedence on Constitution Hill for dual occupancy development which is consistent with surrounding development. There may be additional reasons to continue to prevent dual occupancy development in the Constitution Hill suburb given the close proximity to service infrastructure, such as transit way. - whilst there are site constraints to dual occupancy development, particularly stormwater disposal, these can be overcome in design and servicing such as on site detention systems and/or Section 94 contributions. - also, whilst there is little ability in the model template to add local provisions there is scope to add forms of development into the zoning tables and further clause 6.1 can be revised to provide more detail such as: minimum lot size of 600 square metres (attached), 700 square metres (the detached). Recommends that: - dual occupancy development should be permissible (consistent with current 2a zone), subject to development controls that reduce issues of compatibility - a secondary dwelling is not satisfactory as a compromise as they cannot be subdivided and are generally required to be less than 60 square metres, and - multi unit housing should not be permitted in the zone as it presents a higher density than dual occupancy development.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1..	That dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia Gardens Estate). That dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to Special Character areas.
	271	23 Apple Street	Constitution Hill	In the zoning table, ‘dwelling houses’ are permissible, but, in the definition, only ‘dwelling house’ (not plural) is defined. This will create confusion as to whether more than one dwelling house is permissible on any one lot. It is queried whether Council has sought clarification from the Department of Planning on this interpretation.	The majority of uses in the standard template have been written as plural to recognise that more than one of these uses can exist within a zone. This is consistent with the way mandatory uses have been categorised. The definition of dwelling house is clear in stipulating that a dwelling house is a building containing only one dwelling. This is deemed sufficient for the purpose intended.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	271	23 Apple Street	Constitution Hill	The proposed height of 9 m is not supported for the following reasons: a) In combination with the proposed floor space ratio of 0.5: 1, an undesirable built form is possible b) Reasonable solar access will not be achievable for some houses with undesirable aspects, resulting in inconsistent built form at any given locality c) Traditional streetscapes will be lost (as 9 m is unfounded and the height control will encourage flat roof construction to maximise floors). d) height comparable with two storey development is all that should be permitted in the R2 zone in general. This should be taken from natural ground level to avoid built up houses. There can be particular areas with significant slopes, built forms or vistas that could demonstrate that 9 m is of design merit, such as Lower Mount Street or Constitution Road where the staggering of buildings could assist any transfer of issues onto adjoining properties.	It is Council's intention to retain 2 storey development as the maximum height for buildings in a low density zone. However, a reference to a height of 9 metres may seem excessive when applied to the current definition for measuring building height. However, the definition for measuring building height has changed. The current LEP measures height in metres from ground level to the ceiling of the topmost floor of the building (the wall height). The standard template and draft Parramatta LEP measure height from natural ground level but to the highest point of the building (i.e. upper most point of the roof ). Based on this change, the maximum height has been adjusted to recognise that the roof space is incorporated into overall building height.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	271	23 Apple Street	Constitution Hill	The draft DCP has not recognised Constitution Hill as a suburb in its own right. There are vista, front setback, character and other development controls which could be argued do not apply to Constitution Hill. It appears that this suburb is blanketed under Wentworthville, which is now incorrect. Constitution Hill has an extraordinary history from convict settlement. It needs its own identity to be reflected in the DCP. The vista diagram is not very prescriptive. There seems to be a squiggle generally over Constitution hill which is not very useful. Seeks to include an example in an R2 Zone of a dwelling design that maximises developable area (i.e. maximum external wall height, maximum floor space ratio, modern roof features) there would be acceptable under this policy. Residents need to see what is possible under this policy.	The history of Constitution Hill and convict settlement is recognised by Council's heritage provisions and the need to protect and maintain certain landscapes. Clause 2.4.1 of the draft DCP requires new development to protect or not impede import views of the ridgelines for which the suburb is located. The suburb of Constitution Hill is predominately a low density residential area with a mix of dwelling types. The purpose of a development control plan is to regulate new development. The standard provision in part 3 of the DCP ensure the scale and form of housing development in Constitution Hill is preserved and describes the key controls that establish building envelopes. Council could use more visual aids in its DCP to demonstrate the types of development Council is looking to provide.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010.
24	293	Lyn Place	Constitution Hill	Objecting to proposed rezoning of Constitution Hill particularly further residential development and increased densities.	The draft Parramatta LEP 2010 has translated existing residential zones (under Parramatta LEP 2001) without any increase in residential density. Lyn Avenue and the immediate surrounds are currently zoned Residential 2A, which is a low density residential zone and under the draft LEP is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. No new medium or high density residential zones are proposed in Constitution Hill under the draft LEP.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
25	294	5 Mahony Road	Constitution Hill	Opposes the prohibition of dual occupancies in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia Gardens Estate). That dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to Special Character areas.
