Agenda of Council (Development)

Council (Development) 5 December 2011 Item 6.1

PUBLIC FORUM

ITEM NUMBER 6.1

SUBJECT River Road, Heritage, Height and RL14

REFERENCE RZ/6/2010 - D02170065

REPORT OF N/A

FROM PETER KAMPFNER

Dear Councillors,

This issue is not about preserving heritage items. We all want to see heritage items preserved. It is about whether the River Road project can be developed without impacting on heritage items. That raises three questions: Heritage, Height and Public Benefit.

Heritage:

1; Preservation of the “Valley Feel”. “How Green is my Valley” is long gone.

Once cows grazed here and people fished by the jetty. The valley is now predominantly built up urban area of houses, factories and flats. In addition the Morton St project has now seen the advent of high rise development in the valley directly opposite River Road.

2; Preservation of “Lines of Sight”. What happens if nothing can be seen?

a): Elizabeth Farm is surrounded by a “curtilage” (curtain) of high trees. The same trees that preserve the ambience inside Elizabeth Farm also prevent ANY view of Elizabeth Farm from outside. Lines of sight are not a major issue as we can incorporate view corridors in the design where applicable.

b): There is a very real concern that tall buildings will visually intrude on Elizabeth Farm. As River Road is at a lower RL and 3/4 of a kilometre away it will not be visible from inside Elizabeth Farm. A montage and cross section clearly shows that is the case.

3; Preservation of a “Buffer Zone”. What exactly is being protected?

Elizabeth Farm was the first farm grant in NSW. Heritage has therefore designated this area as an Area of National Significance. The original grant went from the current cottage towards Granville. It never went to the river. Elizabeth Farm is now only 5,300 m². The buffer zone is 955,000 m². We are suggesting this to be reduced by 18,000 m².

Why is Height critical?

1; as previously discussed the project needs a strong insitu population to ensure the success of the retail component as a 7 day trader.

2; For items outlined in the economical report, namely the cost of land dedication, contributing to the bridge, building the foreshore park, paying for traffic lights, and building an underground riverside car park requiring “tanking” construction, it is not economically feasible in low rise.

Net Public Benefit:

1; Opening up the riverfront link between the CBD and the University of Western Sydney.

2; developing an exciting and vibrant riverfront environment.

3; improving the quality of life for the people of Parramatta.

Summation:

In the end this project will not impact on any heritage items. We don’t overshadow Elizabeth Farm, the project cannot be seen from it, and we will put in place view corridors where applicable.

Surely heritage is for the people. It needs to be seen, understood and appreciated. We all want to save heritage items, but do you want to save ridge lines, sights you can’t see, valleys long gone and land grants fully built on. River Quay will open up the Riverlink for the people of Parramatta and be appreciated by countless thousands now and in the future.

No response required

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Council (Development) 5 December 2011 Item 8.1

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 8.1

SUBJECT 41-43 Cross Street , Guildford
( Lot 102 DP 592648 and Lot 101 DP 5926480)
Woodville Ward

DESCRIPTION Consolidation of lots , demolition, tree removal and construction of a three storey residential flat building containing 14 units over basement carparking under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009.

REFERENCE DA/444/2011 -

APPLICANT/S Mr. K Lin

OWNERS Mr. K Lin

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 9 November 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The proposal is for a residential flat building consisting of 14 units under Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed development is for the consolidation of two lots, tree removal, demolition of the existing dwellings and other ancillary structures, and construction of a three storey residential flat building consisting of 14 units over basement car parking for 14 vehicles under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, as known as ARHSEPP.

The proposed residential flat building is on a site zoned 2(c) under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 which was the relevant instrument, when the application was lodged in June 2011. The subject site and its immediate surrounding sites are zoned R4 High Density Residential under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011(gazetted 7 October 2011). The construction of a residential flat building is permissible under both instruments.

Three submissions and a petition with 7 household signatures have been received and considered in the Section 79 C Report attached. The issues raised in the submissions and petition have been considered and where possible addressed via conditions of consent.

The proposed development complies with the requirements of both Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 and 2011 and Parramatta Development Control Plans 2005 and 2011. The proposal also complies with ARHSEPP requirements.

After consideration of the development against the relevant statutory and policy provisions, the proposal is considered to be suitable for the site and is in the public interest. Therefore, it is recommended that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Council as the consent authority approve

Development Application No. DA/444/2011 for the consolidation, demolition, tree removal and construction of a three storey residential flat building containing 14 units over basement carparking under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP 2009 at 41 to 43 Cross Street Guildford for a period of five (5) years from the date on the Notice of Determination subject to the conditions of consent attached to the Section 79 C Report attached.

(b) That persons who made a submission be advised of Council’s decision.

Sasi Kumar

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79 C Report	79 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Architectural plans	13 Pages
4	Confidential Architectural floor plans	3 Pages

Council (Development) 5 December 2011 Item 8.2

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 8.2

SUBJECT 368 Victoria Road (cnr Myrtle Street), Rydalmere (Lot 1 DP 85031) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Demolition and Construction of 6 multi unit dwellings under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.

