|
Item 9.5 - Attachment 1 |
Detailed Report |
ATTACHMENT 1 – DETAILED REPORT
BACKGROUND
Council adopted the
draft Parramatta DCP on 14 December 2009 for the purposes of public exhibition.
The public
exhibition of the draft Parramatta DCP took place concurrently with the draft
Parramatta LEP and was held from 1 March 2010 until 23 April 2010 and was
subsequently extended to an additional 2 weeks with the submission period
closing on 7 May 2010.
The formal
exhibition involved a mail out to all owners and occupiers of properties within
the Parramatta LGA, (excluding the City Centre to which the draft DCP does not
apply) totalling some 76,000 letters.
The draft DCP and
draft LEP were exhibited in all branch libraries (as well as at Epping
Library), at the Council administration offices and were also displayed on
Council’s website. Advertisements were placed at regular intervals in local
newspapers.
Council received
9,710 visits to the exhibition on its website, 495 phone calls to the LEP
information line, 244 counter enquiries and 505 written submissions during the
exhibition period.
OVERVIEW AND ASSESSMENT PROCESS OF
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED
A total of 505
submissions were received during the exhibition of the draft LEP and draft DCP.
Although most of the submissions related to the draft LEP, approximately 50 submissions
directly or indirectly raised issues relating to the draft DCP.
During the exhibition of the draft DCP, consultation was undertaken with
staff from relevant sections of Council. Comments were received from and
discussed with Development Services, Catchment Management, Environmental
Outcomes, Waste Sustainability and Traffic and Transport teams. Comments
received from these sections were included in the above count for submissions
on the draft DCP.
All submissions
received were initially individually reviewed by planning staff and a summary
of key points and concerns raised were entered into a database (this document
is contained at Attachment 3). Acknowledgement letters were also sent to all
persons who made a submission.
Councillors requested
and received a draft summary of submissions sorted by suburb in June 2010 and a
further draft summary in August 2010, sorted by suburb to approximate
submissions on a ward basis (noting that there is some overlap of suburbs
across ward boundaries).
Following the initial
review of all submissions, key themes and issues arising were identified and
where appropriate grouped together for further consideration and reporting. Some
requested the insertion of new principles and controls, with others proposing
amendments to strengthen existing
principles and controls and to ensure clarity in their intent.
In the interests of
ensuring a consistent, equitable and technically robust assessment process, all
issues raised and recommendations were reviewed at internal meetings of
Council’s planning staff. This process ensured that all concerns raised by
members of the community and other sections of Council were considered in
(where relevant) a strategic context which provides for a more sound and
consistent decision making process.
RECOMMENDED CHANGES ARISING FROM PUBLIC
EXHIBITION
The analysis of
submissions has given rise to a number of recommended changes to the draft DCP
(Attachment 2). The changes are recommended in the context of the parameters of
the draft DCP – that is, to consolidate all DCPs into a single comprehensive
DCP. In determining recommendations, consideration has also been given to the
need to finalise the draft DCP and for it to take effect at the time the draft
LEP is gazetted.
The following
sections of the report provide commentary on the key issues and recommendations
in finalising the draft DCP. Recommendations relating to individual submissions
are contained in Attachment 3. A number of individual submissions raise matters
that do not fit into the key issues and/or areas discussed in the following
sections of this report and in some cases recommendations are made for change
to the draft DCP arising from these submissions.
All recommended
changes are listed in Attachment 2 and commentary and justification of the
recommended change, where not discussed in the following, can be found in the
table of submissions (Attachment 3).
KEY DRAFT DCP ISSUES DISCUSSION
To assist Council in
understanding the nature of submissions received, the following headings group
the key issues and summarises the main revisions recommended to the draft DCP.
ISSUE
1. Consolidation of plans
2. Car parking
3. Granville – area between the Railway Line and
Parramatta Road
4. Water Sensitive Urban Design
5. Aboriginal heritage
6. Protection of bushland
7. Use of roof tops for communal
open space
8. Swimming pools
9. Outbuildings
10. Toilet facilities in public
buildings
11. Height
control
12. Minor wording changes
13. Dual occupancy
14. Rosehill masterplan
1. CONSOLIDATION OF PLANS
As part of the NSW
State Government’s planning reforms, Councils must consolidate all DCPs into a
single comprehensive DCP, such that only one DCP applies to any parcel of land within
six (6) months of a comprehensive LEP commencing. In order to meet this
requirement the following are recommended.
