Council Meeting

Notice of Meeting

Monday, 07 August 2017

Wednesday, 02 August 2017

 

Mr John Rayner

 

An Ordinary Meeting of Council will be held at 6.00pm at  Kyle Bay on Georges, 12 Merriman Street, Kyle Bay, on Monday, 07 August 2017, for the consideration of the business available on Council's website at http://www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/Council/Council-Meetings.

 

 

 

 

 

Gail Connolly

General Manager

 

 

BUSINESS

1.      Acknowledgement of Country

2.      Apologies

3.      Disclosures of Interest

4.      Administrator Minute

5.      Minutes of previous meetings

6.      Environment and Planning

7.      Finance and Governance

8.      Assets and Infrastructure

9.      Community and Culture

10.    Confidential items

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Meeting

Summary of Items

Monday, 07 August 2017

 

Previous Minutes

MINUTES:  EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – 29 JUNE 2017

MINUTES: Council Meeting - 03 July 2017 (17/396)

MINUTES: Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting - 18 July 2017 (16/148)

Environment and Planning

CCL143-17       IHAP s82A Review

(Report by Senior Planner).......................................................................................... 2

CCL144-17       Processing Variations to Height in the Kogarah North Precinct under the Kogarah LEP 2012 Amendment No 2

(Report by Coordinator Strategic Planning)............................................................ 14

CCL145-17       Planning Proposal to vary clauses 4 4A and 6 6 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

(Report by Manager Strategic Planning)................................................................. 22

CCL146-17       Planning Proposal PP2015-0001 53-75 Forest Road 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane Hurstville

(Report by Manager Strategic Planning)............................................................... 125

CCL147-17       Heads of Agreement to enter into a VPA - Planning Proposal PP2015 0001  53-75 Forest Road 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts lane Hurstville

(Report by Manager Strategic Planning)............................................................... 132

CCL148-17       Planning Proposal PP2014-0003 - 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville

(Report by Manager Strategic Planning)............................................................... 175

CCL149-17       Draft Georges River LGA Employment Lands Study - Review of Lands Zone IN2 - Light Industrial

(Report by Coordinator Strategic Planning).......................................................... 247

CCL150-17       Summary of Development Applications lodged and determined

(Report by Manager Development and Building)................................................ 371

CCL151-17       Planning Proposal PP2017-0003 - Reclassification of Lot 2 DP 1200178 part of Taylors Reserve from community to operational land

(Report by Manager Strategic Planning)............................................................... 375

CCL152-17       Canopy Enhancement Program

(Report by Manager Environmental Health & Regulatory Services)................ 413

CCL153-17       Offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement accompanying Development Application No 2017 0040 for 6 Cross Street Hurstville

(Report by Executive Strategic Planner)............................................................... 418

CCL154-17       Changes to Notification and Advertising Provisions of Development Control Plans

(Report by Team Leader Major Projects)................................................................ 431

CCL155-17       Draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy

(Report by Coordinator Strategic Planning).......................................................... 440

CCL156-17       Economic Development Advisory Committee Minutes

(Report by Economic Development Officer)......................................................... 626

Finance and Governance

CCL157-17       Georges River Council Mayor and Councillors Expenses and Facilities Policy for Adoption

(Report by Executive Manager)............................................................................... 633

CCL158-17       Advice on Court Proceedings - July 2017

(Report by General Counsel).................................................................................. 654

CCL159-17       Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Minutes - 13 February 2017 and 10 April 2017

(Report by Internal Auditor)...................................................................................... 671

CCL160-17       Access to Councillor Disclosure of Interest Returns

(Report by Manager Governance and Risk)......................................................... 684

CCL161-17       Georges River Council Code of Meeting Practice for Adoption

(Report by Executive Manager)............................................................................... 685

CCL162-17       Tender for Carss Bush Park Channel and Foreshore Naturalisation

(Report by Manager Project Delivery).................................................................... 735

CCL163-17       Tender for Chivers Hill Shopping Centre Footpath Upgrade

(Report by Manager Project Delivery).................................................................... 737

CCL164-17       Tender for Gannons Park Water Quality Improvement and Stormwater Harvesting Scheme - Stage 1

(Report by Manager Project Delivery).................................................................... 739

CCL165-17       Tender for the Reconstruction of Turfed Sportsfields at Olds Park and Oatley Park Oval

(Report by Manager Project Delivery).................................................................... 741

CCL166-17       Tender for the Construction of Central Plaza

(Report by Manager Project Delivery).................................................................... 743

CCL167-17       Attendance at Georges River Council Advisory Committees 2016-2017

(Report by Executive Manager)............................................................................... 745

CCL168-17       Tender for the provision of real estate and property valuation services panel

(Report by Executive Manager Premium Facilities and Properties)................. 749

 

CCL169-17       Adoption of Georges River Councils draft Code of Conduct and draft Procedures for the Administration of the Code of Conduct

(Report by Governance Consultant)...................................................................... 752

CCL170-17       Georges River Council Access to Information Policy

(Report by Governance Officer).............................................................................. 828

CCL171-17       Preliminary Investment Report as at 30 June 2017

(Report by Team Leader Financial Reporting)..................................................... 837

CCL172-17       Georges River Council Privacy Management Plan

(Report by Governance Officer).............................................................................. 852

CCL173-17       Amendment to the Schedule of Fees & Charges 2017-18

(Report by Coordinator Financial Management)................................................. 909

Assets and Infrastructure

CCL174-17       Exhibition Outcome - Georges River Council Property Asset Strategy and Business Plan and Property Acquisition and Disposal Policy

(Report by Strategic Property Officer, Amber McCormack)................................. 911

CCL175-17       Georges River Council Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting - 18 July 2017

(Report by Traffic Engineer).................................................................................... 934

CCL176-17       Property Matter - Central Plaza - 292 to 296 Forest Road Hurstville

(Report by Property Portfolio Manager)................................................................. 940

Community and Culture

CCL177-17       Georges River Council Sponsorship and Donation Policy

(Report by Manager Community & Cultural Development)............................. 1092

CCL178-17       Georges River Councils Draft Childrens Services Strategic Plan 2017-2020

(Report by Manager - Children's Services)......................................................... 1095

CCL179-17       Georges River Council Library Strategy 2017-2020

(Report by Acting Manager Library Services)..................................................... 1129

CCL180-17       Georges River Draft Events Strategy

(Report by Transformation & Change - Senior Project Officer)....................... 1150

CCL181-17       Georges River Council Community Grants Program 2017 Round 1

(Report by Coordinator Community Development)........................................... 1176

CCL182-17       Exhibition Outcome - Georges River Council Community Lease Policy

(Report by Strategic Property Officer).................................................................. 1178

CCL183-17       Georges River Council Logo Implementation Plan

(Report by Manager Communications and Customer Service)...................... 1198

Precis of Correspondence

Confidential (Closed Session)

CON017-17       Tender for Carss Bush Park Channel and Foreshore Naturalisation

(Report by Manager Project Delivery)

CON018-17       Tender for Chivers Hill Shopping Centre Footpath Upgrade

(Report by Manager Project Delivery)

CON019-17       Tender for Gannons Park Water Quality Improvement and Stormwater Harvesting Scheme - Stage 1

(Report by Manager Project Delivery)

CON020-17       Tender for the Reconstruction of Turfed Sportsfields at Olds Park and Oatley Park Oval

(Report by Manager Project Delivery)

CON021-17       Tender for the Construction of Central Plaza

(Report by Manager Project Delivery)

CON022-17       Tender for the panel of real estate agents and property valuers - Confidential Extract

(Report by Executive Manager Premium Facilities and Properties)  

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 August 2017                                                                               Page 1

AGENDA

1.      Acknowledgement of Traditional Custodians

Council acknowledges the traditional custodians of the land on which this meeting is being held as the Biddegal people of the Eora Nation.

2.      Apologies 

3.      Disclosure of Interest

4.      Administrator Minutes

5.      Minutes of previous meetings

Extraordinary council meetng – 29 june 2017

Council Meeting - 03 July 2017

Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting - 18 July 2017


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 August 2017                                                                               Page 2

6.      Environment and Planning

Item:                   CCL143-17        IHAP s82A Review 

Author:              Senior Planner

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council adopt the amendment to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel Charter and Guidelines to allow for the introduction of a Section 82A and Section 96AB Review Process.

 

(b)     That the IHAP Charter and Guidelines be amended to provide an IHAP comprising two entities; a Determining Body and a Review Body.

 

(c)     That Council adopt the amended IHAP Charter and Guidelines annexed to this report.

 

(d)     That the Council delegate the General Manager to appoint four (4) members to comprise the IHAP Review Body.

 

Executive Summary

 

1.         The Georges River Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (GRC IHAP) was established by Council Resolution on 19 May 2016 as an independent panel of professional and community representatives with the full delegation of the Council to make decisions on certain applications.

 

2.         Since the inception of the Georges River IHAP, a number of issues or suggestions for improvement have been identified.  One of the matters raised, which is yet to be included in the Charter or Guidelines is how Council chooses to deal with and process a request to review an application under the provisions of Section 82A or Section 96AB (reviews) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (the Act), where the original development application was determined by the GRC IHAP.

 

3.         The approach other Sydney Councils adopted in this instance was reviewed and considered a pertinent step in determining how a former IHAP application made under Section 82A or Section 96AB could be best dealt with by Georges River Council. 

 

4.         Under Section 82A of the Act, an applicant may request that Council review a determination of an application within six (6) months from the date of the Notice of Determination.  A review must be undertaken by the Council or a delegate of the Council who is not subordinate to the delegate who made the original determination.  Similarly, under Section 96AB of the Act, an applicant who is dissatisfied with a determination for a modification may also apply for a review. 

 

5.         To address this, it is recommended that the IHAP Charter and Guidelines be amended to provide an IHAP comprising two entities, a Determining Body and a Review Body.

 

Background

 

6.         Under this provision of the Act, where the application was determined by a delegate of the Council, the review must be undertaken by the Council or another delegate of the Council who is not subordinate to the delegate who made the determination, or if the application was determined by Council then the review must be made by Council.  As the time limit for the processing of a Section 82A application is limited to six months from the date of the original determination, applications need to be lodged and processed quickly after the original determination.

 

7.         For example, where an application has been determined by a Council Officer or the Director Environment and Planning under their delegation, then the review can be undertaken by the IHAP.  The issue for Council arises where the original determination is made by the GRC IHAP.  The review can then only be undertaken by the Council (Administrator in the current structure) or a delegate who is not subordinate to the GRC IHAP.  This means that the GRC IHAP cannot review an application it has previously determined.

 

8.         The occurrence of such an instance is rare.  Since the formation of the GRC IHAP, there have only been two (2) Section 82A review applications referred to the panel for consideration.  These were for 37 Ogilvy Street, Peakhurst and 8 Lily Street, Hurstville.  In both instances, as the applications were determined by a previous Council, the applications for review were referred to the IHAP for a recommendation to be made to the Administrator who ultimately determined the applications.

 

Proposal

 

9.         At Council’s meeting on 6 February 2017, it was resolved that Council approach other Sydney Councils who currently have an IHAP and review the IHAP procedures for applications which are to be determined under the provisions of Section 82A.  The IHAP procedures of the City of Parramatta, Lane Cove Council, Canterbury Bankstown Council, Sutherland Shire Council and Bayside Council were examined and considered.

 

10.      The City of Parramatta, Canterbury Bankstown Council and Lane Cove Council adopt a model which comprises two separate but related bodies being a Determining Body and a Review Body.  The Review Body has the authority to consider and determine s.82A and s.96AB reviews of determinations made by the Determining Body.  Each body comprises a unique membership where members from one Body do not reside on the other Body. 

 

11.      The Sutherland Shire IHAP does not provide a determining function, rather provides recommendations to the Shire Planning Committee (SPC).  The SPC can act as a delegate but is subordinate to Council and can refer applications onto Council for determination.

 

12.      The IHAP Charter for Bayside Council does not have formal procedures in place to manage development applications subject to a Section 82A Review of an IHAP determination.

 

13.      Upon review of Sydney Councils, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act legislation and the GRC IHAP Charter and Guidelines, the options available to Council to manage the Section 82A and Section 96AB Reviews of GRC IHAP determinations would be:

·    Have the matter assessed and referred directly to Council for determination;

·    Utilise the services of IHAP panels from another Sydney Council;

·    Establish a specific Section 82A Review body.

 

14.      Council can, pursuant to the Act, determine a Section 82A application which has been delegated to IHAP.  In this instance, it is believed that Council would be involved in the finer detailing of day-to-day development application assessment and diverted from the priorities of future planning directions of Council.  This scenario is not considered the best use of Council’s time.

 

15.      Alternatively, Council may wish to consider entering into a reciprocal arrangement with another Sydney Council by utilising their services to act as a delegate of Council.  Applications would endure a lengthy and time consuming process involving an external panel that would not have the delegation to determine an application within the Georges River local government area without modifying the IHAP Charters of both Councils.  Specifically, it would involve a recommendation from the GRC IHAP for the application to be referred to an external IHAP, which would then provide a recommendation to be referred back to Council to adopt.  This approach would add a further layer to an already complex decision making process.

 

16.      Utilising the IHAP of another Sydney Council as a delegate increases the extent of ‘red-tape’ for an applicant, may facilitate inconsistencies in decision making and does not promote efficiencies in application processing times.  Furthermore, applications would be determined by Panel members, none of which are Georges River community representatives, who are less familiar with the Council area, the planning controls and the desired future character.

 

17.      The more practical alternative and one which is conducive to timely decision making involves a modification to the GRC IHAP structure.  The structure would require amendment to the GRC IHAP Charter to comprise two separate but related bodies; a Determining Body and the creation of a new body known as the Review Body.  The Determining Body would maintain the delegated authority of the existing GRC IHAP.  The Review Body would comprise the delegated authority to determine Section 82A and Section 96AB reviews of determinations made by the Determining Body. 

 

18.      For the purposes of satisfying the provisions of the Act, the Determining Body is sub-ordinate to the Review Body.  Both the Determining Body and the Review Body would comprise a membership as detailed by the IHAP Charter, however contain different personnel. 

 

19.      All options presented would require the GRC IHAP Charter and Guidelines be amended to incorporate and elucidate the procedures to determine applications previously determined by GRC IHAP but which are subject to reviews facilitated by the Act. 

 

Preferred Option

 

20.      To retain and reinforce the transparency, integrity, confidence and efficiency provided by the IHAP development assessment process, it is suggested that Council endorse amendments to the existing GRC IHAP Charter and Guidelines.  The amendments involve modification to the GRC IHAP structure to provide two separate but related determining bodies, one being subordinate to the other.  This view is one supported by General Counsel.

 

21.      The two related bodies comprise a Determining Body which is subordinate to the Review Body.  To establish each entity the existing IHAP membership shall be renamed to the GRC IHAP Determining Body and a GRC IHAP Review Body shall be created which involves:

·    The appointment of additional IHAP members specific to the GRC IHAP Review Body and comprise four (4) members made up of the following:

i.     Three (3) members chosen from a field of experts with experience in town planning, architecture, urban design and/or legal professions;

ii.    One (1) member from a pool of five (5) community representatives (one from each Ward of the LGA) on a rotational basis;

·    A two (2) year service period;

·    A minimum of three (3) IHAP members to form a quorum;

·    The Chairperson as the ‘casting vote’ should votes be tied;

·    Meetings open to the public (although the IHAP Review Body will have discretion to close part of the meeting in order to protect commercial information or to deliberate after public representations have been made by the applicant and interested residents).

 

22.      The amendments to the GRC IHAP Charter and Guidelines to create the Delivery Body and the Review Body in Attachment 1 & 2 to this report. 

 

Financial Implications

 

23.      The establishment of the Review Body and its operations would be funded within the 2017/2018 budget.

 

File Reference

16/886

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Georges River IHAP Charter - AMENDED 7 August 2017

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL143-17             IHAP s82A Review

[Appendix 1]          Georges River IHAP Charter - AMENDED 7 August 2017

 

 

Page 6

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 August 2017                                                                               Page 14

Item:                   CCL144-17        Processing Variations to Height in the Kogarah North Precinct under the Kogarah LEP 2012 Amendment No 2 

Author:              Coordinator Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council adopt the criteria that guide the variations to the height of buildings in the Kogarah North Precinct.

 

(b)     That advice be sought from Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) prior to the exhibition of the draft Development Control Plan (DCP) with respect to the proposed consideration of the variation to the maximum building height above 33m up to a maximum 40m with respect to the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) in the Kogarah North Precinct.

 

(c)     If SACL raises no objection to the maximum building height up to a maximum 40m across the Kogarah North Precinct, then the criteria to guide a variation in building height above the 33m and associated objectives and controls as outlined in the body of the report be incorporated into the draft Development Control Plan (DCP) and placed on exhibition.

 

(d)     That if no submissions are received on the draft Development Control Plan that the Plan is submitted to the General Manager for adoption.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      On Friday, 26 May 2017, the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012 – Amendment No 2 New City Plan was published in the Government Gazette and became effective on that date.

2.      The gazetted Plan generally reflects the New City Plan, as exhibited.

3.      In order to provide additional housing opportunities close to the Kogarah Town Centre, the area known as Kogarah North has been rezoned from R2 – Low Density Residential to R4 – High Density Residential with the following development standards – FSR of 4:1 and building height of 33m

4.      Due to the uplift, the Precinct will see significant change in the form and scale of development over the life of the Plan to 2031 and it is important that detailed design controls are in place to ensure a high level of amenity for future residents. Critical to the success of the redevelopment of the area is the establishment of appropriate planning and urban design outcomes to ensure that development is sustainable, well designed and provides a high level of amenity for future residents.

5.      City Plan Strategy Pty Ltd were appointed in August 2016 by Georges River Council to prepare an Urban Design Strategy and development principles for the Precinct.

6.      Council, at its meeting on 1 May 2017, considered a report on the Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy and Implementation and resolved the following (CCL064-17 - Minute No. 91).

7.      The Administrator moved and declared carried:

(a) That the draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy be publicly exhibited for a minimum period of 28 days.

(b) That Option 3 and the urban design principles contained within the draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy be adopted by Council as an interim set of planning controls from the date of the gazettal of Amendment No.2 to Kogarah Local Environmental Plan.

 

(c)  That Council advise applicants and landowners that any application within the Kogarah North Precinct will be assessed against Option 3 and the urban design principles contained within the draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy.

 

(d) That Council prepare an amendment to Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 by including as a specific chapter Option 3 and the urban design principles contained within the draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy.

 

(e) That the amended Kogarah Development Control Plan be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and its Regulation 2000 at the same time as the draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy.

 

(f)   That a further report be presented to Council following the public exhibition of the draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy and amended Kogarah Development Control Plan.

 

Preparation of draft DCP for Kogarah North Precinct

8.      As outlined in the previous report to Council on the draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy the Precinct's existing lot configuration suggests that many sites will struggle to achieve the permitted height (33m) and FSR (4:1), as well as the design considerations mandated by the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

 

9.      The analysis undertaken by the consultants suggests developers would only be able to maximise yields (e.g. achieve an FSR of 4:1) by consolidating lots to achieve a width of between 40-60 metres and even then, in some cases this may only be maximised by encroaching on the height limit of 33m.

 

10.    Design Option 3, which was recommended by the consultants and endorsed by Council in principle, places an emphasis on creating a built form that complies with the ADG and defines a four storey street wall character.

 

11.    This option places further emphasis on transitioning between the scale of the heritage items and the new built form with reduced heights and increased setbacks adjacent to the heritage items. This option also takes into account the height of buildings so as to minimise their overshadowing impact to existing and future open space areas. This option provides a maximum FSR of approximately 2.52:1.

 

12.    There has been a significant development interest with an unprecedented number of enquiries and requests for pre-DAs and discussions for proposals within the Kogarah North Precinct.

 

13.    Since the gazettal of the LEP, there have been three (3) development applications and two (2) pre-development applications lodged for development within the Precinct. The three (3) applications and two (2) pre-DA proposals exceed the 33m by between 4m – 5.3m. These have all been referred to City Plan for an assessment against the principles in the draft Urban Design Strategy.

 

14.    Council is in the final stages of the preparation of the draft DCP, which aims to incorporate the desired urban design principles in the draft Urban Design Strategy. As part of the preparation of the DCP, a number of issues have been identified including a transparent process for the consideration of clause 4.6 applications for a variation to the maximum building height.

 

Proposed Policy for the Consideration of clause 4.6 Variations to Height

Overview of Clause 4.6

15.    Clause 4.6 of the Kogarah LEP 2012 allows a consent authority to grant consent for development, even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by an environmental planning instrument, where the following requirements are met;

1.   the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

a.      that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

b.      that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

2.    the consent authority is satisfied that:

a.      the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by sub-clause (3), and

 

b.      the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

 

3.    the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

 

16.    Commissioner Brown in the Land & Environment Court proceedings Zhang v Council of the City of Ryde reiterated that clause 4.6 imposes three preconditions which must be satisfied before an application could be approved:

 

1. The consent authority must be satisfied that the proposed development will be consistent with the objectives of the zone;

 

2. The consent authority must be satisfied that the proposed development will be consistent with the objects of the standard which is not met; and

 

3. The consent authority must be satisfied that the written request demonstrates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances and there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

17.    It is only if all of these conditions are met that consent can be granted to the application, subject to an assessment of the merits of the application.

 

 

Background to the Maximum Building Height in the Kogarah North Precinct

 

18.    The Kogarah Town Centre has undergone significant changes over the past 15 years to become a vibrant, liveable and working community. More people are living and working in the Centre than ever before. The Kogarah Town Centre has been identified as a Strategic Centre within the South Sub-Region in A Plan for Growing Sydney and the draft South District Plan.

 

19.    It is important that the Kogarah Town Centre has the potential to continue to grow and provide housing and jobs. The Community Strategic Plan also concludes that increased development should be located close to existing Centres and transport hubs, rather than in suburban areas, where access to public transport is limited.

 

20.    In order to respond to the key priorities in A Plan for Growing Sydney, the Planning Proposal introduced a high density zone to this Precinct. The R4 – High Density Residential zone aims to revitalise areas to allow for high density apartments, close to public transport, hospitals, shopping and jobs. Building heights of 33m and FSR of 4:1 are proposed.