REFERENCE DA/223/2011 - Lodged 14 April 2011

APPLICANT/S Ridge Designs

OWNERS Mrs D T Wing

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

7 November 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

A previous report on this application was considered at the Council meeting as the application proposes multi unit housing under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for the demolition and construction of 6 multi-unit dwellings within a 2 storey building over basement car parking for 6 vehicles under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.

The report prepared for the 8 August 2011 Council meeting recommended refusal of the application for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development does not meet the objectives of the 2B Residential Zone of Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2001 as the development will not enhance the amenity and characteristics of the area.

2. The proposed development does not comply with Section 3.1 entitled ‘Preliminary Building Envelope’ of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005, including ‘Minimum Frontage’, ‘Street Setback’ and ‘Side Setback’.

3. The proposed development does not comply with Section 4.1.10 entitled ‘Landscaping’ of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 as Communal Landscaped Open Space is not provided on the site.

4. The proposed development does not comply with Section 4.2.1 entitled ‘Streetscape’ of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 as the building exceeds the maximum length of a building.

5. The proposed development does not comply with Section 4.3.1 entitled ‘Private and Communal Open Space’ of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005, as each dwelling does not have 40m² of private open space. .

6. The proposed development is inconsistent with Section 4.2.3 entitled ‘Building Form and Massing’ of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 in that the development will result in a building that is excessive in bulk and scale and does not relate to the form, proportions and massing of the existing building patterns in the street.

7. The proposed development does not satisfy the provisions of Clause 16A – Character of Local Area of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) SEPP (amended).

8. The gradient of the driveway from the property boundary does not comply with AS 2890.1-2004.

9. The proposal is not in the public interest

Council at its meeting 8 August 2011 resolved the following:

That Council defer the application and request that the applicant and Council staff seek to positively address the merits of the application given that Council is of the view that the application is not out of character with the streetscape of Victoria Road.

Subsequent to the resolution the applicant has met with Council staff and on 6 October 2011 amended plans were submitted to Council. The following amendments were made:

· The separation of the originally proposed single building into two separate buildings with a 3m separation.

· Decreased the side setback to the northern boundary from 4.582m to 3.750m.

· Provided wheelchair access in the form of a chair lift to the stairs located on the western elevation from the basement to ground floor.

· Minor amendments to the front façade and roof form.

· Provided communal open space.

The amended plans address the previous reasons for refusal as follows:

The proposed development does not meet the objectives of the 2B Residential Zone of Parramatta Local Environment Plan 2001 as the development will not enhance the amenity and characteristics of the area.

The amended plans meet the objectives of the 2B Residential Zone as the amended plans providing a 3m building separation reduces building bulk and results in a building consistent with the character of the surrounding built environment.

The proposed development does not comply with Section 3.1 entitled ‘Preliminary Building Envelope’ of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005, including ‘Minimum Frontage’, ‘Street Setback’ and ‘Side Setback’.

Section 3.1 entitled ‘Preliminary Building Envelope’ of PDCP 2005 requires a minimum 24m frontage for each street frontage, requires a front setback of between 5-7m and 3-5m on secondary streets and requires a minimum side setback of 4.5m where the dwellings primarily address side boundaries

The amended plans do not comply with Section 3.1 of PDCP 2005 as front setbacks, the side setback to the western side boundary and the frontage has not been modified.

Whilst the amended plans still maintain non compliance with the minimum frontage control and the front setback control, the proposed development can be supported as the amended plans provide a 3m building separation improves the streetscape along Myrtle Street and has reduced building bulk of the proposed development. The proposed front setback is considered satisfactory.

The proposed development addresses the western boundary and therefore a side setback of 4.5m is required. The proposed development has a side setback of 3.909m to the western boundary and does not comply with the side setback control.

The underlying purpose of the side setback control is to ensure privacy of adjoining properties is not compromised.

As the proposal has a side setback of only 3.909m to the western boundary, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to a deferred commencement condition requiring an increase in the side setback to 4.5m.

The proposed development does not comply with Section 4.1.10 entitled ‘Landscaping’ of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 as Communal Landscaped Open Space is not provided on the site.

Section 4.1.10 entitled ‘Landscaping’ of PDCP 2005 requires a minimum 27.8m² of communal landscaped open space (10% of deep soil zone). Amended plans have been submitted which provide 27.8m² of communal landscaped open space.

The proposed development complies with Section 4.1.10 of PDCP 2005.

The proposed development does not comply with Section 4.2.1 entitled ‘Streetscape’ of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 as the building exceeds the maximum length of a building.

Section 4.2.1 entitled ‘Streetscape’ of PDCP 2005 states that the maximum length of a building along the street is 20m and the minimum building separation along the street is 3m.

The amended plans include a separation of the originally proposed single building into two separate buildings with a 3m separation.

The proposed development complies with Section 4.2.1 of PDCP 2005.

The proposed development does not comply with Section 4.3.1 entitled ‘Private and Communal Open Space’ of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005, as each dwelling does not have 40m² of private open space. .

Section 4.3.1 entitled ‘Private and Communal Open Space’ of PDCP 2005 requires a minimum 40m2 of private open space to be provided for each dwelling.

The dwellings have private open space between 23.73m² and 34.43m².

As previously discussed, the proposal has a side setback of only 3.909m to the western boundary which results in a non compliance with Section 3.1 of PDCP 2005.