Recommendation
§ Amend Section 5.3 Places of Public Worship
and Educational Establishments to incorporate the same controls as the
stand-alone DCP for Places of Public Worship (with any necessary reference amendments to
zones to reflect the outcome of Council’s decision regarding the prohibition of
Places of Public Worship in the R2 Low Density Residential zone in the draft
LEP). Further, to add “DCP for Places of Public Worship 2010” to
Section 1.4 Relationship to other Plans and Policies, for it to be repealed to
the extent to which it applies to land covered by the draft DCP.
§ Add “DCP for Sex Services and Restricted Premises 2010” to Section 1.4 Relationship to other
Plans and Policies, for it to be repealed to the extent to which it applies to
land covered by the draft DCP. Section 5.6 Sex Services and Restricted Premises is
proposed to be retained in the draft DCP with the provisions amended to remove
references to new premises. The provisions in this section are proposed to
apply as a guide to assessing development applications for any alterations and
additions to existing premises.
§ Amend the controls
in Section 4.1.9 Morton Street Precinct of the draft DCP to reflect the “Site
Specific 2 Morton Street, Parramatta DCP” once finalised in conjunction with
the Planning Proposal for this site.
2. CAR PARKING
Granville and
Amendments are proposed to the car parking rates for retail, business
and office premises in Granville and Harris Park Town Centres in the draft DCP.
The recommendations have been made by Council’s Traffic and Transport Services
Unit.
The proposal is to set minimum and maximum car parking rates to cap the
(maximum) number of car parking spaces whilst ensuring an adequate (minimum)
number of spaces are provided. This approach will assist to control traffic
congestion on the constrained road networks and maintain the existing character
of these town centres. The proposed controls have been sourced from the maximum
rates under SREP 28 and the minimum rates reflect generally applied minimum
rates for comparative land uses. These controls are proposed to apply to the
Granville Town Centre (as mapped on page 116 of the draft DCP), and the Harris
Park Town Centre where zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre on Kendall, Ada, Wigram,
Marion and Crown Streets and Station Street East, Harris Park.
Minimum car parking rates in the draft DCP will still apply to the
Westmead and Epping Town Centres. These centres are undergoing separate bodies
of work which have not yet been completed. A car parking rates review may occur
at the finalisation of these studies.
Recommendation
§ That the following
controls for the Granville and Harris Park Town Centres be inserted by creating
Table B in Section 3.6.2 Parking and Vehicular Access on Page 91:
§ ‘For business premises and retail premises, a
minimum of 1 space per 60 square metres of GFA and a maximum of 1 space per 30
square metres of GFA. Where there is a
combination of land uses, a maximum of 40% of resident visitor parking can be
used in the calculations for retail parking provided that these areas are
shared.’
§ ‘For office premises, a minimum of 1 space per 70
square metres of GFA and maximum of 1 space per 50 square metres of GFA’.
§ ‘Note: These controls apply to the Granville Town
Centre as mapped on page 116 of this DCP. These controls apply to the Harris
Park Town Centre where zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre on Kendall, Ada, Wigram,
Marion and Crown Streets and Station Street East, Harris Park’.
§ Further that this
proposed amendment be placed on re-exhibition.
Studio
Apartments
Parramatta DCP
2005 and the exhibited version of the draft DCP do not contain a car parking
rate for studio apartments. Studio apartments are not classified as 1 bedroom
apartments and thus the 1 bedroom car parking rate is not applied. It is
proposed to insert a car parking rate for studio apartments not within 400m of
public transport in the draft DCP. (For studio apartments within 400m of public
transport, on site car parking is generally not required to be provided.)
Recommendation
§ That the following
control be inserted in Section 3.6.2 Parking and Vehicular Access in Table A
for locations not within 400m of public transport:
‘0.6 spaces per
studio apartment’.