	294	5 Mahony Road	Constitution Hill	Questions why proposed zone for property is R2 Low Density Residential when townhouses are being constructed in the area. Does not think it is appropriate.	The subject property is presently zoned Residential 2A and is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential in the draft LEP. It is located in the deferred RDS study area of Wentworthville North and this area will be subject to further analysis in future stages of implementation of the RDS and is not being addressed in this LEP.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
26	314	13 Hart Drive	Constitution Hill	Objects to the zoning of the property at 13 Hart Drive as 2A and seeks a zoning of 2B for the reason that the property is landlocked by villas and townhouses, the property is of the large size of 1834 square metres and is in the vicinity of a major bus transit station near the junction of Hart Drive and Old Windsor Road. A restriction of one dwelling to the property would be undesirable because of the current surroundings.	The subject property is presently zoned Residential 2A and is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential in the draft LEP. It is located in the deferred RDS study area of Wentworthville North and this area will be subject to further analysis in future stages of implementation of the RDS and is not being addressed in this LEP.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
27	315	Old Windsor Road	Constitution Hill	Submission is signed by 7 signatories representing 6 properties on Old Windsor Road. Requests that a corridor along the rapid bus transit way on the northern side of Old Windsor Road between Hammers Road and Fitzwilliam Road (or at least the northern side of Old Windsor Road between Hammers Road to Faulkner St) be rezoned for urban renewal development (at least zone back to R3). Reasons in support of the request are that: • The bus transit way has enhanced public transport • Council has already allowed some urban renewal development prior to the land being rezoned back to 2A • Further development will not affect local schools. Whilst the number of pupils will decline with an ageing population increased development will balance this out • This area has public reserves within easy walking distance, is served by a cycleway and has good access to the Parramatta CBD, Westmead and other hospitals, surgeries, the Emma Crescent Library and child care facilities • There are a number of large properties on the northern side of Old Windsor Road which could be developed with little or no impact on the properties behind Old Windsor Road.	Council at its meeting of 23 March 2009 resolved to zone the land at Nos. 201-277 Old Windsor Road (on the northern side of Old Windsor Road from Hammers Road to Fitzwilliam Road), Old Toongabbie as R3 Medium Density Residential. The Department of Planning did not support the R3 zoning as this area was not identified in Council’s Residential Development Strategy (RDS) as an area to accommodate increased density. The DoP required that the land be zoned R2 to facilitate s65 certification and public exhibition of the draft LEP. This area does form part of the North-West Transit Way Study areas identified under the RDS. However, these areas have been deferred at this time and will be investigated by Council in the medium term.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
28	410	68 Constitution Road	Constitution Hill	Opposes the proposed zoning that will prevent dual occupancy development in the R2 (Low Density Zone). Had purchased the property at 68 Constitution Road with this intent. Argues that it will affect the value of their property. Furthermore, continual changes to zoning has a terrible effect on the streetscape of an area. Submission includes 8 other residents within the locality who also object to the proposed zoning that prohibits dual occupancy for similar reasons.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia Gardens Estate). That dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to Special Character areas.
29	426		Constitution Hill	Objects to the prohibition of dual occupancies in Map Grid Numbers 01, 02, 03 and 04 in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. Believes dual occupancies, in particular attached dwellings, improve the character and aesthetics of the streetscape. Dual occupancies would not be a negative impact in the subject area as it is surrounded by major roads. Dual occupancies have a personal and social benefit as they keep families together.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia Gardens Estate). That dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to Special Character areas.
30	445		Constitution Hill	Objects to the removal of dual occupancies as permissible development in the R2 (Low Density Residential) zone. They wish to build a duplex so they can live next to their elderly mother. There are several duplexes in the area and they are compatible with the streetscape. Any duplex they built would be of a high standard of design and would have minimal impact on the neighbours.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1	That dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia Gardens Estate). That dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to Special Character areas.
31	461	12 Eucalyptus Street	Constitution Hill	Opposes the rezoning of Constitution Hill to R2 (Low Density Residential) as is looking to build a duplex at 12 Eucalyptus St where herself, daughter and partner could live. Reasons in support are that: a) Submitter is a widow and provision for a duplex will prevent her from having to live on her own in the coming years. b) The current duplex in the street is in keeping with the aesthetics of the neighbourhood and it would be ensured that the duplex proposed to be built will suit the current heritage style particular to the area c) As the land is on the lower side of the street, a duplex will not be imposing on the neighbours. d) The relevant block is 792 square metres and is ample size for a duplex to be built. Seeks that this area remain zoned as R3 (Medium Density Residential) so that a duplex or townhouses can be built.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1	That dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia Gardens Estate). That dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to Special Character areas.
32	565	14 Ferndale Close	Constitution Hill	Opposes rezoning of property at 14 Ferndale Close, Constitution Hill to R1 General Residential (sic) as it is too restrictive for this area with a large number of blocks in excess of 900 square metres occupied by the elderly. This will not be maximising land potential for the future, particularly when the area is in close proximity to train stations, local buses, schools, hospitals and other main service centres. Requests that Council leave 2 (a) Residential zoning or equivalent but limit dual occupancy to properties greater than 900 m2, or alternatively rezone to R1 (sic) but allow property owners with properties greater than 900 m2 or larger to build a dual occupancy residence.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1	That dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia Gardens Estate). That dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to Special Character areas.
33	29	1 Bennetts Road West	Dundas	Owns 1200sq.m of land and feels that it would be a waste of time to develop the land just for a dual occupancy. The land is currently zoned 2(a) and permits dual occupancy.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1	That dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia Gardens Estate). That dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to Special Character areas.
