MINUTES OF THE Local Planning Panel HELD REMOTLEY VIA ELECTRONIC MEANS ON Tuesday, 15 DECEMBER 2020 AT 3.30pm

 

PRESENT

 

David Lloyd QC (Chair), Robert Hussey, Warrick McLean, Richard Thorp.

 

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.

 

WEBCASTING ANNOUNCEMENT

 

The Chairperson advised that the public meeting was being recorded. The recording will be archived and made available on Council’s website.

 

APOLOGIES

 

There were no apologies made to this Local Planning Panel.

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

Robert Hussey declared an actual conflict of interest in Item 5.3, being that he took part in the consideration of the matter previously as a member of the Parramatta Local Planning Panel.  He took no part in the consideration or vote in the matter.

 

Reports - Development Applications

 

5.1

SUBJECT          PUBLIC MEETING:
245-247 Kissing Point Road, Dundas (Lot 1 in DP 650987 & Lot 1 in DP 128425) (Dundas Ward)

 

DESCRIPTION Boundary adjustment to create two (2) lots from the existing two (2) lots, demolition of existing structures and construction of a part two-storey and part three-storey child care facility for 58 children (4 x 0-2 year olds, 14 x 2-3 year olds & 40 x 3-5 year olds) and basement car parking for 17 vehicles with vehicular access from Spurway Street.

 

REFERENCE   DA/151/2020 - D07722991

 

APPLICANT/S  Baini Design

 

OWNERS          Kissing Point Holdings Pty Ltd

 

REPORT OF     Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 5.1 and attachments to Item 5.1.

 

 

PUBLIC FORUM

 

There were no public forums for Item 5.1.

 

2117

DETERMINATION

 

(a)     That the Parramatta Local Planning Panel (PLPP) exercising the functions of Council, pursuant to Section 4.16(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 refuse Development Application No. DA/151/2020 for boundary adjustment to create two (2) lots from the existing two (2) lots, demolition of existing structures and construction of a part two-storey and part three-storey child care facility for 58 children (4 x 0-2 year olds, 14 x 2-3 year olds & 40 x 3-5 year olds) and basement car parking for 17 vehicles with vehicular access from Spurway Street on land at Lot 1 in DP 650987 and Lot 1 in DP 128425, 245-247 Kissing Point Road, DUNDAS NSW 2117 for the following reasons:

 

          Insufficient subdivision pattern

 

1.         Pursuant to Sections 4.15(1)(a)(i) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Clause 4.1 ‘Minimum subdivision lot size’ of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Part 3.7 ‘Subdivision’ of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, the proposed boundary adjustment (subdivision) creates a western lot which is not characteristic of the existing lot shape, size of pattern in the R2 Zone. The proposed western lot dimensions are not accurately shown on the plan nor show the indicative building footprints of the western lot to ascertain whether the new lot can achieve the maximum theoretical potential as envisioned by the PDCP 2011.

 

          State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2007 / Child Care Planning Guideline August 2017

 

2.         Pursuant to Sections 4.15(1)(a)(i) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is unsatisfactory regarding the design quality principles and the Child Care Planning Guideline August 2017 with respect to site selection and location, local character, streetscape and the public domain, building orientation, envelope and design, landscaping, visual and acoustic privacy, noise and air pollution, storage space requirements, toilet and hygiene facilities, ventilation and natural light, administrative space, nappy change facilities, premises designed to facilitate supervision, emergency and evacuation procedures, fencing and shade structure device/details.

 

          Inconsistency with the Aims of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011

 

3.         Pursuant to Sections 4.15(1)(a)(i) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is inconsistent with Clause 1.2(2)(h) ‘Aims of Plan’ of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 as it fails to enhance the amenity and characteristics of the established residential area and in terms of the site selection, design and location.

 

          Inconsistency with the R2 Zone objectives of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011

 

4.         Pursuant to Sections 4.15(1)(a)(i) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clause 2.3 ‘Zone Objectives and Land’ of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011, the proposal is inconsistent with the stated objective (dot point 3) of the R2 Zone of PLEP 2011. The above-ground built form is 3m from the northern boundary which creates an undesirable amenity to the future dwelling/s on the western lot. Further, the proposed subdivision creates an elevated L-shaped outdoor play area with play equipment abutting the boundaries of adjoining and surrounding dwellings along Wassell Street, Kissing Point Road and Spurway Street results in unreasonable visual and acoustic amenity impacts to adjoining properties. The proposal is of a bulk and scale that adversely impacts on the streetscape and adjoining properties and does not achieve satisfactory urban design outcomes. The proposal is not suitable for this site as it would have a significant impact on local amenity. This is at odds with the aim and objectives (dot point 3) of the R2 Low Density Residential zone within the PLEP 2011, both concerned with minimising such impacts.

