Agenda of Council (Development)

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

The Lord Mayor Clr Lorraine Wearne -

Lachlan Macquarie Ward

Dr. Robert Lang, Chief Executive Officer - Parramatta City Council

Sue Coleman – Group Manager City Services			Assistant Minutes Clerk – Joy Bramham
Greg Smith – Group Manager Corporate			Minutes Clerk – Grant Davies
Sue Weatherley–Group Manager Outcomes & Development

Clr Paul Barber – Caroline Chisholm Ward			Clr John Chedid – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward
Clr Mark Lack – Elizabeth Macarthur Ward			Clr Paul Garrard - Woodville Ward
Clr Glenn Elmore – Woodville Ward			Clr Scott Lloyd – Caroline Chisholm Ward
Clr Pierre Esber– Lachlan Macquarie Ward			Clr Andrew Wilson, Deputy Lord Mayor – Lachlan Macquarie Ward
Clr Prabir Maitra – Arthur Phillip Ward			Clr Andrew Bide – Caroline Chisholm Ward
Clr Julia Finn – Arthur Phillip Ward	Clr Michael McDermott - Elizabeth Macarthur Ward	Clr Antoine (Tony) Issa, OAM MP – Woodville Ward	Clr Chiang Lim– Arthur Phillip Ward

Staff

GALLERY

Council (Development) 14 November 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Council – 7 November 2011

2 APOLOGIES

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4 Petitions

5 Minutes of Lord Mayor

6 Public Forum

7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD

8 Reports - Domestic Applications

8.1 315 Church Street, Parramatta
(Lot 1 DP 739012) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

9 Reports - Major Applications

9.1 163 Carlingford Road, EPPING NSW 2121
LOT 9 SEC 1 DP1026 (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

9.2 399 Victoria Road, Rydalmere
(Lots 1-3 DP 128376) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

9.3 37 Midson Road (Former Eastwood Brickpit) Eastwood.
(CP 1 DP 270605) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

9.4 153 Pennant Parade, EPPING (Lot B DP 381653)

9.5 171 Victoria Road, Parramatta
(Lot 100 DP816829, Lot 101 DP 816629) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

9.6 1 Nirvana Street, Pendle Hill (Lot 6 DP 16541) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

9.7 40-46 Alice Street, Harris Park
(Lot 212 DP 1117339) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

10 Economy and Development

10.1 Variations to Standards under SEPP 1

10.2 Report on options for future economic development of Parramatta and Western Sydney.

11 Closed Session

11.1 Legal Matters Monthly Report to Council

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (g) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

11.2 Parramatta Design Excellence Advisory Panel

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (a) of the Local Government act 1993 as the report contains personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

12 DECISIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION

13 QUESTION TIME

Council (Development) 14 November 2011 Item 8.1

DOMESTIC APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 8.1

SUBJECT 315 Church Street, Parramatta
(Lot 1 DP 739012) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Internal and external alterations and additions to an existing restaurant and signage.

REFERENCE DA/534/2011 - Submitted 3 August 2011

APPLICANT/S Mr F Nohra

OWNERS Appwam pty ltd

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

19 October 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application has been referred to Council as the proposal involves works to a heritage item.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for internal and external alterations and additions to an existing restaurant and signage.

The hours of operation of the existing restaurant are 8am to 12 midnight Monday to Sunday and are not proposed to be altered in this application. The application proposes 39 seats to be located inside the building. Approval already exists for 36 seats located in front of the building in Church Street.

The site is listed as a heritage item of local significance under schedule 5 of Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. The application has been considered by Councils’ Heritage Advisor who has advised that the works are acceptable for the adaptive re-use of a heritage building.

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s DCP and no submissions were received.

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007, City Centre Development Control Plan 2007, SEPP 64 and Council’s Outdoor Dining Policy. The likely impacts of the alterations and additions to the existing restaurant have been assessed and are considered to be compatible with the character of existing commercial developments in the surrounding area.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council grant development consent to Development Application No DA/534/2011 for internal and external alterations and additions to an existing restaurant and signage on land at 315 Church Street, Parramatta subject to conditions contained within Attachment 1.

