|
Item 9.6 - Attachment 1 |
Detailed Submission |
DETAILED
SUBMISSION
BACKGROUND
The Parramatta Local Environmental Plan
(LEP) 2001 and the Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007 both define a place of
public worship as a: “…building or place
used for the purpose of religious worship by a congregation or religious group
whether or not the building or place is also used for counselling, social
events, instruction or religious training.”
The draft Parramatta LEP also adopts this definition. PPWs typically take the form of churches,
temples or mosques and are currently permissible in most residential and
business zones with the exception of the Residential 2E zone.
Currently, the Parramatta LEP 2001 limits
the seating capacity of PPW in the residential zones to a maximum of 250
people. There are no development controls
currently for PPW within the Parramatta Development Control Plan (DCP) 2005
other than the generic controls relating to streetscape, building form and
massing, solar access, parking and accessibility and other relevant
matters.
On 23 March 2009, Council resolved to
prohibit PPW within the R2 Low Density Residential zone within the draft
Parramatta LEP. This change in policy
direction has been ratified by the NSW Department of Planning through their
certification of the draft Parramatta LEP for public exhibition purposes. Council made a further resolution at its
meeting on 28 September 2009, as follows:
“That
the CEO prepare a report to the Council, as a matter of urgency, on a draft
development control plan (DCP) for Places of Public Worship based on the
proposed controls to be included in the City Wide DCP as discussed at the
workshop with Councillors. This report
should consider how the draft DCP can be applied as Council policy until the
DCP is finalised.”
Council considered a report at its meeting
on 19 October 2009 attaching a draft PPW DCP and resolved as follows:
“(a) That
Council adopt for public exhibition for 28 days, a draft development control
plan (DCP) for places of public worship as outlined in Attachment 1 with the
following alterations:-
1 Item 3.1b to apply to all existing
development applications;
2 Item 3.5 Design principles to include
the comment that for all new developments, basement and at grade parking must
be provided;
3 Item 3.5 Design Principles to include
an additional viii to read: “viii. Any
new development must be to predominantly serve the local community and have a
maximum capacity of 250.”
(b) That
the matter, including any submissions received, be reported to Council
following the exhibition of the draft DCP for final consideration and adoption.
(c) That
the draft DCP be applied as Council policy until the draft DCP is finalised.
(d) Further,
that Council officers contact all places of public worship to obtain feedback
on this change.”
The draft DCP was publicly exhibited from
11 November to 11 December 2009. The
results of public exhibition were considered by Council at its meeting on 8
February 2010 and Council resolved to defer consideration of the matter pending
a workshop. The Councillor workshop was
held on 10 March 2010 and changes were subsequently drafted to the draft DCP
and circulated to Councillors and those in attendance at the workshop for
comment.
RELATIONSHIP
WITH DRAFT
It is acknowledged that some confusion exists
around this issue and the relationship of the draft DCP with other plans. The draft DCP which is the subject of this
report sits under the umbrella of the current local environmental plans, ie Parramatta LEP 2001, the Parramatta City Centre LEP and
the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 and does not relate to the draft
LEP 2010 recently exhibited by Council. As
such, the draft DCP for PPW is required to be consistent with the current
framework established by the existing LEPs, in
particular, Clause 42 within Parramatta LEP 2001. The provisions relating to PPW under the
draft Parramatta LEP 2010 and draft Parramatta DCP 2010 are not the subject of
this report.
A table has been included below to clarify
the various plans and their provisions as they relate to PPW.
Table 1: Summary of existing and proposed
provisions relating to PPW
|
LEP
provisions |
LEP
2001 Clause
42 Places
of public worship prohibited in Residential 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d) zones
if seating capacity exceeds 250 |
Draft
LEP 2010 Prohibited
in R2 Low Density Residential zone.
Also subject to height and FSR standards that apply to all development
in the area as shown on LEP map. |
|
Existing
DCP provisions |
DCP
2005 No
specific controls such as height and FSR.
However, apply General Principles such as Building Form and Massing,
Streetscape, Solar Access etc… Car
parking survey required to be undertaken of similar developments. |
N/A |
|
Draft
DCP provisions |
Draft
DCP for PPW Places
of public worship prohibited in residential zones if seating capacity exceeds
250. Subject to the same height, floor space ratio and envelope controls as
is applicable to the predominant land use in the zone. |
Draft
DCP 2010 All
PPW limited to seating capacity of 250 plus requirement to only serve local community. Subject to the same height, floor space
ratio and envelope controls as is applicable to the predominant land use in
the zone. |
While
the draft Parramatta LEP 2010 and draft Parramatta DCP 2010 are not the subject
of this report, the issue of PPW will be discussed in the report to Council
when these two draft Plans are reported back to Council for adoption in the
coming months.
PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
Further to the table above, the main
controls for PPW within the draft DCP are as follows:
· Applications for PPW will be subject
to the same height, floor space ratio and envelope controls that are applicable
to the predominant land use in the zone.
For example, a PPW proposed within a Residential 2B zone will be subject
to a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1, height of 2 storeys and an envelope
applicable to a town house development.
The purpose of this control is to ensure the bulk and scale of PPWs are
compatible with the character of residential areas. (Note: This approach is consistent with the
mechanisms within the draft Parramatta LEP which apply both the floor space
ratio and height controls to land rather than building types.)
· Any proposal for a PPW in a
residential zone is required to have a maximum capacity of 250 people. (Note: this is recommended to be changed to
apply the maximum capacity of 250 people only to residential zones as discussed
further in this report.)
· A noise impact assessment statement
is required to be submitted with all applications excepting applications for
minor modifications or alterations to existing PPW.
· For all new development or
intensification representing a capacity of 50 persons or more, a traffic impact
statement is to be submitted with the application. This statement shall, amongst other issues
address the number of car parking spaces required. Basement or at-grade parking must be provided
for all new developments.
· An operational plan of management
must be submitted with all development applications in order to provide
certainty for both the consent authority and the local community about the
ongoing management practices to be employed by the proposed use to manage its
impact upon the neighbourhood.
COUNCILLOR
WORKSHOP
The Councillor workshop was held on
Wednesday 10 March 2010 and was attended by Councillors and staff. In addition, the workshop was attended by
representatives of the Catholic Diocese of Parramatta,
Changes were subsequently drafted to the
draft DCP and it was forwarded to the Councillors and the workshop attendees on
24 March 2010 for comment. Three (3) further
submissions were received and further Councillor comment, with the comments
summarised in the table included as Attachment 4.
Comments received on the further changes
after the Councillor Workshop
The content of the further submissions
received is summarised in the table at Attachment 4. The main objections and a comment in response
are summarised below:
1. The draft DCP should make it clear that none
of the provisions affect the existing use rights of existing places of public
worship.
COMMENT: Existing
use rights are a legal entitlement conferred under the Environmental Planning
and Assessment Act. An “existing use” is
specifically defined by the Act as a land use which lawfully existed at the
time of gazettal of a new LEP which prohibits the use. The contents of a DCP do not alter existing
use rights which effectively allow those uses to continue operation and are
able to apply to Council for alterations and additions subject to the existing
use rights legislation and other relevant Council controls. However, this does not mean that an
established PPW which is subject to existing use rights and sought to extend would
not be subject to the DCP controls. Such
an application would still be required to be assessed under the DCP as would
any other application.
2. The requirement for a traffic impact
statement should not be based on an increase in capacity of 50 people. It should be based on a percentage increase
say, an increase of more than 100% in capacity.
If a numerical threshold must be used, it should at least be increased
to a more reasonable number such as 100 people.
COMMENT: The
threshold of 50 persons for requiring the statement is consistent with the DCPs
of other Councils including Bankstown City Council and Wollongong City
Council. Council’s Manager, Traffic and
Transport has confirmed that the requirement is appropriate and noted that the
level of detail required would be appropriately matched to the circumstances of
the application.
3. The requirement for a noise impact assessment
statement should only be imposed on new places of public worship rather than
existing ones.
COMMENT:
Non-residential land uses in residential zones have the potential to cause
significant disturbance to the amenity of a neighbourhood. In this regard, the requirement for a noise
impact assessment is comparable to the requirement for an assessment under the
Child Care Centres DCP. There may be
cases where the assessment is unnecessary and Section 4.3 regarding acoustic
privacy notes that consideration will be given to exempting this requirement
where the application is for a minor modification to an existing premises.
4. Council should take the
opportunity provided by the plans on exhibition (draft LEP 2010 and draft DCP
2010) to completely lift the prohibition on a worshipping congregation
exceeding 250 people.