34	119	29 Dorahy Street	Dundas	The submission requested information on the meaning of the R2 zone; the permissibility of townhouses and dual occupancies; and whether the 600sqm site requirement for dual occupancies applies before or after subdivision.	An email (D01492340) was sent to the submitter on 24 March 2010 responding to each question raised in the submission. That e-mail states that the R2 Low Density Residential zone provides for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment. The typical development allowed in this zone is single dwelling houses. The draft LEP as exhibited does not allow dual occupancies (duplexes) in the R2 zone. Townhouses are also not allowed in the R2 zone. The minimum site area for the construction of duplexes is 600sqm before subdivision.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
35	162	122 Kissing Point Road	Dundas	The submission objects to the proposed down zoning of 122 Kissing Point Road, Dundas to R2 as surrounding properties have been developed for multi unit housing in accordance with the current 2B (medium density) residential zone. Furthermore, Council is not doing enough to overcome the chronic housing shortage experienced in Sydney.	The site is currently zoned Residential 2B and is proposed to be zoned R2 Low-Density Residential. The reason for the down zoning is that this area is not located within the RDS centre of Dundas, meaning its level of accessibility to services and infrastructure is not as good as other locations. However, the area surrounding the site has taken advantage of the current Residential 2B zone and been developed for multi-unit housing. This site, along with an adjoining site, and two lots facing Leamington Street are surrounded by townhouse development. This stretch of Kissing Point Road is dominated by townhouse development. It is unlikely, given the lot size, that this land would be subdivided for single lots or be redeveloped for the sole purposes of a dwelling. Consequently, it is recommended that this land, along with other properties adjoining be rezoned to R3 Medium Density Residential.	That the following land be rezoned from R2 Low-Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential with an FSR of 0.6:1 and a height of 11 metres. 86-110 and 116 to 134 Kissing Point Road, Dundas 1 to 5 and 2 to 8 Leamington Road, Dundas 1 to 15 Adderton Road, Dundas
36	230	Yates/King Street	Dundas	The submission suggests traffic calming measures be introduced to improve pedestrian safety at the intersection of Yates Avenue and King Street, near Stewart Street Dundas. The reasons for these suggestions are the volume of traffic at Stewart Street, the effects of resident parking and the location of a primary school.	This issue is not in the scope of the draft LEP and has been referred to Council’s Traffic and Transport Unit for investigation.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
37	256	140 Kissing Point Road	Dundas	Queries how development potential is affected for the property at 140 Kissing Point Road, Dundas including any property value implications.	It is proposed to retain the existing (equivalent) medium density zone. i.e. site is currently zoned Residential 2B and is proposed to be zoned R3 (Medium Density Residential) with an allowed height of 11 m under the draft LEP Therefore, the zoning and height provisions of the draft LEP should not prevent any proposals to build two storey additions or a new two storey house on the property, subject to compliance with detailed Council requirements. The Valuer General, through the Department of Lands, is the principal advisor on land valuation matters in NSW. Whilst planning controls in LEPs impact on land values, Councils are required to address a strategic framework including State Government plans, policies and directions, as well as Councils own strategic framework (eg the RDS) to inform their LEPs. The impact of draft LEP provisions on land value is not of itself a reason for amending the provisions of the draft LEP, given this over-riding strategic framework.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
38	349	Carver Place	Dundas	Objects to the down zoning of this area from R3 Medium Density Residential to R2 Low Density Residential. The submitter argues that 40% of dwellings in the area have been built for medium density housing. The current zoning provides a sustainable and healthy environment.	The current zoning and development controls encourage a dispersed approach to housing in which there are large areas throughout the LGA where town house or residential flat developments are permitted in locations not as well serviced by public transport, shops, parks, services or facilities. Consequently, there is evidence of such development types occurring in various locations across the LGA. Council has now chosen to locate medium and high-density residential in areas that are in close proximity of centres and within a walkable distance to regular public transport services. Carver Place in Dundas Valley does not meet the RDS criteria for medium or higher density residential development given that it is located away from the Telopea railway station and shopping centre. It was therefore proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
39	350	Carver Place	Dundas	Objects to the down zoning of this area from R3 Medium Density Residential to R2 Low Density Residential. The submitter argues that 40% of dwellings in the area have been built for medium density housing. The current zoning provides a sustainable and healthy environment.	The current zoning and development controls encourage a dispersed approach to housing in which there are large areas throughout the LGA where town house or residential flat developments are permitted in locations not as well serviced by public transport, shops, parks, services or facilities. Consequently, there is evidence of such development types occurring in various locations across the LGA. Council has now chosen to locate medium and high-density residential in areas that are in close proximity of centres and within a walkable distance to regular public transport services. Carver Place in Dundas Valley does not meet the RDS criteria for medium or higher density residential development given that it is located away from the Telopea railway station and shopping centre. It was therefore proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
40	367	Carson Street	Dundas	Strongly supports the proposed decrease in development potential from current 2B to proposed R2 (Low Density) Residential for land in Carson Street, Dundas.	The site falls within an area where town house development is currently permissible. The area is outside of an RDS (Residential Development Strategy) centre and the proposed down zoning to R2 (Low Density) zoning is consistent with the concentrated growth philosophy of the RDS.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
41	376	Carver Place	Dundas	Request that the proposed zoning R2 (Low Density) Residential for Carver Place be changed to R3 (Medium Density) Residential) as this will best reflect the development that has already occurred in the street (Carver Place) and allow for the provision of additional housing in a style consistent with the street.	Carver Place is not located within an identified RDS (Residential Development Strategy) centre and the proposed down zoning reflects the concentrated growth philosophy of the RDS. It is acknowledged that in some areas where down zoning is proposed, some medium density development has already occurred, however, to maintain the permissibility of medium density development would be inconsistent with the endorsed RDS approach of down zoning areas outside of RDS centres.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010
42	416		Dundas	Submission documents a number of concerns with respect to proposed zoning of land in Dundas Valley/Telopea, particularly the proposed R3 Medium-Density Residential bounded by Moffatts Drive, Tilley Street, Osborne Avenue and Evans Road and the Telopea Urban Renewal Project. Such extensive rezoning will exacerbate traffic problems, existing public transport infrastructure is insufficient to cater for this increased population and there are too many physical constraints in this area to justify its rezoning. It is also argued by the submitter that it is Council policy that infrastructure must be in place before rezoning is approved and this be enforced in this case. In context of the proposed R4 High Density Residential around "Waratah Shopping Centre" this is supported, provided infrastructure is in place, because the topography of the area and its access to schools, shops etc lend itself to such a zoning.	In response to the matters raised by the submitter it is commented that: • The R3 Medium Density Residential Zone only applies to the land west of Osborne Road for the block generally bound by Evans Road and Moffats Drive. Permitted height for this part of the R3 zone is limited to 11 m or two storeys plus an attic. • The above land is suitable for medium density development being within the Telopea RDS precinct and having close accessibility to retail and community facilities, the railway station and bus services. • It is not appropriate that land in the vicinity of Holland Place , Kissing Point Road and Rumsy Street be zoned for higher density purposes as it is outside the Telopea RDS precinct, with a lower level of accessibility to commercial and community activities and transport services.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