 

          Unacceptable streetscape

 

5.         Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 3.2.5 ‘Streetscape’ and Part 2.12.6 ‘Development on Sloping Land’ of Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, the Child Care Planning Guideline gives considerable attention to the existing character of the streetscape and the proposed street presentation to both Kissing Point Road and Spurway Street is a negative aspect of the proposal. The proposed building is not in character with the established residential setting.

 

6.         Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) and (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 2.12.8 ‘Public Domain’ and Part 3.2.6 ‘Fences’ of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, the building does not appropriately address the public domain along Spurway Street or Kissing Point Road. In addition, the fencing detracts from providing positive interface between private and public domains.

 

          Unacceptable bulk and scale

 

7.         Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Child Care Planning Guideline and Part 3.1.3 ‘Preliminary Envelopes’, Part 3.2.1 ‘Building Form and Massing’ and Part 3.2.2 ‘Building Façade and Articulation’ of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, the built form is considerably out of scale with its established residential setting as the proposal does not observe the prevailing front setbacks to Spurway Street or to Kissing Point Road, the internal side and rear setbacks to the proposed western lot. The acoustic mitigation measures do not fully resolve the visual privacy impacts to adjoining and surrounding properties. The scale of the proposal creates an undesirable built form within an established residential setting as the total height of the acoustic barrier fencing including the modified ground levels and retaining walls above the natural ground level results in a structure that is excessive in bulk and scale as the acoustic barrier is approximately 2.4m-3.7m above the proposed new western lot.

 

          Inadequate landscaping (and deep soil) from the acoustic fences

 

8.         Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Child Care Planning Guideline and Part 3.3.1 ‘Landscaping’ of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, the absence of any significant perimeter landscaping on-site creates a sense of enclosure for both the children in care, especially given the height of the proposed acoustic boundary/balustrade fencing, and the adjoining properties. The lack of such landscaping, generally 2m in width as prescribed in Part 5.1 of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, along the site boundaries is a significant negative aspect of the proposal. The visual impact from the adjoining residential properties created as a result of the installation of the acoustic boundary/balustrade fencing is unacceptable in an established residential setting.

 

9.         Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Child Care Planning Guideline and Part 3.3.3 ‘Visual and Acoustic Privacy’ and Part 5.2.3.5 ‘ Acoustic and Visual Privacy’  of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, the 26m long 2.1m high acoustic barrier to the new western lot (as recommended by the acoustic consultant) and to adjoining residential properties is not adequately addressed in the proposal. The visual impact of the recommended height of the acoustic fences/balustrades barriers to the neighbouring residential properties, to the west, is approximately 2.4m-3.7m above the proposed new western lot and is unacceptable given these properties sits below the elevated L-shaped outdoor play area.

 

          Air Quality/Pollution

 

10.      Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 2.12.5 ‘Air Quality’ of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, the submitted air quality assessment report has not provided the air quality parameters for the proposed underground parking given the site is located on Kissing Point Road. In addition to the proximity of the major arterial road, the proposal has not considered the car exhaust fumes which will emanate from the basement car parking level. No mechanical ventilation or exhaust extraction stacks are shown on the plans.

 

          Insufficient information

 

11.      Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 2.12.2 ‘Water Management’ and Part 3.3.6 Water Sensitive Urban Design’ of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, stormwater/engineering concept plans have not been provided.

 

12.      Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a) (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 3.4.2 ‘Access for People with Disabilities’ of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, inadequate Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) information including the absence of a revised access report have been provided.

 

13.      Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Child Care Planning Guideline and Part 3.4.4 ‘Safety and Security’ of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, insufficient information regarding the evacuation/assembly point not shown. In addition, integrated fencing, security gates and landscaping and security details have not been provided which creates opportunities for anti-social behaviour which does not comply with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.

 

14.      Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Child Care Planning Guideline and Part 3.3.5 ‘Solar Access and Ventilation’ of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011, the shadow diagrams provided do not include the shadows cast by the proposal, any future dwellings on the proposed western lot or the shade sail structures in conjunction with the proposed acoustic consultant’s recommendation.

 

15.      The development is considered to adversely impact on the built environment (Section 4.15(1)(b) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

 

16.      The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant considerations under Section 4.15(1)(c) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the site constraints together with the design issues renders the site unsuitable for the development. 

 

17.      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-compliance with the applicable planning controls is not beneficial within the development site or to the established residential community and as such, it is not considered to be in the wider public interest.

 

(b)       That the objectors be advised of the PLPP’s decision.

