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.

11

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.

60

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.

452

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.