43	433	16 Dorahy Street	Dundas	Expresses his disappointment and objection to the medium density development occurring behind Paul Street, Dundas. Raises concerns relating to traffic, inadequate infrastructure, mix match of finishes, height and overlooking. If the development complies with guidelines, then these guidelines are a disgrace. Attached a series of photographs.	The development site to the north of Paul Street, Dundas (16 Dorahy Street) has obtained development consent. Development applications are placed on exhibition as an opportunity for members of the public to comment on the proposed development. All submissions received during the public exhibition of the various DAs for the site were considered in the assessment of the relevant DAs and are outside the scope of the draft LEP and draft DCP.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	433	16 Dorahy Street	Dundas	Raises concerns with Council delegations.	Staff delegations in respect of development applications are outside the scope of the draft LEP and draft DCP and were most recently considered by Council on 28 June 2010.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	433	16 Dorahy Street	Dundas	High rise development should be confined to nearby railway stations and major employment areas with adequate infrastructure. Future plans and policies should have a greater emphasis on existing buildings and the standard of living of existing residents. If land is deemed surplus it should be developed for similar style housing that the area contains.	Under the draft Parramatta LEP, higher density residential zonings are proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s Residential Development Strategy (RDS). Planning for concentrated and carefully managed growth will lead to more sustainable communities. The centres identified in the RDS have good access to public transport, shops that provide for local needs and community facilities and services. The concentrated approach also enables future infrastructure and public domain upgrades to be targeted to particular areas. The concentrated approach will benefit residents and the community at large through the provision of compact, pedestrian friendly mixed use areas that include a range of housing styles to suit the needs of different residents. The draft LEP controls stipulate what can be built on an area of land and for what purpose land can be used by way of zoning. In addition, controls in the draft DCP have been designed to ensure successful integration of new development within existing neighbourhoods and centres.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
44	545	28 Bennetts Road East	Dundas	Consultants acting on behalf of the owner of the above property object to the down zoning of the site and request that the proposed zoning be amended to R3 Medium Density Residential. A detailed submission supporting this position was included. The submission states that the site is in the vicinity of number of other medium density developments and is within 400m walking distance to local shops, neighbourhood centre, child care centre, primary school, open space and has bus routes linking to major centres and railway stations.	Under draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS criteria for higher density residential development given that it is outside of an RDS precinct. It was acknowledged that there is a local centre close to the subject site and public transport services. However, in formulating the RDS, implemented by the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, the level of accessibility and services compared with other locations across the LGA is not sufficient. Council identified 21 sites across the LGA for which the level of services and public transport access rated higher than this area of Ermington. Council concluded that the commercial centre was not of adequate size to cater for a broader catchment. Furthermore, the public transport in terms of bus access (the 513- and 523 Sydney Bus Services) did not provide for high usage as the services varied between 30 and 60 mins and did not serve the wider region.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
45	554	33-35 Quarry Road	DUNDAS	The submission requests that 'multi dwelling housing' be permitted on the site of the Viking Sports Club by way of an addition to Schedule 1 'Additional Permitted Uses' of the Draft LEP. The submission argues that the site is suited to medium density housing for the following reasons: large site in single ownership; well served by existing infrastructure, public transport, public open space, schools, community facilities and services; future development density will be consistent with nearby residential development; site is predominantly isolated from adjoining residential by open space, vegetation and roads; redevelopment will improve housing choice and affordability.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. That the proponent be notified that further consideration of this proposal would require submission of a Planning Proposal.
46	556	100 Evans Road	Dundas	Objects to the exclusion of places of Public Worship from the list of permissible uses in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The Faith Baptist Church at No. 100 Evans Road, Dundas Valley will require renovation over the years to improve the buildings to community standards. It is unreasonable to prohibit the ongoing maintenance and improvement of long-established land uses.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Places of Public Worship be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low Density Residential zone and that the limit on seating capacity of 250 in the residential zones be included in draft DCP 2010. Further, that any change adopted to the PPW DCP relating to car parking rates, should be incorporated into the draft Comprehensive DCP.
47	236	Alexander Street	Dundas Valley	Submission suggests road safety improvements and intersection upgrades to cope with existing and future population growth.	This submission predominantly relates to existing traffic and road safety issues and has been referred to Council's Service Manager Traffic and Transport to be dealt with separately.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
48	607	204 Marsden Road	Dundas Valley	Purchased property on the basis that it was zoned 2(b) Residential, a zone which permits townhouse and dual occupancy development. Our property is proposed to be zoned R2 Low-Density Residential which will prohibit such development. The effect of this property value which we believe is unfair.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia Gardens Estate). That dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to Special Character areas.
49	471		East Rydalmere	Submission questions whether Council will extend existing public car parking for the Rydalmere Ferry Terminal as the extra traffic will impact amenity.	There are approximately 70 car spaces located near the Ferry terminal at Rydalmere. The existing facility is not at full capacity. However, Council will monitor the demands of this car parking facility, particularly if new development takes places to ensure that it is capable and sufficient to serve the needs of the community.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	471		East Rydalmere	Submission questions whether the increased zoning will increase land value and therefore increase Council rates.	The Valuer General, through the Department of Lands, is the principal advisor on land valuation matters in NSW. In determining rates some consideration is given to development potential of the land. This in some part may affect Council rates.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	471		East Rydalmere	The submission raises objection to increased densities within the East Rydalmere precinct on the grounds of loss of open space and gardens.	Council's draft DCP 2010 requires any new development proposed to comply with a provision that 40% of the site area be set aside for landscaping of which 30% of that landscaped area must be for deep soil plantings to allow substantial vegetation to grow. There are also requirement for internal private open space although that does not have to be in the form of traditional backyard space.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010/DCP 2010.