 

21.    The justification for proposing a 33m height limit can be summarised as follows:

 

§  Provides an appropriate transition from the heights within the Kogarah Town Centre, which is a maximum of 39m; and

 

§  Is within the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) for Sydney Airport.  The Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) are a series of surfaces that set the height limits of objects around an airport. Objects, such as buildings that project through the OLS become obstacles. The OLS within the Kogarah North Precinct is 51AHD (approximately 31-33m); and

 

§  Generally consistent with the height of existing development in areas adjacent to the Kogarah North Precinct (along the Princes Highway).

 

Criteria of Variations to Maximum Building Height

22.    As outlined above, three (3) development applications have been submitted for development within the Kogarah North Precinct. All of these applications propose a variation to the 33m height (by between 4m – 5.3m). It is acknowledged that the FSR at 4:1 and maximum height of 33m do not result in a good design outcome and results in a bulky building with little or no articulation.

 

23.    Council is seeking to ensure that it provides a consistent application of Clause 4.6 in the consideration of the variation of height of buildings in the Precinct until such time that Council is able to prepare a Planning Proposal to review the height of buildings in the Precinct.

 

24.    The current applications are all supported by a Clause 4.6 variation (increased height to achieve greater yield), however it is considered that the argument is inconsistent with requirements of clause 4.6 and as such they have been advised that the current argument for variations in height will not be considered.

 

 

25.    In developing the DCP for the Precinct, there may be circumstances where a variation to the 33m maximum building height may be considered appropriate. Such circumstances include:

§  Allowing greater height to achieve a greater setback to heritage items

§  Reconfiguring the height on a block, and rationalising heights to reduce impacts of overshadowing, particularly to public open space;

§  Creation of public open space and/or through site links that are consistent with the Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy.

§  Where a building achieves fully complies with the ADG, is of design excellence and does not result in an adverse impact to adjoining development.

 

26.    There is of course a limitation to permitting additional height within this Precinct – this would be the extent of encroachment into the OLS and whether Sydney Airports would support an encroachment.

 

27.    In order to provide transparency and consistency for both applicants and assessing officers in the consideration of variations to building height within the Kogarah North Precinct, it is proposed that a policy position be considered and endorsed by Council.

 

28.    In developing an extent of variation for building height, an analysis was undertaken to develop a guiding methodology. Analysis was undertaken for a 10%, 20% and 30% variation to the existing height of 33m. Table 1 below provides a summary of the assessment:

  Table 1 – Assessment Criteria

Variation to Height

 

10%

20%

30%

Would equate to:

 

3.3m (1 storey)

6.6m (2 storeys)

9.9m (3 storeys)

Consistent with height in Kogarah Town Centre (39m)

 

Yes (36.3m)

Yes (39.6m)

No (42.9m)

Would not result in an impact to surrounding development and result in the erosion to the human scale

No

Negligible

May result in adverse impacts to surrounding development

Would encroach into the OLS

Dependant on site – may be within 51AHD

Dependant on site – may be minor encroachment

Yes – would encroach into the OLS

Would result in a public benefit – value of uplift of additional units would outweigh additional development cost

No

Yes

Yes

 

29.    It is recommended based on the above analysis that council endorse as a policy direction a maximum variation to the height of buildings within the Kogarah North Precinct up to 20%. This would be subject to getting agreement in principle from SACL with respect to consideration of variations to the encroachment into the OLS.

 

30.    Variations of 20% would trigger the Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPA) Policy. As the increase is not related to yield, it would be based on the number of additional units achieved through the additional height. Currently, the VPA Policy is based on 50% of the additional uplift (in FSR).

 

31.    It is proposed that a methodology be developed and included into the VPA Policy to guide the contribution amount, based on the increase in height. 

 

Proposed DCP Provision

32.    A proposed clause for inclusion into the draft DCP has been prepared for consideration by Council:

Objectives

 

§ Ensure that taller buildings are appropriately located within the Precinct.

 

§ Ensure that the additional building height is not inconsistent with the desired future character of the Precinct, does not have a visual impact or results in a loss of solar access, particularly to open space.

 

§ Ensure that additional height does not adversely affect the streetscape, skyline or landscape when viewed from adjoining roads and other public places, such as open space.

 

§ Allow additional height where a public benefit consistent with the Kogarah North Strategy is achieved

 

Controls

 

1.   Council may consider an application under the provisions of Clause 4.6 of Kogarah LEP 2012 to vary the Maximum Height of Buildings in Clause 4.3 for the area identified as the Kogarah North Precinct by a maximum 20%, where Council is satisfied that the additional height would result in full compliance with the principles of SEPP 65 and the requirements of the Apartment Design Guide and not have adverse impacts with respect to:

(a)       The obstacle limitation surface

(b)       The overshadowing of a dwelling, private open space or public open space;

(c)        An inappropriate transition in built form and land use intensity; and

(d)       Any adjoining heritage item

 

 

2.   Council will only consider a variation as outlined in (1) above where the application for variation outlines the public benefit of the proposed changes and is supported by a suitable public benefits package.

 

3.   The public benefit will typically be secured in a VPA between the Council and the landowner/developer. Any VPA must be consistent with the Georges River Voluntary Planning Agreements Policy

 

Public benefit packages may include, but are not limited to the following infrastructure including:

§ land or floor space dedicated for a public purpose, for example publicly accessible open space, new lanes or through site links or community space;

§ drainage amplification, integrated water treatment facilities, large scale detention systems, overland flow path works and stormwater channel improvements;

§ cash contribution; and

§ any other works or improvements approved by Council.

 

As a general rule, infrastructure to support site specific requirements resulting from the redevelopment of the site, including road/laneway widening is not considered a public benefit

 

Note: Before considering a request to vary the height, proponents are strongly encouraged to seek advice from Council with respect to the proposed public benefits package.

Next Steps

 

33.    Once Council has endorsed the proposed process and draft DCP control for the consideration of variations to the height of buildings up to a maximum of 20%, the draft DCP for the Kogarah North Precinct will be finalised and placed on public exhibition.

34.    As any variation to the height over 33m will trigger the Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPA) Policy, and the uplift is measured by the number of additional units. Currently, the VPA Policy is based on 50% of the additional uplift (in FSR).

 

35.    It is proposed that a methodology be developed and included into the VPA Policy to guide the contribution amount, based on the increase in height. This will be undertaken during the exhibition of the draft DCP and a report will be presented to Council in this regard.

 

Financial Implications

36.    Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

16/1801 – SF17/824

 

 

  Item:        CCL145-17        Planning Proposal to vary clauses 4 4A and 6 6 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council adopt the amendment to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (LEP) to amend Clauses 4.4A – Exceptions to floor space ratios for buildings on land in certain zones and 6.6 Active street frontages, as exhibited, and request the Department of Planning and Environment to draft and finalise the amendment to Hurstville LEP 2012 in accordance with Section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(b)     That those who made a submission be notified of Council’s decision.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.         The Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP), at its meeting on 20 July 2017 considered a report on a Planning Proposal which seeks to amend Clause 4.4A Exceptions to FSR for buildings on land in certain zones and Clause 6.6 Active street frontages, in Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

2.         A copy of the report (and its attachments) considered by IHAP is contained in Attachment 1. The report is comprehensive in its assessment and should be read in conjunction with this report.

 

3.         As a result of the meeting, the IHAP resolved:

a.   That the Georges River IHAP note the exhibition of the Planning Proposal No. PP2015/0002 and the submission received from SSP Services on behalf of the owners of 279 and 281 Belmore Road Riverwood.

b.   That the Georges River IHAP recommends to the Council that the Planning Proposal PP2015/0002 to amend Clauses 4.4A and 6.6 of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (as outlined in this report) be supported and finalised in accordance with Section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Background

4.         On 20 May 2015, the former Hurstville City Council endorsed a Planning Proposal to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 by removing Clause 4.4A which requires that a minimum area of non-residential floor space of 0.5:1 be provided in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones; and by expanding the application of Clause 6.6 Active street frontages by amending the Active Street frontage Maps to include land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

 

5.         Council amended the Planning Proposal at its Meeting held 5 September 2016 as a result of the recommendations of the Draft Hurstville Employment Lands Study (ELS). The Draft Study recommended that Council proceed with an amended Planning Proposal which differs from the exhibited Planning Proposal in the following ways:

 

·    Retain Clause 4.4A and reduce the amount of non-residential floor space required from 0.5:1 to 0.3:1, rename the clause and add a clause objective.

·    Not proceed with the proposal to expand the application of Clause 6.6 Active street frontages to land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

·    Amend Clause 6.6 Active street frontages by including “medical centres” as a land use which satisfies the Active street frontage definition.

 

6.         Council further resolved at its Meeting held 5 September 2016 to refer the Planning Proposal as amended to the Department requesting it’s consideration of the proposed changes to the Planning Proposal and its advice on whether further community consultation is required under Section 57 of the Act.

 

7.         The Department by letter dated 15 February 2017 advised that the additional community consultation (of 14 days) is required for the amended Planning Proposal and issued an Alteration of Gateway Determination.

 

8.         The matter was reported to the Council meeting held 3 April 2017. The Council resolved:

 

·    That Council note the contents of the report and the advice from the Department of Planning and Environment.

·    That Council place the amended Planning Proposal which seeks to amend Clause 4.4A Exceptions to FSR for buildings on land in certain zones and Clause 6.6 Active street frontages, in Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 on community consultation for a minimum of 14 days.

·    That following the exhibition, the General Manager be delegated to assess submissions, undertake minor amendments and to lodge the Planning Proposal with the Department of Planning & Environment requesting notification.

 

9.         Council placed the Proposal on community consultation from 1 May 2017 until 31 May 2017.

 

10.       Whilst a number of phone calls and emails were received requesting clarification of how the Planning Proposal affected specific sites only one (1) submission was received from SPP Services dated 31 May 2017 on behalf of the owners of 279 & 281 Belmore Road Riverwood. The submission requests that:

 

·    The entire Clause 4.4A be repealed and replaced with a mixed use zoning that provides for active street frontages and non-residential uses on the ground floor; and

·    Council seek to make the Riverwood centre a priority precinct so that it can fulfil its potential as an important subregional centre and work with the Department to complete the LUIS currently underway without delay.

 

11.       Instead of being dealt with under the delegated authority of the General Manager the Planning Proposal was referred to IHAP on 20 July 2017 given the public submission received from SPP Services on behalf of the owners of 279 and 281 Belmore Road Riverwood.

 

12.       The submission is discussed in full in this report; however it is the recommendation of this report that Council proceed to support and finalise the planning proposal in accordance with Section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Proposal

13.       The intended outcome of the Planning Proposal is now:

 

·    Retain Clause 4.4A and reduce the amount of non-residential floor space required from 0.5:1 to 0.3:1, rename the clause and add a clause objective.

·    Amend Clause 6.6 Active street frontages by including “medical centres” as a land use which satisfies the Active street frontage definition.

 

14.       The Planning Proposal seeks the following changes to Clauses 4.4A and 6.6 of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 – the changes are in red and italics.

 

 

Table 1 – Clause 4.4A of the Hurstville LEP 2012

 

Current Wording of Clause 4.4A in Hurstville LEP 2012

4.4A Exceptions to floor space ratios for buildings on land in certain zones:

(1) Despite clause 4.4, development consent must not be granted for development on land in Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre or Zone B2 Local Centre unless the non-residential floor space ratio is at least 0.5:1.

(2) In this clause, non-residential floor space ratio means the ratio of the gross floor area of that part of a building used or proposed to be used for any purpose other than a residential purpose in a building on the site to the site area.

Proposed Wording of Clause 4.4A in Hurstville LEP 2012

4.4A Non-residential floor space ratios

(1) The objective of this clause is to encourage an appropriate mix of residential and non-residential uses and ensure a suitable level of non-residential floor space is provided to promote employment and reflect the hierarchy of the business zones.

(2) Despite clause 4.4, development consent must not be granted for development on land in Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre or Zone B2 Local Centre unless the non-residential floor space ratio is at least 0.3:1.

(3) In this clause, non-residential floor space ratio means the ratio of the gross floor area of that part of a building used or proposed to be used for any purpose other than a residential purpose in a building on the site to the site area.

Reasons

Draft Hurstville Employment Lands Study (2015) found that Clause 4.4A should be retained as it is beneficial for the employment outcomes of the centres. It also aligns well with the stated objectives for the business zones. However, it was also found that the level of non-residential floor space is set too high at 0.5:1 and could be reduced to 0.3:1 for the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones to address the issue of development feasibility in these centres. This recommendation has been supported by the Draft Georges River Employment Lands Study.

This will still ensure a suitable level of employment floor space continues to be provided in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones consistent with the objectives of the zones and the goals and directions of A Plan Growing Sydney (the Metropolitan Strategy) and relevant Section 117 Directions. It is noted that shop top housing and boarding houses are the only forms of residential development permitted in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones and that the total maximum floor space ratio allowable in these centres ranges from 1.5:1 to 3:1. Setting the minimum level of non-residential floor space at 0.3:1 equates to a 20% of the total floor space potential of sites with a maximum FSR of 1.5:1 and 10% for sites with a maximum FSR of 3:1.

 

 

 

Table 2 – Clause 6.6 of the Hurstville LEP 2012

 

Current Wording of Clause 6.6 in Hurstville LEP 2012

6.6   Active street frontages

(1) The objective of this clause is to promote uses that attract pedestrian traffic along certain ground floor street frontages in Zone B2 Local Centre, Zone B3 Commercial Core and Zone B4 Mixed Use.

 

(2) This clause applies to land identified as “Active street frontage” on the Active Street Frontages Map.

 

(3) Development consent must not be granted to the erection of a building, or a change of use of a building, on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the building will have an active street frontage after its erection or change of use.

 

(4) Despite subclause (3), an active street frontage is not required for any part of a building that faces a service lane or is used for any of the following:

(a)  entrances and lobbies (including as part of mixed use development),

(b)  access for fire services,

(c)  vehicular access.

 

(5) In this clause, a building has an active street frontage if all premises on the ground floor of the building facing the street are used for the purposes of business premises or retail premises.

Proposed Wording of Clause 6.6 in Hurstville LEP 2012

6.6   Active street frontages

(1)  The objective of this clause is to promote uses that attract pedestrian traffic along certain ground floor street frontages in Zone B2 Local Centre, Zone B3 Commercial Core and Zone B4 Mixed Use.

(2)  This clause applies to land identified as “Active street frontage” on the Active Street Frontages Map.

(3)  Development consent must not be granted to the erection of a building, or a change of use of a building, on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the building will have an active street frontage after its erection or change of use.

(4)  Despite subclause (3), an active street frontage is not required for any part of a building that faces a service lane or is used for any of the following:

(a)  entrances and lobbies (including as part of mixed use development),

(b)  access for fire services,

(c)  vehicular access.

(5)  In this clause, a building has an active street frontage if all premises on the ground floor of the building facing the street are used for the purposes of business premises, retail premises or a medical centre.

Reasons

The Council previously resolved not to amend the expansion of active street frontages through Clause 6.6 to land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre. Guidance from the Department of Planning on the application of active street frontages sets out that they are suitable for the B3 Commercial Core and B4 Mixed Use zones and they will be considered in the B2 Local Centre zone only where soundly justified through Council’s strategic planning for local activity centres. Extending the application of active street frontage provisions to the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone is not in keeping with the objectives of the zone and the smaller scale of these centres.

 

The only forms of residential accommodation permitted in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone in Hurstville LEP 2012 are boarding houses and shop top housing which is defined as one or more dwellings located above ground floor retail premises or business premises. The shop top housing definition ensures the ground floor of any mixed use developments in the zone will feature retail premises or business premises on the ground floor and residential apartments above.

 

As Medical Centres do not fall within the definition of either “business premises” or “retail premises” they fall outside the definition of “active street frontages” as set out in Clause 6.6 for the Hurstville LEP 2012, which is based on the Standard Instrument LEP. Active street frontages apply to land zoned B2 Local Centre, B3 Commercial Core and B4 Mixed Use. In accordance with Clause 6.6(5), active uses are limited to land uses that fit within the business premises or retail premises land use definitions. It is considered that medical centres adequately satisfy the objective of Clause 6.6 to “promote uses that attract pedestrian traffic along certain ground floor street frontages in Zone B2 Local Centre, Zone B3 Commercial Core and Zone B4 Mixed Use”. In particular, medical centres are considered to satisfy the objective to the same extent as land uses that fit within the business premises definition which include business uses such as post offices, hairdressers and travel agencies.

 

A precedent has been set in other LEPs where uses on the ground floor facing the street which are considered to constitute an “active street frontage” has been expanded to include a range of specific land uses, including medical centres. No change to the Hurstville LEP 2012 Dictionary will be required as the Dictionary only refers to the Map and the definition of active street frontages is defined in the clause.

 

Site and Locality

15.       The Planning Proposal will apply to all land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre, B2 Local Centre, Zone B3 Commercial Core and Zone B4 Mixed Use under the Hurstville LEP 2012.

 

16.       Below is a complete list of the location of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoned land under the Hurstville LEP 2012:

·    Hurstville (Kimberley St)

·    Hurstville (Gloucester Rd)

·    Lugarno (Lime Kiln Bay Rd)

·    Lugarno (Chivers Hill, Forest Rd)

·    Narwee West (Baumans Rd)

·    Oatley (Lansdowne Pde)

·    Oatley West (Mulga Rd)

·    Peakhurst (Isaac St)

·    Peakhurst (Park St)

·    Peakhurst (Boundary Rd)

·    Peakhurst (Forest Rd)

·    Peakhurst (Lorraine St)

·    Peakhurst South ( Pindari Rd)

·    Peakhurst North (Baumans Rd)

·    Peakhurst West (Ogilvy St)

·    Penshurst (Cnr Stoney Creek Rd & Penshurst St)

 

17.       Below is a complete list of the location of the B2 Local Centre zoned land under the Hurstville LEP 2012:

·    Beverly Hills Local Centre

·    Hurstville East, Forest Rd Local Centre (between Hudson St and the LGA boundary).

·    Kingsgrove, Stoney Creek Rd Local Centre

·    Kingsgrove Local Centre (partly in Rockdale LGA)

·    Mortdale Local Centre

·    Narwee Local Centre (partly in Canterbury LGA)

·    Penshurst Local Centre

·    Peakhurst Local Centre (Forest Rd)

·    Riverwood Local Centre

 

18.       The location of the B3 Commercial Core zoned land under the Hurstville LEP 2012 is located within the Hurstville City Centre (commercial only core).

 

19.       The location of the B4 Mixed Use zoned land under the Hurstville LEP 2012 is located within the Hurstville City Centre (mixed use zone surrounding the core area).

 

Submissions

 

20.       The amended Planning Proposal was required to be placed on community consultation for a minimum of 14 days. Council placed the Proposal on community consultation from 1 May 2017 until 31 May 2017.

 

21.       The community were notified of the commencement of the exhibition period via a notice in a local newspaper and via a notice on Georges River Council’s website.  Owners of all land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre, B2 Local Centre, Zone B3 Commercial Core and Zone B4 Mixed Use under the Hurstville LEP 2012 were also notified by letter.

 

22.       One (1) submission was received from SPP Services dated 31 May 2017 on behalf of the owners of 279 & 281 Belmore Road Riverwood. Attachment 2 contains a copy of the submission from SPP Services. The submission requests that:

 

·    The entire Clause 4.4A be repealed and replaced with a mixed use zoning that provides for active street frontages and non-residential uses on the ground floor. The submission also states that achieving non-residential uses above the ground level is very problematic and often results in uses that do little to activate street frontages; and

·    Council seek to make the Riverwood centre a priority precinct so that it can fulfil its potential as an important subregional centre and work with the Department to complete the LUIS currently underway without delay.

 

23.       A non-residential floor space of 0.3:1 in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones will still ensure a suitable level of employment floor space continues to be provided in these zones consistent with the objectives of the zones and the goals and directions of A Plan Growing Sydney (the Metropolitan Strategy) and relevant Section 117 Directions.

 

24.       The reduction in non-residential floor space in the B1 and B2 zones from 0.5:1 to 0.3:1 has been supported by two studies to date:

a.   Draft Hurstville Employment Lands Study; and

b.   Georges River Council Employment Lands Study.

 

25.       At present there are no other studies/strategies available that support a further reduction in the non-residential floor space in the B1 and B2 zones under the Hurstville LEP 2012.

 

26.       With respect to submission’s point relating to the Riverwood Land Use & Infrastructure Strategy (LUIS), the Council is advised that the Riverwood LUIS will probably result in additional changes to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. These changes will culminate into a further Planning Proposal at that time and will be supported by the studies currently being carried out by the NSW State Government.

 

Conclusion

27.       The submission received from SSP Services on behalf of the owners of 279 and 281 Belmore Road Riverwood is noted; however this Planning Proposal is now supported by the recommendations of the Draft Georges River Employment Lands Study. Any further reduction of the non-residential floor space from 0.3:1 would need to be supported by a further study.

 

28.       The Riverwood LUIS will probably result in additional changes to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. These changes will culminate into a further Planning Proposal at that time and will be supported by the studies currently being carried out by the NSW State Government.

 

29.       Therefore this report recommends that the Planning Proposal PP2015/0002 to amend Clauses 4.4A and 6.6 of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 be supported and finalised in accordance with Section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

30.       A copy of the Planning Proposal to be forwarded in accordance with Section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is attached as Attachment 3.