Emily Dickson

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	24 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans	2 Pages

Council (Development) 14 November 2011

Major Applications

14 November 2011

9.1 163 Carlingford Road, EPPING NSW 2121
LOT 9 SEC 1 DP1026 (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

9.2 399 Victoria Road, Rydalmere
(Lots 1-3 DP 128376) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

9.3 37 Midson Road (Former Eastwood Brickpit) Eastwood.
(CP 1 DP 270605) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

9.4 153 Pennant Parade, EPPING (Lot B DP 381653)

9.5 171 Victoria Road, Parramatta
(Lot 100 DP816829, Lot 101 DP 816629) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

9.6 1 Nirvana Street, Pendle Hill (Lot 6 DP 16541) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

9.7 40-46 Alice Street, Harris Park
(Lot 212 DP 1117339) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

Council (Development) 14 November 2011 Item 9.1

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 9.1

SUBJECT 163 Carlingford Road, EPPING NSW 2121
LOT 9 SEC 1 DP1026 (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of a townhouse development comprising 2 buildings containing a total of 5 units over basement carparking.

REFERENCE DA/345/2011 - 24 May 2011

APPLICANT/S JS Architects Pty Ltd

OWNERS Mr G J Goode and Mrs M V Goode

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

19 October 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

This application is referred to Council for determination due to the down zoning of the site to R2 Residential under Parramatta LEP 2011.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approval is sought for demolition, tree removal and construction of a townhouse development comprising 2 buildings containing a total of 5 units over basement carparking. The proposed development is “multi unit housing” under Parramatta LEP 2001 and is permitted with development consent under the current 2B Residential zoning applying to the land.

The subject site is located on the southern side of Carlingford Road. Surrounding development comprises of a mix of two storey multi-unit developments fronting Carlingford Road, single and two storey dwelling houses and dual occupancies. Immediately adjoining the site to the east is a place of worship, to the south if is a low density development which relates to the adjoining place of worship. Immediately adjoining the site to the west are a number of multi-unit developments.

Hornsby Shire Council is located on the northern side of Carlingford Road.

Parramatta LEP 2011 was gazetted by the Minister on 7 October 2011. The LEP includes a savings provisions in the form of clause 1.8A as follows:

1.8A Savings provisions relating to development applications

If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had been exhibited but had not commenced.

This provision enables the application to be determined, regardless of whether Parramatta LEP 2011 is made at the time of determining the subject application. The proposal satisfies the definition of a “multi unit housing” and is permissible under the 2B Residential zoning applying to the land at the time of the lodgment under the Parramatta LEP 2001.

The proposed development is similar to the multi-unit development adjoining the site to the west. The proposed development has a similar ridge height and street setback. The proposed development is of a terrace design with basement car parking, all of these characteristics are similar to the neighbouring multi-unit housing developments to the west.

The proposal has been assessed against Parramatta DCP 2005 and it has been found to be generally compliant with the exception of minor matters regarding deep soil and accessibility. These concerns are discussed in the assessment report.

The application was notified for 21 days and 3 submissions were received. The issues raised in submissions do not warrant refusal of the application.

As the development is in keeping with the current character of the area and the majority of Council’s requirements for multi-unit housing, the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority, grant development consent to Development Application No. 345/2011 for demolition, tree removal and construction of a townhouse development comprising 2 buildings containing a total of 5 units over basement carparking on land at 163 Carlingford Road, EPPING NSW 2121 subject to the conditions contained within Attachment 1.

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

David Little

Development Assessment Officer

Development Assessment Team

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	61 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Architectural Plans	9 Pages
4	Confidential Internal Floor Plans	3 Pages

Council (Development) 14 November 2011 Item 9.2

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 9.2

SUBJECT 399 Victoria Road, Rydalmere
(Lots 1-3 DP 128376) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Construction of a boarding house

REFERENCE DA/121/2011 - Submitted 10th March 2011

APPLICANT/S Revelop Projects P/L

OWNERS Revelop Projects P/L

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 14^th October 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application is referred to Council as it proposes a Boarding House and due to the number of submissions received.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for the construction of a 2 storey Boarding House containing 10 self contained accommodation suites providing accommodation for 19 persons.

The proposed development is permissible with consent under Parramatta LEP 2001 and the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009. The proposed development remains permissible under LEP 2011 where the site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

The application was submitted to Council prior to amendments being made to the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 on May 2011 that impose restrictions on where Boarding House developments can be provided. The subject application is subject to a savings clause under the SEPP that requires Council to consider compatibility with the character of the surrounding local area. This process has found that the building form when viewed from the street and surrounding properties is compatible with the existing and likely future built from, having regards to the range of residential land uses and building heights/ types in the area.