	471		East Rydalmere	The submission raises objection to the proposed R4 High Density Residential zoning of land within the East Rydalmere Precinct and suggests that a zoning permitting villa housing or dual occupancy development would be more appropriate.	The area of East Rydalmere is within close proximity to bus services located on Victoria and Park Roads, has access to local shopping facilities and public open space. The proposed zoning for this area is predominately R3 Medium Density Housing with the exception of land adjoining industrial development near Myrtle Street and land in the southern part of the precinct (Elonera Street) where it is proposed to be zoned R4 High Density Residential. Height and densities proposed over the precinct as a whole are proposed to be relatively low scale allowing for two and three storey developments throughout. These heights and densities would also provide consistency where existing development has already taken place within the Residential 2B zone, particularly along Victoria Road. Furthermore, the heights and densities proposed allows for a suitable relationship to be created between the existing low density areas and proposed areas to be up zoned.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	471		East Rydalmere	The submission raises objection to increased densities within the East Rydalmere precinct on the grounds that existing roads are too narrow and that access to Victoria Road will become more difficult	Council’s development controls will require that any future development for medium or high density development incorporate car parking areas that can accommodate vehicles. The widths of streets within East Rydalmere allow vehicles to pass one another. However, The street width in Elonera Street and Burbang Crescent allows for constrained traffic movement if cars are parked in the street and may require an extension of existing parking restrictions that apply on one side of Elonera Street.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	471		East Rydalmere	Submission questions whether Council will be providing increased bus services and ferry services and lobbying State Government to complete the Epping to Parramatta Rail Link to accommodate proposed increases in population.	Council is not responsible for the provision of public transport facilities. This is a matter for the NSW State Government. However, in making a determination as to whether this location was suitable for increased residential density Council formed the view that existing bus services, particularly the level of frequency along Victoria Road was suitable. Council has a role to play to actively lobby the NSW government for improvement to public infrastructure. Council is aware of the need for further improvement to public transport and will advocate for that accordingly.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	471		East Rydalmere	Submission questions whether Council lobby State Government to provide additional hospital and medical services, school places, police, library services and waste services to accommodate proposed increases in population.	Council takes the opportunities to advocate and lobby the NSW State Government for services where a need is identified. Council’s Strategic Plan and Management Plan are the mechanisms for which such needs are identified. Council is a key stakeholder in many state and regional issues given Parramatta is now earmarked as Sydney's second CBD.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
50	122	33 & 35 & 37 Midson Road	Eastwood	The submission objects to the draft LEP permitting increased development potential at 37 Midson Road, Eastwood and not applying the same potential to the rest of the street block including 33 and 35 Midson Road, Eastwood. The submission questions the rules for dividing land into different zones/FSR limits. Council should allow the maximum usage of the land by encouraging higher density of land use. The new LEP is doing the opposite by lowering the density of land/restricting development.	The proposed zoning for all three properties (including 37 Midson Road) is R2 Low Density Residential. The proposed R2 zone is the closest translation of the Residential 2A zone under Parramatta LEP 2001. The draft LEP has mostly carried across the existing zones and development standards whilst incorporating the philosophy of the Residential Development Strategy of concentrating residential growth in areas close to public transport, shops and services. The proposed FSR for 37 Midson Road is 0.6:1 which is consistent with the FSR adopted in the Masterplan for the site which was adopted by Council on 6 June 2003.. The proposed FSR for 33 and 35 Midson Road is 0.5:1. The site is listed in Schedule 1 (Lots 1-12 DP 270650 at Midson Road, Eastwood), which additionally permits with Council’s consent multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings. The 0.6:1 FSR facilitates the development of these types of uses without over-developing the site. The proposed FSR of 0.5:1 applied to 33 and 35 Midson Road is the standard FSR applied to all land proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
51	122	33 & 35 & 37 Midson Road	Eastwood	Changing the use of the land is not fair to most landowners when they bought with the potential to further develop by subdividing in a few years. The draft LEP will restrict the land for subdivision.	The general use of the land is not proposed to change in the draft LEP as the subject properties are proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential, being a direct translation of the existing 2(a) Residential zone under Parramatta LEP 2001. Subdivision of land is permitted with consent in the R2 zone and is subject to Clause 4.1. Land can be subdivided to a minimum lot size of 550sqm; and 670sqm (excluding access handle) for battleaxe lots the draft LEP. Clause 4.1 contains an anomaly, as it does not cater for subdivision of dual occupancies. The issue of subdivision of dual occupancies and their permissibility in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	Make provision to allow for the subdivision of dual occupancies in Clause 4.1 in the draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
52	48	2 Wyralla Avenue	Epping	The submission states that future high density development of No. 2 Wyralla Avenue of up to 11 metres would result in overshadowing of adjoining properties.	Section 3.3.5 of Draft Parramatta DCP requires that development is designed to minimise the extent of shadows cast on habitable rooms within adjoining developments. Any potential overshadowing issue would be addressed during the assessment of a development application.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
53	73	Carlingford Road & Boronia Park	Epping	Dissatisfied with the form of consultation. Excessive and unclear documentation.	The exhibition of draft Parramatta LEP and DCP has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulation, and directions from the NSW Department of Planning. Exhibition material was provided at all Council Libraries, at the Epping Library (within the Hornsby Shire Council), at Council's administration building, and on Council's website. Throughout the exhibition period an information telephone line was set up to field enquiries on the draft LEP and staff were available to take enquiries at Council's administration building during business hours.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	73	Carlingford Road & Boronia Park	Epping	Concern over proposed high density development in the area around Epping Car Park and Coles supermarket.	This matter is addressed in the detailed Council Report.	That the zoning and built form controls for Epping town centre be further investigated as part of the joint Epping town centre study. That the submissions relating to Epping received in response to the draft LEP exhibition be tabled for consideration as part of the joint study.
54	74	8/11 Garland Avenue	Epping	Supports previously proposed extension to the Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
55	81	4 Garland Avenue	Epping	Supports previously proposed extension to the Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
56	87	8 The Boulevarde	Epping	Does not support the previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
57	81	4 Garland Avenue	Epping	Objects to the omission of the previously proposed extension of the Epping/Eastwood Conservation Areas to cover Garland, William, Boulevard and Melrose Streets. It is appalling that the NSW State Government would not permit the exhibition of the draft plans until the proposed extension was removed.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
58	91	5 Garland Avenue	Epping	Supports previously proposed extension to the Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
59	100	11 Boronia Avenue	Epping	Land in Boronia Avenue, Epping should be zoned R3 Medium Density Residential or R4 High Density Residential to permit urban consolidation and take advantage of the nearby rail hub.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That the zoning and built form controls for Epping town centre be further investigated as part of the joint Epping town centre study. That the submissions relating to Epping received in response to the draft LEP exhibition be tabled for consideration as part of the joint study.