 

The Panel decision was unanimous.

 

For:            David Lloyd QC (Chair), Robert Hussey, Richard Thorp, Warrick McLean.

 

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.

 

5.2

SUBJECT          PUBLIC MEETING:
56 Dudley Street, Rydalmere  (Lot 49 DP 12523)

 

DESCRIPTION Section 8.3 Review of determination of DA/460/2019 for demolition of existing structures, removal of six (6) trees and construction of a 3-storey boarding house comprising seventeen (17) single occupancy rooms pursuant to SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 with basement car parking for nine (9) vehicles and associated earthworks and landscaping.
The review includes amendments to the proposal including removal of one boarding room, increased setback to northern courtyard area, reduced roof bulk and relocation of common area.

 

REFERENCE   DA/460/2019 - D07729684

 

APPLICANT/S  56 Dudley Pty Ltd

 

OWNERS          56 Dudley Pty Ltd

 

REPORT OF     Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 5.2 and attachments to Item 5.2.

 

 

PUBLIC FORUM

 

-       Alexandar Jelicic spoke in favour of the approval of Item 5.2

-       Jewel Parker-Rawle provided a written submission against the approval of Item 5.2

-       Vera Stanovic provided a written submission against the approval of Item 5.2

 

2118

DETERMINATION

 

(a)     That the Parramatta Local Planning Panel, exercising the functions of Council, pursuant to Section 8.4 and Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, that Council grant deferred commencement development consent to DA/460/2019 for a period of five (5) years within which physical commencement is to occur from the date on the Notice of Determination, subject to conditions of consent.

 

It has been approved for the following reasons:

1.         The development as amended, satisfactorily addresses the previous reasons for refusal.

2.         The development is permissible in the R3 zone and satisfies the requirements of all of the applicable planning controls.

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

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

 

(b)     Further, that submitters are advised of the decision.

 

The Panel decision was unanimous.

 

For:            David Lloyd QC (Chair), Robert Hussey, Warrick McLean, Richard Thorp.

 

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

 

 

5.3

SUBJECT          PUBLIC MEETING:
33 Thomas Street, Parramatta (Lot 10 DP 11014)

 

DESCRIPTION Section 8.3 Review of Determination of DA/549/2018 for demolition works, tree removal and construction of a two (2) storey child-care centre for 56 children with basement car parking, associated earthworks and landscaping.

 

REFERENCE   DA/549/2018 - D07780379

 

APPLICANT/S  Baini Design

 

OWNERS          Paul Roumanous

 

REPORT OF     Group Manager Development and Traffic Services

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 5.3 and attachments to Item 5.3.

 

Robert Hussey declared an actual conflict of interest in Item 5.3, being that he took part in the consideration of the matter previously as a member of the Parramatta Local Planning Panel.  He took no part in the consideration or vote in the matter.

 

 

PUBLIC FORUM

 

There were no public forums for Item 5.3.

 

2119

DETERMINATION

 

That the Parramatta Local Planning Panel (PLPP) exercising the functions of Council, pursuant to Section 8.4 and Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, refuse development consent to DA/549/2018.

 

The reasons for refusal are as follows:

 

1.         State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017

a.         The proposed development is inconsistent with the Design Quality Principles prescribed under the Child Care Planning Guideline 2017;

b.         The proposed development is inconsistent with the following clauses under the Education and Care Services National Regulations:

·                Clause 107 – Space requirements – indoor space

·                Clause 109 – Toilet and hygiene facilities

·                Clause 110 – Ventilation and natural light

·                Clause 112 – Nappy change facilities

·                Clause 113 – Natural environment

 

2.         Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

a.         As highlighted above, the proposal has non-compliances with both the SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 and the Education and Care Services National Regulations. Accordingly, the proposal fails to satisfy the matters of consideration prescribed under s4.15(1)(a)(i) of the EP&A Act 1979.

b.         As the proposed development is not consistent with critical provisions of child care centres required to ensure amenity of the children, staff and surrounding locality, the proposal is not considered to be in the public interest and also fails to satisfy s4.15(1)(b)(d) and (e) of the EP&A Act 1979

 

The Panel decision was unanimous.

 

For:            David Lloyd QC (Chair), Warrick McLean, Richard Thorp.

 

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

 

Innovative

 

6.1

SUBJECT          PUBLIC MEETING:
Gateway Request - Planning Proposal to increase commercial floorspace in Epping Town Centre

 

REFERENCE   F2018/03032 - D07607967

 

REPORT OF     Team Leader Land Use Planning

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 6.1 and attachments to Item 6.1.

