|
Item 8.2 - Attachment 1 |
Detailed Report |
DETAILED
REPORT
BACKGROUND
Council recently adopted the Parramatta
Development Control Plan (DCP) for Places of Public Worship (PPW) at its
Meeting on 24 May 2010. The DCP took
effect on 30 June 2010 when a notice was placed in the local newspapers. The DCP is to be applied to relevant
development applications until such time as the draft comprehensive DCP 2010
comes into effect. The draft
comprehensive DCP 2010 will incorporate the provisions of the stand-alone DCP
for PPW and will negate the need to have a separate DCP.
Upon adopting the DCP for PPW, Council also
resolved as follows:
“(d) Further, that Council produce another
report reviewing the car parking requirements of 1 on site car parking space
for every 3 people projected to be attending the place of public worship.”
Council considered a report at its meeting
on 26 July 2010 regarding the introduction of specific car parking rate for PPW
and resolved as follows:
“(a) That
the proposed Places of Public Worship Development Control Plan be amended at
P.2 by deleting and replacing words as follows:-
Replace
Words "...provide 1 car parking space per 5 seats or 5m2 of
usable floor space...".
With
these Words “...provide 1 car parking space per 5m2 of usable floor
space for the first 100m2 and 1 car parking space per 3m2 of
usable floor space thereafter...".
(b)
Further, that individual places of public worship previously
consulted be notified of this proposed amendment and invited to comment.”
The
amendment to the DCP was publicly exhibited from 18 August to 17 September
2010. In addition to the notice placed
in the local newspapers, a letter was sent to 94 local places of worship
including non-government schools (to include those Places of Public Worship
(PPWs) that form part of a larger educational establishment).
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The
approach taken in the draft amendment is to introduce a car parking rate but as
a guide only which is also required to be supported by a traffic impact
statement to verify that the rate of parking is appropriate. The new wording was added onto the end of
Design Principle P.2 and is shown underlined below:
P.2 On
site parking shall be provided at the rate determined by the traffic impact
statement having regard to the objectives of this clause. As a general guide, new development shall
provide 1 car parking space per 5m2 of usable floor space for the
first 100m2 and 1 car parking space per 3m2 of usable
floor space thereafter. (Usable floor
space not being corridor space, stairways, storage areas, toilets and other
floor space that will not increase the capacity of the development.)
SUBMISSIONS
Two
(2) submissions were received, being from the Bishop of Parramatta on behalf of
the Catholic Diocese of
Catholic
Diocese of
This
submission requests that Council not proceed with the draft amendment for the
following reasons:
Issue:
Concern is raised that
the car parking rate would apply to applications for minor alterations and
additions and this issue appears to be poorly defined and needs
clarification. The Diocese has seven (7)
parish churches located within the
COMMENT: The car
parking rate would apply to alterations and additions where there is an
increase in capacity. However, what may
be confusing is that a traffic impact statement is only required for new
developments or for additions that involve an increase in seating capacity of
50 or more people. There is no such
threshold to exempt applications from the car parking rate. For example, an
application for additions that result in an increase in capacity that falls
under the threshold of 50 people would still be required to comply with the car
parking rate. In such an instance there
would be no traffic impact statement to justify any variation. As such, additional wording is recommended to
be inserted at the end of Design Principle P.1 to clarify the requirements as
follows:
“Note:
Applications for alterations and additions representing an increase in capacity
of less than 50 will be assessed on merit as to the need for additional car
parking.”
Issue:
The proposed
amendment does not take account of the way many of their sites operate. Not all of the church buildings are used by
the assembly for worship such as non-worship areas set aside for sanctuary,
sacristy, gathering areas and storage areas.
COMMENT: The
wording of the amendment clarifies what areas are excluded from the “useable”
floor space as follows: “Useable floor space not being corridor space,
stairways, storage areas, toilets and other floor space that will not increase
the capacity of the development.”
Issue:
The proposed
controls are onerous, particularly when compared with the corresponding
provisions in neighbouring council areas.
Bankstown City Council requires 1 space per 8m2 and Auburn
Council requires 1 space per 10 seats or 1 space per 20m2 where
seats aren’t provided or are in the form of traditional pews.
COMMENT: Council did consider the corresponding car
parking rates in the development control plans for other council areas as part
of the report to Council on 26 July 2010.
This table comparing rates is provided again as Attachment 3. The table shows that there is a variety of
responses to parking rates for PPWs.