60	105	11 The Boulevarde	Epping	Does not support the previously proposed extension to the Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
61	106	31 Rawson Street	Epping	Does not support the previously proposed extension to the Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
62	108	37 Rawson Street	Epping	Problems associated with drunk patrons leaving Epping Hotel and throwing empty bottles into properties along Rawson St, Epping.	This is a matter for the NSW Police. It is not a matter to consider in preparing and finalising draft Parramatta LEP or DCP.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010.
	108	37 Rawson Street	Epping	Some land in Rawson Street, Epping is proposed to be zoned for apartments while other land in Rawson Street, Epping is not. The author finds this approach inconsistent and frustrating.	Land in Rawson Street north of Bridge Street includes land zoned R4 High Density Residential and B2 Local Centre. This is consistent with the zonings in current LEP 2001 which concentrates retail and higher density residential activity within a particular precinct. Land south of Bridge Street has been maintained for low-density housing due to it being within the Epping heritage conservation area.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	108	37 Rawson Street	Epping	The submission does not support the previously proposed extension to the Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping as the house at 37 Rawson Street, Epping has no heritage value as it has been modified and requires repair.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
63	110	16 Warrington Avenue	Epping	The submission supports the previously proposed extension of the Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
64	112	20/25 Bridge Street	Epping	The submission does not support the previously proposed extension of the Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
65	113	12 William Street	Epping	The submission supports the previously proposed extension of the Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
66	114	8 Kent Street	Epping	The submission does not support the previously proposed extension of the Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping. The submission states that the house at 8 Kent Street, Epping is built on poor foundations and has large cracks in every room. Has been repaired many times but cracks continue to reappear. Does not want 'heritage rules' to affect future use of the land or house.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
67	124	15 Garland Avenue	Epping	Does not support the previously proposed extension to the Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping. Feels there are no significant houses in the area. The previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas contradict the principles of energy efficiency, high density around public transport and reduction of green house gas emissions.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
	124	15 Garland Avenue	Epping	Feels that the proposed plan does not fulfill the public's interest. Society is progressing and we should not sit on top of the past.	The recognition and protection of heritage is an important matter provided for in NSW legislation. As described by the NSW Department of Planning's Heritage Branch, heritage protection allows places and objects that we as a community have inherited from the past to hand on to future generations. Furthermore, heritage gives us a sense of living history and provides a physical link to the work and way of life of earlier generations. It is crucial to retain and protect heritage as it enriches our lives and helps us to understand who we are today.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010.
68	129	Wyralla Avenue	Epping	Supports the inclusion of Wyralla Avenue, Epping within a Heritage Conservation Area. Also raised concerns that No. 2 Wyralla Avenue, Epping is zoned R4 High Density Residential and is not included within the Wyralla Avenue Heritage Conservation Area. The submission recommends that the site should be down zoned and included in the Wyralla Avenue Heritage Conservation Area for consistency and given its gateway location to the Wyralla Avenue Heritage Conservation area.	The issue of the proposed extension to the Epping heritage conservation area is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. The heritage studies that informed Council’s decision to propose an extension to the conservation area did consider Council’s planning controls. The studies did not recommend any changes to planning controls or suggest that the controls did not complement or were inconsistent with heritage values.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
69	130	33 Boronia Avenue	Epping	The submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping and particularly for 1-35 Boronia Ave. Justification provided includes that: § houses of no heritage significance should not be protected and particularly 1 to 35 Boronia Ave due to age of dwellings and absence of any particular significant features. § 33 Boronia Ave is stated to be built in the late 1960s with no heritage significance. § home owners should have the right to rebuild through the normal Council development process and § there is a need for an increase in elderly and aged care properties and facilities in Epping and in close proximity to Epping Station.	This issue of the proposed extension of the heritage conservation area is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. The 2007 study specifically found that 15 residences (nos 3 to 31) along the northern side of Boronia Avenue constitute an intact row of early 20th-century dwellings that collectively form a coherent streetscape dating from the interwar period. The existing mature street trees (brush box species) planted along both sides of Boronia Avenue enhance the traditional streetscape environment. It should be noted that 33 and 35 Boronia Ave are not included in the potential Boronia Avenue Conservation Area.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
70	131	19 Boronia Avenue	Epping	Does not support the previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
71	132	23 Boronia Avenue	Epping	Does not support the previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
72	134	20/25 Bridge Street	Epping	Does not support the previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
73	137	30 The Boulevarde	Epping	Supports the previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
74	139	29 Kent Street	Epping	Supports the previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
75	140	39 Rawson Street	Epping	Does not support the previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
76	148	6 Warrington Avenue	Epping	The submission support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
77	156		Epping	The submission does not support the previously proposed heritage conservation areas in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
78	176	9 Boronia Avenue	Epping	The submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
79	188	14 Warrington Avenue	Epping	The submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
80	189	31 Kent Street	Epping	The submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping. The author expressed that they are very happy with their home and neighbourhood of older homes and would like to retain the character of the area.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
81	190	2 Garland Avenue	Epping	The submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
82	193	5 Boulevarde Street	Epping	The submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping and has identified seven properties in The Boulevarde, Epping that the author felt do not contribute to the proposed Heritage Conservation Area.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
83	196		Epping	The submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
84	197	15 Chelmsford Avenue	Epping	The submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
85	200	15 Warrington Avenue	Epping	The submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
86	203	39 Kent Street	Epping	The submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping and notes that modern units are prevalent in the area.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
87	205	29 Victoria Street	Epping	The submission suggests that neighbouring properties at 31 and 33 Victoria Street, Epping be included within the Heritage Conservation Area as the author doesn't want them to be redeveloped with large "McMansions".	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. The boundary marking the northern extent of the proposed conservation area in Victoria Street is appropriate as it includes properties of significant conservation value.It is not necessary to include adjacent properties at 31 and 33 Victoria Street within the proposed area.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
88	207	11 Garland Avenue	Epping	The submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
89	209	7 The Boulevarde	Epping	The submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
90	210	12 Garland Avenue	Epping	The submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping. The area contains nearly 100 years of history which should be preserved for present and future generations.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
91	212	11A Boronia Avenue	Epping	That Boronia Avenue, between Midson Road and Kent Street, be made a no through street as it is used as a feeder road with excessive volumes of traffic and inadequate parking.	Changes to the road network are not matters relevant to the draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. This submission was referred to Council’s Traffic and Transport Unit for comment. They have advised that Boronia Avenue is an important local road for through traffic and this needs to be maintained.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010.