In response to the initial notification period 5 individual submissions were received. The issues raised within those submissions relate to potential overlooking, noise generation, lack of parking, devaluation of properties, social issues, management/maintenance, occupancy levels, child safety, permissibility, overshadowing, character of the area and that an on-site caretaker should be provided. In response to the submission of amended plans 126 individual submissions were received. Notwithstanding the level of community interest in this application the issues raised in the submissions are not considered to warrant refusal of the application. The issues have been discussed in detail within the Section 79C assessment report contained in Attachment 1.

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives contained within Parramatta LEP 2001. The building has a satisfactory design, bulk and scale. The proposed development is appropriately sited to minimise the impacts on adjoining properties in terms of privacy and overlooking.

At the time of lodgement, clause 29 of the SEPP indicated in part that a consent authority cannot refuse a boarding house application if not more than one parking space is provided for each 10 boarding rooms or part thereof. The provision of no off-street parking satisfied this clause.

The SEPP was amended on 20 May 2011 and if this application was lodged now, Council could not refuse the application if 0.2 carparking spaces were provided for each boarding room. Accordingly a total of two carparking spaces could be required under the current SEPP (2 spaces are required for the 10 boarding rooms proposed). It is noted that the applicant has amended the proposal to provide 2 off street parking spaces.

Following discussion with the applicant and Council’s Community Crime Prevention officer a revised plan of management was submitted on 16^th September which outlined the management of the boarding house using an off site manager. The revised plan of management was deemed satisfactory.

It is recommended that a 12 month trial period be imposed with regards to the provision of an offsite manager. At the end of the 12 month trial period the application will automatically revert back to the provision of an onsite manager whom will occupy Unit 6.

Before the conclusion of the 12 month trial period, the applicant may apply to Council to remove the requirement for the provision of an on site manager. However, if Council deems the 12 month trial period utilising an offsite manager as unsatisfactory, the applicant will be required to permanently provide an onsite manager and submit a revised plan of management.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions contained in Attachment 1.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. 121/2011 for the construction of a boarding house containing 10 suites on land at 399 Victoria Road subject to the conditions contained within Attachment 1.

(b) Further that the persons who lodged an individual submission be advised of Council’s determination of the application.

Michael Tully

Development and Certification Officer

Attachments:

1 View	S79C Report	76 Pages
2 View	Locality Plan	1 Page
3 View	Plans	4 Pages
4	Confidential Floor Plans	1 Page

Council (Development) 14 November 2011 Item 9.3

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 9.3

SUBJECT 37 Midson Road (Former Eastwood Brickpit) Eastwood.
(CP 1 DP 270605) (Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION Construction of 9 dwellings

REFERENCE DA/524/2011 - 29 July 2010

APPLICANT/S AVJBOS Eastwood Developments Proprietary Limited

OWNERS AVJBOS Eastwood Developments Proprietary Limited

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

5 September 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application is brought to Council for determination due to variations of greater than 10% to Clause 38 and Clause 40 under LEP 2001.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed construction of 9 detached two storey dwellings on allotments 25-33. The proposed lots 25 to 28 have dual frontage to Carrington Parade and Lane 7, lots 29 to 31 have a frontage to Cavan Drive, and lots 32 and 33 have a frontage to Avondale Road .

The subject site is known as The Eastwood Brickworks and covers an area of approximately 14.73 hectares. The site has a frontage to Mobbs Lane (to the north), Midson Road (to the east) and Skenes Avenue (to the south).

Stage 1, 2 and 3 of the original development application (DA/1723/2003) are complete, with existing new development comprising detached dwellings, dual occupancies, terrace housing and courtyard housing.

The proposed development is for the establishment of 9 x two storey dwellings with a detached double garage with studio above on separate allotments and are defined as ‘dwelling houses’. The development proposal is permissible under the 2A Residential zoning, which applied to the land at the time of lodgement of the application.

The application originally proposed self contained studios (granny flats) above the garages. The applicant was requested to amend the plans to remove the kitchens from the studios as the application did not comply with Clause 3(a) of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as the floor area of the dwelling and secondary dwelling exceeded the maximum floor area allowed for a dwelling under LEP 2001. The studios are not self contained.

The subject site is now zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Parramatta LEP 2011. The proposed development is permitted in the R2 zone. The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the zone.

The proposal results in variations to the allotment size and frontage (Clause38) and floor space ratio (Clause 40) development standards under LEP 2001. A SEPP 1 Objection has been submitted and can be supported as the non compliances do not result in any adverse impacts.

