Item 9.5 - Attachment 3 |
Summary table of submissions |
Draft Parramatta Local Environmental
Plan (LEP) and
Draft Development Control Plan (DCP)
2010
Summary and assessment of public
submissions
Submission No |
Reference No |
Submission relates to the
following property(s) or area |
Suburb |
Description of Issue |
Comments |
Recommendation |
1 |
454 |
181
James Ruse Drive |
Camellia |
In
relation to land at 181 James Ruse Drive Camellia, it is suggested that the
proposed permitted uses within the B5 (Business Development) zone are
inconsistent with the zone objectives relating to specialised retail uses. It
is suggested that a more comprehensive list of permitted uses be incorporated
to be consistent with Council's resolution of 9 March 2009. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That the
land use table for the B5 Business Development zone be amended to include
additional uses permitted with consent. That
Council not permit the term retail premises as a permitted use within the B5
Business Development. |
2 |
468 |
181
James Ruse Drive |
Camellia |
Has
submitted a letter supporting the proposal to expand the list of permitted
use on the site at 181 James Ruse Drive, Camellia and the site being used for
a clean, non-industrial land use. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the land use table for the B5 Business Development zone be amended to include
additional uses permitted with consent. That
Council not permit the term retail premises as a permitted use within the B5
Business Development. |
3 |
479 |
181
James Ruse Drive |
Camellia |
Supports
the proposed zoning of the former James Hardie site at Camellia as a B5 Zone
to permit bulky goods retailing and other appropriate uses. Camellia
is well located next to the Camellia railway station, enjoys good access to
the major arterial road network and will provide for substantial
employment. This is a gateway to
Parramatta and a clean non industrial use of the site is strongly supported
and will be a major step towards realising Parramatta's strategic Twenty 25 plan. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the land use table for the B5 Business Development zone be amended to include
additional uses permitted with consent. That
Council not permit the term “retail premises” as a permitted use within the
B5 Business Development. |
4 |
489 |
181
James Ruse Drive |
Camellia |
The
submission supports the proposed rezoning of the former James Hardie site at
181 James Ruse Drive Camellia as B5 Business Development zone, permitting a
range of bulky goods and specialised retail uses. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the land use table for the B5 Business Development zone be amended to include
additional uses permitted with consent. That Council
not permit the term retail premises as a permitted use within the B5 Business
Development. |
5 |
578 |
181
James Ruse Drive |
Camellia |
This
submission objects to the draft planning controls in relation to land at 181
James Ruse Drive Camellia. It suggests that the proposed permitted uses
within the B5 (Business Development) zone are inconsistent with the zone
objectives relating to specialised retail uses. It is suggested that a more
comprehensive list of permitted uses be incorporated to be consistent with Council's
resolution of 9 March 2009. This
submission also tables other letters of support from surrounding local
businesses. There are 16 letters of support which who support the proposal as
suggested above. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the land use table for the B5 Business Development zone be amended to include
additional uses permitted with consent. That
Council not permit the term retail premises as a permitted use within the B5
Business Development. |
6 |
584 |
181
James Ruse Drive |
Camellia |
Supports
the proposed zoning of the former James Hardie site at Camellia to permit
bulky goods retailing as well as commercial retailing. This
submission indicates this position is consistent with the ACCC and Productivity
Commission reports and recent government announcements. It will provide an
opportunity to upgrade services and facilities available to residents and
business people of Parramatta. The
submission suggests an absence of suitable alternative sites within the city
centre. Camellia is well located next to the Camellia railway station, enjoys
good access to the major arterial road network and will provide for
substantial employment. This is a
gateway to Parramatta and the proposed rezoning as well as submissions to
further broaden the range of permissible uses on the former James Hardie
factory site are supported. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the land use table for the B5 Business Development zone be amended to include
additional uses permitted with consent. That
Council not permit the term retail premises as a permitted use within the B5
Business Development. |
7 |
585 |
181
James Ruse Drive |
Camellia |
Has
submitted a letter supporting the proposal to expand the list of permitted
use on the site at 181 James Ruse Drive, Camellia and the site being used for
a clean, non-industrial land use. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the land use table for the B5 Business Development zone be amended to include
additional uses permitted with consent. That
Council not permit the term retail premises as a permitted use within the B5
Business Development. |
8 |
150 |
Western
side of Charles Street |
Carlingford |
Comments
that the Western site of Charles Street, Carlingford is zoned as follows: · No 1 to 7 is proposed R4 High
Density Residential · No 9 to 25 - R3 Medium Density
Residential States
that the eastern side of Charles Street is already over developed and to
allow the proposed zoning of the western side would further add to existing
problems. The street is already parked out with cars. Further development
will significantly increase the number of residents, traffic in the street
and will place a huge strain on public utilities. Suggests
properties should be zoned as follows: · No 1 to 7 -- R3 Medium Density
Residential · No 9 to 25 – R2 Low Density
Residential |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
9 |
235 |
Marshall
Road |
Carlingford |
Seeking
that dual occupancies be permitted in the R2 Low Density Residential zone or
that area be rezoned to R3 Medium Density Residential. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
10 |
311 |
32
Mobbs Lane |
Carlingford |
Objects
to the loss of development potential to carry out dual occupancy development
and town house development. The inability to carry out dual occupancy development
or town house development will worsen housing affordability in Sydney. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
343 |
7 Coleman Avenue |
Carlingford |
That Council reconsider the
proposed R2 Low Density Residential zone affecting 7 Coleman Ave. This on the
basis that their site adjoins R4 High Density Residential and it is
accessible to well established infrastructure such as trains, shops, schools,
shops, medical centres, child care and aged care facilities. |
This issue is discussed in the
detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the
exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
12 |
429 |
372
Pennant Hills Road |
Carlingford |
The
draft Parramatta LEP and DCP 2010 have not attempted to accommodate the
forecasted population growth through up-zoning and increasing densities
throughout the LGA, in particular the subject site (Carlingford Village
Shops) given its ideal location to accommodate an increase in housing density.
Figures released by the Department of Planning for the North-East SLA, an
area that includes the Carlingford area, is predicted to have a population of
57,900 by 2036. The submission questions the ability of the proposed zoning,
in general and in the Carlingford study area, to achieve the dwelling target
set by the Metropolitan Strategy. |
Satisfactory
documentation was provided to the DoP for it to be satisfied that that
proposed plan provided for sufficient opportunities for redevelopment and
increased densities. It is noted that a number of areas have been 'deferred'
in the RDS process which will provide for further exploration of
opportunities for increased densities in appropriate locations. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
429 |
372
Pennant Hills Road |
Carlingford |
The
draft Parramatta LEP 2010 is based on the Residential Development Strategy
(RDS), a document which is flawed because of its assumption that the
Metropolitan Strategy population figures are overestimated. The
recently released Metropolitan Strategy review has revealed that not only is
the assumption incorrect, but that the population figures are actually
underestimated. In addition, regardless of the population targets, the RDS
does not provide any indication as to how many dwellings can actually be
accommodated into the RDS study areas that it has recommended for increased
densities. Given
that land releases are tightly controlled, it would be far more accurate for
housing requirements to be determined based on forecasted population growth
rather than an analysis of the housing market, which was relied upon in the
Housing Market Study. |
During
the development of the RDS, analysis on an area and LGA wide basis was
carried out to determine the potential development yield using a range of
'take-up' rates i.e. 40%, 50%, 75%, 90%. This was done in conjunction with
analyses of other potential constraints to development (e.g. existing new
development, heritage items etc) and it was found that target set by the DoP
were met in most cases with only a 60% take up rate of development. This was
found to be the Departments satisfaction in whether to issue a Section 65
certificate for public exhibition. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
429 |
372
Pennant Hills Road |
Carlingford |
Hornsby
Council has adhered to urban renewal policies encouraged in the Metropolitan
Strategy, by recommending that Carlingford be rezoned to allow 5 storey
residential flat buildings to revitalise the centre. Parramatta
Council needs to reciprocate by increasing the zoning and densities on its
side of the Carlingford border. The subject site would be capable of
supporting a density of 3:1 which will not detract from the amenity of the surrounding
area (including nearby heritage items) and would allow it to be more in
character with the development proposed by Hornsby Council. The
absence of residential development at the subject site's immediate boundary
eliminates the potential for unacceptable overshadowing, privacy and noise
impacts. |
In
consideration of the site in question, PCC applied zoning, height and FSR
controls that it is considered best provide for some incentive for
development opportunities whilst maintaining the character of the low density
environments located immediately to the east and north east. It is also noted
that planning controls prepared by neighbouring Hills and Hornsby Shire
Councils allow for significant increases in residential densities and will
also accommodate demand for housing in the wider Carlingford area. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
13 |
434 |
262
Pennant Hills Road |
Carlingford |
Object
to the loss of development potential in the proposed R2 Low Density Residential
zone as the site at 262 Pennant Hills Road is located on a busy road and is
adjacent to a nursing home and high density development. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
14 |
503 |
Pennant
Hills & Jenkins Rd, Mosley St |
Carlingford |
Does
not support the provisions in the draft Parramatta LEP 2010 for the area
bounded by Pennant Hills Rd, Jenkins Rd and Moseley Street given the
following: a) Hornsby Council's proposal for an
increase of 655 dwellings, increasing population and vehicles. b) The Hill's Council proposal to
provide an additional 7,000 people and approximately 2,000 vehicles c) The varying proposed height
limits; together these developments can only lead to further gridlock on the
narrow local roads, burden an already struggling Pennant Hills Road d) Inappropriate public transport in
the area; existing traffic congestion on the local road network which can not
cope with additional traffic. e) Carlingford Court has difficulty
catering for the parking needs of the current population let alone the
proposed growth. f) There is a lack of jobs in the
local area to support additional growth g) Local facilities will not cope
with proposed growth. No
further development should occur on the border of the 3 councils until
adequate public transport, commercial, educational and recreational
infrastructure is in place to support it. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
503 |
Pennant
Hills & Jenkins Rd, Mosley St |
Carlingford |
Of
utmost priority is the commencement of the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link.
This will significantly reduce the need for private motor vehicle usage by
existing and proposed residents. |
Council
has and will continue to lobby State and Federal Governments to provide
public transport infrastructure to service the residents of the LGA. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
|
15 |
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Carparking
is an issue in the Housing NSW Telopea Renewal project and in the curvilinear
subdivisions of Dundas Valley in general. Street parking is not feasible and
parking must be on site. Parking guidelines must be improved for on site
parking, including for visitors in residential developments, including
duplexes medium and high density housing. Parking requirements for industrial
areas must not be reduced. |
The
Telopea Renewal Project is being undertaken by Housing NSW as a Part 3A Major
Project. Council is not the determining authority for the application, but
has submitted comments to the State Government in relation to various aspects
of the proposal, including adequacy of car parking. In relation to the comments regarding industrial
rates for car parking in the draft Parramatta DCP 2010, the rates have not
been reduced and retain those contained in the current Parramatta DCP 2005. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Carlingford
Precinct: Submission
disagrees with the Desired Future Character statement for the Carlingford
precinct, including increased height and development potential and refers to
previous comments concerning traffic on Pennant Hills Rd, Adderton Rd and
nearby streets in this precinct. Objects to increased height on ridgelines
due to overshadowing impacts and view loss. Proximity to proposed increased
development in Carlingford in the Hills and Hornsby Council areas will destroy
the community feel and the precinct will become a slum. Telopea
precinct: Submission
disagrees with transition mentioned from higher density to surrounding lower
density and the draft Parramatta LEP height proposals surrounding Redstone
heritage property in Adderton Rd. Accessible pathway connections need to be
secured now through the Housing NSW precinct, before there is any private
uptake of any of that land. The proposed linkages in the draft Parramatta DCP
for Telopea are not regarded as suitable due to slope and failure to link all
the requirements of the precinct. The suggested new street connecting Manson
St and Shortland St to connect with Marshall Rd is not supported as it will
create a difficult intersection. Objects to desired new lane suggested
adjacent to the railway station at Telopea as this may preclude rail line
duplication. Suggests some alterations to the key principles for the
investigation area in the Telopea precinct (HousingNSW precinct) with regard
to road widenings, accessible pathways, interface of buildings to railway,
greater rate of carparking. |
Within
the Parramatta LGA, the Carlingford RDS Precinct proposes to locate increased
residential development in proximity of the local centre on Pennant Hills Rd,
Carlingford railway station and Pennant Hills Rd bus routes. Topography and
road patterns reduce walkability to these nodes and therefore, the areas of
increased density are located towards the ridge line of Pennant Hills Rd and
are somewhat limited in extent and modest in scale (generally 14 metres - 4
storeys). The Hills Council proposes more significant density increases north
of Pennant Hills Rd, but this is not under the control of Parramatta City
Council. Views and access to sunlight are considered as part of the
consideration of development applications. The
Telopea RDS precinct includes a zoning and height buffer (Low Density
Residential, height limit of 9 metres) to the heritage item
"Redstone" which is considered to be adequate and represents a
reduction in development potential from the current zoning of surrounding
properties (which would allow town house development to a height of 11
metres). Desired pedestrian linkages and potential road and laneway patterns
represented in the draft Parramatta DCP would not take precedence over major
infrastructure upgrades such as the duplication of the rail line. Council has provided comments to Housing
NSW in respect of its major project concept plan for Telopea with regard to
pedestrian connectivity and road patterns. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Submission
refers to the Land Sensitivity Clause found in the draft Parramatta LEP and
mapping of land slip. Submission queries why the draft Parramatta LEP does
not recognise the potential slip zone on the western side of Marsden Rd,
Dundas. |
The
land slip areas mapped in the draft LEP are sourced from Parramatta LEP 2001
and reflect a translation of existing controls into the draft LEP. If an area that is not mapped may be
potentially unstable, this would still be a relevant consideration in the
assessment of any application for development of that land. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Provisions
in the Draft Parramatta DCP related to views should include Eric Mobbs
lookout, K13 memorial. Labels on view photographs in the Draft Parramatta DCP
need to be checked for accuracy. |
District
views from Mobbs Hill and in the vicinity of K13 Memorial are included in the
draft Parramatta DCP in Appendix 2. Views and Vistas on Map 2.2.1. Some
typographical errors have been found on the labels to the view photographs
and will be corrected. |
Typographical
errors including labels will be corrected in the draft Parramatta DCP. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Cook
Street & Fullarton Street, Dundas Valley, should be single storey and
zoned R2 Low Density Residential as these streets have minimum width. |
Cook
Street and Fullarton Street are proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density
Residential. The proposed height limit in the draft LEP of 9 metres would
permit two storey dwelling houses. A single storey height limit as suggested
would not necessarily reduce traffic generation and is not supported. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Buildings
are too high on privacy grounds and overshadowing in the Housing NSW Telopea
Precinct in Marshall Rd, Field Place, Sophie Street and the Polding Precinct.
Heights represented are also unsuitable on south facing slopes, with damp and
slippery soils. |
Heights
represented on the draft Parramatta LEP maps are the potential maximum
permissible, rather an 'as of right' building height. Maximum building height
will not be achieved in all circumstances or uniformly across development
sites. Other considerations, including slope, access to sunlight, privacy,
proximity to heritage items may require the stepping of building heights or
setbacks of upper storeys in order to satisfy other assessment criteria. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Hillside
Estate Ermington - unique subdivision, potential association with Garden City
Movement (Ebenezer Howard). Can this be verified? |
Hillside
Estate Ermington is included in the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 as a Special
Character Area, recognising the distinctive curvilinear layout of the
subdivision, acquired by the Housing Commission in 1945. The land surveyors
Lockie, Gannon, Worley and Campbell designed the subdivision. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Interpretation
of clause in the draft LEP: Clause
2.6C Earthworks - seeks clarification of who determines what earthworks of a
'minor nature' are and suggests that any planting in the vicinity of heritage
or aboriginal sites be prohibited. |
Clause
2.6C Earthworks - The consent authority, as referred to in sub-clause (2) of
Cl 2.6C (generally Council), would assess when earthworks are of a minor
nature and therefore do not require development consent. The objectives of
the clause, which seek to ensure earthworks do not have a detrimental impact on
the environment, including neighbouring uses or heritage items, would assist
to determine what is regarded as minor. This clause is based on Clause 23 of
Parramatta LEP 2001. Development that would disturb or alter a heritage item
or aboriginal place of heritage significance requires development consent
under Clause 5.10 of the draft LEP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Draft
LEP maps do not have contours on them. This is the basis of planning and
should be shown. |
The
format in which Council is required to prepare the maps accompanying the new
LEP is standardised by the State Government. Council is not permitted to show
contour information on LEP maps. However, Council's GIS system contains
contour information which is available as a tool for planning and development
matters. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
The
zoning below K13 Memorial, Carlingford should be R2 Low Density residential
along the railway and abutting the lookout. Tiptree Ave should be downgraded
to R3 Medium Density Residential. |
Land
below K13 Memorial and across the railway line fronting Tiptree Avenue is
zoned R4 High Density Residential with a 14 m height limit in the draft
LEP. In addition, the K13 Memorial
site is heritage listed and its significant district views are recognised in
Section 2.4.1 and Appendix 2 of the draft DCP. The rezoning of land zoned R4 is not
considered necessary. It is likely
that development to a height of 9 m under a R2 Low Density Zone could also
obscure views as do trees and vegetation on public and private property. Some views will continue to be enjoyed over
land zoned R2 fronting Kenny Place and Marshall Road. The issue of view protection is not
considered to have any affect on the heritage significance of the K 13
Memorial site. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Plan
does not progress potential outstanding heritage listings in the Dundas
locality, previously raised by submitter with Council. These include: 1. Views at Eric Mobbs lookout, Rose
Cottage (15-17 Honor St Ermington), the K13 Memorial, Carlingford. 2. Surveyed historic boundaries in
Galaringi Reserve e.g: the First Crown Grant intersects should be heritage
listed, not just the vegetation. Also list the remnant cleared area that was
the take off and landing place of the rare autogiro aircraft. 3. Site of the former Carlingford
Memorial Hall. 4. 77 Evans Rd & 23 Hart St
Dundas for historical connections to subdivision. 5. Is 39 Honiton Ave Carlingford the
once home of William Cox? 6. list Dundas Diatreme - the
escarpment, as a separate listing to the quarry itself. 7. List the cone shaped hill, Sir
Thomas Mitchell reserve - geological heritage. 8. Acknowledge the site of the former
Quarry master's cottage with a plaque. 9. Portion 193 for association with
convict workers at the quarry. 10. List the site of the camp for
convict quarry workers (The Stockade) 11. 23 Ryan Street - no information
provided about reason for potential listing. 12. Site of Adderton former residence
from 1890. 13. Wells and springs need to be
recorded as they affect development. 14. Site of Heness' Bridge 15. Dundas, Rydalmere and Camellia
Stations (Dundas is already listed) 16. Find survey Point 'A' in rock
Alexander St and list 17. Correction of names of existing
listings e.g Rose Farm Wharf is named incorrectly. 18. Heritage significance of Our Lady
of Way church. |
The
following comments are made of numbered points of the submission: 1. The protection of significant district views in the
Parramatta LGA is provided for in Section 2.4.1 and Appendix 2 of the draft
Parramatta DCP. This includes views
from Mobbs Hill at the corner of Pennant Hills Road and Marsden Road and K13
Memorial at the corner of Pennant Hills Road and Addington Road. It is not considered necessary to provide
for the protection of views from Rose Farm Cottage. 2. The whole of Galaringi Reserve at 130 Evans Rd, Carlingford
is listed of State significance in the draft LEP. It is not considered necessary to
separately list matters associated with the reserve such as the first Grant
intersects and the remnant cleared area that was the take off and landing
place of the rare autogiro aircraft.
However, consideration should be given to adding information on these
matters to the heritage inventory for the site as part of Council's
comprehensive heritage review. 3. Carlingford Memorial Park at 362 Marsden Rd is listed as local
significance in the draft Parramatta LEP.
Therefore, there is no need to consider separate listing of the site
of the Carlingford Memorial Hall. Consideration can be given to adding
information on the hall to the heritage inventory for 362 Marsden Rd as part
of Council's comprehensive review. 4. The submitter considers that 77 Evans Rd and 23 Hart St
should be heritage listed as they are the only properties that put the
original layout of Dundas Valley into context and are lined up one to the
other. Part of the original David
Street still exists in the backyard of 23 Hart St. It is noted that 77 Evans Rd, built in the
early 1900s, is somewhat modified whilst 23 Hart St, built possibly in the
interwar period, is rather plain but in an intact condition. There is doubt as to the heritage
significance and values of these houses and the historic importance of their
relationship to the original subdivision and roads in the area. However, further investigation of these
properties is recommended as part of Council's comprehensive heritage review
to see if listing is justified. 5. The house at 39 Honiton Ave, Carlingford, built in the
early 1900s can be readily identified as part of the historic building stock
of the area, making an important contribution to the streetscape and
generally presenting as intact when viewed from a street. The house may have an historic connection
to a notable person who lived on the site. The house at 19 Honiton Ave,
whilst understood to have been at one time the family home of the Mobbs
family influential in the district, has been greatly altered with a second
storey addition and is not considered suitable for consideration for listing. 6. The whole of Sir Thomas Mitchell reserve, including the
area of the Dundas Diatreme which is a significant geological feature, is
heritage listed of State significance in the draft Parramatta LEP. There is no need to consider separate
listing of the Dundas Diatreme. However
a statement as to the importance of the Dundas Diatreme can be added to the
heritage inventory for the site as part of Council's comprehensive heritage
review. 7. The cone shaped hill, effectively part of the Dundas
Diatreme, is also listed as part of Sir Thomas Mitchell Reserve and separate
listing is unwarranted, although information on this feature should also be
added to the heritage inventory. 8. The Quarry Masters Cottage on Quarry Road has been
demolished and there is no justification for the listing of the site. The submitter's suggestion to acknowledge
the cottage with a plaque and photograph has been referred to Council's Arts
and Cultural Project Officer -- Parramatta stories for consideration. 9. Portion 193, located in Dundas Park near the corner of
Quarry Road and Fullford Street, appears to have been a clean water source for
the first settlers, convict quarry workers and farmers who came after
them. It is also stated to be the site
of ripple fossils, showing at one time this was a sea shore. The land form of the Dundas Park has been
greatly modified to create playing fields with no known evidence of heritage
relics and structures or archaeological remains. Therefore, and despite the Park’s strong
historic connections, consideration to heritage listing as part of Council's
comprehensive heritage review is not considered to be warranted, although
interpretation of historic activities would be desirable. 10. The former Government Reserve where convict quarry workers
and later other labour camped in the early 19th century is generally situated
to the south of Dundas Park and generally occupied by roads and housing with
no known evidence of heritage structures or archaeological remains. Consequently, and despite its historic
connections, it would be inappropriate to give consideration to heritage
listing of this former reserve. However,
the interpretation of this reserve could be provided in association with
Portion 193 of Dundas Park. 11. 23 Ryan St is a single storey house built in the 1990s and
no reason is seen for its heritage listing. 12. Adderton, was formerly a substantial dwelling situated on
Manson Street opposite its junction with Chestnut Avenue. Whilst heritage listing is inappropriate
its location could be marked with a plaque.
This suggestion has been referred to Council's Arts and Cultural
Project Officer -- Parramatta Stories for consideration. 13. The location of all wells and springs in Dundas are
unknown and they are not considered to justify heritage listing. If
circumstances arose where through a development assessment or through another
means they were discovered, Council may consider its heritage significance on
a case by case basis. 14. The stone bridge (Heness' Bridge) in Fitzgerald Forest at
the rear of 71 and 74 Honiton Ave is already heritage listed of local
significance in the draft LEP. 15. Both the Dundas and Rydalmere stations are heritage listed
in the draft Parramatta LEP. However,
the historic station at Rydalmere has been removed and the need for its
listing is being reviewed as part of Council's comprehensive heritage study. The Camelia Station is a relatively modern
simple structure and no reason is seen to consider its heritage listing. 16. It is considered there is insufficient explanation or
justification to consider listing of Survey Point ‘A’ in rock on Alexander
Street. 17. The names of the various heritage listed wharves in
Ermington, Rose Farm Wharf, Spurway Street Wharf and Ermington Wharf reflect
names in the heritage inventories and there is no reason to believe they are
incorrect. However, they will be
further investigated as part of Council's comprehensive heritage review. 18. ‘Our Lady of the Way’ church was erected on land near the
corner of Pennant Hills Road and Evans Road in 1956 but dismantled in
1962. Consequently, and particularly
having regard to its short history, the former church site is not considered
to justify heritage listing. |
§ Incorporate additional information on the heritage
inventories for Galaringi Reserve, recognising first grants and a rare
aircraft takeoff area; Sir Thomas Mitchell reserve, recognising the Dundas
Diatreme and the cone shaped hill and Carlingford Memorial Park recognising
the former memorial hall. § Investigate the possible heritage listing of 77 Evans Rd,
23 Hart Drive and 39 Honiton Ave and the names of various wharves at
Ermington as part of Council’s, comprehensive heritage review. § Request Council's Open Space and Environment Unit to
investigate the feasibility of providing interpretive facilities on Dundas
Park for Portion 193 and the former Government reserve. |
|
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Seeks
to extend the R2 Low Density Residential zoning near the heritage listed
Redstone (The Winter House) at 34 Adderton Rd, Telopea by an additional lot
in Winter Street and Manson Street to protect the siting of Redstone. Also
seeks reduced height to single storey for the two lots to the south in Manson
Street and reduced heights for the Housing NSW Polding Street precinct to the
north. |
The
buffer zoning of R2 Low Density Residential adjoining the heritage listed
property of Redstone and including 1 and 3 Manson Street, 36 Adderton Road
and 2 Winter Street will provide an adequate and enhanced level of protection
for the site. It is not considered
necessary to extend this buffer zoning further to the east and the north or
to consider reducing the height of buildings in the R3 Medium Density
Residential zone to the south of Redstone or the R4 High Density Residential
zone for the area north of Redstone. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Brand
Street Dundas Valley is substandard and has road visibility problems. Dual
occupancy development approvals in Brand Street should be 'reversed'. |
Valid
development consents issued by Council for dual occupancy development in
Brand Street cannot be 'reversed'. Brand Street is proposed to be zoned R2
Low Density Residential in the draft LEP and dual occupancies are not
permissible in the R2 zone under the exhibited draft LEP. Were dual
occupancies to be permissible, consideration would be given to driveway access
locations and traffic considerations as part of the DA assessment. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Seeks
recognition of the site of the former Kishnaghur estate, (being an early land
grant and former house near the intersection of Tilley St and Osborne St
Dundas Valley and Acacia Park) with a low density residential zone and single
storey height limits in the vicinity of the park to preserve the views from
the park as the views were an important aspect of the estate. Also seeks to have Acacia Park heritage
listed as the site of Kishnaghur and renamed to reflect this history. |
Kishnaghur
is stated to have been a fine house built by Capt Thomas Henry Baylis in 1836
- 7, with extensive sandstone cellars and over looking a large circular
driveway near the present corner of Osborne Avenue and Tilley Street, Dundas
Valley. By 1891 Kishnaghur was one of
two large estates in Oatlands, but by the end of the second world war the
house appears to have been demolished or destroyed. It is believed that archaeological remains
of the house (or part of it) and possibly of the cellars are situated in the
south west corner of Acacia Park near the corner of Osborne Avenue and Tilley
Street. Given the evidence of possible
archaeological remains it is recommended that heritage listing of Acacia Park
as an archaeological site should be considered as part of Council's
comprehensive heritage review and that in addition Council should consider
the provision of suitable interpretation of the site. Land to
the south and east of Acacia Park is zoned R2 Low Density Residential with a
height limit of 9 m whilst land to the west is zoned R3 Medium Density
Residential with a height limit of 11 m in the draft LEP. It is considered that these planning provisions
are appropriate and will not cause any loss of heritage values of a possible
listing of Acacia Park as an archaeological site. Council
has previously decided, following community consultation, that Acacia Park
should not be renamed after Kishnaghur. |
That: • the
heritage listing of Acacia Park as an archaeological site should be
considered as part of Council's comprehensive heritage review and that in
addition the provision of suitable interpretation of the site should be
considered • there
should be no change to the planning controls for properties surrounding the
site • there
should be no change to the name of Acacia Park. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Submission
comments that Clauses 5.10 Heritage Conservation is inadequate for protection
of archaeological sites and heritage, including on areas of open space
managed by Council. Raises
the question of whether Council's Parramatta Historical Archaeological
Landscape Management Study (PHALMS) is on public display and identifies
Kishnaghur. |
The
submission relates to the implementation of heritage and archaeological site
protection during Council works, rather than the clause itself (which is a
mandatory clause required by the Standard Instrument). Such matters have been the subject of
discussion and correspondence between
the submitter and Council's Open Space Unit. PHALMS is available at the
Parramatta library & Heritage Centre as well as on the Heritage Office
website and provides information about potential archaeological sites. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Proposed
zoning of Galaringi Reserve/Cox Park at Carlingford as RE1 Public Recreation
and E2 Environmental Conservation does not reflect the actual land uses and
should be represented by the same zoning as the 2001 LEP, plus the historical
subdivision pattern. The RE1 zone has some endangered species. |
It is
acknowledged that the zoning boundary between the RE1 Public Recreation and
E2 Environmental Conservation for Galaringi Reserve/Cox Park at Carlingford
does not reflect the delineation of active recreation and bushland
conservation in this location. The zoning was required to be altered by the
Department of Planning as a condition of its section 65 certificate allowing
public exhibition of the draft LEP.
The land is in Council's ownership/control and both zones include
objectives for protection and enhancement of the natural environment,
however, it would be preferable for the E2 zone to cover all areas of
endangered bushland. |
That
the Department of Planning be advised that their directions for zoning of
land within the RE1 Public Recreation and E2 Environmental Conservation zones
for Galaringi Reserve/Cox Park at Carlingford does not allow Council to adequately
reflect the delineation of the active recreation areas and bushland
conservation areas within the park. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Proposed
R3 Medium Density Residential zoning in Sophie Street Dundas Valley is
inappropriate due to narrow, steep, curving nature of the street and no
capacity for increased zoning density. |
The
current zoning of Sophie Street is 2B Residential. The proposed R3 Medium
Density zoning proposed in the draft LEP is a translation of the existing
zoning and does not represent an increase in development potential. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Objection
to increase in development potential in various parts of Dundas Valley,
Telopea & Carlingford. Soil type, slope, southerly aspect of most slopes,
elevation and prevailing winds, inadequate roads for existing populations,
poor pedestrian and vehicle access and connectivity, impacts on
archaeological and heritage sites or other places of historic interest, lack of infrastructure, all mean that the area should be zoned for
the lowest density. |
The RDS
proposed to increase residential density in Dundas, Carlingford and Telopea
in proximity of local centres and public transport. Beyond these RDS
precincts, large parts of Dundas Valley are proposed to be down zoned to
permit low density residential development, rather than medium density
residential development (e.g townhouses). |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Manson
Street width, slope and visibility problems, awkward curves mean that the
proposed Medium Density Residential R3 and High Density Residential R4
zonings in this street should be downgraded. Also, Manson Street should be
widened at its narrow point. |
Council's
s94A plan includes provision for funding from developer contributions for
road widening in Manson Street. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Suggests
the proposed height limit on the east side of Honor Street Ermington, south
of the heritage listed Rose Farm House at 15-17 Honor St, to George Kendall
Reserve; and for several lots to the north, should be single storey. This is
to protect the siting, original views, and sunlight to the heritage item.. |
Rose
Farm House at 15 - 17 Honor Street, Ermington ihas State heritage
significance in the current and draft LEP (but is not included on the State
Heritage Register). Properties adjoining the site are zoned R2 Low Density
Residential with a 9 m height limit in the draft LEP. These planning provisions, together with
the large curtlilage comprising the property, will ensure adequate protection
of the heritage values of this heritage item.
In addition, any future development applications on adjoining land
will be required to consider the impacts of development on the heritage
listed property. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
The
proposed B4 Mixed use zone in Evans Rd Dundas Valley does not correspond to
the Housing NSW Telopea Urban Renewal Project. It is also not desirable due
to traffic movements in Evans Rd and encouragement of further pedestrian movements
across Evans Rd in conflict with traffic. Suggests a R2 Low Density
Residential zone for this location. |
The
proposed B4 zone is a flexible zone that permits a mix of uses, including
residential flat buildings and shop top housing. In the longer term it will
provide the opportunity for expansion of shops and businesses in the Telopea
Precinct as the local population increases. It would be desirable that the
design of the Housing NSW residential flat buildings in this location include
an adaptable design of the ground floor to accommodate changes in land use in
the future. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Need to
make provision for accessible pathways to connect with public transport and
retail centres in the vicinity of Dundas Valley. Also need better connections
through Galaringi reserve for education value and environmental experience. The
desired laneways and pathways in the Telopea Precinct in the draft DCP do not
address the slope and do not correlate with the Housing NSW Telopea Urban
Renewal Project. Alternate connections are suggested. Clause
6.8 Incentive for the provision of improved public domain and access - Urban
Design Panel should consider linkages proposed by submitter. |
The DCP
provisions showing desired pedestrian connections in various precincts are
intended as a guide to desirable improvements in pedestrian linkages within
precincts of proposed increased density. Alternate connections may be
considered depending on the development parcels that eventuate in these
areas, if these are acceptable to Council. Council has provided comments to
Housing NSW in respect of its major project concept plan for Telopea with
regard to pedestrian connectivity and road patterns. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Road
capacity and configuration in Dundas Valley is inadequate for existing
development and will be unable to cater for traffic associated with increased
development potential proposed in the draft LEP, and will also be impacted by
increased development potential planned by the Hills Council and Hornsby
Shire Council for Carlingford. The
draft LEP should make provision for road widening at various places,
including Shortland St, Adderton Rd, Manson St, Pennant Hills Rd, Sturt St,
King St, Yates Ave, Victoria Rd bridge at Rydalmere, Grand Ave Bridge
Camellia. Winter St should be closed at Adderton Rd and be extended to
connect with Sturt St. Circulation of traffic at the Telopea (Waratah) shops
needs to be improved. Traffic
management needs to be addressed to improve traffic flow at: King St &
Yates Ave; Kissing Point Rd between Sturt St & Timor Barracks in Stewart
St; Coleman Ave at Pennant Hills Rds;
Evans Rd at Pennant Hills Rd; Jenkins Rd/Oakes Rd. |
Council's
Section 94A plan makes provision for funding of road and traffic improvements
in the Dundas Valley locality, including roundabouts at the intersections of
Manson Street/Adderton Road, Evans Road/Sturt Street and road widening in
Manson Street. The RTA has a road widening reservation along Pennant Hills Rd
at Adderton Rd and has had proposals for the intersection of Marsden Rd and
Stewart St. Road widening of Marsden Rd approaching Pennant Hills Rd is also
feasible and is a matter for the RTA. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Bicycle
Routes - suggests that Council should reverse priority from recreation routes
to safe routes addressing activity areas, such as work, schools, retail
centres, event areas. State
Government should make provision for bicycles on buses. |
This
issue is outside the scope of the draft LEP and draft DCP. However, Council
has an adopted bike plan with route selection criteria and prioritisation. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Plantings
at K13 Memorial Park and Eric Mobbs Memorial Park are obstructing views at
these public look outs. |
This
issue is outside the scope of the draft LEP & draft DCP but has been
referred to Council's Open Space and Natural Resource Team for review.. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Due to
traffic considerations (proximity with Pennant Hills Rd and width of Adderton
Rd), the zoning of Adderton Rd north of Homelands Ave should be R2 Low
Density Residential, not R3 Medium Density Residential & R4 High Density
Residential as proposed. LEP should make provision for the widening of
Adderton Rd in this locality. |
Provisions
are included in the draft Parramatta DCP for the Carlingford Precinct to
address traffic issues related to development at the intersection of Adderton
Rd and Pennant Hills Rd. The RTA has a road widening reservation along
Pennant Hills Rd at Adderton Rd. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
421 |
|
Carlingford,
Dundas, Telopea |
Lobby
the State Government for duplication of the Carlingford Rail Line &
future servicing of North Rocks, West Pennant Hills, Castle Hill, Kellyville.
Also, a pedestrian tunnel from upper Brand Street would encourage greater use
of Carlingford station. UWS
urgently requires improved rail access. Granville
should be the main interchange in upgrades to the rail services to avoid
further congestion at Parramatta. Bus
routes and train services in Dundas Valley are inadequate for the increased
development in the Telopea Urban Renewal Project of Housing NSW. |
Council
held a transport forum in July 2010 to focus on the need for improved public
transport based on the role of Parramatta as Sydney's second CBD. The Epping
to Parramatta rail link and other rail and bus improvements are part of
Council's lobbying of the State Government. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
16 |
530 |
|
Carlingford,
Ermington and Wentworthville |
Submissions
are on behalf of owners of land at: · 32 Rickard Street, Carlingford · 8 Blakeford Ave, Ermington · 337 Kissing Point Road, Ermington · 8 Warra Street, Wentworthville. The
owners object to the R2 Low Density Residential zoning of these sites on the
basis that the uses of the existing zone (Special Uses) include places of
public worship, centre based child care, demolition and subdivision. All
these uses will be prohibited under the R2 zone. Requests
that the R2 zone include places of public worship as a permissible use. Reasons
in support or amplification of the submissions are that: a) No planning report is available on
Council's website indicating the reasons why places of public worship are
prohibited. b) The Department of Planning has
advised councils to limit special purpose zones and zone lands the same as
adjoining zone where those uses are permissible. On the subject sites this would not be an
issue if the adjoining land was zoned R3 as the uses are permissible in that
zone. c) A basic planning principle of the
earliest planning controls in NSW has included within residential zones a
number of social and community uses such as schools, churches, hospitals as
well as dwellings. These uses are
acceptable to the fabric of residential lifestyle d) The seven councils adjoining
Parramatta all permit places of worship in the low density residential zones
and other equivalent zones. Template
LEPs and urban areas presently gazetted all include places of public worship
in the R2 zone as well as child care centres as permissible uses. e) Many councils include a special
uses zone which provides for land uses that are not provided for in other
zones. f) The R2 zone permits hospitals,
educational establishments, exhibition villages and neighbourhood shops all
of which create a very different character and traffic over a greater period
of operation than places of worship. g) The existing approved places of
worship will continue under existing use rights but with limited if any
potential for change. h) The Section 65 Certificate
provided to Council by the Department of Planning for exhibition of the draft
LEP contains terms and conditions which the prohibition of places of worship
in the R2 zone appears to fail. The
Schedule to the Certificate provides that where under current controls i.e.
permissible uses are not fully represented by the proposed zone, then the
equivalent zone of the new template should be used. In this case SP1 Special Activities. Council is also required to zone special
use lands to the adjoining zones but these should not be more restrictive on
uses nor create existing uses or anomalous uses. |
For the
issue about Places of Public Worship refer to the discussion under the
relevant heading of the detailed report to Council. With
regard to the issue raised regarding the Section 65 certificate issued by the
Department of Planning, the author of the submission is correct in stating
that the conditions of the section 65 certificate require that the maps be
amended so that zones be removed that do not represent a translation of
current controls. However, the
Department of Planning are aware that the draft LEP 2010 is not a direct
translation of controls from the current planning instruments. As such, they issued further clarification
which specifically states the mapping amendments that were required. This clarification is contained in the final
section 65 certificate issued by the Department on 15 February 2010 and does
not require any changes to the zoning of properties containing existing
places of public worship. This final
certificate is included with the LEP exhibition material. With
regard to the permissibility of other land uses, in the majority of cases,
car parking spaces and drainage are considered to be ancillary uses to the
relevant dominant land use on site and as such are permissible. This accords with the requirements of Planning
Circular PS 09-011 which requires that ancillary uses not be listed in the
land use table. In relation to the
absence of listing of subdivision and demolition in the land use table, these
uses are dealt with in clauses in the LEP and are permitted in all zones as
required by the standard instrument.
Child care centres are prohibited in the R2 Low Density Residential
zone which is a deliberate change in policy on Council's behalf and has been
supported by the Department of Planning for the purpose of public exhibition. |
That
Places of Public Worship be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low
Density Residential zone and that the limit on seating capacity of 250 in the
residential zones be included in draft DCP 2010. Further, that any change adopted to the PPW
DCP relating to car parking rates, should be incorporated into the draft
Comprehensive DCP. |
17 |
58 |
12
Hector Street |
Chester
Hill |
Asks
whether property is affected by draft LEP. |
The
draft Parramatta LEP applies to the land at 12 Hector Street, Chester Hill,
known as Lot 11 DP 26193 and Lot 17 DP 659301. A letter (D01480058) was sent
to the landowner on 9 March 2010 stating that the draft LEP does apply to the
property and the proposed zone is R2 Low Density Residential. A copy of the
draft land use table was also provided. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
18 |
619 |
86
Ferndell Steet |
Chester
Hill |
The
submission is made on behalf of the land owner of No. 86 Ferndell Street and
seeks that the land be rezoned from IN1 General Industrial to R3 Medium
Density Residential. The justification for this includes the changing nature
of industrial uses in Parramatta LGA means the economic life of the existing
building has reached its end; the Parramatta LGA (including Chester Hill) is
not realising any demand for traditional industrial uses such as warehouse
and distribution given their isolation from the major regional network (M2,
M5, M7); that existing housing (including medium density housing) is located
opposite the site to the east. |
Under
the draft LEP, 86 Ferndell Street is proposed to be zoned IN1 General
Industrial and forms part of the South Granville/Chester Hill Industrial area
to the north. Adjoining land to the east is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density
Residential, land to the west is proposed to be zoned RE1 Public Recreation
and land to the south comprises the Sydney Water Pipeline which forms the
southern Parramatta LGA boundary. The
area is currently zoned Employment 4 under Parramatta LEP 2001.This
employment land has been reviewed under the NSW State Government's Draft
Subregional Strategy for the West Central Subregion and by the Parramatta
Industrial Lands Study prepared for Council. Under the draft Subregional
Strategy, the sites falls within the industrial area defined as ‘South
Granville/Chester Hill’. The strategy identifies the land as Category 1
Industrial Land, that is land to be retained for industrial purposes and also
describes the area as ‘highly prosperous'. In
August 2005 an Employments Land Study was prepared for Council by Hill PDA.
Under this study the land falls within ‘Precinct 14 –South Granville’ and
states that ‘South Granville should remain an industrial area to accommodate
and consolidate a range of light industrial activities. The precinct is well
defined, has reasonable accessibility and generally has intact industrial
land uses. The precinct is quite large, employs a reasonably large workforce
and enjoys a fairly strong agglomeration of industries. The precinct is well
defined and further reduction in the size and therefore the long term
viability of the precinct by residential or other zoning in or at the edge of
the precinct should not be permitted. Council’s draft LEP is in line with the
draft Subregional Strategy and the Parramatta Industrial Lands Study as the
land maintains an industrial zoning. It is
recommended that land remain within the IN1 General Industrial zone, and that
Council at a future date undertake a further Employment Lands review of
employment lands across the LGA. It is also recommended that the range of
land uses within the IN1 General Industrial zone be reviewed to provide a
greater range of permissible uses. As the area does not fall within one of
Council RDS areas it is not considered suitable for future medium or high
density development. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
19 |
233 |
|
Clyde |
The
submission raised issues relating to the safety of an existing brick wall at
a local Council library (does not indicate which library) and also compliance
issues with regard to the installation of 3 windows in a property in Rossiter
Street, Granville without consent. |
This
issue is outside the scope of the draft LEP or draft DCP however the issues
raised in the submission have been referred to Council's Manager City Assets
& Environment and Manager Regulatory Services for investigation. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
20 |
195 |
52
Greenleaf Street |
Constitution
Hill |
The submission
expresses satisfaction with the proposed zoning of 52 Greenleaf Street,
Constitution Hill. |
The
site is currently zoned Residential 2A. The proposed zoning R2 (Low Density)
Residential represents a best translation to an equivalent zoning in accordance
with the requirements of the Standard Instrument. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
195 |
52
Greenleaf Street |
Constitution
Hill |
The
submission requests more open space to be provided amongst areas of housing. |
Council's
broader strategic plan (Parra 2025) in conjunction with the Open Space Plan
seeks to explore opportunities for optimising the provision of and use of
areas of public open space. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
21 |
241 |
19
Caloola Road |
Constitution
Hill |
No 17
and 19 Caloola Road, Constitution Hill together have a land area of over 3000
square metres. While battle axe subdivision is a reasonable use of the land,
villas and townhouses are requested to be permitted as they have more street
appeal than battle axe subdivision. We are constantly reminded of a real land
shortage occurring in Sydney. A block of this size should be given special
consideration and be developed in ways other than battle axe or duplex
blocks. |
The
subject properties are zoned Residential 2A under PLEP 2001. Under draft
Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are proposed to be
located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s Residential
Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS criteria for
higher density residential development given that it is outside of the
Wentworthville RDS precinct. It was therefore proposed to be zoned R2 Low
Density Residential. Further, the draft DCP contains provisions to ensure the
appearance of new buildings complement and enhance neighbourhood and
streetscape character. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
241 |
19
Caloola Road |
Constitution
Hill |
A
battle axe subdivision would result in lot sizes around 800 square metres.
These would be very large lot sizes by today's standards. |
Clause
4.1 of the draft LEP specifies that the minimum lot size for the subdivision
of land is 550 square metres, except for battle axe lots, which are required
to be no less than 670 square metres (excluding the access corridor). The
larger lot size for battle axe lots is to ensure a suitable level of
residential amenity. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
22 |
246 |
4
Michelle Drive |
Constitution
Hill |
Does
not seem to be anything in the plan that in anyway benefits the existing
residents of the area. In fact, virtually everything would appear to have a
deleterious effect. Have endured past rezonings (increasing density resulting
in increased traffic) which has led to deterioration in the general standard
of living for existing residents. Dissatisfied with the proposed R2 zone for
subject property and objects to adoption of draft LEP. |
The
subject property and immediate surrounds are currently zoned Residential 2A
under PLEP 2001 and are proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential in
the draft LEP. This is a translation of the existing low density Residential
2A zone, hence no increased development potential proposed. The proposed R2
zone proposes to prohibit child care centres, places of public worship and
dual occupancies. These land uses are currently permitted with consent in the
Residential 2A zone. The typical development in the proposed zone is single
dwelling houses and the proposed zone will provide for a low density
residential environment. The subject property is located in the deferred RDS
study area of Wentworthville North and this area will be subject to further
analysis in future stages of implementation of the RDS and is not being
addressed in this LEP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
23 |
271 |
23
Apple Street |
Constitution
Hill |
Raises
the following queries regarding neighbourhood shops: a) Does the size restriction of 80
square metres apply to each shop, or the total development? b) Will bottle shops have a problem
seeking development approval in general and become ‘restricted premises’; it
being noted that the shops are proposed for the B1 Zone. |
Clause
5.4 of the draft LEP sets a maximum retail floor area of 80sq.m for a
neighbourhood shop. There is nothing in the draft that prohibits more than 1
neighbourhood shop on each parcel of land, provided each shop does not exceed
a maximum retail floor area of 80sq.m A
‘restricted premises ‘ is defied in draft LEP 2010 as a business premises or
retail premises that due to their nature, restrict access to patrons or
customers over 18 years of age, and includes sex shops and similar premises
but does not include hotel or motel accommodation, a pub, home occupation
(sex services) or sex service premises. A bottle shop would not fall within
the ‘restricted premises’ definition. |
That no
change ne made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
271 |
23
Apple Street |
Constitution
Hill |
It is
queried whether ‘seniors housing’ under the draft LEP 2010 (not Seniors
Living SEPP) needs to conform to the highest form of residential development
permitted. That is, if dual occupancy
is the highest form of residential development permitted in the zone, a
seniors housing development would comprise no more than two dwellings/units. |
Council
does not have planning controls with respect to Seniors Housing. Where Seniors Housing is permitted in a
zone, then the provisions of the Seniors Living SEPP apply. This may mean
that the type of development provided may exceed the highest form of
residential development. However, in order to undertake a Senior Housing
development, an applicant must satisfy extensive criteria to ensure that such
development is provided in the right locations and is compatible with
surrounding development. This is
otherwise known as a site compatibility certificate, issued by the Minister
and is required for such applications. |
That no
change ne made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
271 |
23
Apple Street |
Constitution
Hill |
The
submitter queries whether Council, in proposing to remove dual occupancies
from the R2 Zone: - has considered reduced land values and
reduced development opportunity for people with lots in this zone - is trying to align the R2 zone and the
previous 2(a) zone, which is the intention of the State Government's
initiative to undertake a new LEP - has compared the R2 zone with other
local government areas like Penrith and Blacktown - has considered allowing dual occupancy
development, subject to controls such as floor space ratio, building height,
lot width etc. - Further points out that: - it is not appropriate that lots in
excess of 700 square metres with 12 m frontages should be prohibited from a
dual occupancy - there is a precedence on Constitution
Hill for dual occupancy development which is consistent with surrounding
development. There may be additional reasons to continue to prevent dual
occupancy development in the Constitution Hill suburb given the close
proximity to service infrastructure, such as transit way. - whilst there are site constraints to
dual occupancy development, particularly stormwater disposal, these can be
overcome in design and servicing such as on site detention systems and/or
Section 94 contributions. - also, whilst there is little ability in
the model template to add local provisions there is scope to add forms of
development into the zoning tables and further clause 6.1 can be revised to
provide more detail such as: minimum lot size of 600 square metres
(attached), 700 square metres (the detached). Recommends
that: - dual occupancy development should be
permissible (consistent with current 2a zone), subject to development
controls that reduce issues of compatibility - a secondary dwelling is not satisfactory
as a compromise as they cannot be subdivided and are generally required to be
less than 60 square metres, and - multi unit housing should not be
permitted in the zone as it presents a higher density than dual occupancy
development. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
|
271 |
23
Apple Street |
Constitution
Hill |
In the
zoning table, ‘dwelling houses’ are permissible, but, in the definition, only
‘dwelling house’ (not plural) is defined.
This will create confusion as to whether more than one dwelling house
is permissible on any one lot. It is
queried whether Council has sought clarification from the Department of
Planning on this interpretation. |
The
majority of uses in the standard template have been written as plural to
recognise that more than one of these uses can exist within a zone. This is
consistent with the way mandatory uses have been categorised. The definition
of dwelling house is clear in stipulating that a dwelling house is a building
containing only one dwelling. This is deemed sufficient for the purpose
intended. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
271 |
23
Apple Street |
Constitution
Hill |
The
proposed height of 9 m is not supported for the following reasons: a) In combination with the proposed floor space ratio of 0.5:
1, an undesirable built form is possible b) Reasonable solar access will not be achievable for some
houses with undesirable aspects, resulting in inconsistent built form at any
given locality c) Traditional streetscapes will be lost (as 9 m is unfounded
and the height control will encourage flat roof construction to maximise
floors). d) height comparable with two storey development is all that
should be permitted in the R2 zone in general. This should be taken from natural ground
level to avoid built up houses. There
can be particular areas with significant slopes, built forms or vistas that
could demonstrate that 9 m is of design merit, such as Lower Mount Street or
Constitution Road where the staggering of buildings could assist any transfer
of issues onto adjoining properties. |
It is
Council's intention to retain 2 storey development as the maximum height for
buildings in a low density zone. However, a reference to a height of 9 metres
may seem excessive when applied to the current definition for measuring
building height. However, the definition for measuring building height has
changed. The current LEP measures height
in metres from ground level to the ceiling of the topmost floor of the
building (the wall height). The standard template and draft Parramatta LEP
measure height from natural ground level but to the highest point of the
building (i.e. upper most point of the roof ). Based on this change, the
maximum height has been adjusted to recognise that the roof space is
incorporated into overall building height. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
271 |
23
Apple Street |
Constitution
Hill |
The
draft DCP has not recognised Constitution Hill as a suburb in its own
right. There are vista, front setback,
character and other development controls which could be argued do not apply
to Constitution Hill. It appears that
this suburb is blanketed under Wentworthville, which is now incorrect. Constitution
Hill has an extraordinary history from convict settlement. It needs its own identity to be reflected
in the DCP. The
vista diagram is not very prescriptive.
There seems to be a squiggle generally over Constitution hill which is
not very useful. Seeks
to include an example in an R2 Zone of a dwelling design that maximises
developable area (i.e. maximum external wall height, maximum floor space
ratio, modern roof features) there would be acceptable under this
policy. Residents need to see what is
possible under this policy. |
The
history of Constitution Hill and convict settlement is recognised by
Council's heritage provisions and the need to protect and maintain certain
landscapes. Clause 2.4.1 of the draft DCP requires new development to protect
or not impede import views of the ridgelines for which the suburb is located.
The suburb of Constitution Hill is predominately a low density residential
area with a mix of dwelling types. The
purpose of a development control plan is to regulate new development. The
standard provision in part 3 of the DCP ensure the scale and form of housing
development in Constitution Hill is preserved and describes the key controls
that establish building envelopes. Council could use more visual aids in its
DCP to demonstrate the types of development Council is looking to provide. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
24 |
293 |
Lyn
Place |
Constitution
Hill |
Objecting
to proposed rezoning of Constitution Hill particularly further residential
development and increased densities. |
The
draft Parramatta LEP 2010 has translated existing residential zones (under
Parramatta LEP 2001) without any increase in residential density. Lyn Avenue and the immediate surrounds are
currently zoned Residential 2A, which is a low density residential zone and
under the draft LEP is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. No
new medium or high density residential zones are proposed in Constitution
Hill under the draft LEP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
25 |
294 |
5
Mahony Road |
Constitution
Hill |
Opposes
the prohibition of dual occupancies in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
294 |
5
Mahony Road |
Constitution
Hill |
Questions
why proposed zone for property is R2 Low Density Residential when townhouses
are being constructed in the area. Does not think it is appropriate. |
The
subject property is presently zoned Residential 2A and is proposed to be
zoned R2 Low Density Residential in the draft LEP. It is
located in the deferred RDS study area of Wentworthville North and this area
will be subject to further analysis in future stages of implementation of the
RDS and is not being addressed in this LEP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
26 |
314 |
13 Hart
Drive |
Constitution
Hill |
Objects
to the zoning of the property at 13 Hart Drive as 2A and seeks a zoning of 2B
for the reason that the property is landlocked by villas and townhouses, the
property is of the large size of 1834 square metres and is in the vicinity of
a major bus transit station near the junction of Hart Drive and Old Windsor
Road. A restriction of one dwelling to
the property would be undesirable because of the current surroundings. |
The
subject property is presently zoned Residential 2A and is proposed to be
zoned R2 Low Density Residential in the draft LEP. It is
located in the deferred RDS study area of Wentworthville North and this area
will be subject to further analysis in future stages of implementation of the
RDS and is not being addressed in this LEP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
27 |
315 |
Old
Windsor Road |
Constitution
Hill |
Submission
is signed by 7 signatories representing 6 properties on Old Windsor Road.
Requests that a corridor along the rapid bus transit way on the northern side
of Old Windsor Road between Hammers Road and Fitzwilliam Road (or at least
the northern side of Old Windsor Road between Hammers Road to Faulkner St) be
rezoned for urban renewal development (at least zone back to R3). Reasons in support of the request are that: • The
bus transit way has enhanced public transport • Council
has already allowed some urban renewal development prior to the land being
rezoned back to 2A • Further
development will not affect local schools.
Whilst the number of pupils will decline with an ageing population
increased development will balance this out • This
area has public reserves within easy walking distance, is served by a
cycleway and has good access to the Parramatta CBD, Westmead and other
hospitals, surgeries, the Emma Crescent Library and child care facilities • There
are a number of large properties on the northern side of Old Windsor Road
which could be developed with little or no impact on the properties behind
Old Windsor Road. |
Council
at its meeting of 23 March 2009 resolved to zone the land at Nos. 201-277 Old
Windsor Road (on the northern side of Old Windsor Road from Hammers Road to
Fitzwilliam Road), Old Toongabbie as R3 Medium Density Residential. The
Department of Planning did not support the R3 zoning as this area was not
identified in Council’s Residential Development Strategy (RDS) as an area to
accommodate increased density. The DoP required that the land be zoned R2 to
facilitate s65 certification and public exhibition of the draft LEP. This
area does form part of the North-West Transit Way Study areas identified
under the RDS. However, these areas have been deferred at this time and will
be investigated by Council in the medium term. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
28 |
410 |
68
Constitution Road |
Constitution
Hill |
Opposes
the proposed zoning that will prevent dual occupancy development in the R2
(Low Density Zone). Had purchased the property at 68 Constitution Road with
this intent. Argues that it will affect the value of their property.
Furthermore, continual changes to zoning has a terrible effect on the
streetscape of an area. Submission includes 8 other residents within the
locality who also object to the proposed zoning that prohibits dual occupancy
for similar reasons. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
29 |
426 |
|
Constitution
Hill |
Objects
to the prohibition of dual occupancies in Map Grid Numbers 01, 02, 03 and 04
in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. Believes dual occupancies, in
particular attached dwellings, improve the character and aesthetics of the
streetscape. Dual occupancies would not be a negative impact in the subject
area as it is surrounded by major roads. Dual occupancies have a personal and
social benefit as they keep families together. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
30 |
445 |
|
Constitution
Hill |
Objects
to the removal of dual occupancies as permissible development in the R2 (Low
Density Residential) zone. They wish
to build a duplex so they can live next to their elderly mother. There are several duplexes in the area and
they are compatible with the streetscape.
Any duplex they built would be of a high standard of design and would
have minimal impact on the neighbours. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1 |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
31 |
461 |
12
Eucalyptus Street |
Constitution
Hill |
Opposes
the rezoning of Constitution Hill to R2 (Low Density Residential) as is
looking to build a duplex at 12 Eucalyptus St where herself, daughter and
partner could live. Reasons in support
are that: a) Submitter is a widow and provision for a duplex will
prevent her from having to live on her own in the coming years. b) The current duplex in the street is in keeping with the
aesthetics of the neighbourhood and it would be ensured that the duplex
proposed to be built will suit the current heritage style particular to the
area c) As the land is on the lower side of the street, a duplex
will not be imposing on the neighbours. d) The relevant block is 792 square metres and is ample size
for a duplex to be built. Seeks
that this area remain zoned as R3 (Medium Density Residential) so that a
duplex or townhouses can be built. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1 |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
32 |
565 |
14
Ferndale Close |
Constitution
Hill |
Opposes
rezoning of property at 14 Ferndale Close, Constitution Hill to R1 General
Residential (sic) as it is too restrictive for this area with a large number
of blocks in excess of 900 square metres occupied by the elderly. This will not be maximising land potential
for the future, particularly when the area is in close proximity to train stations,
local buses, schools, hospitals and other main service centres. Requests
that Council leave 2 (a) Residential zoning or equivalent but limit dual
occupancy to properties greater than 900 m2, or alternatively rezone to R1
(sic) but allow property owners with properties greater than 900 m2 or larger
to build a dual occupancy residence. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1 |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
33 |
29 |
1
Bennetts Road West |
Dundas |
Owns
1200sq.m of land and feels that it would be a waste of time to develop the
land just for a dual occupancy. The land is currently zoned 2(a) and permits
dual occupancy. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1 |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
34 |
119 |
29
Dorahy Street |
Dundas |
The
submission requested information on the meaning of the R2 zone; the
permissibility of townhouses and dual occupancies; and whether the 600sqm
site requirement for dual occupancies applies before or after subdivision. |
An email
(D01492340) was sent to the submitter on 24 March 2010 responding to each
question raised in the submission. That
e-mail states that the R2 Low Density Residential zone provides for the
housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.
The typical development allowed in this zone is single dwelling houses. The
draft LEP as exhibited does not allow dual occupancies (duplexes) in the R2
zone. Townhouses are also not allowed in the R2 zone. The minimum site area for the
construction of duplexes is 600sqm before subdivision. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
35 |
162 |
122
Kissing Point Road |
Dundas |
The
submission objects to the proposed down zoning of 122 Kissing Point Road,
Dundas to R2 as surrounding properties have been developed for multi unit
housing in accordance with the current 2B (medium density) residential zone.
Furthermore, Council is not doing enough to overcome the chronic housing
shortage experienced in Sydney. |
The
site is currently zoned Residential 2B and is proposed to be zoned R2
Low-Density Residential. The reason for the down zoning is that this area is
not located within the RDS centre of Dundas, meaning its level of
accessibility to services and infrastructure is not as good as other
locations. However, the area surrounding the site has taken advantage of the
current Residential 2B zone and been developed for multi-unit housing. This
site, along with an adjoining site, and two lots facing Leamington Street are
surrounded by townhouse development. This stretch of Kissing Point Road is
dominated by townhouse development. It is unlikely, given the lot size, that
this land would be subdivided for single lots or be redeveloped for the sole
purposes of a dwelling. Consequently, it is recommended that this land, along
with other properties adjoining be rezoned to R3 Medium Density Residential. |
That
the following land be rezoned from R2 Low-Density Residential to R3 Medium
Density Residential with an FSR of 0.6:1 and a height of 11 metres. 86-110
and 116 to 134 Kissing Point Road, Dundas 1 to 5
and 2 to 8 Leamington Road, Dundas 1 to 15
Adderton Road, Dundas |
36 |
230 |
Yates/King
Street |
Dundas |
The
submission suggests traffic calming measures be introduced to improve
pedestrian safety at the intersection of Yates Avenue and King Street, near
Stewart Street Dundas. The reasons for these suggestions are the volume of
traffic at Stewart Street, the effects of resident parking and the location
of a primary school. |
This
issue is not in the scope of the draft LEP and has been referred to Council’s
Traffic and Transport Unit for investigation. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
37 |
256 |
140
Kissing Point Road |
Dundas |
Queries
how development potential is affected for the property at 140 Kissing Point
Road, Dundas including any property value implications. |
It is
proposed to retain the existing (equivalent) medium density zone. i.e. site
is currently zoned Residential 2B and is proposed to be zoned R3 (Medium
Density Residential) with an allowed height of 11 m under the draft LEP Therefore,
the zoning and height provisions of the draft LEP should not prevent any
proposals to build two storey additions or a new two storey house on the
property, subject to compliance with detailed Council requirements. The Valuer General, through the
Department of Lands, is the principal advisor on land valuation matters in
NSW. Whilst planning controls in LEPs impact on land values, Councils are
required to address a strategic framework including State Government plans,
policies and directions, as well as Councils own strategic framework (eg the
RDS) to inform their LEPs. The impact of draft LEP provisions on land value
is not of itself a reason for amending the provisions of the draft LEP, given
this over-riding strategic framework. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
38 |
349 |
Carver
Place |
Dundas |
Objects
to the down zoning of this area from R3 Medium Density Residential to R2 Low Density
Residential. The submitter argues that 40% of dwellings in the area have been
built for medium density housing. The current zoning provides a sustainable
and healthy environment. |
The
current zoning and development controls encourage a dispersed approach to
housing in which there are large areas throughout the LGA where town house or
residential flat developments are permitted in locations not as well serviced
by public transport, shops, parks, services or facilities. Consequently,
there is evidence of such development types occurring in various locations
across the LGA. Council has now chosen to locate medium and high-density
residential in areas that are in close proximity of centres and within a
walkable distance to regular public transport services. Carver Place in
Dundas Valley does not meet the RDS criteria for medium or higher density
residential development given that it is located away from the Telopea
railway station and shopping centre. It was therefore proposed to be zoned R2
Low Density Residential. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
39 |
350 |
Carver
Place |
Dundas |
Objects
to the down zoning of this area from R3 Medium Density Residential to R2 Low
Density Residential. The submitter argues that 40% of dwellings in the area
have been built for medium density housing. The current zoning provides a
sustainable and healthy environment. |
The
current zoning and development controls encourage a dispersed approach to
housing in which there are large areas throughout the LGA where town house or
residential flat developments are permitted in locations not as well serviced
by public transport, shops, parks, services or facilities. Consequently,
there is evidence of such development types occurring in various locations
across the LGA. Council has now chosen to locate medium and high-density
residential in areas that are in close proximity of centres and within a
walkable distance to regular public transport services. Carver Place in
Dundas Valley does not meet the RDS criteria for medium or higher density
residential development given that it is located away from the Telopea
railway station and shopping centre. It was therefore proposed to be zoned R2
Low Density Residential. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
40 |
367 |
Carson
Street |
Dundas |
Strongly
supports the proposed decrease in development potential from current 2B to
proposed R2 (Low Density) Residential for land in Carson Street, Dundas. |
The
site falls within an area where town house development is currently
permissible. The area is outside of an RDS (Residential Development Strategy)
centre and the proposed down zoning to R2 (Low Density) zoning is consistent
with the concentrated growth philosophy of the RDS. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
41 |
376 |
Carver
Place |
Dundas |
Request
that the proposed zoning R2 (Low Density) Residential for Carver Place be
changed to R3 (Medium Density) Residential) as this will best reflect the
development that has already occurred in the street (Carver Place) and allow
for the provision of additional housing in a style consistent with the
street. |
Carver
Place is not located within an identified RDS (Residential Development
Strategy) centre and the proposed down zoning reflects the concentrated
growth philosophy of the RDS. It is acknowledged that in some areas where
down zoning is proposed, some medium density development has already
occurred, however, to maintain the permissibility of medium density development
would be inconsistent with the endorsed RDS approach of down zoning areas
outside of RDS centres. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010 |
42 |
416 |
|
Dundas |
Submission
documents a number of concerns with respect to proposed zoning of land in
Dundas Valley/Telopea, particularly the proposed R3 Medium-Density
Residential bounded by Moffatts Drive, Tilley Street, Osborne Avenue and
Evans Road and the Telopea Urban Renewal Project. Such extensive rezoning
will exacerbate traffic problems, existing public transport infrastructure is
insufficient to cater for this increased population and there are too many
physical constraints in this area to justify its rezoning. It is also argued
by the submitter that it is Council policy that infrastructure must be in
place before rezoning is approved and this be enforced in this case. In
context of the proposed R4 High Density Residential around "Waratah
Shopping Centre" this is supported, provided infrastructure is in place,
because the topography of the area and its access to schools, shops etc lend
itself to such a zoning. |
In
response to the matters raised by the submitter it is commented that: • The R3
Medium Density Residential Zone only applies to the land west of Osborne Road
for the block generally bound by Evans Road and Moffats Drive. Permitted height for this part of the R3
zone is limited to 11 m or two storeys plus an attic. • The above
land is suitable for medium density development being within the Telopea RDS
precinct and having close accessibility to retail and community facilities,
the railway station and bus services. • It is not
appropriate that land in the vicinity of Holland Place , Kissing Point Road
and Rumsy Street be zoned for higher density purposes as it is outside the
Telopea RDS precinct, with a lower level of accessibility to commercial and
community activities and transport services. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
43 |
433 |
16
Dorahy Street |
Dundas |
Expresses
his disappointment and objection to the medium density development occurring
behind Paul Street, Dundas. Raises concerns relating to traffic, inadequate
infrastructure, mix match of finishes, height and overlooking. If the
development complies with guidelines, then these guidelines are a disgrace.
