MINUTES OF THE Local Planning Panel HELD VIA ONLINE MEANS ON Tuesday, 8 December 2020 AT 2:30PM

 

PRESENT

 

Mary-Lynne Taylor (Chair), Paul Berkemeier, Kirrily McDermott, Tony Reed

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO TRADITIONAL LAND OWNERS

 

The Chairperson, acknowledged the Burramattagal Clan of The Darug, the traditional land owners of Parramatta and paid respect to the elders both past and present.

 

APOLOGIES

 

There were no apologies made to this Local Planning Panel.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Tony Reed declared a reasonably perceived conflict of interest in Item 4.6, being that he is currently involved in a review of the organisation of the City of Parramatta Council.  He took no part in the consideration or vote in the matter.

 

Reports - Development Applications

4.1

SUBJECT          OUTSIDE PUBLIC MEETING:
85 Victoria Road, PARRAMATTA  NSW  2150
(Lot 100 DP 635092) (Rosehill Ward)

 

DESCRIPTION Section 4.55(2) modification to DA/54/2018 for alterations and additions to the approved shop top housing development. Proposed modifications include external facade changes, additional and amended windows, relocation of building services, increase in lift overrun to achieve compliance with BCA and widening of driveways.

 

REFERENCE   DA/54/2018/B - D07722681

 

APPLICANT/S  PTI Architecture

 

OWNERS          Labide Pty Ltd

 

REPORT OF     Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 4.1 and attachments to Item 4.1 and the Panel is familiar with the site.

 

2118

DETERMINATION

 

The Parramatta Local Planning Panel approves the application for the following reasons:

 

1.         The development as modified is substantially the same development for which consent was originally granted.

2.         The modified development will be compatible with the emerging and planned future character of the area.

3.         The modifications do not significantly alter the streetscape appearance of the approved building when viewed from Victoria Road and Macarthur Street.

4.         The modifications allow for compliance with the relevant Building Code of Australia requirements.

5.         The modified proposal will not result in any significant adverse impacts in respect to privacy, overshadowing or bulk and scale.

6.         For the reasons given above, approval of the application is in the public interest.

 

Persons who have lodged a submission in respect to the application are to be notified of the determination of the application.

The Panel decision was unanimous.

 

For:                     Mary-Lynne Taylor, Paul Berkemeier, Kirrily McDermott, Tony Reed

 

Against:    Nil

 

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

The Panel supports the findings found in the assessment report and endorses the reasons for approval contained in that report:

 

1.        The development as modified is substantially the same development for which consent was originally granted.

2.        The modified development will be compatible with the emerging and planned future character of the area.

3.        The modifications do not significantly alter the streetscape appearance of the approved building when viewed from Victoria Road and Macarthur Street.

4.        The modifications allow for compliance with the relevant Building Code of Australia requirements.

5.        The modified proposal will not result in any significant adverse impacts in respect to privacy, overshadowing or bulk and scale.

6.        For the reasons given above, approval of the application is in the public interest.

 

4.2

SUBJECT          OUTSIDE PUBLIC MEETING:
10 Alamein Avenue, Carlingford (Lot 26 DP 222728)

 

DESCRIPTION Section 8.3 Review of DA/748/2019 for the use of former garage as secondary dwelling and minor alterations.

 

REFERENCE   DA/748/2019 - D07742565

 

APPLICANT/S  Mr S J Kamalasuriya

 

OWNERS          Mr S J & Mrs R K Kamalasuriya

 

REPORT OF     Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

2119

DETERMINATION

 

The Parramatta Local Planning Panel approves the application for the following reasons:

 

1.         The development is permissible in the R2 zone pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and satisfies the requirements of the applicable planning controls.

2.         The development will be compatible with the existing character of the area in that; the proposed secondary dwelling is within an existing building, and the Kimberley Road elevation is acceptable.

3.         For the reasons given above, approval of the application is in the public interest.

 

The Panel decision was unanimous

 

For:                     Mary-Lynne Taylor, Paul Berkemeier, Kirrily McDermott, Tony Reed

 

Against:    Nil

 

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

The Panel supports the findings found in the assessment report and endorses the reasons for approval contained in that report:

 

1.         The development is permissible in the R2 zone pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and satisfies the requirements of the applicable planning controls.