In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP, owners and occupiers of surrounding properties were given notice of the application for a 21 day period between the 10 August 2011 to 31 August 2011. In response, no submissions were received.

The proposed development is consistent with the Master Plan 2003 and has been assessed against the relevant sections of Section 79C of the EPA Act 1979. Accordingly the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979

APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

(a) That Council support the variation to Clause 38 and Clause 40 of the PLEP 2001 under the provisions of SEPP 1.

(b) Further, that Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. DA/524/2011 for the Stage 3 Part 3.1 construction of 9 dwellings fronting Carrington Parade on proposed lots 25-28, Cavan Drive on lots 29-31 and Avondale Way on lots 32-33 at No. 37 Midson Road (former Eastwood Brickworks) EASTWOOD for a period of five (5) years from the date on the Notice of Determination subject to the following conditions:

Michael Buckley

Consultant Town Planner

Attachments:

1 View	Section 97C Assessment Report	29 Pages
2 View	Locality Plan	1 Page
3 View	Plans	2 Pages
4	Confidential Plans	2 Pages

Council (Development) 14 November 2011 Item 9.4

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 9.4

SUBJECT 153 Pennant Parade, EPPING (Lot B DP 381653)

DESCRIPTION Section 96(2) application to modify Development Consent No. DA/231/2006 (staged dual occupancy development). The modifications include:
1. Provision of an additional bedroom to each dwelling (total 4);
2. Changes to the building footprint;
3. Changes to the external facade including the provision of additional windows; and
4. Changes to external finishes.

REFERENCE DA/231/2006/A - Lodged 7 September 2011

APPLICANT/S Beaini Projects Pty Ltd

OWNERS Mrs J S Ward-Carrington

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 13 October 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application is referred to Council as the original application was determined at Council on 11 September 2006.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA/231/2006 was approved for Staged development of the site - Stage 1 involving Torrens title subdivision into 2 lots to provide a battleaxe allotment and 1 allotment fronting Pennant Parade, demolition of the existing dwelling and tree removal. Stage 2 involves the construction of an attached 2 storey dual occupancy on the lot fronting Pennant Parade and Torrens title subdivision of the dual occupancy into 2 lots. Subdivision under stage 1 has occurred but no works have commenced in respect of stage 2.

The Section 96(2) application seeks approval for the following modifications:

1. Provision of an additional bedroom to each dwelling (total 4);

2. Changes to the building footprint;

3. Changes to the external facade including the provision of additional windows; and

4. Changes to external finishes.

LEP 2011 was gazetted by the Minister on 7 October 2011. The LEP includes a savings provisions in the form of clause 1.8A as follows:

1.8A Savings provisions relating to development applications

This provision enables the application to be determined, regardless of whether LEP 2011 is made at the time of determining the subject application.

As a result of the modifications the floor space ratio will be increased from 0.56:1 to 0.6:1. The FSR complies with Clause 40 of PLEP 2001 which was applicable to the site at the time of lodgement.

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy and no submissions were received.

The likely impacts of the proposed development have been assessed and the proposed modifications are considered acceptable.

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council as the consent authority, modify development No. 231/2006 in the following manner:

Amend condition No. 1 in the following manner:

Stage 2

1. The development is to be carried out in compliance with the following plans and documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s stamp, except where amended by other conditions of this consent:

Drawing N^o	Dated
Site plan, streetscape, subdivision plan Drawing #1 of 3 Issue A Prepared by idraft	2/07/2011
Floor plans, elevation and section Drawing #2 of 3 Issue A Prepared by idraft	2/08/2011
Site analysis, shadow diagram, sediment control and waste management plan. Drawing #3 of 3 Issue A Prepared by idraft	2/08/2011
Subdivision 2 Plan prepared by Jim Watt-Smith Architecture and Planning Job No. 06-01 Sheet A010 Issue A	28 February 2006
Landscape Plan prepared by Monaco Designs Job No. 1575 Sheet 1 of 1	23 March 2006
Hydraulic details Job No. 12942 Sheet hydraulics – 1	9 March 2006
Hydraulic details Job No. 12942 Sheet hydraulics – 2	9 March 2006

Document(s)	Dated
Statement of environmental effects	12 march 2006
Statement of environmental effects S96	26 august 2011
Colour Schedule	24 August 2011
Waste Management Plan	10 March 2006
Basix Certificate No. 392575M	23 August 2011

No construction works (including excavation) shall be undertaken prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

Note: Further information on Construction Certificates can be obtained by contacting Customer Service on 9806 5602.