Attached a series of photographs. |
The
development site to the north of Paul Street, Dundas (16 Dorahy Street) has
obtained development consent. Development applications are placed on
exhibition as an opportunity for members of the public to comment on the
proposed development. All submissions received during the public exhibition
of the various DAs for the site were considered in the assessment of the
relevant DAs and are outside the scope of the draft LEP and draft DCP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
433 |
16
Dorahy Street |
Dundas |
Raises
concerns with Council delegations. |
Staff
delegations in respect of development applications are outside the scope of
the draft LEP and draft DCP and were most recently considered by Council on
28 June 2010. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
433 |
16
Dorahy Street |
Dundas |
High
rise development should be confined to nearby railway stations and major
employment areas with adequate infrastructure. Future plans and policies
should have a greater emphasis on existing buildings and the standard of
living of existing residents. If land
is deemed surplus it should be developed for similar style housing that the
area contains. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP, higher density residential zonings are proposed to
be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s Residential
Development Strategy (RDS). Planning for concentrated and carefully managed
growth will lead to more sustainable communities. The centres identified in
the RDS have good access to public transport, shops that provide for local
needs and community facilities and services. The concentrated approach also
enables future infrastructure and public domain upgrades to be targeted to
particular areas. The concentrated approach will benefit residents and the
community at large through the provision of compact, pedestrian friendly
mixed use areas that include a range of housing styles to suit the needs of
different residents. The draft LEP controls stipulate what can be built on an
area of land and for what purpose land can be used by way of zoning. In
addition, controls in the draft DCP have been designed to ensure successful
integration of new development within existing neighbourhoods and centres. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
44 |
545 |
28
Bennetts Road East |
Dundas |
Consultants
acting on behalf of the owner of the above property object to the down zoning
of the site and request that the proposed zoning be amended to R3 Medium
Density Residential. A detailed submission supporting this position was
included. The submission states that the site is in the vicinity of number of
other medium density developments and is within 400m walking distance to
local shops, neighbourhood centre, child care centre, primary school, open
space and has bus routes linking to major centres and railway stations. |
Under
draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are proposed to
be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s Residential
Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS criteria for
higher density residential development given that it is outside of an RDS precinct.
It was acknowledged that there is a local centre close to the subject site
and public transport services. However, in formulating the RDS, implemented
by the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, the level of accessibility and services
compared with other locations across the LGA is not sufficient. Council
identified 21 sites across the LGA for which the level of services and public
transport access rated higher than this area of Ermington. Council concluded
that the commercial centre was not of adequate size to cater for a broader
catchment. Furthermore, the public transport in terms of bus access (the 513-
and 523 Sydney Bus Services) did not provide for high usage as the services
varied between 30 and 60 mins and did not serve the wider region. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
45 |
554 |
33-35
Quarry Road |
DUNDAS |
The
submission requests that 'multi dwelling housing' be permitted on the site of
the Viking Sports Club by way of an addition to Schedule 1 'Additional Permitted
Uses' of the Draft LEP. The submission argues that the site is suited to
medium density housing for the following reasons: large site in single
ownership; well served by existing infrastructure, public transport, public
open space, schools, community facilities and services; future development
density will be consistent with nearby residential development; site is
predominantly isolated from adjoining residential by open space, vegetation
and roads; redevelopment will improve housing choice and affordability. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. That
the proponent be notified that further consideration of this proposal would
require submission of a Planning Proposal.
|
46 |
556 |
100
Evans Road |
Dundas |
Objects
to the exclusion of places of Public Worship from the list of permissible
uses in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.
The Faith Baptist Church at No. 100 Evans Road, Dundas Valley will
require renovation over the years to improve the buildings to community
standards. It is unreasonable to
prohibit the ongoing maintenance and improvement of long-established land
uses. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Places of Public Worship be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low
Density Residential zone and that the limit on seating capacity of 250 in the
residential zones be included in draft DCP 2010. Further, that any change adopted to the PPW
DCP relating to car parking rates, should be incorporated into the draft
Comprehensive DCP. |
47 |
236 |
Alexander
Street |
Dundas
Valley |
Submission
suggests road safety improvements and intersection upgrades to cope with
existing and future population growth. |
This
submission predominantly relates to existing traffic and road safety issues
and has been referred to Council's Service Manager Traffic and Transport to
be dealt with separately. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
48 |
607 |
204
Marsden Road |
Dundas
Valley |
Purchased
property on the basis that it was zoned 2(b) Residential, a zone which
permits townhouse and dual occupancy development. Our property is proposed to
be zoned R2 Low-Density Residential which will prohibit such development. The
effect of this property value which we believe is unfair. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
49 |
471 |
|
East
Rydalmere |
Submission
questions whether Council will extend existing public car parking for the
Rydalmere Ferry Terminal as the extra traffic will impact amenity. |
There
are approximately 70 car spaces located near the Ferry terminal at Rydalmere.
The existing facility is not at full capacity. However, Council will monitor
the demands of this car parking facility, particularly if new development
takes places to ensure that it is capable and sufficient to serve the needs
of the community. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
471 |
|
East
Rydalmere |
Submission
questions whether the increased zoning will increase land value and therefore
increase Council rates. |
The
Valuer General, through the Department of Lands, is the principal advisor on
land valuation matters in NSW. In determining rates some consideration is
given to development potential of the land. This in some part may affect
Council rates. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
471 |
|
East
Rydalmere |
The
submission raises objection to increased densities within the East Rydalmere
precinct on the grounds of loss of open space and gardens. |
Council's
draft DCP 2010 requires any new development proposed to comply with a
provision that 40% of the site area be set aside for landscaping of which 30%
of that landscaped area must be for deep soil plantings to allow substantial
vegetation to grow. There are also
requirement for internal private open space although that does not have to be
in the form of traditional backyard space. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010/DCP
2010. |
|
471 |
|
East
Rydalmere |
The
submission raises objection to the proposed R4 High Density Residential
zoning of land within the East Rydalmere Precinct and suggests that a zoning
permitting villa housing or dual occupancy development would be more
appropriate. |
The
area of East Rydalmere is within close proximity to bus services located on
Victoria and Park Roads, has access to local shopping facilities and public
open space. The proposed zoning for this area is predominately R3 Medium
Density Housing with the exception of land adjoining industrial development
near Myrtle Street and land in the southern part of the precinct (Elonera
Street) where it is proposed to be zoned R4 High Density Residential. Height
and densities proposed over the precinct as a whole are proposed to be
relatively low scale allowing for two and three storey developments
throughout. These heights and densities would also provide consistency where
existing development has already taken place within the Residential 2B zone,
particularly along Victoria Road. Furthermore, the heights and densities
proposed allows for a suitable relationship to be created between the
existing low density areas and proposed areas to be up zoned. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
471 |
|
East
Rydalmere |
The
submission raises objection to increased densities within the East Rydalmere
precinct on the grounds that existing roads are too narrow and that access to
Victoria Road will become more difficult |
Council’s
development controls will require that any future development for medium or
high density development incorporate car parking areas that can accommodate
vehicles. The widths of streets within East Rydalmere allow vehicles to pass
one another. However, The street width in Elonera Street and Burbang Crescent
allows for constrained traffic movement if cars are parked in the street and
may require an extension of existing parking restrictions that apply on one
side of Elonera Street. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
471 |
|
East
Rydalmere |
Submission
questions whether Council will be providing increased bus services and ferry
services and lobbying State Government to complete the Epping to Parramatta
Rail Link to accommodate proposed increases in population. |
Council
is not responsible for the provision of public transport facilities. This is
a matter for the NSW State Government. However, in making a determination as
to whether this location was suitable for increased residential density
Council formed the view that existing bus services, particularly the level of
frequency along Victoria Road was suitable. Council has a role to play to
actively lobby the NSW government for improvement to public infrastructure.
Council is aware of the need for further improvement to public transport and
will advocate for that accordingly. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
471 |
|
East
Rydalmere |
Submission
questions whether Council lobby State Government to provide additional
hospital and medical services, school places, police, library services and
waste services to accommodate proposed increases in population. |
Council
takes the opportunities to advocate and lobby the NSW State Government for
services where a need is identified. Council’s Strategic Plan and Management
Plan are the mechanisms for which such needs are identified. Council is a key
stakeholder in many state and regional issues given Parramatta is now
earmarked as Sydney's second CBD. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
50 |
122 |
33
& 35 & 37 Midson Road |
Eastwood |
The
submission objects to the draft LEP permitting increased development
potential at 37 Midson Road, Eastwood and not applying the same potential to
the rest of the street block including 33 and 35 Midson Road, Eastwood. The
submission questions the rules for dividing land into different zones/FSR
limits. Council should allow the maximum usage of the land by encouraging
higher density of land use. The new LEP is doing the opposite by lowering the
density of land/restricting development. |
The
proposed zoning for all three properties (including 37 Midson Road) is R2 Low
Density Residential. The proposed R2 zone is the closest translation of the
Residential 2A zone under Parramatta LEP 2001. The draft LEP has mostly
carried across the existing zones and development standards whilst
incorporating the philosophy of the Residential Development Strategy of
concentrating residential growth in areas close to public transport, shops
and services. The proposed FSR for 37 Midson Road is 0.6:1 which is
consistent with the FSR adopted in the Masterplan for the site which was
adopted by Council on 6 June 2003.. The proposed FSR for 33 and 35 Midson
Road is 0.5:1. The site is listed in
Schedule 1 (Lots 1-12 DP 270650 at Midson Road, Eastwood), which additionally
permits with Council’s consent multi dwelling housing and residential flat
buildings. The 0.6:1 FSR facilitates the development of these types of uses
without over-developing the site. The proposed FSR of 0.5:1 applied to 33 and
35 Midson Road is the standard FSR applied to all land proposed to be zoned
R2 Low Density Residential. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
51 |
122 |
33
& 35 & 37 Midson Road |
Eastwood |
Changing
the use of the land is not fair to most landowners when they bought with the
potential to further develop by subdividing in a few years. The draft LEP
will restrict the land for subdivision. |
The
general use of the land is not proposed to change in the draft LEP as the
subject properties are proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential, being
a direct translation of the existing 2(a) Residential zone under Parramatta
LEP 2001. Subdivision of land is permitted with consent in the R2 zone and is
subject to Clause 4.1. Land can be subdivided to a minimum lot size of
550sqm; and 670sqm (excluding access handle) for battleaxe lots the draft
LEP. Clause 4.1 contains an anomaly, as it does not cater for subdivision of
dual occupancies. The issue of subdivision of dual occupancies and their
permissibility in the R2 Low-Density Residential zone is discussed in the
detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
Make
provision to allow for the subdivision of dual occupancies in Clause 4.1 in
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
52 |
48 |
2
Wyralla Avenue |
Epping |
The
submission states that future high density development of No. 2 Wyralla
Avenue of up to 11 metres would result in overshadowing of adjoining
properties. |
Section
3.3.5 of Draft Parramatta DCP requires that development is designed to
minimise the extent of shadows cast on habitable rooms within adjoining
developments. Any potential overshadowing issue would be addressed during the
assessment of a development application. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
53 |
73 |
Carlingford
Road & Boronia Park |
Epping |
Dissatisfied
with the form of consultation. Excessive and unclear documentation. |
The
exhibition of draft Parramatta LEP and DCP has been undertaken in accordance
with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and
Regulation, and directions from the NSW Department of Planning. Exhibition material was provided at all
Council Libraries, at the Epping Library (within the Hornsby Shire Council),
at Council's administration building, and on Council's website. Throughout the exhibition period an information
telephone line was set up to field enquiries on the draft LEP and staff were
available to take enquiries at Council's administration building during
business hours. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
73 |
Carlingford
Road & Boronia Park |
Epping |
Concern
over proposed high density development in the area around Epping Car Park and
Coles supermarket. |
This
matter is addressed in the detailed Council Report. |
That
the zoning and built form controls for Epping town centre be further
investigated as part of the joint Epping town centre study. That
the submissions relating to Epping received in response to the draft LEP
exhibition be tabled for consideration as part of the joint study. |
|
54 |
74 |
8/11
Garland Avenue |
Epping |
Supports
previously proposed extension to the Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
55 |
81 |
4
Garland Avenue |
Epping |
Supports
previously proposed extension to the Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
56 |
87 |
8 The
Boulevarde |
Epping |
Does
not support the previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
57 |
81 |
4
Garland Avenue |
Epping |
Objects
to the omission of the previously proposed extension of the Epping/Eastwood
Conservation Areas to cover Garland, William, Boulevard and Melrose Streets.
It is appalling that the NSW State Government would not permit the exhibition
of the draft plans until the proposed extension was removed. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
58 |
91 |
5
Garland Avenue |
Epping |
Supports
previously proposed extension to the Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
59 |
100 |
11
Boronia Avenue |
Epping |
Land in
Boronia Avenue, Epping should be zoned R3 Medium Density Residential or R4
High Density Residential to permit urban consolidation and take advantage of
the nearby rail hub. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the zoning and built form controls for Epping town centre be further
investigated as part of the joint Epping town centre study. That the
submissions relating to Epping received in response to the draft LEP
exhibition be tabled for consideration as part of the joint study. |
105 |
11 The Boulevarde |
Epping |
Does not support the previously
proposed extension to the Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping. |
This issue is discussed in the
detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That Council continue to pursue
and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the Heritage Conservation Area
for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping to be carried out with
Hornsby Council. |
|
61 |
106 |
31
Rawson Street |
Epping |
Does
not support the previously proposed extension to the Heritage Conservation
Areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
62 |
108 |
37
Rawson Street |
Epping |
Problems
associated with drunk patrons leaving Epping Hotel and throwing empty bottles
into properties along Rawson St, Epping. |
This is
a matter for the NSW Police. It is not a matter to consider in preparing and
finalising draft Parramatta LEP or DCP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
108 |
37
Rawson Street |
Epping |
Some
land in Rawson Street, Epping is proposed to be zoned for apartments while
other land in Rawson Street, Epping is not. The author finds this approach
inconsistent and frustrating. |
Land in
Rawson Street north of Bridge Street includes land zoned R4 High Density
Residential and B2 Local Centre. This is consistent with the zonings in
current LEP 2001 which concentrates retail and higher density residential
activity within a particular precinct. Land south of Bridge Street has been
maintained for low-density housing due to it being within the Epping heritage
conservation area. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
108 |
37
Rawson Street |
Epping |
The
submission does not support the previously proposed extension to the Heritage
Conservation Areas in Epping as the house at 37 Rawson Street, Epping has no
heritage value as it has been modified and requires repair. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
|
63 |
110 |
16
Warrington Avenue |
Epping |
The
submission supports the previously proposed extension of the Heritage
Conservation Areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
64 |
112 |
20/25
Bridge Street |
Epping |
The
submission does not support the previously proposed extension of the Heritage
Conservation Areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
65 |
113 |
12
William Street |
Epping |
The
submission supports the previously proposed extension of the Heritage
Conservation Areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
66 |
114 |
8 Kent
Street |
Epping |
The
submission does not support the previously proposed extension of the Heritage
Conservation Areas in Epping. The submission states that the house at 8 Kent
Street, Epping is built on poor foundations and has large cracks in every
room. Has been repaired many times but cracks continue to reappear. Does not
want 'heritage rules' to affect future use of the land or house. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
67 |
124 |
15
Garland Avenue |
Epping |
Does
not support the previously proposed extension to the Heritage Conservation
Areas in Epping. Feels there are no significant houses in the area. The
previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas contradict the principles of
energy efficiency, high density around public transport and reduction of
green house gas emissions. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
|
124 |
15
Garland Avenue |
Epping |
Feels
that the proposed plan does not fulfill the public's interest. Society is
progressing and we should not sit on top of the past. |
The
recognition and protection of heritage is an important matter provided for in
NSW legislation. As described by the NSW Department of Planning's Heritage
Branch, heritage protection allows places and objects that we as a community
have inherited from the past to hand on to future generations. Furthermore, heritage
gives us a sense of living history and provides a physical link to the work
and way of life of earlier generations. It is crucial to retain and protect
heritage as it enriches our lives and helps us to understand who we are
today. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
68 |
129 |
Wyralla
Avenue |
Epping |
Supports
the inclusion of Wyralla Avenue, Epping within a Heritage Conservation Area.
Also raised concerns that No. 2 Wyralla Avenue, Epping is zoned R4 High Density
Residential and is not included within the Wyralla Avenue Heritage
Conservation Area. The submission recommends that the site should be down
zoned and included in the Wyralla Avenue Heritage Conservation Area for
consistency and given its gateway location to the Wyralla Avenue Heritage
Conservation area. |
The
issue of the proposed extension to the Epping heritage conservation area is
discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. The
heritage studies that informed Council’s decision to propose an extension to
the conservation area did consider Council’s planning controls. The studies
did not recommend any changes to planning controls or suggest that the
controls did not complement or were inconsistent with heritage values. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
69 |
130 |
33
Boronia Avenue |
Epping |
The
submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage
conservation area changes in Epping and particularly for 1-35 Boronia
Ave. Justification provided includes
that: § houses of no heritage significance should not be
protected and particularly 1 to 35 Boronia Ave due to age of dwellings and
absence of any particular significant features. § 33 Boronia Ave is stated to be built in the late
1960s with no heritage significance. § home owners should have the right to rebuild
through the normal Council development process and § there is a need for an increase in elderly and aged
care properties and facilities in Epping and in close proximity to Epping
Station. |
This
issue of the proposed extension of the heritage conservation area is
discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. The
2007 study specifically found that 15 residences (nos 3 to 31) along the
northern side of Boronia Avenue constitute an intact row of early
20th-century dwellings that collectively form a coherent streetscape dating
from the interwar period. The existing mature street trees (brush box
species) planted along both sides of Boronia Avenue enhance the traditional
streetscape environment. It should be noted that 33 and 35 Boronia Ave are
not included in the potential Boronia Avenue Conservation Area. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
70 |
131 |
19
Boronia Avenue |
Epping |
Does
not support the previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
71 |
132 |
23
Boronia Avenue |
Epping |
Does
not support the previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
72 |
134 |
20/25
Bridge Street |
Epping |
Does
not support the previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
73 |
137 |
30 The
Boulevarde |
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
74 |
139 |
29 Kent
Street |
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
75 |
140 |
39
Rawson Street |
Epping |
Does
not support the previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
76 |
148 |
6
Warrington Avenue |
Epping |
The
submission support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area
changes in Epping |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
77 |
156 |
|
Epping |
The
submission does not support the previously proposed heritage conservation
areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
78 |
176 |
9
Boronia Avenue |
Epping |
The
submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage
conservation area changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
79 |
188 |
14
Warrington Avenue |
Epping |
The
submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area
changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
80 |
189 |
31 Kent
Street |
Epping |
The
submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area
changes in Epping. The author expressed that they are very happy with their
home and neighbourhood of older homes and would like to retain the character
of the area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
81 |
190 |
2
Garland Avenue |
Epping |
The
submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation
area changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
82 |
193 |
5
Boulevarde Street |
Epping |
The
submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage
conservation area changes in Epping and has identified seven properties in
The Boulevarde, Epping that the author felt do not contribute to the proposed
Heritage Conservation Area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
83 |
196 |
|
Epping |
The
submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area
changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
84 |
197 |
15
Chelmsford Avenue |
Epping |
The
submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area
changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
85 |
200 |
15
Warrington Avenue |
Epping |
The
submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area
changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
86 |
203 |
39 Kent
Street |
Epping |
The
submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage
conservation area changes in Epping and notes that modern units are prevalent
in the area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
87 |
205 |
29
Victoria Street |
Epping |
The
submission suggests that neighbouring properties at 31 and 33 Victoria
Street, Epping be included within the Heritage Conservation Area as the
author doesn't want them to be redeveloped with large "McMansions". |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. The
boundary marking the northern extent of the proposed conservation area in
Victoria Street is appropriate as it includes properties of significant conservation
value.It is not necessary to include adjacent properties at 31 and 33
Victoria Street within the proposed area. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
88 |
207 |
11
Garland Avenue |
Epping |
The
submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area
changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
89 |
209 |
7 The
Boulevarde |
Epping |
The
submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage
conservation area changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
90 |
210 |
12
Garland Avenue |
Epping |
The
submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area
changes in Epping. The area contains nearly 100 years of history which should
be preserved for present and future generations. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
91 |
212 |
11A
Boronia Avenue |
Epping |
That
Boronia Avenue, between Midson Road and Kent Street, be made a no through
street as it is used as a feeder road with excessive volumes of traffic and
inadequate parking. |
Changes
to the road network are not matters relevant to the draft Parramatta LEP/DCP
2010. This submission was referred to Council’s Traffic and Transport Unit
for comment. They have advised that Boronia Avenue is an important local road
for through traffic and this needs to be maintained. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
92 |
212 |
11A
Boronia Avenue |
Epping |
The submission
supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in
Epping but states that the extension to the conservation areas do not go far
enough. The area should be inclusive of Eastwood and West Epping bounded by
High Street, Railway Avenue, Wingate Avenue, Midson Road and Carlingford
Road. |
This
issue of the proposed extension of the heritage conservation area is
discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. The
whole of the area bound by High Street, Railway Avenue, Wingate Avenue,
Midson Road and Carlingford Road does not include a sufficiently high
proportion of properties of significant heritage and conservation values and
it would be inappropriate to include it in conservation areas. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
93 |
213 |
7/11
Garland Avenue |
Epping |
The
submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area
changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
94 |
214 |
5A The
Boulevarde |
Epping |
The
submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage
conservation area changes in Epping and states that numbers 1, 3, 5, 5A, 7,
9, and 11 The Boulevard, Epping have no heritage significance and should not
be included in a Heritage Conservation Area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
95 |
215 |
11A The
Boulevarde |
Epping |
The
submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area
changes in Epping. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed
Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
96 |
216 |
3
Boronia Avenue |
Epping |
The
submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area
changes in Epping. Does not welcome further changes in this area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
97 |
218 |
16
Melrose Street |
Epping |
The
submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage
conservation area changes in Epping Justification provided includes that:
houses of no heritage significance should not be protected; home owners should
have the right to rebuild through the normal Council development process; and
here is a need for an increase in elderly and aged care properties and
facilities in Epping and in close proximity to Epping Station. |
This
issue of the proposed extension of the heritage conservation area is
discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. Addressing
specific matters raised by the submitter it is commented that: • Within
the proposed conservation areas it is recognised that not all properties will
be of significant conservation and heritage values, termed contributory
items. The development obligations on
these properties will be less than those properties of higher value. • The
need for higher density development and increased provision for the elderly
in close proximity to Epping station is a matter that will be addressed as
part of the joint planning study for Epping. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
98 |
220 |
17 Kent
Street |
Epping |
The
submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area
changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
99 |
221 |
7
Boronia Avenue |
Epping |
Does
not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes
in Epping. House has no heritage value as it has been modified and requires
repair. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
100 |
227 |
23 The
Boulevarde |
Epping |
The
submission supports the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area
changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
101 |
231 |
163
Carlingford Road |
Epping |
Indicates
that site at 163 Carlingford Rd Epping is currently zoned Residential 2B
Medium Density Residential. Draft Parramatta LEP proposed R2 Low Density
Residential zoning. Seeking to retain equivalent R3 zoning as site is
isolated by an existing church building and existing town house development. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are
proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS
criteria for higher density residential development given that it is outside
of the Carlingford or Epping RDS precincts. It was therefore proposed to be
zoned R2 Low Density Residential. While it is recognised that some existing
properties along Carlingford Road have been developed for multi unit housing
and dual occupancy development, it is considered that further change to the
zoning along Carlingford Road is outside the scope of the draft LEP. While
the site does adjoin an existing townhouse development and church, this would
not warrant the rezoning of this land to R3 on these grounds alone. It is
noted that further investigation of the Epping town centres will be undertaken as part of
the joint planning study to be prepared for Epping Town Centre (by Parramatta and Hornsby Councils).
Furthermore, Hornsby Shire Council's Housing Strategy in relation to
Carlingford will also impact upon development in the area and would need to
be considered in the reinvestigation of the area on a holistic basis along
with any further redevelopment along Carlingford Road. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
102 |
238 |
55A
Wyralla Avenue |
Epping |
Does
not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes
in Epping. As a note, this property is not within the existing or proposed
conservation area. |
This issue
is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
103 |
239 |
3
Melrose Street |
Epping |
Does
not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes
in Epping. As a note, this property is not within the proposed conservation
area but does adjoin the area proposed for extension. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
104 |
248 |
8
William Street |
Epping |
The
submission does not support the previously proposed draft heritage
conservation area changes in Epping Justification provided includes that:
houses of no heritage significance should not be protected; home owners
should have the right to rebuild through the normal Council development
process; and here is a need for an increase in elderly and aged care
properties and facilities in Epping and in close proximity to Epping Station. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
105 |
250 |
11
Warrington Ave |
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed Heritage Conservation Area in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
106 |
254 |
10 Kent
Street |
Epping |
Supports
the inclusion of additional areas to the Heritage Conservation Area in Epping
as it is important to maintain and protect the character and ensure no more
unsympathetic development occurs. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
107 |
264 |
8
Melrose Street |
Epping |
Does
not support the previous proposal for the extension of the Epping Heritage conservation
area. Reasons in support of the
submission are that: houses of no heritage significance should not be
protected; home owners should have the right to rebuild through the normal
Council development process; and there is a need for an increase in elderly
and aged care properties and facilities in Epping. The area is also within
close proximity to Epping Station. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
108 |
269 |
30A
Rawson Street |
Epping |
Supports
the extension to the Epping Heritage Conservation Area as proposed by
Council. Protection of
Federation/Californian bungalow style housing is important. These homes
characterise the local area. The Epping area has already helped to meet the
NSW government's broader Metropolitan strategy objectives so the conservation
area should be endorsed. There should be a permanent ban on intrusive
developments that are not sympathetic to the heritage style of housing. It is
also important that this area have public recognition from Council that the
heritage housing stock is culturally significant to the general community. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
109 |
270 |
30A
Rawson Street |
Epping |
Supports
the extension to the Epping Heritage Conservation Area as proposed by
Council. Protection of
Federation/Californian bungalow style housing is important. These homes
characterise the local area. The Epping area has already helped to meet the
NSW government's broader Metropolitan strategy objectives so the conservation
area should be endorsed. There should be a permanent ban on intrusive
developments that are not sympathetic to the heritage style of housing. It is
also important that this area have public recognition from Council that the
heritage housing stock is culturally significant to the general community. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
110 |
272 |
64
Wyralla Ave |
Epping |
Supports
the extension of the Epping Heritage Conservation Area. Does not want to see any more demolition
and erection of wall to wall, front to back two storey housing. Wants to keep suburb the way it was built. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
111 |
274 |
4 First
Avenue |
Epping |
Supports
the proposal to zone their area R2 Low-Density Residential as they believe
two dwellings on one lot of land represents over development. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
112 |
275 |
25
Boronia Avenue |
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed Heritage Conservation area extension in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
113 |
283 |
72
Epping Avenue |
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed extension to the Epping Heritage Conservation area.
Their reason for this is that Federation/California bungalow's characterise
the area, The Epping area has already helped meet the Metropolitan Strategy
and there is a need for public recognition of the areas housing stock. |
This issue
is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
114 |
284 |
22
Victoria Street |
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping
for the following reasons: (a) Protects the federation/Californian bungalow
character of housing in the area; (b) Preserves culturally significant
heritage; (c) HCA would preclude intrusive and unsympathetic development in
the area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
115 |
285 |
|
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping
for the following reasons: (a) Protects the federation/Californian bungalow
housing from demolition; (b) Epping area has already helped meet the NSW
governments broader Metropolitan Strategy objectives; (c) HCA would preclude
intrusive and unsympathetic development in the area; (d) public recognition
of Council that Epping's housing stock is culturally significant. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
116 |
286 |
7
Garland Avenue |
Epping |
Does
not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes
in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
117 |
302 |
|
Epping |
Would
like to see more high density residential within walking distance to Epping
Railway Station. |
The
issue of increased provision for high density residential development within
walking distance of Epping railway station will be addressed in the joint
planning study of Epping. |
That
the zoning and built form controls for Epping town centre be further
investigated as part of the joint Epping town centre study. That
the submissions relating to Epping received in response to the draft LEP
exhibition be tabled for consideration as part of the joint study. |
302 |
|
Epping |
Supports
the NSW Department of Planning's decision to say NO to the extension of the
heritage conservation areas. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
|
118 |
325 |
17
Chesterfield Road |
Epping |
Supports
the extension to the Epping Heritage Conservation Area as proposed by
Council. Protection of
Federation/Californian bungalow style housing is important. These homes
characterise the local area. The Epping area has already helped to meet the
NSW government's broader Metropolitan strategy objectives so the conservation
area should be endorsed. There should be a permanent ban on intrusive
developments that are not sympathetic to the heritage style of housing. It is
also important that this area have public recognition from Council that the
heritage housing stock is culturally significant to the general community. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
119 |
326 |
11
Victoria Street |
Epping |
Supports
the proposed conservation areas for Epping.
People in these areas have spent a lot of money restoring old houses
and it would be a shame to end up with a hotch potch of high-rise and
restored houses in the one area. Any
high rise development should be part of the shopping centre redevelopment. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
120 |
328 |
13B
Warrington |
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
121 |
333 |
2B
William Street |
Epping |
Does
not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes
in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
122 |
334 |
30 The
Boulevarde |
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
123 |
336 |
10
William Street |
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
124 |
338 |
101
Carlingford Road & 1 Angus Avenue |
Epping |
Land at
101 Carlingford Rd and 1 Angus Ave, Epping is presently zoned Neighbourhood
Business 3B under Parramatta LEP 2001 with a maximum floor space ratio of
1.5: 1. The draft LEP as exhibited
represents a continuation of the same controls and is supported for these
sites. |
It is
acknowledged that this submission supports the draft Parramatta LEP as
exhibited for 101 Carlingford Road and 1 Angus Avenue, Epping. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
125 |
339 |
2B
William Street |
Epping |
Does
not support the proposal for the extension of the Epping Heritage
conservation area. Reasons in support
of the submission are that: houses of no heritage significance should not be
protected; home owners should have the right to rebuild through the normal
Council development process; and there is a need for an increase in elderly
and aged care properties and facilities in Epping and in close proximity to
Epping Station. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
126 |
344 |
|
Epping |
Supports
Council's endeavours to extend the Epping Conservation Area. Since the
establishment of the Conservation Area it has helped maintain the beautiful
streetscape and quality of housing within the area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
127 |
346 |
107-111
Carlingford Road |
Epping |
The
submission argues that the RDS Strategy is flawed to the extent that existing
development has not been considered as part of 'down zoning' of land,
particularly along Carlingford Road.
An example given along Carlingford Road (between Ryde Street and
Orchard Street) that the majority are currently developed for dual
occupancies or multi unit housing. The down zoning and subsequent prohibition
of these uses will lead to the developed sites having existing use rights. |
In
downzoning land, it is inevitable that in some instances land may have
already been developed for the highest use and that use may be prohibited
under the incoming draft LEP zoning. These uses will have existing use rights
that will enable their continued operation and may permit expansion or
intensification subject to development consent. However, recent changes to
existing use rights legalisation will prohibit these uses being converted to
another type of non-conforming use. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
346 |
107-111
Carlingford Road |
Epping |
This
submission requests that the zoning for 107-111 Carlingford Road be increased
from R2 Low Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential in line with
the existing 2B Residential zoning. The retention of the equivalent zoning is
suggested on the basis that the majority of surrounding sites have been
developed for higher residential uses other than single dwellings. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are
proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS
criteria for higher density residential development given that it is outside
of the Carlingford or Epping RDS precincts. It was therefore proposed to be
zoned R2 Low Density Residential. While it is recognised that some existing
properties along Carlingford Road have been developed for multi unit housing
and dual occupancy development, it is considered that further change to the
zoning along Carlingford Road is outside the scope of the draft LEP. It is
noted that further investigation of the Epping town centres will be undertaken as part of
the joint planning study to be prepared for Epping Town Centre (by Parramatta and Hornsby Councils).
Furthermore, Hornsby Shire Council's Housing Strategy in relation to
Carlingford will also impact upon development in the area and would need to
be considered in the reinvestigation of the area on a holistic basis along
with any further redevelopment along Carlingford Road. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
128 |
354 |
53
Rawson Street |
Epping |
The
submission suggests that the maximum building height in the Epping Commercial
Centre be limited to 8-storeys, rather than 12-storeys as proposed for the
site between Carlingford Road and the car park, for the following reasons:
the subject lot is located near the intersection of Rawson Street and
Carlingford Road where traffic density is already too high; the subject lot
has no access to a road in any direction; buildings of this height reduce the
amenity of the area; and should the draft plan be adopted the submitter
believes he has been deceived given he purchased his property on the basis of
the Epping Commercial Centre Master Plan (December 1999). |
This
matter is addressed in the detailed Council Report. |
That
the zoning and built form controls for Epping town centre be further
investigated as part of the joint Epping town centre study. That
the submissions relating to Epping received in response to the draft LEP
exhibition be tabled for consideration as part of the joint study. |
129 |
360 |
|
Epping |
Supports
the extension of the Epping Heritage Conservation Areas as originally
proposed by Council and for this extension to be included in the draft LEP
and DCP, for the following reasons: to protect the demolition of the
federation/Californian bungalow houses that characterises the local area; a
ban on intrusive developments that are unsympathetic to the housing style of
the area; public recognition from Council that Epping's housing stock is
culturally significant to the general community; and that more medium to high
density developments would exacerbate the high level of traffic already
experienced in the area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
130 |
361 |
5 Chelmsford
Ave |
Epping |
Strongly
supports the extension of the Epping Conservation Area. Epping has many
Federation and Californian bungalows that are highly valued by the residents
of Epping. It is essential that these homes are preserved, not just as single
dwellings but collectively in their present streetscape. These buildings have
significant Art Nouveau and Art Décor styling which is not repeated in modern
day houses. The suburb of Epping, in particular the area bounded by Kent St,
The Boulevard, Warrington Ave and Chelmsford Ave should be preserved for it's
beauty and heritage value. Council has a responsibility and duty to preserve
this area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
131 |
363 |
|
Epping |
Support
the extension of the Epping Heritage Conservation Areas as originally
proposed by Council or the following reasons: to protect the threatened
federation houses that characterises the local area; a ban on intrusive,
energy-consuming, oversized housing and developments that are unsympathetic
to the character and streetscape of the area; and the cultural significance
of this heritage to the general community. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
132 |
364 |
46
Wyralla Avenue |
Epping |
Support
the extension of the Epping Heritage Conservation Areas as originally
proposed by Council for the following reasons: to protect the demolition of the
federation/Californian bungalow houses that characterises the local area; a
ban on intrusive developments that are unsympathetic to the housing style of
the area; public recognition from Council that Epping's housing stock is
culturally significant to the general community; and that the Epping area has
already helped to meet the NSW Government's broader Metropolitan Strategy
objectives. We are changing the area by demolishing 'character' homes for new
mono design houses, losing the character and charm of the area forever. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
133 |
365 |
6
William Street |
Epping |
Supports
the extension of the Epping Heritage Conservation Areas as originally
proposed by Council for the following reasons: to protect the threatened
federation houses that characterises the local area; a ban on intrusive,
energy-consuming, oversized housing and developments that are unsympathetic
to the character and streetscape of the area; and the cultural significance
of this heritage to the general community. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
134 |
366 |
5
Chelmsford Avenue |
Epping |
Supports
the extension of the Epping Conservation Area and the need to conserve the
historic and architectural value of this area of Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
135 |
371 |
11 Kent
Street |
Epping |
Supports
extension of conservation areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
136 |
373 |
26
Victoria Street |
Epping |
Strongly
supports the extension of the Epping Conservation Area |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
137 |
374 |
2
Chelmsford Avenue |
Epping |
Supports
the extension of Epping Conservation Area due to the culturally and
historically significant housing. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
138 |
385 |
31
Wyralla Avenue |
Epping |
Two
letters received indicating that the new LEP does not provide for the
proposed extension to the Epping Heritage Conservation Area. Feels privileged to have lived in the
Wyralla Avenue (within the Wyralla Avenue Conservation Area) knowing the
streetscape will not be changed and will always be a history of the way
Epping was in the past. Has
witnessed over the years so many streets being changed by developers and the
huge houses being built on blocks of land; destroying homes around them and
streetscapes. Epping
has already had a significant share of medium to high density development as
required by the State Government. At
the time of these developments the people of Epping were told that if they
agreed to the area around the station and the main roads, their homes and
area would be saved from future developments. Asks
Council to extend the Epping/Eastwood and Wyralla Avenue Conservation Areas
to include Kent Street, the Boulevarde, Warrington Avenue, Chemsford Street
and a section of Boronia Avenue. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
139 |
386 |
31
Wyralla Avenue |
Epping |
Concerned
that the new LEP does not provide for the proposed extension to the Epping
Heritage Conservation Area. Feels
privileged to have lived in the Wyralla Avenue (within the Wyralla Avenue
Conservation Area) knowing the streetscape will not be changed and will
always be a history of the way Epping was in the past. Has
witnessed over the years so many streets being changed by developers and the
huge houses being built on blocks of land; destroying homes around them and
streetscapes. Epping
has already had a significant share of medium to high density development as
required by the State Government. At
the time of these developments the people of Epping were told that if they
agreed to the area around the station and the main roads, their homes and
area would be saved from future developments. Asks
Council to extend the Epping/Eastwood and Wyralla Avenue Conservation Areas
to include Kent Street, the Boulevarde, Warrington Avenue, Chemsford Street
and a section of Boronia Avenue. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
140 |
387 |
31
Wyralla Avenue |
Epping |
Concerned
that the new LEP does not provide for the proposed extension to the Epping
Heritage Conservation Area. Feels
privileged to have lived in the Wyralla Avenue (which is in the Wyralla
Avenue Conservation Area) knowing the streetscape will not be changed and
will always be a history of the way Epping was in the past. Has
witnessed over the years so many streets being changed by developers and the
huge houses being built on blocks of land; destroying homes around them and
streetscapes. Epping
has already had a significant share of medium to high density development as
required by the State Government. At
the time of these developments the people of Epping were told that if they
agreed to the area around the station and the main roads, their homes and
area would be saved from future developments. Asks
Council to extend the Epping/Eastwood and Wyralla Avenue Conservation Areas
to include Kent Street, the Boulevarde, Warrington Avenue, Chemsford Street
and a section of Boronia Avenue. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping
to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
141 |
388 |
|
Epping |
Supports
the proposed extension of the heritage conservation area in Epping to include
6 William Street. This heritage area
was not handed over on a plate; it was campaigned for over a 10 year period
and should be kept. Every effort should be made to save the few heritage
buildings that we have in Australia and cherish them. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
142 |
394 |
2
Warrington Avenue |
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
143 |
397 |
49
Rawson Street |
Epping |
The
submission seeks a reduction to the southern boundary setback control
prescribed in the draft DCP from 3 metres to nil. The justification for this
if that the Residential Flat Design Code will require appropriate separation
between residential buildings ; the 3 metre setback would duplicate an
existing pedestrian right of way that runs along the site's southern
boundary. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1.. |
That
the zoning and built form controls for Epping town centre be further
investigated as part of the joint Epping town centre study. That
the submissions relating to Epping received in response to the draft LEP
exhibition be tabled for consideration as part of the joint study. |
397 |
49
Rawson Street |
Epping |
The
submission seeks an increase in height from 15 metres (4 storeys) to 21
metres (6 storeys) and an increase in FSR from 2:1 to 3:1. The primary
justification for this is that the required 6 metre setback to the north will
substantially reduce the developable area of the site and this could be
reinstated through additional density and height. The submission provides
further written justification; block modelling, shadow diagrams and
indicative architectural plans demonstrating the suitability of the
additional FSR and height on the site in its context. |
This
matter is addressed in the detailed Council Report. |
That
the zoning and built form controls for Epping town centre be further
investigated as part of the joint Epping town centre study. That
the submissions relating to Epping received in response to the draft LEP
exhibition be tabled for consideration as part of the joint study. |
|
144 |
400 |
19 Kent
Street |
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
145 |
404 |
1
Garland Avenue |
Epping |
Does
not support the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes
in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
146 |
405 |
6
Chelmsford Avenue |
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
147 |
418 |
29
Epping Avenue |
Epping |
Supports
the extension of the Heritage Conservation Area at Epping on the basis that
much of Epping still consists of heritage housing that needs protection as a
collective. The area proposed fits all the requirements for a heritage
conservation area. Concerned by the intrusion of "McMansions".
Submitter urges Council to protect and safeguard this area of Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
148 |
424 |
33
Rawson Street |
Epping |
Does
not support the previously proposed Epping Heritage Conservation Area
changes. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
149 |
430 |
6
Chelmsford Avenue |
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed extension of the Epping Heritage Conservation
Area. Is concerned at the State
Government's anti-historical and pro-development attitude. It is important that the original houses of
Epping be preserved collectively rather than as isolated dwellings. Council should also prevent the intrusion
of "McMansions" into Epping which have no architectural merit and
rob the streets of their heritage character and cohesiveness. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
150 |
435 |
13
Chelmsford Avenue |
Epping |
Supports
the extension of the Epping Conservation Area as it will protect existing
character homes and reduce intrusive development. Also suggests that Epping
has already helped meet the State Governments broader metropolitan
objectives. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
151 |
439 |
16-18
Bridge Street & 61 Rawson Street |
Epping |
Submission
seeks increase in FSR limit from 3:1 to 3.5:1 for 61 Rawson Street (3
Carlingford Road). Justification includes: recognise corner building
locations; desired FSR is consistent with FSR proposed on adjoining sites;
higher FSR facilitates redevelopment potential without the need for site
amalgamation; allows greater flexibility. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the zoning and built form controls for Epping town centre be further
investigated as part of the joint Epping town centre study. That
the submissions relating to Epping received in response to the draft LEP
exhibition be tabled for consideration as part of the joint study. |
152 |
439 |
16-18
Bridge Street & 61 Rawson Street |
Epping |
Submission
seeks increase in height limit from 21 metres to 25 metres for 16-18 Bridge
Street and from 21 metres to 28 metres for 61 Rawson Street (3 Carlingford
Road). Justification includes: recognise corner building locations, desired
heights consistent with that proposed on adjoining sites, makes allowances
for topography, recognises existing
built form, allows greater flexibility; nearby residential development can be
protected by other LEP clauses. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the zoning and built form controls for Epping town centre be further
investigated as part of the joint Epping town centre study. That
the submissions relating to Epping received in response to the draft LEP
exhibition be tabled for consideration as part of the joint study. |
439 |
16-18
Bridge Street & 61 Rawson Street |
Epping |
The
submission raises concern with regard to the use of group terms and sub terms
in the land use table and the confusion with regard to what is permitted and
prohibited. An example given for the B2 Local Centre Zone includes that shop
top housing is permitted while the term 'residential accommodation' is
prohibited which may otherwise have the effect of prohibiting shop top housing
in any case. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council make representations to the Department of Planning (DoP) that the
land use table in the form required by DoP is unclear. |
|
439 |
16-18
Bridge Street & 61 Rawson Street |
Epping |
The
submission suggests the inclusion of a 'Departure Clause ' to the DCP which
recognises the adoption of merit based assessment rather than use of
prescriptive controls to promote appropriate design solutions. |
Draft
Parramatta DCP 2010 includes built form objectives, design principles and
prescriptive controls. As the controls within a DCP are non-statutory,
Council can use its discretion to vary the prescriptive controls without
applying a specific test such as a SEPP 1 objection, where is it is satisfied
that the development would otherwise meet the desired objectives and design
principles of the relevant control. While Councils can use their discretion
to vary DCP controls, this method should only be adopted in suitable circumstances
and therefore including a 'Departure Clause' within the DCP may convey that
Council is willing to allow variations to controls in all instances, rather
than in exceptional circumstances. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
153 |
440 |
4
Chelmsford Avenue |
Epping |
Strongly
supports the extension of the Epping Conservation Area as originally proposed
and objects to the State Governments interference in this matter. This area
depicts elements of architectural merit and the unique social and historic
value these properties contribute to the unique character of the area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
154 |
442 |
10
Chelmsford Avenue |
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed extension of the Epping Heritage Conservation
Area. Is concerned at the State
Government's anti-historical and pro-development attitude. It is important that the original houses of
Epping be preserved collectively rather than as isolated dwellings. Council should also prevent the intrusion
of "McMansions" into Epping which have no architectural merit and
rob the streets of their heritage character and cohesiveness. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
155 |
444 |
14 Kent
Street |
Epping |
Strongly
supports the extension of the Epping Conservation Area as originally proposed
and objects to the State Governments interference in this matter. This area
depicts elements of architectural merit and the unique social and historic
value these properties contribute to the unique character of the area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
156 |
451 |
5 Angus
Avenue |
Epping |
The
Residential Development Strategy is flawed where it applies to this area as
no higher density housing is proposed which will result in a disjointed
neighbourhood. |
The
guiding principle of Council's Residential Development Strategy (RDS) is for
most residential growth to be concentrated in areas close to public
transport, shops and services. Council identified 21 study areas for
investigation for possible increase in housing growth. These areas were
selected based on proximity to public transport, public open space, schools,
shops and services and within the study areas, housing densities in these
centres were generally increased. This RDS philosophy therefore sought that
areas outside the study areas be downzoned to ensure the concentrated growth
approach is realised. The RDS philosophy also acknowledges the associated
benefits of having a mix of housing types to provide some choice and variety
in neighbourhoods. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
157 |
451 |
5 Angus
Avenue |
Epping |
Requests
the subject property at 5 Angus Avenue, Epping (currently zoned 2(a)
Residential) and those adjoining Orchard Street (currently zoned 2(b)
Residential) be zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. The current 2(b) Residential
zone is working as it provides the opportunity to upgrade housing stock to
multi-unit housing as would the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. The
downzoning of this site to safeguard development potential for the future is
not considered relevant to this site and sites at 3 Angus St and 109-111
Carlingford Road, Epping. The R3 zone will deliver a consistent housing form
and better planning outcome as property owners plan to 'package and develop'
these sites. |
No. 5
Angus Avenue, Epping is currently zoned 2(a) Residential and is proposed to
be zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the draft LEP which is a
translation of the current zoning. Under the draft Parramatta LEP 2010,
higher density residential zonings are proposed to be located in close proximity
of centres identified in Council’s Residential Development Strategy (RDS).
This property does not meet the RDS criteria for higher density residential
development given that it is outside of the Epping and Carlingford RDS
precincts and was therefore proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
158 |
455 |
44
Wyralla Avenue |
Epping |
Supports
the extension of the Epping Heritage Conservation Areas as originally
proposed by Council and for this extension to be included in the draft LEP
and DCP, for the following reasons: to protect the demolition of the
federation/Californian bungalow houses that characterises the local area; a
ban on intrusive developments that are unsympathetic to the housing style of
the area; public recognition from Council that Epping's housing stock is
culturally significant to the general community; and that more medium to high
density developments would exacerbate the high level of traffic already experienced
in the area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of Epping
to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
159 |
456 |
22 Kent
Street |
Epping |
Supports
the extension of the Epping Heritage Conservation Areas as originally
proposed by Council and for this extension to be included in the draft LEP
and DCP, for the following reasons: to protect the demolition of the
federation/Californian bungalow houses that characterises the local area; a
ban on intrusive developments that are unsympathetic to the housing style of
the area; public recognition from Council that Epping's housing stock is
culturally significant to the general community; and that more medium to high
density developments would exacerbate the high level of traffic already
experienced in the area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
160 |
457 |
20 Kent
Street |
Epping |
Supports
the extension of the Epping Heritage Conservation Areas as originally
proposed by Council and for this extension to be included in the draft LEP
and DCP, for the following reasons: to protect the demolition of the
federation/Californian bungalow houses that characterises the local area; a
ban on intrusive developments that are unsympathetic to the housing style of
the area; public recognition from Council that Epping's housing stock is
culturally significant to the general community; and that more medium to high
density developments would exacerbate the high level of traffic already
experienced in the area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
161 |
458 |
18
Rawson Street |
Epping |
Supports
the extension to the Epping Heritage Conservation Area as proposed by
Council. Reasons for this include:
protection from demolition of the threatened Federation/Californian bungalow
style housing that characterises the local area; protection of the lifestyle
associated with having gardens and trees in the area, prevention of intrusive
overdevelopment which is typically not sympathetic to the heritage style of
housing in the locality, acceptance that the Epping area has already helped
to meet the NSW government's broader Metropolitan strategy objectives; and
Council has publicly recognised the cultural significance of Epping's
heritage housing and this should be respected at the State level. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
162 |
472 |
21
Rawson Street |
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
163 |
476 |
16
Victoria Street |
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
164 |
486 |
49-58
Beecroft Road & 54-54A Rawson Street |
Epping |
Clarification
and modification is requested with respect to various controls contained in
the draft DCP including height, setbacks, parking controls and loading bay
requirements. |
The
submission makes reference to potential anomalies within the draft DCP
including building height, setbacks, parking controls and loading bay
requirements. The submission raises concern that the height controls (in
metres) prescribed by the LEP do not result in consistent average floor to floor heights
when applying the maximum storey controls under the draft DCP. The height
limits prescribed by the draft LEP enable increased floor to floor heights,
particularly at ground floor level and also enable a modulated roof forms.
The different height controls also reflect that different zones have
differing predominant building types. With regard to parking and loading bay
requirements, the submission suggests the controls are too high, specifically
within centre locations. These controls were prepared by Council's Traffic
and Transport Unit to apply to developments across the LGA. As part of the
joint Epping Town Centre study with Hornsby Council, parking and loading bay
and other built form controls for Epping Town Centre will be reinvestigated.
The submission points out potential typographical errors in Section 4.1.5 of
the draft DCP. This issue will be investigated and where any anomalies are
identified changes will be made prior to the draft DCP being finalised. |
That
the zoning and built form controls for Epping town centre be further
investigated as part of the joint Epping town centre study. That
the submissions relating to Epping received in response to the draft LEP
exhibition be tabled for consideration as part of the joint study. That
Council review Section 4.1.5 of the draft DCP be amend to correct any
typographical errors and anomalies prior to the draft DCP being finalised. |
486 |
49-58
Beecroft Road & 54-54A Rawson Street |
Epping |
It is
requested that a more uniform floor space ratio be provided for Nos. 49-58
Beecroft Road and 54-54A Rawson Street, Epping as this would improve the
likelihood of amalgamation occurring. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the zoning and built form controls for Epping town centre be further
investigated as part of the joint Epping town centre study. That
the submissions relating to Epping received in response to the draft LEP
exhibition be tabled for consideration as part of the joint study. |
|
486 |
49-58
Beecroft Road & 54-54A Rawson Street |
Epping |
The
submission seeks clarification in respect of the definitions of gross floor
area and shop top housing; raises concern with regard to the use of group
terms and sub terms in the land use table and the confusion with regard to
what is permitted and prohibited; raises concern regarding the objectives of
the B2 Local Centre Zone and seeks that the objectives encourage mixed use
development as this is an established form of development in Epping. |
The
definitions included within the draft Parramatta LEP form part of the
Standard LEP instrument. Councils are precluded from adding any further
definitions or explanatory material in the Dictionary. In respect of the B2
zone objectives encouraging mixed use buildings, it is noted that the range
of uses permitted within the B2 zone would have the effect of allowing mixed
use developments and an objective describing the types of mixed use buildings
sought would encourage appropriate development in the zone. Accordingly, the
provision of a new objective in the B2 zone is supported. With regard to the use of group and sub
terms in the land use table, this is addressed in the detailed Council
report. |
That
Council make representations to the Department of Planning (DoP) that the
land use table in the form required by DoP is unclear. That
the draft LEP be amended to include a new objective in the B2 zone
encouraging mixed use development. |
|
486 |
49-58
Beecroft Road & 54-54A Rawson Street |
Epping |
It is
requested that the maximum height identified in the draft LEP be increased
for Nos. 49-58 Beecroft Road and 54-54A Rawson Street, Epping to 34m at the
Beecroft Road frontage and to 31m at the Rawson Street frontage to provide
for a more uniform height throughout the site. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the zoning and built form controls for Epping town centre be further
investigated as part of the joint Epping town centre study. That
the submissions relating to Epping received in response to the draft LEP
exhibition be tabled for consideration as part of the joint study. |
|
165 |
490 |
2
Melrose Street |
Epping |
Supports
the extension of the Epping Heritage Conservation Area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
166 |
497 |
10
Victoria Street |
Epping |
Supports
the extension to the Epping Conservation Area so as to halt any unwanted
development in the area. The submitter argues that without heritage
conservation we would see a procession of incongruous architectural styles
spread throughout suburbs spoiling the high desired character of existing
homes. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
167 |
526 |
|
Epping |
a) Opposes the zoning of most of
Epping as R2 Low Density Residential which prohibits the development of dual
occupancy homes. Seeks the retention
of the current zone classification of 2 (a) Residential or the creation of a
new zone (eg. R2 Low Density Residential) for the area west of Midson Road,
which would allow dual occupancy development and if not townhouses. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
168 |
527 |
West of
Midson Road |
Epping |
Opposes
the zoning of the area west of Midson Road as R2 Low Density Residential,
which disallows the development of dual occupancy homes. Proposes that dual occupancies be allowed
in general for zone R2 but with the exception of certain specific areas, for example
heritage sites, areas near the railway station which may cause traffic
congestion and parking problems, etc.
With the scarcity of available land for building, this would help in
easing the land and housing shortage in Sydney. Residents of duplexes can still maintain a
very comfortable and liveable environment without encroaching on the
surrounding residents. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
169 |
549 |
|
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed draft heritage conservation area changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
170 |
559 |
2E The
Boulevarde |
Epping |
Supports
the extension of previously proposed Heritage Conservation Areas in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
171 |
597 |
|
Epping |
Supports
the previously proposed draft heritage conservation changes in Epping. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council continue to pursue and seek resolution on the proposal to extend the
Heritage Conservation Area for Epping through the joint planning study of
Epping to be carried out with Hornsby Council. |
172 |
43 |
8 Maple
Crescent |
Ermington |
This
submission relates to over population and states that new development will
lead to population increases, including increased immigration which will lead
to unemployment issues in the longer term. |
The
draft LEP is required to provide for increased residential density and
existing population growth. Immigration policies are a federal government
issue and fall outside the scope of the public exhibition of the draft LEP
and DCP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
173 |
63 |
6 Cleal
Street and 10 Vignes Street |
Ermington |
Submission
advises Council that 10 Vignes Street, Ermington has been vacant for 15 years
and is "a mess" with lizards and opossums living on the site. Does
not specify the issue at 6 Cleal Street, Ermington. |
Comments
do not directly relate to the draft LEP and draft DCP. There is current and
future opportunity to develop a low density land use on 10 Vignes Street,
Ermington as it is currently zoned 2(a) Residential under PLEP 2001 and is
proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the draft LEP. The decision whether to develop is left to
the owner to make. A Regulatory Service search of Council's system identified
no records of requests or complaints for 6 Cleal Street, Ermington. 10 Vignes Street, Ermington search
identified two service requests, August 2005 and January 2007, both required
the site to be cleaned up and both requests were complied with and
closed. No current Service Request has
been received or opened for the site. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
174 |
68 |
5
Eccles Street |
Ermington |
Queries
the proposal to remove permissibility of dual occupancies. Unsure of where
they stand in respect to current plans to prepare a dual occupancy
development application for 5 Eccles Street, Ermington. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
175 |
76 |
10
McArdle Street |
Ermington |
Would
like the FSR and maximum heights in the draft LEP in general to be flexible
to accommodate increases in population. |
The
proposed regime of zonings reflect the recommendations of Council's
Residential Development Strategy which identified the most appropriate way to
accommodate the growth in population.
The draft LEP contains provisions to allow some flexibility in
development standards whereby height and FSR can be varied in appropriate
circumstances. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
176 |
353 |
8 Fyall
Street |
Ermington |
Objects
to the downzoning of land at 8 Fyall Street from 2(b) Residential to R2 Low
Density Residential and the fact that this zone will prevent the construction
of a duplex. The current neighbourhood already consists of a good mix of
housing including units and townhouses. There are also duplexes in Bennetts
Road East, Ashcroft and Jenkins Street, which are all in close proximity to
their land. With the current need to create more housing it is not understood
why some areas are limited to just single dwellings. A downzoning of land
should result in a reduction in Council rates as the downzoning affects
property values. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That dual
occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to
Special Character areas. |
177 |
453 |
3
Mcardle Street |
Ermington |
Council's
decision to change the zoning of 3 - 5 Mcardle St, Ermington is a step
backwards. Population growth should be
accommodated and people should be enabled to live in an environmentally
harmonious and prosperous area where the needs of transport, schools and
other community necessities can be properly met. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are
proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS
criteria for higher density residential development given that it is outside
of any RDS precincts. It was therefore proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density
Residential. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
178 |
506 |
23
Fremont Avenue |
Ermington |
The
submitter just states that they "disagree". |
Unclear
as to the exact nature of the objection. The submitter "disagrees",
it is assumed, with the provisions of the draft LEP and draft DCP but has not
disclosed specifically what aspect of the plans the objection relates too. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
179 |
519 |
8 Dean
Crescent |
Ermington |
Objection
is raised to the proposed change in zoning at 8 Dean Crescent, Dundas from
2(b) (Medium Density) to R2 Low Density Residential. Objection is based on
the areas (Dean Crescent) reasonable proximity to shops and public transport,
the extent of medium density that has already occurred in the area and the
loss of property value. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are
proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS
criteria for higher density residential development given that it is outside
of the Ermington RDS precinct. It is therefore proposed to be zoned R2 Low
Density Residential consistent with the concentrated growth philosophy of the
RDS. In relation to concerns raised over property values, the Valuer General,
through the Department of Lands, is the principal advisor on land valuation
matters in NSW. Whilst planning controls in LEPs impact on land values,
Councils are required to address a strategic framework including State
Government plans, policies and directions, as well as Councils own strategic
framework (eg the RDS) to inform their LEPs. The impact of draft LEP
provisions on land value is not of itself a reason for amending the
provisions of the draft LEP, given this broader strategic framework. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
180 |
523 |
|
Ermington |
Objection
is raised to the proposed R2 (Low Density Residential) zone for many areas of
Ermington. It is suggested that the large average lot sizes would make the
area suitable for medium density housing and provide greater housing
availability and affordability. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are
proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS
criteria for higher density residential development given that it is outside
of the Ermington RDS study area. It was therefore proposed to be zoned R2 Low
Density Residential. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
523 |
|
Ermington |
Objection
is raised to the prohibition of dual occupancy development in the R2 (Low
Density Residential) zone and that the inclusion of permissibility in the
Ermington area would increase housing availability. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
|
181 |
574 |
337
Kissing Point Road |
Ermington |
Represents
the owners of No. 337 Kissing Point Road, Ermington which contains a Place of
Public Worship and has done for several decades. Requests the proposed R2 Low Demsity
Residential zone retain places of public worship as a permissible use as
presently permitted in the Residential 2(a) zone. The R2 zone discriminates
against places of public worship with no sound planning justification and is
out of step with both adjoining Councils and the rest of Sydney as evidenced
by exhibited and gazetted template LEPs. Requests the R2 zoning table is
reconsidered to permit car parking spaces, drainage and subdivision. Council
fails to adhere to the terms of the Section 65 Certificate "being to
remove proposed zones/controls that are not representative of a. translation
of current controls". |
For the
issue about Places of Public Worship refer to the discussion under the
relevant heading of the detailed report to Council. With
regard to the issue raised regarding the Section 65 certificate issued by the
Department of Planning, the author of the submission is correct in stating
that the conditions of the section 65 certificate require that the maps be amended
so that zones be removed that do not represent a translation of current
controls. However, the Department of
Planning are aware that the draft LEP 2010 is not a direct translation of
controls from the current planning instruments. As such, they issued further clarification
which specifically states the mapping amendments that were required. This clarification is contained in the
final section 65 certificate issued by the Department on 15 February 2010 and
does not require any changes to the zoning of properties containing existing
places of public worship. This final
certificate is included with the LEP exhibition material. With
regard to the permissibility of other land uses, in the majority of cases,
car parking spaces and drainage are considered to be ancillary uses to the
relevant dominant land use on site and as such are permissible. This accords with the requirements of
Planning Circular PS 09-011 which requires that ancillary uses not be listed
in the land use table. In relation to
the absence of listing of subdivision and demolition in the land use table,
these uses are dealt with in clauses in the LEP and are permitted in all
zones as required by the standard instrument.
