|
Item 7.1 - Attachment 1 |
Previous report |
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.6
SUBJECT Draft Parramatta
Development Control Plan for Places of Public Worship
REFERENCE F2009/02709 - D01534513
REPORT OF Project Officer-Land Use.Land Use &
Transport Planning
|
PURPOSE: To present to Council the results of public exhibition of the Draft Parramatta Development Control Plan
for Places of Public Worship (DCP) for Places of Public Worship (PPW)
and to seek Council’s adoption of the draft DCP. |
|
(a) That
Council adopt the draft Parramatta Development Control Plan for Places of
Public Worship as included with this report as Attachment 2 to be applied
whilst the draft comprehensive Parramatta DCP is being finalised. (b) That
the DCP be implemented without a savings provision, ie. it be applied to
all relevant development applications outstanding at the time the DCP takes
effect. (c) Further,
that the controls within this DCP be incorporated into the draft
comprehensive Parramatta Development Control Plan prior to finalisation,
including any changes required to reflect the proposed prohibition of places
of public worship in the R2 Low Density Residential zone within draft
Parramatta LEP 2010. |
BACKGROUND
1. At its Meeting on 19 October 2009, Council resolved
to publicly exhibit a draft Development Control Plan (DCP) for Places of Public
Worship. The draft DCP was exhibited from 11 November to
11 December 2009. Council considered the
results of public exhibition at its Meeting on 8 February 2010 and resolved to
defer the matter pending a Councillor workshop.
2. That
workshop was held on 10 March 2010 and invitations were extended to all authors
of submissions. As a result, the
workshop was attended by representatives of the Catholic Diocese of Parramatta,
St Paul’s Anglican Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the
Parramatta Mission and the Redeemer Baptist School. Changes were drafted to the draft DCP in
response to the workshop and circulated to all Councillors and those who attended
the workshop for comment.
CONSULTATION
3. 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 as summarised in Attachment 3. Further changes were recommended to the draft
DCP following the Councillor workshop held on 10 March 2010 and circulated to
the authors of the original submissions and those who had attended the
workshop. Three (3) further submissions
were received as summarised in Attachment 4.
4. The submissions are further discussed in
the detailed report at Attachment 1 and a response is provided to each issue
raised. The main concerns are summarised
as follows:
a. The maximum size limit of 250 people is
seen as overly restrictive;
b. It is unreasonable to apply the same floor
space ratio to a church as applies to residential dwellings;
c. The requirements for the submission of an
acoustic report, traffic impact statement and operational plan of management
are seen as onerous and beyond the means of church groups;
d. The DCP should not apply to industrial,
retail and commercial zones;
e. The DCP should not apply to PPW within
schools;
f. PPW should not be required to provide
car parking.
ISSUES
5. The
draft Parramatta Development Control Plan for Places of Public Worship provides
Council with a means of ensuring that PPW are appropriate within their setting
and will not have unreasonable impacts on neighbourhood amenity, particularly
within residential areas. It is
considered that the issue of impacts on residential areas are of primary
concern and following extensive public consultation, changes to the draft DCP
are recommended to focus on this aspect without limiting the opportunities for
religious worship within the community.
6. Recommended Changes to draft DCP:
The recommended changes to the draft DCP are as
follows. These are explained in more detail in Attachment 1:
a. In Design Principle P.4 of Section 4.2 Locational Requirements,
apply
the maximum seating capacity of 250 to the residential zones only (as opposed
to all zones) and remove the reference to the requirement to serve the local
community.
b. Clause 1.6 be renamed “Application of this
Development Control Plan”.
c. 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.
d. Insert an
additional category of development control called “Locational Requirements” as
Section 4.1 to encourage the location of larger places of public worship (with
a seating capacity of greater than 250) within non-residential zones (ie
business or industrial).
e. In Section 4.5, Design
Principle P.1 – i), add the requirement that where special events attracting
greater than 250 people will occur, details including the expected numbers of
people are to be provided with the Operational Management Plan.
f. In Section 4.4 Traffic, Parking &
Access, add an additional design principle P.5, requiring that worship services
are not to commence until thirty minutes have elapsed following the completion
of any preceding service.
g. In Section 4.4 Traffic, Parking &
Access - Design Principle P.1, add an additional requirement of the Traffic
Impact Statement that it adequately consider future parking needs that may
result from anticipated growth in the congregation.
7. Relationship to draft
comprehensive Parramatta LEP & DCP:
On 23 March 2009,
Council resolved to prohibit PPW within the R2 Low Density Residential zone
within the draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
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.