§ Further that this
proposed amendment be placed on re-exhibition.
Basement Car Parking
It is proposed to amend
the control relating to basement car parking for dwelling houses and dual
occupancies to reflect Council’s resolution at its meeting on 12 July 2010 to
allow car
parking in the form of a basement
in residential areas.
Further, it is proposed
to insert a new principle relating to the provision of basement car parking on
properties within the floodplain. The floodplain is an area of land which is
subject to inundation by floods up to and including the probable maximum flood
(PMF) event, that is, flood prone land. The principle discourages basement car
parks on properties within the floodplain. Where site conditions require a basement car park on a property within the
floodplain, development applications must provide a detailed hydraulic flood
study and design demonstrating that the proposed basement car park has been
protected from all flooding up to and including the PMF event.
Recommendation
§ That Control 4 in Section 3.6.2 Parking and
Vehicular Access beneath the heading ‘Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancies’ be
amended to remove the wording “Carparking for dwelling
houses and dual occupancies is not to be in the form of a basement” and amend to read “Where slope conditions require a basement, in such
cases the area of the basement should not significantly exceed the area
required to meet the carparking requirements for the development. Additional
basement area to that required to satisfy parking requirements may be included
as floorspace area when calculating floorspace ratio.”
§ Further that the
following principle be inserted in Section 2.4.2.1 Flooding of the draft DCP:
“‘Council strongly discourages basement car parks on properties within the
floodplain. Where site conditions require a basement car park on a property
within the floodplain, development applications must provide a detailed
hydraulic flood study and design demonstrating that the proposed basement car
park has been protected from all flooding up to and including the PMF event. An
adequate emergency response and evacuation plan must also be provided where
basement car parks are proposed in the floodplain.”
3. GRANVILLE – area between the Railway Line
and Parramatta Road
As discussed in
the report to Council on 5 October 2010 regarding the draft LEP, Council’s
Urban Design Team has carried out testing of the height and FSR controls for
the proposed B4 Mixed Use zone in the area between the Railway Line and
The revised
controls are designed to:
§ To provide controls that result in
economically viable floor plates and building envelopes.
§ To provide controls which allow the
development of clear, well defined and active streetscapes.
§ To provide consistent controls which are easy
to understand.
§ To remove controls which are already covered
by other applicable policies, e.g. SEPP 65.
§ To produce a built form that is more consistent
and integrated.
Recommendation
§ That the draft DCP controls for this area be
amended to achieve the above objectives, including minimum site frontage
requirements, building setbacks,
building form and street edges, and various amenity controls. Details of
the recommended changes are provided in Attachment 2.
§ Further that this
proposed amendment be placed on re-exhibition.
4. Water Sensitive
Urban Design
Following
consultation with staff from Council’s Environmental Outcomes Unit and Development
Services Unit and benchmarking with
It is proposed to
strengthen the design controls relating to water efficiency in non-residential
development (Section 3.3.6.2) in response to submissions, including from Sydney
Water. Further, new greywater controls are proposed to be included in the draft
DCP. The draft DCP is currently silent on reusing greywater. The insertion of
controls relating to greywater would inform and encourage different methods for
reuse and advise the approvals required.
Recommendation
§ That
Section 3.3.6 Water Sensitive Urban Design of the draft DCP be amended as per
Attachment 2.
§ Further that this
proposed amendment be placed on re-exhibition.
5. ABORIGINAL HERITAGE
The Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water has recommended
that Aboriginal sensitivity maps, which indicate land where there is likely to
be evidence of, or association with, aboriginal heritage, be included in either
the draft LEP or DCP. The maps would identify areas by the potential to
contain Aboriginal sites and would not identify known sites. Whilst the
standard template does not allow for the inclusion of Aboriginal sensitivity
maps in an LEP it is possible to include this information in the draft DCP to
facilitate the integrated assessment of development on places of potential
Aboriginal significance.
In addition to the maps, associated provisions are proposed to be
included in the draft DCP requiring consideration of the impact of development
on known or potential Aboriginal archaeological sites or sites of cultural or
historical significance to Aboriginal people.