Child care centres are prohibited in the R2 Low Density Residential
zone which is a deliberate change in policy on Council's behalf and has been
supported by the Department of Planning for the purpose of public exhibition. |
That
Places of Public Worship be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low
Density Residential zone and that the limit on seating capacity of 250 in the
residential zones be included in draft DCP 2010. Further, that any change adopted to the PPW
DCP relating to car parking rates, should be incorporated into the draft
Comprehensive DCP. |
182 |
580 |
Fitzgerald
Road, Dean Cr & Monterey Pde |
Ermington |
The
submission with 20 signed copies of the same submission relating to 19
properties in Fitzgerald Road, Dean Crescent, Monterey Parade, Marsden Road
and Victoria Road, Ermington seeks the retention of the current Residential
2(b) zoning or the introduction of an R3 (Medium Density) zoning for these
properties. Reasons
in support that: • In
Ermington there are many large residential sites containing old fibro
buildings in need of renovation or demolition. • Many
ratepayers have bought these properties over the past few years so they could
be developed for duplexes, townhouses or villas. • Properties
are close to transport, shops, schools, parks and gardens. • The
Federal Government and NSW State Government state that housing availability
is at an all time low and demand for good building sites is extremely high. • This
area of Ermington has good infrastructure. |
Land
generally fronting or bound by the above roads is zoned R2 Low Density
Residential in draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
As indicated by the submitters the current zoning in Parramatta LEP
2001 is Residential 2B. Under the
draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are proposed to
be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s Residential
Development Strategy (RDS). This land does not meet the RDS criteria for
higher density residential development given that it is outside any of the
RDS precincts. It was therefore proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential.
Given
the submitters reasons for rezoning refer to a desire to build duplex homes,
the issue of dual occupancy is discussed in the detailed Council report found
in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
183 |
588 |
15
Hughes Avenue & 655 Victoria Road |
Ermington |
The
submission is made by the Ermington Gospel Trust objecting to the proposed
zoning of 15 Hughes Road and 655 Victoria Road as R2 Low Density Residential
under the draft Parramatta LEP 2010. The objection to the draft LEP relates
to the prohibition of places of public worship in the zone which represents a
downzoning of present permissible uses and prohibition of a use which
presently operates on site, has done so for many decades and is approved by
Council. The land owner of the site request the retention of the Special Uses
zone or an equivalent under the template (SP I) to permit the existing
permitted uses of the Special Uses zone. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Places of Public Worship be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low
Density Residential zone and that the limit on seating capacity of 250 in the
residential zones be included in draft DCP 2010. Further, that any change adopted to the PPW
DCP relating to car parking rates, should be incorporated into the draft
Comprehensive DCP. |
184 |
595 |
8
Blakeford Avenue |
Ermington |
Opposes
the R2 Low Density Residential zone proposed at 8 Blakeford Avenue, Ermington
on the basis that places of public worship, centre based child care,
demolition and subdivision will be prohibited. Requests the proposed R2 zone retain places
of public worship as a permissible use as presently permitted in the
Residential 2(a) zone. The R2 zone discriminates against places of public
worship with no sound planning justification and is out of step with both
adjoining Councils and the rest of Sydney as evidenced by exhibited and
gazetted template LEPs. Requests the R2 zoning table is reconsidered to
permit car parking spaces, drainage and subdivision. Council fails to adhere
to the terms of the Section 65 Certificate "being to remove proposed
zones/controls that are not representative of a. translation of current
controls". |
For the
issue about Places of Public Worship refer to the discussion under the
relevant heading of the detailed report to Council. With
regard to the issue raised regarding the Section 65 certificate issued by the
Department of Planning, the author of the submission is correct in stating
that the conditions of the section 65 certificate require that the maps be
amended so that zones be removed that do not represent a translation of
current controls. However, the
Department of Planning are aware that the draft LEP 2010 is not a direct
translation of controls from the current planning instruments. As such, they issued further clarification
which specifically states the mapping amendments that were required. This clarification is contained in the
final section 65 certificate issued by the Department on 15 February 2010 and
does not require any changes to the zoning of properties containing existing
places of public worship. This final
certificate is included with the LEP exhibition material. With
regard to the permissibility of other land uses, in the majority of cases,
car parking spaces and drainage are considered to be ancillary uses to the
relevant dominant land use on site and as such are permissible. This accords with the requirements of
Planning Circular PS 09-011 which requires that ancillary uses not be listed
in the land use table. In relation to
the absence of listing of subdivision and demolition in the land use table,
these uses are dealt with in clauses in the LEP and are permitted in all zones
as required by the standard instrument.
Child care centres are prohibited in the R2 Low Density Residential
zone which is a deliberate change in policy on Council's behalf and has been
supported by the Department of Planning for the purpose of public exhibition. |
That
Places of Public Worship be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low
Density Residential zone and that the limit on seating capacity of 250 in the
residential zones be included in draft DCP 2010. Further, that any change adopted to the PPW
DCP relating to car parking rates, should be incorporated into the draft
Comprehensive DCP. |
185 |
41 |
8
Railway Terrace |
Granville |
The
submission states that the author had not received a reply to a submission
made 5 years ago. |
The
submissions does not include any details relating to their earlier submission
making it difficult for Council staff to pursue. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
186 |
51 |
109-111
Woodville Road |
Granville |
Opposes
the proposed R2 Low Density zone on Woodville Road and believes its close
proximity to facilities and services warrants a B4 or B6 zone. States that
there is no commercial benefit in redeveloping land under the R2 provisions.
R2 zoning along Woodville Road is irregular and the existing "rust
buckets" will remain. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
187 |
83 |
27
Louis Street |
Granville |
Preferred
zoning is R2 Low Density Residential for 27 Louis Street, Granville. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
83 |
27
Louis Street |
Granville |
Concerned
that if there is higher density development, the traffic volume and on-street
car parking will increase, when it is already too congested. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
188 |
84 |
21
Louis Street |
Granville |
Submitter
is concerned that his large block of land at 21 Louis Street, Granville, one
third of which is situated on the other side of Duck Creek, and for which he
pays high rates, is not able to be developed. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
189 |
85 |
1
Brunswick Street |
Granville |
Supports
the R2 Low Density Residential zone for the block bounded by The Avenue,
John, Louis and Blaxcell Streets, Granville. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
190 |
88 |
47
Louis Street |
Granville |
Supports
the R2 Low Density Residential zone for the block bounded by The Avenue,
John, Louis and Blaxcell Streets, Granville.
Louis Street is the busiest street in the proposed area and cannot
accommodate high density residential development due to traffic conditions as
well as disruption to local facilities (e.g. Woolworths Shopping Centre and
ambulance route to hospital). |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
191 |
89 |
5 Louis
Street |
Granville |
Supports
the option of the R2 Low Density Residential zone for the block bounded by
John, Blaxcell and Louis Streets and The Avenue, Granville. However, comments that they would love to
see a new face to this particular block with new high buildings and
businesses as most of the current premises are poorly maintained. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
192 |
103 |
4
Brunswick Street |
Granville |
Prefers
the block bounded by The Avenue, Louis, Blaxcell and John Streets, Granville
to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
193 |
104 |
54
Victoria Street |
Granville |
A
series of letters received that object to a Development Application at
171-187 Parramatta Road and 58-60 Victoria Street, Granville. Some comments
in the letters reference the height level in the draft LEP as much more
sustainable. |
The
site is currently zoned 10 Mixed Use. Under the draft Parramatta LEP 2010,
the site is proposed B6 Enterprise Corridor. This proposed zone would not
permitted residential development. The current zone continues to apply.
However, Council will need to assess the application having regard to the
draft LEP. Because the letters are
primarily objections to a development proposal, the submission has been
forwarded to Council's Development Services Unit for consideration as part of
DA assessment. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
194 |
107 |
34 John
Street |
Granville |
Under
the draft LEP, 34 John Street, Granville is proposed to be zoned R2 Low
Density Residential. The submission seeks that the land bounded by The
Avenue, John, Louis and Blaxcell Streets, Granville be up zoned to R4 High
Density Residential. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
195 |
115 |
26
Stafford Street |
Granville |
Under
the draft LEP, 26 Stafford Street, Granville is proposed to be zoned R2 Low
Density Residential. The submission seeks that this property be zoned R3
Medium Density Residential. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are
proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS
criteria for higher density residential development given that it is outside
of the South Granville RDS precinct. It is therefore proposed to be zoned R2
Low Density Residential. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
196 |
116 |
Louis
Street |
Granville |
The
submission is satisfied with the R2 Low Density Residential zone proposed
under the draft LEP for land bounded by The Avenue, John, Louis and Blaxcell
Streets, Granville. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
197 |
123 |
131 The
Avenue |
Granville |
Preferred
option is the R2 Low Density Residential zone and not the R4 High Density
zone for the land bounded by The Avenue, John, Louis and Blaxcell Streets,
Granville. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
198 |
127 |
102,
103, 105, 107 South Street |
Granville |
Objects
to the proposed FSR on 102, 103, 105, 107 South Street, Granville. Requests
an increase from 2:1 to 3:1. |
102,
103 and 107 South Street are proposed to be zoned B2 Local Centre and forms
part of the main Granville shopping strip. The proposed FSR of 2:1, with a
height limit of 15 m, has been applied to most of the land zoned B2 in the
Granville Town Centre. This has generally been a carry over of the existing
FSR controls. The proposed FSR requirement of 2: 1 is appropriate and will
allow reasonable development opportunities for the land with adequate
setbacks respecting the character of the Granville retail street. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
199 |
128 |
75, 77
South Street |
Granville |
Objects
to the proposed FSR of 2:1 on 75 and 77 South Street, Granville. Requests the
same FSR as the building on Railway Parade, Granville of 3:1 or 4:1. |
75
& 77 South Street are proposed to be zoned B2 Local Centre and form part
of the main Granville shopping strip. The proposed FSR of 2:1 has been
applied to most of the land zoned B2 in the Granville Town Centre. The
proposed FSR requirement of 2: 1 is appropriate and will allow reasonable
development opportunities for the land with adequate setbacks respecting the
character of the Granville retail street. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
200 |
155 |
30 John
Street |
Granville |
The
submission supports the proposed R2 Low Density Residential zone for land
bound by The Avenue, John, Louis and Blaxcell Streets, Granville. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
201 |
178 |
28 John
Street |
Granville |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP the land bound by The Avenue, John, Louis and
Blaxcell Streets, Granville is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density
Residential. The submission is seeking the land be up zoned to R3 Medium
Density Residential or R4 High Density Residential. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
202 |
191 |
John
Blaxcell, Louis Sts & The Avenue |
Granville |
Under
the draft LEP the land bound by The Avenue, John, Louis and Blaxcell Streets,
Granville is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The submission
expressed preference for R2 Low Density Residential zone. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
203 |
194 |
Railway,
Pitt, Crown and Meehan Sts |
Granville |
Requests
Council consider renaming suburb and possibly adjusting LGA boundary in the
area bound by Railway, Pitt, Crown, and Meehan Streets, Granville to be
included as part of the suburb (and LGA) of Parramatta due to the distance
from Granville town centre. The M4 should be the boundary line between
Parramatta and Granville. |
The
process for renaming of suburbs is run by the Geographical Names Board and
may be instigated by Council. In this instance it is not considered to be a
priority in the context of the LEP. Should a ground swell of public opinion
arise this matter may be further investigated. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
204 |
225 |
3
Abeckett Street |
Granville |
The
submission states that despite existing use rights provisions, that 3-5
Abeckett Street, Granville should be zoned to reflect its current and ongoing
use as a light industrial development as opposed to the proposed R2 Low
Density Residential zone under the draft Parramatta LEP. |
The
subject site is currently zoned Residential 2(e) under Parramatta LEP 2001
and is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the draft LEP.
It is recognised that the site has historically been occupied by a non
residential use being a pottery factory. This use is also recognised through
listing of the property and associated buildings as items of heritage
significance. While
an industrial zoning is sought, the site is predominantly surrounded by
existing residential development and the rezoning of No. 3 A’Beckett Street
in isolation is considered inappropriate as the industrial zoning would be
small, does not interface with other industrial zones and may possibly be
unviable if the current use was to cease. Council needs to zone the land
according to its preferred use. Examining the location, surrounding
development and its relationship to Council's strategic planning, a residential
use would be more desirable. If the
current use has been lawfully established, the land use is protected by way
of existing use rights that permit the continuation of the use of land for
any purpose for which it was used immediately before the passing of
legislation. The rationale for existing use rights is that it is unjust to
deprive an owner of the right to use land for an existing lawful purpose. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
225 |
3
Abeckett Street |
Granville |
The
submitter is unclear as to why 3-5 Abeckett Street, Granville is listed as a
heritage item. |
This
site is listed in Council’s heritage LEP of 1996. It is listed for its
historical significance as the last functioning clay use industry along A'Beckett's
Creek in Granville. It is a rare example of an industry which was once common
to Parramatta in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
|
205 |
228 |
2 Celia
Street |
Granville |
The
submission seeks that the draft Parramatta LEP preserves the zoning rights
currently afforded to 2 Celia Street, Granville. Presumably, as the property
is currently zoned 2(a) Residential, that the proposed zoning should maintain
their right to develop the land for dual occupancy development. The
submission notes that the site is within close proximity to shopping
facilities, TAFE and schools. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
206 |
234 |
53
Woodville Road |
Granville |
53
Woodville Road is currently zoned 2(b) Residential and proposed to be down
zoned to R2 Low Density Residential under the draft LEP. Seeking to be up
zoned to B4 Mixed Use as one of the sites is currently used as a motor
showroom and the B4 zoning will allow the use to be expanded onto the
adjoining sites which are currently in the same ownership. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
207 |
240 |
18
Celia Street |
Granville |
The
submission indicates that the property at 18 Celia Street, Granville is
currently zoned 2(b) Medium Density Residential and is proposed to be zoned
R2 Low Density Residential under the draft LEP. The submitter is seeking to
retain equivalent R3 Medium Density Residential zoning. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are
proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS
criteria for higher density residential development given that it is outside
of the Granville RDS precinct. It was therefore proposed to be zoned R2 Low
Density Residential. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
208 |
247 |
271
Blaxcell Street |
Granville |
Objects
to zoning the area (in vicinity of Dellwood shops) for high density
residential. This area is an original suburban area with well maintained houses,
not a city area and is 2.3km from the railway. Questions why the area has
been selected for high density, to allow development to destroy 3 or 4
existing homes to build a concrete jungle given that the blocks are a little
over 12m wide; why were the residents not consulted before the proposal was
made. High density is considered harmful to the environment, creates tension
and arguments and puts pressure on existing services and infrastructure. If
high density is approved it would destroy this suburban area. |
Council's
RDS identifies the South Granville RDS precinct as an area suitable for some
increase in residential density based on the opportunities provided by the
local shops in Dellwood Street, a medical centre, bus services in Blaxcell
Street, nearby parks and schools.
Previous community consultation regarding this RDS precinct was
undertaken in late 2005/early 2006 and plans for this locality were also on
public display during the community update on the draft LEP during
July/August 2009. This locality is presently zoned to allow town house
development under the Parramatta LEP 2001. The draft Parramatta LEP 2010 proposes to allow increased residential
development in the form of 3 storey apartments close to the Dellwood shops,
opportunities for expansion of the local neighbourhood business centre and to
continue to allow town house development surrounding the Dellwood centre as a
transition to the low density residential development in the broader suburban
area, much of which is proposed to be down zoned to a low density residential
area comprising future single detached housing forms rather than town houses
as permitted currently. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
209 |
249 |
9 The
Avenue |
Granville |
Request
property be zoned R3 Medium Density Residential or R4 High Density
Residential for the following reasons: land size is too small for a single
house, it is therefore better to reserve the site for future apartment or
townhouse development; site is close to large blocks containing apartments;
avoid a mixture of irregular lot sizes and housing types as it will be a
better look with one typical development type; individual households may not
properly plan for car parking arrangements, placing pressure on on-street
parking in the neighbourhood. If development is for medium or high density,
car parking arrangements will be properly planned by the developer. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
210 |
251 |
24 John
Street |
Granville |
Preferred
zoning for the area bounded by Louis, John, Blaxcell and The Avenue is R3
(Medium Density Residential) or R4 (High Density Residential). |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
251 |
24 John
Street |
Granville |
Submitter
has a large parcel of land and feels it is underdeveloped with a low density
residential zoning. Would like increased development potential or at least to
be able to subdivide and build a second dwelling. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
211 |
253 |
First,
Seventh and Factory Streets |
Granville |
Petition
included containing 80 signatories representing 68 different properties.
Objection is raised to the proposed zoning R2 (Low Density Residential) for
the area bounded by First Street, Seventh Street and Factory Street
Granville. It is suggested that the area is suitable for medium density
zoning however also requests that the zoning remain the same as that
currently. The area in question is currently zoned 2(a) Residential. Concerns
were also raised in relation to the absence of any transition between the
adjacent area to west which is proposed to be zoned R4High Density
Residential. |
The
area in question is currently zoned 2(a) Residential (Low Density). The draft
LEP proposes to zone the area R2 Low Density Residential which is the best
fit translation zoning. The area is located on the periphery of the Granville
RDS centre and comprises largely semi detached dwellings on very small lots
(typically 200-220sqm) which makes redevelopment less feasible or likely for
the purposes of medium or high density housing. Additionally, it is noted
that not all areas contained within RDS study areas have been upzoned and
that proposed zonings provide for a mix of dwelling types. Concerns in relation
to transitions between different zonings are largely addressed through DCP
controls. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
212 |
258 |
81 The
Trongate |
Granville |
The
application of a 0.5:1 FSR (Floor Space Ratio) will not facilitate
redevelopment and renewal of the area around the Trongate (Granville).
Concern is raised that due to the varied lot sizes a blanket FSR of 0.5:1
will not provide any incentive to redevelop and renew the area. It is
suggested that Council look at varying FSR controls dependent on lot size. |
The
proposed FSR controls are a carry over of existing controls in Parramatta LEP
2001. FSR is a broad scale preliminary means of controlling the intensity of
development on a site which helps determine the overall bulk and scale of
development. Particular care needs to be taken in consideration of
development on smaller lots given the typical closer proximity of adjacent
development. DCP provisions require more attention to be given to appropriate
building articulation, setbacks, solar access, privacy etc, which also impact
on the form and scale of development. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
213 |
297 |
6
Spring Garden Street |
Granville |
Homes
within the heritage conservation areas of Granville have been renewed and
conflict with the principles of heritage conservation. Other homes have been
modified or neglected and have no heritage value and are significant energy
consumers. Heritage conservation areas should be removed to allow homes to be
renewed and become eco-friendly. Such areas should be rezoned from R2 Low
Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential or R4 High Density
Residential to provide this
opportunity. DCP controls for this area should then include sustainability
design requirements. Conversely, if Council is serious about maintaining the
heritage conservation areas, it should be zoned R3 as the sewer mains can
accommodate such growth. |
There
are two heritage conservation areas in Granville; the Granville Conservation
Area Residential Precinct and the Granville Conservation Area Civic
Precinct. These areas were developed
in the 1880s simulated by the relocation of a large number of industries from
Parramatta and inner Sydney to Granville, close to the railway. The range of building types, the age, size
and materials, and tree planting demonstrates the substantial role that
Granville played in the development of Western Sydney. Consequently, planning controls are
directed towards keeping the historic character of this area and
opportunities for development are limited.
The greater proportion of the conservation areas are zoned R2 Low
Density Residential, with part of the Granville Conservation Area Civic
precinct being zoned B4 Mixed Use. Heritage
conservation is seen as an important contribution to sustainability lessening
the need for resources and energy required to build new structures. There are many ways in which the energy
efficiency of heritage buildings can be enhanced. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
297 |
6
Spring Garden Street |
Granville |
The
property on the corner of The Avenue and Spring Garden Street is proposed to
be zoned R2 Low Density Residential, however the property is used for religious
purposes. This use is in conflict with the proposed zone therefore the owner
should stop this use. According to the R2 land use table, this use is
non-permissible. The same applies to child care centres that are operating on
land proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. Child care centres need
to be appropriately located. |
The use
of land for a particular purpose, if lawfully approved can continue to
operate on the land until such time as the owner seeks to change the use of
the land despite any changes to the zoning of the land. This is known in
planning legislation as existing use rights. The submission has been referred
to Council’s Regulatory Services Unit to determine whether consent has been issued to the use of the
land as a Place of Public Worship.. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
297 |
6
Spring Garden Street |
Granville |
Questions
if existing medium and high density dwellings within the proposed R2 Low
Density Residential zone will be ordered to be pulled down to make way for
single dwellings. |
Existing
medium and high density dwellings within the proposed R2 Low Density Zone are
protected by existing use rights and Council has no power or wish to seek
their removal. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
297 |
6
Spring Garden Street |
Granville |
The
place of public worship on the corner of The Avenue and Spring Garden Street
has asbestos roofing. Council should acquire the site, remove the asbestos
roofing and demolish the building and turn the site into a recreational
area. Alternatively, the owner should
be requested to remove the asbestos. |
Asbestos
roofing is safe providing it is intact and not in a broken condition. Council does not have any obligation or
intention to acquire the site and develop it for recreational purposes. However, Regulatory Services has been asked
to investigate the condition of the asbestos roofing as part of the
investigations into the use of the site. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
297 |
6
Spring Garden Street |
Granville |
The
place of public worship on the corner of The Avenue and Spring Garden Street
has inadequate parking. |
A
request has been made to Regulatory Services of Council to investigate the
use of this property for public worship, including the parking situation and
to take compliance action if there is evidence that parking on site or the
street is occurring illegally. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
297 |
6
Spring Garden Street |
Granville |
Land
proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential within 1-2km of a railway
station should be zoned as R3 Medium Density Residential or R4 High Density
Residential. Sewers in the vicinity of subject property can cater for higher
density. Areas north of William Street should be zoned R3 or R4. |
The
basis of Council's RDS and draft LEP is a concentrated approach to housing
growth around centres, close to public transport, shops and community facilities
that can best support additional residents. In general terms land within
400-800 metres of the Granville Town Centre was considered appropriate.
Reflecting this strategy, a large area to the north of William Street centred
on the Granville railway station is zoned a mixture of B4 Mixed Use, B2 Local
Business and R4 High Density Residential. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
214 |
317 |
211
Woodville Road |
Granville |
Is
concerned about and opposes the rezoning of property at 211 Woodville Road
from Mixed Use 10 to R2 Low Density Residential. The rezoning is unfair, will
cause loss of property values and will frustrate development plans to erect
business premises. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
215 |
319 |
116
Elizabeth Street |
Granville |
Two
letters received seeking that there should be no change of zoning for 116
Elizabeth Street, Granville for the reasons that a substation has already
built in the street to serve development, to avoid any detrimental effect on
land values and being situated at the back of the TAFE there is a demand for
townhouses in the locality. |
The
property and adjoining properties in Elizabeth Street are zoned 2B
Residential (medium density) in Parramatta LEP 2001 and R2 Low Density
Residential in draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
Under the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings
are proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in
Council’s Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet
the RDS criteria for higher density residential development given that it is
outside of the Granville RDS precinct. It was therefore proposed to be zoned
R2 Low Density Residential. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010 |
216 |
323 |
Parramatta
Road, Cowper Street |
Granville |
In
2006, a development application for this site between the railway corridor
and Parramatta Road, being 168-170, 172 and 176 Parramatta Rd and 89 and 90
Cowper St, Granville) was approved for mixed use development. The submitter
would like an equivalent zone to enable mixed-use development with access
from Cowper Street and the remainder of the site (that area fronting
Parramatta Road to remain B6 Enterprise Corridor. Such a split in zone
provides an opportunity for Council to increase density in an appropriate
location close to major transport nodes. |
The
submission, with its supporting case, is supported and it is agreed that it
would be desirable to apply a split zoning to the site. The greater part of the site with access
from Cowper Street should be rezoned B4 Mixed Use whilst that area fronting
Parramatta Road should retain the zoning of B6 Enterprise Corridor. The submission would allow an increase in
density and provision for residential development in an appropriate location
with good accessibility to public transport. |
That part
of 166A, 168, 170 and 176 Parramatta Road; and 89 and 90 Cowper Street,
Granville be
rezoned to B4 Mixed Use as indicated in Attachment 2. |
323 |
Parramatta
Road, Cowper Street |
Granville |
That
the proposed height limit of 21 metres for this site provides an unfavourable
height transition with adjoining sites where a proposed height limit of 52 metres
exists. |
As it
is accepted that a split zoning should be applied to the site, it is
considered appropriate that a consistent height limit for land within the B4
zone should be applied, ie. the same as for the adjoining lots in Cowper
Street, also zoned B4. The 21 m height limit would be retained for that part
of the site fronting Parramatta Road which will continue to be zoned B6
Enterprise Corridor. |
That part
of 166A, 168, 170 and 176 Parramatta Road; and 89 and 90 Cowper Street,
Granville that is to be zoned B4 be amended to a height consistent with
adjoining lots in Cowper Street also zoned B4. |
|
323 |
Parramatta
Road, Cowper Street |
Granville |
That
the proposed FSR of 3:1 for this site provides an unfavourable built form
outcome with adjoining sites having a proposed FSR of 6:1. |
As it
is accepted that a split zoning should be applied to the site (see enquiry no
402) it is considered appropriate that a FSR of 6:1 should be applied to that part of the
site proposed to be zone B4 Mixed Use, the same as for the adjoining lots in
Cowper Street, also zoned B4. The FSR
of 3:1 would be retained for that part of the site fronting Parramatta Road
which will continue to be zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor. |
That
part of 166A, 168, 170 and 176 Parramatta Road; and 89 and 90 Cowper Street,
Granville that is to be zoned B4 be amended to a FSR consistent with
adjoining lots in Cowper Street also zoned B4. |
|
217 |
352 |
Hutchison
and William Streets |
Granville |
Objects
to the proposed R2 Low Density Residential zone for the area bounded by the
Avenue, Mary Street, Hutchinson and William Street at Granville. This area
should be zoned to a higher order residential zone such as R4 High Density
Residential. It should be zoned for this purpose because the area is within
750 metres of the railway station, provides a transition to the proposed B4
Mixed Use zone nearby and the area is accessible to services. The LEP is
conservative and may inhibit the ability to reach population targets. |
The
block bounded by William, Hutchinson and Mary Streets and The Avenue is zoned
R2 Low Density Residential, as is the land in Granville generally west of
Hutchinson and Jamieson Streets. A
zoning of R4 High Density Residential would not be appropriate in that it would
result in an isolated block of high density zoning surrounded by blocks with
a low density zoning. In addition,
approximately one third of the area of the block, including 2 to 12
Hutchinson St and 34 Mary St, is included in the Granville Conservation Area
Civic Precinct. Generally land within
a heritage conservation area should be included in a lower density zoning to
avoid creating excessive development expectations that could result in
development adversely impacting on the conservation area. Therefore, it is considered that the R2 Low
Density Residential Zone for the block should be retained. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010 |
218 |
359 |
11
Celia Street |
Granville |
Land at
11 Celia Street, Granville is currently zoned Residential 2(b) and is
proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential in the draft Parramatta LEP.
Strongly objects to this zoning change. Believes the existing zoning is ideal
given the school, TAFE, transportation, Woolworths, service stations and
shops are linked to Celia Street. |
Land at
11 Celia Street, Granville is currently zoned 2(b) Residential under
Parramatta LEP 2001. Under the draft LEP, higher density residential zonings
are proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in
Council’s Residential Development Strategy (RDS). The centre on the corner of
Louis and Blaxcell Streets, Granville has not been identified as a study
precinct in the RDS given its size, scale and proximity to the RDS precincts
of Granville and South Granville. This subject property does not meet the RDS
criteria for higher density residential development given that it is outside
of the Granville and South Granville RDS precincts. It is therefore proposed
to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010 |
219 |
369 |
5 and 7
Enid Avenue |
Granville |
Requests
that proposed zoning of 5 and 7 Enid Ave be changed from R4 (High Density
Residential) to B2 (Local Centre) due to the opportunities for crime and
unsociable behaviour that will arise from the proposed rear laneway. |
The
site and neighbouring properties along Enid Avenue were identified during the
RDS process as being suitable for redevelopment for high density housing due
to the close proximity to services and transport. The nearby B2 zoning in the
town centre of Granville is considered to strike the right balance between
the demand and need for business uses with the need for well located higher
density housing in Enid Avenue. There
are no proposals in the draft LEP for a laneway at the rear of the Enid
Avenue properties. Any Council
proposals for the redevelopment of land at the rear of these properties and
fronting Memorial Drive will require consultation with neighbouring property
owners. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010 |
220 |
432 |
4 &
6 John Street |
Granville |
Strongly
objects to the proposal to zone this area R2 Low Density Residential. There
is a need for more high density development to improve housing affordability.
Parramatta’s vision is to increase jobs for residents. The subject property
is closely located to the Parramatta City Centre and is well catered by train
services and commercial and educational facilities. There are existing residential
flat buildings on Louis Street and the proposal is unfair to landowners who
purchased houses based on the 2(b) Residential zone. Attached to the
submission is a series of articles and fact sheets, as well as an Industry
Report by the Urban Development Institute of Australia on housing
affordability. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
221 |
436 |
147-149
Parramatta Road |
Granville |
Objects
to the proposed downzoning of their site from 10 Mixed Use under Parramatta
LEP 2001 to B6 Enterprise Corridor under draft Parramatta LEP 2010. The
current zoning clearly considers the area appropriate for residential
development. The rezoning will also reduce the potential of the land. |
The
zoning of 147 and 149 and Parramatta Road as B6 Enterprise Corridor is
appropriate as this zone is specifically designed to provide businesses along
main roads and encourage a mix of compatible uses. The zoning of these properties as B4 Mixed
Use would be undesirable resulting in a spot zoning with different functions
to the adjoining properties on Parramatta Road and creating pressure for
these properties to also be zoned for mixed-use purposes. Furthermore, generally it is not considered
good planning practice to provide for mixed use residential development on
major roads because of adverse amenity effects for residents. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
222 |
437 |
Corner William
Street and 4 Blaxcell Streets |
Granville |
The
submission refers specifically to 4 Blaxcell Street and generally to
properties at the corner of William and Blaxcell Streets, Granville. Requests an increase in development
potential to allow a full comprehensive centre for the submitter's community
that includes youth facilities and commercial and residential development to
a height of 25m. |
4
Blaxcell Street is zoned R4 High Density and subject to a height limit of 14
m in the proposed LEP. The adjoining
property at 2 Blaxcell Street and on the corner of William and Blaxcell
Streets is zoned B2 Local Centre with a height limit of 10 m. It is noted
that community facilities are permitted with consent in the R4 High Density
Zone. Therefore, this zone would allow
the community and residential activities sought by the submitter in
reasonably high density development up to four storeys in height. It would not be appropriate to extend the
B2 Local Centre Zone further into a residential street. Neither would it be appropriate or
necessary to include the site in a B4 Mixed Use Zone. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
223 |
438 |
Corner
William Street and 2 Blaxcell Street |
Granville |
Suggests
that 2 Blaxcell Street (at its intersection with William Street) should be
allowed to be developed for a mix of commercial and residential units. This
is supported by the close proximity to transport facilities as well as
numerous services and facilities. |
The
draft LEP proposes a B2 (Local Centre) zoning with a maximum FSR of 1.0:1 and
height of 10m (two storeys) for the subject site. This zone permits a wide range of
commercial activities along with shop top housing. Having regard to the property's location it
would be appropriate to allow a greater intensity of development on the
site. Therefore, the height limit for
the site should be increased to 15 m (4 storeys), similar to that for the
surrounding B2 Local Centre Zone (15
m) and R4 High Density Zone (14 m) and FSR should be increased to 1. 5:1. DCP
controls will ensure that any redevelopment of the site respects the amenity
of adjoining residential properties and contributes to the streetscape. |
That
Council change the height limit for 2 Blaxcell Street, Granville to 15 m and
the FSR to 1.5:1. |
224 |
500 |
308
Blaxcell Street |
Granville |
Protests
against allowing terrace housing behind Dellwood shops There is enough
terrace housing in the area. A 19 unit development up the street will add
more cars to the area. Hundreds of people rely on the doctor and
physiotherapist and will disadvantage the elderly if they were to leave.
Flats on Adah St have been vacant for years. Disappointed that beautiful
brick cottages will be demolished to make way for terrace housing and units.
The submitter is of the opinion that their property in Blaxcell Street
Granville will get no morning sun if terrace housing is built. |
Dellwood
shops and adjoining land to the south on the eastern side of Blaxcell Street,
including the Medical Centre and the 6 lots south of the medical centre in
Blaxcell Street, plus 3 lots in Pegler Avenue immediately south of the
Delwood shops (behind the medical centre) are proposed to be zoned B1
Neighbourhood Centre in the draft LEP. This zoning is intended to facilitate
future expansion of local shops and services, including the medical centre if
needed. The B1 zoning would also permit shop top housing. Housing in the form
of terrace housing is not proposed to be permissible within this zone. The
concentration of increased development potential close to the Delwood shops
will also make more trips to the local centre possible by walking. Solar
access is a design consideration for new development as well as alterations
and additions to existing developments. Nearby residents are also consulted
at the time Development Applications are lodged and have the opportunity to
comment on any aspect of a proposal, including solar access. The property
owned by the submitter is located on the opposite side of Blaxcell Street to
the neighbourhood centre and is currently zoned Residential 2B. It is
proposed to be zoned an equivalent zone of R3 Medium Density Residential in
the draft LEP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
225 |
518 |
5-9
Louis Street |
Granville |
Raises
objection to the reduction in development potential from the current 2(b)
(Medium Density) to R2 (Low Density Residential) zone. Supporting arguments
include that the down zoning will not have the effect of preserving low
density areas, the area is consistent with the general aims of the RDS, and
is located in close proximity to
services (shopping, TAFE, childcare, and public transport). |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
226 |
558 |
Louis
Street |
Granville |
Prefers
that land in Louis Street, Granville be zoned R4 High Density Residential. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
227 |
566 |
12-22
William Street |
Granville |
Submission
requests an increase in development potential for the subject site and land
within the precinct bounded by William, Factory, Clyde and Third Streets, Granville
by changing the zoning from proposed R2 (Low Density Residential) to R4 (High
Density Residential) zoning. Submission includes supporting analysis of the
site and area in regard to its proximity to good public transport, services
and facilities. The site is currently a large factory building and dwelling
house totalling 2000sqm in area. At
the very least, it is submitted that, due to its transitional status and
accessibility profile, the block bounded by Factory, William, Clyde and First
Streets should be the subject of these amended controls. |
The
submission is acknowledged to have some merit in that the subject precinct is
a narrow finger of low density residential land surrounded on three sides by
higher density residential buildings and industrial lands with good access to
public transport and a wide range of activities and services. However, rezoning at this stage is not
supported. The precinct is zoned 2(a)
Residential under the current LEP 2001 reflecting and maintaining the
character of predominantly low density detached housing with pleasant tree
lined streets. In addition, the precinct is on the edge of the Granville RDS
Study Area and outside the strategic area proposed for intensive development.
The area is located on the periphery of the Granville RDS centre and
comprises largely semi detached dwellings on very small lots (typically
200-220sqm) which makes redevelopment less feasible or likely for the
purposes of medium or high density housing. Finally, any decision for
rezoning at this stage would be premature until further studies are
undertaken on the need for and design outcomes for higher density development
in this precinct. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
228 |
37 |
301-315,
317, 319, 323-325 Woodville Road |
Guildford |
Seeking
an increased zoning from proposed R2 Low Density Residential to a commercial
zoning. This submission is accompanied with a petition. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
229 |
39 |
19 Bury
Road |
Guildford |
Under
the draft LEP Bury Road, Guildford is predominantly proposed to be zoned R2
Low Density Residential. This submission is seeking that the land be up zoned
to R4 High Density Residential. The submission also raises concern with
regard to the irregular rezoning pattern around Guildford town centre. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
230 |
45 |
29
Salisbury Road |
Guildford |
The
submission seeks that the zoning of the property under the draft Parramatta
LEP be up zoned from R2 Low Density Residential to R3 Medium Density
Residential to permit town house development. Author seeking up to 8 town
houses on the site. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
231 |
61 |
Corner
Woodville Road and Bright Street |
Guildford |
Requesting
a sign "not to queue across intersection" at Woodville Road and
Bright Street, Guildford to allow vehicles to cross and turn left safely. |
The
immediate area is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. This zone
only allows for low impact land uses which generate minimal traffic.
Woodville Road is under the ownership and management of the Roads and Traffic
Authority (RTA). Traffic management requests/issues relating to RTA roads
should be directed to the RTA. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
232 |
118 |
180
Excelsior Street |
Guildford |
The
land at 180 Excelsior Street, Granville is currently zoned 2(b) Residential
(medium density) and under the draft Parramatta LEP would be down zoned to R2
Low Density Residential. The submission requests that the current equivalent
zoning of R3 Medium Density Residential be reinstated under the draft LEP. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are
proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS
criteria for higher density residential development given that it is outside
of any RDS precinct. It was therefore proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density
Residential. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
118 |
180
Excelsior Street |
Guildford |
The
submission is concerned that the draft LEP will reduce the FSR for 180
Excelsior Street, Granville from 0.6:1 to 0.5:1. |
The FSR
permissible for townhouse development is
0.6:1 under the Parramatta LEP 2001. Under the proposed R2 Low Density
Residential zone in the draft LEP, maximum permissible FSR is 0.5:1 and is
applicable to the permissible forms of development in this zone, which does
not include town houses. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
118 |
180
Excelsior Street |
Guildford |
The
submission is also concerned about reduced land value of 180 Excelsior
Street, Granville as a result of the down zoning. |
The
Valuer General, through the Department of Lands, is the principal advisor on
land valuation matters in NSW. Whilst planning controls in LEPs impact on
land values, Councils are required to address a strategic framework including
State Government plans, policies and directions, as well as Councils own
strategic framework (eg the RDS) to inform their LEPs. The impact of draft
LEP provisions on land value is not of itself a reason for amending the
provisions of the draft LEP, given this over-riding strategic framework. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
|
233 |
120 |
Roseberry
Road |
Guildford |
The
submission does not object to the proposed R3 Medium Density Residential zone
for land in Roseberry Road, Guildford but does object to the associated
basement parking as most residents in completed townhouses park on the
footpath or nature strip. The impact and noise (by machinery) required for
long periods of time in excavation for underground parking is not pleasant
and impacts on adjoining properties. The disturbance of so much earth must
impact on neighbouring properties. Above ground parking would be a better
solution and not disturb the land and the environment. |
Section
3.6.2 of Council's draft DCP requires that car parking be provided within
basements for multi unit housing and residential flat buildings. The primary
reason for this is to minimise the visual impact of large areas of car
parking, garages or driveway/hardstand area at ground level where at grade
parking is provided. With regard to cars being parked on the road reserve and
footpath in Roseberry Road, Guildford, this matter has been referred to
Council's Manager Regulatory Services to determine if there are issues with
illegal parking. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
234 |
143 |
47
Mountford Avenue |
Guildford |
47
Mountford Avenue, Guildford is proposed to be downzoned from 2(b) Residential
(medium density) to R2 Low Density Residential. However, the land that is three properties
along Mountford Avenue towards the train line is proposed to be upzoned to R4
High Density Residential. The two
sites to the east at 3 Bury Street and 45 Mountford Avenue are also proposed
to be zoned as R2, However, they are both already developed with dual
occupancies. As such, the site will
eventually be surrounded by townhouses and dual occupancies yet 47 Mountford
Ave will have no development potential itself. Submitter's preference is to have no
development on the street. However, he
understands the approach of locating increased density near the train
stations so requests that Council at least consider zoning subject property
R4 High Density Residential so that it can be sold at a fair price. |
The
property is currently zoned Residential 2(b).
The proposed zone is R2 Low density Residential. There are two parcels of land between the
subject site and the proposed zoning boundary between R4 and R2. As such, the
existing dwelling will not become physically surrounded by apartments as
there is a buffer of two dwellings.
Further, the site immediately to the east of the property is currently
zoned Residential 2(e) indicating that there may be flooding issues in the
locality The zoning boundary has been
located to reflect both the potential flooding issues and the depth of the
allotments as the R4 zoning ends with the last of the deep allotments along
that section of Mountford Avenue. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
235 |
145 |
208
Robertson Street |
Guildford |
Objects
to any increase in residential density on the basis of insufficient
infrastructure such as water and sewerage and public open space. Fears the area of Robertson Street, Guildford
will become a slum. |
The
author's property is currently zoned Residential 2(a) and is proposed to be
zoned R2 Low Density Residential. As
such there is no change proposed to their immediate locality. As such, it is assumed that the submission
is an objection to increases in residential density in general. While this is a common concern in the
community, the reality is that all councils in Sydney must contribute towards
the broader metropolitan-wide goal of urban consolidation. Council's approach is to achieve this in
the most sustainable method possible using the concentrated growth
approach. This involves locating
increases in densities in areas that are best able to provide for the
infrastructure needs of the incoming population such as access to public
transport and shops. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
236 |
146 |
492
Woodville Road |
Guildford |
The
submission objects to the down zoning of 492 Woodville Road, Guildford from
Mixed Use 10 to R2 as it will devalue the property value, increase
unemployment, provide for fewer ratepayers and waste land that could be
redeveloped. |
Refer
to the discussion under the relevant heading in the detailed report. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
237 |
158 |
Lough
Avenue |
Guildford |
The
submission states that no additional multi unit development should be allowed
in Lough Avenue, Guildford as the street is already fully developed and it is
difficult to access existing homes. |
Land in
Lough Ave, Guildford is currently zoned 2(b) Residential. This zone permits
townhouse development. Under the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, Council has
rezoned this land to R2 Low-Density Residential. The R2 zone permits
individual homes on one lot of land. It does not permit townhouses unlike the
current zone. Council has downzoned this area to reflect the Residential
Development Strategy which concentrates growth in areas better accessible to
services and public transport. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
238 |
179 |
20
McArthur Street |
Guildford |
The
submission requests that 20 McArthur Street, Guildford be rezoned to allow
for apartments (i.e. R4 High Density Residential zone). |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP, higher density residential zonings are proposed to
be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s Residential
Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS criteria for
higher density residential development given that it is outside of the
Guildford RDS precinct. It is therefore proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density
Residential. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
239 |
180 |
10
Milner Road |
Guildford |
The
submission is satisfied with proposed R3 Medium Density Residential zone for
10 Milner Road, Guildford, but requests Council consider up zoning to R4 High
Density Residential. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
240 |
198 |
Guildford
and Woodville Roads |
Guildford |
The
submission suggests the suitability of a hotel and restaurant development at
the intersection of Woodville Road and Guildford Road, Guildford as well as
general commercial uses along Woodville Road. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
241 |
226 |
52
Station Street |
Guildford |
The
submission requests that 52 Station Street, Guildford be up zoned from the
proposed R3 Medium Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential.
Justification provided includes that larger blocks are situated towards the
upper end of Stations Street and the site is still within 500-700 metres of
Guildford Station and 400 metres of Guildford shops and bus stop. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
242 |
308 |
70 Milner
Road |
Guildford |
Objects
to the proposed down zoning of this site from 2B (Medium Density) to R2 (Low
Density Residential) in the southern end of Milner Road Guildford and to the
rationale for zonings in this area. Suggests that capacity to do townhouse style
development should be maintained. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
243 |
331 |
Salisbury
Road |
Guildford |
Petition
with 13 signatures from land owners in Salisbury Road and Guildford Road
seeking that land be zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the draft
Parramatta LEP as opposed to R2 Low Density Residential. This is because the
adjoining land to the west is proposed to be zoned R3, it is close to shops
and public transport, sites are large and there is a need to provide more
housing to respond to population growth. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
244 |
337 |
43
Cross Street |
Guildford |
Submission
requests that the height limit of properties at 35 - 59 Cross Street be
increased in height from 11 metres to 17 metres in line with the height limit
applied to Nos. 3 - 31 Cross Street. The increased height (and density) is
suitable given proximity to railway station; will promote increased use of
public transport; promotes urban consolidation; increases housing supply and
affordability and ensures equity for land owners within Cross Street. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
337 |
43
Cross Street |
Guildford |
Submission
requests that maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of properties at Nos. 35 - 59
Cross Street, Guildford be increased from 0.8:1 to 1.4:1 in line with the
maximum FSR control applied to Nos. 3 - 31 Cross Street. The increased
density is suitable given proximity to railway station; will promote increased
use of public transport; promotes urban consolidation; increases housing
supply and affordability and ensures equity for land owners within Cross
Street. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
245 |
358 |
41
Cross Street |
Guildford |
Suggests
35-51 Cross Street, Guildford (R4, 11m and 0.8:1) be given the same zone,
height and floor space ratio controls as 5-33 Cross Street, Guildford (R4, 17m
and 1.4:1), for the following reasons: land is only 200m from train station
and shopping centre; to allow more people to use public transport reducing
private vehicle usage and pollution; the need to provide more affordable
units near public transport; and it will be fair and reasonable for 35-51
Cross Street to have the same FSR as 5-33 Cross Street. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
246 |
399 |
65
McArthur & 69 Woodstock |
Guildford |
The
submitter considers that the existing industrial zone under Parramatta LEP
2001 and the proposed industrial zone under draft LEP 2010 applying to 65, 57
and 68 McArthur Street and 69 Woodstock St is inappropriate. Requests that Council give consideration to
adopting a mixed use B4 Mixed Use zoning and corresponding FSR of 2.0:1 and a
height of three storeys (14 m) for the subject land. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. That
the proponent be notified that further consideration of this proposal would
require submission of a Planning Proposal.
|
247 |
427 |
Milner
Road |
Guildford |
Objects
to the rezoning of the southern part of Milner Road (between Rhodes Ave and
Henry St), Guildford from 2(b) Residential to R2 Low Density Residential.
This is unacceptable given the properties behind Milner Road on Rosebery Ave,
Guildford and Adam and Frederick Streets, South Granville are proposed to be
zoned R3 Medium Density Residential even though they are over 1km from the
railway station. In addition, the northern part of Milner Road, Guildford is
proposed to be zoned R3. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
427 |
Milner
Road |
Guildford |
Questions
why Council is considering such a down zoning in Milner Road when housing
affordability is becoming inevitable. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
248 |
477 |
238
& 240 Guildford Road |
Guildford |
Submission
raises objection to the B2 Local Centre zoning proposed over adjoining
properties on the corner of Milner and Guildford Roads on potential land
contamination from current/previous use as a service station. |
The
proposed zoning has been determined to best reflect the current land use on
the site. In the event the site is redeveloped the requirements of State
Environmental Planning Policy No 55 (Remediation of Land) would deal with the
issue of potential land contamination. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
477 |
238
& 240 Guildford Road |
Guildford |
The
submission raises concern with regard to the poor condition of the existing
footpath along both sides of Guildford Road |
This
matter has been referred to Council's Manager City Assets and Environment for
further consideration and action. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
477 |
238
& 240 Guildford Road |
Guildford |
The
submission states that certain areas of the Parramatta local government area
such as Guildford, Granville, Harris Park, Telopea carry the weight of
rezoning of residential housing to increased densities and compensates for
areas such as Winston Hills sand Epping that are largely protected by R2 Low
Density Residential; zonings even though these suburbs have equal access to
public transport. |
The
location of opportunities for increased residential densities was derived
through the development of Residential Development Strategy. Proximity to
public transport was not the sole determining factor in the location of
increased density. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
477 |
238
& 240 Guildford Road |
Guildford |
Submission
raises concern over potential loss of privacy from higher density
development. |
The
draft Development Control plan contains provisions relating to the privacy
impacts and requires, through sound site planning and design for this to be
minimised. Any development applications for higher density development will
also be notified to adjoining properties and consideration given to concerns
raised. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
477 |
238
& 240 Guildford Road |
Guildford |
Submission
raises objection to the B2 Local Centre zoning proposed over adjoining
properties on the corner of Milner and Guildford Roads on flooding grounds. |
Clause
6.5 (Development on flood prone land) of the draft LEP will ensure adequate
consideration is given to the impact of any development on land indentified
as being flood prone. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
|
477 |
238
& 240 Guildford Road |
Guildford |
The
submission is satisfied with the proposed zoning (and FSR) of their site and
surrounding properties zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, but is opposed to
the zoning being increased to R4 High Density Residential. |
It is
not proposed to zone the subject site or properties adjacent to permit the
development of residential flat buildings. The issue of adjoining development
for high density development is discussed in the detailed Council report
found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP2010. |
|
477 |
238
& 240 Guildford Road |
Guildford |
Submission
raises concern to potential loss of solar access from higher density
development. |
The
draft DCP contains provisions requiring development to be designed to ensure
a minimum level of solar access is maintained to adjoining properties. The
draft LEP does not propose any increase in building height on the sites
adjacent to the submitters site than that currently permitted. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
249 |
493 |
Woodstock
Street |
Guildford |
Requested
an extension of time in which to comment on the draft Plans. Request to know
when the draft LEP will become effective. |
The
time frame for comments was extended for a further two weeks bringing the
total exhibition period to a total of over 9 weeks. This is well in excess of the statutory 28
days as prescribed by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
1979. The lengthy exhibition period
reflected the complexity of the documents being exhibited and also the
occurrence of easter holidays within the exhibition period. As such, it is considered that adequate
time was allowed for public comments on the draft plans. The submitter was
contacted by telephone and advised accordingly and also of the process to
progress the LEP to finalisation. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
250 |
501 |
Railway
Street |
Guildford |
Questions
how the rights of existing and viable commercial uses are protected in the R4
High Density Residential zone in the draft LEP. Notes that utilising existing
use rights is complex and that Clause 43 in Parramatta LEP 2001 effectively
protects lawful businesses operating in residential zones. Suggests a similar
clause be included in the draft LEP. |
Clause
43 of Parramatta LEP 2001 makes provision for the continued use of approved
shops in residentially zoned areas and their change to alternate commercial
uses. Since the gazettal of Parramatta LEP 2001, there has been refinements
to existing use provisions contained within the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act which have the effect of reducing the previously wider
benefits available to properties with existing use rights. These changes
recognise existing use rights but prevent any change of use from one
non-conforming use to another which is not permissible in that zone. The
standard instrument order does not make provision for a clause similar to
clause 43 and the legislative changes indicate that Council would not be able
to put forward a local clause for inclusion which would be contrary to the
Act. Further discussion of the planning controls proposed for No's 310-332
Railway Terrace is s discussed in the detailed Council report found in
Attachment 1. |
That
properties No 312-332 Railway Terrace, Guildford be zoned from R4 High
Density Residential to B4 (Mixed Use) That
the height and FSR controls to remain as exhibited. That
figure 4.1.7.1 of the DCP be amended to modify the front setback control from
0m to 3m for properties No's 334 - 342 Railway Terrace Guildford. |
501 |
Railway
Street |
Guildford |
a) Supports the proposed R4 High Density
Residential zone at Railway Street, Guildford. However, objects to the
proposed FSR of 1.4:1 on the grounds that the FSR is not relate to the
proposed height limit of 17m. b) sites will need to be amalgamated
to achieve the minimum lot frontage of 24m, therefore to make a residential flat
building economically feasible an FSR of 2:1 should be applied, as the
proposed FSR of 1.4:1 will be unviable due to the limited yield. c) despite an increase in FSR, the
bulk and scale of the development would continue to be guided by controls in
the draft DCP. Council needs to ensure that proposed planning controls offer
realistic opportunities for development. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP2010. |
|
251 |
516 |
297-299
Woodville Road |
Guildford |
Request
that proposed zoning for No's 297-299 Woodville Road (corner of Constance
Street) Guildford be changed from B6 (Enterprise Corridor) to a residential
transitional zone to better relate to adjoining residential areas. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
516 |
297-299
Woodville Road |
Guildford |
Request
that existing equivalent zoning (currently 2B Residential) for Constance
Street Guildford be retained and an R3 (Medium Density Residential) zoning be
applied. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP2010. |
|
252 |
531 |
291-293
Woodville Road |
Guildford |
A major
concern is that a large proportion of Parramatta will be rezoned as R2 Low
Density Residential which does not permit the construction of dual
occupancies. Dual occupancies are required
to accommodate the ever growing population for Parramatta and the
infrastructure is there to support it. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
531 |
291-293
Woodville Road |
Guildford |
Opposes
the zoning of 50 Linthorne St, Guildford as R2 Low Density Residential and
requests that this property be rezoned to 3A general business, the same as
the adjacent property at 291 -- 293 Woodville Rd. This would allow for a neater looking
development. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
531 |
291-293
Woodville Road |
Guildford |
Opposes
the zoning of 291-293 Woodville Rd, Guildford as B6 Enterprise Corridor and
seeks the retention of the existing 3A Centre Business Zone or equivalent and
also a zone that permits high density. There is no evidence that businesses
are interested in commercial development along Woodville Road. In addition, our population appears to be
increasing and therefore we require more housing. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
253 |
540 |
51
Mountford Avenue |
Guildford |
This
submission seeks that the zoning of land at 51 Mountford Avenue and adjoining
properties be increased from R2 Low Density Residential to R4 High Density
Residential as applied to adjoining land. |
The
property is currently zoned Residential 2(b).
The proposed zone is R2 Low density Residential. The sites to the east of the property is
currently zoned Residential 2(e) indicating that there may be flooding issues
in the locality. The zoning boundary
has been located to reflect both the potential flooding issues and the depth
of the allotments as the R4 zoning ends with the last of the deep allotments
along that section of Mountford Avenue. Additionally the boundary between
Higher and Lower Density Development was devised to ensure some consistency
in streetscape with the properties
(R2) on the southern side of Mountford Road. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
254 |
571 |
297-299
Woodville Road |
Guildford |
Requests
that Council mow the road reserve along Woodville Road and take more pride in
its appearance. This submission has
been referred to City Services to action. |
This
submission has been referred to Council’s City Operations teams for action. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
255 |
582 |
209
Guildford Road |
Guildford |
Reluctantly
accepts that medium density zoning will be retained for 209 Guildford Rd,
Guildford. However, has reservations
on traffic and car parking for this section of Guildford Road and requests
that this matter be referred to the traffic committee. In addition, objects to the possibility of
two storey buildings with attics overlooking backyard causing loss of privacy
and enjoyment of backyard. |
This
Guildford RDS precinct is discussed in the detailed Council report found in
Attachment 1. Concerns raised with respect to potential privacy impacts would
be dealt with by ensuring any new development responds to the DCP provisions
relating to visual and acoustic privacy as well as consideration being given
to any submissions received during the assessment process. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
256 |
199 |
Woodville
Road |
Guildford/Merrylands |
The
author advised that they are satisfied with development along Woodville Road
and expressed general satisfaction with development and level of convenience
of facilities along Woodville Road. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
257 |
70 |
8
Cambridge Street |
Harris
Park |
Satisfied
with proposed R4 (High Density) zone at 8 Cambridge Street, Harris Park.
Would like to see the area re-developed. |
The
area is currently zoned 2(c) Residential and the proposed R4 (High Density)
Residential zone represents the closest translation into the required
standard instrument zonings. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
258 |
152 |
Weston
Street |
Harris
Park |
The
submission seeks clarification as to the development type and heights
proposed under the draft LEP for Weston Street, Harris Park. |
The
author was contacted by phone to discuss their questions and specifically how
the draft Parramatta LEP affects their property. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
259 |
166 |
14-16
Weston Street |
Harris
Park |
The
submission requests that 14-16 Weston Street, Harris Park be up zoned from R3
Medium Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential or B4 Mixed Use
with height limits extended to between 3 and 6 storeys. It is argued that
Council should impose planning controls that harness rather than stifle
significant benefits to Parramatta that are present by growth in the James
Ruse Drive entertainment/racecourse precinct. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
260 |
168 |
9-11
Weston Street |
Harris
Park |
The
submission requests that 9-11 Weston Street, Harris Park be up zoned from R3
Medium Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential or B4 Mixed Use
with height limits extended to between 3 and 6 storeys. It is argued that
Council should impose planning controls that harness rather than stifle
significant benefits to Parramatta that are present by growth in the James
Ruse Drive entertainment/racecourse precinct. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
261 |
282 |
85
Weston Street |
Harris
Park |
Seeking
to have the heritage listing to their property at 59 Harris Street, Harris
Park removed. This area is in need for more high rise development to cater
for a growing population. Also, it is argued that not each and every older
style house needs to be heritage listed. |
Council
is in the process of undertaking a comprehensive review of its heritage
items. This is a separate process to the draft Parramatta LEP/DCP. It is anticipated that the comprehensive
review will be considered by Council in 2011. In finalising the comprehensive
review, Council will assess and make a determination on this request. |
That
this submission be consideration as part of Council's comprehensive heritage
review. |
262 |
409 |
65-79
Marion Street |
Harris
Park |
The
proposed height limit of 6 metres for the properties 65-79 Marion Street is
overly restrictive. The height restrictions leave these properties surrounded
by two and three storey buildings on all sides. The landowners wish to be
allowed to carry out modest sized development with the two storey
developments at the rear which would preserve the heritage values of the
cottages that face Marion Street. |
65 and
69-79 Marion Street are identified as heritage items under the current
Parramatta Heritage Conservation Local Environmental Plan 1996. Council has
maintained these heritage listings under the draft Parramatta LEP 2010. The
reason these properties are heritage listed is that as a group they make a
notable contribution to the townscape due to similarities in age, design, use
and materials. The Harris Park precinct includes an extensive collection of
nineteenth and twentieth century buildings and landscapes, which provides
valuable evidence of Parramatta’s settlement. Protecting this heritage of
Harris Park is a key objective for Council. The draft Parramatta LEP in
relation to Harris Park has been an exercise in transferring existing zoning
and planning controls. Council has subsequently translated existing control to
conform with the standardised template by proposing a 6 metre height
limit (1 storey plus attic) to
preserve this section of Marion Street to ensure its original form and scale
and integrity is maintained. However, since these controls were introduced in
the mid to late 1990's, development pressures have intensified given Harris
Park’s proximity to the CBD. Council
needs to deal with this issue in a holistic way. While it is not recommended to change the
planning controls at this stage, Council may wish to consider in the medium
to long term a review of the planning controls for the Harris Park Precinct.
Council will need to decide the level of priority it wishes to give this task
to ensure Council resources are available to undertake the necessary work. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
263 |
547 |
Kendall
& Wigram Streets |
Harris
Park |
The
submission raises concern to the height limits proposed for the block bound
by Kendall, Wigram and Ada Streets, Harris Park, particularly the increase in
height from 6 metres in the south western corner to 28 metres in the north
eastern corner (116 Wigram Street). Even though the area adjoins the CBD this
is not sufficient to increase the heights as the block is isolated by the existing
street network. |
At its
meeting of 30 May 2007 Council
considered heights for the triangular land parcel bound by Kendall, Wigram
and Ada Streets, Harris Park and resolved to increase the height of No. 116
Wigram Street, Harris Park from 18 metres to 23 metres. A submission was
received from the land owner in early July 2007 seeking increased heights of
up to 33 metres. At its meeting of 23
July 2007 Council resolved that further advice in relation to height increases
at 116 Wigram Street, Harris Park be provided. At its meeting of 10 September
2007 Council considered comments from Council's Urban Design Unit who stated
that heights of up to 33 metres at 116 Wigram Street could not be supported,
but that a height of 28 metres would be acceptable to reflect the height of
controls on nearby sites. The urban design comments also suggested that any
future redevelopment should be for the entire block, not the corner parcel in
isolation in order to address the corner location, the gateway entry into
Harris Park and to address any heritage issues. The report also recommended
that the Heritage Office be further consulted during public exhibition of the
draft LEP and DCP. Council resolved to increase the height limit for 116
Wigram Street to 28 metres and that this be brought to the attention of the
Heritage Office for comment during the public exhibition process. The NSW
Heritage Office were formally notified of the public exhibition of Council's
draft LEP and DCP. However, no comment was received. |
That
the NSW Heritage Office be advised of the proposed height limits in the draft
Parramatta LEP for the block bound by Kendall, Wigram and Ada Streets, Harris
Park and any response received be referred to the Department of Planning
prior to finalisation of the draft LEP.
|
264 |
567 |
65-79
Marion Street |
Harris
Park |
A
petition with 42 signatures object to the proposed height limit of 6 metres
(4 metres under current controls) for the properties 65-79 Marion Street
because they are overly restrictive. The height restrictions leave these
properties surrounded by two and three storey buildings on all sides. The
landowners wish to be allowed to carry out modest development with the two
storey developments at the rear which would preserve the heritage values of
the cottages that face Marion Street. (Note,
a similar submission has been received documenting the requests of these land
owners that also references a petition). |
65 and
69-79 Marion Street are identified as heritage items under the current
Parramatta Heritage Conservation Local Environmental Plan 1996. Council has
maintained these heritage listings under the draft Parramatta LEP 2010. The
reason these properties are heritage listed is that as a group they make a
notable contribution to the townscape due to similarities in age, design, use
and materials. The Harris Park precinct includes an extensive collection of
nineteenth and twentieth century buildings and landscapes, which provides
valuable evidence of Parramatta’s settlement. Protecting this heritage of
Harris Park is a key objective for Council. The draft Parramatta LEP in
relation to Harris Park has been an exercise in transferring existing zoning
and planning controls. Council has subsequently translated existing control
to conform with the standardised template by proposing a 6 metre height limit
(1 storey plus attic) to preserve this section of Marion Street to ensure its
original form and scale and integrity is maintained. However, since these
controls were introduced in the mid to late 1990's, development pressures
have intensified given Harris Park’s proximity to the CBD. Council needs to deal with this issue in a
more holistic way. While it is not
recommended to change the planning controls at this stage, Council may
consider in the medium to long term a review of all the planning controls for
the Harris Park Precinct. Council will need to decide the level of priority
it wishes to give this task to ensure Council resources are available to
undertake the necessary work. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
265 |
541 |
84
Wharf Road and 29 Hughes Avenue |
Melrose
Park/ Ermington |
Ermington
Industrial Precinct (44 Wharf Rd, Melrose Park) objects to the proposed zone
of IN1 General Industrial of the draft LEP 2010 for the following reasons: a) The proposed IN1 General Industrial zoning
represents a down zoning of the Ermington industrial precinct. The zoning
does not acknowledge the existing well established manufacturing activities
and the proposed prohibition on ‘industry’ is considered inconsistent with
the zone objectives. b) A number of other land uses are considered
to satisfy the IN1 zone objectives and would compliment traditional
industrial activity including commercial offices, business premises, clubs
and health service facilities. These uses are proposed to be excluded from
the permissible uses in the IN1 zone. c) It is doubtful that the proposed IN1
General Industrial zone and proposed range of land uses are capable of
revitalising the local economy and more specifically the Ermington precinct
in the short - long term. d) The draft Parramatta LEP therefore does
not appear to have satisfied Regional planning directions, including the need
to address industrial -- residential interface issues e) The proposed IN1 zoning does not recognise
the existence of a number of substantial and relatively modern commercial
office activities along Wharf Road |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council amend the IN1 General Industrial zone land use table as described in
the detailed Council report in Attachment 1. |
266 |
52 |
22
Beszant Street |
Merrylands |
No
comments made on signed submission sheet. |
As no
comment was made, no analysis was undertaken for this submission. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
267 |
111 |
1
Albion Avenue |
Merrylands |
The
submission disagrees with zoning only part of Albion Street, Merrylands as R4
High Density Residential while the remainder of the street is zoned R2 Low
Density Residential. The submission states that the whole street should be
zoned R4 with a height limit of 5 storeys and does not understand why Smythe
Street has been zoned R4 and not Albion Street, given they are both the same
distance to Merrylands Railway Station. The submission requests the whole of
Albion Street be zoned R4 as the current proposal is unfair to those that
miss out on the R4 zoning. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the properties at Nos. 23 - 35 Albion Avenue, Merrylands be rezoned R2 (Low
Density Residential) with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height of 9 metres. Amend
the setback controls in Section 4.1.8 of the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 to
reflect the zoning change of Albion Avenue. |
268 |
126 |
5
Albion Avenue |
Merrylands |
Requests
that all of Albion Avenue, Merrylands be zoned R4 High Density Residential.