8. The draft comprehensive DCP
was adopted by Council at its meeting on 14 December 2009 with an additional
resolution that it be updated prior to exhibition to incorporate the same
controls as the stand-alone DCP for Places of Public Worship. However, the controls in the stand-alone DCP
for Places of Public Worship could not be carried over verbatim and would
require some modification to reflect the controls within the draft Parramatta
LEP. These modifications will be
recommended when the draft comprehensive Parramatta DCP is next reported to
Council.
TIMING
9. 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.
10. Once the comprehensive
Parramatta DCP takes effect, the stand-alone DCP for Places of Public Worship
will cease to operate as a separate DCP and will be incorporated into the
comprehensive DCP. This is in order to
comply with legislation prescribing that upon the gazettal of Council’s new
comprehensive LEP in the standard template format; only one DCP can apply to
any parcel of land.
Felicity Roberts Sue
Stewart
Project Officer Land Use Planning Senior
Project Officer
Land Use Planning
|
Detailed Submission |
12 Pages |
|
|
|
Draft DCP for Places of Public Worship with
tracked changes |
6 Pages |
|
|
|
Summary of Submissions |
3 Pages |
|
|
|
Summary of Submissions Received on Further
Changes to Draft DCP |
2 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
None.
|
Previous report |
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.
|
Previous report |
Draft DCP for
Places of Public Worship
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.
1 Introduction
1.1 Name of this Development Control Plan
This plan is known as Parramatta Development Control Plan (DCP) for
Places of Public Worship. This DCP was
adopted by Council on (date to be confirmed) and came into effect (date to be
confirmed).
1.2 Where this Development Control Plan Applies
This DCP applies to all land within the Parramatta Local Government
Area.
1.3 Development to which this DCP applies
This DCP applies to all land in Parramatta LGA where places of public worship are permissible and specifically applies to applications for development for any of the following:
§ The establishment of a new purpose built place of public worship.
§ Alterations and/or additions to, or intensification of an existing place of public worship.
§ Conversion or adaptation of existing buildings to a place of public worship.
§ Any of the above,
where the place of public worship is ancillary to an educational
establishment.
1.4 Relationship to other Plans and Policies
This DCP is to be read in conjunction with Parramatta Local
Environmental Plan (LEP) 2001, Parramatta City Centre LEP 2007, and Sydney
Regional Environmental Plan (SREP) No. 28 –
This DCP supplements the Parramatta DCP 2005, Parramatta City Centre DCP
2007 and Harris Park Precinct DCP.
1.5 Purpose of this Development Control Plan
The purpose of this DCP is to supplement the requirements of Parramatta
DCP 2005, Parramatta City Centre DCP and Harris Park Precinct DCP, to provide
detailed provisions to guide the preparation and assessment of applications for
development of places of public worship.
Under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment
(EP&A) Act, 1979, the consent authority is required to take into
consideration the relevant provisions of this DCP when determining applications
for development. However, compliance
with the provisions of this DCP does not guarantee that development consent
will be granted. Section 79C of the
EP&A Act contains other matters that must be considered in determining a
development application.
1.6 Application of this Development Control
Plan
Any application submitted but not yet determined
at the time that this DCP came into force, will be subject to the provisions of
this DCP.
2 Submitting a Development Application
As
a first step in the development consent process, proponents of places of public
worship are strongly advised to consult with Council officers.
The following requirements detail the
specific information that must be provided to the consent authority as part of
any development application for places of public worship. These requirements
are in addition to the information requirements for all development
applications.
· Detailed information relating to:
§ The likely effects of the development on the amenity of nearby
residents.
§ Traffic and noise generation.
§ The consistency of the proposed development with the zone objectives
contained in the any environmental planning instruments pertaining to the land.
§ The suitability of the site and neighbourhood for the scale and
intensity of development proposed.
§ The impact of the development on the
character of the locality.
· Operational Management Plan (refer to 3.4 below) which sets out
necessary considerations to be addressed for the operation of the proposed
place of public worship.
3 General Objectives of this DCP
Objectives
O.1 To limit and manage the impacts of places
of public worship on the amenity of residential areas.
O.2 To ensure that places of public worship
have a scale and intensity that is suitable to the site and consistent with the
prevailing and likely neighbourhood character in which the development is
proposed.
O.3 To encourage the location of larger places
of public worship to lands zoned for business or industrial purposes.
O.4 To ensure that the development assessment
process for proposed places of public worship is consistent for all religious
groups.
4 Development Controls
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 within 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.
4.2 Bulk and Scale
Objectives
O.1 To ensure that a consistency of built form
is maintained in residential zones.
O.2 To ensure that the scale of places of
public worship is consistent with the scale of existing or likely future
development in the area.