Some councils take the approach of remaining silent on the required rate
which is to be determined by the results of a development specific traffic
impact statement. Of the councils that
do prescribe a specific rate, it tends to be either a rate per seats/people or
per floor area. Some councils use a
combination of both. The rates per
seat/people vary from one space per 5 to one space per 10 seats. The rate per floor area varies from one space
per 5m2 to one space per 18m2 where fixed seating is not
provided. As discussed further in this
report, the draft car parking rate is likely to require too many car parking
spaces and it is recommended to be changed as discussed under the heading:
“Recommended Changes”.
Don
Fox Planning on behalf of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
The
submission states that the proposed car parking requirements are extreme and
unreasonable for the following reasons:
Issue:
The submission
includes a table summarising the relevant car parking rates of ten (10) other
councils. From this comparison, it
appears that the most common approach to the PPW car parking rates is a
combination of a rate per useable floor space and the number of people. In most cases, the DCPs also note that a
traffic survey is the most appropriate way to determine the required rate of
car parking. The submission calculates
the average of the sample of car parking rates from other councils to be 1
space per 10.5m2 of useable floor space or 1 space per 6 seats.
COMMENT: As
discussed previously in relation to the first submission, Council did consider
the car parking rates in the development control plans for other council areas
as part of the report to Council on 26 July 2010. As discussed further in this report, it is
acknowledged that the draft car parking rate is excessive and it is recommended
to be changed as discussed under the heading: “Recommended Changes”.
Issue:
There is an error
in the report to Council dated 26 July 2010 in relation to the comparison with
other Council’s car parking rates. The
report describes the rate of car parking under Canterbury City Council as being
“1 space per 5 people for first 100m2
then 1 space per 3 people thereafter”. However,
it should read as follows: 1 space per 5 people for first 100 people then 1
space per 3 people thereafter.” This is
only a subtle difference but makes a significant difference to the rate of car
parking required for the church.
COMMENT: From a view of the report to Council dated 26 July 2010, the
submission appears to have identified an error in the Attachment to the report. However, this appears to be a typographical
error that has not contributed to the officer’s recommendation. The table is repeated as Attachment 3 with
the correction made.
Issue:
The submission notes that the typical church (or meeting house) operated
by their client would have a gross floor area of abut 1,200m2 and a
useable floor space area of about 800m2. They have assumed a maximum number of seats
of 250 people as per Council’s current control in the residential zones. Based on the controls proposed within the
draft amendment, this would necessitate the provision of 253 car parking
spaces. This rate is significantly
higher than the average of the other councils included in their sample which
would require the provision of 76 car parking spaces.
COMMENT: The draft rate of car parking has been applied to three sample
development applications in the
Issue:
While the DCP amendment on exhibition related to car parking rates, the
church is concerned at the continuing pressure brought to bear on PPWs through
Council’s planning controls. The
proposed prohibition of PPWs in the R2 Low Density zone is of particular concern
as churches would be forced to compete with commercial entities for limited
business and industrial land. This
proposal does not acknowledge the important role that not-for-profit
organisations such as churches fill in the community. Locating churches in non-residential zones
essentially disconnects them from the communities they are trying to reach and
forces children and youth to travel to industrial lands in order to worship and
receive religious instruction. Places of
public worship are also places of refuge for the needy and for persons seeking
personal, social and spiritual help. As such,
it is important that churches have a connection with the community.
COMMENT: The issue of permissibility of PPWs in the R2 Low Density
Residential zone is discussed in the report to Council dated 5 October 2010
regarding the draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2010.
Issue:
The submission requests that Council adopt the following wording as an
alternative to the draft amendment: “On-site car parking shall be provided at a
rate provided at a rate determined by traffic and car parking impact statement
having regard to the objectives of this clause.
As a general guide only, new development shall provide 1 car parking
space per 10m2 of usable floor space or 1 car parking space per 3
fixed seats, whichever is the greater.
(Usable floor space not being corridor space, stairways, storage areas,
toilets, ancillary office space or other floor space that will not increase the
congregational seating capacity of the development.)
COMMENT: While the exact wording of the paragraph above has not been adopted,
aspects of the suggested wording have been taken on board as discussed further
in the report under the heading of “Recommended Changes”.
Testing of Draft Car
Parking Rate
Council’s approach has traditionally been
to have regard to the Traffic Impact Statement submitted by the applicant and
to make a judgment on the merits of the case.
The draft car parking rate was applied to a sample of local PPWs to give
a clearer demonstration of the number of spaces that would be required in a
practical situation. Three recent applications were tested as follows:
Table
1 : Number of spaces required for local PPWs
|
DA
No. |
Address |
Approx.