2.         The development will be compatible with the existing character of the area in that; the proposed secondary dwelling is within an existing building, and the Kimberley Road elevation is acceptable.

3.         For the reasons given above, approval of the application is in the public interest.

 

4.3

SUBJECT          OUTSIDE PUBLIC MEETING:
Late Vic Cottage, 24 High Street, GRANVILLE  NSW  2142 (Lot C DP 350858, Lot 1 DP 400652)

 

DESCRIPTION Demolition of an existing Heritage dwelling.

 

REFERENCE   DA/456/2020 - D07745294

 

APPLICANT/S  Baini Design

 

OWNERS          AARG Group Pty Ltd

 

REPORT OF     Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 4.3 and attachments to Item 4.3 and the Panel is familiar with the site.

 

2120

DETERMINATION

 

The Parramatta Local Planning Panel refuse DA/456/2020 for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposed development is inconsistent with the following provisions prescribed within Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013:

i)          Clause 1.2 – the development is inconsistent with the aims of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013.

ii)         Clause 2.3 - the development is inconsistent with the zone objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone.

iii)        Clause 5.10 – the development is inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation.

2.         The proposed development is inconsistent with the following provisions prescribed within the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013:

i)          Part H, Section 1 – Development Requirements for Heritage Items

3.         The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant considerations under Section 4.15(1)(c) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for built environment, suitability of the site, and the public interest. 

4.         The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant considerations under Section 4.15(1)(e) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the adverse impacts generated by the development due to non-compliances with the applicable planning controls is not beneficial for the local community and as such, is not in the wider public interest.

5.         The Panel finds that this application and its heritage impact statement has failed to properly address the impact on the heritage significance of the building noting in particular that this item is in the vicinity of a number of other similar heritage items.

6.         The Panel therefore refuses the application and endorses the reasoning in the Council town planning report, and agrees with the written objection.

 

The Panel decision was unanimous

 

For:                     Mary-Lynne Taylor, Paul Berkemeier, Kirrily McDermott, Tony Reed

 

Against:    Nil

 

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

The Panel supports the findings found in the assessment report and endorses the reasons for refusal contained in that report:

 

1.        The proposed development is inconsistent with the following provisions prescribed within Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013:

i)          Clause 1.2 – the development is inconsistent with the aims of the Holroyd Local Environmental Plan 2013.

ii)         Clause 2.3 - the development is inconsistent with the zone objectives of the R4 High Density Residential zone.

iii)        Clause 5.10 – the development is inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation.

2.        The proposed development is inconsistent with the following provisions prescribed within the Holroyd Development Control Plan 2013:

i)          Part H, Section 1 – Development Requirements for Heritage Items

3.        The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant considerations under Section 4.15(1)(c) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for built environment, suitability of the site, and the public interest. 

4.        The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant considerations under Section 4.15(1)(e) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the adverse impacts generated by the development due to non-compliances with the applicable planning controls is not beneficial for the local community and as such, is not in the wider public interest.

5.        The Panel finds that this application and its heritage impact statement has failed to properly address the impact on the heritage significance of the building noting in particular that this item is in the vicinity of a number of other similar heritage items.

6.        The Panel therefore refuses the application and endorses the reasoning in the Council town planning report, and agrees with the written objection.

 

4.4

SUBJECT          OUTSIDE PUBLIC MEETING:
104-128 Briens Road, Northmead (Lot 111 DP 800504)

 

DESCRIPTION Demolition of existing sugar silos and construction of two new silos with associated infrastructure.

 

REFERENCE   DA/454/2020 - D07745594

 

APPLICANT/S  Coca Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd

 

OWNERS          Coca Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd

 

REPORT OF     Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 4.4 and attachments to Item 4.4 and the Panel is familiar with the site.

 

2121

DETERMINATION

 

The Parramatta Local Planning Panel approves the application for the following reasons:

 

1.         The Panel upholds the written request for variation to Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011, finding that the request has appropriately dealt with the matters for consideration and delivers a suitable environmental planning outcome. The changes are satisfactory in terms of the objectives of the Clause and the objectives of the Zoning and are therefore in the public interest.

2.         The Panel further notes that the proposed height variation provides a height transition from the 32m High Bay Warehouse to the smaller industrial buildings on site.

3.         The development is permissible in the IN1 – General Industrial zone and generally satisfies the requirements of the applicable planning provisions.