 

Financial Implications

31.       Within budget allocation.

 

 

File Reference

15/561

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Attachment to Council Report - Report to IHAP 20 July 2017

Attachment View2

Attachment to report - Submission from SSP Services dated 31 May 2017

Attachment View3

Planning Proposal dated August 2017 - HLEP 2012 - clauses 4.4A and 6.6

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL145-17             Planning Proposal to vary clauses 4 4A and 6 6 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

[Appendix 1]          Attachment to Council Report - Report to IHAP 20 July 2017

 

 

Page 28

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL145-17             Planning Proposal to vary clauses 4 4A and 6 6 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

[Appendix 2]          Attachment to report - Submission from SSP Services dated 31 May 2017

 

 

Page 92

 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL145-17             Planning Proposal to vary clauses 4 4A and 6 6 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

[Appendix 3]          Planning Proposal dated August 2017 - HLEP 2012 - clauses 4.4A and 6.6

 

 

Page 94

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 August 2017                                                                               Page 124

Item:                   CCL146-17        Planning Proposal PP2015-0001 53-75 Forest Road 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane Hurstville 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a) That Council defer  the Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“Hurstville LEP 2012”) in respect of the “Hurstville East” site so that:

i.    A provision is included for affordable housing to be incorporated in any development on the site equivalent to not less than 5% of the gross floor area of the development.

ii.   A revised urban design analysis is undertaken to assess the inter-relationship between the proposed height and floor space ratio, considering provision of ground level communal open space, street setbacks, road widening.as well as compliance with all aspects of the Apartment Design Guide.

iii.  Provisions are developed that require amalgamation in order to develop to the maximum heights and floor space ratios as outlined in the proposal.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      The Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP), at its meeting on 20 July 2017 considered a report on a Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“Hurstville LEP 2012”) as follows, in respect of the “Hurstville East” site (refer to Figure 1):

a.   To change of land use zoning from IN2 Light Industrial and part R2 Low Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use,

b.   To amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to increase the FSR from 0.6 (R2) and 1:1 (IN2) to 2:1 along Roberts Lane and up to 3.5:1 for the reminder of the site (including a minimum commercial FSR of 0.5:1).

c.   To amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the maximum building height from 9m (R2) and 10m (IN2) to a range of heights of 12m along Roberts Lane and to 21m, 28m 30m, 40m and 65m for the reminder of the site.

d.   To amend the Active Street Frontages Map to apply an active street frontage along Forest Road and Durham Street frontages of the site

e.   To provide a Hotel incentive 0.5:1 for the hotel accommodation land uses for that portion of the site on the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street.

 

2.      A copy of the report (and its attachments) considered by IHAP is contained in Attachment 1. The report is comprehensive in its assessment and should be read in conjunction with this report.

 

3.      As a result of the meeting, the IHAP resolved:

a.   That the Georges River IHAP recommends to the Council that the Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“Hurstville LEP 2012”) in respect of the “Hurstville East” site be deferred so that:

i. A provision is included for affordable housing to be incorporated in any development on the site equivalent to not less than 5% of the gross floor area of the development.

ii.  A revised urban design analysis is undertaken to assess the inter-relationship between the proposed height and floor space ratio, considering provision of ground level communal open space, street setbacks, road widening.as well as compliance with all aspects of the Apartment Design Guide.

iii. Provisions are developed that require amalgamation in order to develop to the maximum heights and floor space ratios as outlined in the proposal.

Figure 1 – Hurstville East Site

Background

4.      The request to prepare a Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) for the site bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville was originally submitted by Dickson Rothschild (“the Applicant”) on 16 June 2015. Table 2 in Attachment 1 provides a chronology of the events leading up to this report on the revised Planning Proposal.

 

5.      Dickson Rothschild submitted a revised Planning Proposal request (PP2015/0005) on behalf of One Capital Pty Ltd on 2 June 2017 that requests that Council amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“LEP 2012”) in relation to the site bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville (the “Hurstville East” site) to:

 

a.   Change of land use zoning from IN2 Light Industrial and part R2 Low Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use,

b.   Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to increase the FSR from 0.6 (R2) and 1:1 (IN2) to 2:1 along Roberts Lane and up to 3.5:1 for the reminder of the site (including a minimum commercial FSR of 0.5:1).

c.   Amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the maximum building height from 9m (R2) and 10m (IN2) to a range of heights of 12m along Roberts Lane and to 21m, 28m 30m, 40m and 65m for the reminder of the site.

d.   Amend the Active Street Frontages Map to apply an active street frontage along Forest Road and Durham Street frontages of the site.

e.   Hotel incentive 0.5:1 for the hotel accommodation land uses for that portion of the site on the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street.

 

6.      The Urban Design Presentation (Dickson Rothschild) shows a concept which provides for:

a.   Between 440 and 480 residential units across the site, which are located within buildings of 3 storeys up to 19-20 storeys. The Traffic Report (Refer to Attachment 8) states that 450 residential apartments will be provided comprising of:

i. 10 studio units

ii.  38 one bedroom units

iii. 364 two bedroom units

iv. 38 three bedroom units

b.   Seven (7) level hotel containing between 110-130 rooms (approx. 5,260sqm) located on Ground Level and Levels 1 to 6 within the corner building (Building A).

c.   Ground level retail uses along Forest Road, Durham Street and internal.

d.   Central area of communal open space of approximately 3000m2.

e.   Through site connections linking Durham Street and Forest Road.

f.    Provision of 670 carparking spaces.

g.   Road widening along the Roberts Lane frontage of 3m.

h.   Soho units along Roberts Lane in a 3 storey element 18m wide.

 

7.      The Site is located within the boundary of the Hurstville City Centre and currently accommodates approximately 10,127m2 of employment floor space.  Council at its Meeting held 3 July 2017 adopted a report and approved Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan (Amendment No. 2) to include Kempt Field, the Hurstville East Site (bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane) and the Bing Lee Site (being 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road) Hurstville into the Hurstville City Centre land application map.

 

8.      The site consists of 19 allotments in various ownerships. The Planning Proposal does not have all owners consent.

 

9.      Council, at its meeting on 3 April 2017 considered a report on the draft Georges River Employment Lands Study (the draft Study) and resolved to publicly exhibit the draft Study. The draft Study makes the following recommendation for the Hurstville Industrial – Hurstville East Precinct:

a.   Rezone the Precinct from IN2 – Light Industrial and No 53 Forest Road from R2 – Low Density Residential to B4 – Mixed Use zone,

b.   Implement a minimum non-residential floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.5:1 and ensure that non-residential floor space is provided at the ground floor to encourage street activation which promotes vibrancy in the centre, as well as continued employment opportunities,

c.   That a further review be undertaken with respect to the height and FSR in the context of the adjoining development.

 

10.    The revised Planning Proposal request lodged in June 2017 has been considered by the St George Design Review Panel (“DRP”) on 6 April 2017 and the proposed maximum FSR and the range of building heights included in this revision was generally supported.  The DRP supported the Planning Proposal subject to a detailed design at DA stage which is to be the subject of a further DRP Meeting upon lodgement of a DA.

 

Overview of the Site

11.    The Hurstville East site is a triangular shaped site bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville. The site adjoins the area defined as the Hurstville City Centre and within 400m walking distance from Allawah Station and 800m from Hurstville Station. The site is shown in Figure 1.

 

12.    The site has multiple land owners and contains a total of 19 separate lots legally described in Table 1 below. One Capital Pty Ltd has an interest in 8 of the allotments. Figure 2 of this report indicates the land that One Capital Pty Ltd has an interest in.

 

Table 1 – Legal Site Description

 

Lot/DP & Address

Zone under HELP 2012

Ownership

Lot A DP.372835

53 Forest Road

R2 – Low Density Residential

Mrs K Giacchi

Lot 1 DP. 225302

61-65 Forest Road

IN2 – Light Industrial

Sentumar Pty Ltd

 

One Capital has an interest

Lot 101 DP.776275

67-69 Forest Road

IN2 – Light Industrial

Sentumar Pty Ltd

 

One Capital has an interest

Lot 100 DP.776275

71A Forest Road

IN2 – Light Industrial

Mrs VM and Mr AW Garthon

One Capital has an interest

Lot 10 DP.621395

73 Forest Road

IN2 – Light Industrial

South East Automotive Pty Ltd

One Capital has an interest

Lot 4 DP.12517

75 Forest Road

IN2 – Light Industrial

South East Automotive Pty Ltd

One Capital has an interest

Lot 3 DP.12517

75 Forest Road

IN2 – Light Industrial

South East Automotive Pty Ltd

One Capital has an interest

Lot 2 DP.12517

126 Durham Street

IN2 – Light Industrial

South East Automotive Pty Ltd

One Capital has an interest

Lot 1 DP.12517

126 Durham Street

IN2 – Light Industrial

South East Automotive Pty Ltd

One Capital has an interest

Lot 15 DP.601341

122A Durham Street

IN2 – Light Industrial

A & C Motor Repairs Pty Ltd

Lot 1 DP.337499

120 Durham Street

IN2  - Light Industrial

Mr G & Mrs R Topalidia

Lot 1 DP.213685

118A Durham

IN2 – Light Industrial

Mr H and Mrs W Hage

Lot 2 DP.213685

118 Durham Street

 

IN2 – Light Industrial

Mr H and Mrs W Hage

Lot 5 DP.171179

116 Durham Street

IN2 – Light Industrial

Boy Scouts Association Trustees

(Heritage Item)

Lot A DP.391801

114 Durham Street

IN2 - Light Industrial

Bagi Pty Ltd

Lot B DP.391801

112 Durham Street

IN2 – Light Industrial

Bagi Pty Ltd

Lot C DP.391801

110 Durham Street

IN2 – Light Industrial

Bagi Pty Ltd

Lot D DP.391801

108 Durham Street

 

IN2 – Light Industrial

Bagi Pty Ltd

Lot 1 DP.172819

9 Roberts Lane

IN2 – Light Industrial

Mrs J and Mr I Kordic

 

 

Figure 2 – Allotments highlighted in yellow under One Capital Interest

 

13.       The site has an area of 14,070m2 (approx. 1.4 hectares) and the following boundaries:

 

·    Forest Road boundary of 175m,

·    Durham Street boundary of 140m,

·    Roberts Lane boundary of 207m.

 

14.       The existing buildings on the site are described below:

 

·    Self-storage facility

·    Automotive services and sales

·    Community uses (Hurstville Scout Hall)

·    Funeral home

·    Two (2) storey residential flat building on the corner of Roberts Lane and Forest Road (land zoned R2 Low Density Residential)

·    Dwellings on Durham Street on land zoned IN2 Light Industrial

 

The Planning Proposal

15.    The objective of the Planning Proposal is to amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 by:

·    Changing of land use zoning from IN2 Light Industrial and part R2 Low Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use,

·    Amending the Floor Space Ratio Map to increase the FSR from 0.6 (R2) and 1:1 (IN2) to 2:1 along Roberts Lane and up to 3.5:1 for the reminder of the site (including a minimum commercial FSR of 0.5:1).

·    Amending the Height of Buildings Map to increase the maximum building height from 9m (R2) and 10m (IN2) to a range of heights of 12m along Roberts Lane and to 21m, 28m 30m, 40m and 65m for the reminder of the site.

·    Amending the Active Street Frontages Map to apply an active street frontage along Forest Road and Durham Street frontages of the site.

·    Providing for a Hotel incentive 0.5:1 for the hotel accommodation land uses for that portion of the site on the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street.

 

16.    The intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal are to permit a mixed use development on the site  which provides for:

·    Between 440 and 480 residential units across the site, which are located within buildings of 3 storeys up to 19-20 storeys.

·    Seven (7) level hotel containing between 110-130 rooms (approx. 5,260sqm) located on Ground Level and Levels 1 to 6 within the corner building (Building A).

·    Ground level retail uses along Forest Road, Durham Street and internal.

·    Central area of communal open space of approximately 3000m2.

·    Through site connections linking Durham Street and Forest Road.

·    Provision of 670 carparking spaces.

Summary Of Assessment / Conclusion

17.    The matters raised by IHAP require further work by both Council Officers and the proponent.

 

18.    It is recommended that the Council support the deferral of the Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“Hurstville LEP 2012”) in respect of the “Hurstville East” site be deferred so that:

a.   A provision is included for affordable housing to be incorporated in any development on the site equivalent to not less than 5% of the gross floor area of the development.

b.   A revised urban design analysis is undertaken to assess the inter-relationship between the proposed height and floor space ratio, considering provision of ground level communal open space, street setbacks, road widening.as well as compliance with all aspects of the Apartment Design Guide.

c.   Provisions are developed that require amalgamation in order to develop to the maximum heights and floor space ratios as outlined in the proposal.

Financial Implications

19.    No budget impact for this report.

 

File Reference

15/793

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Hurstville East Plannng Proposal IHAP Report 20 July 2017 - published in separate document

 Item:         CCL147-17        Heads of Agreement to enter into a VPA - Planning Proposal PP2015 0001  53-75 Forest Road 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts lane Hurstville 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning and Strategic Planner

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

Recommendation

(a)     That Council accept the written offer dated 11 July 2017 from The One Capital Group Pty Ltd (Developer) to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (ATTACHMENTs 1 & 2) in relation to the Planning Proposal PP2015/0001 which seeks amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012 at 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville (legally described as Lot 1 in DP 225302; Lot 100 & 101 in DP 776275; Lot 1, 2, 3 & 4 in DP 12517; and Lot 10 in DP621395), which will deliver the following public benefits:

1.      A monetary contribution of $7,375,878 (indexed). The monetary amount is to be paid in stages as follows:

i.    $1 million within 30 days of Hurstville LEP 2012 Amendment;

ii.   $1 million immediately prior to the issue of a notice of determination granting the first Development Consent for the Developer’s Land; and

iii.  The remainder prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate for the Development on the Developer’s Land

2.      The construction and dedication at no cost to Council a 3m wide strip of land adjoining the Developer’s Land and Robert’s Lane prior to the issue of the first subdivision certificate or the issue of the first occupation certificate for building C as referred to in the Planning Proposal. The widened Robert’s Lane shall be constructed in accordance with the Council’s standards and requirements. The estimated value of the land being dedicated and the road widening works totals $514,122.

3.      An easement that benefits Council which will enable public access through the site.

 

(b)     The Council delegate authority to the General Manager to execute the Heads of Agreement (ATTACHMENT 2) as referred to in Item (a) above.

(c)     That Council delegate authority to the General Manager to negotiate the specific terms of the Voluntary Planning Agreement as agreed by the Parties in the Heads of Agreement (ATTACHMENT 2), and to subsequently exhibit a draft of the Voluntary Planning Agreement in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and if a Gateway is issued by the delegate of The Greater Sydney Commission for the Planning Proposal.

(d)     That Council delegate authority to General Manager to:

1.      Authorise any minor changes to the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement following public exhibition, provided that those changes do not diminish the value or nature of the public benefits to be delivered as identified in (a) above;

2.      Subsequently enter into the Voluntary Planning Agreement on behalf of Council.

 

(e)     That the land to be dedicated to Council, under the terms of the Voluntary Planning Agreement, is to be dedicated for the purposes of a road, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Roads Act 1993.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      Council is in receipt of a Letter of Offer dated 11 July 2017 (Attachment 1) and an attached Heads of Agreement (Attachment 2) outlining the terms of the offer, from The One Capital Group Pty Ltd (Developer) to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) in relation to a Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) at 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville (legally described as Lot 1 in DP 225302; Lot 100 & 101 in DP 776275; Lot 1, 2, 3 & 4 in DP 12517; and Lot 10 in DP621395) (Site). The VPA will deliver additional public benefits over and above the usual Section 94 contributions applicable to the subsequent development resulting from the Planning Proposal.

2.      In summary the Planning Proposal seeks to amend Hurstville LEP 2012 as follows:

·    Change of land use zoning from IN2 Light Industrial and part R2 Low Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use;

·    To amend the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Map to increase the FSR from 0.6:1 (R2 zone) and 1:1 (IN2 zone) to 2:1 along Roberts Lane and up to 3.5:1 for the remainder of the site, including a minimum commercial FSR of 0.5:1;

·    To amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the maximum building height from 9m (R2 zone) and 10m (IN2 zone) to a range of heights of 12m along Roberts Lane and to 21m, 28m, 30m 40m and 65m for the remainder of the site;

·    To amend the Active Street Frontages Map to apply an active street frontage along Forest Road and Durham Street frontages of the Site; and

·    To provide a Hotel incentive 0.5:1 for the hotel accommodation land uses for that portion of the Site on the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street.

 

3.      The Public Benefits offered by the Developer in association with the Planning Proposal have an agreed estimated value of $7.89 million and are summarised as follows:

·    the Developer will provide a monetary contribution of $7,375,878 (indexed). The monetary amount is to be paid in stages as follows:

o $1 million within 30 days of Hurstville LEP 2012 Amendment;

o $1 million immediately prior to the issue of a notice of determination granting the first Development Consent for the Developer’s Land; and

o The remainder prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate for the Development on the Developer’s Land

·    the Developer will construct and dedicate at no cost to Council a 3m wide strip of land adjoining the Developer’s Land and Robert’s Lane prior to the earlier of the issue of the first subdivision certificate or the issue of the first occupation certificate for building C as referred to in the Planning Proposal. The widened Robert’s Lane shall be constructed in accordance with the Council’s standards and requirements. The estimated value of the land being dedicated and the road widening works totals $514,122.

·    The Developer will register an easement to Council to enable public access through the site. The registration will occur prior to the issue of an occupation certificate which authorises the occupation and use of 75% or more of the Development on the Developer’s Land.

 

4.      The Heads of Agreement states that the parties agree to work together in good faith and to use their reasonable endeavours to negotiate and reach agreement on the terms of the VPA in accordance with the Heads of Agreement so it can be publicly notified concurrently with the Planning Proposal. Also it provides that the Developer must pay all of Council’s reasonable legal costs in the preparation, drafting and negotiation of the Heads of Agreement and VPA.

5.      The Public Benefits have been assessed against Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements (Policy) and are considered to be satisfactory in respect of the Acceptability Test under the Policy.

6.      Therefore it is recommended that Council accept the Letter of Offer dated 11 July 2017 and the attached Heads of Agreement, by executing the Heads of Agreement which outlines the terms of the offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement with the Developer in respect the Planning Proposal PP2015/0001 relating to the Site.

 

Background

7.      The Developer lodged a Planning Proposal with Council seeking amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to the zoning, building heights and floor space ratio for the subject Site.

8.      The Planning Proposal seeks to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“Hurstville LEP 2012”) as follows, in respect of the “Hurstville East” site (refer to Figure 1 below):

a.   To change of land use zoning from IN2 Light Industrial and part R2 Low Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use,

b.   To amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to increase the FSR from 0.6 (R2) and 1:1 (IN2) to 2:1 along Roberts Lane and up to 3.5:1 for the reminder of the site (including a minimum commercial FSR of 0.5:1).

c.   To amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the maximum building height from 9m (R2) and 10m (IN2) to a range of heights of 12m along Roberts Lane and to 21m, 28m 30m, 40m and 65m for the reminder of the site.

d.   To amend the Active Street Frontages Map to apply an active street frontage along Forest Road and Durham Street frontages of the site

e.   To provide a Hotel incentive 0.5:1 for the hotel accommodation land uses for that portion of the site on the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street.

Figure 1: Aerial photo of the land affected by the
Planning Proposal PP2015/0001

 

9.      The Planning Proposal is the subject of a separate report to Council within this Agenda. The report follows IHAP’s consideration of the Planning Proposal at its meeting of 20 July 2017 – IHAP recommended to Council that the Planning Proposal be deferred so that:

a.   A provision is included for affordable housing to be incorporated in any development on the site equivalent to not less than 5% of the gross floor area of the development.

b.   A revised urban design analysis is undertaken to assess the inter-relationship between the proposed height and floor space ratio, considering provision of ground level communal open space, street setbacks, road widening.as well as compliance with all aspects of the Apartment Design Guide.

c.   Provisions are developed that require amalgamation in order to develop to the maximum heights and floor space ratios as outlined in the proposal.

 

10.    The separate report to Council recommends that Council adopt the IHAP’s recommendation and defer the Planning Proposal for the reasons stated by IHAP.

 

11.    The Planning Proposal will return to IHAP at either its Meeting in August or September 2017, depending on the timing of the additional information to be lodged.

 

Voluntary Planning Agreement – terms of offer

12.    The Developer has negotiated with Council Staff the terms of a Letter of Offer to enter into a VPA, in accordance with Council’s current VPA Policy. The Letter of Offer is covers the following allotments (refer to Figure 2 below):

·    Lot 1 in DP.225302,

·    Lot 100 & 101 in DP.776275,

·    Lot 10 in DP.621395, and

·    Lot 1, 2, 3 & 4 in DP.12517.

 

Figure 2: Allotments highlighted in yellow under One Capital Pty Ltd interest

 

 

13.    The Developer has submitted a Letter of Offer dated 11 July 2017 (Attachment 1) to Council to enter into a VPA in relation to the Planning Proposal PP2015/0001 and which refers to an attached Heads of Agreement (Attachment 2). The Heads of Agreement outlines the terms of the offer, which delivers additional public benefits over and above the usual Section 94 contributions applicable to the development.

14.    The Heads of Agreement between the Developer and Council has been drafted in good faith and signed by the Developer, should the offer be accepted by Council, the general Manager is to execute the Heads of Agreement and each party is to then use their reasonable endeavours to negotiate and reach agreement on the terms of the VPA in accordance with the Heads of Agreement prior to the exhibition of the Planning Proposal. This will allow the VPA to be exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal.

15.    The Public Benefits are listed as follows:

·    the Developer will provide a monetary contribution of $7,375,878 (indexed). The monetary amount is to be paid in stages as follows:

o $1 million within 30 days of Hurstville LEP 2012 Amendment;

o $1 million immediately prior to the issue of a notice of determination granting the first Development Consent for the Developer’s Land; and

o The remainder prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate for the Development on the Developer’s Land

·    the Developer will construct and dedicate at no cost to Council a 3m wide strip of land adjoining the Developer’s Land and Robert’s Lane prior to the earlier of the issue of the first subdivision certificate or the issue of the first occupation certificate for building C as referred to in the Planning Proposal. The widened Robert’s Lane shall be constructed in accordance with the Council’s standards and requirements. The estimated value of the land being dedicated and the road widening works totals $514,122.

·    The Developer will register an easement to Council to enable public access through the site. The registration will occur prior to the issue of an occupation certificate which authorises the occupation and use of 75% or more of the Development on the Developer’s Land.

 

16.    The above public benefits have been assessed in regards to the Acceptability Test contained in Council’s VPA policy as follows:

Does the Planning Agreement:

Assessment

(a)  Satisfy the statutory requirements for planning agreements contained in the Act and Regulation?

The Letter of Offer and Heads of Agreement outlining the terms of the offer from the Developer do not form ‘a planning agreement’ under the terms of the Act and Regulations. As such they don’t need to fully satisfy the statutory requirements of the Act and Regulations.