All properties have the same access through Albion Avenue and all back onto
Sutherland Lane. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the properties at Nos. 23 - 35 Albion Avenue, Merrylands be rezoned R2 (Low
Density Residential) with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height of 9 metres. Amend
the setback controls in Section 4.1.8 of the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 to
reflect the zoning change of Albion Avenue. |
126 |
5
Albion Avenue |
Merrylands |
All
properties on Merrylands Road are proposed to be zoned R4 High Density
Residential, therefore when units are built they will have direct views into
the backyards of Albion Avenue properties zoned R2 Low Density Residential
which will create privacy issues. |
The
matter of the zoning of land in Albion Street is discussed in the detailed
Council report found in Attachment 1. Any
future redevelopment of these sites will be required to have regard to Section
3.3.3 of the draft Parramatta DCP and SEPP 65 which requires that development
does not cause unreasonable overlooking of habitable rooms and principal
private open spaces of dwellings. Any potential privacy issue would be
addressed during the assessment of a development application. |
That
the properties at Nos. 23 - 35 Albion Avenue, Merrylands be rezoned R2 (Low
Density Residential) with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height of 9 metres. Amend
the setback controls in Section 4.1.8 of the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 to
reflect the zoning change of Albion Avenue. |
|
269 |
149 |
Alton
Street |
Merrylands |
The
submitter does not want townhouses or units in the area of Alton Street,
Merrylands and therefore supports the proposed R2 Low Density Residential
zone. |
Properties
on Alton Street and surrounding streets, Merrylands are zoned R2 Low Density
Residential, in line with Council's RDS strategy. This zone does not allow town houses or
units, thus meeting the submitter's request. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
270 |
160 |
18
Albion Avenue |
Merrylands |
Submission
raises concern that properties not zoned R4 High Density Residential within
Albion Street will suffer loss of property values. Questions whether Council
will compensate owners for loss of property values. |
The
matter of the zoning of land in Albion Street is discussed in the detailed
Council report found in Attachment 1. The
Valuer General, through the Department of Lands, is the principal advisor on
land valuation matters in NSW. Whilst planning controls in LEPs impact on
land values, Councils are required to address a strategic framework including
State Government plans, policies and directions, as well as Councils own
strategic framework (eg the RDS) to inform their LEPs. The impact of draft
LEP provisions on land value is not of itself a reason for amending the
provisions of the draft LEP, given this over-riding strategic framework. |
That
the properties at Nos. 23 - 35 Albion Avenue, Merrylands be rezoned R2 (Low
Density Residential) with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height of 9 metres. Amend
the setback controls in Section 4.1.8 of the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 to
reflect the zoning change of Albion Avenue. |
160 |
18
Albion Avenue |
Merrylands |
The
submission raises objection that only 7 houses in Albion Street, Merrylands
are proposed to be zoned R4 High Density Residential with a height limit of
'L' (11 metres) and not the other 26 houses. Seeks that the whole street
should be zoned for high density residential. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the properties at Nos. 23 - 35 Albion Avenue, Merrylands be rezoned R2 (Low
Density Residential) with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height of 9 metres. Amend
the setback controls in Section 4.1.8 of the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 to
reflect the zoning change of Albion Avenue. |
|
271 |
164 |
21
Smythe Street |
Merrylands |
The
submission states that Council should consider increasing the proposed
building height for 21 Smythe Street, Merrylands from 3 storeys to 4 storeys. |
The
heights adopted for Merrylands propose to concentrate the highest density
development toward the railway line, with building heights and densities
gradually decreasing from east to west towards Woodville Road. The
scaling of buildings from five (5) and six (6) storeys down to three (3)
storeys enables a transition from the R4 High Density Residential and B4
Mixed Use zones to the R3 Medium Density Residential zone east of Loftus
Street and R2 Low Density zone adjacent Woodville Road. This will enable a
better urban design outcome for the precinct as a whole, ensuring consistent
building scale and protecting the amenity of existing and future residents. In
developing height controls for Merrylands, consideration was also given to
the heights of recently developed properties within the precinct,
predominantly being a maximum of 3 storeys; and also to the heights of new
and future development permitted on the opposite side of the railway line
within Holroyd Council local government area. Concentrating the tallest
buildings closest to the railway line is also consistent with the approach of
Holroyd Council which permits development of up to seven (7) and eight (8)
storeys adjacent to the railway line. While
development on the opposite side of the railway line is up to eight (8)
storeys, the topography of the area is such that land is substantially lower,
and that when viewed from Railway Terrace, development appears as
approximately six (6) storeys in height. Accordingly, the heights proposed
will allow for buildings to result in a consistent skyline to development on
the opposite side of the railway line. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
272 |
181 |
83
Merrylands Road |
Merrylands |
The
submission states that the area proposed to be zoned B4 Mixed Use within the
Merrylands Town Centre could easily accommodate 8-10 storeys, similar to
Fairfield CBD, Granville CBD, Holroyd Gardens, Auburn CBD and Campbelltown,
as it is only metres from rail and bus services. |
The
heights adopted for Merrylands propose to concentrate the highest density
development toward the railway line, with building heights and densities
gradually decreasing from east to west towards Woodville Road. The
scaling of buildings from five (5) and six (6) storeys down to three (3)
storeys enables a transition from the R4 High Density Residential and B4
Mixed Use zones to the R3 Medium Density Residential zone east of Loftus
Street and R2 Low Density zone adjacent Woodville Road. This will enable a
better urban design outcome for the precinct as a whole, ensuring consistent
building scale and protecting the amenity of existing and future residents. In
developing height controls for Merrylands, consideration was also given to
the heights of recently developed properties within the precinct,
predominantly being a maximum of 3 storeys; and also to the heights of new
and future development permitted on the opposite side of the railway line
within Holroyd Council local government area. Concentrating the tallest buildings
closest to the railway line is also consistent with the approach of Holroyd
Council which permits development of up to seven (7) and eight (8) storeys
adjacent to the railway line. While
development on the opposite side of the railway line is up to eight (8)
storeys, the topography of the area is such that land is substantially lower,
and that when viewed from Railway Terrace, development appears as
approximately six (6) storeys in height. Accordingly, the heights proposed
will allow for buildings to result in a consistent skyline to development on
the opposite side of the railway line. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
181 |
83
Merrylands Road |
Merrylands |
The
submission supports the draft
Parramatta LEP as it applies to Merrylands as the proposed zonings
will rejuvenate the eastern part of Merrylands and reconnect it to the
western part. However, the submission
disagrees with the disjointed zoning of Albion Avenue (i.e. predominantly R2
with a portion of R4) |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the properties at Nos. 23 - 35 Albion Avenue, Merrylands be rezoned R2 (Low
Density Residential) with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height of 9 metres. Amend
the setback controls in Section 4.1.8 of the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 to
reflect the zoning change of Albion Avenue. |
|
273 |
192 |
138
Woodville Road |
Merrylands |
The
submission states that the land owner of 138 Woodville Road, Merrylands would
have been happy for land on Woodville Road to remain low density residential.
However, the current mixed use zoning has allowed for commercial/residential
development and has isolated the properties at 138-140 Woodville Road.
Therefore, it is only reasonable that the current zoning be retained to allow
landowners to develop their land similar to adjoining development. The
landowner of 138 Woodville Road, Merrylands has a current DA consent which is
about to lapse and they have what choices are available to have this consent
continued. |
This issue
is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
274 |
244 |
2
Loftus Street |
Merrylands |
Satisfied
with proposed zoning for their property at 2 Loftus Street, Merrylands. |
Subject
property is currently zoned 2(b) Residential under Parramatta LEP 2001. Under
the draft LEP, higher density residential zonings are proposed to be located
in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s Residential Development
Strategy (RDS). This property meets the RDS criteria for higher density
residential development. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
275 |
259 |
32
Albion Avenue |
Merrylands |
The
submission objects to proposed prohibition of dual occupancy development in
the R2 Low Density Residential Zone. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
259 |
32
Albion Avenue |
Merrylands |
Objection
is raised to the proposed zoning of seven properties to R4 (High Density
Residential) as it will result in a loss of property value. |
The
Valuer General, through the Department of Lands, is the principal advisor on
land valuation matters in NSW. Whilst planning controls in LEPs impact on
land values, Councils are required to address a strategic framework including
State Government plans, policies and directions, as well as Councils own
strategic framework (e.g. the RDS) to inform their LEPs. The impact of draft
LEP provisions on land value is not of itself a reason for amending the
provisions of the draft LEP, given this over-riding strategic framework. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
259 |
32
Albion Avenue |
Merrylands |
Objection
is raised to the proposed zoning of seven properties to R4 (High Density
Residential) on the basis that it is inconsistent with several of the overall
objectives of the Draft LEP. Considers that a more equitable approach would
be to rezone the whole of Albion Avenue R3 Medium Density Residential. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the properties at Nos. 23 - 35 Albion Avenue, Merrylands be rezoned R2 (Low
Density Residential) with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height of 9 metres. Amend
the setback controls in Section 4.1.8 of the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 to
reflect the zoning change of Albion Avenue. |
|
276 |
260 |
5
Albion Avenue |
Merrylands |
Requests
that all of the northern side of Albion Avenue be zoned R4 (High Density
Residential) as it is ideally located and suited for high density development
benefiting from rear lane access from Sutherland Lane. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the properties at Nos. 23 - 35 Albion Avenue, Merrylands be rezoned R2 (Low
Density Residential) with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height of 9 metres. Amend
the setback controls in Section 4.1.8 of the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 to
reflect the zoning change of Albion Avenue. |
277 |
273 |
Merrylands
Rd, Loftus/Mombri Sts & Railway Terrace |
Merrylands |
It would be remiss of Council to fail to
recognise the forward thinking of other local councils by limiting the
development of this site to 21 metres. |
The
heights adopted for Merrylands propose to concentrate the highest density
development toward the railway line, with building heights and densities
gradually decreasing from east to west towards Woodville Road. The
scaling of buildings from five (5) and six (6) storeys down to three (3)
storeys enables a transition from the R4 High Density Residential and B4
Mixed Use zones to the R3 Medium Density Residential zone east of Loftus
Street and R2 Low Density zone adjacent Woodville Road. This will enable a
better urban design outcome for the precinct as a whole, ensuring consistent
building scale and protecting the amenity of existing and future residents. In
developing height controls for Merrylands, consideration was also given to
the heights of recently developed properties within the precinct,
predominantly being a maximum of 3 storeys; and also to the heights of new
and future development permitted on the opposite side of the railway line
within Holroyd Council local government area. Concentrating the tallest
buildings closest to the railway line is also consistent with the approach of
Holroyd Council which permits development of up to seven (7) and eight (8)
storeys adjacent to the railway line. While
development on the opposite side of the railway line is up to eight (8)
storeys, the topography of the area is such that land is substantially lower,
and that when viewed from Railway Terrace, development appears as
approximately six (6) storeys in height. Accordingly, the heights proposed
will allow for buildings to result in a consistent skyline to development on
the opposite side of the railway line. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
273 |
Merrylands
Rd, Loftus/Mombri Sts & Railway Terrace |
Merrylands |
The
area bounded by Merrylands Road, Loftus Street, Mombri Street, Railway
Terrace should be utilised to its maximum potential, with high density living
allowed, being close to Merrylands Station, the bus interchange, taxi rank
and shopping complex. The B4 Mixed Use
zoning will retard the wasteful low density urban sprawl allowing future
growth towards Guildford along side the rail corridor. |
Land
adjoining Railway Terrace between Merrylands Road and Mombri Street is
proposed to be zoned B4 Mixed Use under the draft LEP. This zone allows a range of commercial land
uses, shop top housing and residential flat buildings. Land to the east is
proposed to be zoned R4 High Density Residential under the draft Parramatta
LEP. The B4 and R4 zonings are consistent with Council's Residential
Development Strategy (RDS) to locate higher density residential in close
proximity to public transport and identified centres. The B4 zoning
additionally permits the expansion of the existing retail and commercial uses
on Merrylands Road to further enhance the local centre. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
278 |
276 |
Smythe
Street |
Merrylands |
Part of
Smythe Street, Merrylands is proposed with a height limit of 11 metres. Other
parts of Smythe Street have a proposed height limit of 14 metres. Submission
urges Council to consider increasing the height limit so that all new
development in Smythe Street has the same height. |
The
heights adopted for Merrylands propose to concentrate the highest density
development toward the railway line, with building heights and densities
gradually decreasing from east to west towards Woodville Road. The
scaling of buildings from five (5) and six (6) storeys down to three (3)
storeys enables a transition from the R4 High Density Residential and B4
Mixed Use zones to the R3 Medium Density Residential zone east of Loftus
Street and R2 Low Density zone adjacent Woodville Road. This will enable a
better urban design outcome for the precinct as a whole, ensuring consistent
building scale and protecting the amenity of existing and future residents. In
developing height controls for Merrylands, consideration was also given to
the heights of recently developed properties within the precinct,
predominantly being a maximum of 3 storeys; and also to the heights of new
and future development permitted on the opposite side of the railway line
within Holroyd Council local government area. Concentrating the tallest
buildings closest to the railway line is also consistent with the approach of
Holroyd Council which permits development of up to seven (7) and eight (8)
storeys adjacent to the railway line. While
development on the opposite side of the railway line is up to eight (8)
storeys, the topography of the area is such that land is substantially lower,
and that when viewed from Railway Terrace, development appears as approximately
six (6) storeys in height. Accordingly, the heights proposed will allow for
buildings to result in a consistent skyline to development on the opposite
side of the railway line. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
279 |
276 |
Smythe
Street |
Merrylands |
A
petition of nine signatories supporting the proposed R4 High Density
Residential zoning at Smythe Street, Merrylands. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are
proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS). Smythe Street, Merrylands meets the
RDS criteria for higher density residential development given that it is
within the Merrylands RDS precinct and is therefore considered suitable for
increased residential density being in proximity to existing public
transport, shops, public open spaces and the like. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
280 |
277 |
Albion
Avenue |
Merrylands |
Petition
with 9 signatures oppose Council plan to rezone only some parcels of land in
Albion Street, Merrylands as R4 High Density Residential Development. Albion
Avenue is located next to Merrylands railway station and has easy access to
existing infrastructure. The zoning of this area should be consistent and
recommends zoning the entire north side R4. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the properties at Nos. 23 - 35 Albion Avenue, Merrylands be rezoned R2 (Low
Density Residential) with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height of 9 metres. |
277 |
Albion
Avenue |
Merrylands |
The
submission argues that the rezoning of part of Albion Avenue as R4 High
Density Residential and the remaining as R2 Low Density Residential will decrease
the land value of those properties zoned R2. |
The
Valuer General, through the Department of Lands, is the principal advisor on
land valuation matters in NSW. Whilst planning controls in LEPs impact on
land values, Councils are required to address a strategic framework including
State Government plans, policies and directions, as well as Councils own
strategic framework (eg the RDS) to inform their LEPs. The impact of draft
LEP provisions on land value is not of itself a reason for amending the provisions
of the draft LEP, given this over-riding strategic framework. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
277 |
Albion
Avenue |
Merrylands |
The
submission raises concern that properties in Albion Avenue will be overlooked
by apartment buildings on the opposite side of Sutherland Lane. |
The
Albion Avenue zoning issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found
in Attachment 1. Any
future redevelopment of these sites will be required to have regard to
Section 3.3.3 of the draft Parramatta DCP and SEPP 65 which requires that
development does not cause unreasonable overlooking of habitable rooms and
principal private open spaces of dwellings. Any potential privacy issue would
be addressed during the assessment of a development application. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
277 |
Albion
Avenue |
Merrylands |
The
submission raises concern that properties in Albion Avenue will be
overshadowed by apartment buildings on the opposite side of Sutherland Lane. |
The
zoning of land along the southern side of Merrylands Road comprising both B1
Neighbourhood Centre and R4 High Density Residential is a direct translation
of the current zoning under Parramatta LEP 2001 of 3(a) Centre Business and 2(c)
Residential. Similarly the height and floor space ratio controls applied to
this land reflects the equivalent controls permitted under Parramatta LEP
2001. Section
3.3.5 of Draft Parramatta DCP requires that development is designed to
minimise the extent of shadow it casts on habitable rooms within adjoining
developments. Any potential overshadowing issue would be addressed during the
assessment of a development application. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
281 |
279 |
Albion
Avenue |
Merrylands |
Objection
is raised to the proposed zoning of seven properties to R4 (High Density
Residential) as it will result in a loss of property value. |
The
Valuer General, through the Department of Lands, is the principal advisor on
land valuation matters in NSW. Whilst planning controls in LEPs impact on
land values, Councils are required to address a strategic framework including
State Government plans, policies and directions, as well as Councils own
strategic framework (eg the RDS) to inform their LEPs. The impact of draft
LEP provisions on land value is not of itself a reason for amending the
provisions of the draft LEP, given this over-riding strategic framework. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
279 |
Albion
Avenue |
Merrylands |
Landowner
objects to upzoning of only a portion of Albion Street to R4 High Density
residential. Landowner states that this is zoning is inconsistent with the
objectives of Council's plan and will devalue their property which is
proposed R2 Low-Density Residential. They have suggested that a compromised
outcome could be to rezone the land R3 Medium Density Residential. This
recognises the area is located within close proximity to public transport
without causing further parking and traffic problems. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the properties at Nos. 23 - 35 Albion Avenue, Merrylands be rezoned R2 (Low
Density Residential) with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height of 9 metres. Amend
the setback controls in Section 4.1.8 of the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 to
reflect the zoning change of Albion Avenue. |
|
279 |
Albion
Avenue |
Merrylands |
Objection
is raised to the proposed R4 (High Density Residential) zoning on the
northern side of Albion Avenue as it will exacerbate existing parking issues
already experienced in the street caused by non resident commuter car parking
and local shoppers in Merrylands Road. |
The
Albion Avenue zoning issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found
in Attachment 1. Any
future development application will be required to comply with Council's
minimum car parking requirements as detailed in section 3.6.2 of draft
Parramatta DCP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
279 |
Albion
Avenue |
Merrylands |
The
submission objects to proposed prohibition of dual occupancy development in
the proposed R2 Low Density Residential Zone. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
|
282 |
288 |
Albion
Avenue |
Merrylands |
Concerned
that only part of Albion Avenue has been zoned R4 High Density Residential
while the remainder of the street is zoned R2 Low Density Residential.
Seeking that the entire northern side of Albion Avenue be zoned to R4 High
Density Residential given proximity to Merrylands Railway Station and dual
street frontage (to both Albion Avenue and Sutherland Lane) |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the properties at Nos. 23 - 35 Albion Avenue, Merrylands be rezoned R2 (Low
Density Residential) with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height of 9 metres. Amend
the setback controls in Section 4.1.8 of the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 to
reflect the zoning change of Albion Avenue. |
283 |
313 |
Albion
Avenue |
Merrylands |
Requests
that all of the Northern side of Albion Avenue be zoned R4 (High Density
Residential) as it is ideally located
and suited for High Density Development benefiting from rear lane access from
Sutherland Lane. |
This issue
is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the properties at Nos. 23 - 35 Albion Avenue, Merrylands be rezoned R2 (Low
Density Residential) with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height of 9 metres. |
284 |
322 |
51
Merrylands Road |
Merrylands |
Agrees
with zoning of 51 Merrylands Road as R4 High Density Residential. Zoning
should not be down graded for any reason. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are
proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS). No. 51 Merrylands Road, Merrylands
meets the RDS criteria for higher density residential development given that
it is within the Merrylands RDS precinct and is therefore considered suitable
for increased residential density being in proximity to existing public
transport, shops, public open spaces and the like. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
285 |
330 |
Albion
Avenue |
Merrylands |
Petition
of 18 signatories. Concerned that only part of Albion Avenue has been zoned
R4 High Density Residential while the remainder of the street is zoned R2 Low
Density Residential. Seeks that the entire Albion Avenue be zoned to R3
Medium Density Residential given proximity to Merrylands Railway Station. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the properties at Nos. 23 - 35 Albion Avenue, Merrylands be rezoned R2 (Low
Density Residential) with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height of 9 metres. Amend
the setback controls in Section 4.1.8 of the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 to
reflect the zoning change of Albion Avenue. |
286 |
347 |
Albion
Avenue |
Merrylands |
Opposed
to the partial upzoning of land in Albion Avenue Merrylands for the purposes
of high rise development. The Council needs to apply a consistent zoning
otherwise the affects of property values, streetscape and privacy of
residents will have an undesirable outcome |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the properties at Nos. 23 - 35 Albion Avenue, Merrylands be rezoned R2 (Low
Density Residential) with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height of 9 metres. Amend
the setback controls in Section 4.1.8 of the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 to
reflect the zoning change of Albion Avenue. |
287 |
362 |
Albion
Avenue |
Merrylands |
Objects
to the proposed zoning on Albion Street, Merrylands as it will not be for the
better. Cannot understand why only 7 properties are zoned R4 High Density
Residential while the remainder of the street is zoned R2 Low Density
Residential. The owners of the properties zoned R2 will be disadvantaged. If
the zoning proposal goes ahead, it would mean that the R2 zoned properties
(including the submitters) would be overshadowed by units being erected on
Merrylands Rd and Albion Ave. This is unacceptable. This proposal will move
current residents out of the area, increase population, pollution and the
lack of privacy. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the properties at Nos. 23 - 35 Albion Avenue, Merrylands be rezoned R2 (Low
Density Residential) with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height of 9 metres. Amend
the setback controls in Section 4.1.8 of the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 to
reflect the zoning change of Albion Avenue. |
288 |
412 |
Albion
Avenue |
Merrylands |
Petition
of 34 signatories requesting that land in Albion Avenue, Merrylands be
upzoned from the proposed R2 Low Density Residential zone to R4 High Density
Residential. Properties are situated right near the railway station like the
areas north of Merrylands Road yet have not been considered for upzoning. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the properties at Nos. 23 - 35 Albion Avenue, Merrylands be rezoned R2 (Low
Density Residential) with an FSR of 0.5:1 and height of 9 metres. Amend
the setback controls in Section 4.1.8 of the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 to
reflect the zoning change of Albion Avenue. |
289 |
417 |
67A
Merrylands Road |
Merrylands |
States
that they are happy with the proposed R4 High Density Residential zone
covering their property. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are
proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS). 67A Merrylands Road, Merrylands meets
the RDS criteria for higher density residential development given that it is
within the Merrylands RDS precinct and is therefore considered suitable for
increased residential density being in proximity to existing public transport,
shops, public open spaces and the like. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
290 |
428 |
14
Brady Street |
Merrylands |
Would
like14 Brady Street, Merrylands zoned either R3 Medium Density Residential or
R4 High Density Residential. The development approved at 16 Brady Street and
128-132 Woodville Road, Merrylands is not compatible with the area, has
increased traffic, dust and noise, and has negatively impacted property
values. Therefore, subject property needs to be zoned for maximum use to be
compatible with the adjoining development. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are
proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS). No. 14 Brady Street, Merrylands meets
the RDS criteria for higher density residential development given that it is
within the Merrylands RDS precinct and is therefore proposed to be zoned R3
Medium Density Residential. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
291 |
474 |
32
& 34 Park Street |
Merrylands |
The
proposed down zoning of the land within the Woodville Ward is inconsistent
with the NSW Government's Metropolitan Strategy to allow for population
growth close to public transport, to provide greater housing choice and
affordability, and to plan for the sufficient zoned land to accommodate their
local government area housing targets through their principal LEPs. The
submission argues that the Woodville Ward is well serviced by existing bus
services and the bus transport corridor between Parramatta and Bankstown that
is identified in the Metropolitan Strategy as a significant part of the West
Central region. Therefore the land currently zoned 2B Residential is well
suited to the equivalent 2B Residential zoning being R3 Medium Density
Residential. |
The
guiding principle of Council's Residential Development Strategy (RDS) is for
most residential growth to be concentrated in areas close to public
transport, shops and services. Council identified 21 study areas for
investigation for possible increase in housing growth. These areas were
selected based on proximity to public transport, public open space, schools,
shops and services and included a number of centres in the Woodville Ward
including Merrylands, Guildford, Granville and South Granville. Within these
study areas, housing densities were generally increased. This RDS philosophy
therefore sought that areas outside the study area be downzoned to ensure the
concentrated growth approach is realised. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
474 |
32
& 34 Park Street |
Merrylands |
The
submission raises objection to the down zoning of land at 32 and 34 Park Street, Merrylands
from 2B Residential (Medium Density) to R2 Low Density Residential given that
the proposed zoning will no longer
allow multi unit housing. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are
proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS
criteria for higher density residential development given that it is outside
of the Merrylands RDS precinct. It was therefore proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density
Residential. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
292 |
496 |
Corner
Baker St & Railway Terrace |
Merrylands |
That
sufficient parking needs to be provided within unit developments. The
submitter argues that this is necessary because most households have 2-3
vehicles and without sufficient parking cars end up on the street causing
traffic flow problems. |
Any
future development application for multi unit housing or residential flat
buildings will be required to comply with the minimum car parking controls
stated in section 3.6.2 of Draft Parramatta DCP. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
496 |
Corner
Baker St & Railway Terrace |
Merrylands |
The
submission relates to a new development on the corner of Baker Street and
Railway Terrace, Merrylands and states that this development has caused
traffic problems when exiting Baker Street onto Railway Terrace. Cars park
right up to the corner making it hazardous to turn onto Railway Terrace.
Further development will exacerbate the current problems. |
This
submission relates to traffic and parking issues resulting from an existing
development at 158-160 Railway Terrace, Merrylands. This matter has been
referred to Council's Service Manager Traffic and Transport to be dealt with
separately. With regard to concern
that this issue will be further exacerbated by additional unit developments
it is noted that under the draft LEP, the area will be downzoned from 2B
Residential (Medium Density) to R2 Low Density Residential, which once
gazetted will prohibit further multi unit housing developments. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
293 |
552 |
Railway
Terrace |
Merrylands |
The
submission recommends that the height limit along Railway Terrace, Merrylands
(where the B4 Mixed Use Zoning has been applied) to be increased from 21
metres to 30 or 35 metres to ensure that the opportunity for new housing
development is maximised. |
The
heights adopted for Merrylands propose to concentrate the highest density
development toward the railway line, with building heights and densities
gradually decreasing from east to west towards Woodville Road. The
scaling of buildings from five (5) and six (6) storeys down to three (3)
storeys enables a transition from the R4 High Density Residential and B4
Mixed Use zones to the R3 Medium Density Residential zone east of Loftus
Street and R2 Low Density zone adjacent Woodville Road. This will enable a
better urban design outcome for the precinct as a whole, ensuring consistent
building scale and protecting the amenity of existing and future residents. In
developing height controls for Merrylands, consideration was also given to
the heights of recently developed properties within the precinct, predominantly
being a maximum of 3 storeys; and also to the heights of new and future
development permitted on the opposite side of the railway line within Holroyd
Council local government area. Concentrating the tallest buildings closest to
the railway line is also consistent with the approach of Holroyd Council
which permits development of up to seven (7) and eight (8) storeys adjacent
to the railway line. While
development on the opposite side of the railway line is up to eight (8)
storeys, the topography of the area is such that land is substantially lower,
and that when viewed from Railway Terrace, development appears as
approximately six (6) storeys in height. Accordingly, the heights proposed
will allow for buildings to result in a consistent skyline to development on
the opposite side of the railway line. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
552 |
Railway
Terrace |
Merrylands |
This
submission supports the zoning of land along Railway Terrace, Merrylands as
B4 Mixed Use Development. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are
proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS). Parts of Railway Terrace, Merrylands
meet the RDS criteria for higher density residential development given that
it is within the Merrylands RDS precinct and is therefore considered suitable
for increased residential density being in proximity to existing public
transport, shops, public open spaces and the like. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
294 |
475 |
Short
Street |
North
Parramata |
Submission
raises objection to changes to the building controls for the Special
Character area bound by Short, Albert, Buller and Fennell Streets,
Parramatta. |
The
zoning provisions under draft Parramatta LEP 2010 maintain the current low
density scale of development in this area. However, because it is recommended
that Council reinstate dual occupancies into the R2 Low-Density zone, Council
will need to maintain the existing special character area provisions that
apply to this area. This will maintain the current controls that already
apply. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
295 |
33 |
4 Short
Street |
North
Parramatta |
Mature
trees should take precedence over any DA. |
Council's
LEP and DCP supports this objective where appropriate. Council also requires
the establishment of new trees where removal of existing trees are proposed.
Council encourages all trees proposed to be native to support biodiversity
objectives. Council can enforce regulations where trees have been removed
unlawfully. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
33 |
4 Short
Street |
North
Parramatta |
In
recent times 4 new applications have been approved for new dwellings that
back onto a laneway (Abby Lane). This has significant parking and traffic
impacts. Argues that this situation will get more difficult as more people
park in the laneway. |
Short
Street is currently zoned 2(a) under Parramatta LEP 2001. Under draft
Parramatta LEP 2010 it is proposed to be zoned R2 Low-Density Residential.
The current zoning allows for dual occupancy development. This has resulted
in some degree of intensification of development at this location but not to
the extent that it has changed the character of this low density area.
Council's DCP (Clause 3.6.2 (P5)) does encourage parking and servicing access
to be from a secondary dwelling or rear lane, where applicable. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
|
296 |
35 |
70
Sorrell Street |
North
Parramatta |
Has
requested that this land be upzoned from proposed R2 Low Density Residential
to B1 Neighbourhood Centre or B2 Local Centre. |
This
land is within a heritage conservation area and is part of the reason why it
is proposed R2 Low Density Residential.
Home business is a permitted use in an R2 zone. This would allow some
level of commercial activity if heritage and other design requirements allow
for it. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
297 |
42 |
80
Gladstone Street |
North
Parramatta |
The
submission is in objection to DA 796/2009 for an amenities building at No. 80
Gladstone Street, North Parramatta. |
This
objection is not relevant to the Draft Parramatta LEP or DCP 2010. It has
been referred to the Development Services Unit. However, the DA had already
been approved by Council prior to the receipt of the submission. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
298 |
135 |
11
Pennant Hills Road |
North
Parramatta |
Believes
area along Pennant Hills Road should be zoned R4 High Density Residential.
Requests Council examine the area between Saunders Street north to Sutherland
Road, North Parramatta with a view to zoning it for high density. Close to
parks and public transport. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are
proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS
criteria for higher density residential development given that it is on the
periphery of the North Parramatta RDS precinct. It is therefore proposed to
be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
299 |
252 |
14
William Street |
North
Parramatta |
Questions
why dual occupancies are proposed to be prohibited in the R2 zone. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That dual
occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
252 |
14
William Street |
North
Parramatta |
The
area south of William Street is zoned for apartments but it stops short of
our property. Both sides of William
Street should be zoned for apartments. |
The
property is currently zoned Residential 2(a) and the area on the opposite
side of William Street is currently zoned Residential 2(c). The proposed zone is R2 Low Density
Residential with the area across the road proposed as R4 High Density
Residential. This represents a
translation of the current zonings into equivalent zones in the draft
LEP. However, it is within the North
Parramatta Residential Development Strategy precinct. Consideration of this precinct was deferred
and opportunities may arise in the future to consider increases in density
within the precinct. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
300 |
280 |
Pennant
& Isabella Streets |
North
Parramatta |
That
properties on the south of Isabella Street, North Parramatta should be
upzoned from R2 Low-Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential.
This is because properties at the rear are zoned for medium density, there is
already medium density development that has occurred, the area is
strategically located and such a zoning supports a growing population. |
Isabella
Street is located outside of the Collett Park Residential Study area which is
identified as an area suitable for some level of increased residential
density. Council decided that future development needs to be confined to the
school, open space and capture land south of Victoria Road. As a consequence,
land fronting Isabella Street remains a low-density zone. The other factor in
this decision was the importance of maintaining a consistent streetscape
along Isabella Street by having low density housing on either side of the
street. Rezoning the southern side for R3 Medium Density Residential would
interrupt that pattern. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
301 |
356 |
575
Church Street |
North
Parramatta |
The
submission raised concern that the land use table for the B6 Enterprise
Corridor zone prohibits the term 'retail premises' which would have the
unintended affect of prohibiting all sub categories of retail premises (such
as bulky goods retailing) that are separately defined, and this would have
the effect of 'sterilizing' the development potential of the land and force
reliance upon existing use rights provisions. The submission suggests that
the B6 zone permit all the uses currently permitted by the current 4
Employment Zone and also suggests that draft Parramatta LEP could be amended to include a special
clause specifying which types of 'retail premises' would be considered
suitable in the B6 zone i.e. in outside of centre locations. |
Bulky
goods premises and other specialised retail uses are permitted in the
proposed B6 Enterprise Corridor Zone, further discussion regarding the land
use table and the group terms and sub terms prescribed by the Standard
Instrument LEP Template is provided in the detailed Council report at
attachment 1. The submission also seeks that all the uses currently permitted
in the 4 Employment zone be translated into the B6 Zone. The B6 Enterprise
Corridor zone has been applied to a number of main road locations and much of
this land is currently zoned 3(a) Centre Business, 4 Employment, or 10 Mixed
Use. An analysis of the uses currently permitted in these zones has been
undertaken, and some additional uses (not currently proposed in the B6 zone)
are suggested to be included in the land use table to expand the range of
uses permitted with consent and to improve the translation of existing
permitted uses. It is
noted that not all uses permitted in the current zones are considered
appropriate in the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone in the context of the zone
objectives or the main road location and are not proposed to be included in
the B6 Zone. |
That
the land use table for the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone be amended to include
child care centres; light industries; neighbourhood shops; places of public
worship; recreation facilities (indoor); recreation facilities (outdoor);
registered clubs; tourist & visitor accommodation; and vehicle body repair workshops. That
Council make representations to the Department of Planning (DoP) that the
grouping of definitions and the land use table in the form required by DoP is
unclear. |
356 |
575
Church Street |
North
Parramatta |
The
submission raises concern that in conjunction with the issues relating to the
land use table prohibiting the term ' retail premises' that the recent
changes to existing use rights provisions in the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act further restricts development
on this site. |
The
issue relating to the land use table and range of uses permitted in the B6
zone is addressed in the detailed Council report at attachment 1. With regard
to existing use rights, where a use is found to have been lawfully
established, existing use rights provisions would allow for the continued use
and expansion of the approved use. However, it is recognised that existing
use rights no longer permit change of use from one non conforming use to
another. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
302 |
462 |
33 Ross
Street |
North
Parramatta |
The
property has been rezoned from 2E to R2 (Low Density Residential) in draft
Parramatta LEP. As one of the three
remaining single storey cottages in the block of Victoria Road -- Church
Street -- Ross Street -- Brickfield Street, it should be rezoned to R3
(Medium Density Residential) as adjacent property of 29, 31 Ross St so as to
maintain the amenity of this block. This
property is landlocked by existing medium/high density residential and mixed
use development which will isolate the property at 33 Ross St, becoming
visible to all surrounding units and will significantly affect the local
streetscape. |
The
site is located immediately to the east of two parcels of land (29 & 31
Ross Street) zoned R3 Medium Density.
The subject site (No.33) and land further to the east is proposed to
be zoned R2 (Low Density) Residential which represents a translation from the
current 2e zoning. The site to the east has already been developed for medium
density housing and strata subdivided. The proposed R2 zoning would result in
the isolation of this parcel of land and may not represent the most efficient
use of the land given its context. The site is reasonably well located with
respect to proximity to transport and services. The draft LEP contains a
clause (cl 6.2), requiring Council to be satisfied that any development is
appropriate with respect to stormwater flows, safety and environmental
considerations. This may be assessed in more detail at the time of any future
lodgement of a development application. In order to better reflect the existing
development that has taken place it is also recommended that the adjacent
developed sites to the east and south also be zoned R3 (Medium Density). |
That 33
Ross Street, Parramatta be rezoned from R2 Low Density Residential to R3
Medium Density Residential, with a height limit of 11m and FSR of 0.6:1 to be
applied to the site. It is also recommended that No 35 Ross and 26 Sorrell
Streets be zoned R3 Medium Density Residential with a height limit of 11m and
FSR of 0.6:1 to be applied. |
303 |
505 |
5-13
Sutherland Road |
North
Parramatta |
Objects
to the prohibition of dual occupancies in the R2 Low Density Residential
zone, particularly at 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 Sutherland Rd. This is because the
lots are all approximately 900sqm and there is rear access to Saunders St. Saunders
St will have an odd streetscape if the draft LEP is adopted without
permitting dual occupancies given that a development application for a dual
occupancy at 7 Sutherland Rd has been submitted to Council. The proposed plan
would be unfair to the property owners of 5, 9, 11 and 13 Sutherland Rd. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
304 |
509 |
80
Albert Street |
North
Parramatta |
Request
is made to increase development potential from R3 (Medium Density
Residential) to R4 (High Density Residential) with a corresponding FSR of
0.8:1 for 80 Albert Street and neighbouring properties. Supporting
information has been provided including site and context analysis,
opportunity and constraint identification and critique against Council's
adopted Residential Development Strategy. |
The
site in questions sits within a small strip (No's 72 - 84 Albert Street) of
land proposed to be zoned R3 (Medium Density) Residential. The site is
currently zoned 2b and the proposed zoning represents a best fit translation
from the existing provisions. The land to the north and east of this strip of
land is proposed to be zoned R4 which also represents a translation from the
current provisions. The strip of medium density housing forms, in conjunction
with properties along Brickfield Street, Fennell and Short Street somewhat of
a ring of lower density development around the Heritage Item known as All
Saints Cemetery which is an item of State Significance. Whilst it is feasible
that sensitively designed higher density development could be carried
out without any detrimental impact
upon this item this approach i.e. lower density development adjacent to State
Items has been consistently applied in other like situations. It is considered
that the proposed zoning and planning controls provides for some level of
opportunity for redevelopment and that the presence of higher density zoning
in the vicinity does not necessitate the application of an R4 zoning to these
sites. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
305 |
586 |
513-517
Church Street |
North
Parramatta |
Pursuant
to the draft LEP 513-517 Church Street, North Parramatta is proposed to be
zoned R4 High Density Residential. The land owner requests that the zoning be
amended to B4 Mixed Use development so as to reflect the current non
residential uses (restaurants/convenience services) of the subject
properties. |
The
site is currently zoned 2(c) under Parramatta LEP 2001. The proposed zoning
is R4 (High Density) Residential which represents a best fit translation
under the requirements of the standard instrument. Shop top housing is a
mandated use within the R4 zone which would allow for some degree of
non-residential use. Notwithstanding this the site may benefit from existing
use rights which would permit the continued operation of these uses on the
site in accordance with existing approvals. It is not considered necessary or
desirable to change the zoning of this locality. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
306 |
593 |
18 Lake
Street |
North
Parramatta |
Submission
seeks to retain the proposed R2 Low Density Residential zone but include
within Schedule 1, additional permitted uses that would allow the site to be
developed for a Function Centre with an associated motel, or a medical centre
as defined by the draft LEP. This
submission has been prepared by HBO EMTB Heritage Pty Ltd on behalf of the
landowner and 'others' in Lake Street, North Parramatta. It provides an
analysis justifying the reasoning behind the submission. This includes a town
planning analysis, traffic study and indicative site coverage plans and
sections of potential development. |
The
submission seeks to include in the LEP additional permitted uses including a
function centre for up to 300 people, an 80 suite motel and a 50 seat
restaurant. An alternate use of the site for the establishment of a medical
centre is also requested. These uses are not currently permitted in the Low
Density zone. The proposed R2 ( Low Density) residential zone does allow for
a level of non-residential land uses provided that they are in a context and
setting that minimise impacts on the amenity of a low density residential
environment. The proposed uses as suggested (inclusion in Schedule 1) would
not generally be considered consistent with the broader objectives of the
zone and the Department of Planning has previously advised it is not
supportive of the inclusion in Schedule 1 of large numbers of non-permissible
uses and sites. The degree and nature of change requested in the submission
is such that it would be more appropriate to consider this matter as a
planning proposal rather than as a minor change to be considered in response
to the exhibition of the draft LEP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
307 |
611 |
1
Romani Street |
North
Parramatta |
The
submitter has asked for the zoning details for 1 Romani Street North
Parramatta. |
The
site is currently zoned 2(a) Residential under Parramatta LEP 2001. The
proposed R2 Low Density zoning represents a best fit translation from the
current zoning. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
308 |
414 |
|
North
Wentworthville |
Concerned
by the growing concentration of residential flat development in North
Wentworthville and Westmead. Such development is increasing demands on public
infrastructure and amenity. Argues that further intensification will
exacerbate current problems, particularly traffic congestion. The submitter
documents a series of other issues, which focus on: a)
pedestrian amenity and safety, b)
streetscape and trees, c)
waste management , d)
parking, e)
solar panels and overshadowing and f) need
for improvements to local parks |
The
primary concern raised in this submission is that increased residential
development further west of Darcy Road, towards the Cumberland Highway, and
including Hill Street, Railway Street, Owen Street and Fulton Avenue will
further exacerbate the problems already faced in the area due to traffic
congestion. Draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan zones the majority of
the area described as R2 Low-Density Housing. This is due to the fact that
this area is not directly accessible to public transport or services. Parts of
Hill Street and Railways Street have been identified for increased
residential density due to this area being within close proximity to the
Wentworthville town centre and railway station. Responses
to the other issues raised are documented below: a) Pedestrian amenity and safety- The draft DCP incorporates a number of
guidelines designed to ensure pedestrian is protected and given consideration
when a proposal to redevelop land is lodged with Council. Specifically,
Section 3.6.2 (Principle 20) says that development must be designed to
provide safe vehicles access and adequate sight lines. b) Streetscape and trees - Council's draft
LEP and DCP supports the objective of protecting trees where appropriate.
Council also requires the establishment of new trees where removal of
existing trees are proposed. Council encourages all trees proposed to be
native to support biodiversity objectives. Council can enforce regulations
where trees have been removed unlawfully. c) Waste management, in particularly
"skip" and large commercial bins should be provided in basement car
parks, unless specific conditions of consent say otherwise. Often these matters are enforcement issues
and Council does rely on its community to advise Council of these
indiscretions enabling Council to investigate. d) Issues of parking are often dependent on
site conditions, hence why some parking arrangements are different. Council's
primary objective is to require visitor parking to be all on site. This is
reflected in the DCP. Issue of enforcement is an important part of Council
operations to ensure conditions of consent are being applied. Council does in
part rely on the community to identify circumstances where non compliance may
exist. This enables Council to investigate and remedy situations. e) Typically, solar panels are located on
north facing roofs. In circumstances where properties are located in an
east/west direction, part of the north facing façade can experience some
overshadowing impacts for a small portion of the day. Although development,
including proposed solar panels are to comply with the design principles
embodied in BASIX, the draft DCP does contain controls relating to
overshadowing in Section 3.3.5 Solar Access and Cross Ventilation. f) Land north of Darcy Road following the
creek is low lying and heavily vegetated. Advise from Council's Sport and
recreation unit indicates that it is a natural area of open space and active
recreation is not desirable in this location. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
309 |
157 |
Beaufort
Street |
Northmead |
There
are major traffic issues in Northmead with existing units that have been
built in the area and in addition the area is being used for parking for
Westmead Children's Hospital and Westbus employees. |
In
response to this issue Council's Traffic and Transport unit has commented
that an Residential Parking Scheme has been introduced into the area. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
157 |
Beaufort
Street |
Northmead |
The
submission states that Beaufort Street, Northmead and surrounding streets
should retain the low density R2 zone, particularly given existing traffic
and parking congestion associated with existing development in the locality. |
The R2
zoning under draft Parramatta LEP reflects and maintains the character of the
low-density residential area between Kleins and Beamish Roads. The zoning for this area needs to be
considered as part of the Westmead precinct planning study; but in the short
to medium term a low density residential zoning is appropriate |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
310 |
217 |
Briens
Rd, Christine & Edward Sts |
Northmead |
The
submission requests that 115 Briens Road, 1 Christine Street and 1 Edward Street,
Northmead be rezoned from R2 Low Density Residential to R3 Medium Density
Residential. Justification in support of the submission are that: there is a
large industrial commercial estate located across the road; there are retail
shops within 150 metres ; there are large retail outlets within a kilometre;
the sites are around 600 metres from Westmead Children's Hospital and in very
close physical proximity to Westmead train station. |
The
land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential in the draft LEP. However, the land is included in the North
West Bus Transit Way Study areas within Council's Residential Development
Strategy (RDS). These areas have been deferred at this time and will be
investigated by Council for potential increases in housing density in the
medium term. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
311 |
232 |
79 Beamish Road |
Northmead |
Seeking
that their property at Beamish Road be zoned R4 given its proximity to
Westmead hospital. Also mentions the need to provide commercial uses in the
area to support the Westmead hospital and the temporary accommodation for
families with relatives staying in the hospital. |
The
State government completed a planning strategy for the Westmead precinct in
2006, acknowledging its significance as a major specialised health
precinct. Council considered that the
strategy required further evaluation and commissioned additional traffic and
transport studies. The results of
these studies, together with a strategic vision for Westmead are expected to
be reported to Council later this year and will inform a review of zoning and
land use controls for the Westmead Precinct.
It is considered premature to make ad hoc amendments to the planning
controls for sites within the precinct ahead of the completion of this work. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
312 |
257 |
84-94
Kleins Road |
Northmead |
Query
raised as to whether the lack of permissibility of places of public worship
in the R2 zone is an error and if not what the rationale was. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Places of Public Worship be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low
Density Residential zone and that the limit on seating capacity of 250 in the
residential zones be included in draft DCP 2010. Further, that any change adopted to the PPW
DCP relating to car parking rates, should be incorporated into the draft
Comprehensive DCP. |
313 |
268 |
13
Frances Street |
Northmead |
Supports
the proposed R2 Low Density Residential Zone for the Frances St area of
Northmead. |
Frances
Street and surrounding streets are zoned R2 Low Density Residential in draft
Parramatta LEP 2010. This zoning is
appropriate in that this area does not meet the RDS criteria for higher
density residential development, being outside RDS precincts. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
268 |
13
Frances Street |
Northmead |
Raises
concern at a development application (714/2009) for 4 - 6 Hammers Rd, Northmead. This application if approved will
contradict the spirit of the existing zoning, planned zoning of LEP 2010 and
heritage LEP 1996. |
This
submission was referred to the Development Assessment team for action as
necessary. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
314 |
305 |
17
Frances Street |
Northmead |
Supports
the proposed R2 (Low Density) Residential zoning for this site. Concerns were
also raised in the submission in relation to a nearby pending development
application. |
The
site is currently zoned 2(a) Residential under Parramatta LEP 2001. The
proposed zoning R2 (Low Density) represents a nearest translation zoning
under the standard instrument. The part of the submission relating to a
nearby development proposal was sent to Development Assessment team for
action as necessary. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
315 |
310 |
166
Windsor Road |
Northmead |
The
submission requests the rezoning of 166 Windsor Road, Northmead (the disused
Moxham Quarry owned by the NSW Department of Lands) from E3 Environmental
Management to R3 Medium Density Residential and E2 Environmental
Conservation. The submission is accompanied with the following reports: Town
Planning (revised); Environmental- flora and fauna; Hydrology and Onsite
Waste Treatment; Traffic; Heritage/Archaeological; Social/Economic/Cultural;
Bushfire; Urban Analysis; Draft Land Use and Development Principles. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1 |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. That
the proponent be notified that further consideration of this proposal would
require submission of a Planning Proposal.
|
316 |
351 |
2
Windsor Road & 4- 6 Boundary Road |
Northmead |
Bawden
Industrial (real state agency) have had several business owners decide not to
remain in Parramatta or delay their decision to open a business as a result
of the proposed IN1 General Industrial zone at Northmead. The proposed IN1
zone will act against market demands and make the valid existing uses
non-conforming. The IN1 zone is more restrictive than the current 4
Employment zone. Requests a B5 or B6 zone be applied to the subject site to
provide a logical extension of the North Parramatta zoning. These zones will
relate to the current uses. Submission includes a schedule of use as per
lease at the 'James Ruse Business Park' at 6 Boundary Rd, Northmead and 'The
Junction' at 2 Windsor Rd, Parramatta, as well as a letter to a local planner
detailing the Parramatta Industrial Market (specifically that areas such as
Northmead have experienced an increase in demand from users providing
non-retail and bulky good functions). |
Under
the draft LEP, 2 Windsor Road and 4 & 6 Boundary Road, Northmead are
proposed to be zoned IN1 General Industrial. Immediately adjoining the site,
land is to be zoned B4 Mixed Use, IN1 General Industrial and B6 Enterprise
Corridor. The
area is currently zoned Employment 4 under Parramatta LEP 2001. This
employment land has been reviewed under the NSW State Government's Draft
Subregional Strategy for the West Central Subregion and by the Parramatta
Industrial Lands Study prepared for Council. Under the draft Subregional
Strategy, the sites falls within the industrial area defined as ‘North
Parramatta’ generally extending along the Church Street spine and the area to
the north bound by Windsor, Briens and Kleins Roads and the Parramatta River.
The strategy identifies the land as Category 1 Industrial Land, that is land to
be retained for industrial purposes and also states that 'given the variety
of employment uses, the Enterprise Corridor zone character and the proximity
to Parramatta and Westmead Hospital Precinct, this precinct can be considered
for a wider range of employment uses in part, but continue to be primarily an
industrial area'. In
August 2005 an Employment Land Study was prepared for Council by Hill PDA.
Under this study the land falls within ‘Precinct 7 Boundary Road’ and the
study states that ‘the precinct should remain to accommodate and consolidate
a range of light industrial activities, due to its defined edges from the
residential area, proximity to Cumberland Highway and intact industrial land
uses. Residential uses within the precinct, either solely or within a mixed
form, should not be permitted. Further reduction in the size and therefore
the long term viability of the precinct by residential or other rezoning in
or at the edge of the precinct should not be permitted.’ Council’s
draft Parramatta LEP is in line with the draft Subregional Strategy and the
Parramatta Industrial Lands Study as the land along the Church Street spine
is zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor, while the land bound by Windsor, Briens and
Kleins Roads and the Parramatta River has been zoned IN1 General Industrial.
No residential uses are permitted in either the IN1 or B6 zones. It is noted
that on 4 June 1999, Council issued consent to DA 98/00300/DK in respect of
the property now known as No. 2 Windsor Road, Northmead to ‘Refurbish the
remaining existing building and the erection of new buildings for use as
bulky goods retailing outlets and to provide for 2 fast food outlets. At the
time the consent was issued, land was zoned No. 4 (Industrial Zone) under
Toongabbie LEP 1990, and the use was permitted in the zone. These uses are
not permitted in the IN1 zone. A
number of consents have been issued at No. 6 Boundary Road for warehousing
and distribution uses with ancillary office space. These uses will continue
to be permissible under the IN1 zoning. Where any ancillary retail was
previously permitted, this use will continue to be protected by existing use
rights provisions. No recent consents have been issued for No. 4 Boundary
Road and the site appears to be currently occupied by a vehicle repair
station and other industrial uses which will also be permitted in the IN1
zone. It is
also noted that this land forms part of the wider Westmead Precinct area
defined by the Department of Planning. This area is yet to be fully
investigated and further change of zoning should be considered as part of the
precinct as a whole given the proximity to Westmead Hospital. It is further
noted that Westmead is identified as a ‘Specialised Centre’ under Draft
Subregional Strategy and identifies growth for up to 20,000 new jobs and
6,000 new dwellings by 2031. Accordingly, any future rezoning of industrial
land should be considered on a holistic basis. At that stage Council should
also undertake a further Employment Lands review to determine the potential impact
of rezoning industrial and other employment lands across the LGA. |
That
No. 2 Windsor Road, Northmead (Lot 401 DP1008274) be rezoned B6 Enterprise
Corridor with an FSR of 1.5:1 and a height of 12 metres. That
Nos. 4 and 6 Boundary Road, Northmead be investigated at a future date as
part of the Westmead Precinct study area. |
317 |
411 |
12
Boundary Road & 1B Kleins Road |
Northmead |
Request
Council give consideration to zoning land at 1B Kleins Road and 12 Boundary
Road, Northmead B4 Mixed Use rather than IN1 - General Industrial as
currently proposed. Supporting information provided includes analysis against
site surrounds, economic viability to redevelop, relationship to adjoining
residential areas, streetscape, S117 Directions and Council's Industrial Lands
Study. |
Under
the draft LEP, 12 Boundary Road and 1B Kleins Road, Northmead are proposed to
be zoned IN1 General Industrial. Adjoining land to the north is proposed to
zoned B4 Mixed Use and land to the west is proposed to be zoned R2 Low
Density Residential. The area is currently zoned Employment 4 under
Parramatta LEP 2001. This employment land has been reviewed under the NSW
State Government's Draft Subregional Strategy for the West Central Subregion
and by the Parramatta Industrial Lands Study prepared for Council. Under the
draft Subregional Strategy, the sites falls within the industrial area
defined as ‘North Parramatta’ generally extending along the Church Street
spine and the area to the north bound by Windsor, Briens and Kleins Roads and
the Parramatta River. The strategy identifies the land as Category 1
Industrial Land, that is land to be retained for industrial purposes and also
states that 'given the variety of employment uses, the Enterprise Corridor
zone character and the proximity to Parramatta and Westmead Hospital
Precinct, this precinct can be considered for a wider range of employment
uses in part, but continue to be primarily an industrial area'. In
August 2005 an Employments Land Study was prepared for Council by Hill PDA.
Under this study the land falls within ‘Precinct 7 Boundary Road’ and the
study states that ‘the precinct should remain to accommodate and consolidate
a range of light industrial activities, due to its defined edges from the
residential area, proximity to Cumberland Highway and intact industrial land
uses. Residential uses within the precinct, either solely or within a mixed
form, should not be permitted. Further reduction in the size and therefore
the long term viability of the precinct by residential or other rezoning in
or at the edge of the precinct should not be permitted.’ Council’s
draft LEP is in line with the draft Subregional Strategy and the Parramatta
Industrial Lands Study as the land along the Church Street spine is zoned B6
Enterprise Corridor, while the land bound by Windsor, Briens and Kleins Roads
and the Parramatta River has been zoned IN1 General Industrial. No
residential uses are permitted in either the IN1 or B6 zones. It is
also noted that this land forms part of the wider Westmead Precinct area
defined by the Department of Planning. This area is yet to be fully
investigated and further change of zoning should be considered as part of the
precinct as a whole given the proximity to Westmead Hospital. It is further
noted that Westmead is identified as a ‘Specialised Centre’ under Draft
Subregional Strategy and identifies growth for up to 20,000 new jobs and
6,000 new dwellings by 2031. Accordingly, any future rezoning of industrial
land should be considered on a holistic basis. At that stage Council should
also undertake a further Employment Lands review to determine the potential
impact of rezoning industrial and other employment lands across the LGA. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. That
No12 Boundary Road and No. 1B Kleins Road be investigated at a future date as
part of the Westmead Precinct study area. |
318 |
487 |
1c
Redbank Road |
Northmead |
Raises
the following issues with respect to 1C Redbank Road, Northmead: a) Industrial development in the IN1 General Industrial
Zone: Whilst the site is zoned IN1 it is unclear as to what uses are
permitted in the zone and seeks that the full suite of industrial uses should
be permitted. b) Health service facilities: With the
proximity of Westmead Hospital it is important that medical and health care
facilities including medical industries are encouraged in this location. c) Strategic land use review. It is disappointing that Council did not
undertake a more strategic review of land use zones for the locality, with
respect to the Metropolitan Planning Strategy for Sydney and the synergies
with the Westmead health care and educational precinct. There is opportunity to provide more high
tech and enterprise uses in the zone and also to give consideration to high
density residential development. The
industrial lands in the location are small and fragmented and more
appropriate land uses should be explored. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
Council amend the IN1 General Industrial zone land use table as described in
the detailed Council report in Attachment 1. |
319 |
535 |
54-56
Sorrell Street and 14-18 Parkes Street |
Nth
Parramatta & Parramatta |
The
submission makes reference to properties at Nos. 14-18 Parkes Street and No.
111 Wigram Street, Parramatta which is covered by the City Centre LEP and
advises that the land owners wish to be consulted on their preferred zoning,
height and density controls when the City centre LEP is amalgamated with the
comprehensive LEP once finalised. |
Opportunities
for consultation for landowners will be provided when the City centre LEP is
amalgamated with the comprehensive LEP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
535 |
54-56
Sorrell Street and 14-18 Parkes Street |
Nth
Parramatta & Parramatta |
The
submission recommends that dual occupancies and function centres be permitted
either broadly within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone or specifically for
the property at No. 54 Sorrell Street, North Parramatta |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
|
535 |
54-56
Sorrell Street and 14-18 Parkes Street |
nth
Parramatta & Parramatta |
The
submission seeks that the heritage listing of property at Nos. 54-56 Sorrell
Street, North Parramatta known as 'Endrim' does not prejudice future
redevelopment of the site and that Council introduce controls that provide
incentives to encourage retention of heritage items. |
54-56
Sorrell Street, North Parramatta is heritage listed of State significance in
draft LEP 2010 and is also included on the State Heritage Register. Any proposals for redevelopment will need
to be considered and dealt with under the relevant provisions of draft LEP
and the Heritage Act 1977. Clause 5.10
(10) Conservation incentives of the draft LEP provides that consent may be
granted to development, which would otherwise not be allowed, if the
conservation of the heritage item is facilitated by the consent and may apply
to any redevelopment proposals. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
320 |
187 |
7
Ingleby Street |
Oatlands |
The
submission states that there has been an overdevelopment of land for units
and most recently a dual occupancy. The character of the street should remain
unchanged, being one residence per block and no dual occupancies. |
The
proposed zone for this property is R2 Low Density Residential being the
closest translation of the current 2(a) Residential zone under Parramatta LEP
2001. The immediate surrounding area is also proposed to be zoned R2 Low
Density Residential. This zone provides for the housing needs for the
community within a low density residential environment. The proposed R2 zone
prohibits residential flat buildings and multi dwelling housing. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
321 |
242 |
Ingleby
Street |
Oatlands |
Supports
the proposal to prohibit dual occupancies in the R2 Low Density Residential
zone. Feels it will be a better area
to live in and that there will be less traffic. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia Gardens
Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
322 |
321 |
216
Pennant Hills Road |
Oatlands |
Notes
the local heritage listing for the site in the current and draft LEPs of
'Church College'. The owners
understand that of the numerous buildings and improvements on site that only
two buildings known as 'Jubilee' and 'Woolwich' (1921 and 1929 respectively) together with the front gates
and fence to Pennant Hills Road are the only items of heritage significance
and request the broad item description to be amended to the three specific
items. |
As
acknowledged by the submitter, the site is listed as 'Church College' in the
current Parramatta Heritage LEP 1996 and draft Parramatta LEP 2010. The heritage inventory for the site does
not appear to limit the scope of the listing to only three items; the
statement of significance referring to the extensive grouping of residential
buildings on the site, the primary buildings having historic and aesthetic
interest. Therefore, it is considered
that the site is appropriately listed in draft LEP 2010. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
321 |
216
Pennant Hills Road |
Oatlands |
This
submission on behalf of the American International School at 216 Pennant
Hills Road, Oatlands objects to the R2 zoning of the site on the basis that
the uses of the existing special uses zone includes places of public worship,
centre based child care, demolition and subdivision presently permitted on
the site will be prohibited under the R2 zone. Requests
that the site be zoned SP1 or SP2 and nominated 'Educational Establishment
and Place of Public Worship' on the maps or a zone which permits the existing
uses including those outlined. Should
the above request not be adopted then seeks that Schedule 1 to the draft LEP
should include reference to the site to include all the uses presently
permitted under the Special Uses zone, but prohibited under the R2 Zone. |
In the
draft Parramatta LEP the site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential with
educational establishments permitted with consent in this zone. Clause 2.6
and 2.6A allows subdivision and demolition by consent respectively. The
preparation of the draft LEP has reflected Department of Planning advice to
generally zone Special 5 uses the same as adjoining zones and include them in
an SP2 zone only if they are regionally significant. Therefore,
the inclusion of the American International School, not considered to be a
regionally significant activity, in the R2 Low Density Residential zone is
considered appropriate. Furthermore,
the definition of educational establishment would include ancillary uses
associated with the school such as a chapel and child care facilities. It is not appropriate that activities
unconnected with the school, and not permitted with consent in the R2 zone,
should be established on the site.
Therefore, it is not considered necessary to rezone the site to SP2 or
to make special provision for site activities in Schedule 1 to the LEP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
323 |
478 |
16
Niblick Crescent |
Oatlands |
This
submission identifies that the open space in Niblick Crescent, Oatlands is
well used by local children and adults. |
The
open space area identified by the submission is actually privately owned land
and forms part of the Oatlands Golf Club known as 94 Bettington Road,
Oatlands. The zoning applied to the combined site is RE2 Private Recreation
which is consistent with the current 6B Private Open Space zone. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
324 |
507 |
17
Niblick Crescent |
Oatlands |
Concerned
that Clause 9 of the draft LEP may operate to override any restriction
limiting the use of the land between 17 and 19 Niblick Place, Oatlands.
Submitter objects to such a clause being included in the draft LEP. |
It is
not clear as to which clause this submission relates, as there is no Clause 9
of the draft LEP. The land between 17
& 19 Niblick Place is part of the Oatlands Golf Club site and is included
within the Private Recreation RE2 zone proposed for the golf club. The land remains in the ownership of the
golf club, although the submitter is of the view that this land should have
been dedicated as public open space. Further investigations into the history
of the golf club development would be required to provide further comment.
However, the draft LEP reflects the current land ownership by the golf club. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
507 |
17
Niblick Crescent |
Oatlands |
Strongly
supports the retention of Oatlands Golf Course in its entirety as open space
for recreation and in particular the land which is between 17 and 19 Niblick
Place, Oatlands. This open space has become a pocket park due to the physical
separation caused by the vegetation and is regularly used by residents for
community picnics and physical recreation. It is of significant benefit to
the amenity of neighbouring properties, the community and environment. |
The
land between 17 and 19 Niblick Crescent, Oatlands forms part of the privately
owners Oatlands Golf Course/Club known as 94 Bettington Road, Oatlands. The
zoning applied to the land is RE2 Private Recreation which is consistent with
the current 6B Private Open Space zone. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
325 |
596 |
42
Bettington Road |
Oatlands |
The
submission seeks a partial rezoning of Oatlands Golf Course in Bettington
Road, Oatlands and proposes that the general area currently occupied by the
club house, car park and an adjacent section of the golf course, be rezoned
as R3 Medium Density Residential. The submission indicates that medium
density residential development would be suitable as the site is close to
shops, is serviced by a bus route, does not have environmental constraints,
would assist in achieving Council’s housing targets set by the State
Government and is in single ownership, facilitating redevelopment. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. That
the proponent be notified that further consideration of this proposal would
require submission of a Planning Proposal.
|
326 |
614 |
|
Oatlands |
This
submission, lodged by a resident in the vicinity of Oatlands Golf Course,
contains a petition with 67 signatories, raising concerns about the
possibility that part of the golf course site may be rezoned for residential
development. This is objected to on the grounds of traffic, loss amenity,
impact on property values and that this could set a precedent for other
changes to zoning in the Oatlands locality. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
327 |
291 |
231 Old
Windsor Road |
Old
Toongabbie |
Proposed
zoning of this site (and immediate area) is R2 Low Density Residential,.
Landowners seeking R3 Medium Density Residential as previously shown in the
community update maps shown to the public in mid 2009. |
Council
at its meeting of 23 March 2009 resolved to zone the land at Nos. 201-277 Old
Windsor Road, Old Toongabbie as R3 Medium Density Residential. The Department
of Planning (DoP) did not support the R3 zoning as this area was not
identified earlier in the process of Council’s Residential Development
Strategy (RDS) as an area to accommodate increased density. The DoP required
that the land be zoned R2 Low Density Residential to facilitate s65
certification and public exhibition of the draft LEP. This area does form
part of the North-West Transit Way Study areas identified under the RDS.