COMMENT: The public exhibition of the draft Parramatta Local
Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP) and draft Parramatta Development Control Plan
2010 finished on 7 May 2010. The draft
LEP includes different provisions regarding PPW to the current Parramatta LEP
2001. Rather than imposing a limit of
250 people in all residential zones (as is the case currently) the draft LEP
2010 proposes to prohibit PPW in the R2 Low Density Residential zone. This matter will be determined when Council
considers the submissions received on the exhibition.
5. Notes that the land use tables
for the business and industrial zones in the draft LEP 2010 do not list places
of public worship as permissible development.
This conflicts with the newly drafted objective of the draft DCP to
encourage the location of larger places of public worship into the business and
industrial zones.
COMMENT: Under the draft Parramatta LEP 2010, PPW are
permissible in the following zones: R1 General Residential, R3 Medium Density
Residential, R4 High Density Residential, B1 Neighbourhood Centre, B2 Local
Centre, B4 Mixed Use, B5 Business Development, IN1 General Industrial, IN2
Light Industrial and IN3 Heavy Industrial.
The land use tables for the Business and Industrial zones are written in
such a way, that all land uses are permissible unless listed under the
prohibited uses, as a requirement of the State government’s Standard Instrument. It is acknowledged that this can be confusing
and explains why the submission assumed that PPW are not permissible in those
zones.
6. The maximum of 250 people
should be able to be varied for specified services such as weddings, funerals,
baptisms and ordinations.
COMMENT: After the
Councillor workshop, changes were drafted to the draft DCP to address this
issue. In particular, Section 4.5
relating to the Operational Plan of Management requires details to be submitted
of expected special events acknowledging that some events will attract numbers
greater than 250. These will be
considered as part of the assessment of any development application.
7. The draft DCP should not apply
to places of public worship within schools as it is an appropriate community
use of a valuable resource and schools have the infrastructure to cope with
large numbers.
COMMENT: Since Council considered this matter previously (at
its meeting dated 8 February 2010), Design Principle P4 has been amended to
better reflect the existing wording within Parramatta LEP 2001. As such, the maximum limit of 250 people
would not apply to schools as they are zoned Special Uses 5 under the
Parramatta LEP 2001.
8. Considering the projected
population growth within the Parramatta local government area over the next 25
years, it is reasonable to assume there will be a significant increase in
demand for new places of public worship and aggregate seating capacity. As such, Council’s intention to restrict the
number of zones in which places of public worship are permissible and limiting
their seating capacity will place increased pressure on existing churches and
as such, increased amenity impacts.
COMMENT: It is acknowledged that this is a genuine concern
but demand for new PPW needs to be tempered with the expectation for a high
level of amenity in residential areas. PPWs
are permissible in a broad range of zones. The main change proposed under the
draft comprehensive Parramatta LEP relates to a potential for future prohibition
in the low density residential zone, due to amenity impacts.
9. The limit on seating capacity
to 250 should be deleted. Or at the very
least, it should only apply to low density residential zones (not all
residential zones as is proposed.)
COMMENT: The changes recommended to the draft DCP are to
remove the 250 capacity limit from all zones except residential zones. This is consistent with the existing
Parramatta LEP 2001. It should be noted
that the Parramatta LEP 2001 is a statutory planning instrument and overrides
any DCP where there are inconsistencies.
As such, it would be pointless and ineffective to attempt to impose
controls that are less strict than the LEP 2001.
10. The draft DCP may trigger
provisions of the Anti Discrimination Act as similar size limits are not
applied to other land uses such as shopping centres, hotels, function centres
etc...
COMMENT: It is not Council’s intention to discriminate
against one particular type of land use.
Changes have been recommended to the draft DCP which remove the 250
capacity limit from non-residential zones.
As such, a PPW would be subject to similar controls in the business and
industrial zones as other land uses.
With regard to the residential zones, the controls applying to PPW can
be best compared with the controls applying to other non-residential uses. Under the Child Care Centres DCP, the maximum
number of child care places at a centre in a residential zone is limited to 40
children. This can only be varied in
circumstances where the centre can meet strict criteria. It is Council’s role
to responsibly manage growth and reasonably protect amenity.
11. The revised requirements for the
Operational Plan of Management requiring services to be broken up into several
smaller services are impractical. It is
impractical to expect a wedding to be held over several services. It is uncompassionate to expect grieving
relatives to submit details of the expected number of people who will be
attending a funeral. Holding several
services a day can cause more impact on the amenity of the surrounding area if
one group of people are leaving at the same time as the next group are
arriving.