O.3 To
maintain the residential character of established residential areas.
Design Principles
P.1 Applications for places of public worship
will be subject to the same height, floor space ratio and envelope controls
that are identified in the planning instrument and any other DCP applicable to
the land for permissible development within the applicable zone. Consideration will be given to variation of
the applicable envelope controls to accommodate the unique architectural
requirements of places of public worship as long as the objectives of the
controls and this clause are maintained.
Note: For example, a
place of public worship application 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 town house type development.
P.2 Site
planning must be sensitive to the streetscape character and views.
P.3 Places of public worship are to be designed
and landscaped in a manner that enhances the quality and visual amenity of the
streetscape.
P.4 Development for the purpose of a place of
public worship within a residential zone is to have a maximum seating capacity
of 250.
4.3 Acoustic Privacy
Objective
O.1 To minimise noise levels from places of
public worship that may impact upon neighbouring or nearby properties.
Design Principles
P.1 The design of the proposed place of public
worship should minimise the projection of noise from the various activities
anticipated to occur within the site.
Adjoining and nearby residents should not be exposed to unreasonable
levels of noise arising from the proposed use.
A noise impact assessment statement, prepared by
a suitably qualified acoustic engineer, is to be submitted with all new
development within residential zones or which adjoin residential zones. This should describe hours of operation and
predicted noise levels for regular events and for special events such as
festivals and religious celebrations.
Where possible, reference should be made to similar operating uses
whether or not within the Parramatta Local Government area.
Consideration will be given to exempt this
requirement where applications are received for minor modifications or
alterations to existing premises.
Note: Clause 4.3.3 of
the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2005 also contains provisions relating
to acoustic amenity.
4.4 Traffic, Parking and Access
Objectives
O.1 To ensure that pedestrian safety is maintained
and protected.
O.2 To
ensure that the surrounding street network and intersections continue to
operate effectively and within design parameters.
O.3 To minimise the impact of parking on the local
streets.
O.4 To
minimise impact upon the amenity of the neighbourhood.
Design Principles
P.1 For all
new development or intensification representing a capacity of 50 persons or
more, a traffic impact statement is to be included with the application. The statement shall:
· assess the impact upon the surrounding streets
and the measures proposes to mitigate such impacts
· identify the number of parking spaces required
on the basis of the general use of the site.
Reference should be made to similar existing and operating premises in
similar neighbourhoods as far as possible.
· Identify the celebrations, festivals and other
gatherings which are likely to attract larger than normal attendances at the
premises, the attendance numbers associated with such events and measures to
mitigate and manage their impacts associated with traffic movements.
· Adequately consider future parking needs that
may result from anticipated growth in the congregation.
P.2 On site
parking shall be provided at the rate determined by the traffic impact statement
having regard to the objectives of this clause.
P.3 Basement
or at-grade parking must be provided for all new developments.
P.4 Clear
distinctions should be made for vehicular traffic and pedestrian movements,
both on site and off site. Measures should
be taken to separate these and reduce potential conflict through design and
management practices.
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.
4.5 Operational Management Plan
Objective
O.1 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.
Design Principles
P.1 A development application for the purposes
of establishing a new place of public worship must include an operational plan
of management. This will be used both
for the assessment of the application as well as a means to manage the ongoing
operation of the proposed premises through the conditions of development
consent. The Operational Plan of
Management (as may be amended) will be incorporated as a condition of
development consent. This plan must
include, but is not limited to the following information:
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.
ii) A list of the types of community
purposes (i.e. community colleges, senior citizens groups, youth groups etc)
the building may be used for outside the regular services. How often and how many people it will
attract.
iii) A list of the type of organisations that
may let or use the building and for what purposes. How often and how many people it will
attract.
iv) An explanation of the measures that will
be in place to manage parking and local traffic when a special event is
scheduled.
v) The estimated number of people to be in
attendance at regular services, main events and those other times where it is
described that the place of public worship will be in use.
vi) Contact persons who will be responsible
for complaints handling. This is to be
updated periodically.
vii) Anticipated growth of the congregation
and how these long term projections will be factored into the development and
managed in the future.
|
Previous report |
Attachment 3
Summary
of Submissions Received
|
No. |
Author |
Issues Raised |
|
1 |
Rev. Keith Hamilton |
Request that Council defer consideration of the
draft DCP until early 2010 to enable them the time to meet with the Lord
Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor. |
|
Rev. Kevin Manning Bishop of |
||
|
Rev Bruce Morrison |
||
|
2 |
Mr Mikel Aydin |
The draft DCP places unreasonable financial and
logistical constraints on a church which is growing. Residential zones should encompass land uses
which serve a community purpose such as parks and churches. The draft DCP should not apply to industrial,
retail and commercial zones. The draft DCP should clarify that it doesn’t
affect the existing use rights of existing places of public worship. The draft DCP should not use the term ‘character’
due to its subjective nature. The draft DCP forces churches to be disconnected
with its members. It is unreasonable to apply the same floor space
ratio to churches as would apply to a dwelling in the residential zone. The figure of 250 people is arbitrary. What happens during funerals and other
special events? The requirement for a traffic impact statement is
costly and onerous and aims to limit the size of churches where members can
walk to church. The figure of 50 people as a capacity for
extension to a church is arbitrary.