The purpose of the Letter of Offer and Heads of Agreement is to outline the general terms on which the Planning Agreement will be based. Hence at this initial stage the general terms should meet the requirements of Section 93F(2), which describes what a public purpose includes (without limitation) on which Planning Agreements can be based. Section 93F(2) describes a public purpose (without limitation) as follows:

(a)  the provision of (or the recoupment of the cost of providing) public amenities or public services,

(b)  the provision of (or the recoupment of the cost of providing) affordable housing,

c)    the provision of (or the recoupment of the cost of providing) transport or other infrastructure relating to land,

(d)  the funding of recurrent expenditure relating to the provision of public amenities or public services, affordable housing or transport or other infrastructure,

(e)  the monitoring of the planning impacts of development,

(f)    the conservation or enhancement of the natural environment.

The key terms of the Heads of Agreement fall under points ‘(a)’ and ‘(c)’ of the listed public purposes above, as they consist of a monetary contributions, easement for public access and dedication of land for road widening.

Other legislative requirements for VPAs include, but are not limited to, securities, dispute mechanisms, the application of S94 and/or S94A contributions. In this case the developer has indicated the public benefits included in the Heads of Agreement are over and above the usual Section 94 contributions that will be applicable to the development.

Further, in respect to securities and dispute mechanisms, these will be resolved at the drafting stage of the Planning Agreement between the parties, noting that it is agreed between the parties in the Heads of Agreement that monetary contributions are to paid at particular hold points; and the VPA is to be registered on the title of the Developer’s Land.

A significant statutory requirement is the public exhibition of the Planning Agreement, once both parties have agreed on its final form and Gateway Approval is provided by the delegate of The Greater Sydney Commission for the Planning Proposal. The minimum exhibition period under Section 93G(1) of the Act is 28 days.

(b)  Comply with the principles set out in clause 2.3 of this Policy?

Clause 2.3 of the Planning Agreement Policy contains 11 principles as follows:

1.    planning decisions must not be bought or sold through planning agreements;

2.    the Council will not allow planning agreements to improperly fetter the exercise of its functions under the Act, Regulation or any other Act or law;

3.    the Council will not use planning agreements for any purpose other than a proper planning purpose;

4.    the consideration, negotiation and assessment of a proposed planning agreement will be separate from the consideration of the planning merits of a development application or planning proposal;

5.    the Council will not use planning agreements as a means to overcome revenue raising or spending limitations to which it is subject or for other improper purposes;

6.    development that is unacceptable on planning grounds will not be permitted because of public benefits offered by developers that do not make the development acceptable on planning grounds;

7.    the Council will not seek benefits under a planning agreement that are wholly unrelated to the development;

8.    in assessing a development application or planning proposal, the Council will not take into consideration planning agreements that are wholly unrelated to the subject matter of the development application or planning proposal, nor will the Council give disproportionate weight to a planning agreement;

9.    the Council will not allow the interests of developers, individuals or interest groups to outweigh the public interest when considering a proposed planning agreement;

10.  the Council will not improperly rely on its position in order to extract unreasonable public benefits from developers under planning agreements; and

11.  where the Council has a commercial stake in development the subject of a planning agreement, it will take appropriate steps to ensure that it avoids a conflict of interest between its role as a planning authority and its interests in the development.

 

Taking the above principles into consideration, Council Staff have negotiated the terms of the Letter of Offer to enter into a Planning Agreement, as contained in the Heads of Agreement.

The Developer will only become obliged to provide the public benefits outlined in the Heads of Agreement should the proposed amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012 (Instrument Change) as recommended to Council for the Planning Proposal be gazetted.

The monetary contribution, public access easement and land dedication provide public benefits that are directly in relation to ameliorating impacts of the development brought about by the proposed amendments to zoning, increase in height and FSR.

(c)   Be directed towards a proper or legitimate planning purpose ordinarily ascertainable from the statutory planning controls and other adopted planning policies applying to development and the circumstances of the case?

As discussed under item ‘(a)’ above, the proposed public benefits outlined in the Heads of Agreement fall under the description of a public purpose, as described in Section 93F(2) of the Act.

(d)  Provide for public benefits that bear a relationship to the development that is not wholly unrelated to the development?

The agreed public benefits under the Heads of Agreement bear relationship to the development, but also provide benefit to the greater public in relation to the following:

·    Improve the road network and access along Roberts Lane

·    Provide key infrastructure works within the Hurstville city Centre.

·    Improve public amenities and services in the Hurstville City Centre.

·    Provide community benefits to the local community.

(e)  Produce outcomes that meet the general values and expectations of the public and protect the overall public interest?

The general expectations of the public and the protection of the public interest in the case of development, is an expectation that the developer will bear some cost in ameliorating against the impacts their private development of their land will have on its neighbours and the greater community. Whilst Section 94 Plans raise funds for Council to put toward capital projects to mitigate against the impacts of ongoing development, those plans are based on particular predictions made from planning controls in place at the time the plans were published. Planning Agreements are able to step in where particular development was ‘unforeseen’ by the Section 94 Plan, i.e. where the developer seeks an increase over and above the current development standards contained in a Local Environmental Plan to obtain a greater outcome.

The proposed amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012 for the subject Site is such a case. The proposal seeks to rezone a portion of the Site and seeks increases in the building heights and FSR increases beyond the Hurstville LEP’s current standards. As such the public benefits contained in the Heads of Agreement, as offered by the Developer, provide further mitigation against the impact of the development commensurate with the uplift sought in the development controls. As such they can be reasonably viewed to be meeting the general values and expectations of the public.

(f)   Provide for reasonable means of achieving the relevant purposes and outcomes and securing the benefits?

The terms outlined in the Heads of Agreement provides timelines by which the public benefits are to be delivered and the securities agreed upon to reduce Council’s risk should the Developer default.

(g)  Protect the community’s reasonable planning expectations and avoid environmental harm?

As per item ‘(e)’ above the public benefits to be provided under the Panning Agreement will enhance the public domain and provide some amelioration against the impacts of the development. In terms of avoiding environmental harm, this will need to be addressed in the assessment of the future development application.

(h)  Ensure the quantum of the public benefit offered is commensurate with the value of the development contributions which the Council considers are reasonably due in the circumstances?

The quantum of the public benefit offered in the Heads of Agreement is considered to be reasonable in the circumstances of case for the following reasons:

·    the proposed Planning Agreement will provide a cash contribution in stages totalling $7,375,878

·    the proposed Planning Agreement will require the construction and dedication of a 3m wide strip of land for the purpose of Road, at no cost to Council, if the Instrument Change is gazetted. The land is approximately a 3 metre wide strip of land, along Roberts Lane for the length of the Developer’s Land. The timing of the dedication is outlined in the Heads of Agreement.

·    The proposed Planning Agreement will require the registration of public access easement trough the site, to enable the public to access the public open space areas within the subsequent proposed redevelopment of the site.

 

These contributions are considerable considering the estimated value capture amount, which is discussed below.

 

Land Value Capture

17.    Council’s VPA Policy requires an assessment of Residual Land Value (RLV) for sites, the subject of Planning Proposals, before and after a proposed LEP amendment seeking significant uplift in zoning, height and FSR. The VPA Policy then seeks to capture 50% of the increase in the RLV for public benefits to offset the impacts of the proposed ‘up zoning’ of the particular site.

18.    Due to the significance of the Planning Proposal PP2015/0001, Council engaged SGS Economics and Planning (SGS) to assess and calculate a likely RLV capture amount in accordance with Council’s VPA Policy. The SGS report is provided as Attachment 3.

19.    In summary SGS concludes that the calculated RLV capture of 50%, is approximately $5.15 million, based on an estimated uplift of $10.3 million in the RLV if the Planning Proposal proceeds. As the Developer’s offer is $7.89 million, the offer is considered to satisfy the Land Value Capture component of the Council’s VPA Policy.

 

Next Steps

20.    The following milestones will need to occur to progress the VPA:

a.  Council will engage Panel Solicitor to Draft VPA

b.  Upon receipt of initial draft from Panel Solicitor, copy can be provided to Developer for review.

c.  Parties to VPA meet to discuss initial draft and negotiate details of the VPA. This process is circular and may also involve draft being circulated between legal parties representing Parties to the VPA, until both parties are in agreement with final content of the VPA.

d.  Once final contents of VPA are agreed, the Draft VPA must be publicly notified for a minimum of 28 days in accordance with the EPA Act and EPA Regulation with the Planning Proposal (subject to a Gateway being issued by the delegate of The Greater Sydney Commission.

e.  Following public notification, should no submissions be received objecting the VPA, the VPA can be entered into on behalf of Council by signature of the General Manager.

f.   Once entered into, the VPA can be registered on the Title of the land to which it relates.

21.    It should be noted that as the VPA relates to the Planning Proposal PP2015/0001, the VPA will proceed with the Planning Proposal process and exhibition of the VPA is subject to a Gateway Approval being issued by the delegate of The Greater Sydney Commission.

 

Financial Implications

 

22.    No budget impact for this report.

23.    Under the Heads of Agreement the Developer must pay all of Council’s reasonable legal costs and disbursements in connection with the preparation, drafting and negotiation of the Heads of Agreement and the VPA. Also any stamp duty payable on this Heads of Agreement is payable by the Developer.

 

File Reference

SF17/735

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Cover Letter for Heads of Agreement offer to enter into a Planning Agreement 11 July 2017 - The One Capital Group Pty Ltd

Attachment View2

EXECUTED HOA 10 0717 v3 (with property titles rectified) (29981537v1)

Attachment View3

SGS Report on Land Value Capture and assessment of VPA offer for Forest Rd, Durham St site, Hurstville

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL147-17             Heads of Agreement to enter into a VPA - Planning Proposal PP2015 0001  53-75 Forest Road 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts lane Hurstville

[Appendix 1]          Cover Letter for Heads of Agreement offer to enter into a Planning Agreement 11 July 2017 - The One Capital Group Pty Ltd

 

 

Page 141

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL147-17             Heads of Agreement to enter into a VPA - Planning Proposal PP2015 0001  53-75 Forest Road 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts lane Hurstville

[Appendix 2]          EXECUTED HOA 10 0717 v3 (with property titles rectified) (29981537v1)

 

 

Page 142

 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL147-17             Heads of Agreement to enter into a VPA - Planning Proposal PP2015 0001  53-75 Forest Road 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts lane Hurstville

[Appendix 3]          SGS Report on Land Value Capture and assessment of VPA offer for Forest Rd, Durham St site, Hurstville

 

 

Page 148

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 August 2017                                                                               Page 172

Item:                   CCL148-17        Planning Proposal PP2014-0003 - 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

 

 

Recommendation

1.      That Council not support the Planning Proposal for 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 for the following reasons:

a.   The proponent’s stated position that the 1 May 2017 Council resolution (for a planning proposal with a FSR of 5.5:1 and a height of 46m) is “flawed”.

b.   The legal opinion indicating that the circumstances surrounding the planning proposal and the Council’s appointment as a relevant planning authority (RPA) may have resulted in a failure to comply with its obligations under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

c.   The letter of offer dated 26 May 2017 by the proponent to enter into a voluntary planning agreement is linked to a height of 50m height and a FSR of 5.5:1 notwithstanding Council amended the Planning proposal on 1 May 2017 to a height of 46m height and a FSR of 5.5:1.

d.   The letter of offer dated 26 May 2017 by the proponent to enter into a voluntary planning agreement has not been made in accordance with the Council’s VPA Policy as the proponent has not provided sufficient justification on the value of the contribution/public benefit.

e.   That the site specific Development Control Plan has not been prepared as required by the Council resolution dated 1 May 2017.

2.      That the Department of Planning & Environment be advised that Council does not support the Planning Proposal for 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 for the following reasons outlined in (1) above.

3.      That the applicant and those persons who made a written submission on the Planning Proposal for Nos 29-31 MacMahon Street be notified of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      The Administrator at the Council Meeting held 1 May 2017 moved and declared carried (Minute No. 90):

f.    That the Georges River IHAP’s recommendation to refuse the planning proposal due to excessive height, amenity impacts, and traffic and vehicular access is noted.

g.   That having regard to the Georges River IHAP’s recommendation that the maximum permitted height for the site be 46m, the Planning Proposal be amended so as to permit:

i. A maximum height of 46m;

ii.  A maximum FSR of 5.5:1, including requiring a minimum non-residential floor space of 0.5:1 through an amendment to Clause 4.4A (Exceptions to FSRs for buildings on land in certain zones);

h.   That the letter of offer from Toomey Pegg Lawyers dated 28 April 2017 to enter into a Planning Agreement under Section 93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 be noted.

i.    That Council enter into a voluntary planning agreement relating to the site at 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville, and that the Heads of Agreement be prepared in accordance with Council’s current VPA Policy, consistent with adopted practice and procedures since 1 August 2016.

j.    That the amended Planning Proposal for 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville (as per (b) above) to amend Hurstville LEP 2012 be forwarded to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment with the following conditions:

i. The requirement that the proponent address the issue raised by NSW Roads and Maritime Services in December 2016, and supported by Transport for NSW that “an appropriate funding mechanism (being a voluntary planning agreement) is in place to ensure that regional transport infrastructure improvements required as a result of the cumulative impacts of future development in the Hurstville City Centre can be provided.”

ii.  Request that the Department insert into the Hurstville LEP 2012 a site specific clause that requires the consent authority to be satisfied that any future development will provide for road and traffic upgrades in the local road network and contribute to measures that encourage the use of public transport.

iii. That in respect to the NSW Heritage Office’s comment on the possible impacts of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the ‘Fire Station’, ‘Friendly Societies Dispensary Building’ and other items of local heritage significance in the vicinity of the subject site, that the Department be advised that this matter will be dealt with at the development application stage.

k.   That a site specific Development Control Plan be prepared (at the applicant’s cost) which will enable any future development to attain compliance with the key principles of SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide and which will satisfactorily address any heritage impacts.

l.    That those persons who made a written submission on the Planning Proposal for 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville be notified of Council’s decision.

 

2.      Attachment 1 provides a copy of the report that was considered by the Administrator on 1 May 2017.

 

3.      This report provides an update on the planning proposal and the voluntary planning agreement since that date.

 

4.      The report recommends that the Department of Planning & Environment be advised that Council does not support the Planning Proposal for 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 for the following reasons:


 

 

a.   The additional height proposed is excessive having regard to the adjacent context.  In that regard, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel considers that a height of no more than 46m, which equates to the height of the building to the south at 2 Barratt Street, is the upper limit.  The Floor Space Ratio would need to be adjusted to reflect this height and appropriate built form.

b.   Allowing the current Planning Proposal would be likely to result in development that would have unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining development, unacceptable streetscape and curtilage impacts on adjacent heritage items.

c.   The Planning Proposal fails to adequately address impacts on traffic and vehicular access within Hurstville City Centre.

d.   Any future Planning Proposal should be accompanied by a site specific DCP to reflect a detailed urban design study including a proposed building envelope for the site that demonstrates the key principles of SEPP 65 are achievable. 

 

Background

5.      A chronology of the planning proposal is outlined in Table 1 below.

 

Table 1 – Chronology of the Planning Proposal

Date

Action

 

7 November 2014

Planning Proposal was lodged to amend the Hurstville LEP to increase the height and FSR on the site. Height increase 40m to 55m. FSR increase 4.5:1 to 7:1

1 May 2015 

Council resolved not to support the Planning Proposal.

22 May 2015

The applicant lodged a pre gateway review application with the Department of Planning & Environment.

19 April and 1 June 2016 

The Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) considered the Planning Proposal on 2 occasions.

30 June 2016 

The Department requested that the Planning Proposal be amended to reflect the JRPPs recommendation

·    Max height reduced to 50m

·    Max FSR reduced to 5.5:1

·    Remove the site specific  1:1 FSR bonus for development involving a community facility

 

3 August 2016

The applicant submitted an amended planning proposal to reflect the recommendation of the JRPP and Department. The Planning Proposal sought:

·    Max FSR 5.75:1

·    Max Height 50 m

 

10 August 2016 

Council submitted the Planning Proposal for a Gateway. The Planning Proposal was generally in line with the JRPP recommendation/ Department’s direction

·    Max height reduced to 50m

·    Max FSR reduced to 5.5:1

·    A min 0.5:1 to be non-residential FSR - this was an additional amendment to ensure non-residential floor space is provided in the development.

 

28  September 2016 

The Gateway Determination was issued allowing the Planning Proposal to amend to height and FSR for the site in the Hurstville LEP 2012 is be exhibited. The Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal provided:

·    Max height reduced to 50m

·    Max FSR reduced to 5.5:1

·    A min 0.5 :1 to be non-residential FSR   - being an amendment to Cl 4.4A

Council did not wish to exercise it plan making delegations in relation to this PP

A copy of the Gateway Determination is attached in Attachment 2.

 

23 Nov  - 21 Dec  2016

Planning Proposal on exhibition

23 March 2017

IHAP considered the PP and it recommended refusal for the following reasons:

·    The additional height proposed is excessive having regard to the adjacent context.  In that regard, the Panel considers that a height of no more than 46m, which equates to the height of the building to the south at 2 Barratt Street, is the upper limit.  The Floor Space Ratio would need to be adjusted to reflect this height and appropriate built form.

·    Allowing the current Planning Proposal would be likely to result in development that would have unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining development, unacceptable streetscape and curtilage impacts on adjacent heritage items.

·    The Planning Proposal fails to adequately address impacts on traffic and vehicular access within Hurstville City Centre.

·    Any future Planning Proposal should be accompanied by a site specific DCP to reflect a detailed urban design study including a proposed building envelope for the site that demonstrates the key principles of SEPP 65 are achievable. 

1 May 2017  

Council considered the IHAP recommendation and resolved to support an amended the PP as follows:

·    Max Height  -46m

·    Max FSR 5.5:1  - with a min non-residential floor space of 0.5:1  through an amendment to Cl 4.4A

 

6.      The Planning Proposal, as amended, has not been forwarded to the Department as per the 1 May resolution as a planning agreement has not as yet been entered into and a site specific DCP amendment has not as yet been prepared by the applicant.

 

Actions since 1 May 2017

7.      The letter of offer dated 26 May 2017 provided for:

a.   $300,000.00 prior to the issue of the Construction certificate; and

b.   A FSR of 1:1 being provided for a public benefit – being the Promotion and provision of charitable activities, including the charitable benefits including programs such as subsidised childcare, youth and child programs, teaching of English as a second language, services and education of migrant women, substance abuse counselling (e.g. AA)

 

8.      The proponent has clearly stated in email correspondence dated 30 May 2017 (refer to Attachment 3) that the VPA offer attaches to the Planning Proposal 2014/0003, as amended on 1st August 2016 and lodged with Council on 3 August 2017 – ie maximum FSR 5.75:1 and a maximum height of 50 metres; and NOT the Planning Proposal as amended by the Administrator on 1 May 2017.

 

9.      To support its contention the proponent has provided legal advice which states:

a.   An offer was made to the Council to enter into a VPA in connection with Planning Proposal (PP2014/0003) by letter from Toomey Pegg Lawyers to the Council dated 26 May 2017.

b.   The VPA offer relates to the planning proposal as amended on 1 August 2016, ie

i. Maximum height reduced to 50m

ii.  Maximum FSR of 5.5:1

iii. Minimum 0.5:1 to be non-residential FSR

 

10.    Council has sought its own legal advice on the matter.

 

11.    In summary the advice indicates:

a.   Council accepted appointment as relevant planning authority (RPA) for the planning proposal under Section 54 of the EP&A Act 1979.

b.   The Council’s acceptance of being the RPA for the planning proposal meant that it accepted the terms of the appointment – ie a maximum height of 50m, a maximum FSR of 5.5:1and a minimum FSR of 0.5 :1 to be non-residential FSR   - being an amendment to Cl 4.4A.

c.   However, Sections 55(6) and 59(1) of the EP&A Act allow the Council, as the RPA for the planning proposal, to vary the planning proposal and submit a revised planning proposal to the Minister.

d.   Nothing in the Council’s appointment as the RPA for the planning proposal could fetter its statutory powers in this regard.

e.   However, any variation made by council to the planning proposal would give rise to the risk that the Minister may give a direction under section 54(2)(d) to terminate the Council’s appointment as the RPA and appoint a new RPA because Council had failed to comply with its obligations with respect to making the planning proposal, or had not carried out those obligations in a satisfactory manner.

 

12.    Given the position of the proponent, the proponent’s legal advice and the legal opinion provided to Council regarding the planning proposal; as well as the fact that a number of the requirements of the 1 May 2017 Council resolution have not been met; it is considered necessary to review the current status of this planning proposal.

 

Height and FSR

13.    In considering the Planning Proposal, the IHAP identified a number of issues with respect to the Planning Proposal. The existing height and FSR for the site is 40m and 4.5:1 and the IHAP were of the opinion that the proposed height and FSR of 50m and 5.5:1 was excessive and out of context with the surrounding development.

 

14.    The IHAP considered that a future development on the site at a height and FSR as proposed would result in a development that would have unacceptable amenity impacts on the adjoining development and unacceptable impacts on the adjacent heritage items.

 

15.    As such, the IHAP were of the opinion that the maximum height should be reduced to 46m, and the FSR adjusted to fit within the height envelope. 

 

16.    It was also recommended that any future Planning Proposal be accompanied by a site specific DCP to reflect a detailed urban design study, which would include a proposed building envelope for the site that demonstrates the key principles of SEPP 65 are achievable.

 

17.    Correspondence dated 30 May 2017 (refer to Attachment 3) indicates that the proponent has not been prepared to accept the height of 46m, insisting on maintaining the height of 50m as per the Gateway Determination 28 September 2016.

 

Traffic and Vehicular Access

18.    The IHAP, as part of their recommendation also identified that the Planning Proposal fails to adequately address impacts on traffic and vehicular access within the Hurstville City Centre.

 

19.    In this case the residential uplift under the Planning Proposal is 555m2, which on its own is not a significant uplift. However, when assessing the cumulative impact over the Hurstville Precinct with all the uplifts proposed there is an impact which needs to be addressed.

 

20.    The Hurstville City Centre TMAP 2013 identifies the key road and traffic infrastructure works required to service the future development of the City Centre. The Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 does not levy for these roads and traffic facilities. Therefore, VPAs provide a mechanism for Council to assist in funding the delivery of this critical infrastructure within the City Centre where the proposed development has an impact on this infrastructure.