Reason: To ensure the work is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

Ashleigh Matta

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79c report	11 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans	2 Pages
4 View	Development Consent DA/231/2006	28 Pages
5 View	Approved plans DA/231/2006	4 Pages
6	Approved plans DA/231/2006 (CONFIDENTIAL)	3 Pages
7	Plans (confidential)	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 14 November 2011 Item 9.5

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 9.5

SUBJECT 171 Victoria Road, Parramatta
(Lot 100 DP816829, Lot 101 DP 816629) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Upgrade of UWS Parramatta campus including demolition of existing outdoor cafe, landscape works including tree removal and upgrading of pedestrian zones, internal road, realignment and upgrading of internal drop off and bus zones, feature lighting and directional signage throughout new pedestrian areas. The proposal is a nominated Integrated Development under the Heritage Act 1977.

REFERENCE DA/224/2011 - 14 April 2011

APPLICANT/S University of Western Sydney

OWNERS Department of Sustainable Natural Resources

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 19 October 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The site (the former Rydalmere Hospital and Female Orphan School) is listed in Part 2, Schedule 6 of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 (Parramatta) as an item of heritage significance.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Crown application seeks approval for the upgrade of UWS Parramatta campus including demolition of existing outdoor cafe, landscape works including tree removal and upgrading of pedestrian zones, internal road realignment and upgrading of internal drop off and bus zones, feature lighting and directional signage throughout new pedestrian areas.

The area subject to this application is bounded by the recently constructed Building EA and EB to the south, Car Park PS/P6 to the west, a University field to the north and Building ED to the east.

The notification of the application generated no submissions.

The application has been reviewed by the Heritage Office and Council’s Heritage Adviser and both raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions of consent.

In accordance with SREP 28 and SEPP 56 a Masterplan for the site has been prepared and Council at its meeting of 28 September 2009 resolved to adopt the master plan subject to conditions. The proposed works are within the scope of the approved master plan.

The application seeks approval for permissible works that are consistent with the objectives of the zone and the approved Masterplan. For the reasons outlined in the assessment report approval of the application is recommended subject to conditions of consent.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. 224/2011 for the upgrade of UWS Parramatta campus including demolition of existing outdoor cafe, landscape works including tree removal and upgrading of pedestrian zones, internal road realignment and upgrading of internal drop off and bus zones, feature lighting and directional signage throughout new pedestrian areas subject to obtaining concurrence from the University of Western Sydney for the conditions contained within Attachment 1 as required under Section 89 of the EP & A Act 1979.

Denise Fernandez

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Development Assessment

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	32 Pages
2 View	Location Plan	1 Page
3 View	Plans	13 Pages
4 View	Heritage Inventory Sheet	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 14 November 2011 Item 9.6

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 9.6

SUBJECT 1 Nirvana Street, Pendle Hill (Lot 6 DP 16541) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Section 96(AA) application to modify a Land and Environment Court approval for the use of the premises as a brothel. The modification seeks approval to delete Condition 2 which requires the use to cease on 9 December 2011 (being two years from the commencement of the use)

REFERENCE DA/5/2008/B - 11 August 2011

APPLICANT/S U Huang

OWNERS Mr Giuseppe Murdocca

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 21 October 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The section 96(AA) modification relates to a brothel.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The site is a two-storey industrial premises located at 1 Nirvana Street, Pendle Hill. The site contains a 2 storey building that is built to the side and rear boundaries with a setback area to the street that contains 4 carparking spaces.

DA/5/2008 was refused by Council Officers on 22 February 2008. The applicant appealed the determination to the Land and Environment Court and consequently, the appeal was upheld on 8 October 2009.

The brothel as approved comprises:

· 7 work rooms with no more than 5 work rooms to be used between 6am and 6pm daily;

· Staffed by 7 sex workers with one sex worker occupying a rest room;

· Operates 24 hours/ 7 days a week;

· On-site parking for 8 vehicles;

· Requires an in-house security officer to be present on site between 8pm and 4am.

The subject modification application seeks approval to continue the use of the site as a brothel by deleting Condition No. 2 of the Court Orders which states:

Pursuant to section 80A(1)(d), the period during which development may be carried out in accordance with this consent is limited to a period of two years from the commencement of the use. Prior to the expiration of the 2 years, if the applicant wishes to continue the use, a development application to continue the use of the premises as a brothel should be lodged with Council.