How was it arrived at? The requirement for car parking is unreasonable
particularly when schools are not required to provide car parking for
parents. The requirement for an operational plan of
management is unreasonable, particularly in a culturally diverse area where
English may not be the principal language. |
|
3 |
Rev. Kevin Manning Bishop of |
Council should have consulted stakeholders prior
to the preparation of the draft DCP. The draft DCP does not acknowledge the
contribution that local churches make to the well-being of the community. The application of Clause 1.3 to existing
churches is a diminution of existing use rights. The figure of 250 people is arbitrary and doesn’t
account for special events. The threshold of 50 people for the submission of
a traffic impact statement is arbitrary. The result of the draft DCP will be to force
churches into non-residential areas. The requirement for an Operational Plan of
Management is unreasonable and allows for no flexibility in terms of
timetabling religious services. The requirements for the preparation of acoustic
privacy and traffic, parking and access would be expensive and beyond the
means of non-profit organisations such as churches. |
|
4 |
Mr Philip Gunning St Pauls Anglican Church |
A blanket restriction limiting Places of Public
Worship to a maximum of 250 people will limit the financial viability of new
churches and force them into areas where land is cheapest, ie. Residential
areas. The draft DCP does not define the “local
community”. However, in the Land and Limiting places of public worship to those that
serve the local community is a form of discrimination as a similar
restriction does not apply to land uses such as shopping centres, hotels etc… Design Principle P4 on page 4 states that: “Any
new development must predominantly serve the local community and have a
maximum capacity of 250.” This is
ambiguous as the DCP states that it applies to alterations to existing Places
of Public Worship as well as new ones. A size limit of 250 people is unrealistic as it
doesn’t allow for special events such as weddings, funerals, Christmas and
Easter services etc… 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. |
|
5 |
Mr Russell Bailey Headmaster |
As the DCP applies to places of public worship
ancillary to an educational establishment, all non-government schools should
have been notified. Local congregations often attract broader
meetings within or across Christian denominations or special events such as
wedding and funerals. The DCP should
not limit activities such as this that promote cohesive communities. For the last two millennia, churches have often
had congregations of greater than 250 people and Council should not seek to
change the history of the church by limiting the size of the congregation. The DCP would prevent schools with more than 250
students from meeting as a school for religious worship. The maximum limit would prevent new parishioners
from joining a growing church limiting people’s opportunities to find
spiritual sustenance, social support and physical assistance. |
|
Previous report |
Attachment 4
Summary of
Submissions Received on Further Changes to draft DCP
|
No. |
Author |
Issues Raised |
|
1 |
Mr Mikel Aydin Director of
Property |
(Note: In addition to his earlier letter
dated 27 November 2009) · The draft DCP should make it clear that none
of the provisions affect the existing use rights of existing places of public
worship. · The requirement for a noise impact assessment
statement should only be imposed on new places of public worship rather than
existing ones. · 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. |
|
2 |
Mr Russell Bailey Headmaster |
(Note: In addition to his earlier letter dated
12 December 2009) · Council partly addressed his concerns by
removing the 250 seating capacity limit from non-residential zones. However, feels 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. · Notes that the land use tables for the
business and industrial zones 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. · His objection to the limit on seating capacity
would be slightly allayed if the maximum was able to be varied for specified
services such as weddings, funerals, baptisms and ordinations. · 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. · Notes that the draft DCP may have the
unintended purpose of controlling churches and limiting religious freedom. |
|
3 |
Mr Larry Bolitho |
(Note: further to the earlier submission made
by Mr Philip Gunning on??) · 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. · Places of public worship should not be subject
to the same controls when they are within the grounds of an educational
establishment as schools have the infrastructure to cope with large numbers. · 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.) · 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... · Objects to the revised requirements for the
Operational Plan of Management. 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. |
|
|
Councillor
comments |
· It should be a requirement of the Traffic Impact Statement that the
likely car parking demand resulting from the future growth in congregation
size be considered. · An emphasis on off-street parking should be incorporated into the
design. |