92	212	11A Boronia Avenue	Epping	The submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping but states that the extension to the conservation areas do not go far enough. The area should be inclusive of Eastwood and West Epping bounded by High Street, Railway Avenue, Wingate Avenue, Midson Road and Carlingford Road.	This issue of the proposed extension of the heritage conservation area is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. The whole of the area bound by High Street, Railway Avenue, Wingate Avenue, Midson Road and Carlingford Road does not include a sufficiently high proportion of properties of significant heritage and conservation values and it would be inappropriate to include it in conservation areas.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
93	213	7/11 Garland Avenue	Epping	The submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
94	214	5A The Boulevarde	Epping	The submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping and states that numbers 1, 3, 5, 5A, 7, 9, and 11 The Boulevard, Epping have no heritage significance and should not be included in a Heritage Conservation Area.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
95	215	11A The Boulevarde	Epping	The submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
96	216	3 Boronia Avenue	Epping	The submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping. Does not welcome further changes in this area.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
97	218	16 Melrose Street	Epping	The submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping Justification provided includes that: houses of no heritage significance should not be protected; home owners should have the right to rebuild through the normal Council development process; and here is a need for an increase in elderly and aged care properties and facilities in Epping and in close proximity to Epping Station.	This issue of the proposed extension of the heritage conservation area is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. Addressing specific matters raised by the submitter it is commented that: • Within the proposed conservation areas it is recognised that not all properties will be of significant conservation and heritage values, termed contributory items. The development obligations on these properties will be less than those properties of higher value. • The need for higher density development and increased provision for the elderly in close proximity to Epping station is a matter that will be addressed as part of the joint planning study for Epping.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
98	220	17 Kent Street	Epping	The submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
99	221	7 Boronia Avenue	Epping	Does not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping. House has no heritage value as it has been modified and requires repair.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
100	227	23 The Boulevarde	Epping	The submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
101	231	163 Carlingford Road	Epping	Indicates that site at 163 Carlingford Rd Epping is currently zoned Residential 2B Medium Density Residential. Draft Parramatta LEP proposed R2 Low Density Residential zoning. Seeking to retain equivalent R3 zoning as site is isolated by an existing church building and existing town house development.	Under the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS criteria for higher density residential development given that it is outside of the Carlingford or Epping RDS precincts. It was therefore proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. While it is recognised that some existing properties along Carlingford Road have been developed for multi unit housing and dual occupancy development, it is considered that further change to the zoning along Carlingford Road is outside the scope of the draft LEP. While the site does adjoin an existing townhouse development and church, this would not warrant the rezoning of this land to R3 on these grounds alone. It is noted that further investigation of the Epping town centres will be undertaken as part of the joint planning study to be prepared for Epping Town Centre (by Parramatta and Hornsby Councils). Furthermore, Hornsby Shire Council's Housing Strategy in relation to Carlingford will also impact upon development in the area and would need to be considered in the reinvestigation of the area on a holistic basis along with any further redevelopment along Carlingford Road.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
102	238	55A Wyralla Avenue	Epping	Does not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping. As a note, this property is not within the existing or proposed conservation area.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
103	239	3 Melrose Street	Epping	Does not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping. As a note, this property is not within the proposed conservation area but does adjoin the area proposed for extension.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
104	248	8 William Street	Epping	The submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping Justification provided includes that: houses of no heritage significance should not be protected; home owners should have the right to rebuild through the normal Council development process; and here is a need for an increase in elderly and aged care properties and facilities in Epping and in close proximity to Epping Station.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
105	250	11 Warrington Ave	Epping	Supports the previously proposed Heritage Conservation Area in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
106	254	10 Kent Street	Epping	Supports the inclusion of additional areas to the Heritage Conservation Area in Epping as it is important to maintain and protect the character and ensure no more unsympathetic development occurs.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
107	264	8 Melrose Street	Epping	Does not support the previous proposal for the extension of the Epping Heritage conservation area. Reasons in support of the submission are that: houses of no heritage significance should not be protected; home owners should have the right to rebuild through the normal Council development process; and there is a need for an increase in elderly and aged care properties and facilities in Epping. The area is also within close proximity to Epping Station.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
108	269	30A Rawson Street	Epping	Supports the extension to the Epping Heritage Conservation Area as proposed by Council. Protection of Federation/Californian bungalow style housing is important. These homes characterise the local area. The Epping area has already helped to meet the NSW government's broader Metropolitan strategy objectives so the conservation area should be endorsed. There should be a permanent ban on intrusive developments that are not sympathetic to the heritage style of housing. It is also important that this area have public recognition from Council that the heritage housing stock is culturally significant to the general community.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
109	270	30A Rawson Street	Epping	Supports the extension to the Epping Heritage Conservation Area as proposed by Council. Protection of Federation/Californian bungalow style housing is important. These homes characterise the local area. The Epping area has already helped to meet the NSW government's broader Metropolitan strategy objectives so the conservation area should be endorsed. There should be a permanent ban on intrusive developments that are not sympathetic to the heritage style of housing. It is also important that this area have public recognition from Council that the heritage housing stock is culturally significant to the general community.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
110	272	64 Wyralla Ave	Epping	Supports the extension of the Epping Heritage Conservation Area. Does not want to see any more demolition and erection of wall to wall, front to back two storey housing. Wants to keep suburb the way it was built.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
111	274	4 First Avenue	Epping	Supports the proposal to zone their area R2 Low-Density Residential as they believe two dwellings on one lot of land represents over development.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia Gardens Estate). That dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to Special Character areas.