Recommendation
That a new Section 3.5.3 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage be
inserted in the draft DCP as detailed in Attachment 2, together with the
insertion of Aboriginal Sensitivity Maps as Appendix 11.
6. PROTECTION OF BUSHLAND
Parramatta LEP 2001 (PLEP 2001) contains a provision (Clause 47) for
development on land abutting an environmental protection zone, specifically that
no building is to be erected within 6 metres of the boundary of Zone 7
Environmental Protection in PLEP 2001. This provision has not been carried over
to the draft LEP because of the restrictive nature of the Standard LEP
Template.
Recommendation
That a similar provision to Clause 47 of Parramatta LEP 2001 be inserted
in the draft DCP to protect and preserve bushland in the E2 Environmental Protection
and W1 Natural Waterways zones.
7. USE OF ROOF
TOPS FOR COMMUNAL OPEN SPACE
A control is proposed to be inserted in the draft DCP encouraging the
design of roof tops for communal open space. The provision is proposed to
encourage rather than mandate the use of roof tops for communal open space for
the following reasons:
1. Cost: The treatment to a reasonable quality will incur additional cost to a development in terms of treatment, landscaping, design and ongoing management/maintenance. Council needs to make a decision about where it places emphasis on quality given the recurring theme of affordability, developer costs and the continuing struggle to raise design standards.
2. There are design issues that will need to be addressed. These include safety and security (people not tripping or jumping from great heights), privacy (e.g. location adjacent to primary schools, backyards or other sensitive uses), ongoing care, cleaning and maintenance, which will also add costs for future residents.
Recommendation
That the following control be inserted under Section 3.3.2 Private and
Communal Open Space of the draft DCP, heading 'Residential flat buildings and
residential component of mixed use developments': "C.3 Communal open space may be
provided on the roof top where it will not adversely impact on visual and
acoustic privacy, and safety and security elements".
8.
Swimming Pools
The draft DCP does not contain provisions relating to swimming pools. It
is proposed to insert controls to guide applications for new swimming pools.
The State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development
Codes) 2008 contains controls relating to swimming pools as complying
development. The controls relate to location, setbacks, and decking and coping
requirements. Applications for swimming pools as complying development are to
be assessed against the SEPP. Any divergence from the controls in the SEPP will
require a development application. In order to facilitate the assessment of an
application it is proposed to insert the same controls in the draft DCP as
those that appear in the SEPP. Applications will require compliance with the
proposed swimming pool controls located in the draft DCP. This will ensure that
any departures from the proposed controls will require justification and will
be based on merit assessment.
Recommendation
That design controls relating to swimming pools be inserted in Section
3.3.2 Private and Communal Open Space of the draft DCP as per Attachment 2.
9.
Outbuildings
The draft DCP does not contain controls relating to outbuildings on
residential allotments making it difficult to assess applications in
circumstances where proposed outbuildings do not comply with the provisions of
Exempt and Complying Development. It is particularly important to make clear in
the draft DCP that the maximum floor space ratio for all buildings on one
allotment is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the allotment on the
Floor Space Ratio map in the draft LEP. It is proposed to insert another column
in the first table in Section 3.1.3 Preliminary Building Envelope Tables titled
'Outbuildings' with specific controls for this type of development. This will
ensure there are controls for such structures in the circumstances where
outbuildings are neither exempt nor complying development.
Recommendation
§ That
controls relating to outbuildings be inserted in Section 3.1.3 Preliminary
Building Envelope Tables of the draft DCP as per Attachment 2.
§ Further that this
proposed amendment be placed on re-exhibition.
10. TOILET FACILITIES IN
PUBLIC BUILDINGS
In response to Council’s resolution at its meeting on 22 March 2010, it
is proposed to insert new provisions in the draft DCP to encourage a high
standard of women’s facilities, and amenities for parents in both women's and
men's toilets in buildings available to the public. The Building Code of
Australia (BCA) stipulates the minimum acceptable requirements in relation to
"Access & Egress"(under Section D) & "Health &
Amenity" (under Section F). The BCA is a referenced document under the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and
Assessment Regulation 2000 and therefore is considered law. It is recommended that rather than stipulating
a prescriptive requirement that goes beyond the minimum requirement in the BCA,
that the draft DCP contain a principle that 'encourages' the provision of
higher standard women's facilities and amenities for parents in women's and
men's toilets in public buildings than that specified in the BCA.