COMMENT: From this
objection, it appears that this requirement of the draft DCP is ambiguous. It is not Council’s intention that PPW submit
details for each upcoming special event on an ongoing basis. This is only an up-front requirement to be
provided at the time of submitting a development application to Council. It is also agreed that traffic issues may
arise if one group of people are leaving at the same time as the next group
arriving. To address this issue, Bankstown City Council has applied a control
in their DCP requiring that services not commence until thirty minutes have
elapsed following the completion of any preceding service. It is recommended that the draft DCP be
amended to incorporate this control.
Comments received during the initial
community consultation
The draft DCP was publicly exhibited from 11
November to 11 December 2009. A notice
was placed in the local newspapers and a letter of notification was sent to fifty-six
(56) Places of Public Worship within the local government area. Five (5) submissions were received, all from
representatives of local church groups.
The issues raised by submissions are described in detail in the table
included as Attachment 3. The
submissions all object to the draft DCP and share similar concerns. The main objections and a comment in response
are summarised below:
1. The limit on size of a PPW to 250 people is
arbitrary and unreasonably limits the size of a congregation and the ability of
a church to host special events such as weddings and funerals.
COMMENT: A maximum
limit of 250 seats currently applies under clause 42 of Parramatta Local
Environmental Plan (LEP) 2001. This
clause currently only applies to residential areas. It is considered that applying the maximum
limit to all land use zones through the DCP is unnecessarily restrictive
particularly when Objective 3.1 of the DCP is to “limit and manage the impacts
of places of public worship on the amenity of residential areas.” It is recommended that the DCP be amended to
reflect the control within the LEP and as such would not apply the maximum
limit outside residential areas. It is
considered that this change would provide a better balance between preserving
the residential amenity of neighbourhoods and providing the community with opportunities
for religious worship.
2. The maximum limit would prevent a church from
growing in numbers and the draft DCP does not recognise the contribution that
churches make to the well-being of the community.
COMMENT: As
discussed above, it is recommended that the draft DCP be amended to remove the
maximum limit from all land use zones other than residential zones. Larger PPW are considered to have
unacceptable impacts on the amenity of low density residential areas, however,
there are opportunities for PPW that grow beyond this size to locate in other
land use zones where the impacts will not be felt so acutely.
3. Limiting PPW to those that serve the local
community is a form of discrimination as there is no such limit on other land
uses such as shopping centres and hotels etc…
COMMENT: The
reference to a requirement to serve the local community is problematic as it is
difficult to define the local community and anecdotal evidence suggests that
PPW attract worshippers on a broader congregational basis rather than an
immediate geographic one. As such, it is
recommended that Design Principle P.4 be amended to reflect the clause within
the LEP 2001 by applying to residential zones only and removing a reference to
the local community.
4. Applying the DCP to existing PPW is a
diminution of existing use rights.
COMMENT: See
comment provided in response to objection number 1 previously.
5. The requirements for the submission of a
traffic impact statement and a noise impact assessment would be costly and
onerous and beyond the means of non-profit organisations such as churches.
COMMENT: See
comment provided in response to objection number 2 and 3 previously.
6. The requirement for the submission of an
operational plan of management is unreasonable and doesn’t allow sufficient
flexibility in terms of timetabling religious services.
COMMENT: The
preparation of an operational plan of management does not require specialist
qualifications and as such, does not involve significant cost. Further, it is critical for Council to gain
an understanding of the likely impact of the proposal on the surrounding area
and to make a proper and thorough assessment of the application. It also provides the PPW with an effective
tool for managing its own impacts and to assist it with being a “considerate
neighbour”.
7. The DCP should not apply to places of public
worship within schools as they tend to have sufficient infrastructure to cope
with the numbers without impacting on the amenity of residential areas.
COMMENT: See
comment in response to objection 7 previously.
8. As the DCP applies to places of public
worship ancillary to an educational establishment, all non-government schools
should have been notified.
COMMENT: This
comment is taken on board and as such, it is considered appropriate that future
notifications relating to POPW include all non-government schools in the local
government area. In this regard, when
the draft Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2010 and draft Parramatta
Development Control Plan 2010 were placed on exhibition, letters of
notification were sent to all non-government schools in addition to PPW.
9. The draft DCP should not apply to industrial,
retail and commercial zones.