However, these areas have been deferred at this time and will be investigated
by Council in the medium term |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
328 |
304 |
235 Old
Windsor Road |
Old
Toongabbie |
Object
to the proposed zoning (R2 Low Density Residential) as this area is well
located to public transport and accessible to a wide range of services.
Medium Density Development has also occurred on surrounding properties in the
area. |
Council
at its meeting of 23 March 2009 resolved to zone the land at Nos. 201-277 Old
Windsor Road, Old Toongabbie as R3 Medium Density Residential. The Department
of Planning (DoP) did not support the R3 zoning as this area was not
identified earlier in the process of Council’s Residential Development
Strategy (RDS) as an area to accommodate increased density. The DoP required
that the land be zoned R2 Low Density Residential to facilitate s65
certification and public exhibition of the draft LEP. This area does form
part of the North-West Transit Way Study areas identified under the RDS.
However, these areas have been deferred at this time and will be investigated
by Council in the medium term |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
329 |
316 |
Chircan
Street |
Old
Toongabbie |
Supports
the retention of R2 Low Density Residential zone for Chircan Street, Old
Toongabbie. The region cannot sustain
any increased housing density. |
Land in
Chircan Street is zoned R2 Low Density Residential in the draft LEP. However, this street forms part of the
North-West Transit Way Study areas identified under the RDS. However, these
areas have been deferred at this time and will be investigated by Council in
the medium term for increases in housing opportunities. Boundaries shown in the study areas are
based on the notional walking distance from public transport and do not
indicate any determination of the extent of future zoning changes. These areas may decrease or increase
significantly depending on further investigations. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
330 |
415 |
237 Old
Windsor Road |
Old
Toongabbie |
Information
distributed by Council in 2009 had the land at 237 Old Windsor Road (an
immediate surrounds) zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. This is no longer
the case. Landowner feels disadvantaged by this decision given the large size
of their block and that the State Government is promoting greater housing
density. |
Council
at its meeting of 23 March 2009 resolved to zone the land at Nos. 201-277 Old
Windsor Road, Old Toongabbie as R3 Medium Density Residential. The Department
of Planning (DoP) did not support the R3 zoning as this area was not
identified earlier in the process of Council’s Residential Development
Strategy (RDS) as an area to accommodate increased density. The DoP required
that the land be zoned R2 to facilitate s65 certification and public
exhibition of the draft LEP. This area does form part of the North-West
Transit Way Study areas identified under the RDS. However, these areas have
been deferred at this time and will be investigated by Council in the medium
term. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
331 |
46 |
1-13
Harvey Street |
Parramatta |
The
submission requests that both sides of Harvey Street, Parramatta be given the
same zoning under the draft LEP. Under the current version of the draft LEP,
the northern side of the street is proposed to be zoned R4 High Density
Residential while the southern side is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density
Residential. |
Under
Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 1-13 Harvey Street is currently
zoned 2(b) Residential. This zone permits townhouses and villas at a maximum
height on 2 storeys. This area of Harvey Street was part of a study that
examined future planning controls and zoning of land known as the Morton
Street Structure Plan. This structure plan was prepared in September 2006 and
proposed new planning controls for land bound by Thomas Street, James Ruse
Drive, Macarthur Street and the Parramatta River foreshore. The structure
plan proposed increasing residential densities in this location due to its
proximity to the Parramatta CBD, University of Western Sydney and other forms
of infrastructure. The increase in density would result in residential
apartments for the majority of the location, with varying height limits
starting from 3 storeys and some mixed use development along Morton Street.
The Structure plan provided a different strategy for land that adjoined a
heritage item known as "Wavertree", located on New Zealand
Street. This structure plan identified
that a suitable height limit for properties adjoining this heritage item,
including those on the southern side of Harvey Street was two storeys.
Furthermore, it proposed that the land be downzoned from R3 Medium Density
Residential (which also has a maximum height control of 2 storeys) to R2 Low
Density Residential which permits single dwellings. In October 2007, the NSW Heritage Office
provided correspondence to Council highlighting their desire for height
limits in this area to be such that they did not impact on identified view
corridors from Elizabeth Farm and Hambledon Cottage. Council were able to satisfy the NSW
Heritage Office that the proposed two-storey height limit around
"Wavertree" was acceptable. The reasoning for limiting the height
in this area was to fundamentally protect heritage views and not necessarily
density, particularly since the heritage item has sufficient curtilage. It is
therefore recommended that Council reinstate the current 2(b) Residential
zone by amending draft Parramatta LEP 2010 to rezone 1-13 Harvey Street as R3
Medium Density Housing. |
Council
amend the zoning for the southern side of Harvey Street and surrounds both
sides of Harvey Street to R3 Medium Density Residential with an FSR of 0.6
and a height of 9m. |
46 |
1-13
Harvey Street |
Parramatta |
The
submission states that the R2 Low Density Residential zoning of properties on
the southern side of Harvey Street is the result of an existing heritage item
at 10 New Zealand Street, However, the same consideration has not been given
to the existing heritage item at 43A Thomas Street and the zoning of
surrounding land. |
During
the preparation of the draft LEP, heights and densities were investigated
around the heritage items at 10 New Zealand Street and 43A Thomas Street.
With respect to No. 43A Thomas Street the site and land immediately abutting
the sites are both zoned R4 with a 11 metre height restriction. Land further
south on the Morton Street Council depot site is provided with a 14/16 metre
height requirement. The 11 metre height provision will provide reasonable
protection of the site, which in any case is large and provides and protects
Broughton House which has a large curtilage." |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
46 |
1-13
Harvey Street |
Parramatta |
The submission
raises concern that 3 storey residential flat buildings on the northern side
of Harvey Street will overshadow 1 and 2 storey dwellings on the southern
side. |
Section
3.3.5 of Draft Parramatta DCP requires that development is designed to
minimise the extent of shadow it casts on habitable rooms within adjoining
developments. Any potential overshadowing issue would be addressed during the
assessment of a development application. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
46 |
1-13
Harvey Street |
Parramatta |
The
submission raises concern regarding potential loss of privacy of dwelling
houses on southern side of Harvey Street being overlooked by residential flat
buildings on the northern side. |
Section
3.3.3 of Draft Parramatta DCP requires that development does not cause
unreasonable overlooking of habitable rooms and principal private open spaces
of dwellings. Any potential privacy issue would be addressed during the
assessment of a development application. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
46 |
1-13
Harvey Street |
Parramatta |
The
submission states that Harvey Street is a narrow cul-de-sac and is currently
congested by cars parking all day, and is difficult for cars to pass. This
existing problem will only be exacerbated by increased densities. |
This
matter was referred to Council's Service Manager Traffic & Transport.
Their advice was that parking restrictions have been installed and can be
modified to manage parking issues as needed. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP/DCP 2010. |
|
46 |
1-13
Harvey Street |
Parramatta |
The
submission raises concern that properties on the southern side of Harvey
Street will have a reduced land value. |
The
Valuer General through the Department of Lands is the principal advisor on
all land valuation matters in NSW. Council’s primary responsibility is to
develop a zoning plan to meets strategic objectives that meet the needs of
the broader community. It would not be responsible planning if Council
decisions were made having regard to the implications to land value or how
the market may respond. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
332 |
47 |
85
Railway Street |
Parramatta |
The
submission supports the increased zoning of 85 Railway Street, Parramatta
from 2B Residential (Medium Density) to R4 High Density Residential as the
property is located in close proximity to Parramatta CBD; properties opposite
are already developed for 3 storey
residential units; and the zoning will provide more housing to
accommodate population growth in Parramatta. |
The
site is located within close proximity to Parramatta CBD and is located
outside of the South Parramatta Heritage Conservation Area and is suited to
increased residential density. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
333 |
57 |
2
Rosehill Street |
Parramatta |
Supports
the proposed R3 Medium Density Residential zone at 2 Rosehill Street,
Parramatta. |
The
proposed R3 Medium Density Residential zone applied to this property has been
a translation of the existing 2B Residential zone under Parramatta LEP 2001.
The submitter supports the proposed R3 Medium Density Residential zone for 2
Rosehill Street, Parramatta under the draft LEP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
334 |
64 |
Pemberton
Street |
Parramatta |
Petition
with 24 signatures requesting that land along the west side of Pemberton
Street, Parramatta be zoned R4 instead of the proposed R2 zone (currently
2(b) Residential under Parramatta LEP 2001). The reasons given are that
restricting development in this street would be inconsistent with the current
streetscape. The end of Pemberton Street (that area fronting Victoria Road)
already has high rise units and the street is wide enough to handle such
development. |
This
section of Pemberton Street is located within the Collett Park Residential
Study area. It has been identified as an area suitable for some level of
increased residential density but also to protect some areas that have a
strong low-density character. This section of Pemberton Street is located on
the fringe of an area of low-density housing that Council wishes to protect.
Council therefore made a decision to downzone this section to R2 Low-Density
Residential. However, this decision may disrupt the streetscape pattern of
development along Pemberton Street because the other side of the street will
be zoned for medium density housing. Council in preparing the draft LEP has been
conscious of the need to maintain a consistent zoning pattern whereby
streetscapes are not interrupted by varying forms of development. This
proposed zoning will be inconsistent with that intent. It is recommended that
Council rezone No’s 21 -43 Pemberton Street to R3 Medium-Density Residential.
Land further south will retain an R2 zone as a means of protecting view lines
to a state listed heritage item. |
That
Council amend the proposed zone of 21-43 Pemberton Street, Parramatta from R2
Low Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential with an FSR of 0.6
and a height of 11 metres. |
335 |
67 |
1-13
Harvey Street |
Parramatta |
Dissatisfied
with proposed zoning boundary and apparent lack of reasoning that will create
inequity and tension on Harvey Street, Parramatta. The southern side of the
street is proposed to be zoned R2 and the northern side is proposed to be
zoned R4. |
Under
Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2001 1-13 Harvey Street is currently
zoned 2(b) Residential. This zone permits townhouses and villas at a maximum
height on 2 storeys. This area of Harvey Street was part of a study that
examined future planning controls and zoning of land known as the Morton
Street Structure Plan. This structure plan was prepared in September 2006 and
proposed new planning controls for land bound by Thomas Street, James Ruse
Drive, Macarthur Street and the Parramatta River foreshore. The structure
plan proposed increasing residential densities in this location due to its
proximity to the Parramatta CBD, University of Western Sydney and other forms
of infrastructure. The increase in density would result in residential
apartments for the majority of the location, with varying height limits
starting from 3 storeys and some mixed use development along Morton Street.
The Structure plan provided a different strategy for land that adjoined a
heritage item known as "Wavertree", located on New Zealand
Street. This structure plan identified
that a suitable height limit for properties adjoining this heritage item,
including those on the southern side of Harvey Street was two storeys.
Furthermore, it proposed that the land be downzoned from R3 Medium Density
Residential (which also has a maximum height control of 2 storeys) to R2 Low
Density Residential which permits single dwellings. In October 2007, the NSW Heritage Office
provided correspondence to Council highlighting their desire for height
limits in this area to be such that they did not impact on identified view
corridors from Elizabeth Farm and Hambledon Cottage. Council were able to satisfy the NSW
Heritage Office that the proposed two-storey height limit around
"Wavertree" was acceptable. The reasoning for limiting the height
in this area was to fundamentally protect heritage views and not necessarily
density, particularly since the heritage item has sufficient curtilage. It is
therefore recommended that Council reinstate the current 2(b) Residential
zone by amending draft Parramatta LEP 2010 to rezone 1-13 Harvey Street as R3
Medium Density Housing. |
Council
amend the zoning for the southern side of Harvey Street and surrounds both
sides of Harvey Street to R3 Medium Density Residential with an FSR of 0.6
and a height of 9m. |
67 |
1-13
Harvey Street |
Parramatta |
The
proposed difference in height (11m) and zoning (R4) will result in
overshadowing and privacy impacts on the southern side of Harvey Street,
Parramatta (maximum height of 9m). |
The
proposed two storey height identified for the southern side of Harvey Street
is intended to compliment the proposed zoning and provide a curtilage around
a Heritage Item located at No. 10 New Zealand Street. DCP guidelines are in
place to ensure that future development on the north side is designed so as
to not overshadow or impact on the amenity of residents to the south. One
main way this is done is to ensure that buildings are well setback from the
street, and the angle of roofs are such that it will allow adequate sunlight.
In this scenario, such provisions should ensure a satisfactory outcome. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
336 |
75 |
614A
Church Street & 2 Daking St |
Parramatta |
Requests
FSR be increased from 1.5:1 to 2.5:1 at 614A Church Street and 2 Daking
Street, Parramatta, on the grounds that the area has access to good roads,
utilities, schools and shops. |
The
area in question is proposed to be zoned from Employment 4 to B6 Enterprise
Corridor to best reflect the predominant nature of activities currently being
undertaken on the site. The maximum permissible floor space ratio is
increasing from 1:1 to 1.5:1 under the draft LEP. This FSR is consistent with
the FSR applied to other sites zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor. This is
considered to offer some incentive for redevelopment whilst not compromising
the desired future character and built form of the locality. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
337 |
78 |
5 Dixon
Street |
Parramatta |
Has no
objection and supports the proposed zoning of R4 High Density Residential in
Dixon Street, Parramatta. |
The
site is located within close proximity to Parramatta CBD and is consistent
with Council’s RDS. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
338 |
79 |
44
Grose Street |
Parramatta |
Owner
of 44 Grose Street, Parramatta objects to "health consulting rooms"
being removed from the draft LEP as a permissible use in the R3 Medium
Density Residential zone. Feels this
will reduce the value of the land and that this area of Parramatta is highly
suitable for health consulting rooms as demonstrated by the number that are
already in the street. |
Health
Consulting Rooms remain a permissible use in the R3 zone, regardless of the
provisions of the LEP. This is
provided for under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure)
2007. The SEPP applies to the State
and permits health consulting rooms in the R3 zone. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
79 |
44
Grose Street |
Parramatta |
Feels
the property is severely restricted by the heritage restrictions. Acknowledges that there is a conservation
incentive clause but that requirements of sub-paragraph (a) are too difficult
to satisfy making it difficult to benefit from the clause. |
The
wording of the heritage incentives clause within the draft LEP differs from
the current clause within the Parramatta Heritage and Conservation LEP
1996. The current wording requires
that conservation of the item "depend" on the proposed
development. By contrast, the draft
LEP 2010 requires that the proposed development facilitate conservation of
the item. This is a subtle difference
in wording, however, in practise, will make it easier for an applicant to
justify an alternative land use. It should also be noted that the wording of
the clause in the draft LEP is mandatory wording required under the State
government's Standard Instrument. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
339 |
94 |
75 – 77
Hassall Street |
Parramatta |
Proposed
zoning for 75-77 Hassall Street, Parramatta under the draft LEP is R2 Low
Density Residential. Landowner is seeking an R3 Medium Density zone to
reflect development nearby. |
Refer
to the discussion under the relevant heading in the detailed Council report. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
340 |
125 |
2
Wandsworth Street |
Parramatta |
2
Wandsworth Street, Parramatta is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density
Residential. It lies on the border of the R3 Medium Density Residential and
R2 zone. At a closer look more than 60% of the land is on the R3 side and
should be zoned R3, particularly as it is surrounded (behind, to the left and
in front) by the R3 zone. |
Council
in preparing draft Parramatta LEP has been conscious of the need to maintain
a consistent zoning pattern whereby streetscapes are not interrupted by
varying forms of development on opposite sides of the street. In this case,
the character of Wandsworth Street is predominately made up of individual
homes. Approximately 85% of the entire length of Wandsworth Street is made up
of low-density housing. The
allotments opposite 2 Wandsworth Street are larger than others in Wandsworth
Street, particularly in depth, hence the proposal to allow medium density
housing on these lots. The ability to develop the remaining land in
Wandsworth Street for increased residential housing is constrained by the
allotment pattern. If developed for such a purpose, it would have a
significant impact on land to the east that front Gore Street in terms of
overshadowing and overlooking. It is proposed that this area remain R2 Low
Density Housing. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
341 |
161 |
12
Harvey Street |
Parramatta |
Supports
Harvey Street's rezoning from low density residential to high density
residential in view of demands for residential land generally within
Metropolitan Sydney and specifically Parramatta. To minimise any uncertainty for residents
affected by zoning changes Council should seek the earliest endorsement by
the NSW Government to enable the plan to come into effect. |
This
submission is noted as being in support of the proposed zoning as shown in
draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
342 |
165 |
West
side of Pennant Street |
Parramatta |
The
submission seeks that the west side of Pennant Street, North Parramatta be
zoned R4 High Density Residential as opposed to R3, as was previously
proposed by Council. Justification
provided includes close proximity to the UWS site and that there is existing
high density residential development nearby. |
This
area under draft Parramatta LEP 2001 is zoned 2(b) Residential. Council in
adopting the draft Parramatta LEP 2010 did make a decision to downzone this
area from R4 High-Density Residential development to R3 Medium Density. The
current planning framework has delivered medium density development in this
location. It is felt that this form of development should be preserved and at
the same time maintains Council’s RDS philosophy for increasing densities in
locations on the fringe of the City Centre. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
343 |
172 |
10 New
Zealand Street |
Parramatta |
The
submission states that No. 10 New Zealand Street, Parramatta is an existing
heritage item and the draft LEP should ensure that zoning does not permit
units in close proximity to the site. The submission supports the use of the
R2 Low Density Residential zone on land in proximity to No. 10 New Zealand
Street. |
Draft
Parramatta LEP proposes a 9 metre height limit for the southern part of
Harvey Street and 11 metres for land to the north. Land in New Zealand Street
is also proposed to have a 9 metre height limit. In October 2007, the NSW
Heritage Office provided comments to Council in relation to the proposed
heights for development surrounding existing heritage items. There comments
focused on the need for Council to protect view corridors and protect the
immediate curtilage of heritage items. Council's response to the NSW Heritage
Office dated 26 September 2007 stated that ' the height limits around
"Wavertree" on New Zealand Street are identified as 9 metres and
that Council’s position is that they are compliant with NSW Heritage
requests. NSW Heritage accepted this position provided a 2 storey limit' was maintained. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
172 |
10 New
Zealand Street |
Parramatta |
The
submission states that development for the purpose of units surrounding 10
New Zealand Street will reduce the privacy and outlook of the existing
heritage dwelling. |
Section
3.3.3 of Draft Parramatta DCP requires that development does not cause
unreasonable overlooking of habitable rooms and principal private open spaces
of dwellings. Any potential privacy issue would be addressed during the
assessment of a development application. Furthermore Section 3.5.1 of the
draft DCP requires that where development is proposed that adjoins a heritage
item, the building height and setbacks must have regard to, and respect the
value of the heritage item and its setting. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
172 |
10 New
Zealand Street |
Parramatta |
The
submission is satisfied with the proposed R2 Low Density residential zone for
10 New Zealand Street and surrounding properties. |
This
submission is noted as being in support of the proposed zoning as shown in
draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
344 |
173 |
1-13
Harvey Street |
Parramatta |
The
submission raises concern that properties on the southern side of Harvey
Street will have a reduced land value. |
The
Valuer General, through the Department of Lands, is the principal advisor on
land valuation matters in NSW. Whilst planning controls in LEPs impact on
land values, Councils are required to address a strategic framework including
State Government plans, policies and directions, as well as Councils own
strategic framework (e.g. the RDS) to inform their LEPs. The impact of draft
LEP provisions on land value is not of itself a reason for amending the
provisions of the draft LEP, given this over-riding strategic framework. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
173 |
1-13 Harvey Street |
Parramatta |
The
submission states that the R2 Low Density Residential zone for properties on
the southern side of Harvey Street is the result of an existing heritage item
at 10 New Zealand Street, However, the same consideration has not been given
to the existing heritage item at 43A Thomas Street and the zoning of
surrounding land. |
During
the preparation of the draft LEP, heights and densities were investigated
around the heritage item at 10 New Zealand Street and 43A Thomas Street. The
position held is the site is large enough to protect Broughton House and
preserve its street address and curtilage across the majority of the site.
Furthermore, development principles in the draft DCP encourage new buildings
to be designed and orientated north/south. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
173 |
1-13 Harvey Street |
Parramatta |
The
submission raises concern that 3 storey residential flat buildings on the
northern side of Harvey Street will overshadow 1 and 2 storey dwellings on
the southern side. |
The proposed
two storey height identified for the southern side of Harvey Street is
intended to compliment the proposed zoning and provide a curtilage around a
Heritage Item of State significance located at No. 10 New Zealand Street.
Development guidelines are in place to ensure that future development for
residential apartments on the north side is designed so as to not overshadow
or impact on the amenity of residents to the south. One main way this is done
is to ensure that buildings are well setback from the street, and the angle
of roofs are such that will allow adequate sunlight. In this scenario, such
provisions should ensure a satisfactory outcome. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
173 |
1-13 Harvey Street |
Parramatta |
The
submission raises concern regarding potential loss of privacy of dwelling
houses on the southern side of Harvey Street being overlooked by residential
flat buildings on the northern side. |
Section
3.3.3 of Draft Parramatta DCP requires that development does not cause
unreasonable overlooking of habitable rooms and principal private open spaces
of dwellings. Any potential privacy issue would be addressed during the
assessment of a development application. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
345 |
202 |
150 and
152 James Ruse Drive |
Parramatta |
The
submission supports the proposed R4 High Density Residential zone for 150-152
James Ruse Drive, located on the eastern side of James Ruse Drive, between
Thomas Street and Victoria Road, as the two houses are at the end of their
economic life and the sites are in close proximity to many amenities such as
University of Western Sydney and transport links. |
The
properties are proposed to be rezoned from 2(b) to R4 (High Density)
Residential and are considered suitable for higher density housing as
outlined by Council's Residential Development Strategy. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
346 |
263 |
Irving
Street |
Parramatta |
Objection
is raised to the proposed zoning of Irving Street Parramatta to R4 (High
Density Residential) on the basis that the street has a quiet and neighbourly
character of single dwelling houses and the infrastructure of the area
including roads and sewage services can not cope with the proposed increase
in density.. |
This
area of Irving Street and Tennyson Street is within close proximity to the
Parramatta CBD, both through public transport (bus routes) and via pedestrian
connection along the Parramatta River. It is close to the University of
Western Sydney and the M4 Motorway. The bus services along Victoria Road are
regular and provide links to the Parramatta CBD but also to Ryde, West Ryde
and the Sydney CBD. For these reasons, Council’s Residential Strategy, implemented
by draft Parramatta LEP 2010 identifies this location as an area suitable for
increased residential development. In comparison to other locations, this
area is well serviced and has high accessibility to transport and services.
The draft LEP has been prepared to generate change in appropriate locations
to recognise a need to provide more housing for a growing population and the
need for a more diverse mix of housing on the edge of the Sydney’s second CBD
as described in the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, developed by the NSW State
Government. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
347 |
265 |
Irving
& Tennyson Streets |
Parramatta |
Concerned
at the proposal to provide the neighbourhood with a R4 High Density
Residential zone in Irving and Tennyson Streets which are not directly
located on a public transport corridor.
It is unfair to zone the area R4 while leaving the adjacent area from
Pemberton to Wandsworth Streets at their existing zoning of R2. The whole area to James Ruse Drive should
be left as R2. James Ruse Drive is the definitive boundary. |
Land at
the rear of Pemberton St, fronting Irving Street and bound generally by
Tennyson Street and James Ruse Drive is zoned R4 High Density Residential in
draft Parramatta LEP 2010. Land
fronting the east side of Pemberton St is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential
whilst land to the west of this street is zoned R2 Low Density
Residential. In the current Parramatta
LEP 2001 land generally between Pemberton St and James Ruse Drive is zoned 2
(b) Residential (medium density) whilst land to the west of Pemberton St is
zoned 2(a) Residential (low density). The pattern of zoning outlined is
considered to reflect Councils Residential Development Strategy (RDS). The R4 zoning is on the edge of the Collett
Park and Morton Street growth precincts and also in close proximity to the
Parramatta City Centre. The R3 zoning on the east side of Pemberton St is
intended to provide a buffer between the low density R2 zoning and the high
density R4 zoning. The R2 zoning for
land generally to the west of Pemberton St reflects its low density
character. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
348 |
278 |
114
Thomas Street |
Parramatta |
Does
not wish to take advantage of the proposed R4 High Density Residential zone. |
Draft
Parramatta LEP 2010 is designed to set a framework for how future development
should unfold based on a strategic framework. However, it is only a plan
that’s real implementation on the ground is dependent on the market. Should a
landowner decide not to take advantage of the development rights afforded to
them by a zoning plan, they are entitled to do so. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
349 |
292 |
69
Hassall Street |
Parramatta |
Site at
69 Hassell Street is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential.
Landowner seeking R3 Medium Density Residential zone, particularly given that
site is surrounded by mix of townhouse and unit developments and that site is
not flood affected. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
350 |
309 |
109
Victoria Road |
Parramatta |
Requests
increase in zoning from R3 (Medium Density Residential) to either R4 (High
Density Residential) or Mixed Use. Request is on the basis that the site and
neighbouring properties No's 105-111 Victoria Road are in poor condition and
due to the small lot sizes are not economically viable to redevelop for the
purposes of Medium Density Housing. |
This
site is on the fringe of the Collett Park neighbourhood centre. The site adjoins Victoria Road which
carries significant vehicle numbers and therefore has an impact of the
amenity of the area. For this reason, Council has decided that high-density
residential apartments in this location is not desirable. Nevertheless, its
location on Victoria Road with access to regular bus services, particularly
to the CBD makes it desirable for some level of residential density. Draft
Parramatta LEP 2010 zones the majority of this area R3 Medium Density
Housing, including this site. This maintains the current development
potential of the site and enables more flexibility in the design of a
townhouse or villa development to have adequate setbacks to negate the
affects of Victoria Road. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
351 |
318 |
Rosehill
Street |
Parramatta |
Seeks
that the planning controls for the area in the vicinity of 69 Rosehill Street
should allow development at least of a height of six storeys or 24 m and that
if this is not possible then the current zoning should be maintained. |
The
site is currently zoned 2b under Parramatta LEP 2001 and benefits from the
provisions of clause 40(2) of the LEP which allows for terrace style housing
with a floor space ratio of 0.8:1. Under the Draft LEP it is proposed to zone
the site and surrounding area R4 (High Density) Residential with an FSR of
0.8:1 and height limit of 11m. This best represents the current development
potential available under the current LEP. The suggestion of a six storey
height limit is not supported due to the close proximity to the South
Parramatta Conservation Area located to the north of the site. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
335 |
71
Rosehill Street |
Parramatta |
Submission
seeks that unless the height limit is further increased from 11 metres to 24
metres that the zoning of the land should be reduced from R4 High Density
Residential to the equivalent current zoning of Residential 2B i.e R3 Medium
Density Residential. |
The
site is currently zoned 2b under Parramatta LEP 2001 and benefits from the
provisions of clause 40(2) of the LEP which allows for terrace style housing with
a floor space ratio of 0.8:1. Under the Draft LEP it is proposed to zone the
site and surrounding area R4 (High Density) Residential with an FSR of 0.8:1
and height limit of 11m. This best represents the current development
potential available under the current LEP. The suggestion of a six storey
height limit is not supported due to the close proximity to the South
Parramatta Conservation Area located to the north of the site. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
335 |
71
Rosehill Street |
Parramatta |
Submission
seeks that the height limit applying to Rosehill Street be increased from 11
metres to 24 metres or higher |
This
area is suitable for increased residential development given its close
location to the Parramatta CBD. The proposed 3-storey height limit for new
development reflects the type found north of Rosehill Street towards the
Great Western Highway. Council wants to maintain a consistent form of
development in this precinct while catering for opportunities to increase
residential density. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
352 |
377 |
Dixon
Street |
Parramatta |
Supports
the proposed zoning R4 (High Density Residential) and suggests the inclusion
of greater height provisions as well as allowing business uses at ground and
first floor level. |
This
area is suitable for increased residential development given its close
location to the Parramatta CBD. Under the proposed R4 High-Density
Residential zone, ‘Neighbourhood Shops” is a permitted land use subject to
the approval of Council. The proposed 3-storey height limit for new
development reflects the type found north of Dixon Street towards the Great
Western Highway. Council wants to maintain a consistent form of development
in this precinct while catering for opportunities to increase residential
density. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
353 |
378 |
Dixon
Street |
Parramatta |
Fully
supports the LEP/DCP provisions for Dixon Street. However, the height limits should be much
higher given the land’s close proximity to the CBD and the need for more
housing especially in suitable areas within walking distance to all
amenities. Consideration should also
be given to allowing business or offices on the ground/ first floor of
proposed developments. This fits in
with the needs outlined by the NSW and Federal Government's plans to handle
increased demand for housing located within close proximity to community infrastructure. |
This
area is suitable for increased residential development given its close
location to the Parramatta CBD. Under the proposed R4 High-Density
Residential zone, ‘Neighbourhood Shops” is a permitted land use subject to
the approval of Council. The proposed 3-storey height limit for new
development reflects the type found north of Dixon Street towards the Great
Western Highway. Council wants to maintain a consistent form of development
in this precinct while catering for opportunities to increase residential
density. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
354 |
379 |
Dixon
Street |
Parramatta |
Fully
supports the LEP/DCP provisions for Dixon Street. However, the height limits should be much
higher given the land’s close proximity to the CBD and the need for more
housing especially in suitable areas within walking distance to all
amenities. Consideration should also
be given to allowing business or offices on the ground/ first floor of
proposed developments. This fits in
with the needs outlined by the NSW and Federal Government's plans to handle
increased demand for housing located within close proximity to community
infrastructure. |
This
area is suitable for increased residential development given its close
location to the Parramatta CBD. Under the proposed R4 High-Density
Residential zone, ‘Neighbourhood Shops” is a permitted land use subject to
the approval of Council. The proposed 3-storey height limit for new
development reflects the type found north of Dixon Street towards the Great
Western Highway. Council wants to maintain a consistent form of development
in this precinct while catering for opportunities to increase residential
density. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
355 |
380 |
Dixon
Street |
Parramatta |
Fully
supports the LEP/DCP provisions for Dixon Street. However, the height limits should be much
higher given the land’s close proximity to the CBD and the need for more
housing especially in suitable areas within walking distance to all
amenities. Consideration should also
be given to allowing business or offices on the ground/ first floor of
proposed developments. This fits in
with the needs outlined by the NSW and Federal Government's plans to handle
increased demand for housing located within close proximity to community
infrastructure. |
This
area is suitable for increased residential development given its close
location to the Parramatta CBD. Under the proposed R4 High-Density
Residential zone, ‘Neighbourhood Shops” is a permitted land use subject to
the approval of Council. The proposed 3-storey height limit for new
development reflects the type found north of Dixon Street towards the Great
Western Highway. Council wants to maintain a consistent form of development
in this precinct while catering for opportunities to increase residential
density. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
356 |
381 |
Dixon
Street |
Parramatta |
Fully
supports the LEP/DCP provisions for Dixon Street. However, the height limits should be much
higher given the land’s close proximity to the CBD and the need for more
housing especially in suitable areas within walking distance to all
amenities. Consideration should also
be given to allowing business or offices on the ground/ first floor of
proposed developments. This fits in
with the needs outlined by the NSW and Federal Government's plans to handle
increased demand for housing located within close proximity to community
infrastructure. |
This
area is suitable for increased residential development given its close
location to the Parramatta CBD. Under the proposed R4 High-Density
Residential zone, ‘Neighbourhood Shops” is a permitted land use subject to
the approval of Council. The proposed 3-storey height limit for new
development reflects the type found north of Dixon Street towards the Great
Western Highway. Council wants to maintain a consistent form of development
in this precinct while catering for opportunities to increase residential
density. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
357 |
383 |
85-93
Victoria Road |
Parramatta |
Requests
a change in zoning from B6 (Enterprise
Corridor) to B4 (Mixed Use) as well as an increase in maximum FSR from 2.0:1
to 3.0:1 for land known as 85-93 Victoria Road and 33 Wandsworth Street.
Supporting information includes an alaysis of the site opportunities as well
as identification of issues created by the standard template and resulting
existing use rights. |
Council
has resolved to rezone land fronting Victoria Road, between Macarthur Street
and Pennant Street R3 Medium Density Housing. This is to reflect the need to
increase residential development on the fringe of the Parramatta CBD but not
overly change the character and feel of this area. The future character of
this stretch of Victoria Road is to provide a transition in development
between medium density and higher density residential. Therefore, additional
residential development on this site would not be ideal in maintaining that
character. It is acknowledged that this site is located on the periphery to
Collett Park RDS Centre. The RDS area
identified land both north and south of Victoria Road. Currently, there is
limited number of shops providing day-to-day retail needs to support the increase
in density proposed in and around this area. There is merit in maintaining
the extent of retail uses currently permitted. While, the B6 Enterprise
Corridor covers some of those, it would be appropriate to expand it. It is
proposed that Council include into Schedule 1, “retail premises” as an
additional use for this site. The
suggested FSR of 3:1 is not appropriate in this location and the current FSR
of 2:1 be maintained, particularly when no residential development is
proposed and that retail development be of a scale sufficient for the needs
of that catchment. |
That
Council add as an additional use to Schedule 1 of draft Parramatta LEP 2010,
the term "shops" to the list of permitted uses for the sites known
as 85-93 Victoria Road and also 33 Wandsworth Street, Parramatta. |
358 |
473 |
Crimea
Street |
Parramatta |
This
submission objects to DA 250/2010 for the construction of a boarding house at
42A Crimea Street, Parramatta on the grounds that the site is within a
heritage conservation area. |
This
submission does not relate to the draft LEP or DCP and has been forwarded to
the Development Services Unit for consideration in assessment of the
application. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
359 |
502 |
2
Morton Street |
Parramatta |
In the
draft DCP, the colour coding of the various types of buildings proposed for 2
Morton Street were incorrect and therefore unable to be properly assessed. |
2
Morton Street is now the subject of a Planning Proposal which was exhibited
in August/September 2010. This submissions will now be considered in the
context of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
502 |
2
Morton Street |
Parramatta |
The
proposal for 2 Morton Street is a massive over development. Past surveys
reveal residents' interest in preserving the look and feel of the
neighbourhood. Residents would like to maintain the amenity of the area by
restricting zoning to medium density. This restriction in zone should also
apply to the industrial area, including Council's depot. |
2
Morton Street is now the subject of a Planning Proposal which was exhibited
in August/September 2010. This submissions will now be considered in the
context of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
502 |
2
Morton Street |
Parramatta |
Further
consideration should be given to improving wetlands/nature walk in the
Parramatta River foreshore reserve that adjoins 2 Morton Street, Parramatta.. |
2 Morton
Street is now the subject of a Planning Proposal which was exhibited in
August/September 2010. This submissions will now be considered in the context
of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
502 |
2
Morton Street |
Parramatta |
The
area surrounding 2 Morton Street is floodprone. No development should take
place below the 1 in 100 year flood level due to the risks to people and
property. Further, the area designated as prone to high risk flooding related
to the site is significantly reduced. |
2
Morton Street is now the subject of a Planning Proposal which was exhibited
in August/September 2010. This submissions will now be considered in the
context of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
502 |
2
Morton Street |
Parramatta |
Completion
of the cycleway/walkway along the Parramatta River should be a high priority
in addition to reducing traffic hazards. |
2
Morton Street is now the subject of a Planning Proposal which was exhibited
in August/September 2010. This submissions will now be considered in the
context of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
502 |
2
Morton Street |
Parramatta |
The
DCP's depiction of traffic pathways to and from 2 Morton Street, Parramatta
are misleading. There is no requirement for the developer or Council to
provide these means of access. All this does is provide evidence that the
current roads and access are inadequate. |
2
Morton Street is now the subject of a Planning Proposal which was exhibited
in August/September 2010. This submissions will now be considered in the
context of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
502 |
2
Morton Street |
Parramatta |
Significant
development at 2 Morton Street, Parramatta would result in unacceptable
levels of vehicular traffic on local narrow roads, given the area is poorly
serviced by public transport. |
2
Morton Street is now the subject of a Planning Proposal which was exhibited
in August/September 2010. This submissions will now be considered in the
context of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
360 |
508 |
8-22
Macarthur Street |
Parramatta |
Supports
proposed zoning of R4 High Density Residential but requests the following
changes to the FSR and height controls to correlate with the allotment
pattern and promote economically viable redevelopment: 1. A height of 24m and a FSR of 2.5:1 apply
to properties 8-16 Macarthur St, Parramatta. 2. A height of 20m and a FSR of 1.7:1 apply
to properties 18-22 Macarthur St, Parramatta.
3. Consideration be given to increasing the
maximum height and FSR at 1-7 New Zealand St to provide a transition in built
form and scale between the Macarthur St properties and medium density housing
to the east. |
The
proposed planning controls for this area of Macarthur Street is as follows:
8-12 Macarthur Street have a height of 20 metres (6 storeys) and an FSR of
1.7:1. 14-22 Macarthur Street have a height limit of 14 metres (4 storeys)
and an FSR of 1.0:1. Council
had a master plan prepared in this precinct to determine future planning
controls to settle on how development should occur in this precinct. Council
concluded that while this location is suitable for increased residential
densities, it wanted to do so in a controlled way by ensuring a balance was
found in the scale, intensity, and variety of development. This was in part
to recognise that the majority of development along Macarthur Street and
adjoining the area was 2- 3 storeys in height. In
striking that balance across the precinct, Council identified different
development opportunities for land closer to the riverfront. The approach is
to provide more intense development close to the river in the form of 6 to 8
storeys that helps activate the riverfront in an area where the topography
falls towards the river enabling the effect of building height to be reduced.
This
approach to future development is reinforced through the proposed planning
controls for this area of Macarthur Street. That being that building are
consistent with surrounding development and that buildings closer to the
riverfront are higher. In
preparing the master plan, Council took into account many factors such as
urban design, housing needs and Council’s Residential Development Strategy. It
also considered market conditions but this is but one factor. Market
conditions do change and the fact that new development in the location for
three storey apartments suggests that there is some commercial viability to
redevelopment. It is acknowledged that such redevelopment may not necessarily
occur in the immediate term but Council intention for balanced and controlled
intensification of development is the primary driver of change. It
should be noted that the FSR of 1.0:1 is an anomaly for properties proposed
to be zoned R4 High-Density Residential with a height of 14 metres (4
storeys). The FSR should be 1.1:1. Therefore, the FSR will be adjusted to the
relevant properties. |
That 1
New Zealand Street be rezoned to R4 High Density Residential with a height of
14 metres. That
the FSR control for properties 18-22 Macarthur Street and 1 New Zealand Street be 1.1:1 instead of 1.0:1. |
361 |
529 |
2
Morton Street |
Parramatta |
Proponent
makes the following submission to the draft Parramatta LEP 2010 as it applies
to their site: a) A reduction in the area zoned RE1 Public
Recreation to align with that area of land to be dedicated under a draft
Voluntary Planning Agreement. b) To remove the W1 Natural Waterways zone
and the Environment Protection layer required by Clause 6.9 of the draft
LEP. c) Insertion of an incentives clause in the
draft LEP to allow that part of the site to be dedicated to Council as part
of a draft VPA, to be included in the calculation of site area and, d) Increase the maximum FSR for the site from
1.2:1 to 1.4:1. |
2
Morton Street is now the subject of a Planning Proposal which was exhibited
in August/September 2010. This submissions will now be considered in the
context of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
362 |
544 |
River
Road West Precinct |
Parramatta |
The
submission seeks rezoning of land bound by Alfred Street, River Road West,
James Ruse Drive and Parramatta River from IN1 General Industrial to B4 Mixed
Use. The submission is accompanied by Masterplan document; Heritage Report,
Flood Report, Traffic Analysis and Contamination Assessment. The submission
also seeks an amendment to the draft LEP and DCP to include building envelope
controls and design principles as per the Master Plan document prepared for
the precinct as part of the submission. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1 |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. That the proponent be notified that further consideration of this proposal would require submission of a Planning Proposal. |
363 |
564 |
Pemberton
Street |
Parramatta |
Suggests
that in order to encourage all residents in proposed rezoning areas to voice
their concerns it would be desirable to do a special letterbox drop with a
covering letter, together with a brief text box questionnaire (with comments
options) advising that rezoning proposals are subject to all resident
(owner/tenant) opinions which will be considered by Council. |
Council
has undertaken an extensive consultation plan with respect to draft
Parramatta LEP 2010. Council wrote to all land owners in July 2009 to update
them on the draft plan and Council’s intention before the draft was submitted
to the NSW Department of Planning. Council once given authority to exhibited
draft Parramatta LEP 2010 by the Department of Planning again wrote to all
landowners and tenants in March 2010 advising of the zoning plan. The
material provided to residents has been extensive that made it clear what is
intended by the draft plan and its importance. It is considered that Council
has fulfilled its obligations to advise the community. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
564 |
Pemberton
Street |
Parramatta |
Requests
no rezoning of that section of Thomas Street between Pemberton Street and
James Ruse Drive for R4 High Density Residential. This is supported by other
residents living in this section of the street. The reasons they do not
support this rezoning are listed below: a) Thomas Street (between Macarthur Street
and James Ruse Drive) and the surrounding streets are a pleasant and quiet
family area, a haven from the units at the other end of Thomas Street. b) Traffic danger is one of the biggest threats
from rezoning and there is no wish to exacerbate the situation by having high
density or even low density residences in the street. c) Thomas Street, particularly the Pemberton
Street to James Ruse Drive section always has parking spaces available, even
during busy times, unlike the other end of Thomas Street. d) There are various ‘character’ houses along
Thomas Street (Macarthur Street to James Ruse Drive section) and many house
have proud owners/tenants who over the years, have invested their money to
renovate their homes and generally keep their properties looking as good as
finances permit. Consequently,
residents do not want to be threatened by Council rezoning the street because
this will open the floodgates for developers.
Developers should seek more suitable areas closer to the Parramatta
CBD. e) Townhouses, especially high-rise units,
will be unaesthetic on the high side of Thomas Street (between Pemberton
Street and James Ruse Drive. This will
create a lopsided looking anaesthetic street with really tall buildings on
one side (the high side) and much lower buildings on the other side. f) Will create more ‘unit ghettos’ on the
outskirts of Parramatta CBD leading to loss of privacy, peace and quiet and
safety for families including pets. g) Residents, spoken too have no intention of
moving from the section of Thomas Street between Pemberton Street and James
Ruse Drive and would feel let down by Council, who appear to want to do the
best for residents, rather than for influential people -- developers etc, who
can after all choose other places for proposed development which are much
closer to Parramatta CBD and other areas such as Westmead, Merrylands etc. |
Land
along Thomas Street between Pemberton Street and James Ruse Drive is zoned R4
High Density Residential in draft Parramatta LEP 2010. This area is within
close proximity to the Parramatta CBD, both through public transport (bus
routes) and via pedestrian connection along the Parramatta River. It is close
to the University of Western Sydney and the M4 Motorway. For these reasons, Council’s Residential
Strategy, implemented by draft Parramatta LEP 2010 identifies this location
as an area suitable for increased residential development. In comparison to
other locations, this area is well serviced and has high accessibility to
transport and services. The draft LEP has been prepared to generate change in
appropriate locations to recognise a need to provide more housing for a
growing population and the need for a more diverse mix of housing on the edge
of the Sydney’s second CBD as described in the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy,
developed by the NSW State Government. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
364 |
570 |
52-56
Thomas Street |
Parramatta |
Requests
that Nos. 52, 54 and 56 Thomas Street be rezoned to allow townhouses, villas
and apartments. This would be more in
keeping with existing neighbouring properties in Thomas Street and Macarthur
Street. |
An
examination of draft Parramatta LEP 2010 that these properties are proposed
to be zoned as R4 High Density Residential. This zone does permit the types
of uses requested by the author of this submission. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
365 |
576 |
2-8
River Road West |
Parramatta |
The
submission seeks rezoning of land at 2-8 River Road West, Parramatta from IN1
General Industrial to B4 Mixed Use. The submission is accompanied by
Schematic Architectural Plan; Heritage Report, Flood Report, and Traffic
Analysis. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1 |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
366 |
581 |
Morton
Street Precinct |
Parramatta |
The
proposals for the Morton Street Precinct are too bulky, despite the
guidelines. Any development will
adversely impact on the amenity of the long standing residential community
and intrude upon residences on the other side of the river. Maximum aesthetic benefits would be
obtained through low density development following the natural platform and
attempts should be made to soften the harsh resultant landscape through mixed
development types/zones. |
2
Morton Street is now the subject of a Planning Proposal which was exhibited
in August/September 2010. This submissions will now be considered in the
context of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
367 |
583 |
5-7
Lansdowne Street |
Parramatta |
The
submitter seeks no: a) removal of heritage listings from the
South Parramatta Conservation Area or any other conservation area within
Parramatta b) R4 High Density Residential zoning
bordering South Parramatta Conservation Area. Submitter
also seeks retention of R2 zoning for South Parramatta Conservation Area. Submitter
comments that the entire South Parramatta Conservation Area will be virtually
halved by the new proposed zoning plan which will enable development
impinging on the visual amenity of heritage properties. Concerned about zoning changes anywhere in
Parramatta to remove heritage standing. |
The
Parramatta South Conservation area covers Lansdowne Street. There is no
intention to remove South Parramatta Heritage Conservation area. The land 5-7
Lansdowne Street is within the conservation area. 7 Lansdowne Street identified
as an item to be kept under the conservation plan. Furthermore, 5 Lansdowne
Street is a heritage item. In the draft LEP as initially prepared the
conservation area was included in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.
However, by a Council resolution of 23 March 2009 land on Lansdowne Street,
previously zoned Residential 2(E) (flood affected land) is now zoned R4 High
Density Residential and land to the west of Inkerman Street is zoned R3
Medium Density Residential. It is
generally accepted that zoning and heritage protection is not mutually
exclusive but must be considered together.
It is considered that the R4 zoning will set undesirably high
development expectations that will be in conflict with the heritage values of
this land. Therefore, it is considered
that land fronting Lansdowne Street should be rezoned R3 Medium Density
Residential, the same as the rest of the conservation area. |
That
5-41 Lansdowne Street, Parramatta be zoned R3 Low Density Residential with an
FSR of 0.6:1 and a height of 11 metres. |
583 |
5-7
Lansdowne Street |
Parramatta |
The
submitter seeks that clause 1.9A Suspension of Covenants in draft LEP should
not be implemented. Queries whether
schedule 3 of the current Heritage LEP is to be amended or whether clause
1.9A will simply override this document and if so why has this fact not been
made publicly available. |
Suspensions
and covenants are restrictions on a property that come with the title deed.
Planning instruments like LEPs are not registered on title, but apply equally
to all land as a means to regulate development. Therefore, the provisions
relating to heritage are not affected by a suspension or covenant which may
or may not apply to a property. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
583 |
5-7
Lansdowne Street |
Parramatta |
Submitter
objects to the rezoning of Lots 5 and 7 Lansdowne Street to R4 High Density
Residential. That the zoning that fails to recognise flood affected
land. A new zoning category is
required which should be applied as necessary. Also rezoning of any 2E flood
affected zone to R4 high density will
exacerbate flooding. |
The
sites are currently zoned 2(e) Residential under the current Parramatta LEP
2001. This zone permits single dwelling housing. The zone in itself is not a
prohibition of development but rather a trigger to ensure that if that land
is redeveloped, that flood impacts are considered and managed. The
standardisation of planning instruments means Council can no longer prescribe
their own zones. However, a provision in the draft LEP about flooding ensures
that such impacts, irrespective of the zone is a consideration as part of any
development application. The extent to which it is considered is dependent on
the likely impacts and the individual circumstances of that site. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
368 |
594 |
57-67
Victoria Road |
Parramatta |
Submission
suggests that land known as 57-67 Victoria Road, proposed to be zoned R3
Medium Density Residential should appropriately be zoned B4 Mixed Use
development given: a) The site is consistent with the principles
of the Residential Development Strategy b) The current development and land use
patterns are already non residential c) The design options within a mixed use zone
provide the required flexibility to enable further development to address the
noise impacts on Victoria Road. Furthermore, the site also has the potential
for higher density development and the FSR and height controls can also be
adjusted. The
submission also expresses concerns with respect to the proposal to prohibit
dual occupancy development in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. |
This
site is on the fringe of the Collett Park neighbourhood centre. The site adjoins Victoria Road which
carries significant vehicle numbers and therefore has an impact of the
amenity of the area. For this reason, Council has decided that high-density
residential apartments in this location is not desirable. Nevertheless, its
location on Victoria Road with access to regular bus services, particularly
to the CBD makes it desirable for some level of residential density. This
maintains the current development potential of the site and enables more
flexibility in the design of a townhouse or villa development to have
adequate setbacks to negate the affects of Victoria Road. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
369 |
606 |
50
Marsden Street |
Parramatta |
Makes
an objection to the proposed R3 Medium Density Residential zone in the area
bound by Crimea Street, Rosehill Street and Marsden Street. This is on the
basis that the road network will not be able to cope with this level of
density and the volume of traffic is already excessive. The other concern
raised in the submission relates to the number of heritage listed homes in
the area and how medium density development is out of character with heritage
values. |
Under
the current Parramatta LEP 2001 this area is zoned 2(b) Residential (medium
density housing). The proposed zoning of R3 Medium Density Residential is a
zone that maintains the current development rights in this area. Council's
Residential Development Strategy has identified location in the Parramatta
that have good access to service and is within close proximity to public
transport and services. This area is located on the fringe of the Parramatta
CBD. It is within a reasonable walking distance to the Parramatta CBD and is
close to major roads which have access to local and regional bus services. In
comparison to other locations across the LGA, the level of service and access
to facilities make this location more desirable and limit the need to rely on
a private vehicle. Council has chosen medium density housing because it is of
a scale that accommodates more housing but can conform and fit within the
existing character. It is acknowledged that this area is identified as a
heritage conservation area. Heritage conservation areas are designed to
protect those buildings that contribute to the heritage values of the area
but also to allow new development where appropriate. These proposals are
assessed on a case by case basis to determine the appropriateness of each
development. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
370 |
610 |
|
Parramatta |
The
area around Parramatta River could be improved further. The river provides
great pedestrian access but is restricted by a lack of car parking and the
water quality of the river. Activation of the river in terms of shops and
cafes is needed. Traffic management solutions need to found for the
Parramatta CBD as a lot of streets are one way and there is insufficient
feeder roads to alleviate traffic congestion. |
Council
is committed to improving access along the Parramatta river foreshore as a
means of improving its viability and use. Council through its management plan
and strategic plans have financed a number of projects to provide pedestrian
and cycle paths. It is anticipated that this will continue. Council's long
term objectives are to provide a continuous link from the Parramatta CBD to
the University of Western Sydney at Rydalmere. Council does faces challenges
in terms of management traffic issues in the CBD. The draft LEP is a
mechanism that controls the use and development of land. It is not a plan
that controls and manages the road network. There are other processes
Council's rely on to manage traffic issues such as funding from State
Government and the development industry through Section 94A Contributions as
well as capital works projects managed by either the RTA and Council. Council is aware of
traffic issues confronting the CBD and is looking to manage these through
Council's integrated transport plan. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
371 |
623 |
Thomas
Street |
Parramatta |
Supports
the proposed zoning of land to R4 High-Density Residential north of Thomas
Street, Parramatta (Nos 114-130). However, with respect to future housing
needs of students it is more appropriate to have 5-6 storey development with
a mix use zone. It would cater for long term student population growth and
provide convenience shopping and cafes to serve that population. |
These
sites are part of a precinct known as the Morton Street precinct where it is
proposed that a considerable increase in residential density take place. This
precinct will provide significant opportunities to house students and
accommodate a growing University campus. To determine the zoning and height
of new buildings in this area, Council had prepared for this precinct a
structure plan that examined what were appropriate planning controls in this
location. A principle of that structure plan was to use the sloping
topography to create a transition from buildings on Thomas Street, fronting
the existing lower scale dwellings, to higher buildings on the lower part of
the site. As a consequence land along Thomas Street was set as 3 storeys to
reflect this principle. In terms of opportunities for mixed use development,
Council has focused its planning for such activity at the junction of where
Morton Street meets what will become public open space. This to ensure that
the riverfront is activate to make it a more attractive location and linked
to Council pedestrian network. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
372 |
573 |
Pennant
Hills Rd (Btwn James Ruse Dr & Charles St) |
Parramatta
to Carlingford |
Request
an increase in density along Pennant Hills Road from James Ruse Drive to
Charles Street, Carlingford. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1 |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
373 |
54 |
179
Wentworth Avenue |
Pendle
Hill |
The
author requests the property be rezoned to R4 (High Density) Residential, R2
(Low Density) is proposed. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1 |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
374 |
62 |
Wentworth
Avenue |
Pendle
Hill |
Opposes
any upzoning of area between Pendle Hill and Wentworthville Railway Stations.
Feels this area has changed for the better and hopes it will continue to
improve without the development of apartments. Believes that the area around
Westmead Hospital needs more parks. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1 |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
62 |
Wentworth
Avenue |
Pendle
Hill |
Believes
that the area around Westmead Hospital needs more car parking areas and
public transport. |
The
proposed zoning of this area has been a translation of the existing zoning.
The provision of more car parking spaces will encourage car usage in turn
increase local traffic and decrease the usage of public transport. Maximum
car parking rates currently apply to Westmead to reduce car usage and
encourage public transport usage. Maximum car parking rates for Westmead (and
other SREP areas) have not been included in the draft DCP. To continue to
encourage the use of public transport minimal car parking spaces should be
required for new developments in this area. Westmead is well-serviced by
public transport. Council has also been an active lobbyist to improve public
transport services in the LGA. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
375 |
72 |
Wentworth
Avenue, Bungaree Road & Burrabogee Road |
Pendle
Hill |
Unhappy
with amenity impacts (pollution, noise and traffic) arising from industrial
area bounded by Wentworth Avenue, Bungaree and Burrabogee Roads and
congestion caused by large vehicles accessing nearby industrial area. |
Amenity
impacts arising from existing industrial development are outside the scope of
the draft LEP. The draft LEP does not propose any change to or
intensification of the area identified in this submission. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
72 |
Wentworth
Avenue, Bungaree Road & Burrabogee Road |
Pendle
Hill |
Suggests
industrial zone Wentworth Avenue, Bungaree and Burrabogee Roads is under
utilised and suggests it be re-zoned to allow mix of commercial uses and high
density (8 storeys) residential development to more efficiently use land. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP, land bounded by Wentworth Avenue, Bungaree Road
& Burrabogee Road, Pendle Hill is proposed to be zoned IN1 General
Industrial. Adjoining land is predominantly proposed to be zoned R2 Low
Density Residential. The
area is currently zoned Employment 4 under Parramatta LEP 2001.This
employment land has been reviewed under the NSW State Government's Draft
Subregional Strategy for the West Central Subregion and by the Parramatta
Industrial Lands Study prepared for Council. Under the draft Subregional
Strategy, the sites falls within the industrial area defined as ‘Pendle
Hill’. The strategy identifies the land as Category 1 Industrial Land, that
is land to be retained for industrial purposes and also describes the area as
‘well established and economically viable'. It is
recommended that land bounded by Wentworth Avenue, Bungaree Road &
Burrabogee Road, Pendle Hill remain within the IN1 General Industrial zone,
at this stage, and that the zoning of this land be reinvestigated at a future
date as part of the Pendle Hill RDS area.
At that stage Council should also undertake a further Employment Lands
review to determine the potential impact of rezoning industrial and other
employment lands across the LGA. It is also recommended that the range of
land uses within the IN1 General Industrial zone be reviewed to provide a
greater range of permissible uses. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
376 |
298 |
80
Virginia Street |
Rose
Hill |
Objects
to Council allowing developers to demolish beautiful old homes when the
zoning allows it. Not all old houses are heritage lised. An example of this
is the recent demolition of a federation home at 80 Virginia Street,
Rosehill. We should protect and
appreciate the quality of workmanship in building these houses. |
The
merit of retaining old houses is most appropriately dealt with under the
heritage listed process which establishes a property’s heritage and aesthetic
values. It is considered that only
those properties that are heritage listed or in conservation areas should be
protected from the demolition. These
properties have met stringent criteria of the NSW State Government for
heritage protection and have been the subject of consultation and
consideration by Council and the State Government. In addition, it is unreasonable that all
properties should be protected from demolition as this would unfairly
restrict the rights of private individuals. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
377 |
95 |
31 – 35
Oak Street |
Rosehill |
The
proposed height limit of RL 14 for 31-35 Oak Street, Rosehill is
inappropriate and should reflect the proposed height to the south which is
J2, 9.2 metres. |
An RL
of 14 metres reflects existing controls found in SREP 28 (Harris Park
Precinct). Council has decided to translate these controls into the proposed
draft Parramatta LEP 2010. This control sets a height limit that protects
valued view corridors by setting fixed height planes which measures height
from the Australia Height Datum. Therefore, a height level of RL 14 does not
imply a 14 metre height limit. It may, depending on specific circumstances of
the site, reflect a height limit that does represent a 2 storey building or
equivalent to a 9.2 metre height limit. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
378 |
96 |
4 Oak
Street |
Rosehill |
Seeking
an increase in the RL from 11 to 14 at
4 Oak Street, Rosehill, to allow the construction of a 2 storey home. |
The
property adjoins 3 heritage items, is within close proximity to Elizabeth
Farm, a state heritage item and is within a heritage conservation area.
Council has proposed a height limit that transitions from 1 to 2 story
residential development as development moves further north from Elizabeth
Farm. This is to protect immediate view lines form Elizabeth Farm and other
significant heritage items. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
96 |
4 Oak
Street |
Rosehill |
Requests
that Council re-consider its position of prohibiting dual occupancies in the
proposed R2 zone. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1 |
That dual
occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to Special Character areas. |
|
379 |
98 |
101
Arthur Street |
Rosehill |
Requests
an increase in the building height that is proposed to apply to 101 Arthur
Street, Rosehill, from J3- 9.5 metres to K2- 10.5 metres. |
This
height arrangement is a current provision contained within SREP 28 for Harris
Park. The existing controls have been transferred into draft Parramatta LEP
2010. The effect of the control is that some properties that front Arthur
Street are required to be 1 storey. The rational for this height limit is to ensure
that the view corridors of the northern ridgeline are protected. The
properties in Arthur Street may obscure this view if 2 story development were
permitted. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
380 |
144 |
27-29 Prospect
Street & 22-24 Weston Street |
Rosehill |
The
owners of the 4 parcels being Nos. 27 and 29 Prospect Street and Nos. 22 and
24 Weston Street, Rosehill have previously queried why they have a different
zone to the rest of the street block and again raise this issue. They would prefer their sites to be rezoned
to allow units. |
The 4
parcels of land are currently zoned Residential 2(a) under SREP 28. The proposed zoning is R2 Low Density
Residential. As such, the draft LEP
2010 does not propose any change in zoning or development potential. The current and proposed zoning reflects
the Rosehill Masterplan which identifies the appropriate built form for the
locality. The appropriate zoning for
the entire street block varies depending on its proximity to the Elizabeth
Farm Conservation Area. The properties
in question are opposite the Elizabeth Farm Conservation Area and as such,
require lower density and height controls to remain sympathetic to the
heritage conservation values. The
section of the street block further to the east is adjoining James Ruse Drive
and is considered appropriate for higher densities and height controls due to
the lesser potential for amenity and heritage impacts. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
381 |
167 |
91-97
Arthur Street |
Rosehill |
The
submission requests that 91-97 Arthur Street, Rosehill be up zoned from R3 to
R4 or B4 with height limits extended to between 3 and 6 storeys. It is argued
that Council should impose planning controls that harness rather than stifle
significant benefits to Parramatta that are present by growth in the James
Ruse Drive entertainment/racecourse precinct. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1 |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
382 |
169 |
25
Prospect Street |
Rosehill |
Under
the draft LEP 25 Prospect Street, Rosehill is proposed to be zoned R2 Low
Density Residential with a building height of 12 metres. The submission seeks
a higher zoning for the site to permit residential flat buildings or mixed
use development (either R1 General Residential or B4 Mixed Use zones were
suggested). However, the height limit is not sought to be increased further. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1 |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
383 |
170 |
19-21
Prospect Street |
Rosehill |
Under
the draft LEP 19-21 Prospect Street, Rosehill is proposed to be zoned R3
Medium Density Residential with a height of 12 metres. The submission seeks a
higher zoning to permit residential flat buildings or mixed use development
(either R4 High Density Residential or B4 Mixed Use zones were suggested)
with a suggested increased height limit of 12- 21 metres. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
384 |
171 |
James
Ruse Drive, Hassall, Arthur & Prospect Sts |
Rosehill |
This
submission raises concerns with the zoning and built form (height and FSR)
controls chosen for land generally bound by Hassall Street, Prospect Street,
Arthur Street and James Ruse Drive, Rosehill. Specific submissions have also
been made for individual properties within this defined area. The submission
recommends alternative zonings and heights transitioning from James Ruse
Drive to Arthur Street. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
385 |
222 |
2-4
Short Street |
Rosehill |
The
submission requests that 2-4 Short Street, Rosehill be upzoned from R2 Low
Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential, as the construction of
two dwellings would be inappropriate and a waste of resources. An R3 zone
would allow for a better outcome to the streetscape. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
386 |
324 |
120
James Ruse Drive |
Rosehill |
Generally
support the controls in the draft DCP. |
This
submission and the comments made are noted. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
324 |
120
James Ruse Drive |
Rosehill |
Requests
that the maximum building height for the property at 120 James Ruse Drive be
increased from 23m to 28m. This increase will complement the building height
and form of the existing, significant landmarks to James Ruse Drive as well
as enhance the streetscape. This increase will also maximise the potential
for non-residential development at the ground floor. Site is not nominated as
being within important view corridors. Drawings are attached to submission in
support of this request. 3 and 5 Weston St, Rosehill also share the desire
for a 28m height limit. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
387 |
396 |
Hope
and Weston Streets |
Rosehill |
Submission
has been prepared on behalf of several properties (22-24 Hope Street &
13-19 Weston Street, Rosehill) totalling approximately 7400sqm in area
seeking an increase in development potential with an increase in maximum
building height of 15-18m. The draft LEP currently proposes a maximum height
of 10.5m. The submission is accompanied by a detailed masterplan including;
site analysis, legislative and policy framework, urban design analysis, built
form, block modelling, landscaping and public domain, shadow diagrams etc |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
388 |
465 |
91
Arthur Street |
Rosehill |
The
submission seeks an increase in height (in conjunction with zoning) from 10.5
metres to 12 metres to permit 3 storey residential development. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
465 |
91
Arthur Street |
Rosehill |
The
submission seeks the rezoning of their site at 91 Arthur Street from R2 Low
Density Residential to permit 3 storey residential development (i.e. to R4
High Density Residential). |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
389 |
492 |
9 Devon
Street |
Rosehill |
The
Shell Clyde Refinery is currently zoned Regional Enterprise under the Sydney
Regional Environmental Plan No. 28.