 

21.    The Council has consistently applied the VPA Policy to Planning Proposals in the Hurstville City Centre, in order to provide public benefits that bear a relationship to the development and that are for a proper legitimate planning purpose. The key focus has been the provision of and contributions towards road and traffic infrastructure in the City Centre

 

22.    The proposed development under the Planning Proposal will result in an increase in traffic in the Hurstville City Centre and should therefore be contributing to the provision of this infrastructure as outlined in the TMAP.

 

23.    This is consistent with the public authority submissions received from RMS and TfNSW during the consultation period for the Planning Proposal. In this regard, RMS state that “Council should be satisfied that an appropriate funding mechanism is in place to ensure that regional transport infrastructure improvements required as a result of the cumulative impacts of future development in the Hurstville City Centre can be provided”.

 

24.    Therefore, a contribution under a VPA towards public benefits such as road and traffic facilities identified in the Hurstville City Centre TMAP is considered reasonable on the basis that the Planning Proposal will result in increased development in the City Centre.

 

25.    The consistent approach followed in considering development activity in the centre is that each development contributes to the improvement of the road and traffic facilities in order to cater for increased traffic capacity.

 

Proposed Uplift and Voluntary Planning Agreement Offer

26.    As outlined above, the Planning Proposal results in an up-lift of development potential for the site (in this case the residential uplift is 555m2).

 

27.    The VPA Policy was adopted on 1 August 2016 and sets out Council’s objectives in relation to the use of planning agreements including:

a.   to provide an enhanced and more flexible development contributions system;

b.   to supplement or replace, as appropriate the application of s94 or s94A..;

c.   to ensure that the framework for planning agreements is consistent, efficient, fair and accountable;

d.   to facilitate the provision of public facilities and services..”

 

28.    The Policy has been consistently applied to planning proposals and development applications alike since its adoption.

 

29.    Clause 5.3 of the Policy states that where either a planning proposal is proposed, or development consent is sought, which will result in an exceedance of development standards, resulting in an inherent increase in value of the land or development, the concept of land value capture may be used to assess the appropriate contribution. This concept may be applied in addition to other considerations in relation to the level of the contributions.

 

30.    Clause 5.13 of the Policy states through a formula, that Council capture fifty percent (50%) of the increase in the residual land value resulting from the planning uplift sought for a site via the Planning Proposal.

 

31.    In the case of this Planning Proposal, the estimated uplift in the residual land value has been calculated to be approximately $2.5 million (based on 1,110m2 additional commercial & residential floor space by $2252 per m2), which 50% is $1.25 million. As such, in accordance with Council’s VPA Policy the Developer should be offering approximately $1.25 million in public benefits to Council via either public works, dedication of land or monetary contributions.

 

32.    The letter of offer dated 26 May 2017 by the proponent only provides for:

a.   $300,000.00 prior to the issue of the Construction certificate; and

b.   A FSR of 1:1 being provided for a public benefit – being the Promotion and provision of charitable activities, including the charitable benefits including programs such as subsidised childcare, youth and child programs, teaching of English as a second language, services and education of migrant women, substance abuse counselling (e.g. AA)

 

33.    Council requested the proponent to provide justification as to how the public benefit offered relates to the development in a meeting held 15 May 2017. The letter of offer dated 26 May 2017 is an explanation of how the public benefits offered are “public benefits”, especially in terms of the GFA to be provided to charitable organisations. No monetary value was provided as to how it will be “charitable”, i.e. low to zero rent offered for space, the cost of providing public service programs etc..

 

34.    The space will be owned by the church and not dedicated to Council. Hence there is no security in the operational requirements of these facilities – to ensure that they meet the definition of public benefit in accordance with the requirement of the Council’s VPA Policy. The proponent could simply sell it off for office space once it’s completed.  Any such offer should provide an economic analysis to enable Council and the community to place a value on the public benefit being offered and some security that it will continue to offer such public benefits into the future.

 

35.    The Policy provides that where the developer disputes the values in the Policy, the developer can provide the Council will sufficient details, costs and valuations to determine the realistic figure for the residual land value. This has not occurred in this case.

 

36.    The Council has consistently applied the VPA Policy to Planning Proposals in the Hurstville City Centre, in order to provide public benefits that bear a relationship to the development and that are for a proper legitimate planning purpose.

 

37.    The key focus has been the provision of and contributions towards road and traffic infrastructure in the City Centre.

 

38.    The Hurstville City Centre TMAP 2013 identifies the key road and traffic infrastructure works required to service the future development of the City Centre. The Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 does not levy for these roads and traffic facilities. Therefore VPA’s provide a mechanism for Council to assist in funding the delivery of this critical infrastructure within the City Centre where the proposed development has an impact on this infrastructure.

 

39.    The proposed development under the Planning Proposal will result in an increase in traffic in the Hurstville City Centre and should therefore be contributing to the provision of this infrastructure as outlined in the TMAP.

 

40.    This is consistent with the public authority submissions received from RMS and TfNSW during the consultation period for the Planning Proposal. In this regard, RMS state that “Council should be satisfied that an appropriate funding mechanism is in place to ensure that regional transport infrastructure improvements required as a result of the cumulative impacts of future development in the Hurstville City Centre can be provided”.

 

41.    A contribution under a VPA towards public benefits such as road and traffic facilities identified in the Hurstville City Centre TMAP is considered reasonable on the basis that the Planning Proposal will result in increased development in the City Centre.

 

42.    The consistent approach followed in considering development activity in the centre is that each development contributes to the improvement of the road and traffic facilities in order to cater for increased traffic capacity.

 

Conclusion

43.    Given the matters outlined in this report it is recommended that the Planning Proposal be refused for the following reasons:

a.   The proponent’s stated position that the 1 May 2017 Council resolution (for a planning proposal with a FSR of 5.5:1 and a height of 46m) is “flawed”.

b.   The legal opinion received from Council’s solicitor, and the advice that any variation made by council to the planning proposal would give rise to the risk that the Minister may give a direction under section 54(2)(d) to terminate the Council’s appointment as the RPA and appoint a new RPA because Council had failed to comply with its obligations with respect to making the planning proposal, or had not carried out those obligations in a satisfactory manner.

c.   The letter of offer dated 26 May 2017 by the proponent is linked to a height of 50m height and a FSR of 5.5:1 notwithstanding Council amended the Planning proposal on 1 May 2017 to a height of 46m height and a FSR of 5.5:1.

d.   The letter of offer dated 26 May 2017 by the proponent has not been made in accordance with the Council’s VPA Policy as the proponent has not provided sufficient justification for the cash contribution of $300,000.00 prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate; and an unsubstantiated FSR of 1:1 being provided for a public benefit.

e.   That the site specific DCP has not been prepared as required by the Council resolution dated 1 May 2017.

 

Financial Implications

44.    No budget impact for this report.

 

File Reference

14/1818 & PP2014/0003

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Attachment to Report - Copy of report considered by Council on 1 May 2017

Attachment View2

Attachment to report - Gateway Determination dated 28 September 2016

Attachment View3

Email dated 30 May 2017 clarifying what Planning Proposal the letter of offer applies to

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL148-17             Planning Proposal PP2014-0003 - 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville

[Appendix 1]          Attachment to Report - Copy of report considered by Council on 1 May 2017

 

 

Page 182

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL148-17             Planning Proposal PP2014-0003 - 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville

[Appendix 1]          Attachment to Report - Copy of report considered by Council on 1 May 2017

 

 

Page 217

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL148-17             Planning Proposal PP2014-0003 - 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville

[Appendix 1]          Attachment to Report - Copy of report considered by Council on 1 May 2017

 

 

Page 228

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL148-17             Planning Proposal PP2014-0003 - 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville

[Appendix 2]          Attachment to report - Gateway Determination dated 28 September 2016

 

 

Page 233

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL148-17             Planning Proposal PP2014-0003 - 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville

[Appendix 3]          Email dated 30 May 2017 clarifying what Planning Proposal the letter of offer applies to

 

 

Page 239

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 August 2017                                                                               Page 243

Item:                   CCL149-17        Draft Georges River LGA Employment Lands Study - Review of Lands Zone IN2 - Light Industrial
 

Author:              Coordinator Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

 

 

Recommendation

1.      That Council endorse the categorisation of the Industrial Precincts as outlined in the following table:

 

Precinct

Categorisation

Peakhurst Industrial Precinct

Protected Industrial Precinct

Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct

Prime Industrial Precinct

Carlton Industrial Precinct

Protected Industrial Precinct

South Hurstville – Halstead Street Industrial Precinct

Investigation Precinct

Blakehurst Industrial Precinct

Protected Industrial Precinct

Beverly Hills – Penshurst Street Industrial Precinct

Investigation Precinct

Hurstville Industrial – Hurstville East Precinct

Investigation Precinct

Penshurst Industrial – Forest Road Precinct

Protected Industrial Precinct

Penshurst Industrial – Penshurst Lane Precinct

Investigation Precinct

 

2.      That Council endorse a peer review of the methodology, assessment and methodology undertaken on all of the City’s Industrial Precincts.

3.      Following the peer review

a.   That Council endorse the process for consideration of rezoning of Investigation Precincts, as outlined in the body of the report and this information is provided to owners of properties within the Investigation Precincts as well as on Council’s website.

b.   That all property owners be notified in writing of the categorisation of the Industrial Precinct affectation for their property.

 

c.   That all those who made a submission to the exhibition of the draft Employment Lands Study – Industrial Precincts be advised in writing of Council’s resolution and the peer review.

d.   That Council submit the documentation to the Greater Sydney Commission for endorsement as a Strategic Study.

4.      That Council undertake further investigations on the future of the Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct, considering the industrial employment lands within the Central and South Districts and the strategic positions of such lands by Canterbury Bankstown Council, Bayside Council and the Greater Sydney Commission.

5.      That a further report on the future of the B2 – Local Centre and B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zones is presented to Council once completed.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      In September 2016, Jones Land LaSalle (JLL) were appointed by Georges River Council to expand the application of the draft Hurstville Employment Lands Study to include land within the former Kogarah City Council LGA (now known as Blakehurst and Kogarah Bay Wards of the Georges River LGA).

 

2.      The draft Georges River Employment Lands Study (ELS) provides Council with a strategic direction for employment lands across the Georges River Local Government Area (LGA) to ensure that sufficient land is zoned to accommodate future employment growth.

 

3.      Council, at its meeting on 3 April 2017 considered a report on the draft Employment Lands Study, prepared by, and resolved the following (CCL038-17; Minute No 55):

(a)     That the report be received and noted.

(b)     That the draft Georges River Employment Lands Study – Stage 1 – Background Report and Stage 2 – Industrial and Commercial Lands Strategy be publicly exhibited in accordance with the Engagement Strategy outlined in the body of the report.

(c)     That during the exhibition phase of the draft Georges River Employment Lands Study, Council Officers continue to investigate the zoning, height and FSR, as well as any appropriate design and development controls for each of the employment lands precincts (IN2, B1 and B2 lands), taking into account issues raised by landowners, economic feasibility and other relevant matters.

(d)     That a further report be presented to Council following the consultation process summarising the submissions and presenting the further detailed work on the zoning, height and FSR, including the development of criteria for each Precinct

 

4.      The draft Employment Lands Study was placed on exhibition from 1 May – 31 May 2017. During the exhibition of the draft Study, as significant number of submissions were received. In addition, a number of meetings have been held with affected property owners who are seeking changes to zoning and/or the development standards (height and FSR) related to specific Precincts.

 

5.      Due to the extent of work involved in the review of submissions and the assessment of the issues/concerns raised in those submissions, this report will only deal with the industrial zoned precincts across the LGA.

 

6.      Council is to note that Planning Proposal to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 to reduce the reduce the amount of non-residential floor space required from 0.5:1 to 0.3:1 (Clause 4.4A) in the B1 and B2 zones and to amend Clause 6.6 Active street frontages by including “medical centres” as a land use which satisfies the Active street frontage definition. This Planning Proposal is the subject of a separate report to the Council.

 

7.      Further detailed work will be undertaken on the lands within the B1 – Neighbourhood zone and B2 – Local Centres zone and a further report will be presented to Council in this regard.

 

8.      The exhibition of the draft Study has identified that there is increasing pressure for the conversion of industrial lands across the LGA. This is a consistent trend across the Sydney metro area. As part of the review of the industrial zoned land across the LGA, council’s strategic planning staff have developed an assessment framework to “score” the importance of each industrial precinct against a consistent set of criteria. The methodology for this process is outlined in the body of the report.

 

9.      The methodology includes a scoring system, which assess each of the Industrial Precincts against 12 assessment criteria. Each of the nine (9) Precincts were assessed against the criteria and overall, the Precincts can be grouped into 3 clusters, as described below:

 

10.    Those at the top end of the score card (30-36) are recognised as Prime Industrial Precincts in the LGA, where the employment generating nature must be protected. Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct was identified as a Prime Industrial Precinct. It is recommended that additional work be undertaken with respect to this Precinct to identify the future role and character of the Precinct and develop a long-term strategy.

 

11.    The middle ranking precincts (20 - 29) which serve a clear industrial purpose, without necessarily being regarded as a prime industrial precinct are identified as.

§ Peakhurst Industrial Precinct

§ Carlton Industrial Precinct

§ Blakehurst Industrial Precinct

§ Penshurst – Forest Road Industrial Precinct

 

12.    These middle ranking precincts are considered to be Precincts where the current industrial capacity can and should be retained and protected, but where it is currently either on a scale which does not warrant a prime industrial precinct designation or where less a industrially focused zone may be appropriate for all or part of the Precinct. These Precincts are identified as Protected Industrial Precincts.

 

13.    Finally, the precincts at the bottom end (score 19 or less) are clearly not prime industrial precincts and are best suited to an alternative (ie non-industrial) use in the longer term and are classified as Investigation Precincts

§ South Hurstville – Halstead Street Precinct

§ Beverly Hills – Penshurst Street Precinct

§ Hurstville – Hurstville East Industrial Precinct

§ Penshurst – Penshurst Lane Industrial Precinct

 

14.    These Precincts appear to warrant consideration for rezoning to alternate uses, including residential.

 

15.    For the Investigation Precincts, Council may consider rezoning to alternate uses, including residential. In such circumstances, Council may consider a Planning Proposal for rezoning. Alternatively, Council will consider a review of these Precincts as part of a comprehensive review of the Local Environmental Plans (Kogarah LEP and Hurstville LEP).

 

16.    In order to ensure there is consistency in the consideration of Planning Proposals for those Investigation Precincts identified for rezoning, a process has been established. It should be noted that the process has been based upon the process identified in the Guideline to Preparing Site Specific Planning Proposal Requests in the City of Sydney Employment Lands Investigation Areas.

 

17.    It is also recommended that Council seeks a peer review of the methodology, assessment and recommendations of the Industrial Precincts from a qualified consultant. This is to ensure that the assessment is sound and will allow council to seek to have the study endorsed by the NSW Department of Planning. This will allow Council to provide a consistent approach to the future protection of industrial lands across the Georges River LGA.

 

Overview of the draft Employment Lands Study

18.    In September 2016, JLL were appointed by Georges River Council to expand the application of the draft Hurstville Employment Lands Study to include land within the former Kogarah City Council LGA (now known as Blakehurst and Kogarah Bay Wards of the Georges River LGA).

 

19.    The key objectives of the ELS are to:

a.   Set a clear strategic direction for all employment lands within the Georges River LGA.

b.   Review all recent employment and economic studies for the Region.

c.   Undertake an analysis of the supply and demand for commercial, retail and residential floor space in the B1 - Neighbourhood Centres and B2 - Local Centres for the former Hurstville LGA and industrial floor space in industrial areas for the IN2 – Light Industrial precincts in the Georges River LGA.

d.   Ensure sufficient land is zoned to accommodate existing and potential growth across a range of employment types.

e.   Provide recommendations for the B1 - Neighbourhood Centres and B2 - Local Centres for the former Hurstville LGA and IN2 – Light Industrial Precincts in the Georges River LGA.

 

20.    The Study provides an assessment of all employment lands (excluding the Hurstville City Centre) within the former Hurstville City Council LGA and the IN2 – Light Industrial zoned land in the former Kogarah City Council LGA. 

 

21.    The draft Study does not cover the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre and B2 – Local Centre zoned land within the former Kogarah City Council LGA.  The former Kogarah City Council had commissioned an Employment Lands and Economic Development Study (SGS Economic and Planning: 2013), and this informed the changes proposed in the recent amendments to Kogarah LEP 2012 (New City Plan), which was gazetted on 25 May 2017.

 

22.    A report was presented to Council, on the 3 April 2017 providing a summary of the draft Study. A copy of this report is included at Attachment 1. The report also sought Council’s endorsement to exhibit the draft Study and seek feedback from affected property owners and other stakeholders.

 

 

 

Exhibition of the Draft Employment Lands Study

23.    The draft Employment Lands Study was exhibited from 1 – 31 May 2017. Submissions were received up until 9 June 2017. Council has also continued to accept submissions in respect to land within the B1 and B2 affected zones.

 

24.    The draft Employment Lands Study was exhibited in accordance with the Engagement Strategy endorsed by Council on 4 April 2017.

 

25.    In summary, the following was undertaken by Council to ensure that affected property owners and other stakeholders were aware of the exhibition of the draft Study:

§ An Information Package including a letter and a Fact Sheet providing an overview of the Precinct as well as the recommendations identified in the draft Study was sent to all affected property owners. The letter invited affected property owners to make an appointment to discuss any concerns etc in relation to the contents of the draft Study.

 

§ An Information Folder containing a copy of the draft Study, copies of all the Fact Sheets, and information on the dates of the exhibition were available for viewing in Council’s Customer Services Centres (Hurstville and Kogarah) and in the Kogarah and Hurstville Libraries.

 

§ Detailed information was placed on Council’s website – this included a copy of the draft Study, the report to Council and copies of all the Fact Sheets.

 

§ Two (2) advertisements appeared in the St George Leader – 3 May 2017 and 24 May 2017.

 

§ A Media Release was sent to the St George Leader prior to the commencement of the exhibition period.

 

§ Strategic Planning Staff were available to take phone enquiries and meet with affected property owners with respect to the draft Study.

 

§ A presentation was made to the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) on 24 April 2017.

 

26.    During the exhibition of the draft Study, a number of submissions were received for the majority of the Precincts. Due to the number of submissions and the work involved in the assessment of each of the submissions, it is proposed that the process of review be undertaken in stages, outlined as follows:

 

§ Stage 1 - Review of Industrial Precincts – the subject of this report.

§ Stage 2 - Review of B2 – Local Centre zoned Precincts – subject to a further report which will be presented to Council at a future date.

§ Stage 3 – Review of B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zoned Precincts - subject to a further report which will be presented to Council at a future date. 

 

27.    Council is to note that Planning Proposal to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 to reduce the reduce the amount of non-residential floor space required from 0.5:1 to 0.3:1 (Clause 4.4A) in the B1 and B2 zones and to amend Clause 6.6 Active street frontages by including “medical centres” as a land use which satisfies the Active street frontage definition. This Planning Proposal is the subject of a separate report to the Council.

 

 

Overview of the Industrial Precincts

28.    Industrial zoned land comprises approximately 2.6% of all land in the Georges River LGA and provides opportunities for local employment and a range of light industries to service the local community including car and boat repair, panel beaters, council depots, and household trades, as well as providing opportunities for other economic facilitating development.

 

29.    The Georges River LGA contains nine (9) industrial precincts (zoned IN2 - Light Industrial zone) as summarised in Table 1 below:

 

Table 1: Overview of Industrial Precincts

 

Precinct

Area (ha)

1

Peakhurst Industrial Precinct

56.19ha

2

Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct

26.13ha

3

Carlton Industrial Precinct

9.83ha

4

South Hurstville – Halstead Street Industrial Precinct

1.71ha

5

Blakehurst Industrial Precinct

1.59ha

6

Beverly Hills – Penshurst Street Industrial Precinct

1.48ha

7

Hurstville Industrial – Hurstville East Precinct

1.34ha

8

Penshurst Industrial – Forest Road Precinct

1.14ha

9

Penshurst Industrial – Penshurst Lane Precinct

0.42ha

 

30.    In total, the Georges River LGA has approximately 100ha of industrial zoned land, which equates to approximately 2.6% of zoned land across the LGA.

 

31.    The protection of employment generating and urban services land is a key outcome of the draft Study and is consistent with the recommendations of the draft South District Plan. The draft ELS recommends changes to the land use zoning of a number of the Precincts as well as changes to development standards (subdivision, building height, floor space ratios) and the importance of protecting the interface with residential areas.

 

Stage 1 – Review of Industrial Precincts

Summary of Submissions

32.    A total of 36 submissions were received with respect to the Industrial Precincts.

 

33.    Table 2 below provides a summary of the number of submissions received in each of the industrial precincts and a summary of the main issues/comments raised in submissions. A detailed overview of the submissions is included in Table A at Attachment 1.

 

Table 2: Summary of Submissions (number and issues)

Precinct

# of submissions

Summary of Issues

1

Peakhurst Industrial Precinct

3

Two (2) submissions are made by precinct landowners.

One submission seeks to increase density via a greater FSR and impose height restrictions at buffer zones. The other submission objects to any height increase and disagrees with imposing restrictions at residential interfaces.

 

A further submission was made by an owner of a property on the edge of the industrial precinct seeking consideration of a rezoning to deal with issues relating to the transition to the R2 – Low Density Residential zone.

2

Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct

7

All submissions are made by precinct landowners, including one collective submission from the Kingsgrove South Precinct Landowners Group.

 

All submissions object to the recommended B7 rezoning and request consideration of a mixed use zoning (B2 or B4) with density similar to the Mashman Pottery development (which is zoned B2) to the south of Kingsgrove Railway Station – which has a max FSR of 2:1 and a maximum height of 15m.

 

3

Carlton Industrial Precinct

3

All submissions are made by precinct landowners.

Existing issues with the provision of onsite parking is identified.

Increased maximum building height and floor space ratio are sought to provide incentives for redevelopment of this precinct as a creative workspace to promote diversity in business and services located in the precinct.

 

4

South Hurstville – Halstead Street Industrial Precinct

12

Most of the submissions (11 submissions) received are made by adjacent residents in the R2 zone.

 

They object to any recommended increase in height, and identify the precinct as being inappropriately located as an industrial precinct and is unsuitable for its residential setting.