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to a deferred commencement condition requiring an increase in the side setback to 4.5m. The deferred commencement condition will result in a compliance with Section 3.1 of PDCP 2005 and will also improve amenity of for occupants with additional private open space being provided for each dwelling.

The non compliance to the private open space can be supported as the deferred commencement condition to increase the side setback will slightly increase private open space for each dwelling and the amended plans provide communal landscaped open space.

The proposed development is inconsistent with Section 4.2.3 entitled ‘Building Form and Massing’ of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 in that the development will result in a building that is excessive in bulk and scale and does not relate to the form, proportions and massing of the existing building patterns in the street.

The amended plans include a separation of the originally proposed single building into two separate buildings with a 3m separation. Each building has a maximum length of 17.567m.

The amended plans reduce the building bulk and results in a development consistent with the building patterns in the street.

The proposed development does not satisfy the provisions of Clause 16A – Character of Local Area of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) SEPP (amended).

The amended plans include a separation of the originally proposed single building into two separate buildings with a 3m separation. Each building has a maximum length of 17.567m.

The amended plans reduce the building bulk and results in a development consistent with the character of the surrounding built environment.

The gradient of the driveway from the property boundary does not comply with AS 2890.1-2004.

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the amended plans and raises no issues subject to conditions.

The proposal is not in the public interest

The proposed development, subject to the deferred commencement conditions, is in the public interest.

Referral - Development Engineer

The amended plans were referred to the Development Engineer for comment. The Engineer provided the following advice:

“The subject site falls to the street. Therefore, stormwater drainage from the subject site can be connected to the street.

Stormwater plans have not been amended to reflect the amendments to the architectural plans.

There won’t be negative effects on the stormwater plans due to the changes to the architectural plans. However, stormwater drainage plans shall be amended to show the changes to the architectural plans, prior to the issue of the CC. I have spoken to the stormwater engineer and he’ll be amending the stormwater plans shortly to show the changes to the architectural plans and to include the rainwater tanks as required in BASIX certificate.

Above ground OSD has been proposed at the front of the proposed Unit1. There are no changes to the proposed floor levels. Hence the proposed top of the water level will be remained unchanged on the amended plans as well.

Overland flow entering the site shall be diverted to the street without connecting to the proposed OSD basin.

The applicant shall submit the stormwater plans to the Road and Traffic Authority for the approval for the proposed connection to the kerb and gutter at Victoria Road .”

The applicant has not submitted an amended storm water plan as requested. The following deferred commencement condition was recommended by the Development Engineer:

Submission of amended stormwater concept plans to reflect the amendments to the architectural plans.

This shall comprise of the proposed OSD system.

The proposed On-Site Detention (OSD) System has been designed by a suitably qualified Hydraulic Engineer, in accordance with the Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust “On-Site Detention Handbook” and Council’s Drainage Code E4 and stormwater Drainage Guidelines.

The following requirements shall be addressed in the concept stormwater plan.

· The design achieves a Site Storage Requirement of 190 m3/ha and a Permissible Site Discharge of 280 L/s/ha (as per 3^rd edition of UPRCT’s handbook)

· Overland flow entering the site shall be diverted to the street. Method of diversion shall be drawn on the stormwater detail design plan.

· Remedial measures shall be included in the design, to stop the stormwater flowing into the proposed basement car park from the street gutter.

Reason: To minimise the quantity of storm water run-off from the site, surcharge from the existing drainage system and to manage downstream flooding.

Referral – Landscape Officer

The amended plans were not referred back to Council’s Landscape Officer for review as no changes were made to the landscape plan. However, the following issue remains outstanding:

“One (1) Thuja plicata (Western Red Cedar) tree located on the adjacent property at 6 Myrtle Street, Rydalmere located to the northern boundary of the site will be affected by the proposed driveway and basement area. There is no objection from Council’s Landscape Officer to the removal of this tree, but negotiations will be required with the tree owners. An application for tree removal will be required to be submitted to Council by the owners of the tree prior to it’s removal.”

The application is recommended for approval subject to a Deferred Commencement condition requiring evidence Council has granted approval to the removal of this tree.

The amended plans were notified in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy and one submission was received from an original objector. The issues in the submission are similar to those raised in the original letter. It is noted that the original application generated responses from 3 objectors. The issues raised in the objections relate primarily to parking, traffic, social issues and property devaluation. The issues are addressed in the previous Section 79C Assessment Report prepared for the application (Attachment 1).

After consideration of the development against Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the relevant statutory and policy provisions, the proposal is suitable for the site and is in the public interest subject to satisfying the deferred commencement conditions. Therefore, it is recommended that the application be approved on a deferred commencement basis subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions (Attachment 1).

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority grant deferred development consent to Development Application No. 223/2011 for the demolition and construction of 6 multi-unit dwellings within a 2 storey building over basement car parking for 6 vehicles under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP subject to the conditions contained within Attachment 1.