Maintenance is listed in the land use table as exempt
development. The Refinery is proposed
to be zoned IN3 Heavy Industrial and this zone does not list
maintenance. Are concerned that they
will be required to gain development consent for the large amount of maintenance
works that are carried out at the Refinery. Considers that Council approval
for all such activities would be onerous and unnecessary considering the
regulation that the Refinery is subject to under the license conditions of
the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. |
The LEP
standard instrument does not contain a definition of maintenance (including
minor works) relevant to the work routinely undertaken by the submitter and
consequently this is not able to be readily rectified by inclusion of the use
within the land use table. Council does not wish to routinely require and
receive development applications for maintenance matters. In order to resolve
this situation options may include a) requesting that the DoP permit the site
to be included in Schedule 1 -
additional permitted uses, b) requesting that the DoP formulate a definition
for the type of maintenance involved and for this to be included in the land
use table as a exempt development. c) include maintenance activities in
industrial lands in Schedule 2 - Exempt Development of the Draft LEP and
request the DoP include similar provisions in the next review of State wide
Exempt and Complying Development Codes. It is recommended that option c be
pursued and for appropriate provisions to be prepared for consideration by
the DoP. |
That
the draft LEP be amended to include provisions within Schedule 2 to allow for
maintenance works to be carried out within lands zoned IN3 (Heavy
Industrial). |
390 |
577 |
Prospoect,
Arthur and Weston Streets |
Rosehill |
Owners
of 10 Hope Street, Rosehill support the submission made to Council from
certain landowners in Prospect, Arthur and Weston Streets, Rosehill for the
precinct bounded by Hassall, Prospect, Arthur Streets and James Ruse Drive,
Rosehill. |
This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
391 |
592 |
Rosehill
Gardens Racecourse |
Rosehill |
The
submission indicates that the draft LEP results in unacceptable impacts on
the Rosehill Gardens Racecourse for the following reasons: a) The additional uses envisaged (offices,
public administration buildings) are not suitable to the racecourse and they
have no intentions to develop for this purpose. b) The change in permissible uses of the
lands fronting James Ruse Drive and part of Grand Avenue vary significantly
from the long term strategic intent envisioned. c) The submission has been prepared by Urbis
JHD Pty Ltd on behalf of the Sydney Turf Club and provides a detailed
analysis justifying the reasoning behind their submission. |
The
Rosehill Racecourse site is currently zoned under Sydney Regional
Environmental Plan 28 Parramatta (SREP 28) and is divided into three (3)
zones, traversed by the railway line. The majority of the site comprising the
racecourse track, stables, and pavilions is zoned Racecourse; the area
between James Ruse Drive and the railway line is zoned James Ruse Drive Mixed
Use; and the north-western corner of the site adjacent Grand Avenue is zoned Business
and Transport Centre. Under
the draft LEP, the entire site has been zoned RE2 Private Recreation, and two
additional land uses (office premises and public administration buildings)
have been permitted on the site under Schedule 1 of the draft LEP. The
submission raises objection to zoning the entire site RE2 Private Recreation
given the reduction in permissible land uses over all, or part, of the site;
and seeks that the site be divided into three (3) precincts to reflect the
current zones; and that all land uses permitted under the current zones be
reflected in Schedule 1 of the draft LEP as they would apply to the suggested
precincts. The
submission also suggests: the inclusion of a local clause applying to the
site, with objectives for each specific precinct; the removal of office
premises and public administration buildings from Schedule 1 of the draft LEP
as it relates to the racecourse component of the site; amending a
typographical error in the legal description of one of the land allotments. Schedule
1 of the draft LEP is intended to allow additional permitted uses on certain
sites where the zoning would otherwise prohibit the use. The number and range
of uses permitted under Schedule 1 should be limited to minimise the impact
on the zone and its objectives. The
range of uses sought to be included in Schedule 1 by the submission is very
broad, and a number of the uses are not defined by the Standard Instrument
LEP template. Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate to include all
the suggested land uses into Schedule 1 of the draft LEP. It is however
recommended that part of the site be rezoned to recognise the current zoning
differentiation of the site. |
That
Nos. 29 and 171 James Ruse Drive, Camellia and part of No. 2B Grand Avenue, Camellia
(west railway line) be rezoned to B5 Business Development with no FSR,
(height unchanged); AND That
the land use table for the B5 Business Development zone be amended to include
additional uses permitted with consent as outlined in Attachment 2. That
Council not permit the term retail premises as a permitted use within the B5
Business Development. That
Schedule 1 of the draft Parramatta LEP be amended to delete 'No. 7 Use of
certain land at Rosehill in Zone RE2'. |
392 |
44 |
29
Sylvia Street |
Rydalmere |
This
submission states that dual occupancy should be permitted in the R2 Low
Density Residential zone. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
44 |
29
Sylvia Street |
Rydalmere |
The
submission raises concern that zoning does not provide enough development
potential for Rydalmere and that the area may not develop as previously
anticipated. The submission also questions why the R3 Medium Density
Residential Zoning in Rydalmere is only located near industrial areas. |
Sylvia
Street and surrounding area is not located within the any of the Residential
Development Strategy (RDS) study areas. RDS areas have been identified as
those areas which have the best level of access to public transport and services
and therefore suitable for increased residential development. As a
consequence the provision of R3 Medium Density Residential zoning in
Rydalmere occurs in the Residential Development Strategy study area of 'East
Rydalmere'. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
393 |
49 |
18
Finch Avenue |
Rydalmere |
The
submission states that author is impressed with proposal but does not wish to
participate in the public exhibition process. |
This
submission is noted. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
394 |
153 |
Area
between Brodie St & Subiaco Creek |
Rydalmere |
The
submission states that whilst land between Brodie Street and Subiaco Creek is
zoned IN2 under the draft Parramatta LEP,
it is encouraging that Council investigate a future change of zoning
for this area as there is a high degree of concern at the number of brothels
being established in the area. Land
should be zoned as residential but a compromise between residential and light
industrial would probably be acceptable. |
The
area generally bound by Subiaco Creek, Victoria Road and the railway line/
UWS is proposed to be zoned IN2 Light Industrial under the draft Parramatta
LEP. While this zoning will permit sex services premises, the primary aim of
the zone is to permit a wide range of light industrial, warehouses and
related land uses. Furthermore, Clause 6.2 of the draft LEP states that sex
services premises will only be permitted where they are located more than 200
metres from any residential property, place of worship, hospital, school,
childcare centre, community facility and recreation area, and more than 50
metres from any public transport stop.
It is also noted that Council at its meeting of 7 December 2009
resolved that Council undertake work to identify the economic future of the
Rydalmere Industrial Estate to enable its transformation into a high
technology centre and leveraging a closer relationship with UWS. This
investigation work is yet to be completed and any future rezoning of this
area would be subject to a planning proposal and associated public
exhibition. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. That
Council to continue work to enable the transformation of the Rydalmere
industrial area into a high technology centre. |
395 |
255 |
72 Pine
Street |
Rydalmere |
Suggests
that proposed R2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning of 72 Pine Street does not
reflect current land uses on the site including carpark, retail stores and
shop top apartments. Suggests a business zone (B4 - Mixed Use preferred)
would be more appropriate. |
The
site is currently zoned 2A residential. The proposed zoning in the Draft
Parramatta LEP is R2 (Low Density) Zone and represents a translation from the
current zoning. The uses previously approved on the site appear to
demonstrate that the site benefits from existing use rights. Council's has
not proposed a further expansion of the adjacent Neighbourhood Centre (B1)
zoning. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
396 |
423 |
90
Calder Road |
Rydalmere |
Objects
to the proposed 12m maximum building height at 90 Calder Rd, Rydalmere as it
will reduce privacy and cast substantial shadows into backyards of properties
on Chudleigh Street. The proposed height limit for the subject property is
incompatible with the general height of buildings in the area and should be
reduced to maintain the existing residential amenity. Raises no objection to
the proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone at 90 Calder Road, Rydalmere. |
A
standard maximum building height of 12m has been applied to land proposed to
be zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre in the draft LEP. The proposed building
height and zone for the subject property has been a translation of the
controls in Parramatta LEP 2001.
Further, it is unlikely that the maximum height together with the
floor space ratio will be achieved given the small land size. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
397 |
449 |
55-59
Kirby Street |
Rydalmere |
Requests
rezoning for residential purposes of two adjoining sites which currently form
a small industrial precinct at 55 - 59 Kirby Street, Rydalmere on behalf of
their clients who own the land (Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust
and IWPE Nominees Pty. Ltd.). The
draft LEP proposes to translate the current industrial zoning into an
equivalent industrial zoning. The
submission suggests the draft LEP provides the opportunity for Council to
reconsider the zoning of the land: no. 59 has been vacant since August 2009
and there is little market interest in occupation and the building at no. 55
is occupied by Symbion Pharmacy Services who have indicated that they intend
to vacate the building at the end of their lease in 2012. The submission indicates the sites would be
more suitable for a residential land use with a large area (approx 5 ha) and
reasonably unconstrained and as such, would be ideal for contributing towards
greater housing choice and meeting the targets of the Sub-regional Strategy. The site is surrounded by residential
development and would be more in keeping with the character of the area to
contain residential land uses. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. That
the proponent be notified that further consideration of this proposal would
require submission of a Planning Proposal.
|
398 |
452 |
|
Rydalmere |
Includes
a submission containing 20 signatories representing 20 properties. Objects to
a control contained within the draft DCP (Section 4.1.4) relating to an
objective for the Rydalmere precinct to ensure redevelopment south of
Victoria Road will occur on regular shaped development sites. Specifically
the concern is raised that minor extensions or re-builds would require the
purchasing of neighbouring segments of land to form a more regular shape. It
is suggested a clarification note be included in the DCP as to when and in
what circumstances this objective will be enforced. |
The
objective in this section of the DCP applies to redevelopment of land for
higher density development. This section also contains a further control
relating to land amalgamation which serves to clarify the intent and purpose
of the objective, namely for redevelopment for higher density development to
occur on regular shaped allotments. It has been confirmed with Council's
Development Services Unit that this objective would not have any implications
with respect to development of single dwellings. It is not considered
practical to include an unnecessary explanatory notes for all controls
contained within the DCP as discretion may be applied in the application of
controls on a case by case basis. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
399 |
482 |
87-87a
Park Road |
Rydalmere |
Objects
to the rezoning of the properties at 87 and 87A Park Road, Rydalmere to R3
(Medium Density Residential) and request a higher density to permit
residential units with a height of 13 metres.
The site is surrounded by existing dual occupancies to the side and
units to the rear and as such, the potential for population increase in this
area is limited. Further, their land
is adjacent a reserve providing plenty of open space and play areas. As such,
their land should be rezoned for higher densities. |
The
level of increased residential density in the East Rydalmere area is a
balance between the existing medium density development already undertaken, a
desire to preserve some existing low density housing and for new development
to fit within those parameters. Council has only committed to increased
density for residential apartments along the north and west of the
intersection of Park Road and Pine Street, which will be the focus of
activity with the existing, school, hotel, church, shops and local services,
as well as new opportunities for mixed use development. South of the
intersection of Victoria and Park Roads, opportunity for higher density
residential development is also proposed with good proximity to open space,
the school and shops in this part of the precinct. The site at 87 and 87A
Park Road is considered on the periphery of the East Rydalmere precinct.
Medium density development still supports Council's objective but residential
apartments in this location is not consistent with the scale and character of
development proposed. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
400 |
92 |
Dixmude
Street |
South
Granville |
Concerned
about the loss of privacy and loss of sunlight arising from development in
Dixmude Street, South Granville. Also
concerned about the impact of extra cars on Dixmude Street and the number of
extra garbage that will need to be collected. |
In the
current LEP Dixmude Street is zoned 2 (b) Residential, which permits with
consent dual occupancies, dwelling houses and multi unit housing. However, in the proposed draft Parramatta
LEP 2010 the whole of Dixmude Street as well as Flaherty Boulevard , is
proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. Therefore, development potential in Dixmude
Street under the draft LEP is reduced and some of the submitter's concerns
will therefore be less of a concern under the draft LEP than the current
zoning. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
401 |
281 |
6
Laverack Crescent |
South
Granville |
Supports
the proposed R2 zoning for this area of South Granville provided it means
single dwelling houses. The submitter is concerned that land surrounding,
which is owned by the Department of Housing, may be developed for other
purposes like townhouses and units and that this creates a loophole in the
draft plan. The submitter proposes that Council and the State Government
introduce laws to reject development applications which contravene the draft LEP/DCP. |
The
current zoning of Laverack Crescent is 2(b) Residential, which permits town
house style development, with Council's consent. The proposed zoning under
the draft LEP is R2 Low Density Residential, which, if adopted when the new
LEP is finalised, will not permit town house development. Environmental planning law requires
Council, when considering a development application, to take into
consideration any draft LEP (that has been placed on public exhibition). It
does not prevent Council granting consent for permissible development
proposed under the current zone, nor does it require Council to refuse
development that would be prohibited under the proposed future plan. It
requires Council's to consider the proposed zone when assessing applications
lodged under the current planning controls and whether the new plan is both
imminent and certain of becoming law. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
402 |
484 |
25-27
Dixmude Street |
South Granville |
Acts
for Hauchang Pty.Ltd, the owner of No. 25-27 Dixmude Street, South
Granville. Objects to the proposed
down zoning of the land from Residential 2(b) to R2 Low Density
Residential. Requests that the LEP
should allow large land holdings to be developed with townhouses by
identification in Schedule 1 or the like.
Or, alternatively the medium density zone surrounding the South
Granville town centre should be extended east to the extent of the Duck river
Reserve. Land holding is 4,900m2 in
area and represents a prime opportunity for redevelopment. The local area is well served in terms of
schools, recreation facilities, open space, local shops and access to the M4
Motorway. Low density zoning would
represent an underutilisation of land and be contrary to the objects of the
Act. |
This
land falls within the area east of Clyde Street between Boronia and Chiswick
Streets, which was considered by Council in deliberations during the
preparation of Council's RDS and subsequently the draft LEP. Council
determined that this area should be down zoned from its current medium
density residential zoning to R2 Low Density Residential. The area has a number of dead end streets
including Dixmude Street. Council has raised concerns about the lack of
connectivity for vehicular and pedestrian movement as one reason for not
supporting medium density housing in this part of the South Granville
Precinct, notwithstanding the present zoning.
It is possible that this area could be reviewed with further investigation
of this issue at a later date. This is
preferred to an ad hoc zoning to allow increased development potential for
some parcels of land within this precinct, despite the large land holding
held by the submitter. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. . |
403 |
488 |
|
South
Parramatta |
Submission
made objects to the rezoning of Nos. 5 and 7 Lansdowne Street to R4 High
Density Residential. |
No 5
and 7 Lansdowne Street are zoned Residential 2 (E) (flood affected land) in
the current LEP 2001 and by Council resolution of 23 March 2009 have been
zoned R4 High Density Residential in the draft LEP. In addition, 5 Lansdowne St is heritage
listed and this property together with 7 Lansdowne St are included in the
South Parramatta Conservation Area. It
is considered that No 5 and 7
Lansdowne Street should be rezoned R3 Medium Density Residential. |
That
land at 5 and 7 Lansdowne Street be rezoned as R3 Medium Density Residential
with a height limit of 11 metres and an FSR of 0.8:1 |
488 |
|
South
Parramatta |
Objects
to the rezoning of any current 2E Residential Zone (which is flood affected
land) to R4
High Density Residential. |
Land
zoned 2(e) Residential under the current Parramatta LEP 2001 permits single
dwelling housing. The zone in itself is not a prohibition of development but
rather a trigger to ensure that if that land is redeveloped, that flood
impacts are considered and managed. The standardisation of planning
instruments means Council can no longer prescribe their own zones. However, a
provision in the draft LEP about flooding ensures that such impacts,
irrespective of the zone is a consideration as part of any development
application. The extent to which it is considered is dependent on the likely
impacts and the individual circumstances of that site. |
That no change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
488 |
|
South
Parramatta |
The
submitter seeks : • no
removal of heritage listings from the South Parramatta Conservation Area or
any other conservation area within Parramatta • no
removal of any heritage listing from the draft LEP. Submitter
comments that the entire South Parramatta Conservation Area will be virtually
halved by the new proposed zoning plan which will enable development
impinging on the visual amenity of heritage properties. Concerned about zoning changes anywhere in
Parramatta to remove heritage standing. Queries
whether schedule 3 of the current Heritage LEP is to be amended and if so why
is it not being made publicly available. |
The
following comments are made in response to the submission: • There
are no proposals in the draft LEP to reduce the extent/size of the South
Parramatta Conservation Area or other conservation areas in the Parramatta
LGA. Neither are there proposals
generally to remove heritage listings; although some listings have been
removed where items have been demolished following Council resolution. • In
the current Parramatta LEP 2001 the South Parramatta Conservation Area is
zoned a mixture generally of Residential 2 (B) and Residential 2 (E) (flood affected
land). In the draft LEP as initially
prepared the conservation area was included in the R2 Low Density Residential
Zone. However, by a Council resolution of 23 March 2009 land on Lansdowne
Street and neighbouring Lennox, Marsden and Glebe Streets was zoned R4 High
Density Residential. Land to the west of Inkerman Street is zoned R3 Medium
Density Residential. It is generally accepted that zoning and heritage
protection is not mutually exclusive but must be considered together. It is considered that the R4 zoning will
set undesirably high development expectations that will be in conflict with
the heritage values of this land. Therefore, it is considered that land
fronting Lansdowne Street and on neighbouring streets should be rezoned R3
Medium Density Residential, the same as the rest of the conservation area. • Schedule
3 heritage Conservation Areas of the current Heritage LEP -- Parramatta LEP
1999 (heritage and conservation) has been included in Schedule 5 of Part 2 of
the draft LEP which has been exhibited for public comment. |
That
land at 5 - 41 and 6A - 14 Lansdowne Street; 1, 3, 5 Lennox Street; 37 - 43
Glebe Street and 66, 70, 72, 74 and 76 Marsden Street be rezoned from R4 High
Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Housing, with an FSR of 0.8:1 and a
height of 11 metres. |
|
404 |
532 |
|
South
Parramatta |
The
South Parramatta area, which has existing problems of traffic, parking and
dumping of rubbish will suffer with higher density residences unless Council
takes a more realistic role in managing these issues. |
Council
is committed through the preparation of a draft LEP, the Residential
Development Strategy and corporate policies and practices to manage traffic,
parking and rubbish issues in higher density residential areas, including
South Parramatta, to deliver good planning and community outcomes for the
benefit of the LGA and residents. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
405 |
138 |
|
Telopea |
Concern
is raised regarding stormwater management in relation to the Telopea
redevelopment. |
Under
draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are proposed to
be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s Residential
Development Strategy (RDS). The area surrounding Telopea Station was
identified as an RDS precinct capable of sustaining increased development.
Housing NSW has recently submitted plans to the Department of Planning for
determination under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act,
making the Minister for Planning the consent authority for this proposal. The
plans were based, for the most part, on the zoning framework identified in
the draft LEP. Council considered a report in March 2010 on the proposal
currently being assessed by the Department in Planning and raised some
concerns with the proposal, particularly, where inconsistent with the Draft
LEP. Concerns raised by Council and members of the public are required to be
taken into account in the assessment of this proposal. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
138 |
|
Telopea |
Concerns
over increased traffic congestion in relation to the Telopea redevelopment as
a result of population increase. |
Housing
NSW has recently submitted plans to the Department of Planning for
determination under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act,
making the Minister for Planning the consent authority for this proposal. The
plans were based, for the most part, on the zoning framework identified in
the draft LEP. Council considered a report in March 2010 on the proposal
currently being assessed by the Department in Planning and raised some
concerns with the proposal, particularly, where inconsistent with the Draft
LEP. Concerns raised by Council and members of the public are required to be
taken into account in the assessment of this proposal. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
138 |
|
Telopea |
Suggests
no more development occur in this area (Telopea) until the Epping to
Chatswood rail link is established. |
Parramatta
Council has, and will continue to, provide representations to State and
Federal Government agencies on the merit of the continuation of the Chatswood
to Epping Train Line through to Parramatta as originally proposed. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
406 |
211 |
14
Figtree Avenue |
Telopea |
The
submitter is distressed at the implication of the rezoning of the Department
of Housing land at 14 Figtree Avenue, Telopea to R4 as it is believed this
would result in the house being demolished and the family being required to
relocate. The house meets the family's needs, being close to medical and
health facilities, public transport and community contacts. A large amount of money has also been spent
on improvements to the property. Finally is also concerned about the proposed
increase in housing density in the street which will have a negative impact
on the community. |
The
property is zoned R4 High Density Residential under the draft Parramatta LEP
2010. Higher density residential
zonings are proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified
in Council’s Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This property meets the
RDS criteria for higher density residential development given that it is
inside the Telopea RDS precinct.
Rezoning provides an opportunity for redevelopment of the property to
a higher density, but will not as a direct consequence result in the
demolition of the dwelling on the property.
The submitter's concerns over the tenure of the property should be
taken up within the owner, the Department of Housing. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
407 |
262 |
10 View
Street |
Telopea |
Objection
is raised to the down zoning to R2 (Low Density Residential) of the area
bounded by View, Barrawinga, Tintern and Robert Streets Telopea on the basis
that they are consistent with the RDS principle of density being located in
close proximity to public transport, shops and services. |
Under
Council's current planning controls (Parramatta LEP 2001), the majority of
the area described is currently zoned 2(b) Residential. Under the draft LEP,
the area will be down zoned to R2 Low Density Residential. No part of the
street is to be zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. While this land is
within close proximity to the Telopea RDS study area, increased densities
have been proposed in the draft LEP immediately surrounding Telopea Station
and along Adderton Road. A large increase in dwelling numbers will occur
within the area surrounding Telopea Station. This will represent significant
growth in a preferred location to that area to the west which comparatively,
does have the highest level of access to services and public transport
offered. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
262 |
10 View
Street |
Telopea |
Objection
is raised to the proposed prohibition of dual occupancy development in the R2
(Low Density Residential) zone. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
|
408 |
289 |
43
Tintern Avenue |
Telopea |
Proposed
to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential but seeking an R3 Medium Density
Zoning. Disappointed that the western side of Tintern Avenue, including No.
43 is to be changed to R2 while the eastern side is to be zoned R3. |
Under
Council's current planning controls (Parramatta LEP 2001), the majority of
Tintern Avenue is currently zoned 2(a) Low Density Residential. Under the
draft LEP, the entire street will be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. No
part of the street is to be zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. While this
land does fall within close proximity to the Telopea RDS study area,
increased densities have been proposed in the draft LEP immediately surrounding
Telopea Station and along Adderton Road. A large increase in dwelling numbers
will occur within the area surrounding Telopea Station. This will represent
significant growth in a preferred location to Tintern Avenue because of the
higher level of access to services and public transport offered. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
409 |
299 |
5 Orana
Place |
Telopea |
Requests
the property at 5 Orana Place be zoned from R2 Low Density Residential to R3
Medium Density Residential for the following reasons: there are existing
medium density developments in Orana Place and in the immediate vicinity
(e.g. Wilkinson Ln, Wesleigh St, Wilde St and Tinterrn Ave); there are 2
storey Housing Commission units overlooking their backyard; and area is well
catered by train and bus services. The R3 zone will give more and better
options. |
Under
draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are proposed to
be located in close proximity of centres, public transport and other
services. When Orana Place and surrounds are compared to other locations
across the LGA it does not meet the RDS criteria for higher density
residential development. While it has access to some retail activity it is
not within close enough proximity to higher order retail services, community
uses like schools, regular bus services nor has it been judged to be within
an accessible walking distance from the rail line. Benaud Place was chosen as
the focus of Council's residential strategy because it met more of this
criteria. Land on the other side of the rail line reflect existing zoning
patterns. The majority of Orana Place and surrounds also has a distinct low
density character which Council wishes to preserve. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
410 |
301 |
3
Wesley Street |
Telopea |
Objects
to any change from zone Residential 2(a). It is better to keep area for
family housing not for flats and villas. There has never been any trouble in
the area, that is, trouble caused in high density developments. |
The
subject property is currently zoned 2(a) Residential under Parramatta LEP
2001. The draft LEP proposes to zone the subject property R2 Low Density
Residential, being the closest translation to the current 2(a) Residential
zone. The typical type of development allowed in the proposed R2 zone is
single dwelling houses. Residential flat buildings and multi dwelling housing
are prohibited in the R2 zone. The R2 zone has been designed and is intended
to be the lowest residential density zone in the local government area. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
411 |
341 |
6 Orana
Place |
Telopea |
Requests
that Council reconsider the proposed R2 Low Density Residential zone for
their property at 6 Orana Place, Telopea. Submitter believes that R3 Medium
Density Residential is more appropriate because medium density is already
scattered through their streets and have been designed and built tastefully.
This area is also supported by a train line, two main thoroughfares and
numerous bus services. |
Under
draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are proposed to
be located in close proximity of centres, public transport and other
services. When Orana Place and surrounds are compared to other locations
across the LGA it does not meet the RDS criteria for higher density
residential development. While it has access to some retail activity it is
not within close enough proximity to higher order retail services, community
uses like schools, regular bus services nor has it been judged to be within
an accessible walking distance from the rail line. Benaud Place was chosen as
the focus of Council's residential strategy because it met more of this
criteria. Land on the other side of the rail line reflect existing zoning
patterns. The majority of Orana Place and surrounds also has a distinct low
density character which Council wishes to preserve. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
412 |
342 |
7 Orana
Place |
Telopea |
Requests
that Council reconsider the proposed R2 Low Density Residential zone for
their land at 7 Orana Place. Submitter believes that R3 Medium Density
Residential is more appropriate because medium density is already scattered
through their streets. |
Under
draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are proposed to
be located in close proximity of centres, public transport and other
services. When Orana Place and surrounds are compared to other locations
across the LGA it does not meet the RDS criteria for higher density
residential development. While it has access to some retail activity it is
not within close enough proximity to higher order retail services, community
uses like schools, regular bus services nor has it been judged to be within
an accessible walking distance from the rail line. Benaud Place was chosen as
the focus of Council's residential strategy because it met more of this
criteria. Land on the other side of the rail line reflect existing zoning
patterns. The majority of Orana Place and surrounds also has a distinct low
density character which Council wishes to preserve. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
413 |
370 |
Orana
Place |
Telopea |
Petition
containing 5 signatories. Request maintenance of existing development
capacity for town house style development. |
Under
draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are proposed to
be located in close proximity of centres, public transport and other
services. When Orana Place and surrounds are compared to other locations
across the LGA it does not meet the RDS criteria for higher density
residential development. While it has access to some retail activity it is
not within close enough proximity to higher order retail services, community
uses like schools, regular bus services nor has it been judged to be within
an accessible walking distance from the rail line. Benaud Place was chosen as
the focus of Council's residential strategy because it met more of this criteria.
Land on the other side of the rail line reflect existing zoning patterns. The
majority of Orana Place and surrounds also has a distinct low density
character which Council wishes to preserve. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
414 |
393 |
41
Tintern Avenue |
Telopea |
41
Tintern Ave zoned R2 Low Density Residential and seeking an R3 Medium Density
Zoning. Disappointed by zoning given that surrounding area includes a number
of medium density developments. |
Under
Council's current planning controls (Parramatta LEP 2001), the majority of
Tintern Avenue is currently zoned 2(a) Low Density Residential. Under the
draft LEP, the entire street will be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. No
part of the street is to be zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. While this
land is located in close proximity to the Telopea RDS study area, increased
densities have been proposed in the draft LEP immediately surrounding Telopea
Station and along Adderton Road. A large increase in dwelling numbers will
occur within the area surrounding Telopea Station. This will represent
significant growth in a preferred location to Tintern Avenue because of the
higher level of access to services and public transport offered. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
415 |
398 |
2
Winter Street |
Telopea |
Submission
objects to down zoning of 2 Winter Street from 2B Residential to R2 Low
Density Residential, particularly as the adjoining land to the north is
proposed to be zoned R4 High Density Development. The submission also states
that while the property is within the vicinity of a heritage item at No.34
Adderton Road it is not visible from No. 2 Winter Street and that adequate
curtilage to the heritage item could be provided by the properties
immediately adjoining No. 34 Adderton Road. |
The
submitter’s property at 2 Winter Street, including the properties at 36
Adderton Road and 1 and 3 Manson Street, were included in the R2 Low Density
Residential Zone by Council decision of 23 March 2009 to provide an
appropriate buffer and setting for the heritage listed property of Redstone
at 34 Adderton Rd, which is now included on the State Heritage Register. The inclusion of the property in the R4 High
Density Residential Zone would be inappropriate as it could result in
development detrimentally affecting the values and significance of this
heritage listed property. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
416 |
511 |
|
Telopea |
Objects
to the proposed R4 (High Density Residential) zoning proposed for the areas
of Fig Tree Avenue and The Parade, Telopea and that the zoning is contrary to
the objectives of the draft LEP. |
Properties
on Fig Tree Avenue and on the greater length of The Parade are zoned R4 (High
Density Residential) in the draft LEP.
This zoning is appropriate given the accessibility of the streets to
public transport and commercial and community facilities. The zoning is not contrary to objectives of
the draft LEP and is in accordance with important aims in clause 1.2 of the
LEP to encourage a range of development which accommodates the needs of
existing and future residents of Parramatta, to provide opportunities for a
range of housing types and to facilitate the maximum use of improved public
transport. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
511 |
|
Telopea |
Objects
to proposed increase in development potential in Telopea on the basis that
existing roadway widths and intersections in and around Fig Tree Avenue are
inadequate to safely cope with increased traffic movements. |
Councils
traffic and transport section has commented that there are low traffic
volumes and speeds in Figtree Avenue and that on- street parking can be
managed by the use of parking restrictions. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
511 |
|
Telopea |
Objects
to siting of increased development in Telopea on the basis that the area is
inadequately serviced with respect to Train and Bus services as well as
inadequate pedestrian and cycle facilities and health services and general
facilities. |
Telopea
is considered to have adequate access to public transport, being located on
the Carlingford Railway Line and served by a number of bus services. This
area is well served by the Waratah shops, a short walk down the hill on the
eastern side of the railway station in Evans Road, community hall, community
health centre and library in close proximity to the shopping centre, and a
number of different schools. The good access to public transport and a range
of services is considered to justify increased development in Telopea. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
511 |
|
Telopea |
Objects
to the siting of high density development in the area on the basis that it is
inconsistent with streetscape objectives of the DCP and inconsistent with the
established character of the area. |
Proposed
high density development for Telopea is not inconsistent with the urban
design objectives of the DCP. The DCP
in section 4.1.11 contains detailed objectives, principles and controls for
the Telopea precinct to ensure good planning and urban design outcomes. The general statement for the precinct
indicates that public and private housing will blend in character and will
have a transition in scale with the highest densities located adjacent to the
railway station in Sturt Street and transitioning downwards towards the
surrounding the low density residential areas. Buildings will be designed to respect the
topography of the land. Stands of
mature trees that contribute to the quality of the landscape will be
protected where possible or replaced in the redevelopment of sites. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
511 |
|
Telopea |
Objects
to the proposed increase in traffic congestion that will result from the
approximate 1900 new residents in the Telopea area and that inadequate
traffic analysis has been carried out which is also contrary to the
objectives of the proposed R4 (High Density Residential) zone. |
Traffic
and transport issues were investigated in the course of developing Councils
Residential Development Strategy (RDS).
Areas were selected for future housing opportunities largely on their
level of accessibility to public transport services. In this regard it is noted that Telopea is
on the Carlingford Railway Line and is well served by other bus
services. Therefore, it is appropriate
that areas in Telopea with good accessibility to public transport should be
zoned for higher density development. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
417 |
512 |
34
Adderton Road |
Telopea |
Request
that the curtilage of an item of state significance (Redstone - No 34
Adderton Road Telopea) needs to be respected by extending the R2 (Low Density
Residential) zone further to the North to include No. 4 Winter Street, to the
east to include No 5 Manson Street and to the south to the four properties on
the southern side of Manson Street as well as a better transition be provided
between High Density zonings further to the north. The reason provided is to
better preserve and respect the original relationship of a low set building
to surrounding open space. The submitter also requests that a standard clause
should be added to the LEP for developments adjoining heritage items such as
Redstone. |
The
buffer zoning of R2 Low Density Residential adjoining the heritage listed
property of ‘Redstone’ at 34 Adderton Road and including 1 and 3 Manson
Street, 36 Adderton Road and 2 Winter Street will provide an adequate and
enhanced level of protection for the site.
It is not considered necessary to extend this buffer zoning further to
the north, east and the south and to rezone land further to the north along Winter
Street from R4 High Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential. Clause
5.10 (4) of the draft LEP requires consideration to be given to the impact of
a proposed development on the significance of a heritage item. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider
adding a further clause as sought by the submitter. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
418 |
555 |
12
Figtree Avenue |
Telopea |
This
submission objects to the Telopea 'project' and seeks to ensure that the
author and family will not be required to move as a result of the development
of the area including that of 12 Figtree Avenue, Telopea. |
The
site is owned by Housing NSW and falls within the Telopea Master Plan Area.
It is assumed that the objection relates to the redevelopment of the
Masterplan area as a whole which is currently being assessed by the
Department of Planning and not by Council. Accordingly, this matter is
outside the scope of the draft LEP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
419 |
569 |
34
Adderton Road |
Telopea |
The
focus of submission is on the potential impacts of land use resulting from
the draft LEP provision on Redstone, the State Heritage listed Winter House
and Garden designed by Walter Burley Griffin and located at 34 Adderton Road,
Telopea. In particular, the submission seeks: • that
the term ‘heritage setting’ be defined as ‘the area of land surrounding an
item or area of heritage significance that is essential for retaining and
interpreting its heritage significance; and the term ‘heritage views’ be
specified as ‘the prospects to or from an item or area of heritage
significance which are essential for retaining and interpreting its heritage
significance’. • that
the key land use zoning proposals for Telopea be brought into line with State
Government policies and investment priorities • that
the R2 zoning be extended to include 2, 2A and 5 Manson St, 33 Burke Street
and 28, 30 and 32 Adderton Road. • more
appropriate and sustainable residential density and building heights in the
Telopea area, involving high density development adjacent to the station,
with a stepping down of heights to three and then one storey at the interface
with surrounding residential neighbourhoods, in particular in the southern
portion of Polding precinct which adjoins Redstone and its garden setting. The
concerns raised in our previous submission of 23 August 2009 relate to the
following statutory planning issues: (1)
Lack of definition of key heritage terms in the instrument; and (2)
Inappropriate zoning within the setting of the Winter House and garden. |
The
following comments are made in response to the submission: 1. Lack of definition of key heritage terms The
terms covering ‘heritage settings and views’ are derived from the standard
instrument template and Council does not have the power to modify or clarify
these terms. 2. Inappropriate zoning impacts on Redstone • The
boundary and proposed zoning pattern for the Telopea RDS precinct are
appropriate, as outlined in Council's RDS, having regard to such factors as
the rail line and station, topography, street patterns, Waratah shopping
centre, the school and community facilities and the open space corridor and
also the ownership of much of this land in the Housing Commission which has
placed a priority on the redevelopment of the housing stock. Planning proposals for the Telopea RDS
precinct are not considered to be negated by the State Government’s recently
released Metropolitan Transport Plan which still provides for the improvement
of the Carlingford line. • The
buffer zoning of R2 Low Density Residential adjoining the heritage listed
property of Redstone and including 1 and 3 Manson Street, 36 Adderton Road
and 2 Winter Street will provide an adequate and enhanced level of protection
for the site. It is not considered
necessary to extend this buffer zoning further to the east and the south or
to consider reducing the height of buildings in the R4 High Density Residential
zone for the area north of Redstone. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. . |
420 |
590 |
55
Adderton Road & 1-11 Telopea Street |
Telopea |
Requesting
that the properties at 55 Adderton Road and 1-11 Telopea Street be changed
from the proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone to B4 Mixed Use. It is argued
this will provide greater flexibility to provide residential accommodation in
association with retail and commercial uses and provide the necessary
incentive to redevelop. |
The
following comments are made on the submission: • It
is unnecessary and inappropriate to rezone subject land B4 Mixed Use as the
proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone provides for a full range of commercial
and residential uses. Whilst the
general form of ‘residential accommodation’ is prohibited shop top housing is
specifically permitted with consent. • It
would be undesirable to increase the FSR for the subject land from 2: 1 to 3:
1. An FSR of 2:1 has been applied to
most neighbourhood and local centres and will allow reasonable development
opportunities for the land with adequate setbacks respecting the character of
the surrounding residential areas. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
421 |
66 |
11
Favell Street |
Toongabbie |
Satisfied
with proposed R2 (Low Density) zone at 11 Flavell Street, Toongabbie. |
The
site is currently zoned 2A and the proposed R2 (Low Density) zone represents
the closest zone translation in accordance with the requirements of the draft
instrument. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
422 |
69 |
137
Binalong Road |
Toongabbie |
Unhappy
with condition of neighbouring property. Would like to know what is happening
to neighbouring property - 137 Binalong Road, Toongabbie. |
No
applications have recently been received on the site to which the author is
enquiring. Any future development applications on the neighbouring property
will be notified in accordance with Council's Notifications DCP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
423 |
71 |
8 Blain
Street |
Toongabbie |
Object
to loss of right to choose what type of development can be carried out on
land at 8 Blain Street, Toongabbie. Subject land proposed to be zoned R2 (Low
Density). |
This
site is presently zoned Residential 2A under Parramatta LEP 2001 and is
proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the draft LEP. Under
the draft Parramatta LEP, higher density residential zonings are proposed to
be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s Residential
Development Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS criteria for
higher density residential development given that it is outside of the Pendle
Hill and Toongabbie RDS study areas. It is therefore proposed to be zoned R2
Low Density Residential. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
424 |
175 |
1
Budgeree Road |
Toongabbie |
1
Budgeree Road, Toongabbie is currently zoned 2(e) (flood affected
Residential) and is proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the
draft LEP. The submission raises concern that the proposed zoning will impact
the future use of the land and seeks increased density given that adjoining
sites are zoned 2(b) and that nearby sites (3 Budgeree Road and 399 Wentworth
Avenue) have been developed to accommodate multi dwelling housing. |
The
site is currently zoned 2(e) Residential (flood affected land) and is
proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The R2 zoning is less
prescriptive than the current 2(e) zoning and therefore will not impact upon
the future use of the site in comparison to the current zoning. The extent of flood affectation of the site
is consistent with developed sites to the north and south which are developed
as medium density housing and would not preclude the development of this
site, which has a large site area of 2087sqm , for medium density
development. Development on the
adjoining sites at 3 Budgeree Road and 399 Wentworth Avenue were approved as
'villa home' developments in the early 1990's under Toongabbie LEP 1990 (Zone
2(a) and Clause 14). The site does fall within the Toongabbie RDS area, which
generally has retained the current allowable residential density due to
flooding issues, particularly in the areas closer to the railway station.
However, in this instance, the context of this site, adjoining existing
medium density developments and being adjoined on two sides by a proposed R3
Medium Density Residential zone, supports a change to an R3 zoning for the
site and would result in a consistent character of development. |
That 1
Budgeree Road, Toongabbie (Lot 28 DP1063592) be zoned R3 Medium Density
Residential with an FSR of 0.6:1 and height of 11 metres. |
425 |
245 |
98
Bungaree Road |
Toongabbie |
Opposes
the proposed R2 zoning. Additional
dwellings will increase already high levels of traffic which is not in the
interest of the community. Adoption of the plan will deteriorate the standard
of living of enfranchised residents. |
The
subject property is currently zoned 2(a) Residential under Parramatta LEP
2001. The draft LEP proposes to zone the subject property R2 Low Density
Residential. The typical type of
development allowed in the proposed R2 zone is single dwelling houses. The R2 zone has been designed and is
intended to be the lowest residential density zone in the local government
area. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
426 |
395 |
14A
Highland Avenue |
Toongabbie |
Submitter
unclear on the difference between current 2B Residential zoning and proposed
R3 Medium Density Residential zoning proposed for 14A Highland Avenue,
Toongabbie. Submitter is also opposed to town house development in the
neighbourhood and surrounding sites including 16 Highland Avenue, Toongabbie. |
Under
Council's current planning instrument Parramatta Local Environmental Plan
2001, land generally bound by the railway line, McCoy Park and Girraween
Creek in Toongabbie is predominantly zoned 2b Residential (Medium Density), with some areas zoned 2e
Residential (Flood affected land).
Under the draft LEP, the same land area will be zoned R3 Medium Density
Residential which is predominantly a direct translation of the existing
zoning, though the areas currently zoned 2e will be up zoned to R3 to ensure consistency in the application of
zoning. As this area is in the immediate vicinity of the Toongabbie Railway
Station the area forms part of the Toongabbie Study area of Council's
Residential Development Strategy and is suited to medium density residential
housing inline with Council's RDS philosophy and the State Government's
promotion of urban consolidation in existing centres close to public
transport. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
427 |
494 |
38
Budgeree Road & 40 Lamonarie Street |
Toongabbie |
Both
properties (40 Lamonerie St & 38 Budgeree Rd, Toongabbie) are proposed to
be zoned R2 Low Density Residential.
Requests that they be zoned R3 Medium Density Residential as is the
land along Wentworth Avenue to the south.
Feels that the properties are within 5 minutes walking distance to the
station and are appropriate for higher densities. Thinks that it would be better to use
Pendle Creek as the zoning boundary.
This would also allow the new developments to gain access from streets
other than Wentworth Avenue which is a busy main road. Does not accept that flooding form Pendle
Creek is a problem and if this is to be the basis for Council's decision,
would request to see evidence of engineering documents to justify any
decision. |
Properties
in Budgeree Rd are proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density Residential, in
accordance with Council's Residential Development Strategy. The property at
40 Lamonaire St also fronts Budgeree Rd. For the Toongabbie RDS study area,
(which included the sites referred to in the submission), residential
densities were not increased, due to the complexity of flooding within the
study area, which is situated at the confluence of three creeks and a former
swamp area. Whilst the degree of potential flood affectation of different
properties within the study area varies, the location of the two properties
discussed in the submission would not be suitable to be upzoned to R3 Medium
Density residential in isolation. The predominant character of Budgeree Rd is
low density housing, and the R3 zoning sought in the submission would be
inconsistent with this character. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
428 |
533 |
5
Barangaroo Road |
Toongabbie |
No 5
Barangaroo Road is zoned R2 Low Density Residential, whilst adjoining
properties are zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. This will result in 5
Barangaroo Road, Toongabbie being surrounded by apartments, which is
undesirable. Therefore, along with
neighbours, seek that the R3 zoning be extended along Barangaroo Road as the
street is already heavily populated. |
5
Barangaroo Road and properties along this road, with the exception of those
at the corner of Wentworth Avenue are proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density
Residential in draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
Properties along Wentworth Avenue, which adjoin the rear of 5
Barangaroo Road, are proposed to be zoned R3 Medium Density Residential. For the Toongabbie RDS precinct, the RDS
proposes no change to allowable residential density, since in this locality
higher density development would exacerbate flooding problems, due to the
complexities of flooding issues in this area. Therefore, the pattern of
zoning proposed reflects the current zoning regime. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
429 |
50 |
209
Wentworth Avenue |
Wentworthville |
The
submission objects to the proposed R2 Low Density Residential zoning of
properties in Wentworth Avenue, Wentworthville and suggests that the R4 High Density
Residential; B1 Neighbourhood Centre;
or B2 Local Centre Zones would be more suitable. This submission states that
this will assist in Council's obligations to provide for housing and
commercial demand. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
430 |
59 |
183A
Wentworth Avenue |
Wentworthville |
Requesting
a change of zone from R2 (Low Density) to R4 (High Density). |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
431 |
65 |
171
Wentworth Avenue |
Wentworthville |
Requests
a review of proposed zoning and increase in density at 171 Wentworth Avenue,
Wentworthville. Currently proposed to be zoned R2, requests that this be
increased to R4 due to proximity to the railway line. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
432 |
121 |
3 Hill
Street |
Wentworthville |
The
submission seeks that 3 Hill Street, Wentworthville retain a mixed use zoning
as there is a need for shops due to the number of new apartments being built
in the area. |
3 Hill
Street, Wentworthville is currently zoned 2(c) and is proposed to be zoned R4
in the draft LEP. This is a direct translation. The R4 zone allows for a
range of land uses to be carried out with consent, such as, residential flat
buildings, neighbourhood shops and shop top housing. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
433 |
141 |
145
Wentworth Avenue |
Wentworthville |
Owners
would like 145 Wentworth Avenue, Wentworthville to be zoned for apartments as
there are already apartments on both sides of Wentworth Avenue. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
434 |
287 |
Nos. 49
– 73 Wentworth Avenue |
Wentworthville |
This
combined area is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the draft LEP and
an R4 High Density Residential zoning is sought given the proximity to
Wentworthville Railway Station and further the R4 zoning is proposed to the
north east and west of this area. Zoning of this area as R4 would be
consistent with the revised NSW Metropolitan strategy |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
properties No's 49-73 Wentworth Avenue Wentworthville be re-zoned from R3
Medium Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential and that a FSR of
0.8:1 and height limit of 11m be applied. |
287 |
Nos. 49
– 73 Wentworth Avenue |
Wentworthville |
The
submission requests that the height should be increased to 4 storeys (12m) in
conjunction with an R4 High Density Residential zoning. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
properties No's 49-73 Wentworth Avenue Wentworthville be re-zoned from R3
Medium Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential and that a FSR of
0.8:1 and height limit of 11m be applied. |
|
287 |
Nos. 49
– 73 Wentworth Avenue |
Wentworthville |
The
submission argues that the site should not be isolated on the grounds of
flooding given that adjoining land at lower levels has been zoned with a
higher density. The potential flooding issue should not preclude further
development, but rather that suitable engineering solutions should be
investigated at the development stage. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
properties No's 49-73 Wentworth Avenue Wentworthville be re-zoned from R3
Medium Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential and that a FSR of
0.8:1 and height limit of 11m be applied. |
|
287 |
Nos. 49
– 73 Wentworth Avenue |
Wentworthville |
The
submission raised concern that Council's Residential Development Strategy
(RDS) for Wentworthville to retain the status quo zoning is based on public
feedback which occurred over 10 years ago and this information is now out of
date and context of a fast growing population. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
properties No's 49-73 Wentworth Avenue Wentworthville be re-zoned from R3
(Medium Density) to R4 (High Density) Residential and that a FSR of 0.8:1 and
height limit of 11m be applied. |
|
287 |
Nos. 49
– 73 Wentworth Avenue |
Wentworthville |
The
submission requests that the floor space ratio (FSR) should be increased to
0.8:1 (in conjunction with an R4 High Density Residential zoning). |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
properties No's 49-73 Wentworth Avenue Wentworthville be re-zoned from R3
Medium Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential and that a FSR of
0.8:1 and height limit of 11m be applied. |
|
435 |
307 |
53
Darcy Road |
Wentworthville |
Object
to the reduction in development capacity and resultant loss of property value
due to removal of permissibility of dual occupancy development. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas |
436 |
332 |
29 Hill
Street |
Wentworthville |
Concern
raised that the proposed R2 Low Density Residential zone will not permit 2
storey dwelling houses or dual occupancies. Council needs to permit families
to extend existing dwellings where desired. |
It
appears that that the intent of the R2 zone has been misinterpreted and that
only single storey dwellings will be permitted as opposed to 1 dwelling per
block. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas |
332 |
29 Hill
Street |
Wentworthville |
Concerned
that insufficient lead time of 6 weeks has been given to advise residents of
the impending changes to the permissibility of uses. |
It
appears that the length of the exhibition period has been misinterpreted as
the time in which the draft LEP changes will come into effect. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
437 |
340 |
Southern
side of Short Street |
Wentworthville |
Opposes
the proposed rezoning of land on the southern side of Short Street,
Wentworthville for the purposes of R4 High Density Residential. This proposal
is out of character with the streetscape requirements and heritage. Points to
recent development within the street to demonstrate the affects of such
development on the streetscape. |
Council
in 2006 adopted a Residential Development Strategy (RDS). This strategy has
been implemented in the proposed zoning pattern contained in draft Parramatta
LEP/DCP 2010. The RDS identified this area of Wentworthville as suitable for
increased residential density. This is because of its proximity to Wentworthville
railway station and the neighbourhood centre to the south. Council in preparing the draft Parramatta
LEP has chosen to retain the current planning controls introduced in 2003.
This means that land on the southern side of Short Street retains a zone that
currently permits residential flat buildings with a maximum height of 12
metres (3 storeys). There is an expectation that the planning controls will
overtime change the housing type found in the area enabling more people to
live close to services and public transport.
Any future development, particularly close to the heritage items at
2-6 Short Street will need to be designed sympathetic as well as an
demonstrating a high level of urban design quality that minimise the impact
on existing residential development. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
438 |
408 |
36
& 38 Darcy Road |
Wentworthville |
36
& 38 Darcy Road, Wentworthville is located within 300m of the railway
station and are close to Westmead Hospital and major road networks. The
zoning should be high density given the services that are available. |
36
& 38 Darcy Road and surrounding properties on Darcy Road are zoned R2 Low
Density Residential in the draft LEP.
Land to the south of properties on Darcy Road and extending to
Wentworth Ave are zoned a mixture of R3 Medium Density Residential and R4
High Density Residential and included in the Wentworthville RDS precinct.
These zones are a translation of zonings recently introduced to the existing
LEP 2001 and which followed comprehensive studies and consultation. Therefore, it is not considered necessary
to extend the R3 and R4 zonings to include properties along Darcy Road. In addition, to include the subject
properties in a higher density zone could result in development out of scale
and sympathy with the low density character of this section of Darcy Road. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
439 |
499 |
9 Hill
Street |
Wentworthville |
Objects
to their property at 9 Hill Street Wentworthville being zoned RE1 Public
Recreation in draft LEP. Questions what benefit subject property will have
given there are already over 300 parks and reserves covering over 700
hectares in the Parramatta LGA and that several parks are within walking
distance to subject property. Believes the area between Darcy Road and
Wentworth Avenue should be uniformly zoned R4 to maximise the use of
available land so close to public transport. Should the subject property not
be zoned R4, it is requested it be included for acquisition in Councils
Section 94 Contribution Plan. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the open space reservation be removed from 9 Hill Street, 40 Railway Street
Wentworthville and for these sites to be zoned R3 Medium Density Residential
with a height limit of 11m and FSR of 0.6:1. |
440 |
575 |
8 Warra
Street |
Wentworthville |
Opposes
the R2 zone proposed at 8 Warra Street, Wentworthville on the basis that
places of public worship, centre based child care, demolition and subdivision
will be prohibited. Requests the
proposed R2 zone retain places of public worship as a permissible use as
presently permitted in the Residential 2(a) zone. The R2 zone discriminates
against places of public worship with no sound planning justification and is
out of step with both adjoining Councils and the rest of Sydney as evidenced
by exhibited and gazetted template LEPs. Requests the R2 zoning table is
reconsidered to permit car parking spaces, drainage and subdivision. Council
fails to adhere to the terms of the Section 65 Certificate "being to
remove proposed zones/controls that are not representative of a translation
of current controls". |
For the
issue about Places of Public Worship refer to the discussion under the relevant
heading of the detailed report to Council.
With
regard to the issue raised regarding the Section 65 certificate issued by the
Department of Planning, the author of the submission is correct in stating
that the conditions of the section 65 certificate require that the maps be
amended so that zones be removed that do not represent a translation of
current controls. However, the
Department of Planning are aware that the draft LEP 2010 is not a direct
translation of controls from the current planning instruments. As such, they issued further clarification
which specifically states the mapping amendments that were required. This clarification is contained in the
final section 65 certificate issued by the Department on 15 February 2010 and
does not require any changes to the zoning of properties containing existing
places of public worship. This final
certificate is included with the LEP exhibition material. With
regard to the permissibility of other land uses, in the majority of cases,
car parking spaces and drainage are considered to be ancillary uses to the
relevant dominant land use on site and as such are permissible. This accords with the requirements of
Planning Circular PS 09-011 which requires that ancillary uses not be listed
in the land use table. In relation to
the absence of listing of subdivision and demolition in the land use table,
these uses are dealt with in clauses in the LEP and are permitted in all
zones as required by the standard instrument.
Child care centres are prohibited in the R2 Low Density Residential
zone which is a deliberate change in policy on Council's behalf and has been
supported by the Department of Planning for the purpose of public exhibition. |
That
places of public worship be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low
Density Residential zone. That a
limit on seating capacity of 250 in the residential zones be included in
draft DCP 2010. Further,
that any changes to the adopted PPW DCP relating to car parking rates, should
be incorporated into the draft Comprehensive DCP. |
441 |
612 |
6 Warra
Street |
Wentworthville |
Is
concerned by Council's decision to prohibit Dual Occupancy development in the
R2 Low-Density Residential zone. Their family’s current properties at Warra
Street, Yarbon Street and Dorothy Street, Wentworthville are reaching the end
of their life expectancy and are ready for redevelopment. Replacing these
dwelling with another dwelling is not economically viable. Dual Occupancy
development effectively revitalise suburbs and contribute positively to
property values. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas |
442 |
77 |
163
Wentworth Avenue |
Wentworthville |
Requesting
163 Wentworth Avenue, Wentworthville be rezoned to R4 (High Density) Residential. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
443 |
403 |
Mons
Road |
Westmead |
The
submission raises concern that the proposed B4 Mixed Use zoning does not
permit any 'medical' type developments, particularly given that Mons Road,
Westmead is dominated by these type of uses and this would preclude any new
'medical use' development. |
The
State government completed a planning strategy for the Westmead precinct in
2006, acknowledging its significance as a major specialised health
precinct. Council considered that the
strategy required further evaluation and commissioned additional traffic and
transport studies. The results of
these studies, together with a strategic vision for Westmead are expected to
be reported to Council later this year and will inform a review of zoning and
land use controls for the Westmead Precinct.
It is considered premature to make ad hoc amendments to the planning
controls for sites within the precinct ahead of the completion of this work.
Planning proposals will be developed for any future changes to the planning
controls for the Westmead precinct and the community will be consulted on
these changes. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
403 |
Mons
Road |
Westmead |
The
submission is seeking a height of greater than 12 metres (3 storeys) in order
to facilitate redevelopment of land. |
The
State government completed a planning strategy for the Westmead precinct in
2006, acknowledging its significance as a major specialised health
precinct. Council considered that the
strategy required further evaluation and commissioned additional traffic and
transport studies. The results of
these studies, together with a strategic vision for Westmead are expected to
be reported to Council later this year and will inform a review of zoning and
land use controls for the Westmead Precinct.
It is considered premature to make ad hoc amendments to the planning
controls for sites within the precinct ahead of the completion of this work.
Planning proposals will be developed for any future changes to the planning
controls for the Westmead precinct and the community will be consulted on
these changes. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
444 |
589 |
Hawkesbury
Rd, Ashley Lne, Queens Ave & Railway Street; & Mons/Darcy Rds |
Westmead |
This
submission seeks a modification to the Height controls applying to 2
precincts in Westmead, being (a) land bound by Hawkesbury Road, Ashley Lane,
Queens Avenue and Railway Street, Westmead and (b) Mons Road/Darcy Road
Precinct Westmead from 12 metres to 19 metres. |
The
State government completed a planning strategy for the Westmead precinct in 2006,
acknowledging its significance as a major specialised health precinct. Council considered that the strategy
required further evaluation and commissioned additional traffic and transport
studies. The results of these studies,
together with a strategic vision for Westmead are expected to be reported to
Council later this year and will inform a review of zoning and land use
controls for the Westmead Precinct. It
is considered premature to make ad hoc amendments to the planning controls
for sites within the precinct ahead of the completion of this work. Planning
proposals will be developed for any future changes to the planning controls
for the Westmead precinct and the community will be consulted on these
changes. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
589 |
Hawkesbury
Rd, Ashley Lne, Queens Ave &
Railway Street; & Mons/Darcy Rds |
Westmead |
This
submission seeks a modification to the FSR controls applying to 2 precincts
in Westmead, being (a) land bound by Hawkesbury Road, Ashley Lane, Queens
Avenue and Railway Street, Westmead and (b) Mons Road/Darcy Road Precinct
Westmead from FSR 1.5: 1 to FSR 1.7:1. |
The
State government completed a planning strategy for the Westmead precinct in
2006, acknowledging its significance as a major specialised health
precinct. Council considered that the
strategy required further evaluation and commissioned additional traffic and
transport studies. The results of
these studies, together with a strategic vision for Westmead are expected to
be reported to Council later this year and will inform a review of zoning and
land use controls for the Westmead Precinct.
It is considered premature to make ad hoc amendments to the planning
controls for sites within the precinct ahead of the completion of this work.
Planning proposals will be developed for any future changes to the planning
controls for the Westmead precinct and the community will be consulted on
these changes. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
445 |
36 |
2
Churchill Drive |
Winston
Hills |
Westfield's
is stifling development between the Railway station and the River |
The
draft Parramatta LEP 2010 exhibited by Council does not include the
Parramatta City Centre. The City Centre has its own plan which was gazetted
and made law in 2007. This plan and associated material is available on
Council's website to inspect. It provides a detailed explanation for how
Council is encouraging more development in the CBD to recognise its status as
Sydney's second CBD. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
446 |
154 |
Caroline
Chisholm Ward |
Winston
Hills |
The
submission states that because of serious traffic problems exiting onto
Windsor and Old Windsor Roads from Winston Hills, the R2 zoning proposed for
the Caroline Chisholm Ward should be retained. |
Under
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, higher density residential zonings are
proposed to be located in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS). Generally land in Winston Hills does
not meet the RDS criteria for higher density residential development given
that it is outside of the RDS precincts. Land was therefore proposed to be
zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The R2 zoning for Winston Hills will also
help maintain the character of the area and avoid traffic problems and should
be retained. However, within Council's
RDS land alongside old Windsor Road, including land in Winston Hills, is
included in study area 9 -- 12 (North West Bus Transit Way study areas) that
has been deferred to a future date for analysis for possible increases in
housing opportunities. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
447 |
295 |
3
Murrills Crescent |
Winston
Hills |
Sydney
house prices are already amongst the highest in the world. |
House
prices are market driven and are beyond the scope of the draft LEP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
295 |
3
Murrills Crescent |
Winston
Hills |
Concerned
that subject property is proposed to be rezoned from Residential 2(b) to R2
Low Density Residential which will not allow townhouses. The landowner should
be given the right to redevelop their land however way s/he wants. Townhouses
in Murrills Crescent have been subdivided and submitter would like the same
option for development. |
Under
the draft LEP, higher density residential zonings are proposed to be located
in close proximity of centres identified in Council’s Residential Development
Strategy (RDS). This property does not meet the RDS criteria for higher
density residential development given that it is outside of the Winston Hills
RDS precinct. It is therefore proposed to be zoned R2 Low Density
Residential. The subject property and its immediate surrounds are currently
zoned 2(a) Residential under Parramatta LEP 2001 and are proposed to be zoned
R2 Low Density Residential in the draft LEP being the closest corresponding
zone. Subdivision of land is permitted with consent in the R2 zone and is subject
to Clause 4.1. Land can be subdivided to a minimum lot size of 550sqm; and
670sqm (excluding access handle) for battleaxe lots the draft LEP. In
relation to the comment made on subdividing townhouses, it is suspected, the
submitter means the subdivision of dual occupancies, given zones in past LEPs
for this area have prohibited townhouses and the current aerial photography
shows no evidence of townhouse development, rather dual occupancies. Clause
4.1 contains an anomaly as it does not cater for subdivision of dual
occupancies. Despite this, dual occupancies are proposed to be prohibited in
the R2 Low Density Residential zone. |
That
Council make provision to allow for the subdivision of dual occupancies in
Clause 4.1 in the draft Parramatta LEP 2010. That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
|
448 |
495 |
252
Windsor Road |
Winston
Hills |
Is
concerned that dual occupancies will not be permissible in the R2 Low Density
Residential zone. Their land at 252
Windsor Road is 986.5 m2 in area and is on a corner with the secondary access
being from Woodlands Street. As such,
the site is highly appropriate for a dual occupancy and there should be
exceptions for sites such as this.
Both of them are elderly and are relying on being able to achieve a
good price for their property in order to be able to afford to relocate
elsewhere. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
449 |
431 |
|
Woodville
Ward |
Opposes
the ban of townhouses in the Woodville Ward. Restricting development to nil
in this area would be very short sighted, given it is well serviced by public
transport to Parramatta and there are more opportunities for growth. In most
cases, townhouses blend in well with existing homes and are not detrimental
to the local area. This proposal is not in the best interest of the local
residents. |
The
guiding principle of Council's Residential Development Strategy (RDS) is for
most residential growth to be concentrated in areas close to public
transport, shops and services. Council identified 21 study areas for
investigation for possible increase in housing growth. These areas were
selected based on proximity to public transport, public open space, schools,
shops and services and included a number of centres in the Woodville Ward including
Merrylands, Guildford, Granville and South Granville. Within these study
areas, housing densities were generally increased. This RDS philosophy
therefore sought that areas outside the study area be down zoned to ensure
the concentrated growth approach is realised. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
450 |
53 |
33A
Brickworks Road |
|
Is
concerned about the possible decrease in solar access if apartments are built
next door. |
The
Parramatta LGA is required to accommodate its share of Sydney's increasing
population and has adopted the principle (through its RDS) to concentrate
residential growth in areas close to public transport, shops and services.
The draft DCP contains provisions relating to solar access, specifically
ensuring that development does not unreasonably diminish sunlight to
neighbouring properties and within the development site. All development
applications (including applications Residential Flat Buildings) will need to
fully comply with the provisions of the draft DCP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
53 |
33A
Brickworks Road |
|
Is
concerned about the potential increase in traffic and the capacity of
existing sewers. |
The
Parramatta LGA is required to accommodate its share of Sydney's increasing
population and has adopted the principle (through its RDS) to concentrate
residential growth in areas close to public transport, shops and services.
The draft DCP contains provisions relating to car share and travel plans to
reduce car trips and encourage the use of sustainable transport for large
developments within close proximity to public transport. Sydney Water is the
responsible authority for the provision of water and sewerage services. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
53 |
33A
Brickworks Road |
|
Raised
question relating to floodplain tests |
Council
(together with other NSW Councils) are required to prepare a comprehensive
LEP that is consistent with the Standard LEP Template. Given that Council's
general approach to the draft plan has been to carry over most of the
existing zones into the draft LEP no floodplain testing was considered
necessary. In saying this, Council is consistently conducting studies to
update its flood data. Further, the draft LEP contains provisions relating to
development on flood prone land (Clause 6.5) that must be addressed if a
proposal is located on flood affected land. The draft DCP also contains
provisions relating to flooding that must be considered and addressed should
a development be proposed on flood affected land. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
451 |
55 |
|
|
The
existing rail line needs to be duplicated before it is efficient. |
Duplication
and the Parramatta to Epping link is important. However, for the purpose of
the RDS, the level of service, in comparison to other areas is high. Council
has and will continue to lobby for improvements to the existing rail line.
The area also has a frequent bus service connecting to other major employment
and service centres. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
55 |
|
|
Has
asked for an extension of the public exhibition period as there is an overlap
in exhibitions between the Part 3A (of the EP&A Act) Concept Approval for
Telopea and the draft LEP. |
The
public exhibition period for the draft LEP was extended by Council and
concluded on 7 May 2010. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
55 |
|
|
Medium
density has exacerbated traffic issues in the Dundas Valley area. Road and
traffic management solutions needed to deal with current problems. |
The
draft LEP proposes to downzone large areas of Dundas Valley to acknowledge
that some areas are not as accessible due to topography and street patterns
and therefore increased density is not appropriate. Road and traffic
management and improvements are required in locations, particularly where
increased residential density is proposed and are addressed in Council's s94A
plan. The RTA also has responsibility for part of the road network servicing
this locality. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
56 |
|
|
The submission was received from
Mobile Carriers Forum which is an industry group representing 3 mobile
telecommunication carriers, namely Telstra, Optus and Vodafone Hutchison
Australia. The submission raises concern that the draft LEP does not permit
‘telecommunication facilities’ in any zone as the use is currently permitted
in many zones. |
The Department of Planning in its
Planning Circular (PS09-011) of 9 April 2009 advised that Council’s must not
list the term ‘telecommunication facilities’ in the land uses table.