 

A submission lodged on behalf of strata title landowner requesting consideration of rezoning from IN2 to medium density residential as retention of this precinct has negligible impact on the supply of employment in the South Subregion.

 

5

Blakehurst Industrial Precinct

0

N/A

6

Beverly Hills – Penshurst Street Industrial Precinct

2

Both submissions have been made by precinct landowners and request rezoning from IN2 to R3 to accommodate higher residential intensity (RFBs) to maintain land values, with a minimum FSR of 1:1 and minimum building height of 12-15m.

7

Hurstville Industrial – Hurstville East Precinct

0

N/A

8

Penshurst Industrial – Forest Road Precinct

10

All submissions are made by precinct landowners and object to retaining IN2 zone due to under-utilisation.

Request for consideration of a rezoning to permit residential and an increase in the maximum permissible height to 15m. Request also seeks an increase in the FSR to between 1.8:1 to 2:1

 

9

Penshurst Industrial – Penshurst Lane Precinct

0

N/A

Total Number of Submissions

36

 

 

Development of Criteria for the Assessment of Industrial Lands

34.    A number of the submissions raised during the exhibition of the draft Study have requested that Council consider the rezoning of industrial lands from IN2 – Light Industrial to residential.

 

35.    In order to assess these requests for rezoning in the industrial precincts, it was considered that an assessment framework be developed to assess the importance of each of these industrial precincts and identify those areas considered to be important industrial areas, that should have protection from rezoning for non-employment generating uses.

 

36.    The criteria has been developed based on the Prime Industrial Area criteria utilised in the Charles Sturt Industrial Land Study (2008) and is based on a score card that asks a series of questions under the criteria and scores numerically against this criteria.

 

37.    The criteria is described in Table 3 below and the context for addressing them is a methodology which seeks to determine the extent to which each precinct is well aligned – the questions asked against each of the criteria is always “is it?” or “does it have?”.

 

38.    The criteria are:

 

a.   Being adjacent to other industrial precincts, which provides general observation on connectively and critical mass.

 

b.   Proximity to other employment centres, such as commercial centres

 

c.   Have a good relationship to supply chains (eg: conglomeration of supporting/similar types of businesses

 

d.   Having the potential to accommodate expansion which will primarily apply to major users. Where such users exist, the potential then depends on:

i. Whether these larger business want to expand?

ii.  Is expansion the best option?

 

e.   Having a good relationship (ie access to transport links) to skilled labour pools, which is best applied across the LGA.

 

f.    Having good infrastructure connections.

 

g.   Having good freight connections, related primarily to arterial roads and other connections.

 

h.   Being suitable for small industry, ie range of building typologies’

 

i.    Providing adequate parking and manoeuvring capacity

 

j.    Having capacity for 24 hour operation – consider types of uses and vehicles which may use the Precinct

 

k.   Having an absence of adjoining use constraints, for example proximity to residential development

 

l.    Having unconstrained vehicle access and exit and connectivity to the freight network

 

39.    Each of the Precincts have been scored 1, 2 or 3 for each criteria. A Precinct scores:

a.   if it is clearly not well aligned to the criteria

b.   if it is aligned to the criteria, but with some qualifications; and

c.   it is clearly well aligned to the criteria

 

40.    Each of the Precincts has been assessed against the above criteria. Detailed assessment sheets for each of the Industrial Precincts are included at Attachment 2.

 

41.    Table 3 below provides a summary of the scoring for each of the Industrial Precincts based on the abovementioned scoring:

 

Table 3: Summary of Scores: Industrial Precincts

Precinct

Industrial Land Assessment

Out of 36

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

 11

12

Total

Peakhurst

1

2

3

3

1

1

2

3

3

3

3

2

27

Kingsgrove

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

36

Carlton

1

2

3

3

2

2

1

3

3

3

3

1

27

South Hurstville – Halstead Street

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

1

1

1

16

Blakehurst

 

1

1

3

1

2

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

21

Beverly Hills – Penshurst Street

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

3

2

1

1

1

16

Hurstville  – Hurstville East

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

16

Penshurst  – Forest Road

1

2

3

1

3

2

1

3

3

1

1

1

22

Penshurst  – Penshurst Lane

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

3

2

1

1

1

17

 

42.    As indicated in Table 3 above (and against a total possible score of 36), the scoring for the industrial precincts ranges from a low 15 (South Hurstville – Halstead Street and Beverly Hills – Penshurst Street to a high 36 (Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct).

 

43.    Overall, the Precincts can be grouped into 3 clusters. Those at the top end of the score card (30-36) are recognised as Prime Industrial Precincts in the LGA, where the employment generating nature must be protected. It is recommended that additional work be undertaken with respect to one Precinct in order to identify the future role and character of the Precinct and develop a long-term strategy. This precinct is the Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct

 

44.    Due to the importance of this Precinct, further discussion related to the Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct is provided below.

 

45.    The middle ranking precincts (20 - 29) serve a clear industrial purpose, without necessarily being regarded as a prime industrial precinct.

 

46.    These middle ranking precincts are considered to be Precincts where the current industrial capacity can and should be retained and protected, but where it is currently either on a scale which does not warrant a prime industrial precinct designation or where less a industrially focused zone may be appropriate for all or part of the Precinct. These Precincts are identified as Protected Industrial Precinct and the classification relates to the following Precincts:

§ Peakhurst Industrial Precinct

§ Carlton Industrial Precinct

§ Blakehurst Industrial Precinct

§ Penshurst – Forest Road Industrial Precinct

 

47.    Finally, the precincts at the bottom end (score 19 or less) are clearly not prime industrial precincts and are best suited to an alternative (ie non-industrial) use in the longer term and as classified as Investigation Precincts

§ South Hurstville – Halstead Street Precinct

§ Beverly Hills – Penshurst Street Precinct

§ Hurstville – Hurstville East Industrial Precinct

§ Penshurst – Penshurst Lane Industrial Precinct

 

48.    These Precincts appear to warrant consideration for rezoning to alternate uses, including residential.

 

Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct

 

49.    Based on the Industrial Land Assessment, the Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct is recognised as a Prime Industrial Precinct.

 

50.    The Kingsgrove Precinct is within the Kingsgrove suburb in southern Sydney and approximately 13 kilometres south of the Sydney CBD. The Precinct straddles the local government areas of the Canterbury-Bankstown, Bayside and Georges River. The M5 Motorway runs through the Precinct, which divides the precinct into two (north and south).

 

Figure 1 – Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct

 

 

51.    The Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct is the second largest industrial precinct in the Georges River LGA, covering approximately 25.7 hectares in the LGA. The Area provides employment for approximately 1,276 people within the approximate 280,951sqm of gross floor area.

 

52.    The northern portion of the precinct was formerly located in the Canterbury local government area (now City of Canterbury-Bankstown) and the southern portion of the precinct was formerly located in the Hurstville City Council local government area (now Georges River Council). Located at the south eastern edge of the Precinct is the Kingsgrove train station (T2 Airport, Inner West & South Line).

 

53.    The draft Georges River Employment Lands Study makes the following draft recommendations for the Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct:

a.   Rezone the Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct from IN2 - Light Industrial zone to B7 – Business Park zone

b.   Prohibit residential and retail premises within the B7 – Business Park zone

c.   Review the building height and FSR to invigorate the area and assist the feasibility of redevelopment.

 

54.    During the exhibition of the draft ELS, seven (7) submissions were received with respect to the Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct, including a submission from JBA, with supporting reports from the AEC Group Pty Ltd and ARUP prepared on behalf of the unified land owners group, known as the Kingsgrove Precinct Landowners Group (KLOG).

 

55.    The KLOG represents approximately 90% of total land ownership. In addition to the submission made to Council, the KLOG has also made a submission to the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC), as part of the draft South District Plan.

 

56.    In this regard, the KLOG request that the GSC:

§ Considers Kingsgrove Town Centre as a higher order centre within the draft South District Plan

 

§ Supports the NSW Department of Planning and Environment in undertaking structure planning for Kingsgrove and the Kingsgrove South Precinct

 

§ Proceeds with plan-making and rezoning through the Priority Precinct, corridor planning or similar processes

 

57.    The submission made to both Council and the GSC requests consideration of the following recommendations:

Underpinned by principles of Transit Oriented Development, there is a strong case for change at Kingsgrove

The Kingsgrove Centre and the Kingsgrove South Precinct represent a significant opportunity to meet the productivity, liveability and sustainability priorities of the draft South District Plan, and to:

Deliver significant growth in new jobs and support the transition to higher order centre with higher intensity jobs

Deliver significant new housing supply at affordable levels in an area that suffers from lack of diverse housing stock and significant constraints on supply

Provide ‘30-minute’ access to substantially more workers and residents

Maximise Government’s investment in existing infrastructure by providing new jobs and new houses close to established public transport with additional capacity

Deliver significant public benefits through renewal of a town centre and development of a large master planned precinct at scale

Opportunity to accommodate significantly more jobs and in the order of 4,000 dwellings at the Kingsgrove South Precinct

 

Continued Evolution of Industry and Business Activity

58.    The report prepared by AEC Group Ltd for KLOG identifies that the change in nature of industrial activity and consequently the type of floor space needed has proven difficult for some industrial areas to remain sustainable.

 

59.    Those industrial areas that are dominated by a small number of industry sectors undergoing significant structural change can struggle to re-purpose specialised facilities for use by other industries.

 

60.    In this regard, the following is provided with respect to the Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct:

The Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct is well located off the M5 Motorway, benefits from the presence of a train station and incorporates a diversity of occupiers from a broad range of industries. Many of its buildings are sufficiently generic and thereby lending themselves to economic re-purpose. There are however, some buildings that are aged and do not meet contemporary occupier requirements, requiring more significant capital expenditure to upgrade. Depending on specific occupier interest some larger buildings may take longer to lease.

Land use and built form generally respond to market need and requirements, providing accommodation for the various functions associated with industry and business activity. The IN2 Light Industrial zoning prohibits commercial premises and would accordingly preclude businesses whose activities are not primarily industrial in nature. Businesses are increasingly leveraging efficiencies by applying technology, automation and knowledge. As a result of a broadening range of business functions, so too are broader requirements for employment floor space.

Some traditionally industrial areas in inner ring suburbs are observed to have transitioned into mixed business employment precincts, a prominent example being in South Sydney. As population growth continues to intensify in inner and middle ring suburbs, so too will the demand for a mix of employment uses and floorspace. While the Precinct is dominated by industrial uses (by virtue of its traditional legacy and land use zoning), there is an opportunity for the Precinct to meet a greater section of employment demand. Industrial uses in inner and middle ring locations are increasingly co-located with a mix of business functions, i.e. those not strictly industrial in nature.

 

Considerations for the Future Role of the Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct

61.    The Precinct is well positioned to strengthen its future role. Market perception does not appear to differentiate the Precinct by its local government area. However by virtue of its geographical position straddling two LGAs, the Precinct is subject to two sets of planning controls and development standards, and unfortunately does not benefit from a holistic planning approach for its future and sustainability.

 

62.    The report submitted by AEC Group Ltd, prepared on behalf of the KLOG identifies a number of matters for consideration in order for the Precinct to continue to contribute meaningfully to the South region in the future:

§ Holistic approach to planning of Kingsgrove North and Kingsgrove South precincts to ensure a common vision for growth, renewal and sustainability, as well as rationalised approach to land use, built form and density.

 

§ Broadening of permitted uses to include mixed business activity in complement to industrial-type activity.

 

§ Diversification of local Kingsgrove economy for better insulation against economic cycles.

 

§ Revitalisation of Kingsgrove Centre to improve retail and amenity offer that will contribute to improved growth in the centre as well as appeal of the Precinct as a mixed business precinct.

 

§ Inclusion of residential uses in and around the Kingsgrove train station to contribute to revitalisation of Kingsgrove Centre which in turn will improve the overall amenity of the area.

 

§ Inclusion of residential use as an ‘enabler’ to facilitate financially feasible development as well as to serve as a transition between uses.

 

§ A genuine intensification of employee occupancies in the Precinct could result in employee density ratios approach those of South Sydney’s (≥100 employees per hectare).

 

Recommendation – Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct

63.    As outlined above the Precinct is strategically located and well accessible and has been identified as a prime industrial precinct based on Council’s assessment criteria.

 

64.    While the Precinct has traditionally been an industrial precinct, there are signs its role is transitioning to accommodate wider types of businesses (including those who require ‘clean’ and contemporary high-tech industrial space and commercial-type premises).

 

65.    There is opportunity for the Precinct to play an even more significant economic role in the future by accommodating more business activity and responding to business floorspace need.

 

66.    It is recommended that further work be undertaken in order to ensure that the Kingsgrove Precinct is able to achieve its full economic potential, and future land use planning should not be undertaken in a vacuum, rather be undertaken on a holistic basis incorporating both North and South precincts as well as the Kingsgrove Centre.

 

67.    It is recommended that further work be also undertaken ensures the review of the Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct and surrounding lands is undertaken in a holistic way, looking at industrial employment lands across the Central  and South Districts in conjunction with Canterbury-Bankstown and Bayside Councils to determine its future as a viable employment centre.

 

Protected Industrial Precinct

68.    As stated earlier in this report, the middle ranking precincts (20 - 29) which serve a clear industrial purpose, without necessarily being regarded as a prime industrial precinct are identified as:

§ Peakhurst Industrial Precinct

§ Carlton Industrial Precinct

§ Blakehurst Industrial Precinct

§ Penshurst – Forest Road Industrial Precinct

 

69.    It is clear from Table 4 below that the Precincts are still viable with the draft study recommending their retention as industrial precincts. These centres are still relatively in close proximity to the state road network, public transport and to skilled labour pools. They also serve an urban service – mainly catering for uses that serve the community surrounding the precinct – ie car repair stations, furniture manufacturing etc.

 

Table 4 – Protected Industrial Precincts

Protected Industrial Precincts

Recommendations from Draft Employment Lands Study

Peakhurst Industrial Precinct

 

The draft Study makes the following draft recommendations for the Peakhurst Industrial Precinct:

·    Retain the IN2 Light Industrial zone

·    Increase the minimum subdivision requirement to 1000m2

·    Increase the height of buildings from 10m to 13m

·    Retain the existing FSR of 1:1

·    Consider the incorporation of a DCP provision to address the residential zone interface to mitigate potential adverse impacts of development where it shares a boundary with residential land uses. Such provisions may include, but not be limited to setbacks, landscaping and heights adjacent to residential boundaries.

Carlton Industrial Precinct

 

The draft Study makes the following draft recommendation for the Carlton Industrial Precinct:

·    Retain the IN2 Light Industrial zone

·    Increase the minimum subdivision requirement to 1000m2

·    Increase the height of buildings from 10m to 13m

·    Retain the existing FSR of 1:1

·    Consider the incorporation of a DCP provision to address the residential zone interface to mitigate potential adverse impacts of development where it shares a boundary with residential land uses. Such provisions may include, but not be limited to setbacks, landscaping and heights adjacent to residential boundaries

Blakehurst Industrial Precinct

 

The draft Study makes the following draft recommendations for the Blakehurst Industrial Precinct:

·    Retain the IN2 Light Industrial zone

·    Increase the minimum subdivision requirement to 1000m2

·    Increase the height of buildings from 10m to 13m

·    Retain the existing FSR of 1:1

·    Consider the incorporation of a DCP provision to address the residential zone interface to mitigate potential adverse impacts of development where it shares a boundary with residential land uses. Such provisions may include, but not be limited to setbacks, landscaping and heights adjacent to residential boundaries.

Penshurst – Forest Road Industrial Precinct

 

The draft Study makes the following draft recommendation for the Penshurst Industrial – Forest Road Precinct:

·    Retain the IN2 Light Industrial zone

·    Increase the minimum subdivision requirement to 1000m2

·    Increase the height of buildings from 10m to 13m

·    Retain the existing FSR of 1:1

·    Consider the incorporation of a DCP provision to address the residential zone interface to mitigate potential adverse impacts of development where it shares a boundary with residential land uses. Such provisions may include, but not be limited to setbacks, landscaping and heights adjacent to residential boundaries.

 

Process for Consideration of Rezoning of Investigation Precincts

70.    As outlined above, the precincts at the bottom end (score less than 19) are clearly not prime industrial precincts and are best suited to an alternative (ie non-industrial) use in the longer term. Council has identified these areas as “Investigation Precincts” and they are identified as follows:

§ South Hurstville – Halstead Street Precinct

§ Beverly Hills – Penshurst Street Precinct

§ Hurstville – Hurstville East Industrial Precinct

§ Penshurst – Penshurst Lane Industrial Precinct

 

71.    For the Investigation Precincts, Council may consider rezoning to alternate uses. In such circumstances, Council may consider a Planning Proposal for rezoning, but only where the Planning Proposal considers the relationship of rezoning to the whole Precinct.

 

72.    Alternatively, Council will consider investigating and reviewing these Precincts as part of a comprehensive review of the Local Environmental Plans (Kogarah LEP and Hurstville LEP).

 

73.    In order to ensure there is consistency in the consideration of Planning Proposals for those Investigation Precincts identified for rezoning, the following process has been established. It should be noted that the process has been based upon the process identified in the Guideline to Preparing Site Specific Planning Proposal Requests in the City of Sydney Employment Lands Investigation Areas:

 

Stage 1 – Pre-application

74.    The initial stages of preparing a request for rezoning (Request) can be described as a discussion between the Council and the landowner/developer. In considering a request for rezoning, the following criteria should be addressed:

(a) The Precinct is no longer conducive to industrial use;

 

(b) There are compelling reasons for change, which might be economic or which might reflect an inability to resolve access and interface issues;

 

(c)  Change will not impact adversely on the continuing operation of existing industry;

 

(d) There is high level economic prospectively in an alternative use;

 

(e) Is in immediate proximity (within 400m) to a railway station or other public transport service;

 

(f)  Only a small number of land owners are affected;

 

(g) It would resolve a residential interface issue, existing or potential; and

 

(h) It is an isolated pocket of industrial use, with only a low level of connectivity to other industrial development.

 

75.    Key matters for discussion include the proposal’s consistency with the state and local policy objectives, proposed land use and built form outcomes, potential issues and solutions, and the public benefit of the proposed changes.

 

76.    Generally, the following information should be prepared for discussion in a pre-request meeting:

§ planning overview, including review of constraints and opportunities and commentary on how it may address the LGA’s strategic needs;

§ concept level urban design analysis and built form drawings, including indicative site layout, building envelopes, proposed heights and floor space ratio (including a schedule of the areas within the development); and

§ Indicative public benefit elements.

77.    Before providing formal advice on the request, Council may seek comment from the Design Review Panel on the merits of the request.

 

Stage 2 - Preparation of Request

78.    The landowner/developer makes a Request in the form of a justification report, prepared in accordance with Section 55 of the Act, the Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan (Standard Instrument) and guidelines published by the Department of Planning and Environment, including A guide to preparing planning proposals and A guide to preparing local environmental plans.

 

79.    The landowner/developer is to provide any technical studies required to support the Request.

 

Stage 3 – Consideration

80.    A Request to change planning controls for Investigation Precincts can only be supported where planning merit is demonstrated.

 

81.    The Request must be consistent with state and local planning policies, demonstrate the use and built form is appropriate and show that it is of net public benefit

 

82.    The following matters Council will take into consideration in evaluating a Request for rezoning of Investigation Precincts are outlined in Table 5 below. It should be noted that additional matters may be raised as a result of pre-application discussions:

 

Table 5: Matters for Consideration for Request for Rezoning of Investigation Precincts

Matters for Consideration

Benchmark

Is the Request consistent with state and local planning policies

 

New development will be consistent with the key strategic directions and actions of state and local planning policies, including, but not limited to:

§ A Plan for Growing Sydney;

§ Draft South District Plan

§ Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs), Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) and Section 117 Directions;

 

Does the Request provide employment opportunities?

The primary role of employment lands is to facilitate new business and industry opportunities.

While these Precincts are identified as areas where residential development may be supported, there may be some opportunity to provide both direct and indirect employment opportunities.

Requests must demonstrate that they will contribute to the broader strategic direction of providing direct or indirect employment opportunities.

Does the Request unreasonably impact on existing employment uses?

 

New development must:

§ be sensitive to existing and approved uses and not preclude the operational viability of employment generating activities; and

 

§ ensure the design of buildings can provide appropriate amenity for the future residents and reduce the risk of land-use conflict.

 

Does the Request respect the development potential of all land in the investigation areas?

 

New development will result from a coordinated approach to land use changes from predominantly light industrial to mixed uses. It will contribute to the staged delivery of the public domain and new facilities and services to support these changes.

 

New development will be designed, staged and constructed with reference to its immediate context and will not sterilise residential and/or non-residential development opportunity on adjacent sites.

The staging and coordination of new development will address appropriate separation of uses, potential conflicts of use, for co-location with employment uses and suitable vehicular access to adjacent sites.

 

Is the benefit of the Request shared with the public?

 

New development is to share between the landowner/developer and the public the benefit resulting from changes to planning controls.

The benefit is referred to as a planning gain.

Does the Request provide appropriate public domain?

 

The transition of the Precinct from places of wholly non-residential uses to residential uses will occur slowly over time. New public domain, facilities and services will be needed to support these changes.

 

The public domain will provide for high levels of access to public transport nodes, the services and facilities at nearby centres, and new and existing open spaces.

 

New development will, where necessary, provide or facilitate new streets, public open spaces and through site links. These will create a high quality fine grain and permeable network to support new residential development.

 

Is the Request for an appropriate built form?

 

In order to support a planning proposal request, the council must be generally satisfied that new development will be able to comply with State Environmental planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guidelines (ADG).

 

The investigation precincts are to respond sympathetically to the character, bulk, scale and articulation of surrounding development

Do the environmental constraints of the land make it suitable for the use proposed in the Request?

 

Not all land in the investigation areas will be suitable for residential development given environmental constraints:

• there is possibility of contamination on most sites;

• significant flood mitigation works are required on many sites;

• many sites are located on existing or future busy roads.

 

New development will respond to the environmental constraints of the land. It will be appropriately remediated and the design of buildings will mitigate flood risk.

 

Where located on an existing or future busy road, the location of uses and the design of buildings will minimise the impact of noise and localised air pollution on human health.

 

 

Does the Request promote housing diversity?