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

Attachments:

1 View	Conditions	27 Pages
2 View	Compliance Table (amended plans)	6 Pages
3 View	Section 79C Report	48 Pages
4 View	Locality Map	1 Page
5 View	Plans	4 Pages
6	Plans (Confidential)	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 5 December 2011 Item 8.3

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 8.3

SUBJECT 22 Cowells Lane, Ermington
(Lot 1 DP 770022)(Lachlan Macquarie Ward)

DESCRIPTION Demolition, tree removal and construction of a 2 storey residential flat building containing 10 dwellings with basement carparking under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

REFERENCE DA/242/2011 - Submitted 21 April 2011

APPLICANT/S Revelop Projects Pty Ltd

OWNERS Chanda Developments Pty Limted

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 15 November 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

This application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal is for infill housing under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval for demolition, tree removal and construction of a 2 storey residential flat building containing 10 dwellings with basement carparking.

The proposal has been submitted to Council as infill housing under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. At the time of lodgement the provisions of the 2009 SEPP permitted residential flat buildings in a site irrespective of the zoning. However, amendments made to the SEPP on 20 May 2011 [State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) Amendment 2011] would now prohibit the proposed infill development in the low density zone. Clause 54A (2) - Savings and Transitional provisions enables consent authorities to retrospectively apply the prohibition clause.

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 the development to be compatible for a number of reasons, including building form, height, landscaping, rear setbacks, external appearance and impact upon neighbouring properties.

In response to the initial notification of the application 32 submissions (including 1 submission containing 8 signatories from 1 household) were received. Following the receipt of amended plans, a further notification resulted in 10 submissions (including 1 submission containing 8 signatories from 1 household) being received. In total, 34 households objected to the proposed development. The main issues raised in the submissions included the development being out of character with the local area, parking and traffic impacts, noise impacts, overlooking, property values, social and drainage impacts. The public submissions are considered within the Section 79C assessment report contained in Attachment 1.

The application is recommended for approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. The proposal is considered to be acceptable as it complies with the provisions of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and is generally consistent with the aims and objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Development Application No. DA/242/2011 for the demolition, tree removal and construction of a 2 storey residential flat building containing 10 dwellings with basement carparking under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 on land at 22 Cowells Lane, Ermington be approved subject to conditions of consent as outlined in Attachment 1.

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

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Assessment Report	85 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans and Elevations	7 Pages
4	Confidential Plans & Elevations	5 Pages

Council (Development) 5 December 2011 Item 8.4

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 8.4

SUBJECT 26 Mayfield Street, Wentworthville
(Lot 1 DP502944) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Retention of a dwelling that was to be demolished via Development Consent No. 82/2003 and use as a secondary dwelling including part demolition and alterations to the structure.

REFERENCE DA/457/2011 - 6 July 2011

APPLICANT/S Mr S Romanous

OWNERS Mr and Mrs Romanous

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT 15^th November 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application is being referred to Council for determination as more than 7 submissions have been received in response to the neighbour notification of the proposal.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval to retain an existing dwelling that is located on the site that was to be removed following the construction of the new dwelling approved under DA/82/2003. Part demolition and alterations are proposed to the existing structure and it is proposed to use the building as a ‘secondary dwelling’ under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP).

The secondary dwelling will comprise a bedroom, kitchen, living room, laundry and bathroom. A courtyard area has been proposed along the south-western corner of the dwelling and a deck has been proposed along the western side of the living room within the secondary dwelling. The secondary dwelling will have total floor area of 60m² following the proposed demolition and alteration works.

The modifications include demolition of part of the existing living room and reconfiguration of the internal living spaces so that the floor area does not exceed 60m². Demolition of an existing deck attached to the rear of the building is also proposed.

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy for a fourteen day period between 15 July and 29 July 2011. The notified plans indicated a structure having a floor area of 73m² with attached deck to the rear of the structure. In response 9 submissions were received, 5 of which were from anonymous authors, and 2 of which were from the same address. Concerns raised broadly include:-

1) the owner had no intentions of removing the granny flat at the time the DA was approved for the principal dwelling on the site;

2) the proposal is for a detached dual occupancy and is therefore not permissible;

3) there are too many cars parked illegally on the site;

4) the SEPP 1 objection to the floor area should not be supported;

5) the secondary dwelling will be increased in size once approved,

6) privacy and flooding concerns; and

7) compliance with the BCA.

Amended plans were submitted to Council on 14 October 2011 which deleted a rear deck and reduced the floor area of the secondary dwelling to 60m²by demolishing part of the living room and converting the area to a deck.

The proposed development is consistent with the controls and objectives of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP) and the Parramatta DCP 2005. The secondary dwelling has a satisfactory design, bulk and scale. There is sufficient landscaping and deep soil provided and the proposal is appropriately sited without unduly impacting the streetscape or amenity of adjoining properties.

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

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority grant development consent to Development Application No. DA/457/2011 for the retention of a dwelling that was to be demolished via Development Consent No. 82/2003 and use as a secondary dwelling including part demolition and alterations to the structure at 26 Mayfield Street, Wentworthville 2145 for a period of five (5) years from the date on the Notice of Determination subject to the conditions in Attachment 1.

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

Maya Sarwary

Senior Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	30 Pages
2 View	Location Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans	1 Page
4	Confidential Plans	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 5 December 2011 Item 8.5

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 8.5

SUBJECT 18 Elder Road Dundas (LOT 1 DP51698) (Elizabeth Macarthur Ward)

DESCRIPTION Section 96(1A) modifications to alterations, tree removal and the construction of a 2 storey dwelling to create an attached dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision. The modification includes extension of time to complete the deferred commencement conditions in Schedule 1.