Reason: To ensure the proper management of the brothel and protect the amenity of the surrounding properties.

The modification application was lodged prior to the expiration of the two year limited consent period. The applicant has not demonstrated that the business has operated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the original approval. Over the trial period, Council staff observed non compliances with the operating conditions of the site.

Council’s Enforcement Officers have issued 2 Brothel Closure Orders and a total of 18 enforcement actions for non-compliances with conditions of consent since the commencement of operations of the brothel. Further details are provided in the table attached to this report. Council’s Crime Prevention Officer, Service Manager Environmental Health and Protection and NSW Police do not support the deletion of Condition 2 and the continued operation of the brothel due to the above reasons. The NSW Police have also responded to several incidences regarding the behaviours of staff and customers on the premises.

Given this, it is clear that the premises have not been well managed during the trial period. Should the condition be deleted, it seems there is likely to be on-going breaches of the development conditions and the plan of management given the operational history of the business. Therefore, continued operation of the brothel is not seen to be in the public interest.

The modification was notified between 24 August 2011 to 7 September 2011 to adjoining properties and previous objectors to the application. In response, 7 individual submissions were received. The Federal Member for Greenway also forwarded a submission that he received from a constituent that was also provided directly to Council. The objections raised issues such as social impacts, the appropriateness of a Section 96, increase in littering and the behaviour of staff.

Accordingly, the proposed modification to remove the trial period for the brothel and for its consequent continuing use, is not in the public interest and should not be supported for the reasons outlined in the assessment report.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority, refuse to modify development consent No. 5/2008 by the removal of Condition 2 which refers to a trial period for a brothel for the following reasons:

1. The operation of the brothel has failed to comply with the Court imposed conditions of consent for DA/5/2008.

2. The continued operation of the brothel would have detrimental social impact on surrounding properties.

3. The modification for the continued operation of the brothel is not in the public interest.

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

Denise Fernandez

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Development Assessment Team

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	14 Pages
2 View	Location Plan	1 Page
3 View	Court Judgement and Orders	39 Pages
4 View	Table of Non-Compliances	5 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 14 November 2011 Item 9.7

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 9.7

SUBJECT 40-46 Alice Street, Harris Park
(Lot 212 DP 1117339) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Section 96 (1A) to a 3 storey community facility containing 4 retail shops and Parish centre over a basement carpark. Consent is sought for the deletion of condition 32A and the refund of the section 94A contributions.

REFERENCE DA/884/2008/D - Submitted 26 May 2011

APPLICANT/S Trustees Of Roman Catholic Church

OWNERS Trustees Of Roman Catholic Church

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 28 June 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application has been referred to Council as the proposed waiving of development contributions has policy implications.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval to modify an approved 3 storey community facility containing 4 retail shops and Parish centre over a basement carpark by deleting Condition 32A requiring the payment of section 94A contributions and refunding the $47,452 section 94A contribution that has already be paid.

The applicant has submitted that the approved community centre will provide benefit to the wider community, and therefore should not be required to pay development contributions.

The issue of potentially waiving the development contributions was previously considered as an independent matter at Council’s meeting held on 22 November 2010, where the following was resolved:

(a) That Council request the applicant to lodge a section 96 application and such application be considered on its merits in accordance with council policies.

(b) Further, that any report on a section 96 request to waive the S94 contribution consider a 12 month trial period on the use of the community rooms by the wider community together with an appropriate booking system. Such report to consider refunding the S94 contribution paid upon successful implementation of the 12 month trial.

The Section 96 application was lodged on 26 May 2011 and has been reviewed by Council’s Legal Counsel, Land Use Project Officer and Community Capacity Building Team/ Recreation Facilities and Programs section.

Council’s Community Capacity Building Team advised that a 12 month trial period could be supported subject to the imposition of special conditions (including the implementation of a booking system and demonstration that the booking system is of community benefit).

Notwithstanding that the 12 month trial period could be imposed to consider the waiving of development contributions, the primary consideration is whether the development contributions should be waived in this circumstance. Legal opinion has been provided which advises that the modification application cannot be legitimately used to remove a consent condition requiring the payment of a development contribution where the consent has already been activated.