4.         The Proposed development does not impact the amenity of the surrounding sites.

5.         The proposed development supports the current industrial development on site.

6.         The Panel finds that the objector’s specific concern about noise does not relate to this application but can be dealt with separately through a service request process directly to Council.

7.         For the reasons given above, approval of the application is in the public interest.

 

Persons who have lodged a submission in respect to the application are to be notified of the determination of the application.

 

The Panel decision was unanimous

 

For:                     Mary-Lynne Taylor, Paul Berkemeier, Kirrily McDermott, Tony Reed

 

Against:    Nil

 

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

The Panel supports the findings found in the assessment report and endorses the reasons for approval contained in that report:

 

1.         The Panel upholds the written request for variation to Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011, finding that the request has appropriately dealt with the matters for consideration and delivers a suitable environmental planning outcome. The changes are satisfactory in terms of the objectives of the Clause and the objectives of the Zoning and are therefore in the public interest.

2.         The Panel further notes that the proposed height variation provides a height transition from the 32m High Bay Warehouse to the smaller industrial buildings on site.

3.         The development is permissible in the IN1 – General Industrial zone and generally satisfies the requirements of the applicable planning provisions.

4.         The Proposed development does not impact the amenity of the surrounding sites.

5.         The proposed development supports the current industrial development on site.

6.         The Panel finds that the objector’s specific concern about noise does not relate to this application but can be dealt with separately through a service request process directly to Council.

7.         For the reasons given above, approval of the application is in the public interest.

 

4.5

SUBJECT          OUTSIDE OF PUBLIC MEETING:
111 North Rocks Road, NORTH ROCKS (Lot C DP 389614)

 

DESCRIPTION Demolition of existing structures and construction of a two-storey dwelling and a swimming pool.

 

REFERENCE   DA/346/2020 - D07764071

 

APPLICANT/S  Nemco Design Pty Ltd

 

OWNERS          Mr A J Jaafar

 

REPORT OF     Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 4.5 and attachments to Item 4.5 and the Panel is familiar with the site.

 

2122

DETERMINATION

 

The Parramatta Local Planning Panel approves the application for the following reasons:

 

1.         The development is permissible in the R2 zone and generally satisfies the requirements of the applicable planning controls.

2.         The development will be compatible with the emerging and planned future character of the area.

3.         The Panel acknowledges that there has been unauthorized fill in the past that has been removed to the satisfaction of Council. Further, there has been a report that satisfies SEPP 55 for the remediation of any contamination on the site and an unauthorized retaining wall has been removed.

4.         While there has not been strict compliance with the requirement for landscaping, the trees to be removed are in poor condition and low significance and the proposed landscaping is considered to be an improvement and appropriate for the site.

5.         Whilst the site is in a bushfire prone area, the application is satisfactory to the NSW Rural Fire Service, and appropriate conditions have been imposed.

6.         The Panel is satisfied that the concerns of the submission have been addressed.

7.         For the reasons given above, approval of the application is in the public interest.

 

Persons who have lodged a submission in respect to the application are to be notified of the determination of the application.

The Panel decision was unanimous.

 

For:                     Mary-Lynne Taylor, Paul Berkemeier, Kirrily McDermott, Tony Reed

 

Against:    Nil

 

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

The Panel supports the findings found in the assessment report and endorses the reasons for approval contained in that report:

 

1.         The development is permissible in the R2 zone and generally satisfies the requirements of the applicable planning controls.

2.         The development will be compatible with the emerging and planned future character of the area.

3.         The Panel acknowledges that there has been unauthorized fill in the past that has been removed to the satisfaction of Council. Further, there has been a report that satisfies SEPP 55 for the remediation of any contamination on the site, and an unauthorized retaining wall has been removed.

4.         While there has not been strict compliance with the requirement for landscaping, the trees to be removed are in poor condition and low significance and the proposed landscaping is considered to be an improvement and appropriate for the site.

5.         Whilst the site is in a bushfire prone area, the application is satisfactory to the NSW Rural Fire Service, and appropriate conditions have been imposed.

6.         The Panel is satisfied that the concerns of the submission have been addressed.

7.         For the reasons given above, approval of the application is in the public interest.

 

4.6

SUBJECT          OUTSIDE PUBLIC MEETING:
38 Charles Street, Parramatta (Charles Street Road Reserve)

 

DESCRIPTION Relocation of existing accessible toilet module from Charles Street Square public reserve to Charles Street road reserve with associated demolition and connection to services. The development is classified as Integrated Development under the Roads Act 1993.