REFERENCE DA/454/2010/A - Lodged 26 October 2011

APPLICANT/S Hillbridge Designers & Engineers

OWNERS Mr T L Gan

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

16 November 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application is referred to Council as a petition with eight signatures has been received.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DA/454/2010 was approved subject to a deferred commencement for alterations to the existing dwelling, demolition of outbuildings, tree removal and the construction of a 2 storey dwelling to create an attached dual occupancy development with Torrens title subdivision.

The Section 96(1A) application seeks an extension of time to satisfy the deferred commencement conditions in Schedule 1. Schedule 1 nominated a 12 month period in order to satisfy the conditions. As the lapse date is 10 December 2011, the applicant is requesting to extend this time for compliance until 10 June 2012.

Schedule 1 conditions are as follows:

a) Submission to Council of suitable documentary evidence that indicates the creation of an easement to drain water 1.0m metres wide over the downstream property (Lot 5 DP 21397) in benefit if Lot 1 DP 516981; has been registered with the NSW Department of Lands. In this regard, a title certificate of Lot 1 DP 516981 shall be submitted as a proof of the written permission for the site to drain by gravity to Council’s stormwater system.

It is noted that the deposit plan DP21397 of Lot 5 (No. 33 Calder Road), does not show that a drainage easement was created; it was a proposed to be created.

b) Provide engineering plan with details showing surface and invert levels, the location and layout of the connection of the stormwater pipe across the footpath reserve on Calder Street to Council’s satisfaction and requirements.

As the lapse date is 10 December 2011, the applicant is seeking additional time to satsify the deferred commencement conditions.

The applicant has provided evidence that they have been actively engaging in dialogue and correspondence with Council’s Development Assessment Officers, Property Services Officer and Engineers, in an attempt to meet the requirements and to satisfy the conditions contained in Schedule 1.

The application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy, one petition with eight signatures was received. The objections relate primarily to issues relating to the easement, trees and stormwater. The issues are addressed in the Section 79C Assessment Report (Attachment 1).

The additional 6 months to satisfy schedule 1 is satisfactory considering the detail required to create an easement and the applicant has demonstrated in their submission they are working to satisfy the conditions.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to updating Schedule 1 to reflect a lapsing date of 10 June 2012.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority, modify Deferred Commencement Consent No. DA/454/2010 in the following manner:

Modify Schedule 1 in the following way:

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

It is noted that the deposit plan DP21397 of Lot 5 (No. 33 Calder Road), does not show that a drainage easement was created; it was a proposed to be created.

Evidence of the above matters must be produced to Council by 10 June 2012 otherwise consent will not operate.

(b) That the head petitioner be advised of Council’s decision.

Ashleigh Matta

Development Assessment Officer

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C Report	8 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Deferred Commencement Consent DA/454/2010	25 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 5 December 2011 Item 8.6

MAJOR APPLICATION

ITEM NUMBER 8.6

SUBJECT Prince Alfred Park, David Frater Reserve, Rotary Park, Church Street and Market Street, Parramatta
(Lot 1 DP 724837, Lot DP 788637, Lot 1, DP 1884477, Lot 3, DP 1132683) (Arthur Phillip Ward)

DESCRIPTION Use of Prince Alfred Park, the Old Kings School, Parramatta River Foreshore (David Frater Reserve) between Church Street and Smith Street, Church Street between Victoria Road and Phillip Street and Market Street for Sydney Festival events between 13 and 22 January 2012

REFERENCE DA/703/2011 - Submitted 11 October 2011

APPLICANT/S Sydney Festival

OWNERS Parramatta Council

REPORT OF Manager Development Services

DATE OF REPORT

18 November 2011

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COUNCIL

The application relates to land in which Council owns and an independent planning consultant has assessed the application.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It is proposed to use Prince Alfred Park, the Old Kings School, Parramatta River Foreshore (David Frater Reserve) between Church Street and Smith Street, Church Street between Victoria Road and Phillip Street and Market Street for Sydney Festival events between 13 and 22 January 2012. Indoor events will also occur within the Parramatta Riverside Theatre, however given the current operation of this property, consent is not required for such a use. Roving performers will be provided throughout Parramatta during the 10 days of the event, a pop up cimena will screen short films throughout Parramatta and an indoor art project will be setup. Various art installations and projects will be provided throughout Parramatta and on buildings and ping pong tables are proposed for use by visitors.

Church Street between Market Street and Victoria Road is to be closed at 10am on Friday 13 January and reopened at 6pm on Sunday 15 January 2012. Market Street and Church Street from Market Street to Phillip Street is to be closed from 3pm on Friday 13 January and reopened at 8am on Sunday 15 January 2012.

The Parramatta Opening Party (POP) is to occur on 14 January 2012 and involves a series of sites and events. An attendance of between 15,000 and 20,000 persons is anticipated.

Prince Alfred Park is to be used between 13 and 22 January 2012 as a Festival Garden, with free general access to over 18 year olds, other than during POP on 14 January. The Gardens will be licensed and will operate between 5pm and 1am and will provide music from 5.30pm, house shows and then late night music. The Festival Garden will be the location for the Idolize Speigeltent which will house performances for up to 350 persons (ticketed entry). A maximum capacity of 1200 persons is anticipated for the Gardens, including those occupying the Speigeltent.