 

 

PUBLIC FORUM

 

There were no public forums for Item 6.1

 

2120

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)      That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to prepare a planning proposal which seeks the following amendments to Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 applying to all land in the B2 Local Centre zone in the Epping Town Centre with the exception of 6-14 and 18A Bridge Street and 24-30 High Street that:

i.        Introduces new clauses which:

a)        Mandate a minimum amount of non-residential uses to be provided on the ground, first and second floors of any building facing a street of up to a maximum of 1:1 floor space ratio (FSR) of non-residential floorspace in addition to the mapped maximum floor space ratio. The clause shall also indicate that the FSR of residential development permitted on the site should not increase as a result of this requirement.

b)         Allow for an increase in maximum height of buildings from 48 metres in some parts of Epping and 72 metres in some parts of Epping up to 80 metres (approx. 24 storeys) where sites have a mapped FSR of 4.5:1 and from 72 metres up to 90 metres (approx. 28 storeys) where sites have a mapped FSR of 6:1, only where developments provide a minimum amount of non-residential uses of ground, first and second floors of any building facing a street.

c)         Ensure any change of use proposed on the first three levels would not allow residential uses.

d)        Apply an exception to that part of a building that faces a service lane or is required for entrances and lobbies, access for fire services or vehicular access associated or servicing residential accommodation above.

 

ii.       Introduces a requirement that the proposed controls of the planning proposal apply to development applications determined once a Gateway Determination has been issued for this Planning Proposal

 

(b)      That the Chief Executive Officer forwards the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) to request the issuing of a Gateway Determination on behalf of Council.

 

(c)       That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to prepare amendments to the relevant sections of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 and Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 to support the Planning Proposal relating to the following design controls, and place these on public exhibition with the Planning Proposal:

i.        podium height controls;

ii.       minimum floorplate dimensions;

iii.      floor to ceiling heights for non-residential uses;

iv.      location of services; and

v.       building and podium setback controls.

 

(d)      That Council advises the DPIE that the Chief Executive Officer will be exercising the plan-making delegations for this Planning Proposal as authorised by Council on 26 November 2012.

 

(e)      That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to correct any minor anomalies of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during the plan-making process.

 

(f)        That within 5 years of the planning controls being made as an LEP amendment, that a review be undertaken of the effectiveness of the controls relating to the mandatory provision of a minimum level of commercial floorspace in the B2 Local Centre zone within the Epping Town Centre and any associated recommendations and this review be reported to Council.

 

(g)      Further, that Council continue to work with the State Government to resolve traffic issues in Epping.

 

The Panel decision was unanimous.

 

For:            David Lloyd QC (Chair), Robert Hussey, Warrick McLean, Richard Thorp.

 

Against:    Nil

 

 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

 

The Panel supports the findings found in the assessment report and endorses the reasons for recommendation contained in that report with the additional consideration found in point (g) of the recommendation.

 

 

6.2

SUBJECT          PUBLIC MEETING:
Post-exhibition: Planning Proposal to ‘switch off’ Clause 4.6 Variation, as it applies to FSR for sites within the Epping Town Centre.

 

REPORT OF     Project Officer Land Use Planning

 

 

The Panel considered the matter listed at Item 6.2 and attachments to Item 6.2.

 

 

PUBLIC FORUM 

 

There were no public forums for Item 6.1

 

2121

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Local Planning Panel recommends the following to Council:

 

(a)     That Council receives and notes the summary of submissions made during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal – Amendments to Clause 4.6 of Epping Town Centre at Attachment 1.

 

(b)     That Council endorse for finalisation the Planning Proposal to amend Clause 4.6 in the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 by disabling the use of Clause 4.6 variations in relation to floor space ratio controls for the following types of development in the Epping Town Centre:

i.        In Parramatta LEP 2011 - residential accommodation and tourist and visitor accommodation, or a mixed use development that includes these uses within Zone B2 Local Centre or residential accommodation in Zone R4 High Density Residential; and

ii.       In Hornsby LEP 2013 - residential accommodation and tourist and visitor accommodation, or a mixed use development that includes these uses within Zone B2 Local Centre.

 

(c)     That Council submit the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) requesting their finalisation, noting that Council does not have plan-making delegation for this Planning Proposal.

 

(d)     Further, that Council authorises the CEO to correct any minor policy inconsistencies and any anomalies that are of an administrative nature relating to the Planning Proposal that may arise during the finalisation process.

 

The Panel decision was unanimous.

 

For:            David Lloyd QC (Chair), Robert Hussey, Warrick McLean, Richard Thorp.

 

Against:    Nil

 

 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

 

The meeting terminated at 3:50 pm.

 

 

 

 

Chairperson