Furthermore, SEPP Infrastructure includes provisions which enable
telecommunication facilities with and without consent. The SEPP has recently
been amended to streamline planning approval for various telecommunication
facilities including broadband. The Department of Planning has set a
direction to minimise duplication between instruments and has directed
Council not to include uses permitted by the Infrastructure SEPP. Council has
previously raised concerns that this causes confusion and provides for a less
transparent system. Council will continue to pursue this issue with the
Department of Planning. |
That Council express its concerns
to the DoP about the lack of clarity in the land use table arising from its
directions relating to the standard instrument format and forward to the DoP
those submissions raising this issue. |
|
453 |
99 |
Woodville
Road |
|
Not
satisfied with the proposed down zoning of Woodville Road. This will have
significant impacts on landowners. The proposed zones do little to improve
the state and condition of development along the road. |
This issue
is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
454 |
133 |
|
|
Letter
raises concerns that the draft LEP does not permit health consulting rooms in
the R2 zone. Requests that this use be incorporated into the LEP land use
table as a permitted use or identified as an additional permitted use in
Schedule 1. |
The
land use 'health consulting room' was removed from the R2 Low Density
Residential Zone at the direction of the DoP as it was thought to be covered
by the Infrastructure SEPP. On further investigation the DoP has recently
advised that there is no objection to this use being included in the land use
tables as the use is not in fact covered by the SEPP for the R2 Low Density
Residential zone at this time. However, it is noted that a recent discussion
paper on a review of the Infrastructure SEPP sought to include health
consulting rooms as a permitted use in the R2 zone under the SEPP. |
That
the draft LEP be amended to permit with consent 'health consulting rooms' in
the R2 Low Density Residential Zone. |
455 |
136 |
Woodville
Ward |
|
A
petition and a number of signatories received at Council Meeting on 27 April
2010 totalling over 100 signatures requesting that the area of land around
Louis street, Blaxcell Street and The Avenue Granville be zoned R4 due to
proximity to open space, shops, town centre, transport and diversity of
housing forms in the area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
456 |
151 |
|
|
The
submission is made in support of the draft LEP and states that the plan is
well thought out and suitable for the future needs of the Parramatta area. |
The
submitter's comments are noted. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
457 |
177 |
Woodville
Road |
|
The
submission states that Woodville Road is a major road close to Parramatta CBD
and should be zoned to allow for commercial and business uses to improve the
economic prosperity of the area. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
458 |
182 |
|
|
The
submission states that the R2 zone in the draft LEP should match the 2(a)
Residential zone in LEP 2001 and that dual occupancies should be allowed in
the R2 zone, like the current 2(a) zone, to meet the needs of the growing
population. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
459 |
183 |
|
|
The
submission considers the draft LEP to be very good and has considered it as a
whole. |
The
submitter's comments are noted. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
460 |
201 |
Woodville
Road |
|
The
submission supports an increase in densities and the permissibility of
commercial uses along Woodville Road. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
461 |
237 |
|
|
All
multi unit developments should have grey water storage and reuse in the
garden/toilets |
Section
3.3.6.2 of Draft Parramatta DCP relates to water efficiency and requires that
development incorporate measures to facilitate water conservation, such as
water reuse through rainwater tanks, onsite detention and grey/black water
reuse, or use of externally treated water. The draft DCP also requires that
all residential development provide water efficiency measures required by
BASIX. The draft DCP does not mandate grey water reuse for residential
development. However, it is recommended to Council that it make changes to
the DCP including more information relating to grey water reuse. |
That
the section of the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 relating to water sensitive
urban design be amended as detailed in Attachment 2. |
237 |
|
|
The
submission states that setbacks for two storey buildings should be 1.5 times
that of a single storey building. The width of the upper level of townhouses
and two storey buildings should be reduced by 1 metre to improve aesthetics
and reduce overshadowing of adjoining properties. |
The
draft Parramatta DCP does not require the 2nd storey of dwellings and
townhouse developments to be setback further than the ground level. However,
the draft DCP does provide controls relating to building form and massing,
visual and acoustic privacy and overshadowing of adjoining development. This
submission has been discussed with Council's Senior Urban Designer who
advised that providing a blanket approach to setbacks as detailed in the
submission is too prescriptive and would not necessarily achieve a suitable
design solution. Consideration needs to be given on a case by case basis to adjoining
development, site orientation and predominant building types in the immediate
locality to ensure that future development minimises impact on adjoining
development with regard to privacy and overshadowing, and impact upon the
streetscape. These matters would be addressed during the assessment of a
development application. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
462 |
243 |
|
|
Submission
is made on behalf of ALDI stores. Considers there is a lack of new business
zoned land capable of supporting new retail development for the purposes of a
stand alone ALDI store or an ALDI store as part of a mixed use development.
This imposes significant restrictions on ALDI. Submission addresses the
proposed zoning of three sites and seeks the identification of additional
commercial land to provide appropriate retail growth in the LGA. Seeks
clarity that retail premises are permissible in the B1 zone. |
This
submission asserts that Council has reduced the availability of land capable
to deliver an ALDI stores within the LGA. It is argued by the submitter that
this is because Council has prohibited retail uses within areas previously
zoned for it. The implementation of Council’s draft LEP has focused on the
principles of the Metropolitan Strategy and Council’s own Residential
Development Strategy where increased residential densities have been located
in areas more accessible to a range of retail activities and public transport
in comparisons to others. This approach has resulted in an increase in land
zoned for mixed-use development within identified centres. This compensates
for any perceived loss of retail activity in other locations. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
243 |
|
|
Development
application has recently been approved for 359-363 Victoria Road and 63A Park
Road, Rydalmere. Unlike PLEP 2001, the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone in the
draft LEP provides uncertainty to whether an ALDI store would be supported in
this zone. The retail floor area of an ALDI store is approximately 1,000sqm
therefore it would not be classified as a neighbourhood shop. Would an ALDI
store be considered as a "small-scale retail" use? This restricts
and provides no certainty for ALDI in being able to secure other sites within
the B1 zone for an ALDI store. It is recommended that the B2 zone be applied
to the subject site given its access and lot size and shape. The B2 zone will
complement surrounding proposed zones and provide more certainty to ALDI.
Alternatively, permit retail premises in the B1 zone or replace the B1 zone
applied to lower order centres with the B2 and B4 zone where appropriate. |
The
structure of the land use table in the draft LEP 2010 intentionally documents
both permissible and prohibited uses. Uses that are not listed in either
category are deemed permissible. It is argued that this approach allows for
flexibility in the range of uses permitted and enables innominate uses to be
assessed on merit. In the case of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone, the term
retail premises is not listed in either category, thus making retail premises
a permitted use. Structuring the land use table in this way has been a
direction by the NSW Department of Planning.
Council in various correspondences with the NSW Department of Planning
has expressed its opposition to this approach to the structure of the land
use table. This is because it does not provide the level of certainty that
was expected under the formation of a Standard template. Council will
continue to raise its concerns with the Department over this matter. |
That
Council express its concerns to the DoP about the lack of clarity in the land
use table arising from its directions relating to the standard instrument
format and forward to the DoP those submissions raising this issue. |
|
243 |
|
|
This
submission relates to the site known as 181 James Ruse Drive, Camellia. This site is proposed to be zoned B5
Business Development (formerly owned by Sydney Water), with limited retailing
permitted, including supermarkets in Schedule 1. ALDI seeks a higher order
use of the site to permit retail premises, given its view of the shortage of
suitably zoned land and ALDIs' investigation in potentially securing this
site for a future store. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the land use table for the B5 Business Development zone be amended to include
additional uses permitted with consent as detailed in Attachment 2.. That
Council not permit the term retail premises as a permitted use within the B5
Business Development |
|
243 |
|
|
Development
application recently approved for the site at 278-284 and 286-290 Woodville
Road, Guildford. Particularly
concerning to ALDI is the prohibition of some retail uses within suitably
zoned business areas previously able to support a retail premises (the
subject site as an example, 3A Business Centre proposed to be rezoned to B6
Enterprise Corridor). Together with the objectives of the B6 zone, the
Metropolitan Strategy also supports the mix of retail uses in the B6 zone and
suggests they be limited to 1000sqm of floor area which is the size of an
ALDI store. The introduction of 'retail premises' as a permissible use in the
B6 zone, subject to the satisfaction of quantitative retail impact and
qualitative net community benefit assessment criteria is recommended. This is
critical given the lack of additional suitable land. |
The B6
Enterprise Corridor zone has been applied to a number of main road locations
and much of this land is currently zoned 3a Centre Business, 4 Employment, or
10 Mixed Use. An analysis of the uses currently permitted in these zones has
been undertaken, and some additional uses (not currently proposed in the B6
zone) are suggested to be included in the land use table to expand the range of
uses permitted with consent and to improve the translation of existing
permitted uses. It is
noted that not all uses permitted in the current zones are considered
appropriate in the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone in the context of the zone
objectives or the main road location and are not proposed to be included in
the B6 Zone. |
That
the land use table for the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone be amended to include
additional uses permitted with consent as listed below. - child
care centres - light
industries - neighbourhood
shops -
places of public worship -
recreation facilities (indoor) -
recreation facilities (outdoor) -
registered clubs -
tourist & visitor accommodation -
vehicle body repair workshops |
|
463 |
296 |
|
|
Not
allowing dual occupancies in the R2 Low Density Residential zone will have a
very bad effect for residents in Parramatta.
If dual occupancies are not allowed, it will force more people to buy
apartments. This will only benefit large developers. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
464 |
312 |
|
|
Object
to the loss of permissibility of dual occupancy development in the R2 Low
Density zone and that reduction in development potential will worsen housing
affordability in the area. |
This issue
is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
465 |
382 |
|
|
Submitter
comments that it appears duplexes will not be allowed with this new DCP. Doesn't understand why multi unit housing
is not being supported when the government wants and supports affordable
housing. Duplexes and townhouses are
affordable ways of living and reduce travel distance for people. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
466 |
392 |
|
|
Recommends
that a minimum distance of at least 100 metres be included within Clause 6.3
of the draft LEP in regard to restricted premises. Also suggests that the
provisions of the draft LEP pertaining to distance limitation be expressly included
in the Location Controls set out in the draft DCP so that such limitations
are unambiguous. |
It is
considered appropriate to provide a 100 m separation distance between
restricted premises and sensitive land uses such as residences, places of
public worship, schools and other community activities to ensure that there
are no adverse impacts upon such activities.
It is recommended that clause 6.3 Restricted premises of the draft LEP
be amended accordingly. Given
that an LEP has more legal weight than a DCP it is superfluous to have LEP
provisions repeated in a DCP. It
should also be noted that the separation distance requirements in clause 6.2
Sex services premises and proposed to be added to clause 6.3 Restricted
Premises of the draft LEP are different to those of the draft DCP. The provisions of the draft LEP relate
generally to the separation between sex services premises and restricted
premises and sensitive land use activities such as residences and schools. The location controls of the draft DCP
prohibit the siting of sex services and restricted premises within a radius
of 100m of existing sex services, restricted premises and adult entertainment
premises and also licensed premises, largely to prevent a congregation of sex
industry activities. This separation distance of 100 m will be increased to
200 m in accordance with the provisions of the recently adopted stand-alone
DCP for Sex Services and Restricted Premises. In
conclusion, it is considered that the separation distance provisions currently
in and proposed to be added to the LEP together with provisions of the DCP
will minimise the impact of sex services and restricted premises on sensitive
land use activities and help prevent their congregation in particular areas. |
That
clause 6.3 Restricted premises of the draft LEP be amended as follows: Delete
subclause (1). Insert
subclause (1): (1) Regardless of any other provision of this
plan, premises shall only be erected or used for the purpose of restricted
premises where they are located: (a) further than 100 metres (measured from the boundary of the
allotment upon which the premises are proposed) of residences or of any land
zoned residential, and (b) further than 100 metres (measured from the boundary of the
allotment upon which the premises are proposed) of any place of public
worship, hospital, school, child care centre, community facility or
recreation area. |
467 |
406 |
|
|
The
submission suggests that Council should not prohibit dual occupancies in the
R2 Low Density Residential zone, but should consider further alternatives to
restrict the proliferation of this type of development. An example given
includes restricting the total number of dual occupancies by providing
distance criteria between dual occupancy developments. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
468 |
441 |
|
|
Objects
to the prohibition of places of worship in the R2 (Low Density Residential)
zoning and strongly suggests that a merit based assessment in line with the
recently developed DCP controls is a more appropriate approach. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
places of public worship be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low
Density Residential zone. That a
limit on seating capacity of 250 in the residential zones be included in
draft DCP 2010. Further,
that any changes to the adopted PPW DCP relating to car parking rates, should
be incorporated into the draft Comprehensive DCP. |
469 |
460 |
|
|
Requests
that the following residential development forms be added to the list of uses
permitted with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone: Dual
occupancies Secondary
dwellings Multi
dwelling housing. |
The
response to the request for the provision of various activities is as
follows: Dual
occupancies - This issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in
Attachment 1. Secondary
dwellings - are permitted with consent under the Affordable Rental Housing
State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) Multi
unit housing -- the provision for this activity would be inappropriate as
would conflict with the purpose of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone to
provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density
residential environment. Multi unit housing is to be provided in the R3
Medium Density Residential and R4 High Density Residential Zones which are
generally close to centres and public transport nodes. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
470 |
464 |
|
|
This
submission suggests that Council should permit dual occupancy development
within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone, which is consistent with the
current 2a Residential zoning. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
471 |
470 |
|
|
Raises
concern over the prohibition of Places of Public Worship in the R2 (Low
Density Residential) zone and suggests that their permissibility be
re-introduced and that a merit based assessment in conjunction with the Draft
DCP controls is a more appropriate approach. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
places of public worship be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low
Density Residential zone. That a
limit on seating capacity of 250 in the residential zones be included in
draft DCP 2010. Further,
that any changes to the adopted PPW DCP relating to car parking rates, should
be incorporated into the draft Comprehensive DCP. |
472 |
480 |
|
|
Objects
to the exclusion of dual occupancy as permissible development in the R2 Low
density residential zone. With the
current shortage of housing, it does not make sense to reduce the development
potential, particularly when dual occupancies do not represent multi-level
apartments. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
473 |
498 |
|
|
Concerned
of the loss of green space as new developments appear to contain a lot of
paved areas and not much lawn. |
Council
has planning controls in place requiring 30-40% of a development site,
depending on the type of residential development, set aside for
landscaping. Landscaping is defined as
part of the site used for growing plants, grasses and trees, but does not
include any building, structures or paved areas. There is flexibility for
developers and landowners to incorporate both hard and soft elements into
their designs and disperse them across the site rather than concentrate them
in one area. An important component to Council's planning controls is a
requirement that an area must be set aside for deep soil plantings. This area
is set aside to ensure substantial vegetation can grow. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010 and
draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
498 |
|
|
Strongly
supports the prohibition of dual occupancies in the R2 Low Density
Residential zone. Believes two 4-bedroom dwellings on 600sqm lots is
excessively bulky, unsympathetic and out of character with surrounding homes.
Constitution Hill is changing for the worse due to the recent influx of dual
occupancies. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
|
474 |
504 |
|
|
3.3.5
Solar Access and Cross Ventilation: Figure 3.24: The objectives apply to any
private space, not just the principle one. Diagram portrays an unrealistic
situation. The draft DCP encourages the growth of trees to minimise
overlooking, but does not take into account the additional shadowing they
cause. |
The
objectives and principles of Section 3.3.5 Solar Access and Cross Ventilation
apply to private and communal open space. Figure 3.24 is an example of solar
access to adjoining properties and their principle private open space.
Principle 6 stipulates that landscaping should provide shade in the summer
without reducing solar access in the winter. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
504 |
|
|
3.3.2
Private and Communal Open Space: Control 1- Does this mean that no private
space can be less than 36sqm? |
For
dwelling houses on large lots (>550square metres) and dual occupancies, a
minimum of 100square metres of private open space is to be provided at ground
level, with a minimum dimension of 6m. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.3.5
Solar Access and Cross Ventilation: Principle 2- Should be "must be no
reduction". |
It
would be unreasonable to set one rule that would apply to all development
proposals for all circumstances. This principle has been designed to ensure
where development currently receives less sunlight than the requirement set
out in Principle 2 than it should not be unreasonably reduced. In order to demonstrate that this can be
achieved, shadow diagrams may be required with the development application. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.3.2
Private and Communal Open Space: C.2: Does the minimum dimension of 2.5m
refer to the width, or the depth of the balconies, or both? How does this fit
in with minimum protrusion of 800mm rule? |
The
2.5m requirement for balconies applies to both width and depth. The 800mm
control is the balconies maximum projection. The projection and dimension sit
hand in hand and provide for a variety of balcony solutions. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.3.5
Solar Access and Cross Ventilation: Principle 1- Minimisation of shadowing of
neighbouring vegetation should also be listed. |
Principle
1 states that development is to be designed and sited to minimise the extent
of shadows that it casts on private and communal open space of adjoining
dwellings as well as public open space such as bushland reserves and
parkland. The provisions of this principle are considered adequate. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
Questions
why attics are allowed only in single dwellings and dual occupancies that
front a rear lane (not a side lane), a heritage item or on a battleaxe block. |
The
controls in the draft DCP remain substantially the same as those that appear
in existing DCPs as the main aim of the process was to consolidate all DCPs
into a single comprehensive DCP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.3.3
Visual and Acoustic Privacy: Control 1- There is countless examples of
balconies in Residential Flat Buildings not facing the street or the public
domain, e.g. Figure 3.21. |
In some
circumstances not all balconies in a development can face the street or
another element of the public domain due to site constraints and urban design
elements. State Environmental Planing Policy No. 65 (Design Quality of
Residential Flat Buildings) contains principles to improve the design quality
of residential flat building including requirements for balconies. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.3.1
Landscaping: Figure 3.18: Creates the wrong impression. The minimum dimension
for deep soil is not a 4m strip across the whole site. It is an area of
precisely 4m x 4m. The diagram is not a typical situation. Usually the
setbacks are far too narrow to provide adequate screening canopy. Submitter
sees no purpose in separating deep soil area from the landscaped area. |
The
minimum dimension for private open space for dwelling houses on small lots
(<550square metres) is 4m. The diagram illustrates landscaping and deep
soil zones as combined features of site design and to encourage going beyond
the specified minimum where it is possible. This figure also supports the
previous figure (3.17) which encourages contiguous vegetation zones by
locating deep soil zones and landscaping between properties. Further, the
controls in the draft DCP remain substantially the same as those that appear
in existing DCPs as the main aim of the process was to consolidate all DCPs
into a single comprehensive DCP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.3.3
Visual and Acoustic Privacy: Figure 3.22: There should be another diagram
showing habitable room with external windows facing other habitable rooms
with external windows, with the use of obscure glass and fixed panels. |
Figure
3.22 illustrates building separation based on distance, which is an assured
separation element. Obscure glass, fixed panels, louvres and the like should
be used as a last resort. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.1
Preliminary Building Envelope/Basement Car Parking: Nothing is said of
projection of basement car parks beyond the building envelope and above
ground or of the limits to the projection, as well as upper rooms beyond the
ground floor footprint. |
Section
3.6.2 Parking and Vehicular Access contains a principle, namely Principle 13
(page 87 of the draft DCP) that requires basement car parks to be
predominantly located within the building footprint and below existing ground
level. Where slope conditions mean that this is unachievable, the basement
projection of the floor level of the storey immediately above is less than 1m
above ground level (existing). Further, the draft DCP contains generous
controls relating to the provision of open space and deep soil zones. The
projection of a basement car park will impact upon the provision of the open
space and deep soil zone components of the development. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.3.2
Private and Communal Open Space: No figures are given for the area required
for communal open space for multi dwelling housing. No minimum requirements
are given for areas of balconies in Residential Flat Buildings. |
Section
3.1.3 Preliminary Building Envelope Tables contains the communal landscaped
open space requirements for multi dwelling housing. State Environmental
Planing Policy No. 65 (Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings) contains
principles to improve the design quality of residential flat building
including requirements for balconies. The SEPP should be referred to when the
draft DCP is silent on a particular matter. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.2.4
Energy Efficient Design: BASIX relates to residential developments where
applicable. Under the impression that it relates to all residential developments. |
BASIX
applies to all residential development except for residential alterations and
additions valued less than $50,000. Hence, the statement "where
applicable". |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
Questions
why protrusion of basement car park beyond building footprint is allowed in
multi units but not in residential flats. |
Section
3.6.2 Parking and Vehicular Access contains a principle, namely Principle 13
(page 87) that requires basement car parks to be predominantly located within
the building footprint and below existing ground level. Where slope
conditions mean that this is unachievable, the basement projection of the
floor level of the storey immediately above is less than 1m above ground level
(existing). This principle applies to both multi dwelling housing and
residential flat buildings. In relation to residential flat buildings, the
State Environmental Planing Policy No. 65 (Design Quality of Residential Flat
Buildings) will prevail where there is an inconsistency, and should be
referred to when the draft DCP is silent on a particular matter. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.3.3
Visual and Acoustic Privacy: Principle 10- Questions if this principle means
that a basement car park can no longer protrude more than 500mm aboveground
or that there is no limit to the protrusion above natural ground level so
long as the protrusion above the finished level is not more than 500mm. It is
not good enough for the DCP to merely say that the level should not exceed
500mm. Why not must? |
This
principle stipulates that the finished ground floor level of any building
should not exceed 500mm. The term ‘should’ has been used in this case to
allow flexibility only where required and deemed unfeasible by Council to
achieve such a control on certain land. Despite this, principle 13 of Section
3.6.2 Parking and Vehicular Access stipulates that basement car parking is to
be located predominantly below existing ground level. Where the slope
conditions mean that this is unachievable, the basement projection of the
floor level of the storey immediately above is less than 1m above ground
level (existing). |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.2.1
Building Form and Massing: Principle 6- Potential management arrangements are
required at design stage for mixed use developments, why not also for multi
units and flats? |
Given
mixed use developments comprise two or more different land uses, it is
important from an amenity and operational perspective that the management
arrangements such as ownership/lease patterns are considered at the design
stage to ensure proper functioning of various components of the building,
particularly the commercial component. Given that multi dwelling housing and
residential flat buildings developments only contain the one land use, there
are no management arrangements required to be considered. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.1.3
Preliminary Building Envelope Tables: Minimum allotment sizes are not shown
in the draft DCP. |
Minimum
allotment sizes are specified in the draft LEP by way of a clause and lot
size map. Clause 4.1 Minimum subdivision size in the draft LEP specifies a
minimum lot size for subdivision of land and ensures that new subdivisions
reflect characteristics lot sizes and patterns of the area. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
The FSR
pamphlet says that car parking required by Council is excluded. Thought all
above ground internal parking was included. |
The
definition and calculation of floor space ratio in the draft LEP excludes car
parking required by the consent authority. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.1.1
Height: Not confident that the provision "height limits are not to be
exceeded" will be adequately enforced, especially when Council no longer
requires a survey of installed ridge levels before the issue of an Occupation
Certificate. |
The
maximum height of buildings is stipulated in Clause 4.3 of the draft LEP.
Given an LEP is a statutory document, development standards on any land are
not to exceed the maximum as shown for the land on the accompanying map. The
height provisions in the draft DCP support and are consistent with the
provisions of the draft LEP.
Verification of ridge levels is not a standard condition of consent.
Council does however impose conditions of consent that require survey and
compliance certificates to ensure the development is being built as per the
approved plans. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.1.2
Height Transition: The 45 degree setback will not solve overlooking problems
and may make it worse with the proliferation of balconies. No reason is given
for the proposal. Questions why the same principle be applied to any building
that will be a specified greater height than an existing, adjoining one. The
stepping back of the top floor should not be used as an alternative to
installation of obscure glass windows and high level windows, as this may
limit building articulation. |
The 45
degree setback on its own does not solve all overlooking problems, however it
does aid to mitigate overlooking. Section 3.3.3 Visual and Acoustic Privacy
of the draft DCP contains design principles and controls to ensure
development does not cause unreasonable overlooking and that visual privacy
is provided both within a development and between a development and its
neighbours. In addition to the 45 degree setback, the draft DCP stipulates
that building design elements should also be used to increase visual privacy
such as recessed balconies and/or vertical fins between adjacent balconies,
vegetation and louvres. The provisions relating to height transition remain
substantially the same as those that appear in the existing DCP as the main
aim of the process was to consolidate all development control plans into a
single comprehensive DCP. Applications are considered on a merit basis with
reference to achievement of the objectives, design principles and design
controls. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.2.1
Building Form and Massing: Unsure of the meaning of "compatible in form
relative to the spatial characteristics of the local area". Unsure what
"building form and massing is to support individual and communal
entries" means or how it would be achieved, This uncertainty is a
disadvantage to the community. Figure
3.4 "reflect(s) the spatial volumes of the street" as it would
conflict other controls which say that a variety of building types is to be
encouraged. |
These
are general urban design terms and principles. Council engages urban
designers to give expert advice to applicants and the community. It is
impossible to codify the interrelationship of the array of urban design
elements with all development types. The building form is different to the
building type. The form and massing of individual buildings, including
height, bulk and scale, is a critical element in defining character and
creating unity within a streetscape. To ensure successful integration of new
development within existing neighbourhoods and centres in Parramatta, it is
important to have sympathetic relationships between the form and massing of
buildings and for development to be compatible with site conditions,
regardless of the building types. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.2.2
Building Facades and Articulation: Principle 2- Nothing is said about
aligning garages behind the main building alignment or the avoidance of
mirror imaging. Does not take these controls seriously given Council has
allowed flat roofs in an area that does not have flat roofs and excessively
wide garages and driveways. |
Principle
2 of this section relates to the general design consideration that must be
given to the underlying building elements that contribute to the character of
the area. This principle includes example of such elements. Specific controls
relating to garage alignment and width are located in sections 3.2.5
Streetscape and 3.6.2 Parking and Vehicular Access. Design principles and
design controls relating to roof design are located in 3.2.3 Roof Design. The
symmetry of mirror imaging attached dual occupancies has the opportunity to
complement and enhance neighbourhood and streetscape character. It is for
this reason that mirror imaging has not been unencouraged in the draft DCP. With
regard to possible variations, applications are considered on merit with
reference to achievement of the objectives, design principles and design
controls. Development that varies design principles and/or controls must
satisfy the objectives of the particular general principle and balance the
design outcome with the objectives of other general principles. The variation
must be justified as part of the development application submission. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.2.2
Building Facades and Articulation- Multi Dwelling Housing: Control 1- In
cases where dwellings do not face the street, there should be special
requirements for the side elevation facing the street and also justifications
for not facing the street. |
This
control does stipulate that in this circumstance "recognisable entries
and a sense of address" is required. Justification for a dwelling not
facing a street is required as part of the development application submission. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.2.2
Building Facades and Articulation- Multi Dwelling Housing: Control 3-
Streetscape plans should be provided to show the compatibility of the front
of new buildings in comparison to adjoining buildings, rather than relying on
vague and abstract principles. |
Streetscape
plans can be quite onerous on applicants of small scale developments.
Although formal streetscape plans are not required as part of the development
application submission, compliance with the design principles and design
controls of 3.2.5 Streetscape are required in the proposed developments’ site
analysis, architectural plans (e.g. site and elevation plans) and statement
of environmental effects. Council engages urban designers to give expert
advice on development application submissions, as it is impossible to codify
the interrelationship between the proposed development and existing
buildings, landscape and open spaces in the street scene. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.2.5
Streetscape: Figure 3.7 gives no details of articulation of the front of the
proposed building. Questions if Council is suggesting that every second
building has a chimney given the term "rhythm". |
The
design principles and design controls relating to building articulation are
provided in 3.2.2 Building Facades and Articulation. Streetscape rhythm is a
complex notion. More than one diagram is required to adequately illustrate
the different building elements that are used to interpret rhythm, such as
setbacks and roof form. The purpose of this figure is to give an example of
the building element of roof patterns as a form of interpreting streetscape
rhythm. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.2.5
Streetscape: Principle 1 and Figure 3.8: The new building does not
"align with predominant street setback" despite the requirement
that it has to. There is only one building of the 10 shown that has a similar
alignment. |
The
setback in Figure 3.8 is the average setback line. It provides flexibility to
allow for slight variations in the streetscape. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.2.5
Streetscape: Principle 2 and Figure 3.10: After saying that there should be
continuity in roof structure, the DCP now shows inconsistency in this matter.
The diagram illustrates the out of character nature of the stepping back of
the top floor of the mixed use building. |
The
continuity of roof structure is influenced by building type. Figure 3.10
illustrates a transitional form of building between land use zones. The
example is of a mixed use development that has a consistent building height
datum with the adjoining residential development, despite the style of the
roof. The setback of the top floor of the mixed use development complements
the transition between the two different building types. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.2.5
Streetscape: Principle 3 and Figure 3.12: why not "must be
articulated" rather than "should be articulated"? |
There
is no one rule that applies to building articulation for all circumstances.
This principle has been designed to ensure consistency in building
articulation. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.2.1
Building Form and Massing: Control 2- The Building Code of Australia applies
to secondary dwellings, but apparently not to other types of buildings. Is
this correct? |
The
Building Code of Australia applies to buildings other than secondary
dwellings. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.3.1
Landscaping: Principle 7- Landscaping should not be relied on to minimise
overlooking. |
Overlooking
is initially controlled by site planning and other building methods such as
setbacks and placement of windows. Landscaping may be utilised and designed,
if required and as a final resort to minimise overlooking between properties. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.3.1
Landscaping: What is the policy for Landscape Plans for Mixed Use
Developments? |
Council
has no specific policy for landscape plans for mixed use developments.
However, the draft DCP contains a provision in Section 3.3.1 Landscaping that
requires a landscape plan, prepared by a suitably qualified person, to be
submitted with development applications for residential flat buildings, and
business, retail and office developments. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.2.2
Building Facades and Articulation- Balconies and Eaves: Control 1- Questions
why there is no reference to height of balcony, walls, widths of balconies,
enclosure of balconies. |
The
controls in the draft DCP remain substantially the same as those that appear
in existing DCPs as the main aim of the process was to consolidate all DCPs
into a single comprehensive DCP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
Submission
makes numerous references to developments that have, according to the
submitter, breached DCP requirements. |
Development
applications are considered on merit with reference to achievement of the
objectives, design principles and design controls. Development that varies
design principles and/or controls must satisfy the objectives of the
particular general principle and balance the design outcome with the
objectives of other general principles. The variation must be justified as
part of the development application submission. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
Side
setback: standards are so narrow and not even a partial reduction should be
allowed. |
The
Building Code of Australia (BCA) specifies the minimum side setback of a
dwelling house to be 900mm. The Sydney Environmental Planning Policy
(Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 specifies the side setbacks for secondary
dwellings. Given the non-statutory status of a DCP, it is important that DCPs
are consistent with statutory plans and codes. Side setbacks have been
nominated for multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings in the
draft DCP. Development applications are considered on merit with reference to
achievement of the objectives, design principles and design controls. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
Rear
setback in heritage areas should not be allowed at 15% of depth of block. |
The
controls in the draft DCP remain substantially the same as those that appear
in existing DCPs as the main aim of the process was to consolidate all
development control plans into a single comprehensive DCP. Development
applications are considered on merit with reference to achievement of the
objectives, design principles and design controls. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
Rear
setback: questions why secondary dwellings are allowed at 3m from the rear
boundary. |
The
Sydney Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009
specifies the rear setbacks for secondary dwellings. Given the non-statutory
status of a DCP, it is important that DCPs are consistent with statutory plans
and codes. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.2.5
Streetscape: Figure 3.14 Maximum Building Frontage: Inconsistency and error.
Space between two dwellings is 3m, yet the minimum side setback for a dwelling
is 900mm. Space between two such buildings could therefore be as little as
1.8m. |
There
has been a misinterpretation of this figure given that is beneath the wrong
heading. It is intended to illustrate the minimum separation between
buildings and the maximum length of building frontage for multi dwelling
housing, not dwelling houses. This
figure should be located beneath the heading ‘Multi Dwelling Housing’, not
beneath the heading ‘Dwelling Houses’. |
Relocate
Figure 3.14 beneath C.3 of the heading ‘Multi Dwelling Housing’ on page 44 of
the draft DCP. |
|
504 |
|
|
Deep
soil zone: Questions why there is no minimum depth requirements for deep soil
or landscaped areas for dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing and
residential flat buildings. |
The
minimum soil depth of land that can be included as landscaped open space is
1m. This control has been carried over from Parramatta DCP 2005 to the draft
DCP for dwellings only. Despite this, the control has inadvertently been left
out of the Preliminary Building Envelope Table for dual occupancies, multi
dwelling housing and residential flat buildings. Further, the controls
relating to deep soil zones in the draft DCP remain substantially the same as
those that appear in existing DCPs as the main aim of the process was to
consolidate all development control plans into a single comprehensive DCP. |
Insert
the following control in Section 3.1.3 Preliminary Building Envelope Table of
the draft DCP in the ‘landscaped area’ row and under the columns titled ‘dual
occupancies’, ‘multi dwelling housing’ and ‘residential flat buildings’:
"The minimum soil depth of land that can be included as landscaped open
space is 1m". |
|
504 |
|
|
Landscaped
area: all impervious surfaces should
be excluded. There is no limit to the number of 2m wide impervious surfaces
and no limit to their lengths. This contradicts the 4m x 4m minimum
dimensions for soft soil. |
The
controls relating to deep soil zones in the draft DCP remain substantially
the same as those that appear in the existing DCP as the main aim of the
process was to consolidate all development control plans into a single
comprehensive DCP. Impervious surfaces are different to soft soil zones and
both need to be provided for in proposed developments, hence being no
contradiction between the two elements. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
Questions
why there is no regulation for impervious surfaces and depth of soil for dual
occupancies. |
The
controls pertaining to landscaped areas and deep soil zones for dual
occupancies are the same as those that apply to dwelling houses as provided
in Section 3.1.3 Preliminary Building Envelope Tables (with the inclusion of
the above deep soil zone amendment). |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
No
detail shown for communal space for residential flats, even though such space
is required in 3.3.2. Questions why depth and width of units and flats are
not listed in these tables. |
Control
2 of Residential Flat Buildings and residential component of Mixed Use
Developments on Page 51 of the draft DCP prescribe the minimum communal open
space per dwelling to be provided. Principle 2 of Section 3.3.2 Private and
Communal Open Space prescribe the purpose of the communal open space, where
it is to be located and how it should be designed. No control has been
prescribed for the depths and widths of units and flats as they are
influenced and determined by development controls such as the maximum
allowable floor space ratio and building height together with design
standards such as setbacks, open space provisions etc. State Environmental
Planing Policy No. 65 (Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings) contains
principles to improve the design quality of residential flat building. This
policy aims to provide a framework for local planning to achieve identified
outcomes for specific places. Given
the non-statutory status of a DCP, it is important that DCPs are consistent
with statutory plans and codes. Therefore and in relation to residential flat
buildings, the SEPP should be referred to when the draft DCP is silent on a
particular matter. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.2.6
Fences: Principle 7 "Sheet metal fencing is not to be used at the street
frontage" could be inconsistent with Principle 2. |
The
principles of Section 3.2.6 holistically require robust yet attractive fence
materials. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.3.1
Landscaping: Too little emphasis is placed on the need to protect existing
vegetation on adjoining properties. |
Two
objectives of Section 3.3.1 Landscaping are based on the themes of providing
continuous vegetation corridors and enhancing the existing streetscape.
Principles of this section have been designed to ensure integration of new
development with the existing landscape features and patterns, including
vegetation on adjoining properties. This is depicted in Figure 3.17 which
encourages contiguous vegetation zones by locating deep soil zones and
landscaping between properties. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.3.1
Landscaping: Principle 13- Interprets this principle as requiring Landscape
Plans for all types of residential developments, except for single dwellings,
whilst requiring landscape plans only if there is significant alteration to
the landscape character. Submitter is confused with this principle. |
Principle
13 requires a landscape plan to accompany applications for the land uses
listed. In addition to this requirement, landscape plans may be requested for
unlisted developments where in Council’s opinion the proposed development
will significantly alter the landscape character. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.1
Preliminary Building Envelope: Questions how a pergola is determined to be
light weight or not. |
The
determination of a light weight pergola is made by Council Officers during the
assessment of a development application. A light weight pergola consists of
posts and a roof covering only, no structural walls. They are small in scale
in relationship to the building. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
504 |
|
|
3.2.6
Fences: Principle 11- The need to increase the height of the fence to 1.8m
for noise attenuation and protection of amenity should not come at a cost to
consideration of safe sightlines for car movements. |
The
comments made are agreed with as the draft DCP does not include provisions to
ensure that front fences do not obstruct vehicular sightlines. |
Insert
the following sentence at the end of Principle 11 of Section 3.2.6 Fences of
the draft DCP: "Front fences and landscape screening must not compromise
vehicular movement sightlines". |
|
475 |
514 |
Woodville
Road |
|
Suggests
that Woodville Road needs to be better maintained and that Council nature
strips be cut more regularly. Also suggests that the corridor of trees
previously proposed be established as a matter of pride for the Woodville
Ward and Parramatta. |
The
matters raised in this submission are outside the scope of the draft LEP and
DCP and have been referred to Council’s City Services Group for
investigation. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft LEP 2010. |
476 |
515 |
|
|
Objects
to the removal of the permissibility of dual occupancy development in the R2
(Low Density Residential) Zone. Suggests inclusion as they are reasonably
compatible and provide additional housing. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That dual
occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate to
Special Character areas. |
477 |
517 |
|
|
Concern
is raised over the proposed R1 (sic) zoning and the inability to construct
dual occupancy development. Suggests that dual occupancies are very similar
in style to single dwellings and allow areas to be renewed and the area
(Merrylands) is in close proximity to services. The site is proposed to be
zoned R2 (Low Density Residential). |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas. |
478 |
522 |
|
|
Objection
is raised to the prohibition of places of public worship in the R2 (Low
Density Residential) zone. It is suggested that the establishment or
expansion of places of worship should be considered on its merits. It is
important for places of worship to be in proximity to residential areas. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
places of public worship be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low
Density Residential zone. That a
limit on seating capacity of 250 in the residential zones be included in
draft DCP 2010. Further,
that any changes to the adopted PPW DCP relating to car parking rates, should
be incorporated into the draft Comprehensive DCP. |
479 |
524 |
|
|
Considers
that the Governor Phillip Camp at the junction of Toongabbie and Darling
Mills Creeks is of national, state and local heritage significance for the
following reasons: a) There have been at least 30,000 years of
Aboriginal occupation of this place. b) It is a place where Governor Phillip
camped on 24 April 1788. c) This place should be special for all and
include interpretive material from both Aboriginal and European cultures. d) After 200 years the public will have
access to this section of the river from Parramatta Park. e) Natural bush surrounds the head of the
River; there is a feeling that you are enveloped by nature and history. Seeks
that: a) Governor Phillip Camp be heritage listed b) the Governor Phillip Walk, the wild
landscape along the river and surrounding the campsite including views to and
from the site, the ‘Redbank’ track be protected c) the zoning of the whole of the area around
the campsite needs to reflect its historic, indigenous, cultural, heritage
and natural values to ensure their protection and recognition. |
Generally
land at the junction of the Parramatta River and Darling Mills Creek is
heritage listed as Cumberland Hospital in draft Parramatta LEP 2010 and is
also listed on the State Heritage Register.
However, an area of land on the west side of Parramatta River fronting
Toongabbie Creek, being part Lot 1 DP 111958 and understood to be part of the
Westmead Children's Hospital is not listed.
The submission should be dealt with as part of Council's Comprehensive
Heritage study, currently being undertaken, to see whether any additional
protection and recognition should be given to Captain Phillips Camp. |
That no
change be made to exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. That
the issue be considered as part of Council's Comprehensive Heritage study. |
480 |
528 |
|
|
Dual
occupancies should be allowed under the R2 Low Density Residential zoning as
it will help ease problems regarding the severe shortage of rental property
and housing affordability. Dual
occupancies are a better way of housing more people, offer a better living
environment and with modern designs offer the most efficient use of living
and private open space. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
dual occupancy be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low-Density
Residential zone (except for the areas of Winston Hills, Epping and Sylvia
Gardens Estate). That
dual occupancy controls be included in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that relate
to Special Character areas |
481 |
534 |
|
|
Considers
that Governor Phillip's camp site at the junction of Toongabbie and Darling
Mills Creeks is of national, state and local heritage significance for the
following reasons: a) There have been at least 30,000 years of
Aboriginal occupation of this place. b) It is a place where Governor Phillip
camped on 24 April 1788. c) This place should be special for all and
include interpretive material from both Aboriginal and European cultures. d) After 200 years the public will have
access to this section of the river from Parramatta Park. e) Natural bush surrounds the head of the
River; there is a feeling that you are enveloped by nature and history. Seeks
that: a) Governor Phillip Camp be heritage listed b) the Governor Phillip Walk, the wild
landscape along the river and surrounding the campsite including views to and
from the site, the ‘Redbank’ track be protected a) the zoning of the whole of the area around
the campsite needs to reflect its historic, indigenous, cultural, heritage
and natural values to ensure their protection and recognition. |
Generally
land at the junction of the Parramatta River and Darling Mills Creek is
heritage listed as Cumberland Hospital in draft Parramatta LEP 2010 and is
also included on the State Heritage Register.
However, the submission should be dealt with as part of Council's
Comprehensive Heritage study, currently being undertaken, to see whether any
additional protection and recognition should be given to Captain Phillip's
camp site. |
That no
change be made to exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. That
the issue be considered as part of Council's Comprehensive Heritage study. |
482 |
536 |
|
|
Submission
on behalf of the Anglican Church Property Trust Diocese of Sydney (ACPT)
raises issues and implications for eight Church properties in the Parramatta
LGA. Raises
the following issues and comments regarding the permissibility of places of
public worship: • Churches
will be prohibited in more than half of the LGA, being prohibited in the R2
Low Density Residential Zone. The concern
of ACPT is to ensure that churches and ancillary uses are permitted on an
adequate number of sites when prepared with the existing LEP. The new controls should allow the Anglican
Church to maintain and expand the significant public benefits provided by the
church as it serves the local community. • Not permitting churches in one of the
key residential zones will force them into the remaining available zones with
potentially unintended outcomes.
Traditionally churches have been constructed either centrally within
centres or in local residential areas to support the local community and to
provide cohesion amongst various social groups. Then based on principles of served over two
centuries, the option of locating a church site with the other non-residential
zones further away from residential community has generally proven to be less
effective. There is frequently a
natural disconnect from the community associated with industrial, and in
certain circumstances commercial zones creating adverse impacts on churches
and possibly on industrial or commercial premises. • Existing
diocese sites within the R2 zone will become non conforming uses. This could potentially introduce a degree
of uncertainty when any changes are proposed to existing church developments
on these sites. Seeks
that places of public worship be permissible in the R2 zone controlled by a
merit based assessment process. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
places of public worship be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low
Density Residential zone. That a
limit on seating capacity of 250 in the residential zones be included in
draft DCP 2010. Further,
that any changes to the adopted PPW DCP relating to car parking rates, should
be incorporated into the draft Comprehensive DCP. |
536 |
|
|
The
Cathedral of St John is currently unzoned under Parramatta City Centre LEP
2007. This effectively means that the
site could potentially enable any use subject to a merit assessment. The Anglican
Diocese may wish to present a case for a preferred use zone and the inclusion
of specific appropriate FSR and height controls for the site. Ongoing consultation is requested to ensure
that the Anglican Diocese position is represented for this site. |
This
matter is outside the scope of the draft Parramatta LEP 2010 as it applies to
the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. As part of the finalisation of the draft
Parramatta LEP 2010, Council will be required by the Department of Planning
to amalgamate the City Centre plan with the draft plan making one planning
instrument that applies to the whole Parramatta LGA. As a consequence,
Council will need to consider in that process a means for zoning what is
currently unzoned land. |
That
Council when amalgamating the Parramatta City Centre Plan into the finalised
draft Parramatta LEP 2010 that it rectify those properties under that plan
which are unzoned. |
|
536 |
|
|
The
merit based principles of the draft DCP controls for Places of Public Worship
are generally supported. However, the
biggest problem is that the controls will not apply to a significant
proportion of the residentially zoned land across the LGA. The key
numerical control limiting places of public worship to a maximum capacity of
250 people, whilst may be reasonable if applied to a low density residential
zone, means in practice that larger churches could not be constructed in
zones where they might will be acceptable. It is
recommended that the maximum 250 capacity control be removed in favour of merit
based controls; considered best planning practice. The assessment will ensure that proposals
are unlikely to result in potential amenity impacts of noise and traffic. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That places
of public worship be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low Density
Residential zone. That a
limit on seating capacity of 250 in the residential zones be included in
draft DCP 2010. Further,
that any changes to the adopted PPW DCP relating to car parking rates, should
be incorporated into the draft Comprehensive DCP. |
|
536 |
|
|
A
number of sites owned by the Anglican Church are heritage items or located
within conservation areas. The
Anglican Diocese wishes to ensure that proposed controls do not prejudice
future redevelopment of such sites.
Council may consider introducing controls that provide incentives to
retain the heritage item in the event of any redevelopment. |
Any
proposals for redevelopment will need to be considered and dealt with under
the relevant provisions of draft LEP and the Heritage Act 1977. Clause 5.10 (10) Conservation incentives of
the draft LEP provides that consent may be granted to development, which
would otherwise not be allowed, if the conservation of the heritage item is
facilitated by the consent and may apply to any redevelopment proposals. |
That no
change be made to exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
483 |
551 |
|
|
The
submission raises concern about a minor mapping anomaly to land owned by
Housing NSW in Telopea. |
This
submission relates to a triangular parcel of land known as Lot J DP 36743,
near the Telopea Railway Station. Council’s current proposed zoning in the
draft Parramatta LEP 2010 for Lot J DP 36743 is RE1 Public Recreation. Given
its ownership by Housing NSW, its current residential use and proposed
residential use (the subject of a Part 3A Concept Plan Application MP09_0170
and Project Application MP09_0183) it is considered appropriate that this
parcel of land be zoned R4 High Density Residential so that is consistent
with the proposed draft Parramatta LEP 2010 zoning of the remaining two
allotments in Shortland Precinct. |
That
Lot J, DP 36743, near Telopea Railways Station be rezoned from the proposed
RE1 Public Recreation zone to R4 High Density Residential with a height of 14
metres. |
484 |
557 |
|
|
Concerned
with the intention of Council to prohibit future development applications for
Places of Public Worship in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. Local churches play an important role in
the life of the community and they should be consulted with prior to
Council's deliberations on this issue. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
places of public worship be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low
Density Residential zone. That a
limit on seating capacity of 250 in the residential zones be included in
draft DCP 2010. Further,
that any changes to the adopted PPW DCP relating to car parking rates, should
be incorporated into the draft Comprehensive DCP. |
485 |
579 |
|
|
Strongly
opposes the change in zone for places of public worship from Special Uses 5
to the R2 zone and then prohibiting this land use in the R2 zone. Churches
should remain zoned special uses to permit a range of associated uses. The R2
zone discriminates against places of public worship when neighbouring
councils currently permit and propose to permit in standard template LEPs
places of public worship in low density residential zones and in many cases
existing sites are zoned Special Uses. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
places of public worship be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low
Density Residential zone. That a
limit on seating capacity of 250 in the residential zones be included in
draft DCP 2010. Further,
that any changes to the adopted PPW DCP relating to car parking rates, should
be incorporated into the draft Comprehensive DCP. |
Item 9.5 - Attachment 3 |
Summary table of submissions |
Draft Parramatta Local Environmental
Plan (LEP) and
Draft Development Control Plan (DCP)
2010
Summary and assessment of Government
submissions
Submission No |
Reference No |
Submission made by |
Submission relates
to the following property(s) or area |
Suburb |
Description of
Issue |
Comments |
Recommendation |
486 |
163 |
Sydney
Water |
|
|
Encourages
the introduction of planning controls that set a minimum water efficiency
requirement for non residential development in order to reduce potable water
mains demand. That is, setting minimum controls for non-residential plumbing
fixtures and connections to recycled water. |
Section
3.3.6.2 of the draft DCP contains controls relating to water efficiency for
non-residential development. Sydney Water suggests including the following
water conservation measures as a minimum for non-residential development:
connection to recycled water if serviced by a dual reticulation system for
permitted non-potable uses and installing certain WELS rated fixtures. It is proposed to insert the suggested
provisions as additional water conservation controls in Section 3.3.6.2 Water
Efficiency, to ensure adequate water saving fixtures/measures are
incorporated into non-residential developments. |
Amend
Section 3.3.6.2 Water Efficiency of the draft DCP 2010 as detailed in
Attachment 2. |
163 |
Sydney
Water |
|
|
Sydney
Water have requested that their land which is used for critical water,
wastewater and stormwater assets, be zoned SP2 Infrastructure despite the
provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP as this zone reflects the dominant
function of land and protects their assets. An alternative zoning would set
up a development expectation of current and future landowners that is
unrealistically high because of an inappropriate zoning. A list of suggested
zones for Sydney Water owned land was provided. |
An
analysis of the list of Sydney Water owned land revealed that the predominant
uses were stormwater management systems and water reticulation systems. Both
land uses are permitted without consent by or on behalf of a public authority
on any land under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure)
2007. The zoning approach applied in
the draft LEP is consistent with the Standard LEP Template and Practice Note
PN 08-002 (Zoning for Infrastructure in LEPs) released by the Department of
Planning. Sydney
Water's submission has been forwarded to the Department of Planning for their
consideration. Despite this, changes are proposed to three properties owned
by Sydney Water following a review of the provided list. The properties are:
Lot 1 DP 669378 and Lot 1 DP 549496 at 189 James Ruse Drive, Camellia, zoned
SP2 Water Supply System in the draft LEP and proposed to be zoned B5 Business
Development (the adjoining zone). Lot 23 DP 1788 at 34A Lisgar Street,
Granville, zoned W1 Natural Waterways in the draft LEP and proposed to be
zoned R2 Low Density Residential (the adjoining zone). The
reasons for the proposed zone changes are that the land uses on these sites
(water supply system and stormwater management systems) are permitted without
consent by or on behalf of a public authority on any land under the State
Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007; and to ensure
consistency with PN 08-002 and the general application of zones in the draft
LEP. |
Change
the zone at Lot 1 DP 669378 and Lot 1 DP 549496 at 189 James Ruse Drive,
Camellia to B5 Business Development with an FSR of 1.5:1 and a building
height of 9m. Change
the zone at Lot 23 DP 1788 at 34A Lisgar Street, Granville to R2 Low Density
Residential with an FSR of 0.5:1 and a building height of 9m. |
|
163 |
Sydney
Water |
|
|
The
submission states that the draft DCP should instruct proponents to obtain a
Section 73 Certificate (under the Sydney Water Act 1994). This certificate
confirms that a proponent has built works (e.g. extensions or amplifications
to Sydney Water's systems) that has correctly sized mains available for
connection, that the proponent has paid any Sydney Water charges and
completed any other requirements. |
Council’s
development unit impose standard conditions requiring Section 73 certificates
to be provided in accordance with Sydney Water requirements. Given most
developers are familiar with Sydney Water’s requirements and conditions are
imposed on the consent, there is considered to be little benefit in adding
this requirement in the DCP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010 or draft
Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
487 |
224 |
University
of Western Sydney |
|
UWS,
Westmead Campus |
The
submission requests that UWS land at Hawkesbury Road, Westmead be rezoned
from SP2 Educational Facility to B4 Mixed Use. The University of Western
Sydney is seeking a Mixed Use zoning, since the current Special Use zoning of
this site under Parramatta LEP 2001 allows development which is permissible
in an adjacent zone to be permissible with consent on special use sites. Because there is an existing Mixed Use zone
adjacent to the UWS land on the opposite side of Hawkesbury Rd, mixed use
development is permissible currently on the UWS site. UWS
also indicates that this site was the subject of a Part 3A concept plan
proposal and early works project application, considered by the Department of
Planning as State significant development. The project comprises mixed use
development, with commercial (including child care and hotel), retail,
residential uses and car parking. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. That if
UWS no longer intends to proceed with the Part 3A concept plan for this site,
then this should be withdrawn and a Planning Proposal for the site submitted
to Parramatta City Council for the change in zoning. |
224 |
University
of Western Sydney |
|
UWS, Westmead Campus |
The
submission raises concern about the limited land uses permitted in the SP2
Infrastructure Zone, particularly as it applies to the UWS Parramatta Campus. |
The
University of Western Sydney (UWS) has made a submission to the draft LEP
seeking increased flexibility in the permissible land uses applying to the
SP2 Infrastructure Zone, particularly as it applies to the UWS Parramatta
Campus and seeks the ability to create ‘partner precincts’ for commercial
research and development facilities or allied office spaces. The
submission makes reference to an earlier version of the draft land use table
of the SP2 zone that permitted a range of uses and ‘development that may be
carried out on adjoining or adjacent land in the same zone or in a different
zone’. UWS felt that the previous land use table provided a greater outcome for
their site. Under
the draft LEP the SP2 zone enables development for the purpose shown on the
land zoning map, including any development that is ordinarily incidental or
ancillary to development for that purpose. This wording will enable
substantial flexibility in the range of uses permitted on the UWS site to
serve the needs of the university. Furthermore,
Clause 5.3 of the draft LEP enables land use flexibility by permitting
development on part of one site, that is permissible in an adjoining zone. This
clause applies to land that is within 20 metres of a boundary of land zoned
SP2 and any other zone. Accordingly, this would enable part of the UWS site
to be developed for those uses permitted in adjoining zones. In
March 2010 the Dept of Planning released a discussion paper on the review of
SEPP (Infrastructure) which recommended the inclusion of a definition for
‘university’ to clarify the range of teaching, research and development uses
that are permitted on university sites with or without development consent. The
draft definition of university tabled in the discussion paper is very broad
and includes facilities for education, research and development (including
for commercial purposes), staff/student/visitor accommodation, administration
and office facilities, shops and refreshment rooms for staff and students,
car parking and facilities for cultural, sporting, professional, technical
and vocational services to the community. Should SEPP (Infrastructure) be
amended to include the definition of university, this would permit, with
consent a greater range of uses on the UWS site as it applies within the SP2
zone. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
488 |
290 |
Sydney
Metro |
|
|
Submission
from Sydney Metro advising that the NSW Government has decided to protect the
Sydney Metro corridors and intends to include the Stage 2 Metro Corridor in
SEPP (Infrastructure). The submission request that draft Parramatta LEP
applying to land where the Stage 2 Metro Corridor applies permits passenger
transport facilities and related infrastructure etc to ensure consistency
with SEPP (Infrastructure). |
Clause
79 of SEPP (Infrastructure) permits development for the purpose of rail
infrastructure facilities by a public authority without consent on any land.
As the use is permitted by the SEPP, there is no need to include those land
uses in individual zones under the draft Parramatta LEP. Furthermore, the
Department of Planning have directed Councils not to include uses in land
uses tables where those uses are otherwise permitted under an alternative
planning instrument. It must
also be noted that the definition of passenger transport facilities is quite
broad and does not solely only apply to public authorities and therefore may
not be appropriate in all zones. The information provided in relation to the
Stage 2 Metro corridor provides limited detail on the exact route of the
Stage 2 Metro and would potentially require the land use passenger transport
facility to apply to every zone, which may not be appropriate. Additionally,
the State Government has announced that it will not be proceeding with the
West metro. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
489 |
303 |
Hornsby
Shire Council |
|
|
Hornsby
Shire Council (HSC) considered a report at its meeting on 7 April 2010
discussing the implications of the draft Parramatta LEP on the Hornsby Shire.
HSC noted that the draft LEP in part translates the existing zones and
permissible land uses. HSC also noted that HSC and PCC together with the
Department of Planning have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to progress
the Epping Town Centre Study, which will inform future planning controls and
infrastructure requirements to accommodate growth in Epping. HSC resolved (in
part) to forward a submission to PCC noting that the proposed planning
controls for the Epping Town Centre will be reviewed as part of the Epping
Town Centre Study. |
The
submission made by Hornsby Shire Council is noted. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
490 |
372 |
Ryde
City Council |
|
|
Ryde
City Council have sent a courtesy letter advising that they raise no
objection or have any concerns with the draft Parramatta LEP/DCP as
exhibited. |
The
submission made by Ryde City Council is noted. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
491 |
391 |
NSW
DE&T |
|
|
The
Department of Education and Training notes that a number of public school
buildings at Carlingford, Granville, Parramatta, Rosehill, Rydalmere and
Toongabbie have been heritage listed in draft LEP 2010. The Department has no objection to the
heritage listing of individual school buildings where it is clear that the
style and features of the building are significant and uncommon. However, the
Department objects to the general listing of school sites and all types of
buildings at a particular school irrespective of age or without historical
evidence to support the proposed listing. |
Council
practice, reflecting best heritage management in the heritage listing of
items in statutory planning instruments, is to list whole properties and not
specific buildings. The heritage
significance of different buildings is however generally noted on the heritage
inventory forms for specific sites. In
the course of reviewing the heritage inventory sheets as part of Council's
comprehensive heritage study it is proposed to give consideration to the
specific comments raised by the Department of education and Training. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
413 |
NSW
DE&T |
|
|
Department
of Education and Training (DET) would prefer Council as a general rule to
apply the following criteria for the land-use zoning of government school
sites: 1. Existing
school and/or TAFE sites zoned other than ‘Special Use’ to retain the
existing zoning as long as educational establishments are a permissible land
use. 2. Existing
school and/or TAFE sites zoned Special Use to adopt the zoning of adjacent
land as long as educational establishments are a permissible land use under
such zoning 3. Any
future additional development for education establishments to be permitted on
existing school and/or TAFE sites. 4 Proposed
new, future school and/or TAFE establishments on sites where the land use
zoning currently allows such development should remain a permissible land use
in such zoning. DET has
34 operational sites in the Parramatta LGA and notes that, conforming to
Criterion 2, Council has adopted the immediately adjoining zoning of the
sites in the new LEP. However, the
Granville TAFE on William Street, Granville has remained as Special Use when
adjacent lots are zoned R2 Residential.
It is the Department's preference that the site adopts the zoning of
R2 Residential. The
Department requests to be advised of all substantial new residential
proposals, so that it can identify the possible need for new school sites and
facilities or changes to management of existing facilities. |
The
Granville TAFE is zoned SP 2 Infrastructure -- Educational Establishment in
draft Parramatta LEP and surrounding land is zoned R2 Low Density
Residential. The SP 2 zoning of the
land reflects Council's practice, and is considered acceptable to include
regionally significant land uses such as tertiary institutions in this
zone. In addition, clause 5.3
Development near zone boundaries of the draft LEP allows development to be
granted on SP 2 zone land for purposes allowed on an adjacent zone. This would give the Department of Education
and Training some flexibility as to the development allowed on the site. In
addition, SEPP (Infrastructure) permits educational establishments with
consent in the R1 General Residential, R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium
Density Residential, R4 High Density Residential, B1 Neighbourhood Centre, B2
Local Centre, B4 Mixed Use, B5 Business Development, B6 Enterprise Corridor
and SP2 Infrastructure zones. While the SEPP does not permit the use in other
zones such as industrial zones, the use is not permitted under the current zoning and therefore this
represents a 'like for like' scenario. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
492 |
425 |
Land
and Property Management Authority |
19-21
Elizabeth Street |
Granville |
The
zoning of Lot 17 in section 1 DP 277, Lot 18 in section 1 in DP 277 and Lot 1
in DP 128811, Elizabeth Street, Granville (being holdings of Land and
Property Management Authority) as R2 Low Density Residential is
inappropriate. The parcels are
bisected by a concrete stormwater channel and are not really accessible via
an existing formed road. They are
currently vacant parcels that connect other sections of open space as shown
on the draft land zoning map. An
extension of the RE1 Recreation Zone as well as the W1 Waterways Zone over the
channel is recommended. |
It is
appropriate that this land being part of an open space drainage network is
rezoned RE1 Public Recreation with a zoning of W1 Waterways Zone over the
water channel. This suggested action
reflects the approach taken for the zoning of the adjoining sections of the
drainage network. As this
land is owned by a State authority there are no land purchase implications
for Council and the land would not need to be shown on the Land Reservation
map of the draft LEP. |
Rezone
Lot 17 in section 1 DP 277, Lot 18 in section 1 in DP 277 and Lot 1 in DP
128811, Elizabeth Street, Granville from R2 Low Density Residential to RE1
Public Recreation and zone the water channel, W1 Natural Waterways. |
493 |
537 |
SWAHS |
|
|
The
submission suggests that the Exempt and Complying Development section of the
LEP, relating to demolition and other works, must include warnings relating
to the danger and handling of asbestos; and to require owners to notify
neighbours of proposed timing of asbestos related works. |
The NSW
Department of Planning is amending State Environmental Planning Policy
(Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 and the Environmental Planning
and Assessment Regulation 2000 to include provisions for the safe removal of
asbestos by licensed contractors in cases where complying development is
being undertaken by owner-builders - consistent with the requirements that
protect work places and employees. All
removal of asbestos material must from 18 January 2010 comply with Australian
Standard AS 2601 - demolition of structures. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
537 |
SWAHS |
|
|
The
submission suggests that the World Health Organizations definition of
'health' and a definition of 'unhealthy commercial food' be added to the
dictionary within the draft LEP template. |
SWAHS
acknowledge that their submission not only assesses the health impacts of the
draft Parramatta LEP but also the standard template. Council does not have
the discretion to include new definitions into the draft LEP. The
standard LEP template mandates the definitions that Council must use. The
standard template does not include the term "unhealthy commercial
food". Given the issues relates to health issues and obesity, it is
suggested that SWAHS directly approach the NSW Department of Planning about
the need for this definition. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
537 |
SWAHS |
|
|
The
residential zones (R1, R2, R3) do not include access for residents to
recreation areas; local retail facilities and community facilities. |
Council's
Residential Development Strategy, implemented through draft Parramatta LEP
2010, consolidates new residential development in location close to public
transport, infrastructure and services, including open space. With respect to
existing development, Council has the ability through its management plan to
prioritise the creation or expansion of new open space. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
537 |
SWAHS |
|
|
The
submission suggests that appropriate setbacks and development controls where
a development has the potential to expose workers to health risks from
pollution. |
Council's
setback controls in Business/Commercial and Industrial zones are not
prescriptive controls but cater more for an assessment of the circumstances
and issues affecting a particular site. It would be difficult to implement
setback controls in some circumstances without sterilising the land for
development, particularly on sites located on major roads. To protect
workers, other provisions are in place through Occupational Health and Safety
policies to ensure that workplaces are safe. This includes workplace policies
to manage the risks of pollution that is enforced by Workcover. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010 or draft
DCP 2010. |
|
537 |
SWAHS |
|
|
The
submission recommends that Council consider adding a significant tree
register to the LEP as a component of the heritage schedules in an attempt to
protect shade and amenity provided by trees. |
It is
not appropriate or possible to include a tree register as a component of the
heritage schedules for the protection of trees for general amenity
purposes. However, clause 5.9 of a
draft LEP and section 5.4 of the draft DCP provides for the protection of
trees and vegetation in the Parramatta LGA. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
537 |
SWAHS |
|
|
Suggests
the inclusion of 'workers' and 'visitors' into the aims of the LEP (Section
1.2) because of their role in economic redevelopment and tourism. |
Council's
core workforce is located in the CBD and fringe. It is envisaged that
employment targets in the CBD will increase by a large number by 2025.
Additionally, the LGA's comparative advantage over other areas is that it has
within it a Regional City (Parramatta CBD) which is earmarked for growth and
development. Such an advantage makes the location more desirable and
attractive to tourists. For this reason, Parramatta City Council continues to
invest funds to make Parramatta a destination and an attractive city for
tourists and visitors. In land
use planning terms, The Parramatta City Centre has its own set of planning
controls, which clearly identify the workforce and tourism as key objectives.