No major infrastructure is proposed along the riverbanks, with the riverbanks being used for roving theatre and smaller portable items, together with art installations.

Use of the open space within the Old Kings School site is proposed between 13 and 22 January 2012, with setup commencing on 9 January 2012 and removal of equipment/structures by 25 January 2012. The site will be used in a similar manner to Prince Alfred Park and 1 bar and 3 catering structures will be erected near Marsden Street. This site will also be used for the opening and closing celebrations.

No submissions to the application had been received.

The site is part zoned RE 1 Public Recreation (David Frater Park and Prince Alfred Park), part zoned B4 Mixed Use (Old Kings School site) and part unzoned (Church and Market Street road reserves) under Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 (LEP 2007). The use of Frater Park and Prince Alfred Park as a recreation area (ie a public park) is a permissible use. It is considered that the use of the parks for public events and celebrations would be ancillary to that use given the public nature of the event, and therefore it is a permissible use in the RE1 zone. Within the B4 Mixed Use zone (ie the Old Kings School Site), prohibited uses are prescribed, with all other uses being permissible. The event does not fall within the definition of any of the prescribed prohibited uses and as such is a permissible use with consent. Within the unzoned land (ie Church and Market Street road reserves), pursuant to clause 13 of Council’s Local Environmental Plan 2007, consent is required for any development and as such the use is permissible with consent. Clause 13 sets other controls related to assessing development on unzoned land this is addressed within the Section 79C report attached.

The proposal is consistent with the objectives and controls of State Environmental Planning Policy (Temporary Structures and Places of Public Entertainment) 2007, Parramatta City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2007 and Parramatta City Centre Development Control Plan.

Conditions of consent have been recommended to ensure damage to landscaping is remediated, to provide for accessible toilets, to ensure removal of the structures at the end of the event, to provide a mechanism to address noise complaints by residents and to limit the hours of use of the Festival Gardens to ensure residents have some relief from noise.

The Old Kings School site is listed as a State Heritage Item, as a result all development proposed on an allotment of land listed on the State Heritage Register is required to conform to the provisions the NSW Heritage Act. The consent authority, under the NSW Heritage Act, is the NSW Heritage Council, represented in matters of daily business by the Heritage Branch of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).

Given the nature of the work proposed an exemption from seeking a permit is required to be obtained before Parramatta City Council is able to approve this Development Application.

The applicant is in the process of seeking this permit under Section 57(2) of the Heritage Act. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council grant delegation to the Chief Executive Officer to determine this application for approval on the applicant demonstrating an exemption under Section 57(2) of the Heritage Act has been granted by the NSW Heritage Council.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Council as the consent authority grant delegation to the Chief Executive Officer to determine the application for approval subject to the attached conditions upon the applicant demonstrating the NSW Heritage Office has granted consent to the proposed works associated with the Old Kings School or an appropriate exemption has been granted under Section 57(2) of the Heritage Act.

(b) Should the NSW Heritage Office require additional conditions to be imposed, that delegation is granted to impose the required conditions.

(c) The development consent when issued will be for Development Application No. DA/703/2011 relating to the community event known as the ‘Sydney Festival” to be held between 13 and 22 January 2012 at Prince Alfred Park, the Old Kings School, Parramatta River Foreshore (David Frater Reserve) between Church Street and Smith Street, Church Street between Victoria Road and Phillip Street and Market Street, Parramatta subject to the recommended conditions.

Kerry Gordon

Consultant Town Planner

Kerry Gordon Planning Services Pty Ltd

Attachments:

1 View	Section 79C report	33 Pages
2 View	Locality Map	1 Page
3 View	Plans	8 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 5 December 2011 Item 9.1

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.1

SUBJECT 2-12 River Road West, Parramatta

REFERENCE RZ/6/2010 - D02166334

REPORT OF Project Officer, Land Use Planning

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to provide an update to Council regarding the Planning Proposal for 2-12 River Road West, Parramatta (for the rezoning of land from IN1 General Industrial to B4 Mixed Use), and to seek Council’s policy guidance regarding the preferred direction for the continuation of assessment of this application.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse one of the following options to guide the future direction for the assessment of the Planning Proposal at 2-12 River Road West, Parramatta.

Option 1

That Council endorse the continued assessment of the Planning Proposal to rezone the land to enable mixed use development with a maximum height of RL 17 in accordance with the recommendation of the Heritage Study prepared by Godden Mackay Logan dated November 2011.

Option 2

That Council endorse the continued assessment of the Planning Proposal to rezone the land to enable mixed use development with a maximum height exceeding RL 17 and that further information be provided by the proponents detailing the likely future building heights and envelopes for the site.

BACKGROUND

1. Nos. 2-12 River Road West, Parramatta are located within a small light industrial precinct generally bound by Parramatta River, James Ruse Drive and Tramway Avenue. At its meeting of 13 December 2010 Council considered a planning proposal to rezone the land from IN1 General Industrial to B4 Mixed Use, enabling a mix of retail, commercial and residential development with a height of 8-14 storeys (RL 34 to RL52) and resolved (in part):

(a) That the planning proposal for the rezoning of land at 2-12 River Road West, Parramatta for mixed use purposes and public reserve be supported in principle to facilitate an initial gateway assessment by the Department of Planning.