Further, Council may wish to consider taking a lead by providing a
higher number of and standard in quality of amenities than that prescribed in
the BCA in its own and community buildings when the opportunity arises.
Recommendation
§ That a new Section
3.4.3 Amenities in Buildings Available to the Public be inserted in the
draft DCP as detailed in Attachment 2.
§ Further that this
proposed amendment be placed on re-exhibition.
11. HEIGHT CONTROL
It is proposed to remove storey controls for business zones (B1
Neighbourhood Centre, B2 Local Centre, B4 Mixed Use, B5 Business Development
and B6 Enterprise Corridor) in the draft DCP and rely on height in metres in
the draft LEP as the height control. The form of buildings in business zones
this may be unnecessarily constrained by a storey control, given parapet
designs and the like. Height in metres would apply, as well as other DCP
controls relating to streetscape, building articulation, building form and
massing.
Recommendation
That storey controls for business zones in the draft DCP be removed.
12. MINOR WORDING
CHANGES
It is proposed to
make minor wording changes to various parts of the draft DCP to strengthen
principles and controls and to ensure clarity in their intent. The changes include:
a. Proposed
terminology changes in Part 2 Site Planning. Specifically to consolidate and
simplify the requirements of a site analysis to promote improved plans
submitted with development applications.
b. To
clarify the requirements of a site analysis for detached dwellings and larger
scale developments in Section 2.3 Site Analysis.
c. To
include the W1 Natural Waterways zone in Principle 13 of Section 3.3.1
Landscaping. This inclusion will require landscape plans to accompany
development applications where the proposed development abuts the W1 Natural
Waterways zone.
d. To
replace “be blended with” with “respect and acknowledge” in Control 1 for New
Buildings in Section 3.5 Heritage.
e. Principle
P.3 in Section 4.1.2 Collett Part Precinct incorrectly states that the minimum
width of new pedestrian links is 2 metres. This should be and is proposed to be
changed to “3 metres, being consistent in width for its full length”.
f. To
remove the first note on page 88 referring to the meaning of classified road given that is redundant
as the term is not used elsewhere in the draft DCP.
g. To make minor formatting, referencing and
grammatical corrections to the draft DCP, including replacing references to
“draft Parramatta LEP” with “Parramatta LEP 2011.
13. DUAL OCCUPANCY
The dual occupancy provisions as they appear in Parramatta DCP 2005 have
been transferred to the draft DCP. In accordance with Council Resolution of 23
August 2010, a review of the corner site provisions for dual occupancies will
be reported separately as a potential future amendment to the draft DCP.
Recommendation
That the corner site provisions for dual occupancies be reviewed and a
further report be prepared to Council.
14. Rosehill Masterplan
The draft DCP includes a number of existing masterplans as
deemed DCPs. The provisions of the deemed DCPs will apply to the specified area
in lieu of the comprehensive DCP. One of the deemed DCPs is the Rosehill
Masterplan which applies to land bounded. The masterplan was initially adopted by
Council in September 2003 and provides for both mixed use development and
medium density residential development. The height controls within the draft
Parramatta LEP have since been proposed to change and differ from those in the
masterplan and as such, there is a need to update the masterplan.
Further, the masterplan may need to be reviewed once the outcomes of the
draft LEP proposals are determined by the Department of Planning. When this
review occurs, it would be appropriate to amend the controls and incorporate
them into the comprehensive DCP to ensure their compatibility with the
provisions of the draft Parramatta LEP and outcomes of LEP Planning Proposals.
Recommendation
That the Rosehill Masterplan be reviewed in the context of the finalised draft LEP planning controls for the block bounded by Hope, Weston, Arthur Streets and James Ruse Rive, Rosehill and a further report be prepared to Council.