 

REFERENCE   DA/463/2020 - D07766355

 

APPLICANT/S  City of Parramatta Council

 

OWNERS          City of Parramatta Council

 

REPORT OF     Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

 

Tony Reed declared a reasonably perceived conflict of interest in Item 4.6, being that he is currently involved in a review of the organisation of the City of Parramatta Council.  He took no part in the consideration or vote in the matter.

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 4.6 and attachments to Item 4.6 and the Panel is familiar with the site.

 

2123

DETERMINATION

 

The Parramatta Local Planning Panel approves the application for the following reasons:

 

1.      This work is part of Parramatta CBD Foreshore upgrade works and has been identified as integral to the overall upgrade.

2.      The new location for the toilet block meets current accessibility standards.

3.      The toilet block is appropriately visible from the street and, with the inclusion of new lighting, better meets security and safety principles.

4.      The new location for the toilet block is above the existing 1% AEP flood level.

5.      The application is in the public interest and there were no objections.

 

The Panel decision was unanimous

 

For:            Mary-Lynne Taylor, Paul Berkemeier, Kirrily McDermott

 

Against:     Nil

 

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

The Panel supports the findings found in the assessment report and endorses the reasons for approval contained in that report:

 

1.      This work is part of Parramatta CBD Foreshore upgrade works and has been identified as integral to the overall upgrade.

2.      The new location for the toilet block meets current accessibility standards.

3.      The toilet block is appropriately visible from the street and, with the inclusion of new lighting, better meets security and safety principles.

4.      The new location for the toilet block is above the existing 1% AEP flood level.

5.      The application is in the public interest and there were no objections.

 

4.7

SUBJECT          OUTSIDE PUBLIC MEETING:
1-3 Lennox Street, Parramatta (Lot 1 & 2, DP 501508)

 

DESCRIPTION Lot consolidation, demolition of outbuildings, refurbishment of existing heritage cottages and additions for commercial use and construction of two attached dwelling at the rear of the site.

 

REFERENCE   DA/376/2020 - D07772060

 

APPLICANT/S  ARDesign

 

OWNERS          Mr F I Soliman and Dr K Attia-Soliman

 

REPORT OF     Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 4.7 and attachments to Item 4.7 and the Panel is familiar with the site.

 

Karim Soliman made a written submission to the Panel.

 

2124

DETERMINATION

 

The Parramatta Local Planning Panel approves the application for the following reasons:

 

1.         The development is permitted in accordance with Clause 5.10(10) Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

2.         The works to the heritage item are acceptable and satisfy the requirements pursuant to Clause 5.10 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

3.         A written request to vary the building height and floor space ratio has been received and adequately addresses the matters required to be demonstrated in Clause 4.6(3) of Parramatta LEP 2011. The Panel believes that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation and finds that the application is satisfactory. The proposed development is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the building height control and FSR control and the objectives for development within the R2 zone in which the development is proposed.

4.         The development enhances the heritage qualities of the existing buildings on the site and will be a welcome addition to the area.

5.         For the reasons given above, approval of the application is in the public interest.

 

Persons who have lodged a submission in respect to the application are to be notified of the determination of the application.

The Panel decision was unanimous

 

For:                     Mary-Lynne Taylor, Paul Berkemeier, Kirrily McDermott, Tony Reed

 

Against:     Nil

 

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

The Panel supports the findings found in the assessment report and endorses the reasons for approval contained in that report:

 

1.      The development is permitted in accordance with Clause 5.10(10) Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

2.      The works to the heritage item are acceptable and satisfy the requirements pursuant to Clause 5.10 of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011.

3.      A written request to vary the building height and floor space ratio has been received and adequately addresses the matters required to be demonstrated in Clause 4.6(3) of Parramatta LEP 2011. The Panel believes that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation and finds that the application is satisfactory. The proposed development is in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the building height control and FSR control and the objectives for development within the R2 zone in which the development is proposed.

4.      The development enhances the heritage qualities of the existing buildings on the site and will be a welcome addition to the area.

5.      For the reasons given above, approval of the application is in the public interest.

 

The meeting terminated at 3:54 pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chair