COMMENT: As
discussed above it is recommended that Design Principle P4 be amended to
reflect the wording within Clause 42 of the Parramatta LEP 2001. This would remove the maximum limit of 250
persons from applying to land use zones other than residential zones.
10. It is unreasonable to apply the same floor
space ratio to churches as would apply to a dwelling in the residential zone.
COMMENT: It is
considered appropriate that PPW be subject to the controls applicable in the
relevant zone. This is a common planning
approach and is embedded in the standard LEP template where the floor space
ratio and height controls apply to the land, not the land use type.
11. The requirement for car parking is unreasonable
particularly when schools are not required to provide car parking for parents.
COMMENT: The car
parking demands from parents dropping children off at school cannot be compared
with the car parking demands from the congregation of a church. Further, the draft DCP does not prescribe the
amount of car parking required which can be determined on the merits of the
case, as informed by the traffic impact statement.
RECOMMENDED CHANGES
The draft
DCP is included with this report as Attachment 2. The changes that are recommended to the DCP
are shown on this attachment as “track changes”. The reasons for the recommended changes are
discussed below.
Changes recommended in report to Council deferred on 8
February 2010:-
· Design Principle P.4 of Section 4.2 Locational
Requirements, was amended to reflect the fact that the DCP will function under
the overarching provisions within the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (LEP)
2001. In this regard, the Parramatta LEP
2001 already sets a limit on the size of Places of Public Worship (PPW) through
clause 42. Clause 42 provides that
development for the purpose of a PPW is prohibited in residential zones if the
seating capacity exceeds 250. As such,
it is recommended that in order to provide consistency, the draft DCP be
amended to apply the maximum seating capacity of 250 to the residential zones
only (as opposed to all zones) and by removing the reference to the requirement
to serve the local community.
· The draft DCP includes a clause (1.6) which is
referred to as a “Savings Provision”.
The role of a savings provision is to “save” applications lodged before
a certain date from the effects of a new instrument. However, the intent of the clause is to apply
the DCP to all development applications (including those lodged but yet to be
determined) as soon as the DCP comes into effect as required by Council’s
decision on 19 December 2009. As such,
this clause is recommended to be renamed “Application of this Development
Control Plan”.
Additional changes recommended subsequent to the Councillor
workshop:-
· It is recommended that a preamble be inserted at the
beginning of the draft DCP to acknowledge the important role that places of
public worship perform in providing support to the community as follows:
“Preparation
of this DCP involved consultation with the community including representatives
from several places of public worship within the local government area. It is recognised that many community and
religious groups play an important role in providing social support for the
community. A primary purpose of this DCP is to ensure the process of the
assessment of any development proposal for a place of public worship is
consistent, fair and accessible to all religious groups and to manage the
impacts of places of public worship on the amenity of neighbourhoods.”
· It is recommended that an additional General
Objective for the DCP be submitted:-
“O.3 To encourage the location of larger places
of public worship to land zoned for business or industrial purposes.”
· It is recommended that an additional category of
development control called “Locational Requirements” be inserted as follows:-
“4.1 Locational
Requirements
Objectives
O.1 To prevent unacceptable impacts on the
amenity of residential areas by encouraging the location of larger places of
public worship to non-residential zones.
Design
Principles
P.1 Larger places of public worship (ie with a seating capacity of greater than 250) are to be
located within lands zoned for business or industrial purposes.”
· It is recommended that dot point (i)
of Section 4.5 listing the requirements for the Operational Management Plan be
replaced with the following:-
“i) Details
of the proposed hours of operation, a schedule of regular services held and
recurring events and special events throughout the year. Where special events attracting greater than
250 people will occur, details including the expected numbers of people are to
be provided.”
· It is recommended that an additional
design principle be inserted under “Traffic, Parking and Access” as follows:-
“P.5 To ensure adequate traffic flow, worship
services are not to commence until thirty minutes have elapsed following the
completion of any preceding service.”
· It is recommended that an additional
requirement of the Traffic Impact Statement be inserted into Section 4.” as
follows:-
“Shall
adequately consider future parking needs that may result from anticipated
growth in the congregation.”
TIMING
Once adopted by Council, the Draft DCP for
Places of Public Worship would take effect upon the publishing of a notice in
the local newspapers. The DCP would then
be applicable to all development applications for places of public worship,
regardless of whether they were lodged before the date of the DCP taking
effect.