Useable Floor Space Area |
No.
of spaces required under draft amnd. |
No.
of spaces under Traffic Study |
|
724/2009 |
121 Railway Parade, Granville |
514m2 |
159 |
73 spaces with 37 to be provided on-site |
|
688/2008 |
|
1,420m2 |
458 |
70-75 spaces with 31 to be provided
on-site |
|
1185/2005 |
15A |
617m2 |
176 |
80 spaces with 62 spaces provided on-site |
It can be seen from the table above that
the draft car parking rate would result in a number of car parking spaces that
is far in excess of that likely to be physically required. Another issue is that applying a car parking
rate based on floor area does not take into account the way that different PPWs
operate. For instance, the PPW at
LAND AND
The
difficulty in prescribing a specific car parking rate is demonstrated by the
Land and Environment Court Case of Jardine –v- Campbelltown City Council
(Appeal No. 10825 of 2008). In this
case, the proposal was the establishment of a PPW within an industrial
area. The required car parking rate
under the relevant DCP was one space per 10 seating spaces. This would necessitate the provision of 22
car parking spaces on site. However, the
Court noted that the site is within an industrial complex where the on-street
parking has a low level of demand on a Sunday and there is also a council car
park within proximity which also has a high level of available car spaces on
Sundays. As such, the Court judgment
noted that a variation of the parking provision contained within the DCP is
justified having regard to the context of this site, the proximity to public
transport and the availability of parking within the area on a Sunday when the
industrial uses are generally not operating.
The
court case above highlights the need for inherent flexibility in the
application of car parking rates for a land use such as a PPW. For this reason, the wording of the car
parking standard applies the rate as a guide only and stresses the importance
of the findings of the traffic impact statement.
RECOMMENDED CHANGES
It
is considered that based on further analysis of the draft amendment and based
on issues raised in the submissions that the rate proposed is excessive and
would be impractical to implement. It is recommended that the draft amendment be
changed to the following wording.
P.2 On
site parking shall be provided at the rate determined by the traffic impact
statement having regard to the objectives of this clause. As a general guide, new development shall
provide 1 car parking space per 7m2 of usable floor space or 1 car
parking space per 5 seats, whichever is the greater. (Usable floor space not being corridor space,
stairways, storage areas, toilets and other floor space that will not increase
the capacity of the development.)
The
recommended rate was arrived at by analysing the sample applications and the
findings of the traffic studies. Of the
three local applications tested, two were very similar in terms of their size
and car parking rate recommended in the respective traffic studies. These
applications were used as a benchmark to extrapolate an appropriate rate of car
parking of 1 car parking space per 7m2 of useable floor space area. The application of the new rate is
demonstrated in table 2 below.
Table
2 : Number of spaces required for local PPWs (based on recommended changes to
rate)
|
DA
No. |
Address |
Approx.
Useable Floor Space Area |
No.
of spaces based on floor area |
No.
of seats |
No.
of spaces based on seats |
No.
of spaces under Traffic Study |
|
724/2009 |
121 Railway Parade, Granville |
514m2 |
73 |
273 |
55 |
73 spaces with 37 to be provided on-site |
|
688/2008 |
|
1,420m2 |
142 |
500 |
100 |
70-75 spaces with 31 to be provided
on-site |
|
1185/2005 |
15A |
617m2 |
88 |
250 |
50 |
80 spaces with 62 spaces provided on-site |
The
proposed changes recommended above provide for a thorough consideration of the
demand for car parking accounting for the fact that some PPWs may not have any
formal seating. Others may have seating
provided in a very dense layout catering for a larger number of worshippers. This approach caters to different styles of
worship while still stressing the importance of the traffic impact
statement.
The recommended
rate provides for a much more reasonable number of car parking spaces that more
accurately reflects the likely demand for car parking. It is acknowledged that the application at 40
Eleanor Street would not be able to comply with either the exhibited rate or
the recommended lower rate of 1 space per 7m2, however, the traffic
report and parking survey submitted demonstrated a high number of worshippers
living within walking distance of the temple and a high number of worshippers
such as foreign students using public transport. Again, this demonstrates the importance of the
Traffic Impact Statement.
A further change is
recommended to clarify the application of the controls to developments
involving alterations and additions.
Proposed additional wording is recommended to be inserted at the end of
Design Principle P.1 as follows:
“Note:
Applications for alterations and additions representing an increase in capacity
of less than 50 persons will be assessed on merit as to the need for additional
car parking.”
TIMING
Once adopted by Council, the draft amendment
to the DCP for Places of Public Worship would take effect upon the publishing
of a notice in the local newspapers.