2. In February 2011, the Department of Planning (now Department of Planning & Infrastructure) issued a Gateway Determination which supported the rezoning of land from industrial to mixed use, but which required additional information in relation to heritage, flooding, acid sulfate soil and land contamination, building heights, floor space ratio and foreshore building lines to enable determination of suitable height and densities across the site.

HERITAGE

3. The site lies within the ‘Area of National Significance’ adopted by the former Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 28 – Parramatta, now forming part of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011. Furthermore, identified ‘historic view corridors’ to and from Elizabeth Farm and other historically significant locations such as the Female Orphan School traverse the site.

4. Council recently engaged Godden Mackay Logan (GML) to prepare a Heritage Study (provided under separate cover) to review the ‘Area of National Significance’, the historic view corridors and building height controls for land within parts of Harris Park, Rosehill and Camellia, including 2-12 River Road West.

5. The key recommendations of the Heritage Study as it relates to 2-12 River Road West, Parramatta are that building heights should generally not exceed the current height limit of RL14 (approximately 3 storeys), with some capacity to permit one additional storey (to maximum RL 17). This additional storey may be supported where future development of the site provides for small building footprints, generous separation between buildings, landscaped area that provides visual permeability to the river and public access between River Road West and the river.

6. The key justification for the restricted height control is that development generally greater than RL 14 will affect the outlook from Elizabeth Farm and the historic setting of the Area of National Significance. Further information is provided in the Detailed Report at Attachment 1.

7. The proponents have provided additional heritage information at Attachment 2.

ECONOMIC VIABILITY

8. The proponents have advised that redevelopment of the site would be economically unviable if the maximum building height was limited to RL 14 as detailed in Attachment 3. No additional economic feasibility analysis has been undertaken by Council.

SURROUNDING PRECINCTS

9. While the subject Planning Proposal relates solely to 2-12 River Road West, Parramatta, changes to the permitted zoning, height and density on these sites are likely to influence future redevelopment of the surrounding precinct and may increase pressures to allow similar height and densities within the adjoining River Road West Industrial Precinct, the James Ruse Drive Corridor, former James Hardie site at 181 James Ruse Drive, and former Wyeth Pharmaceutical site in Gregory Place.

OPTIONS & WAY FORWARD

10. In consideration of the future redevelopment of the River Road West Precinct, Council is requested to provide policy direction regarding its preferred outcome for 2-12 River Road West, Parramatta and surrounding precinct to enable consideration of the planning proposal. The key options for Council’s consideration are:

1. Ensure that development and development controls within the ‘Area of National Significance’ protect the historic significance of the area, including its context and historic view corridors. This option would include retention of low building heights [generally to a maximum height of RL 14 (3 storeys)].

2. Consider development and development controls that may compromise the heritage significance of the ‘Area of National Significance’ but that will achieve other public benefit outcomes negotiated as part of a voluntary planning agreement. This option could allow for maximum building heights exceeding RL 14.

11. There are benefits associated with each option. Option 1 would seek to preserve the historic significance and setting of the Area of National Significance through the retention of low scale building heights. Option 2 could deliver public benefits including the redevelopment and renewal along the Parramatta River foreshore, provision of public access along the foreshore and through the site linking River Road West and the river, restoration of the riverbank and riparian corridor, removal of contaminated fill from the site, reduced building footprints increasing overland flow paths for flood waters, monetary contributions delivered through both a voluntary planning agreement and/or s94A development contributions to be utilised for public infrastructure.

Diane Galea

Project Officer Land Use

Attachments:

1 View	Detailed Report	6 Pages
2 View	Letter from Proponent dated 3 November 2011 regarding Heritage	6 Pages
3 View	Statement from Proponent regarding Economic Viability	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Council (Development) 5 December 2011 Item 9.2

ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT

ITEM NUMBER 9.2

SUBJECT Planning Proposal - Former Kings School Site

REFERENCE RZ/7/2011 - D02172955

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement of a Planning Proposal to amend the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 to allow a re-distribution of the maximum allowable floor space ratio and height limits on the former Kings School site at 24 O’Connell Street (corner of Victoria Road), Parramatta.

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That the Planning Proposal at Attachment 1 to amend the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 maximum height and floor space ratio controls for land at 24 O’Connell Street, Parramatta be endorsed and forwarded for ‘Gateway’ assessment by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

(b) That subject to ‘Gateway’ determination the Planning Proposal be publicly exhibited.

THE SITE

1. The former Kings School site (also the site of the former Marsden Rehabilitation Centre), occupies an area of approximately 3.36 hectares between Victoria Road, O’Connell Street and the Parramatta River. The site is owned by the Crown. It adjoins St Patrick’s Cathedral located on the corner of Victoria Road and Marsden Street, owned by the Catholic Diocese of Parramatta.

2. The site is listed on the State Heritage Register and as an item of State significance under the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 (CCLEP). The listing is for the Marsden Rehabilitation Centre and potential archaeological site. The southern portion of the site adjacent to the river is zoned RE1 Public Recreation and is subject to a reservation for acquisition by Council as Local Open Space. The remainder of the land is zoned B4 Mixed Use.

THE PROPOSAL

3. An L-shaped portion of the north western corner of the site has been identified for purchase by the Catholic Diocese of Parramatta (the Church) for the future development of education and community uses in conjunction with the Church’s adjoining facilities. This would be achieved by subdividing the land to create a new L- shaped portion of land with an area of 5,874 sqm. The remainder of the Crown site would contain the buildings of heritage significance for community, adaptive reuse of heritage and recreational uses. The area of the Crown site would be 27,760sqm (2.776ha). The figure below shows the outline of the proposed L -shaped site. (The lot descriptions and site areas for the remainder of the land refer to existing lot descriptions and sizes).

4. To facilitate the future development of the L-shaped land, it is proposed that the maximum allowable floor space ratio (FSR) under the CCLEP, which is currently 0.6:1, be redistributed to provide additional allowable floor space on the L-shaped site (proposed maximum FSR of 1.52:1) and to reduce the maximum allowable FSR on the remainder of the Crown site to 0.4:1(see figure below).

5. No additional FSR is being sought by the Planning Proposal, just the reallocation to different parts of the land as described.

6. On the Crown retained land, the existing heritage buildings have a gross floor area of 6,672sqm. The reduced FSR of 0.4:1 on this site would enable a further 4,600sqm of floor space for future development if required. The Planning Proposal indicates that it is likely that only limited complementary development may be required, as future uses would mostly be adaptive re-use of the existing heritage buildings. Nonetheless, it is desirable to retain some FSR capacity on the Crown retained site.

FSR transfer maps JBA.jpg

7. It is also proposed to adjust the maximum allowable height limit, currently part 18 metres and part 10 metres, so that the proposed L-shaped parcel and the 18 metres height boundary are aligned (see figure below). The revised height boundary is proposed so that the increased FSR can be achieved with future development on the L-shaped site.

8. There is no change proposed to the zoning of the land.

9. A concept plan for the future development of the L-shaped site is included with the Planning Proposal. This is indicative only and does not form part of the Planning Proposal amendments to the CCLEP. A development application would need to be submitted for Council’s full consideration of the details of the development after determination of the Planning Proposal.

KEY ISSUES

10. The former Kings School is one of Parramatta’s most important heritage precincts, with heritage listing on the State Heritage Register and under the CCLEP, reflecting the very high state heritage significance of the buildings and the cultural landscape which includes its river frontage and heritage listed oval.

11. The Planning Proposal indicates that the Government-owned Old Kings School site is reserved for community purposes under the Crown Lands Act 1989 “for the purposes of environmental protection, community purposes, government purposes, heritage purposes and public recreation”.

12. The Planning Proposal also indicates that the sale of part of the site to the Church, whilst retaining the heritage precinct as an intact entity, will provide better opportunities for adaptive reuse for community, recreation and cultural facilities than is currently afforded, with a number of the existing heritage buildings being in poor repair, with considerable ongoing maintenance costs. The longer term future of the Old Kings School site as a community facility is seen to be a considerable public benefit arising from the Planning Proposal. The potential created for expansion of the Catholic Church’s community, education and religious facilities is also recognised as a public benefit arising from the Planning Proposal.

13. Future development applications will be required to demonstrate by way of heritage impact assessment that development proposed on the L-shaped site by the Church is acceptable from European, Aboriginal and archaeological heritage viewpoints and will not adversely affect the significance of heritage items or archaeological sites on both the former Kings School and also the Church’s existing heritage listing of St Patrick’s Cathedral, presbytery and precinct, which is also of State heritage significance.

14. Consultation with the Heritage Branch of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage is recommended if the Planning Proposal proceeds with ‘Gateway’ approval. The Government Architect’s office has prepared a Heritage Impact Assessment of the proposed subdivision to create the L-shaped parcel. This report has assessed impacts and options and concludes that the subdivision represented in the Planning Proposal is the best means of minimising heritage impacts. It also indicates that ongoing heritage and archaeological advice will be required for both of the allotments formed as part of the subdivision to inform future development.

15. The redistribution of FSR and the minor adjustment of the height boundary are not substantive changes to the planning controls for the site. These changes would, however, facilitate the future use and development of this precinct for significant cultural, community, educational and recreational activities and enhance opportunities for the maintenance and conservation of this important heritage precinct. This will support and help to strengthen the strategic role of Parramatta city into the future.

PROCESS - NEXT STEPS

16. Subject to Council’s endorsement of the Planning Proposal, it will be referred to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) for ‘Gateway’ determination. If a favourable determination is made, the proposal will proceed to public exhibition and consultation with public authorities in accordance with any requirements made by the DP&I. Any submissions will then be reported to Council for consideration before the Planning Proposal is finalised and referred to the DP&I for its final consideration and notification of the amendment of the CCLEP.

CONCLUSION

17. The Planning Proposal in Attachment 1 has been prepared in accordance with the DP&I’s Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals and section 55 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. It is recommended that Council resolve to endorse and forward this Planning Proposal to the DP&I for Gateway Determination in accordance with section 56 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

Sue Stewart

Senior Project Officer

Land Use Planning

Attachments:

1 View

Crown Lands Reserve Trust - Planning Proposal, November 2011

34 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

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