The draft LEP 2010, at this stage, concentrates on land use planning outcomes
for the other areas of the LGA that support and complement the CBD. It is
envisaged however that eventually, both the CBD plan and the draft LEP 2010
will be integrated into one complete land use plan for the LGA. When this
occurs it would be appropriate to include objectives that reflect the CBD and
objectives targeting the workforce and tourism. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
537 |
SWAHS |
|
|
The
submission raises a number of suggestions that fall outside the parameters of
the draft LEP/ or the control of Council. These are listed below: · Council provide more shade structures in parks and public
open spaces; · Council consider adding edible footpath/verge gardens and
community gardens to public parks; · Business signage promoting unhealthy food choices should
not be permitted within 300 metres of child serving institutions such as
schools, preschools, hospitals; playgrounds etc; · That Council consider retail alcohol outlet density prior
to issuing consent in neighbourhood shops serving residential areas. · That retail and food outlets within business and
industrial zones provide healthy food choices for workers and visitors. |
This
response deals with each issue individually: a) Need
for more shade structures in parks - Shade structures are permitted as an
"ancillary" use to a recreation area as defined by the draft
Parramatta LEP. Council decisions to include such structures is dependent on
budgetary factors and whether such structures complement the area of open
space and are designed in such a way that they do not become a liability or
risk. b) Need
for more open space - Parramatta City
Council has care and control of approximately 720 hectares of public open
space parks and reserves. This represents around 13.8% of the LGAs total area
spread across 324 parks and reserves. Council S94 and S94A Developer
Contributions Plans incorporate mechanism for Council to acquire and create
new areas of open space where supported by a strategic need. c) Creation of
community gardens - The draft LEP places no impediment to the creation of
community gardens in public open space areas. Council will need to allocate or
identify specific funds and develop partnerships to deliver such outcomes
(i.e - Housing NSW). Council already has three community gardens located on
Council's land (Harris Park, Toongabbie and Constitution Hill). d)
Restrict advertising that promotes unhealthy foods - Council regulatory
functions with respect to signage and advertising is to ensure that it
provides identification and information about the premises in a manner that
complements the use of that building and that visual impacts are minimised.
Council does not have the discretion or power to discriminate against legal
businesses that sell certain unhealthy foods other than to determine whether
the signage, as a means of advertising, is appropriate. e) That
Council introduce a retail alcohol outlet density when determining DA's for
alcohol shops in neighbourhood zones -
restricting the number of liquor outlets to reduce alcohol-related
problems has merit. However, such restrictions are inherently anti-competitive
in nature because they deny potential retailers the opportunity to compete in
that market. Other provisions under the Liquor Licensing Act ensures that the
proliferation of such uses are considered in determining whether or not a
person is issued with a liquor licence. f) That
retail and food outlets within business and industrial zones provide healthy
food choices- the draft LEP facilitates the creation of such businesses. The
decision to provide such options is determined by the market and needs of the
workforce. Over zealous planning restrictions will not in themselves deliver
the change in healthy eating that SWAHS are seeking. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
537 |
SWAHS |
|
|
Submission
suggests the inclusion of building controls in high density developments to
protect people (particularly children) from falling from upper level windows
and balconies. |
This
issue is covered by guidelines found in the Building Code of Australia
relating to balconies and windows. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010 or draft
DCP 2010. |
|
494 |
539 |
Housing
NSW |
|
|
In
general, Housing NSW (HNSW) supports the proposal to consolidate medium and
high density residential development. However, HNSW is concerned with the
down zoning of their assets outside of activity centres as it reduces their
development potential having regard to HNSW responsibility for providing
housing to low income households. |
Housing
NSW has previously raised objections to the down zoning of some of their housing
assets, particularly where these lie outside of RDS precincts. These concerns
were raised during the consultation phase of the RDS, during the section 62
consultation with public authorities during the preparation of the draft LEP
and at various meetings, including at Ministerial level. Council
has addressed these objections previously in the context of its RDS and its
submission to the Dept of Planning to obtain a section 65 certificate. The
Dept of Planning did not require amendment of the draft LEP in relation to
Housing NSW objections as a condition of issuing the section 65 certificate
endorsing the draft LEP for public exhibition. Specific
comments about some areas of remaining concern for Housing NSW in the South
Granville locality are addressed in the detailed report accompanying this
table. It should also be noted that there are also opportunities under State
Government Planning Policies, such as the Affordable Housing SEPP for Housing
NSW to realise on many of its assets, in addition to opportunities under
Council's LEP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
539 |
Housing
NSW |
|
|
NSW
Housing have asked Council to reconsider the proposed zoning for three
particular sites, they being: 176-188 Pennant Street, North Parramatta, 9
Albert Street and 2B Fleet Street, North Parramatta and 74 Blaxcell Street,
Granville. Included with Housing NSW's submission is a consultants report
specifically addressing land use issues associated with their rezoning
proposal for 9 Albert Street and 2B Fleet Street, North Parramatta for which
they are seeking an R4 High Density Residential zoning. |
176-188
Pennant Street, North Parramatta This
area under draft Parramatta LEP 2001 is zoned 2(b) Residential. Council in
adopting the draft Parramatta LEP 2010 made a decision to downzone this area
from R4 High-Density Residential development to R3 Medium Density. The
current planning framework has delivered medium density development in this
location. It is felt that this form of development should be preserved and at
the same time maintain Council’s RDS philosophy for increasing densities in
locations on the fringe of the City Centre. 9
Albert Street and 2B Fleet Street, North Parramatta Under
the current Parramatta LEP 2001 both sites are zoned 5 Special Uses. Under
draft Parramatta LEP 2010 the proposed zoning for both sites are R2
Low-Density Residential. Buildings
that provide hostel facilities and accommodation occupy these two sites. The
parcel of land known as 2B Fleet Street has an approval (obtained in 2008)
for the construction of a new hostel facility comprising two 3-storey
buildings with basement car parking. This new facility is nearing completion.
The adjacent site known as 9 Albert Street is currently occupied by an aging
single storey building previously used as a school and is now used for hostel
accommodation. The existing hostel operations on this site will be
transferred to the new Fleet Street facility once complete. It is Housing NSW
intention to redevelop the residue site at 9 Albert Street for
community/affordable housing, in the form of residential apartments similar
in scale to that already approved on the adjoining site at 2B Fleet Street. In
March 2008, the NSW Department of Planning provided advice to Council’s
preparing comprehensive LEPs for zoning infrastructure (Special use zone
land). The new zoning approach advocated that land for which was essentially
core infrastructure; i.e. major roads, transport corridors, University, TAFE
etc be zoned using an equivalent zone to the current Special Use zone (known
as SP2 Infrastructure). All other sites currently zoned Special Uses would be
translated to a zone that reflects the immediate surrounds/zone. It is argued
by the Dept of Planning that this approach provides greater flexibility and
adaptive management of government land. Adopting this approach meant that
because the sites were not being utilised for core infrastructure, that
Council would be required to apply a zone which reflected its immediate surrounds/zone.
In this case, the Council proposed a R2 Low-Density zone as the land opposite
side of O’Connell Street is zone for that purpose. Investigation
of the request by Housing NSW has revealed that the sites also surround and
adjoin land zoned R4 High-Density Residential. There is an argument that
under the terms of Dept of Planning’s advice, Council could equally apply an
R4 High Density Residential. In
light of this, and an awareness that an existing approval DA/713/2007 for
hostel accommodation in the form of a 3-storey residential flat building, it
is appropriate that Council rezone this land to R4 High Density Residential.
This decision will ensure compatible development across the two sites and
enable the use of the SEPP to deliver much needed affordable housing close to
the City Centre. 74
Blaxcell Street, Granville This
site is currently zoned 2b (Medium Density). It is proposed to zone the site
R2 (Low Density) under the draft LEP. The site is not located within an RDS
precinct and consistent with the RDS philosophy is proposed to be down zoned.
The block in which this site is located is discussed in more detail under the
heading Loius Street Granville in Attachment 1 of this report. In
addition, land immediately adjoining these two sites are primarily utilised
for public health services. Such uses are regulated by the Infrastructure
SEPP 2007. In order to maintain the existing health uses, or in circumstances
where the uses on these sites change, that the residential character and scale
of existing buildings is maintained. It is also recommended that the entire
block of Fleet, Albert, O’Connell and Fennell Streets be rezoned to R4 High
Density Residential. |
That
Council amend draft Parramatta LEP 2010 to rezone the land known as 9 Albert Street, 2, 2B Fleet Street, 2A, 2B and 2D Fennell
Street and 31 O'Connell Street North Parramatta from R2 Low Density
Residential to R4 High Density Residential with an FSR of 0.8:1 and a height
of 11 metres. |
|
495 |
551 |
NSW
Housing |
|
|
The
submission raises concern about a minor mapping anomaly to land owned by
Housing NSW in Telopea. The exact detail of the anomaly is to be provided to
Council under separate cover. |
This
submission relates to a triangular parcel of land known as Lot J DP 36743,
near the Telopea Railway Station. Council’s current proposed zoning in the
draft Parramatta LEP 2010 for Lot J DP 36743 is RE1 Public Recreation. Given
its ownership by Housing NSW, its current residential use and proposed
residential use (the subject of a Part 3A Concept Plan Application MP09_0170
and Project Application MP09_0183) it is considered appropriate that this
parcel of land be zoned R4 High Density Residential so that is consistent
with the proposed draft Parramatta LEP 2010 zoning of the remaining two allotments
in Shortland Precinct. |
It is
recommended that Lot J, DP 36743, near Telopea Railways Station be rezoned
from the proposed RE1 Public Recreation zone to R4 High Density Residential
with a height of 14 metres. |
496 |
542 |
Holroyd
City Council |
|
|
Support
the provisions contained in the draft DCP concerning notification and
availability of applications and planning proposals to adjoining LGA's. |
Appendix
5 of the draft DCP includes provisions of Council's Notification DCP,
therefore satisfying the request sought. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
542 |
Holroyd
City Council |
|
|
Recognise
and support DCP provisions that seek to mitigate impacts in areas of
Industrial and Residential interface such as Merrylands and Pendle Hill. |
The
draft LEP and DCP provisions should adequately control effects at the
interface of industrial and residential areas. The hierarchy of industrial
zones in the LGA are generally located to minimise any adverse effects on
residential areas with the IN3 Heavy Industrial Zones being separated from
other land uses. Objectives in the
draft LEP for industrial zones seek to minimise any adverse effect on other
land uses. In addition, the height and
floor space ratio requirements of the draft LEP and controls relating to
industrial zones in Part 3 of the DCP will regulate the development of
industrial uses. More specifically, Section 3.3.4 Acoustic Amenity of the
draft DCP has been designed to ensure commercial or industrial development
does not unreasonably diminish the amenity of nearby residential uses. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010 or draft
Parramatta DCP 2010. . |
|
542 |
Holroyd
City Council |
|
|
Suggest
that a mapping based approach identifying areas of permissibility of sex
services premises will provide an increased degree of certainty as to where
these uses may potentially be carried out. |
Council
had sought to incorporate a mapping based approach for identifying areas of
permissibility of sex services premises within the draft LEP, but the
Department of Planning had advised that this is not acceptable as it is
contrary to the Standard LEP Template. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
542 |
Holroyd
City Council |
|
|
Concern
is raised over the proposed maximum height (20m) in Good Street Westmead and
the interface between adjacent low scale development located within the
Holroyd LGA. Suggest a lower transition height be adopted in this area. |
Properties
in Good Street, Westmead, between Amos Street and Great Western Highway are
zoned R4 High Density Residential with a 19m height limit, generally being a
transfer of provisions from Parramatta LEP 2001. It is considered that draft DCP controls
will ensure that any future development applications for intensive
residential proposals address amenity effects on the adjacent low scale
development located within the Holroyd LGA.
In addition, the provisions of SEPP 65 Design Quality of Residential
Flat Developments requires assessment of the design quality of residential
flat development and its integration with surrounding development. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. . |
|
497 |
543 |
DECCW |
|
|
Considers
that many of the areas originally proposed to be zoned E2 Environment
Conservation (and as provided to the DECCW in January 2009) that have been
changed to RE1 Public Recreation in the draft LEP, should be zoned E2 due to
their high conservation values.
Although there may be some cleared and degraded areas within these
identified areas, an E2 zone is considered to be the most appropriate zone as
it recognises and protects areas containing high conservation vegetation. The
RE1 zone does not contain appropriate objectives for conservation and biodiversity
protection. Examples
of Crown land and Council reserve areas that should be zoned E2: a) Bruce Cole Reserve, Winston Hills b) Along Toongabbie Creek, Winston Hills c) John Curtin Reserve, Winston Hills d) Eastern portions of Lake Parramatta
Reserve, North Parramatta e) Lower part of Lake Parramatta Reserve,
North Parramatta f) Campbell Hill Pioneer Reserve,
Guildford g) Southern part of Cox Park, Carlingford h) Boronia Park, Epping |
The
Department of Planning on 17 November 2008 sought confirmation of the
application of the E2 zone from the Department of Environment and Climate
Change and Water (DECCW). On 16 January 2009, DECCW advised in writing that
the areas proposed to be zoned E2 in the draft Parramatta LEP are of high
conservation value and therefore fully supported Council’s strategic planning
approach in the identification and protection of these areas. Subsequently,
Council was directed by the Dept of Planning in the Explanatory Notes of the
Section 65 Certificate that the Dept of Planning will permit retention of the
E2 zone for Council-owned lands, as long as these lands do not form part of a
lot (or parcel of lots) which provides a mixed public recreation/conservation
function. In the case of these mixed function lots (or parcels of lots) an
RE1 zone should be applied as per the Dept of Planning’s Practice Note
PN09-002. This direction has required the change of zone to RE1 for all
reserves listed in the DECCW submission with the exception of Bruce Cole
Reserve, Winston Hills and Boronia Park, Epping. The RE1
Public Recreation zone applied to Bruce Cole Reserve has been a direct
translation of the current 6A Public Open Space zone in Parramatta LEP 2001.
Given the application of a 40m wide W1 Natural Waterways zone to the
watercourse located in the reserve, and the existing sporting facilities
situated on the outskirt of the site, an RE1 Public Recreation zone is
considered appropriate. The RE1
Public Recreation zone applied to Boronia Park has been a direct translation
of the current 6A Public Open Space zone in Parramatta LEP 2001. As suggested
by the DECCW submission a ‘split zone’ for this reserve cannot be applied
given the above Dept of Planning direction. Further, given the existing
sporting field and children’s playground, and that the existing vegetation
contains very high intensity disturbance, an RE1 Public Recreation zone is
deemed appropriate for this reserve. These
reserves are protected by the provisions of the Threatened Species and
Conservation Act 1995 and Council's Natural Areas Plan of Management. |
Council
express its dissatisfaction to the Department of Planning regarding the
direction given in the Section 65 Certificate for the application of the E2
Environmental Protection zone in the draft LEP. |
543 |
DECCW |
|
|
The
draft SMCMA vegetation mapping now offers the opportunity to considerably
extend environmental protection through the use of a map overlay and
associated biodiversity clause to cover all critically endangered and
endangered ecological communities (EECs and CEECs) across the LGA. These areas are equally worthy of
identification and protection.
Accordingly, it is recommended that Council include an Environmentally
Sensitive - Biodiversity clause to identify and protect high conservation
vegetation (EECs and CEECs) and threatened species habitat across the
LGA. There are a number of gazetted
LEPs that includes such clause (for example Wollongong LEP 2009). Should this clause be included, the
existing Environmental Protection clause may need to be renamed ‘Riparian
Vegetation and Water Quality’. |
It is
considered that land containing CEECs and EECs throughout the Parramatta LGA
has been adequately identified and protected by way of zone or clause in the
draft LEP. CEECs and EECs have generally been zoned E2 Environmental
Protection or W1 Natural Waterways in the draft LEP. Privately owned lands
containing these communities have been identified on the Environmental
Protection map and are subject to Clause 6.9 Environmental Protection. These
communities, whether or not identified by these zones or clause in the draft
LEP, are nonetheless protected by the provisions of the Threatened Species
Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act). |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. . |
|
543 |
DECCW |
|
|
Recommends
that Aboriginal sensitivity mapping be included in the draft LEP and DCP
because it does not identify known sites but rather identifies areas by the
potential to contain Aboriginal sites. As
such, the note at 5.10.8 should be reworded as follows: Development
impacting upon Aboriginal objects will require separate approval under the
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.
Both Council's Register of known Aboriginal sites and Council’s maps
of potential heritage sensitivity should be consulted to determine whether the
land has the potential to contain evidence of Aboriginal occupation. |
The
draft LEP includes standard template provisions for protection of sites of
Aboriginal cultural significance and notes relating to Council's Aboriginal
Sensitivity database, based on Council's Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Study
2003. Nevertheless, it is agreed that
Aboriginal sensitivity maps should be included in the draft Parramatta DCP,
together with provisions requiring consideration of the impact of development
on known or potential Aboriginal archaeological sites or sites of cultural or
historical significance to Aboriginal people.
The note in clause 5.10 (8) should be revised to also require
Council's information of known Aboriginal sites to be consulted. |
That
Council revise the note in clause 5.10 (8) of draft Parramatta LEP 2010 that
relates to Development impacting upon Aboriginal objects as outlined in
Attachment 2.
That Council add a new
section 3.5.3 to the draft Parramatta DCP 2010 that establishes development
criteria for the assessment of sites in relation to Aboriginal heritage as
detailed in Attachment 2. |
|
543 |
DECCW |
|
|
DECCW
raise two issues on floodplain risk management aspects. The first relates to
Clause 6.5 Development on flood prone land in the draft LEP and the second
relates to development control. Firstly, Clause 6.5 Development on Flood
Prone Land has been superseded and the current clause could be obtained from
the Department of Planning. The
revised clause generally relies on the use of a Flood Planning Map and still
only applies to land up to the flood planning level. Secondly,
under the current Section 117 Directions any residential development control
above the 1:100 ARI flood level would be considered as an ‘exceptional
circumstance’. Council needs to gain approval from the Director Generals of
both the Department of Planning and the Department of Environment Climate
Change and Water for use of any ‘exceptional circumstances’ based development
controls. There is the option for
Council to lodge an interim application for ‘exceptional circumstances’ based
on the considerable information already available. However, Council might consider reviewing
the draft LEP and assessing the need to apply for ‘exceptional circumstances’
based development controls as part of the Council's floodplain risk
management studies and plans. Notwithstanding this, any planning for flood
prone land needs to have regard to the full range of flooding up to the PMF
level. At this stage the management of
the risks to people and property on land above the 1:100 ARI level is to be
covered through the DCP process, providing ‘exceptional circumstances’ is
granted. |
Clause
6.5 Development on Flood Prone Land. As
expressed to the Department of Planning in writing, in April 2010, the latest
draft model local provision clause for flood planning is of concern to
Council for the following reasons: · The draft clause relates to the Flood
Planning Level (FPL) specifically as the 100 year Average Recurrence Interval
(ARI) flood event plus a freeboard which can be nominated by Council. This
clause does not consider the recommendations of the floodplain risk
management process for all catchments with the Parramatta LGA. It is possible
that the FPL could be set at an ARI flood event other than the 100 year plus
freeboard. · Council does not have flood maps
that define the extent of the FPL, that is, the calculated flood level plus
freeboard included. · Council flood maps show the extent
of the 20 year, 100 year and PMF flood levels where they are available.
Impacts resulting from climate change are not included. · Council’s flood maps do not show
the 'flood planning area' that is the area of land below the FPL. The FPLs
(as defined in the NSW Floodplain Development Manual) "are the
combinations of flood levels (derived from significance historical flood
events or floods of specific Annual Exceedance Probabilities) and freeboards
selected for floodplain risk management purposes, as determined in management
studies and incorporates in management plans". · The existing clause was provided
by the Dept of Planning for inclusion in the draft LEP, which was
subsequently certified for public exhibition purposes. It is
for the above reasons that Council will retain the existing ‘Development on
flood prone land’ clause in the draft LEP. Flood
plain development controls. Section
117 directions are a statutory requirement in the preparation of draft LEPs. Parramatta
draft LEP 2010 complies with the section 117 directions and was certified for
public exhibition in February 2010. More specifically, the draft LEP complies
with Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land as the
‘Development on flood prone land’ clause in the draft LEP applies to
land subject to the discharge of a 1:100 ARI flood event and land within 500
millimetres in height above this flood event. That is, the draft LEP does not
impose flood related development controls above the residential flood planning
level for residential development on land in the Parramatta LGA. Moreover,
this clause was provided by the Dept of Planning for inclusion in the draft
LEP. The
objectives, principles and controls in Section 2.4.2.1 Flooding of the draft
DCP establishes Council’s approach to floodplain planning and the general
flood prone land requirements including requirements for land subject to the
PMF level relating to development control for the whole LGA. The development
of Council’s approach to flooding has regard to and complies with the NSW
Government’s Floodplain Development Manual 2005, therefore an application for
‘exceptional circumstances’ is not required. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
543 |
DECCW |
|
|
The
Environmental Protection mapped areas have very limited coverage across the
Parramatta LGA despite the broader extent of these vegetation
communities. It is recommended that
the mapping of significant areas for the existing Environmental Protection
clause be extended to include mapped mangrove, saltmarsh (including area at
Rosehill that is a known Green and Golden Bell Frog habitat and Endangered
Ecological Communities along Duck River and Duck Creek) and riparian
vegetation communities. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
Extend
the application of Clause 6.9 Environmental Protection in the draft LEP to
the sites as identified in Attachment 2. |
|
498 |
546 |
NSW
Office of Water (Penrith) |
|
|
The NSW
Office of Water makes the following comments with respect to certain clauses
in the draft LEP instrument: Clause
2.6B Temporary use of land - it is recommended that subclause 2.6B (3c) make
specific reference to waterways and riparian lands. Clause
2.6C Earthworks - it is recommended that the objectives and heads of
consideration make specific reference to waterways, riparian land and
groundwater. It is suggested the term 'waterway' be used as it is more
encompassing rather than 'watercourse' in Clause 2.6C(3g). Clause
5.1 Relevant acquisition authority - recommends that dedication of private
land also be considered as an alternative to acquisition by way of voluntary
planning agreements. Clause
5.9 Preservation of trees or vegetation - needs to also apply to the
"enhancement and rehabilitation" of native vegetation particularly
in relation to riparian land. Clause
6.4 Foreshore building line - raises some concerns with certain provisions of
this clause and recommends specific amendments. Clause
6.5 Development on flood prone land - recommends an amendment to a head of
consideration. Clause
6.9 Environmental protection - commends provisions in clause but recommends
retitling clause to "Riparian Land", utilising the RCMS mapping and
including new clause utilised in other draft LEPs. |
Clause
2.6B: The terms "environmental attributes or features of the land"
in this clause are considered to capture waterways and riparian lands. Clause
2.6C: The terms "environmental functions and processes" in this
clause are considered to capture waterways, riparian land and groundwater.
The term ‘waterway’ is more encompassing than the term ‘watercourse’ as the
‘waterway’ definition includes wetlands and waterbody (artificial) whereas
the ‘watercourse’ definition does not. Clause
5.1: Council is aware of the provisions of Clause 93F Planning agreements
under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Despite this, the
detailed matters relating to a planning agreement are outside the scope of
the draft LEP. Clause
5.9: Waterways located on public owned land have been zoned W1 Natural
Waterways. An objective of this zone is to enable works associated with the
rehabilitation of land towards its natural state. Clause 6.9 Environmental
Protection has been applied to natural waterways and identified endangered
ecological communities on private owned land. An objective of this clause is
to manage and maintain native flora and fauna and their habitats. The purpose
of Clause 5.9 Preservation of trees is to preserve the amenity of the area
through the preservation of trees and other vegetation. It is considered that
these clauses together offer sufficient provision for the protection,
enhancement and rehabilitation of native vegetation, particularly in relation
to riparian land. Clause
6.4: Foreshore building line is a model local clause provided by the
Department of Planning. ‘Model local clauses’ are local clauses that have
been settled by the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office which address common
topics raised by councils in their standard instrument LEP preparation. The
Department of Planning recommended that they be adopted 'as is'. The Dept of
Planning has advised that as plans are gazetted and tested, model local
clauses may be refined but only by the Dept of Planning. Clause
6.5: Development on flood prone land was provided by the Department of
Planning during the drafting of the plan as the then draft model clause.
‘Model local clauses’ are local clauses that have been settled by the
Parliamentary Counsel’s Office which address common topics raised by councils
in their standard instrument LEP preparation. The Department of Planning
recommended that they be adopted 'as is'. The Dept of Planning has advised
that as plans are gazetted and tested, model local clauses may be refined but
only by the Department of Planning. The Department of Planning is currently
in the process of revising the latest draft model clause titled ‘flood
planning’. Although, there is no intention in replacing the current clause
with the latest model clause given it is still in draft form and its
application being very different to the current clause, the heads of
consideration are the same. Clause
6.9: The mapping of waterways in the draft LEP was based on in-house creek
centre line information, stream order classifications and environmental
significance levels, and identified by waterway zones and the environmental
protection clause. The RCMS mapping used to identify “riparian land” was
unavailable at the time of drafting the LEP, therefore a “riparian lands map”
was not included in the draft LEP. The RCMS stream categorisation mapping has
not yet been provided to Council. This request would be unfeasible given the
limited resources available to remap the waterways and unnecessary given time
restrictions and the adequacy of the mapped waterways in the current version
of the draft LEP. |
Clause
2.6C: Replace the term ‘watercourse’ in Clause 2.6C(3g) of the draft LEP with
the term ‘waterway’ as identified in Attachment 2. |
546 |
NSW
Office of Water (Penrith) |
|
|
Concerned
that flood mitigation works is permitted with consent in the W1 Natural
Waterways zone. Council needs a provision in place for addressing the
proliferation of flood mitigation works. It is
recommended the locating of development on the bed and banks of waterways be
minimised and that Council needs a provision in place for addressing the
proliferation of such development along the bed and banks and the potential
impact of such development. |
Development
for the purpose of flood mitigation work may be carried out by or on behalf
of a public authority without consent on any land under the State
Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (Infrastructure SEPP).
The draft LEP is consistent with the provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP.
Flood mitigation works are carried out by or on behalf of a public authority
and are carried out on a need by needs basis. Development applications for
proposals on waterway foreshores are referred to the NOW for their
consideration. This will ensure balances are maintained and proliferation of
such development is minimised. Further, the potential impact of any proposal
on the foreshore and/or waterway must comply with the heads of consideration
of Clause 6.4 Foreshore building line, Clause 6.5 Development on flood prone
land and Clause 6.9 Environmental Protection (where applicable) as well as
zone objectives and the provisions in the draft DCP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
546 |
NSW
Office of Water (Penrith) |
|
|
Schedule
2 Exempt development: rainwater tanks should be located outside the mapped
riparian land. |
This
request would be inconsistent with the approach adopted in mapping waterways
in the draft LEP. The mapping of waterways in the draft LEP was based on
in-house creek centre line information, stream order classifications and
environmental significance levels, and identified by waterway zones and the
environmental protection clause. The RCMS mapping used to identify 'riparian
land' was unavailable at the time of drafting the LEP, therefore a 'riparian
lands map' was not included in the draft LEP. The RCMS stream categorisation
mapping has not yet been provided to Council. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
546 |
NSW
Office of Water (Penrith) |
|
|
The NSW
Office of Water recommends the LEP include: 1. specific clause to protect and enhance
wetlands in the LGA 2. specific clauses to protect resources,
enhance groundwater quality and protect groundwater dependent ecosystems. |
Wetlands
are sufficiently identified and protected by the provisions of the W1 Natural
Waterways zone, W2 Recreational Waterways zone or Clause 6.9 Environmental
Protection. The
nature of groundwater in the Parramatta LGA is quite saline. There is
evidence of groundwater springs on the edge of the sandstone escarpment along
Council’s northern boundary that provides flow to local creeks. There are no
significant ecosystems that are dependent on these springs as they are minor
and isolated. Despite this, the draft DCP contains general provisions to
protect groundwater quality, flows and drainage patterns during demolition,
construction and ongoing operation phases of a development. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
546 |
NSW
Office of Water (Penrith) |
|
|
Any
Asset Protection Zone (APZ) requirement, or any part of the APZ, should not
be located within the riparian land (core riparian zone or vegetated buffer). |
Asset
Protection Zones only applies to bush fire prone land. The Parramatta LGA does
not contain any bush fire prone land. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
546 |
NSW
Office of Water (Penrith) |
|
|
Dictionary:
suggests amendments 'waterbody (artificial)' and replacing the definition of
'watercourse'. |
Council
does not have the discretion to amend the definitions in the Standard LEP
Instrument. The Standard LEP Instrument includes a dictionary of standard
definitions relating to land uses and other terms relevant to the
interpretation of LEPs. The standard definitions are mandatory. Councils are
not able to alter the standard definitions or directly add their own
definitions to the dictionary as advised in Practice Note PN 06-003. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
546 |
NSW
Office of Water (Penrith) |
|
|
The NSW
Office of Water makes the following comments with respect to objectives of
certain zones in the draft LEP instrument: 1. Recommends the E2 zone include the
following objective: "to protect, conserve and enhance waterways,
riparian land, groundwater resources and dependent ecosystems". 2. Suggests amending the sixth objective of
the IN2 Light Industrial zone to ensure protection, conservation and
enhancement of riparian land. 3. Suggests inclusion of an objective
relating to the protection and enhancement of waterways and riparian land in
the RE1 Public Recreation zone. |
1. The E2 Environmental Protection zone
comprises two mandatory objectives. The objectives of the zone are to
protect, manage and restore areas of high ecological, scientific, cultural or
aesthetic values, and to prevent development that could destroy, damage or
otherwise have an adverse effect on those values. It is considered
superfluous to add another objective to protect riparian land when the very
nature of the mandatory objectives is to protect the values of the land zoned
E2 Environmental Protection, whether it is riparian land, groundwater
resources, dependent ecosystems or bushland. 2. Given the location of land proposed to
be zoned IN2 Light Industrial to Parramatta River and its tributaries and the
subject of the objective to improve public access along the foreshore, it is
recommended that the suggested addition be inserted to this objective. 3. It is acknowledged that the objective
that relates to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment is
for recreational purposes, not environmental value. Although, the W1 Natural
Waterways zone has been applied to waterways on public owned land, some of
the vegetated buffers may not be wholly captured in the W1 Natural Waterways
zone. |
Replace the sixth objective of the IN2 Light Industrial
zone with the following objective: "Where development is near the
Parramatta River and its tributaries, to improve public access along the
foreshore of the river in a manner that protects, conserves and enhances
riparian land". Insert the following objective to the RE1 Public
Recreation zone: "To protect, enhance and restore waterways and riparian
corridors located in this zone". |
|
546 |
NSW
Office of Water (Penrith) |
|
|
All
uses (including exempt and complying development) with the exception of
environmental protection works, drainage and crossings (e.g. roads, service
utilities, path crossings) should be prohibited within the riparian land
(core riparian zone or vegetated buffer). Clause
3.1 Exempt Development and Clause 3.2 Complying Development: The NOW is
concerned that locating awnings, pergolas etc within riparian lands will
adversely affect the current and future values and functions of the riparians
lands. The NOW recommends that waterways and riparian lands be added to the
description of environmentally sensitive areas under Clause 3.3(2) or amend
Clause 3.1(3) and Clause 3.2 to not allow exempt and complying development
respectively on land within a waterway or shown as riparian land on the
Riparian Land Map. |
The
submission not only assesses the impacts of development on riparian land
under the draft Parramatta LEP but also the Standard LEP Instrument. Council
does not have the discretion to amend compulsory clauses, definitions or land
uses in land use tables of the Standard LEP Instrument. The Standard LEP
Instrument mandates the content of compulsory clauses, land use tables and
definitions. Given the issues relate to the Standard LEP Instrument, it is
suggested that the NSW Office of Water directly approach the NSW Department
of Planning about the need to include waterways and riparian lands to the
definition of environmentally sensitive areas, as well as the compulsory land
uses and the content of clauses. Despite the limitations of the Standard
Template, zones and clauses are not to be overly restrictive particularly
where they apply to privately owned land as this may trigger the need/request
for land acquisition. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
546 |
NSW
Office of Water (Penrith) |
|
|
A
category 2 outcome (CRZ width of 20m + 10m vegetated buffer) for riparian
corridors should be applied along the Parramatta foreshore but larger widths
are provided where space available to ensure there is no further decrease of
riparian land along the river to urban development. |
This
recommended core riparian zone width for Parramatta River cannot be achieved
without encroaching upon closely bounded residential, business and industrial
privately owned land. Accordingly, the
W2 Recreational Waterway zone follows the existing corridor. A foreshore
building line clause and environmental protection clause have been applied to
most of the Parramatta River foreshore. The objective of the foreshore
building line clause is to ensure that development in the foreshore area will
not impact on natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and
amenity of the area. The objective of
the environmental protection clause is to manage and maintain the integrity
of identified riparian land and waterways, and areas of terrestrial and
aquatic biodiversity significance. Together these clauses will provide
adequate protection of the foreshore area. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
546 |
NSW
Office of Water (Penrith) |
|
|
The NSW
Office of Water has undertaken desk top stream categorisation of riparian
land in the LGA using the Riparian Corridor Management Study (RCMS) and
recommends the LEP includes the RCMS mapping for the entire LGA (on a new
riparian land map), and the width of the riparian land is measured from top
of bank in accordance with the RCMS categories. The NOW would be pleased to
provide Council with a copy of the RCMS stream categorisation if Council
would like to include this mapping in the LEP. |
On 25
June 2008 Council was advised by the (then) Department of Natural Resources
that no stream categorisation was available for the Parramatta LGA. In order
to comply with the Department of Planning’s direction to utilise the waterway
zones and ensure no land is left unzoned in a comprehensive LEP, Council
endeavoured to identify all waterways and apply the waterway zones and
environmental protection clause based on in-house creek centre line
information, stream order classifications and environmental significance
levels. The allocated zone and clause widths allow for maintaining water
quality, bank stability and reducing soil erosion. It is noted that the
Department of Planning is in the process of finalising an LEP Practice Note
pertaining to the application of waterway zones in comprehensive LEPs. The
manner in which natural waterways throughout the Parramatta LGA have been
mapped is considered adequate in ensuring the long term health and management
of riparian land. Given the identification and protection the waterway zones
and environmental protection clause have on riparian land, a separate
‘riparian land map’ is unnecessary. Further, the RCMS stream categorisation
mapping has not yet been provided to Council.
Nonetheless,
a review of the W2 Recreational Waterways zoning uncovered four areas where
this zone could be extended to include the full extent of the Estuarine
Mangrove Forest on Parramatta River. |
Extend
the W2 Recreational Waterways zoning to the four areas as shown in Attachment
2 to include the full extent of the Estuarine Mangrove Forest on Parramatta
River. Council
formally request a copy of the RCMS stream categorisation for the Parramatta
LGA for its information and future waterway project planning. |
|
546 |
NSW
Office of Water (Penrith) |
|
|
The NSW
Office of Water NOW supports Council zoning riparian land as E2 Environmental
Protection (particularly watercourses that have been classified as Category 1
and 2 watercourses). It is recommended the uses that are proposed to be
permitted under the E2 Environment Conservation zone/riparian land are
limited so as not to adversely affect the function of the riparian land. |
The
land uses permitted in the E2 Environmental Protection zone are very limited.
The land uses permitted help to protect, manage and restore areas zoned E2
Environmental Protection. The limited permitted uses in this zone will
prevent development that could destroy,damage or otherwise have an adverse
effect on the environmental values of the land. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
546 |
NSW
Office of Water (Penrith) |
|
|
Concerned
that the W2 Recreational Waterways permits with consent community facilities,
information and education facilities, moorings, research stations, recreation
areas and flood mitigation works. Council needs a provision in place for
addressing the proliferation of such development. |
All of
these land uses, with the exception of flood mitigation works, are mandatory
land uses set out by the Standard LEP Instrument for the W2 Recreational
Waterways zone. The Standard LEP
Instrument mandates components of the land use tables in the Standard LEP
Instrument and Council does not have the discretion to amend these compulsory
elements. Development
for the purpose of flood mitigation work may be carried out by or on behalf
of a public authority without consent on any land under the State
Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (Infrastructure SEPP).
The draft LEP is consistent with the provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
499 |
548 |
Auburn
City Council |
|
|
Support
application of W1 (Natural Waterways) zone in areas of interface with Auburn
Council area. |
The W1
Natural Waterways zone has been applied to riparian corridors located on
public owned land and is consistent with the zoning of riparian corridors in
the draft Auburn LEP 2009. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
548 |
Auburn
City Council |
|
|
Support
proposed zoning (IN1 - General Industrial) maximum building height of 12m and
FSR of 1:1 in area to the west of and along the Duck River corridor. |
The
proposed zoning and building controls for the land immediately west of the
Duck River Corridor, between the M4 Motorway, the Western Railway line and
North West rail line is consistent with the zoning for Parramatta Road in the
draft Auburn LEP 2009. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
548 |
Auburn
City Council |
|
|
Suggests
some minor mapping notations and changes to improve legibility. Specifically,
the removal of "unincorporated" on map tile 15 and the insertion of
the term "excluded" on the Parramatta City Centre area. |
LEP
maps prepared in accordance with the Standard Instrument (LEP) Order 2006
must fully comply with the NSW Department of Planning's Standard Technical
Requirements for LEP Maps (March 2009) (STR). The requirements do not stipulate
the term "excluded" be applied to the areas not subject to the
plan, rather the use of grey colouring to illustrate the exclusion. Further,
the Department of Planning advised in the Section 65 Certificate to remove
the reference of "Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007" from a tile on
the Height of Buildings map. This request was carried through all maps. The
adjoining council boundaries was provided by the Land and Property Management
Authority. The term "unincorporated" has added some confusion to
the maps given that the STR only requires the names of adjoining local
government areas and not their boundaries. Hence, the exact area the term
"unincorporated" applies to is unclear on the maps and according to
Auburn City Council does not align with their local government boundary. |
Remove
the term "unincorporated" where it appears in the draft LEP maps. |
|
500 |
550 |
Rail
Corporation New South Wales |
|
|
Requests
that: Lot 2
DP 418114 -- Telopea be rezoned R2 Low Density Residential Part of
Lot 1 DP 1021694 & Lots 51 & 52 DP 843244 Rydalmere be rezoned IN1
Light Industrial Land
parcels not currently zoned 5 Special Uses be transferred to the equivalent
standard LEPs zones. |
The
response to the requests is as follows: Land at
Telopea: The reference to Lot 2 DP 418114 should be to Lot D DP 418114. This lot is vacant of buildings and in the
current LEP 2001 is zoned Residential 2 (b).
In the draft LEP the property is zoned RE1 Public Recreation whilst
properties to the south are zoned R2 Low Density Residential in the draft
LEP, but following consideration of submissions are recommended to be zoned
R3 Medium Density Residential . It is
considered that given the land’s : current ownership and use; zoning in the
current LEP and proposed recommendation for zoning of surrounding land in the
draft LEP that the property should be rezoned R3 Medium Density Residential . Land at
Rydalmere: Under the draft LEP part of 11B Railway Lands, Dundas (Lot 1 DP
1021694) is zoned SP2 Infrastructure (forming the railway corridor) and part
of the land is zoned IN2 Light Industrial. The application of these two
zonings is a translation of the zonings applied under the current planning
instrument (SREP 28). The submission seeks the extension of the area zoned
IN2 to cover an area occupied by existing buildings south of the railway line
and vacant land north of the railway line. Similarly, further advice from
RailCorp seeks that properties known as 213A Victoria Road, Rydalmere (Lots
51 and 52 DP 843244) be zoned IN2 Light Industrial (instead of SP2
Infrastructure currently shown in draft LEP) as these allotments are
currently zoned Business and Transport Centre under SREP 28. Other
land: Since lodging the submission, RailCorp has advised that there are no
parcels currently zoned 5 Special Uses that require a change of zoning. |
That
Lot D DP 418114 at Telopea be rezoned R3 Medium Density Residential with a
height of 11 m and FSR of 0.6:1. That
No. 213A Victoria Road , Rydalmere (Lots 51 and 52 DP 843244) and part of 11B
Railway Lands, Dundas (Lot 1 DP 1021694) as generally identified in diagrams
provided by Rail Corporation NSW be zoned IN2 Light Industrial with a height
of 12 metres and a floor space ratio of 1:1 (for land on the southern side of
railway line) and no floor space ratio control for land on the northern side
of railway line; and that Council liaise with Rail Corporation NSW as necessary to determine the exact mapping
coordinates for rezoning parts of Lot 1 DP 1021694. |
501 |
553 |
Parramatta
Park Trust |
Parramatta
Park |
Parramatta |
Objects
to the proposed height limit of 15 metres for land bound by Parramatta
Stadium, O'Connell Street, Grose Street and the Parramatta River. The
adjoining land, occupied by the Parramatta Leagues Club has a proposed height
limit of 9 metres. Both these height limits are inconsistent with the
proposed heritage values and use of Parramatta Park. The proposed height
limits for Park Parade (19 metres) need to be assessed against impacts on
views from the dairy cottage located in Parramatta Park. In general, the
rural character of Parramatta Park requires careful consideration and
protection due to its nationally significant cultural landscape. |
The
land leased to Parramatta Leagues Club and subject of the proposed 15 m
height limit in the draft LEP is zoned B4 Mixed Use. This zoning appears to be an error as in
the current Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (SREP) No 28 -- Parramatta the
land is zoned Parramatta Regional Park.
It is also noted that the adjoining lot on the corner of Grose and
O'Connell streets occupied by the club building for the Leagues club is zoned
R2 Low Density Residential. This zoning also appears to be an error as it
does not reflect the current use. Therefore, it is considered that land
occupied by the car park and club building for the Leagues Club should be
zoned RE2 Private Recreation.
Registered clubs are permitted with consent in this zone. In addition, the following uses should be
permitted for that part of the land leased from the Parramatta Regional Park
(generally the car park) under
schedule 1 of the LEP, as generally provided for in SREP No 28 -- Parramatta
and also for that part of the park within the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007
: Development provided for under the Parramatta Park Trust Act 2001,
including any development ordinarily incidental or ancillary to such
development) may be carried out on any land to which this clause applies
without development consent. In respect of that part of the submission
concerning height limits in Park Parade in Westmead, the State government
completed a planning strategy for the Westmead precinct in 2006,
acknowledging its significance as a major specialised health precinct. Council considered that the strategy
required further evaluation and commissioned additional traffic and transport
studies. The results of these studies,
together with a strategic vision for Westmead are expected to be reported to
Council later this year and will inform a review of zoning and land use
controls for the Westmead Precinct. It
is considered premature to make ad hoc amendments to the planning controls
for sites within the precinct ahead of the completion of this work. Planning
proposals will be introduced for public consultation for any future changes
to the planning controls for the Westmead precinct. |
1. The
land on which the car park and club building for the Parramatta Leagues Club
are situated on be rezoned RE2 Private Recreation. In addition, the following uses be
permitted for that part of the land leased from Parramatta Regional Park
under schedule 1 of the LEP: development provided for under the Parramatta
Park Trust Act 2001, including any development ordinarily incidental or
ancillary to such development) may be carried out on any land to which this
clause applies without development consent. 2. That
the part of the submission relating to height limits proposed for Park
Parade, Westmead not be supported at this time, but be considered in the
context of the Westmead planning study. |
553 |
Parramatta
Park Trust |
Parramatta
Park |
Parramatta |
Building
constructed along the western boundary of Parramatta Park (Amos Street) need
appropriate planning control over the design, construction and materials used
for fences. The character along the edge of the parklands needs to soften the
hard edge of urban boundaries. Picket fences should therefore be required. |
It is
considered that the boundary treatment of this part of Parramatta Park should
be considered as part of the Westmead Planning Study which will also address
appropriate fencing for the Park. In addition,
consultation should take place with Holroyd City Council on this issue as it
also has a large boundary to the Park. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
553 |
Parramatta
Park Trust |
Parramatta
Park |
Parramatta |
That
the heritage item covering part of Cumberland/Westmead Hospital between
Hainsworth Street and the Parramatta River needs to be extended to cover a
significant camp site of Governor Arthur Phillip. Also there is an anomaly
with the heritage item schedule for Old Government house not being listed as
an item in its own right. |
Generally
land at the junction of the Parramatta River and Darling Mills Creek is
heritage listed as Cumberland Hospital in draft Parramatta LEP 2010 and also
on the State Heritage Register.
However, area of land on the west side of Parramatta River fronting
Toongabbie Creek, being part Lot 1 DP 111958 and understood to be part of the
Westmead Children's Hospital is not listed.
The submission should be dealt with as part of Council's Comprehensive
Heritage study, currently being undertaken, to see whether any additional
protection and recognition should be given to Captain Phillips Camp. The
whole of Parramatta Park is heritage listed as Parramatta Regional Park, of
State significance, in Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007. There is not a separate listing for Old
Government House in this LEP. This
part of the submission should also be dealt with as part of Council's
comprehensive heritage study to see whether there should be a separate
listing for Old Government House |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
502 |
561 |
NSW
Transport and Infrastructure |
|
|
NSW
Transport and Infrastructure support the aims of the draft LEP provided some
specific objectives are included that reference walking and cycling. Another
suggestion is to add an objective about managing car parking to influence the
choice of travel mode. |
Clause
2.1 (e) states that an objective of the plan is to improve access to the City
and facilitate the maximum use of improved public transport. This in part is
to recognise the importance of walking and cycling in the creation of a well
connected, permeable City. However, in light of the NSW Transport and
Infrastructure submission, it is reasonable to expand on this objective and
make it clearer. It is important to note that the addition of objectives will
be subject of final approval from the NSW Department of Planning. |
That
Council replace clause 1.2 (2) (e) of draft Parramatta LEP 2010 with “to
enhance access to Parramatta, particularly by public transport, walking and
cycling”. |
561 |
NSW
Transport and Infrastructure |
|
|
Cycleways,
Footways and Active transport facilities should be land uses permitted with
consent in all zones. That some objectives amongst zones should include
objectives that maximise transport patronage, encourage walking and cycling.
The objectives of the R3 and R4 Residential zones should include an objective
that promotes walking and cycling as primary modes of transport. |
The NSW
standard LEP template does not give Council's the opportunity to include
additional land uses in the draft LEP. Cycleways, Footways and Active
transport facilities would need to be defined and identified by the NSW
Department of Planning as optional or mandatory land uses and applied across
the State. This is not currently the case.
Council has invested in cycling and pedestrian connections to make the
LGA more permeable and to subsequently make these legitimate transport
options. Consequently, there is merit in Council modifying objectives. It is
considered that amending the aims of the draft LEP can cover this issue more
holistically rather than focusing on particular zones. Any changes to the
objectives will be subject to approval from the NSW Department of Planning. |
That
Council replace clause 1.2 (2) (e) of draft Parramatta LEP 2010 with “to
enhance access to Parramatta, particularly by public transport, walking and
cycling”. |
|
561 |
NSW
Transport and Infrastructure |
|
|
The
submission suggests that ‘passenger transport facilities’ and ‘transport
depots’ be permitted with consent in the SP2 Infrastructure Zone. |
Under
the draft LEP, the SP2 Infrastructure zone has been applied to rail corridors
and major arterial roads as it relates to transport infrastructure. In
relation to the inclusion of ‘passenger transport facilities’ and ‘transport
depots’ in the SP2 Infrastructure zone, these uses are ultimately permitted
by the Infrastructure SEPP as it relates to Railway Facilities and Road
Facilities and therefore do not need to be included within the land use table
as advised by the Department of Planning. Clause
79 of the SEPP permits development for the purpose of rail infrastructure
facilities by a public authority without consent on any land. These rail
facilities include (in part) railway stations and facilities for storage and
maintenance and the like. Similarly Clause 94 of the SEPP permits development
for the purpose of road infrastructure facilities by a public authority
without consent on any land and includes public transport facilities.
Furthermore, Clause 96 of the SEPP permits transitway parking stations, bus
depots and maintenance depots to be carried out by any person in a prescribed
zone which includes the SP2 Infrastructure Zone. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
561 |
NSW
Transport and Infrastructure |
|
|
The
exhibited draft Land Reservation Acquisition map does not appear to show all
Strategic Bus Corridor reservations. It is recommended that NSW Transport
Infrastructure be consulted on this matter. |
The
Department of Planning advised on 22 September 2009 that the Department of
Transport and Infrastructure requires reservations on 25 private properties
for its strategic bus corridor. This requirement was confirmed by this
submission. The Dept of Planning advised Council to identify the 25 private
properties, as they appear on the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 18
(Public Transport Corridors) on the draft Land Zoning map and draft Land
Reservation Acquisition map with an SP2 Infrastructure zoning and marked
"Strategic Bus Corridor". All 25 reservations have been identified
on the draft Land Zoning map and draft Land Reservation Acquisition map with
the exception of the following: · Lot 6 DP 247452 (1 Windsor Road,
Northmead) as this property is within The Hills Shire local government area. · Lot 866 DP 752028 (4 North Rocks
Rd, North Parramatta) and Lot 4 DP 1022209 (1 Toll Street, North Parramatta)
have been identified as anomalies and should be included in the draft LEP. |
Map the
SREP 18 reservations (as provided by the RTA) at Lot 866 DP 752028 (4 North
Rocks Rd, North Parramatta) and Lot 4 DP 1022209 (1 Toll Street, North
Parramatta) on the Land Zoning Map and Land Reservation Acquisition Map in the
draft LEP as shown in an Annexure to Attachment 2. |
|
561 |
NSW
Transport and Infrastructure |
|
|
Comments
on the draft DCP have been made by NSW Transport and Infrastructure. These
comments are as follows: a) The DCP could cross reference more
detailed plans, traffic management schemes, bicycle plans etc b) Ensure that connectivity of active
transport linkages are addressed comprehensively c) Include in the DCP relevant
recommendations contained in the NSW Planning Guidelines for walking and
cycling d) Terminology in the DCP should be
consistent with government policies and guidelines. e) Parking rates should be set at consistent
level with State Plan targets for Parramatta f) Splay corners are not friendly to
pedestrians. |
The
following responses are provided: a)
References to other documents to provide more assistance in development is
noted. Council will investigate opportunities to do this in finalising the
draft Parramatta DCP 2010. b) Part
4 of the DCP focuses on Town Centre and Special precincts. Within this
section contains a lot of material that identifies opportunities for improved
connectivity, pedestrian links and ensuring that these areas, where increased
density is proposed, is undertaken in an integrated way that recognises the
importance of transport linkages. c) This
is noted. Council will consider adding information to clause 3.6.2 that
references or extract relevant standards contained in the NSW Planning
Guidelines for walking and cycling. d)
Council support the comment that travel plans and guidelines need to use
consistent language applied by State Government. Council will liaise with the
Premier Council for Active living where necessary. e) This
issue relates more to provisions associated with the Parramatta City Centre
and not the rest of the LGA for which the draft DCP focuses on. However,
Council in recent times has made a commitment to met ambitious State Plan
parking targets to constrain parking to a maximum level in the City Centre. f)
Council's approach to splay corners is to find the appropriate balance
between improved pedestrian access and amenity and traffic movement without
compromising safety. Council requires that any consideration of splay corners
must be done at the initial stages of development to ensure all factors are
assessed and that they are applied in appropriate locations. |
That
Council look for opportunities when finalising the DCP to reference
appropriate guidelines and policies that relate to strategic documents and
state policy. That Council provide consistent wording in the DCP when
referencing travel plans. |
|
503 |
563 |
Roads
and Traffic Authority |
|
|
The RTA
suggests that the key design considerations in the Premiers Council for
Active Living should be taken in consideration during the preparation of the
draft LEP. |
Council's
draft Parramatta LEP 2010 is a policy that actively encourages concentrated
residential growth near centres, public transport, open space and community
facilities. This approach underpins the key design considerations advocated
by the Premiers Council for Active Living.
A concentrated growth model allows Council to then implement further
infrastructure such as shared access paths and the embellishment of open
space. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
563 |
Roads
and Traffic Authority |
|
|
Should
the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone be promoted along arterial routes, then the
planning of parking areas and vehicular access to such developments are of
strategic importance. Planning could include the provisions of rear access
lanes. |
Council
acknowledges that where an Enterprise Corridor zone is located that the
proliferation of access ways can create conflict points, affect pedestrian
safety and the efficient movement of traffic. Council has a provision in its
draft DCP to prevent direct access to development sites from arterial roads
unless there is no alternative.
Council will take the approach of assessing such applications on their
merit. The locations proposed to be zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor do
facilitate opportunities to rely on side streets for direct access. This is
something for which Council will encourage. Furthermore, Council's minimum
frontage control of 18 metres ensures that for smaller sites, land
amalgamation will be necessary. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. . |
|
563 |
Roads
and Traffic Authority |
|
|
The RTA
requires design principles for acoustic privacy to achieve the required noise
criteria for developments impacted by traffic noise. Further, to include a
provision that requires an acoustic report for development adjacent to or on
steep or elevated land within 100 metres of arterial, sub-arterial or
collector roads. |
Section
3.3.4 Acoustic Amenity ensures buildings are designed and sited in a manner
that minimises noise impacts from abutting busy roads and rail corridors.
Council has included a principle in the draft DCP stipulating that the
provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP 2007 and Development near Rail
Corridors and Busy Roads Interim Guideline must be taken into consideration.
This section of the draft DCP also requires at Council's discretion an
acoustic report be prepared for residential developments on sites adjacent to
noise generating sources such as busy roads and rail corridors. The
combination of draft DCP, Infrastructure SEPP and Interim Guideline
provisions is considered adequate in achieving the required noise criteria
for development. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
563 |
Roads
and Traffic Authority |
|
|
The RTA
requests to be consulted and a master plan be provided for the development at
Morton Street Precinct, Camellia- James Ruse Drive corridor and Harris Park-
Key Block Four (Rosehill Bowling Club). |
Council
agrees to undertake this consultation at the appropriate time. Council in
accordance with this comment has forwarded to the RTA the draft Voluntary
Planning Agreement for 2 Morton Street, Parramatta. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
563 |
Roads
and Traffic Authority |
|
|
Provisions
for developer funding for required transport infrastructure improvements
should be included in the draft LEP. |
In
preparing draft Parramatta LEP 2010, Council at one point did contemplate a
provision associated with the collection of contributions for the purpose of
Regional Infrastructure. However, advice from the Department of Planning is
that any provision would operate by way of a condition issued by the Minister
for Planning that Council could impose such a levy. It was also unclear to
Council as to how this provision would be implemented in terms of the type of
infrastructure, what the priorities were and the timing of its construction.
It became more apparent to Council that if such a provision was to be
introduced it be under the direction of the Department of Planning and in
line with the State Plan. As such, Council did not proceed with this
provision. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
563 |
Roads
and Traffic Authority |
|
|
RTA
requests that Council submit the revised draft LEP instrument, Land Zoning
map and Land Acquisition map to the RTA for further review and endorsement
before gazettal to ensure the identification of all new
inclusions/adjustments on classified roads on these maps. |
This
issue is discussed in the detailed Council report found in Attachment 1. |
That
the draft Land Reservation Acquisition Map and related Land Zoning Map in
draft Parramatta LEP 2010 be amended to achieve a ‘best fit’ to represent the
required land reservations for acquisition by the RTA for road widening as
indicated in Attachment 2. |
|
563 |
Roads
and Traffic Authority |
|
|
The RTA
requires Council to ensure that child care centres are prohibited within all
zones where such properties have a direct frontage to a classified road. |
In
relation to the land use table, the Roads and Traffic Authority seeks that
child care centres be prohibited where properties have direct frontage to a
classified road. Child care centres are mandatory land uses under the
Standard LEP Instrument in most zones, Council cannot remove the use from the
land use table even where some properties within that zone have frontage to a
classified road. It is noted that the
draft DCP states that preferred sites for child care centres are not located
adjacent to arterial and main roads. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010 or draft
DCP 2010. |
|
563 |
Roads
and Traffic Authority |
|
|
The RTA
requests that the draft LEP zone all Classified State Roads as SP2 Infrastructure
(Classified Road). All other roads should adopt the adjacent land use zone. The RTA
recommends that Roads be included as permitted with consent in all zones,
including SP2 Infrastructure (Classified Road). |
Council
has adopted this zoning approach in preparing the draft LEP, which is
consistent with the direction given in the Department of Planning's LEP
Practice Note PN 08-002. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
563 |
Roads
and Traffic Authority |
|
|
The Land
Acquisition maps do not show all of the SREP 18 - Public Transport
reservations. The SREP 18 reservations zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Strategic
Bus Corridor) should be amended and zoned as SP2 Infrastructure (Classified
Road). |
The
Department of Planning advised on 22 September 2009 that the Department of
Transport and Infrastructure requires reservations on 25 private properties
for its strategic bus corridor. This requirement was also confirmed by a
submission on the draft LEP from the Department of Transport and
Infrastructure. The Department of Planning advised Council to identify the 25
private properties, as they appear on the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan
No. 18 (Public Transport Corridors) on the draft Land Zoning map and draft
Land Reservation Acquisition map with an SP2 Infrastructure zoning and marked
"Strategic Bus Corridor". All 25 reservations have been identified
on the draft Land Zoning map and draft Land Reservation Acquisition map with
the exception of the following: · Lot 6 DP 247452 (1 Windsor Road,
Northmead) as this property is within The Hills Shire local government area. · Lot 866 DP 752028 (4 North Rocks
Rd, North Parramatta) and Lot 4 DP 1022209 (1 Toll Street, North Parramatta)
have been identified as anomalies and should be included in the draft LEP. |
Map the
SREP 18 reservations (as provided by the RTA) at Lot 866 DP 752028 (4 North
Rocks Rd, North Parramatta) and Lot 4 DP 1022209 (1 Toll Street, North
Parramatta) on the Land Zoning Map and Land Reservation Acquisition Map in
the draft LEP as shown in Attachment 2. |
|
563 |
Roads
and Traffic Authority |
|
|
The RTA
would like the LEP to prohibit direct vehicular access from developments
fronting classified road where access can be gained via an alternative
non-classified road. |
The
draft DCP has a provision in Clause 3.6.2 Parking and Vehicular Access,
specifically Principle 4 that requires development sites located on arterial
roads to be accessed via a secondary street where possible. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta DCP 2010. |
|
563 |
Roads
and Traffic Authority |
|
|
The RTA
indicates that zoning along the public transport routes and centres,
particularly the T-ways needs to reflect Transit Orientated Development
opportunities. Research on this type of development is soon to be released by
the RTA. High
density and mixed use development should be provided around public transport
infrastructure to reduce private vehicle usage. |
Council’s
Residential Development Strategy recognises that there will be a staged approach
to increasing residential density in the Parramatta LGA. The draft Parramatta
LEP 2010 therefore does not provide for the rezoning of all of the
potentially suitable areas of increased residential density. The RDS identifies areas of future investigation
for potential increase in residential density in the vicinity of the Old
Windsor Rd corridor containing the North West Bus Transitway. As these areas
are yet to undergo detailed study, residential zonings in this locality have
not been reviewed in the draft LEP. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
|
504 |
621 |
Integral
Energy |
|
|
Integral
Energy owns 16-18 Crown Street, Harris Park and requests the inclusion of
medical consulting rooms and professional office suites as permissible land
uses in the R2 Low Density Residential zone given that these land uses are
currently permissible in the 2(a) Residential zone and Experiment Farm
Conservation Area under SREP 28. |
Medical
Consulting Room The
equivalent land use in the Standard LEP Template is 'health consulting room'.
The land use 'health consulting room' was removed from the R2 Low Density
Residential Zone at the direction of the Department of Planning as it was
thought to be covered by the Infrastructure SEPP. On further investigation
the Department of Planning has recently advised that there is no objection to
this use being included in the land use table as the use is not in fact
covered by the SEPP for the R2 Low Density Residential zone at this time.
However, it is noted that a recent discussion paper on a review of the
Infrastructure SEPP sought to include health consulting rooms as a permitted
use in the R2 zone under the SEPP. Professional
Office Suites The
equivalent land use in the Standard LEP Template is ‘office premises’. The
main objective of the R2 zone is to provide for the housing needs of the
community within a low density residential environment whilst enabling other
land uses that provide facilities or services to need the day to day needs of
residents. Office premises is a business related land use and has been
permitted in the Business Zones. Despite this, 16-18 Crown Street, Harris
Park are heritage listed properties thus subject to Clause 5.10 (10)
Conservation Incentives, which allows the consent authority to grant consent
to development for any purpose of a building that is a heritage item, even
though development for that purpose would otherwise not be allowed by the
LEP, if the consent authority is satisfied it meets the provided criteria. |
That ‘health
consulting rooms’ be included as a permissible land use in the R2 Low Density
Residential Zone. |
505 |
345 |
Industry
& Investment NSW |
|
|
Support
the application of the W1 and W2 zonings of waterways as well as accompanying
clauses. Suggest inclusion of more riparian land adjacent to key fish
habitat. |
The
Parramatta River is identified as a key fish habitat for which marine and
estuarine habitats exist. The majority of the Parramatta River (with the
exception of the upper channel) is zoned W2 Waterway. This zone includes
protection of the waterway itself and the riverbank. In addition, this land
is also protected by an environment protection clause and a Foreshore
Building line to ensure inappropriate development does not encroach on the
riverbank or impact on the rivers function. This is considered sufficient
protection of the river and these habitats. However, the upper channel of the
river is covered by the Parramatta City Centre Plan 2007. Under this plan,
this section of the River is unzoned. It is Council intention that once the
draft Parramatta LEP is gazetted, that Council undertake a project to
incorporate the City Centre plan into the newly made draft LEP thus making
one comprehensive plan applying the whole LGA. During this process, Council will
need to rezone this land to be consistent with the rest of the Parramatta
River thus affording protection to this section of the river. |
That no
change be made to the exhibited version of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. |
345 |
Industry
& Investment NSW |
|
|
The submission
suggests changes to the land use table as follows: Inclusion of agriculture
and rural industries in industrial zones due to their employment generating
nature; Supports farmers markets in
the Parramatta CBD and other suitable zones to maintain a link between local
and regional farms and the city of Parramatta; Request inclusion of
Aquaculture in the W1 & W2 zones; and Request removal of the prohibition
of mining and extractive industries in the Industrial zones due to their
inclusion in the SEPP (Mining, Petroleum Production & Extractive
Industries) 2007. |
Markets
are permitted in a number of zones including business zones and will enable
suitable locations for markets including 'farmer's markets. A review of the
range or agriculture and rural industries was undertaken in respect of what
may be suitable in industrial zones and some uses including 'agricultural
produce industries', 'horticulture', and 'sawmill or log processing
facilities' are considered suitable for inclusion to the IN3 Heavy Industrial
Zone. SEPP (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) permits
'mining' and 'extractive industries' within industrial zones and therefore
the prohibition of these uses needs to be removed from the industrial zones.
SEPP 62 (Sustainable Aquaculture) permits land based and pond based
aquaculture in a number of zones and as such NSW Industry and Investment have
instructed Council not to include these uses within the land use table.
However, it is noted that 'aquaculture' is a sub term of 'agriculture' and
'agriculture' has been generally been prohibited under the draft LEP and this
inconsistency should be highlighted to the Department of Planning. With
regard to permitting natural water based aquaculture in the W1 and W2
Waterway zones, Council’s Manager Environmental Outcomes has advised that
this should not be supported for the following reasons: The
narrow width of the upper Parramatta River estuary would preclude both
aquaculture and safe navigation within the main channel. The high degree of
urbanisation and industrialisation (past and present) has detrimentally
affected the water and sediment quality within the river. Elevated levels of
heavy metals and organic compounds have resulted in poor aquatic ecosystem
health and a subsequent ban on eating fish, crustaceans and shellfish west of
the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It is unlikely that the remediation of these
contaminants will happen in the near future (with the exception of Homebush
Bay) and thus the risk to human health through consumption of seafood grown
under aquaculture is high. |
That
the land use table be amended to include 'agricultural produce industries',
'horticulture', and 'sawmill or log processing facilities' within the IN3
Heavy Industrial Zone; and that the prohibition of 'mining' and 'extractive
industries' be removed from the IN1, IN2 and IN3 Industrial zones. That
Council raise concern with the Department of Planning with regard to the
permissibility of 'aquaculture' under SEPP 62 and group term. |