In addition, Council’s Land Use Project Officer has reviewed the request to waive the development contributions and does not support the waiving of the contributions, or the provision of a refund for the following reasons:

· The contribution has already been paid and therefore accepted by the applicant

· Council’s s94A Development Contributions Plan does not provide exemptions to the development type approved by DA/884/2008

· The exemption/refund may set an undesirable precedent for future development applications.

The application was notified to surrounding property owners and occupiers and no submissions were received in respect of this application.

After consideration of the development against the relevant statutory and policy provisions, the proposal is not considered to be in the public interest. Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council as the consent authority, REFUSE the request to delete Condition No. 32A of Development Consent No. 884/2008 for the following reasons:

1. The modification application cannot be legitimately used to remove a consent condition requiring the payment of a development contribution where the consent has already been activated.

2. The proposed modification to Condition 32A is contrary to the requirements of Council's Section 94A contributions plan as the development does not fall under a category of development that is exempt from the Section 94A levy.

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

4. The proposed modification would undermine the integrity of Council's Section 94A contributions plan.

5. The proposed modification is not in the public interest.

Kate Lafferty

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 96 Assessment Report	14 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Applicant's Submission	4 Pages
4 View	Previous Council report (considered at meeting held 8 Nov 2010)	3 Pages
5 View	Previous S79C & S96 Assessment Reports	65 Pages
6 View	Current stamped plans (DA/884/2008/C)	9 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 14 November 2011 Item 10.1

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 10.1

SUBJECT Variations to Standards under SEPP 1

REFERENCE F2009/00431 - D02138472

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

PURPOSE:

To provide Council with information each month on development applications determined where there has been a variation in standards under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 or similar provisions under the standard instrument.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received and noted.

REPORT

In accordance with the reporting requirements prescribed in Planning Circular

PS08-014 issued by the NSW Department of Planning, there was one (1) development application determined where there has been a variation in standards under SEPP 1 or similar provisions under the Standard Instrument, during the period October 2011.

Louise Kerr

Manager Development Services

Attachments:

1 View

Development Application Variations under SEPP 1 - October 2011

1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 14 November 2011 Item 10.2

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 10.2

SUBJECT Report on options for future economic development of Parramatta and Western Sydney.

REFERENCE F2011/02463 - D02143298

REPORT OF Business and Development Manager. Economic Development

PURPOSE:

To provide Council with a copy of a report prepared by Ernst & Young outlining the argument for greater government focus and investment in the development of Parramatta and Western Sydney.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council endorse the Ernst & Young report to be used as a basis for advocacy meetings with Infrastructure NSW, Infrastructure Australia and other government departments.

BACKGROUND

1. Business leaders who addressed Parramatta’s Economic Development Forum 8 March 2011 emphasised the link between infrastructure and economic development. Several commented that business investment was being held back by a lack of certainty in infrastructure planning and provision for Western Sydney at the state and federal levels.

2. On the back of this advice, Council established contact with senior managers at both Infrastructure NSW and Infrastructure Australia. A number of issues have been raised by Council including those constraining the continued economic development of Parramatta and the Western Sydney region.

3. Council has now been invited to formally present Parramatta’s and Western Sydney’s case to Infrastructure NSW and Infrastructure Australia.

4. Council engaged Ernst & Young to structure the argument and produce a report calling for greater resources and infrastructure for the region drawing on a range of literature and Ernst & Young’s own contacts within government and exposure to the issues.

5. Ernst & Young approached this by reviewing:

· The policy problems that face Sydney, market and policy failures and the true economic costs of these.

· Possible approaches to tackling Sydney’s “Growth Dilemma” and the policy options available to governments.

· Opportunities for a “circuit breaker”.

· A way forward for policy makers to address problems in a collaborative, methodical and deliberate way.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUESNCE

6. The report makes two recommendations under Section 6 “Next Steps: Unlocking Sydney’s Growth Potential”:

· Establish a taskforce to advise governments on the development needs of Parramatta and Western Sydney

· Use the taskforce to identify ways in which Western Sydney can alleviate Sydney’s capacity constraints and address Sydney’s declining productivity.

7. It is envisioned that local, state and federal governments would be represented on the taskforce, together with industry, and that it would be chaired by the State Government. It is further envisioned that Parramatta Council would have a seat on the taskforce.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

8. There are no financial implications in endorsing the report.

Solaire Eggert

Manager Economic Development

Attachments:

1 View

Solving Sydney's Growth Dilemma, report by Ernst & Young

33 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL