Summary of submissions received during the re-exhibition

Item 7.4 - Attachment 2

Summary of submissions received during the re-exhibition

ATTACHMENT 2 - Summary of submissions received during the public exhibition

Description of Issue

Comment

Recommendation

SUBMISSION 1

Raises the following:

- Objects to the height limit for specific properties at Epping.

- The use of certain group and sub terms (and their definitions) in the B2 Local Centre Zone.

- Would like to see the inclusion of a 'Departure Clause' in the draft DCP which addresses Council’s willingness to vary standards.

These issues do not relate to matters that were re-exhibited. These issues were previously raised in a submission by the same submitter to the original exhibition of the draft LEP and draft DCP. These issues were addressed and considered by Council at its meeting on 5 October 2010.

Note: The draft DCP has a section addressing variation of standards.

That no change is made to the draft DCP.

Concerned with the requirements for Stormwater Drainage and Water Efficiency having the potential to discourage alterations and additions to existing commercial buildings. Specifically:

1) that the stormwater management principles should be limited to the addition of the building footprint rather than the entire building, and

2) that the water efficiency principles should be encouraged rather than mandated given that compliance will not be feasible or practical where existing services are to be retained.

1) The stormwater drainage requirements have been designed to apply to new commercial buildings as well as alterations and additions to existing commercial buildings where the increase in the roofed area and/or impervious area (this includes building footprint, roof area, vehicle access ways and parking spaces) is equal to or greater than 150 metres squared. That is, the stormwater drainage requirements would only apply to the alterations and additions not to the entire building. Further, alterations and additions less than 150 metres squared would not be required to address the stormwater drainage requirements.

2) The water efficiency principles have been designed to facilitate water conservation in non-residential developments for both new buildings and alterations and additions to existing buildings. It is considered arduous and unfeasible for the application of all the water saving measures required to new buildings to also be required for alterations and additions to existing buildings. For this reason it is proposed to amend the water efficiency controls for non-residential development in accordance with the below recommendation.

1) That no change is made to the draft DCP.

2) To amend the water efficiency controls in Section 3.3.6.2 of the draft DCP for non-residential development by dividing the requirements into two categories:

(a) New development in which case all exhibited controls for water efficiency would be required, and

(b) Alterations and additions (of existing building footprint where the increase in the roofed and/or impervious area is less than 150 metres squared) whereby only dot points 1 and 2 (i.e. plumbing fixtures and appliances) would be required to meet the stated Water Efficiency Labelling Standards Scheme. Alterations and additions where the increase in the roofed and/or impervious area is equal to or greater than 150 metres squared would be required to comply with dot points 1 and 2 and encouraged to incorporate the remaining five water efficiency requirements in the alterations and additions to the existing building.

SUBMISSION 2

Raises the following:

- The accessibility and connectivity of the Telopea Urban Renewal Project.

- The lack of co-ordination between Council departments in drafting plans.

- Incorrect naming of places.

- The obstruction of views from the K13 lookout area.

- The accessibility and connectivity of Granville Town Centre.

- The proposed density of Harris Park, Rosehill and 2 Morton Street, Parramatta.

- The use of rooftop communal open space for community gardens.

- The proposed zoning of Cox Park/Galaringi, Carlingford in the draft LEP.

- The protection of heritage items.

Note: Council resolved and has made representations to the Department of Planning with regard to its direction for the zoning of Cox Park/Galaringi, Carlingford in the draft LEP. Council also resolved to investigate potential heritage listings as part of the Comprehensive Heritage Review currently underway.

That no change is made to the draft DCP.