112	275	25 Boronia Avenue	Epping	Supports the previously proposed Heritage Conservation area extension in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
113	283	72 Epping Avenue	Epping	Supports the previously proposed extension to the Epping Heritage Conservation area. Their reason for this is that Federation/California bungalow's characterise the area, The Epping area has already helped meet the Metropolitan Strategy and there is a need for public recognition of the areas housing stock.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
114	284	22 Victoria Street	Epping	Supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping for the following reasons: (a) Protects the federation/Californian bungalow character of housing in the area; (b) Preserves culturally significant heritage; (c) HCA would preclude intrusive and unsympathetic development in the area.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
115	285		Epping	Supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping for the following reasons: (a) Protects the federation/Californian bungalow housing from demolition; (b) Epping area has already helped meet the NSW governments broader Metropolitan Strategy objectives; (c) HCA would preclude intrusive and unsympathetic development in the area; (d) public recognition of Council that Epping's housing stock is culturally significant.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
116	286	7 Garland Avenue	Epping	Does not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
117	302		Epping	Would like to see more high density residential within walking distance to Epping Railway Station.	The issue of increased provision for high density residential development within walking distance of Epping railway station will be addressed in the joint planning study of Epping.	That the zoning and built form controls for Epping town centre be further investigated as part of the joint Epping town centre study. That the submissions relating to Epping received in response to the draft LEP exhibition be tabled for consideration as part of the joint study.
	302		Epping	Supports the NSW Department of Planning's decision to say NO to the extension of the heritage conservation areas.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
118	325	17 Chesterfield Road	Epping	Supports the extension to the Epping Heritage Conservation Area as proposed by Council. Protection of Federation/Californian bungalow style housing is important. These homes characterise the local area. The Epping area has already helped to meet the NSW government's broader Metropolitan strategy objectives so the conservation area should be endorsed. There should be a permanent ban on intrusive developments that are not sympathetic to the heritage style of housing. It is also important that this area have public recognition from Council that the heritage housing stock is culturally significant to the general community.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
119	326	11 Victoria Street	Epping	Supports the proposed conservation areas for Epping. People in these areas have spent a lot of money restoring old houses and it would be a shame to end up with a hotch potch of high-rise and restored houses in the one area. Any high rise development should be part of the shopping centre redevelopment.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
120	328	13B Warrington	Epping	Supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
121	333	2B William Street	Epping	Does not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
122	334	30 The Boulevarde	Epping	Supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
123	336	10 William Street	Epping	Supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
124	338	101 Carlingford Road & 1 Angus Avenue	Epping	Land at 101 Carlingford Rd and 1 Angus Ave, Epping is presently zoned Neighbourhood Business 3B under Parramatta LEP 2001 with a maximum floor space ratio of 1.5: 1. The draft LEP as exhibited represents a continuation of the same controls and is supported for these sites.	It is acknowledged that this submission supports the draft Parramatta LEP as exhibited for 101 Carlingford Road and 1 Angus Avenue, Epping.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
125	339	2B William Street	Epping	Does not support the proposal for the extension of the Epping Heritage conservation area. Reasons in support of the submission are that: houses of no heritage significance should not be protected; home owners should have the right to rebuild through the normal Council development process; and there is a need for an increase in elderly and aged care properties and facilities in Epping and in close proximity to Epping Station.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
126	344		Epping	Supports Council's endeavours to extend the Epping Conservation Area. Since the establishment of the Conservation Area it has helped maintain the beautiful streetscape and quality of housing within the area.	This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.	That Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council.
127	346	107-111 Carlingford Road	Epping	The submission argues that the RDS Strategy is flawed to the extent that existing development has not been considered as part of 'down zoning' of land, particularly along Carlingford Road. An example given along Carlingford Road (between Ryde Street and Orchard Street) that the majority are currently developed for dual occupancies or multi unit housing. The down zoning and subsequent prohibition of these uses will lead to the developed sites having existing use rights.	In downzoning land, it is inevitable that in some instances land may have already been developed for the highest use and that use may be prohibited under the incoming draft LEP zoning. These uses will have existing use rights that will enable their continued operation and may permit expansion or intensification subject to development consent. However, recent changes to existing use rights legalisation will prohibit these uses being converted to another type of non-conforming use.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
	346	107-111 Carlingford Road	Epping	This submission requests that the zoning for 107-111 Carlingford Road be increased from R2 Low Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential in line with the existing 2B Residential zoning. The retention of the equivalent zoning is suggested on the basis that the majority of surrounding sites have been developed for higher residential uses other than single dwellings.	Under the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS criteria for higher density residential development given that it is outside of the Carlingford or Epping RDS precincts. It was therefore proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. While it is recognised that some existing properties along Carlingford Road have been developed for multi unit housing and dual occupancy development, it is considered that further change to the zoning along Carlingford Road is outside the scope of the draft LEP. It is noted that further investigation of the Epping town centres will be undertaken as part of the joint planning study to be prepared for Epping Town Centre (by Parramatta and Hornsby Councils). Furthermore, Hornsby Shire Council's Housing Strategy in relation to Carlingford will also impact upon development in the area and would need to be considered in the reinvestigation of the area on a holistic basis along with any further redevelopment along Carlingford Road.	That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
128	354	53 Rawson Street	Epping