 

New development that includes residential development will be diverse in type, size, form and design. It will provide for a range of housing needs, including aging in place, affordable housing, families, students and adaptable and accessible housing.

 

 

 

Next Steps

83.    Should Council endorse the categorisation of the Industrial Precincts, as outlined in the body of the report, it is recommended that all property owners of affected properties be notified in writing.

 

84.    In order to provide a consistent approach to the future protection of industrial lands across the Georges River LGA it is also recommended that all the Industrial Precincts, Council seek a peer review of the methodology, assessment and recommendations from qualified consultants.

 

85.    This will ensure that the assessment is sound and will allow council to seek to have the study endorsed by the NSW Department of Planning as a Strategic Study, providing further protection for these important industrial precincts.

 

Further Analysis of Employment Lands

86.    The following table - Table 6 – provides a summary of the submissions received in respect of the B1 and B2 zones. The review will be the subject of a further report to Council.

 

87.    Stage 1 of the review addressed the industrial zones as that is where Council is receiving the most pressure for rezoning of land.

 

Table 6 – Summary of submissions on the B1 and B2 Zones

Precinct

Issues/Comments

1. Beverly Hills – Stoney Creek Road (Zone B1)

·    Seeks to be included in the ELS despite existing R2 zoning due to the presence of existing use rights as a retail/commercial premise (subject site in red).

·    Seeks to rezone all R2 zoned corner sites at the intersection of Stoney Creek Road and Penshurst Street to B1.

·    Proposes a 3-4 storey RFB form development outcome with non-residential uses at ground floor.

2. Hurstville – Gloucester Road (Zone B1)

N/A

3. Hurstville – Kimberly Road (Zone B1)

N/A

4. Lugarno – Chivers Hill (Zone B1)

·    Should be investigated for senior housing in the form of shop top housing.

4. Lugarno – Chivers Hill (Zone B1)

·    Should be investigated for senior housing in the form of shop top housing.

5. Lugarno – Lime Kiln Road (Zone B1)

·    Should be investigated for senior housing in the form of shop top housing.

5. Lugarno – Lime Kiln Road (Zone B1)

·    Should be investigated for senior housing in the form of shop top housing.

6. Oatley – Lansdowne Parade (Zone B1)

·    Objects to any height or density increase due to additional pressure on stormwater system that flows into Myles Dunphy Bushland.

6. Oatley – Lansdowne Parade (Zone B1)

·    Objects to any height increase.

7. Oatley West – Mulga Road (Zone B1)

·    Disagrees with the increase in height from 9m to 12m due to surrounding residential setting.

·    Disagrees with changing current onsite car parking rates to be less restrictive.

7. Oatley West – Mulga Road (Zone B1)

·    Retain existing maximum permissible height.

·    Bicycle lanes and parking should be investigated and introduced to improve pedestrian and cycling access.

7. Oatley West – Mulga Road (Zone B1)

·    Objects to any height or density increase due to additional pressure on stormwater system that flows into Myles Dunphy Bushland.

·    Opportunities for small parks and playgrounds within local centres should be investigated.

7. Oatley West – Mulga Road (Zone B1)

·    Requires clarification on FSR distribution and any amendments to car parking requirements.

8. Peakhurst – Baumans Road (Zone B1)

N/A

9. Peakhurst – Boundary Road (Zone B1)

N/A

10. Peakhurst – Forest Road (Zone B1)

·    Recommends rezoning from B1 to B2 Local Centre due to the presence of an anchor to the centre – IGA supermarket.

·    Recommends the expansion of business zoning to include the adjacent car park on Bristow Lane (zoned SP2 Infrastructure Car Park).

·    Concept redevelopment option is submitted with 18m building height and 2:1 FSR.

·    The proposal provides 39 residential apartments (9 x 1 bed, 18 x 2 beds, 12 x 3 beds), 3 commercial premises, one medium sized supermarket, and 2 levels of parking.

11. Peakhurst – Isaac Road (Zone B1)

N/A

12. Peakhurst – Lorraine Street (Zone B1)

N/A

13. Peakhurst – Ogilvy Street (Zone B1)

N/A

14. Peakhurst – Park Street (Zone B1)

N/A

15. Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Street (Zone B1)

·    Recommends that the subject sites, which are currently zoned SP2 Church, to be included in the B1 zone as part of the ELS due to their immediate proximity to the Pindari Street Neighbourhood Centre.

·    PP for rezoning lodged 8 June 2017 (PP2017/0002)

16. Riverwood – Broadarrow Road (Zone B1)

N/A

17. Beverly Hills – King Georges Road (Zone B2)

·    Recommends increase in FSR to 2.5:1 and height to 20m.

17. Beverly Hills – King Georges Road (Zone B2)

·    Recommends increase in FSR to 3:1 and height to 30m to increase residential density adjacent to the station.

17. Beverly Hills – King Georges Road (Zone B2)

·    Should be investigated for senior housing in the form of shop top housing.

17. Beverly Hills – King Georges Road (Zone B2)

·    Should be investigated for senior housing in the form of shop top housing.

17. Beverly Hills – King Georges Road (Zone B2)

·    Recommends expansion of the study area to include adjacent R2 areas to appropriately address transition and interface with the low density residential areas.

·    Of the view that the centre could accommodate additional height and FSR.

·    Increased height and FSR should also be allocated to the adjacent R2 area (bound by Morgan Street, Cahill Street and Stoney Creek Road).

18. Beverly Hills – The Kingsway (Zone B2)

·    Should be investigated for senior housing in the form of shop top housing.

18. Beverly Hills – The Kingsway (Zone B2)

 

·    Should be investigated for senior housing in the form of shop top housing.

19. Hurstville East – Forest Road (Zone B2)

·    Recommends the inclusion of 6 & 8 Wright Street in the recommended change of zoning to B4.

·    Recommends the inclusion of 4 Wright Street and 98-106 Forest Road (outlined in red) in the consideration for uplift in land zoning, height and FSR, in a manner consistent with PP2014/0004 for 1-3 Wright Street and 108, 112 & 124 Forest Road (outlined in yellow).

20. Kingsgrove – Kingsgrove Road (Zone B2)

·    Supports ELS recommendations

20. Kingsgrove – Kingsgrove Road (Zone B2)

·    Objects to any increase in height.

21. Mortdale – Morts Road (Zone B2)

·    Expresses interest to progress a PP for the site in line with ELS recommendations for more detailed urban design analysis to inform appropriate planning controls.

21. Mortdale – Morts Road (Zone B2)

·    Recommends FSR increase (2.5:1) in line with Oatley Local Centre as per the New City Plan KLEP amendment.

·    Seeking reduction in car parking rates due to close proximity to public transport.

21. Mortdale – Morts Road (Zone B2)

·    Recommends FSR increase (2.5:1) in line with Oatley as per the New City Plan KLEP amendment.

·    Parking spaces should be allocated to local businesses in the Council car park as some sites lack rear lane access.

21. Mortdale – Morts Road (Zone B2)

·    Recommends FSR increase (2.5:1) in line with Oatley as per the New City Plan KLEP amendment.

·    Parking spaces should be allocated to local businesses in the Council car park as some sites lack rear lane access.

22. Narwee – Broadarrow Road (Zone B2)

·    Identifies existing issue of insufficient parking spaces unenforced parking in restricted spaces by commuters.

·    Suggests creating angled parking at existing footpath, and provide new car park.

22. Narwee – Broadarrow Road (Zone B2)

·    Identifies the existing issue of the lack of parking provisions.

·    Suggests creating angled parking by reducing depth of existing footpath.

·    Suggests creating a new car park at Narwee Primary School.

23. Penshurst –  Penshurst Street (Zone B2)

·    Nominates redevelopment opportunity at the Connelly Street car park as an excellent location for senior housing with public carpark underneath.

23. Penshurst –  Penshurst Street (Zone B2)

·    Nominates redevelopment opportunity at the Connelly Street car park as an excellent location for senior housing with public carpark underneath.

23. Penshurst –  Penshurst Street (Zone B2)

·    Consolidate zoning of all Penshurst RSL Club owned sites to B2 (from R3 and SP2 Parking).

·    Recommends increase in height from 15m to 22m.

·    Recommends increase in FSR from 2:1 to 3:1.

·    Seeking amendments to the existing onerous car parking controls.

·    PP is expected to be lodged later this year.

24. Penshurst – Forest Road (Zone B2)

N/A

25. Riverwood – Belmore Road (Zone B2)

·    Recommends removal of Clause 4.4A of the HELP and replace with mixed use zoning that provides active street frontage and restricts ground floor to non-residential uses.

·    Seeks to declare Riverwood Town Centre a priority precinct (as per current DP&E LUIS investigations).

Not in ELS

 

Kingsgrove – Stoney Creek Road (Zone B2)

·    The subject site is located within the Kingsgrove Local Centre (Zone B2) at Stoney Creek Road.

·    Recommends for this local centre to be included in the ELS.

·    Recommends increase in FSR from 1.5:1 to 1.75:1, and height increase from 9m to 15m with ground floor restricted to non-residential use.

·    Seeking review and reduction of required car parking rates.

·    Recommends a local town vision be adopted for this precinct.

 

88.    Further analysis will be undertaken by Council’s Strategic Planning staff for each of the B1 – Neighbourhood Centres and B2 – Local Centre zoned Precincts identified in the draft Study.

 

89.    This work will include the development of existing and future character statements and draft criteria for the assessment of the viability of the B1 and B2 zoned lands and their future employment generation potential.

 

90.    Consideration will be given to the submissions received during the exhibition period and the issues raised in these submissions. This work will inform the preparation of future recommendations for each of the Precincts, which may include recommendations for the rezoning of land, expansion of land uses, review of development standards and consideration of other appropriate development controls.

 

91.    Further reports will be presented to Council in this regard.

Conclusion

 

92.    The draft Employment Lands Study prepared by JLL assesses all the IN2 – Light Industrial zoned land across the Georges River LGA and the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre and B2 – Local Centre zoned land in the former Hurstville City Council LGA.

 

93.    During the exhibition of the draft Study, a number of submissions were received for the majority of the Precincts. Due to the number of submissions and the work involved in the assessment of each of the submissions, it is proposed that the process of review be undertaken in stages, outlined as follows:

§ Stage 1 - Review of Industrial Precincts

§ Stage 2 - Review of B2 – Local Centre zoned Precincts

§ Stage 3 – Review of B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zoned Precincts 

 

94.    This report addresses the nine (9) Industrial Precincts across the Georges River LGA and provides an assessment framework to assess the importance of each of these industrial precincts.

 

95.    The assessment framework has been applied to each of the Industrial Precincts and provides a consistent approach to the identification of all the industrial lands across the LGA. In this regard, they are classified as a:

o Prime Industrial Precincts

o Protected Industrial Precincts

o Investigation Precincts

 

96.    A process has also been developed to consider rezoning of Investigation Precincts to alternate uses. For these Investigation Precincts, Council may consider a Planning Proposal for rezoning, but only where the Planning Proposal applies to the whole Precinct and addresses the matters for consideration as outlined in the body of the report.

 

97.    It is recommended that Council seek a peer review of the methodology, assessment and recommendations of the industrial precincts. This will allow Council to seek to have the work on the industrial lands endorsed by the NSW Department of Environment & Planning as a Strategic Study.

 

98.    Council staff will now commence the process of undertakings the work associated with Stage 2 and Stage 3 of the Employment Lands Review that relates to the B2 – Local Centre zoned Precincts and B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zoned Precincts. A further report will be presented to Council once this work has been completed.

 

Financial Implications

99.    Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

16/1809

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

ATTACHMENT 1 - SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL ZONED LAND - Council Report 7 August 2017

Attachment View2

Attachment 2 - Assessment Sheets - Industrial Precincts

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL149-17             Draft Georges River LGA Employment Lands Study - Review of Lands Zone IN2 - Light Industrial

 

[Appendix 1]          ATTACHMENT 1 - SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL ZONED LAND - Council Report 7 August 2017

 

 

Page 267

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL149-17             Draft Georges River LGA Employment Lands Study - Review of Lands Zone IN2 - Light Industrial

 

[Appendix 2]          Attachment 2 - Assessment Sheets - Industrial Precincts

 

 

Page 289

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 August 2017                                                                               Page 367

Item:                   CCL150-17        Summary of Development Applications lodged and determined  

Author:              Manager Development and Building

Directorate:      Office of Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

 

 

Recommendation

          That the information on development applications lodged and determined for April 2017 - June 2017 be received and noted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      A snap-shot of Georges River Council’s development applications over the past 3 months is contained within this report. 

 

2.      The information includes details on numbers received and determined, a breakdown of application types, mean and median time-frames, the estimated value of applications determined and the number of applications that have been with Council and under determination for more than 40 days. This information will be prepared monthly and enable review of trends in assessment timeframes.

This report also provides information on process improvements and new initiatives being undertaken by the Environment and Planning Directorate to reduce the number of outstanding applications.

 

Report

3.      Georges River Council was proclaimed on 12 May 2016, combining the former Hurstville and Kogarah City Councils. The development application determination numbers and time-frames for the past six (6) months are set out below.

 

Month

Applications Received

Applications Determined

Outstanding Applications

Apps – with Council over 40 days <= 100 days

Apps – with Council over 100 days

Jan

48

42

341

142

153

Feb

71

64

348

103

146

Mar

109

88

369

84

174

Apr

67

35

371

118

153

May

86

96

348

107

130

June

102

78

372

106

145

 

4.       The reporting for the applications was refined and improved at the end of May, resulting in a more accurate reflection of applications and time-frames.

5.      To note - Outstanding Applications relates to applications that:

·         have just been lodged with Council

·         are under neighbour notification

·         are under assessment 

·         are awaiting determination via the relevant planning pathway.  

 

6.      These figures are based on the gross turn-around times and include development applications, s96 modification applications, and s82A review of determinations (included in the DA figures). The gross determination figure has been used to ensure any anomalies in the data sets from the two previous Councils are assimilated.

 

7.      The Appendix provides a detailed breakdown of each development type, the value of work for each type, the numbers received and determined, and the mean determining times for each category.

 

8.      A summary of the key elements are:

 

·        The major category of developments determined for the last quarter was “Residential New” and “Residential new second occupancy”.

·        Some of the doubling up of admin work has been reduced and staff is getting used to new systems, which has improved time-frames.

 

9.      Council staff are continuously focussing on improved ways to reduce the number of outstanding applications, as seen in the month of May. 

·        The “Clearance Program” which focused on reducing the back-log of applications, not necessarily just fast-track, determined 110 applications over the 4 month period up until May. 

·        The aim now is to continue with clearing the volume of undetermined applications.

·        Conditions and templates have been unified to make them consistent.

·        From 1 July 2017 - all new applications will be lodged onto one computer system so as to refine and improve processes moving forward. However existing applications will remain working in the two different systems.

·        Emphasis is being placed on speeding up internal referrals, such that if there are any issues they are identified earlier in the process. This is in line with the Department’s Best Practice Guidelines.

·        Improvements to facilitate further efficiencies in the administrative side of the process are being investigated.

 

10.    Council staff have also initiated Phase 2 of the Clearance Program, aimed at a more targeted approach in reducing the older outstanding Development Applications. This commenced on 5 June and will conclude on 31 August. This Phase involves a dedicated team of 5 staff to focus on determining applications that have been in Council for over 100 days.  

 

11.    As at 17 July, over the past 6 weeks a total of 73 applications have been identified for this program with 62 applications being determined.

 

 

Financial Implications

12.    Within budget allocation.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Apr - May - Jun

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL150-17             Summary of Development Applications lodged and determined

[Appendix 1]          Apr - May - Jun

 

 

Page 370

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 August 2017                                                                               Page 371

Item:                   CCL151-17        Planning Proposal PP2017-0003 - Reclassification of Lot 2 DP 1200178 part of Taylors Reserve from community to operational land 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning  and Strategic Planner

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council endorses the reclassification of Lot 2 DP1200178 Taylor’s Reserve, Lime Kiln Road and Woodlands Avenue, Lugarno from ‘Community Land’ to ‘Operational Land’.

(b)     That the Planning Proposal for the reclassification of Lot 2 DP1200178 Taylor’s Reserve, Lime Kiln Road and Woodlands Avenue, Lugarno from ‘Community Land’ to ‘Operational Land be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway Determination under Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(c)     If it is determined by the Greater Sydney Commission or its delegate under Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that the Planning Proposal referred to in Recommendation 2 should proceed, that it be placed on formal public exhibition in accordance with the conditions of any Gateway Determination issued by the Department of Planning and Environment.

(d)     That a Public Hearing is held into the reclassification of Lot 2 DP1200178 Taylor’s Reserve, Lime Kiln Road and Woodlands Avenue, Lugarno,  from community to operational as required under Section 29 of the Local Government Act 1993.

(e)     That following the exhibition and the public hearing, the General Manager be delegated to assess submissions, undertake minor amendments and to lodge the Planning Proposal with the Department of Planning & Environment requesting notification.

(f)      That prior to lodging the Planning Proposal with the Department of Planning & Environment requesting notification in (e) above, that Council approach all the land owners that utilise the informal access (highlighted in Figure 4 of the report) seeking their agreement to contribute to the costs of any road construction required to formalise the access.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.           Planning Proposal PP2017/0003 seeks to amend to Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012) with the intent to reclassify Lot 2 DP1200178 (Site), being part of Taylor Reserve (refer to Figure 1), from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’ in accordance with Section 30 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

2.           The intent of making Lot 2 ‘operational land’ is to allow a right of carriageway (ROW) to be registered on the title of Lot 2. The ROW will provide formalised access to ten (10) properties fronting Taylor Reserve, as they have no other formal access to Council’s road system.

 

3.           A copy of the Planning Proposal Report prepared by Planning Ingenuity (dated 9 June 2017) is contained in Attachment 1.

 

4.           To enable the formalisation of access to properties fronting Taylor Reserve, the Site (Lot 2) must be reclassified from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’ in accordance with Section 30 of the LG Act, which requires an amendment to HLEP 2012. The reclassification will enable Council to register a ROW on the Site creating the formalised access. Lot 1 remain classified as “community” land.

 

5.           The Planning Proposal was not referred to Council’s IHAP as under Section 4.5 of the Council’s Policy for the Determination of Development Applications the IHAP cannot deal with matters related to the classification or reclassification of land.

 

Figure 1 - Site Plan

 

Background

6.           Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 18 September 2013 made the following resolution (Minute No. 359):

 

THAT Council resolves to prepare a plan of subdivision consolidating Taylor Reserve and identifying land for Taylor Avenue.

THAT Council resolves to prepare a site specific Plan of Management for Taylor Reserve and amend the Generic Plan of Management - Parks.

THAT Council resolves to prepare a planning proposal to reclassify part of Taylor Reserve from Community Land to Operational Land.

THAT Council create a right of carriageway for access across Taylor Reserve to provide formal legal access to properties that require access from the existing sealed road – Taylor Avenue.

FURTHER THAT Council advise adjoining and adjacent landowners surrounding Taylor Reserve of its decision.

 

7.           Council made the above resolution following its consideration of a report that outlined the on ground situation existing at Taylor’s Reserve. Taylor’s Reserve facilitates the only access to several private residences via an uniformalised vehicular access lane known as Taylor Avenue. Refer to Figure 2 below.

 

Figure 2 – Allotments fronting Taylors Reserve

 

8.           The first Item in the resolution of 18 September 2013 has been completed with consolidation of several lots formed into Lots 1 and 2 DP1200178, registered 14 November 2014. The informal Taylor Avenue is defined by Lot 2 – refer to Figure 3 below. However, the right of carriageway required by Item 4 of the 18 Sept. 2013 resolution requires the land to first be made ‘operational’ in accordance with Section 27 of the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act), which is the effect of Item 3 in 18 Sept. 2013 resolution.

 

Figure 3 – Lot 2 in DP. 1200178

 

Proposal

9.           Planning Proposal PP2017/0003 seeks to amend the provisions of the HLEP 2012 for the land at Taylor Reserve, Lime Kiln Road and Woodlands Avenue, Lugarno. The application seeks to reclassify part of the land in Taylor Reserve (being Lot 2) from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’ to facilitate the creation of a legal restriction on the title of the land for a right of carriageway and create an appropriate statutory framework which best reflects the on-ground situation in terms of public and private access to, and use of, the land. Lot 1 will remain classified as “community” land.

 

10.         The properties that require access via Lot 2 are highlighted by a yellow star in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4 – Neighbouring properties currently with vehicle
and/or pedestrian access to Lot 2

 

The Site and Locality

11.         The Site is legally known as Lot 2 DP1200178 being part of Taylor Reserve, Lime Kiln Road and Woodland Avenue, Lugarno. Two lots form the entirety of Taylor Reserve, being Lots 1 and 2 DP1200178; however the ‘Site’ the subject of this report is only Lot 2.

 

12.         The locality in which the Site resides is essentially low density residential development, with Edith Bay on the Georges River only a few hundred metres to the south. Taylor Reserve serves as a local park for passive recreation and incorporates Taylor Lane, being an uniformalised access to several properties fronting Taylor Reserve. Taylor Lane is the only form of access for these properties to Council’s road network.

 

13.         Taylor Reserve also contains a local Scout Hall.

 

14.         Directly to the north of the Site on the eastern side of Lime Kiln Road are neighbourhood shops, with ninety (90) degree parking in the road reserve.

 

15.         Housing in the low density locality of Lugarno is a mix of single a double storey dwellings with some new multi dwelling housing occurring.

 

Current Planning Controls

16.         The Site is currently zoned RE 1 Public Recreation under HLEP 2012 (refer to Figure 5). Roads are permitted without consent, under the RE 1 zone. However, as the land is not classified as Road under the Roads Act 1993, there is currently no formally recognised access over the Site to a number of allotments directly adjacent the boundary of the Site.

 

17.         Surrounding properties are zoned R2 Low Density Residential, except for neighbourhood shops directly to the north of the site fronting Lime Kiln Road, which have a B2 Local Centre zone.

 

Figure 5 – Extract from Zoning Map

 

 

Planning Proposal

18.         On 9 June 2017 Strategic Planning received a Planning Proposal from Strategic Property seeking an amendment to HLEP 2012 that:

·    Reclassifies Lot 2 DP1200178 (Site) from community land to operational land under the provisions of Section 27 of the LG Act.

 

19.         The Planning Proposal is supported by a Planning Proposal Report prepared by Planning Ingenuity (dated 9 June 2017) in accordance with Section 55 of the EPA Act, as well as the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) publications “A guide to Preparing Planning Proposals” and “A Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans” and the directions contained in the Planning Practice Note PN09-003 ‘Classification and reclassification of public land through a local environmental plan’.

 

20.         The Planning Proposal prepared by Planning Ingenuity (refer to Attachment 1):

·    Is not contrary to the zoning provisions applying to the site. The Site is currently zoned RE 1 Public Recreation under HLEP 2012 (refer to Figure 5). Roads are permitted without consent, under the RE 1 zone.

·    Is not inconsistent with any State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) or draft SEPPs.

·    Is not inconsistent with the Ministerial Directions under Section 117 of the Environmental Planning 7 Assessment Act 1979.

·    Does not affect any critical habitat or threatened species, or populations of ecological endangered species.

·    Has no environmental impacts – seeking to establish statutory provisions which are more appropriate for the existing on-ground situation.

 

Reclassification of the subject land from “community” to “operational” land

21.         The Department of Planning & Environment has issued a practice note (PN 16-001) which provides guidance on classifying and reclassifying public land through a local environmental plan (LEP).

 

22.         A planning proposal to classify or reclassify public land will need to be prepared in accordance with the practice note and the additional matters specified in Attachment 1 to this practice note.

 

23.         An assessment against the practice note and its attachment is as follows:

 

Matters for Consideration

Comment

The current and proposed classification of the Land.

 

The subject land is classified as community land.

Whether the land is a ‘public reserve’ (defined in the LG Act).

 

Yes

The strategic and site specific merits of the reclassification and evidence to support this.

The reclassification will facilitate the creation of a legal restriction on the title of the land for a right of carriageway and create an appropriate statutory framework which reflects an on ground situation in terms of private and public access to land.

 

Whether the planning proposal is the result of a strategic study or report.

The request for a Planning Proposal is not the result of a specific planning study. The request is to implement statutory changes that appropriately reflect the on-ground situation.

 

Whether the planning proposal is consistent with council’s community plan or other local strategic plan.

The request for a Planning Proposal is not the result of a specific planning study. The request is to implement statutory changes that appropriately reflect the on-ground situation.

 

A summary of council’s interests in the land, including:

·    how and when the land was first acquired (e.g. was it dedicated, donated, provided as part of a subdivision for public open space or other purpose, or a developer contribution)

·    if council does not own the land, the land owner’s consent;

·    the nature of any trusts, dedications etc.

Prior to 1955 the land comprising Taylor Reserve formed part of an 8.5 acre poultry farm owned by the Taylor family. Subsequently the land was subdivided and dedicated to Council who named Taylor Reserve in 1960.

After the 1960’s an access track in from 2B Woodland Ave, through the reserve, began to be used by Council for reserve maintenance, and additionally it was used by residents as a track to the rear of a number of properties that fronted Forest Road. Since then Council has approved a number of subdivisions, dwelling, outbuildings, alterations and additions that rely on the access track as the sole physical access.

Over the years the gravel track has been gradually sealed by Council with the placement of left-over/part loads of hotmix from Council projects. The “track” became a fully sealed road which provided access for Council’s garbage trucks, vehicular access for the community to the reserve and vehicular access for the residents predominately on the west side of the reserve.

In 1999 Council named the access track across the reserve Taylor Avenue.

 

Whether an interest in land is proposed to be discharged, and if so, an explanation of the reasons why.

 

No interests to be changed.

The effect of the reclassification (including, the loss of public open space, the land ceases to be a public reserve or particular interests will be discharged).

 

No change to the existing situation.

Evidence of public reserve status or relevant interests, or lack thereof applying to the land (e.g. electronic title searches, notice in a Government Gazette, trust documents).

 

Not applicable

Current use(s) of the land, and whether uses are authorised or unauthorised.

 

Access track across the reserve Taylor Avenue.

Current or proposed lease or agreements applying to the land, together with their duration, terms and controls.

 

There are no leases or agreements applying to the land.

Current or proposed business dealings (e.g. agreement for the sale or lease of the land, the basic details of any such agreement and if relevant, when council intends to realise its asset, either immediately after rezoning/reclassification or at a later time).

No agreements have been made. One of the resolutions of the Council at its Meeting held 18 September 2013 is to create a right of carriageway for access across Taylor Reserve to provide formal legal access to properties that require access from the existing sealed road – Taylor Avenue.

 

Any rezoning associated with the reclassification (if yes, need to demonstrate consistency with an endorsed Plan of Management or strategy).

 

No. The Site is currently zoned RE 1 Public Recreation under HLEP 2012 (refer to Figure 5). Roads are permitted without consent, under the RE 1 zone. However, as the land is not classified as Road under the Roads Act 1993, there is currently no formally recognised access over the Site to a number of allotments directly adjacent the boundary of the Site.

 

How council may or will benefit financially, and how these funds will be used.

 

Any funds from lease will be subject to a separate Council report. 

How council will ensure funds remain available to fund proposed open space sites or improvements referred to in justifying the reclassification, if relevant to the proposal.

 

At the time of lease of the land a separate report will be presented to council outlining where the funds will be allocated to.

A Land Reclassification (part lots) Map, in accordance with any standard technical requirements for spatial datasets and maps, if land to be reclassified does not apply to the whole lot.

 

Refer to Figure 6.

Preliminary comments by a relevant government agency, including an agency that dedicated the land to council, if applicable.

No comments lodged with Council to date.

Comments will be sought during the formal exhibition of the planning proposal from relevant government agencies.

 

 

24.         The reclassification of the Site will enable Council to create a ROW over the Site to formalise the existing informal access known as Taylor Avenue.

 

25.         The reclassification will involve an amendment to the LEP Land Reclassification Map – refer to Figure 6 below.

 

Figure 6 – Reclassification Map

Next Steps

26.         If Council is supportive of the HLEP 2012 amendment, the following process will occur:

 

a.   Planning Proposal prepared (Section 55 of EPA Act) and forward to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway Determination (Section 56 of EPA Act).

b.   Council will likely receive a positive Gateway Determination to proceed with the Planning Proposal. The Gateway Determination will outline the specifics actions Council will need to undertake, including public exhibition periods and public hearings.

c.   Council updates Planning Proposal in accordance with Gateway Determination and forwards to other relevant government authorities for comment if required.

d.   Council exhibits Planning Proposal in accordance with Gateway Determination.

e.   Council holds a Public Hearing (post public exhibition) in accordance with Section 29 of the LG Act and Section 57 of the EPA Act.

f.    Report on Public Hearing is provided to Council by independent 3rd party, who chaired the Public Hearing.

g.   Report prepared by Council Staff on public exhibition and public hearing is considered by Council (Section 58 EPA Act).

h.   If Council resolves to support the Planning Proposal in accordance with Section 58 of the EPA Act, the HLEP 2012 amendment is made in accordance with Section59 of the EPA Act in consultation with the DPE and/or Parliamentary Counsel.

i.    Site becomes ‘operational land’ upon gazettal of HLEP 2012 amendment.

j.    Once ‘operational land’ the Site can have the ROW registered on the title formalising access.

k.   Council may then resolve under Section 33 of the LG Act to classify the land back to ‘community land’.

 

 

Gateway Determination

27.         The Planning Proposal must first be endorsed by Council before it can be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for Gateway Determination.

 

Community Consultation

28.         The Gateway Determination is likely to require the Planning Proposal to be publicly exhibited for a minimum of 28-days.

 

Public hearing

29.         As the land is to be reclassified from Community Land to Operational Land in accordance with Section 30 of the LG Act, a Public Hearing must be held in accordance with Section 29 of the LG Act and Section 57 of the EPA Act. The Gateway Determination will also provide a requirement/s for the Public Hearing.

 

Comments of the St George DRP

30.         Not Required.

 

Voluntary Planning Agreement

31.         Not Required.

 

Conclusion

32.         To enable the formalisation of access to properties fronting Taylor Reserve, the Site must be reclassified from ‘community land’ to ‘operational land’ in accordance with Section 30 of the LG Act, which requires an amendment to HLEP 2012. The reclassification will enable Council to register a ROW on the Site creating the formalised access. Once the ROW is registered on the title of the Site, Council may wish to reclassify the Site back to ‘community land’ in accordance with Section 33 of the LG Act.

 

33.         The following steps now need to occur:

·    Council resolves to prepare a Planning Proposal for forwarding to DEP for Gateway Determination

·    Public Exhibition and Consultation with other Public Authorities (if required)

·    Public Hearing and report prepared on public hearing by a 3rd party

·    Council considers report on Public Exhibition and Public Hearing and resolves whether to continue of not continue with Planning Proposal

 

File Number

PP2017/0003

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Planning Proposal Supporting Documents - Reclassification Taylors Reserve - 18B Lime Kiln Rd Lugarno

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL151-17             Planning Proposal PP2017-0003 - Reclassification of Lot 2 DP 1200178 part of Taylors Reserve from community to operational land

[Appendix 1]          Planning Proposal Supporting Documents - Reclassification Taylors Reserve - 18B Lime Kiln Rd Lugarno

 

 

Page 383

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL151-17             Planning Proposal PP2017-0003 - Reclassification of Lot 2 DP 1200178 part of Taylors Reserve from community to operational land

[Appendix 1]          Planning Proposal Supporting Documents - Reclassification Taylors Reserve - 18B Lime Kiln Rd Lugarno

 

 

Page 404

 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL151-17             Planning Proposal PP2017-0003 - Reclassification of Lot 2 DP 1200178 part of Taylors Reserve from community to operational land

[Appendix 1]          Planning Proposal Supporting Documents - Reclassification Taylors Reserve - 18B Lime Kiln Rd Lugarno

 

 

Page 406

 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 August 2017                                                                               Page 409

Item:                   CCL152-17        Canopy Enhancement Program 

Author:              Manager Environmental Health & Regulatory Services

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council support the development of a Canopy Enhancement Program using the two frameworks outlined in this report to assist in maintaining and increasing the City’s tree canopy and to support the implementation of the Urban Forest Strategy.

(b)     That a further report be presented to Council in November 2017 seeking endorsement of a draft Canopy Enhancement Program for public exhibition.

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report recommends that Council support the development of a Canopy Enhancement Program as a mechanism to maintain and increase urban tree canopy within the Georges River Council Local Government Area (LGA).

 

2.      The Canopy Enhancement Program is a key mechanism in providing trees for planting in locations where an increase in urban tree canopy has been identified by the Urban Forest Strategy.

 

3.      The Canopy Enhancement Program will operate under two frameworks. Under the first (Tree Replacement Bond) replacement trees are planted on the site where the original trees were removed. A bond is paid and is partially refunded once Council confirms that the replacement trees have been planted and maintained for a minimum of 6 months. The second (Tree Removal Offset Fee) operates where it is not practical to plant replacement trees on site and the offset fee paid by the applicant is used by Council to plant replacement trees upon predetermined Council owned sites.

 

4.      Urban tree canopy (also known as urban forest) is the totality of trees and shrubs on all public and private land in and around urban areas (including bushland, parkland, gardens and street trees) and is measured as a canopy cover percentage of the total area. As an example, the City of Sydney has pledged to increase canopy cover from 15.5% to 23.25% by 2030, and then to 27.13% by 2050 via their Urban Forest Strategy.

 

5.      Tree canopy is a primary component of the urban ecosystem, and provides several environmental benefits including:

 

a.      Reduction of the Heat Island Effect- increasing tree and vegetation cover lowers surface and air temperatures by providing shade and cooling through evapotranspiration.

b.      Climate change mitigation via the sequestering and storing of carbon.

c.       Support for biodiversity by providing green corridors for native wildlife habitat.

d.      Prevention of erosion due to increased root systems.

e.      Water absorption capturing storm water runoff and reducing peak flows.

f.       Filtering of polluting particulate matter from stormwater and creeks.

g.      Noise reduction.

h.      Improved air quality.

 

6.      Trees also improve community wellbeing. They have been proven to have sociological benefits, and have also been also shown to calm traffic and provide a buffer between pedestrians and cars. Trees provide visual amenity for the community and deliver a vital link to nature.

 

7.      The urban forest should be seen as a community asset with values and costs. The Urban Forest Strategy will consist of a number of key components including, vegetation mapping, tree canopy targets, development control requirements and the Canopy Enhancement Program.

 

8.      The Canopy Enhancement Program will be supplemented by Council’s existing Enforcement program targeting illegal tree removal and a broad public education program to be developed as part of the Program.  The addition of the Canopy Enhancement Program into Council’s operations is a paradigm shift in the way Council manages trees within the LGA.

 

9.      The Canopy Enhancement Program will be the first component of the Urban Forest Strategy to be completed and will be developed in house with a report scheduled to be provided to Council in November 2017 seeking endorsement of the draft Program for public exhibition.

Background

10.    Currently Georges River Council has no systems in place to measure the amount of trees being removed on private and public land. There is also no formal program in place to monitor requirements for replacement of these trees so to maintain and increase canopy cover in the LGA.

 

11.    Council is however committed to maintaining and improving tree cover as urban densities increase. While it is acknowledged that it is increasingly difficult to accommodate large trees on private land, Council is committed to planting the next generation of canopy trees in the public domain via a Canopy Enhancement Program as part of an overall Urban Forest Strategy.

 

Canopy Enhancement Program

12.    It is proposed that there will be two frameworks for tree replacement that will act side by side. Framework One (see below) is the preferred mechanism for tree replacement by requiring a tree to be replaced on the land where it is removed, it supports the principles of urban canopy by ensuring trees remain distributed within the LGA.

 

13.    When the applicant cannot replace a tree on the land where it was removed then it is proposed that the applicant be required to pay a Tree Removal Offset Fee so that Council can plant replacement trees in an existing reserve or other public land (Framework Two).

 

Framework One - Tree Replacement Bond

14.    When an application involving tree removal is lodged, it is proposed that the applicant will be required to pay a Tree Replacement Bond (for example, $400) at application stage in addition to the application fee. It is proposed that the majority of the bond be refunded once a Council representative has determined that replacement trees have been planted and established according to Council’s Tree Planting Guidelines, which will be developed as part of the program.


 

 

15.    Once Council approves a tree to be removed from private land, it is proposed that a condition be placed on the approval requiring replacement trees planted at a ratio (for example 6:1) of the tree(s) removed on the applicant’s private land in an area determined by Council as most suitable for plant survival.

 

16.    The selection of new tree species will be in accordance with Council’s existing approved Tree Replacement List. It is proposed that the Tree Replacement List will be reviewed to include replanting options such as green roofs or walls. If Council approves a tree to be removed from the street or other Council owned land, replacement trees to the previously mentioned ratio of the tree/s removed will be planted on Council owned land in accordance with a Tree Management Map which will be developed as part of the Urban Forest Strategy.

 

Mechanisms for compliance checks- Framework One

17.    Under Framework One, it is proposed that tree replacement will be required to be carried out by the applicant within six months of original tree removal or prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. The maintenance period is proposed to be a further six months from the date that the tree replacement is complete in accordance with the Tree Planting Guidelines. This process will require a Council Officer to conduct a compliance inspection of the premises 12 months after the application is approved. Timeframes for compliance inspections for tree removals associated with Development Applications may vary due to the length of time required to complete the development, however the inspection will be conducted 6 months after the occupation certificate has been issued.

 

18.    Funding for the Framework One compliance checks could be covered by one of two methods:

a.      The tree replacement bond is partially refunded (for example, $300) once a Council representative has determined that an approved tree has been planted according to the Tree Planting Guidelines and maintained adequately for the appropriate period. A percentage of the bond (for example, $100) is withheld by Council for administration costs, OR

b.      The bond will be fully refunded and compliance checks will be funded by an Environmental Levy applied as a set percentage of the contract value for all development applications and Section 96 applications over a specific contract value. The fee would be applied at Development Application determination as a condition of consent and paid prior to issue of a Construction Certificate. An Environmental Levy has been applied to Development Applications at other Council’s for similar environmental monitoring purposes such as Ryde and Campbelltown.

 

19.    The preferred funding mechanisms would be finalised with the detailed development of the Program.

 

Framework Two- Tree Removal Offset fee

20.    Where it is not practical to plant trees on the premises under Framework One, for example, as per the following criteria, the applicant will be required instead to pay a Tree Removal Offset Fee (per tree) in addition to the application fee:

a.      There is less than 4 square metres of available soil for planting an individual tree, or

b.      Tree roots will impact the essential amenities of an existing or new building (such as sewerage), or

c.       The existing or new building cannot support a green roof or wall supporting shrubs that will meet the ratio of tree(s) removed.

 

21.    The offset fee will be a fixed price (for example, $400) per tree, non-refundable and placed into Council’s Sustainability Reserve which will be used to plant trees in accordance with the Tree Management Map which will be developed as part of the Urban Forest Strategy. Funds may be retained in the Sustainability Reserve until such time as sufficient capital is available to complete all the planting within a specific area identified by the Urban Forest Strategy.

 

Mechanisms for tree planting- Framework Two

22.    Council staff or a suitable qualified Council contractor will plant and maintain trees using the Tree Removal Offset fees within the Sustainability Reserve.

23.    Replacement trees will be planted within the Council Ward from where tree was removed and in the locations where an increase in urban tree canopy has been identified by the Urban Forest Strategy.

 

Summary

24.    The Program is proposed to cover trees removed through Tree Removal Applications, and also trees removed through the Development Application process. What constitutes a ‘tree’ will be defined as per Council’s planning documents. When Council approves the removal of a tree, the applicant will be required to pay a bond or fee, depending on meeting particular criteria, in addition to the application fee.

 

25.    To support the Program, an overarching Urban Forest Strategy will be developed as well as supporting documents which are outlined below.

 

Next Steps

26.    Develop an Urban Forest Strategy which establishes a holistic approach to tree management on private and public land within the LGA including:

 

a.      Vegetation mapping of the LGA showing current tree canopy cover within each Ward, designed to inform the development of a Tree Management Map and needs analysis in line with best practice in urban canopy and biodiversity corridors to target future tree planting locations.

 

b.      Develop a realistic Tree Canopy target.  By working with Council’s current documents and industry guidelines concerning tree management, Council will be able to establish a target for increasing Tree Canopy cover. The first action being development of a baseline % canopy cover. This approach will be able to be measured through Councils Community Strategic Plan with Council having the ability to set short term, medium and long term goals.

 

c.       Establish data collection methods specifying:

i. Number of tree removal applications approved.

ii.  Number of trees removed.

iii. Number of new trees planted.

iv. Records of tree maintenance and inspections.

v.  Reported complaints of trees removed.

 

d.      Review Council’s Development Control Plans to include provisions to enable the Urban Forest Strategy and Canopy Enhancement Program.

 

e.      Finalisation of Canopy Enhancement Program including a ‘Guide for Applicants’ which outlines the necessary criteria for activation of the Tree Replacement Bond and Tree Removal Offset fee and necessary support mechanisms including:

i. Review of Council’s existing Tree Replacement List based on best practise in native tree management and biodiversity principles.

ii.  Review Council’s Fees and Charges to establish a Tree Replacement Bonds and Tree Removal Offset fees.

iii. Review Council’s Conditions of Development Consent to include conditions relating to Tree Replacement Bonds and Tree Removal Offset fees.

iv. Develop Tree Planting Guidelines.

 

A suitably qualified consultant will be engaged to address actions a) to d) which will be funded via an existing budget allocation in the 2017/2018 budget. Action e) will be performed by Council staff using existing resources with a report scheduled to be provided to Council in November 2017 seeking endorsement of the draft Program for public exhibition.

 

Financial Implications

27.    Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

17/1752

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 7 August 2017

CCL153-17             Offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement accompanying Development Application No 2017 0040 for 6 Cross Street Hurstville

[Appendix 1]          Club Central - Offer to Enter Voluntary Planning Agreement - 6 Cross Street Hurstville

 

 

Page 414

 

Item:                   CCL153-17        Offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement accompanying Development Application No 2017 0040 for 6 Cross Street Hurstville 

Author:              Executive Strategic Planner and Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a) That Council accept and endorse the written offer dated 21 July 2017 from the Illawarra Catholic Club Limited (Developer) to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (Attachment 1) for 6 Cross Street, Hurstville, accompanying Development Application DA2017/0040 which proposes a mixed use development comprising club activities, commercial space, carparking and 124 hotel rooms, which will deliver the following public benefits:

i.    the Developer will provide a monetary contribution of $976,147 (based on $954.20/m2 of additional gross floor area of 1,023m2) for providing infrastructure improvements in the Hurstville City Centre, including the embellishment of the Civic Plaza and upgrade of the local road network;

ii.   the public benefits are over and above the usual Section 94, 94A and 94EF contributions applicable to the development;

iii.  the cash contribution and offer will be formalised within a Heads of Agreement that is to be signed prior to the determination of the Development Application; and

iv.  the final VPA will contain provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(b) That if the terms of the offer are accepted by Council, Council endorse the offer subject to a Heads of Agreement being entered into prior to the Development Application DA2017/0040 being determined.

(c)  The Council delegate authority to the General Manager to negotiate and enter into the Heads of Agreement referred to above.

(d) That Council delegate authority to the General Manager to negotiate the specific terms of the Voluntary Planning Agreement and to subsequently exhibit a draft of the Voluntary Planning Agreement in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979,

(e) That Council delegate authority to General Manager to:

v.   Authorise any minor changes to the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement following public exhibition, provided that those changes do not diminish the value or nature of the public benefits to be delivered as identified in (a) above; and

vi.  Subsequently enter into the Voluntary Planning Agreement on behalf of Council.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      The Development Application DA2017/0040 for 6 and 10 Cross Street, Hurstville proposes a mixed use development comprising club activities, commercial space, carparking and 124 hotel rooms as an extension to the adjoining Club Central and seeks to amalgamate the existing land titles of 6 and 10 Cross Street. The application requests an exception to two development standards relating to building height (an increase in the building height from 30metres to 39.35metres) and floor space ratio (an increase from 4.5:1 to 5.33:1 which equates to an additional gross floor area of 1,023m2) under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012.

2.      An offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) was submitted in conjunction with the Development Application on 30 June 2017, from Illawarra Catholic Club Limited (Developer) relating to 6 Cross Street, Hurstville (Lots 1 & 2, DP508397). A revised offer was submitted on 21 July 2017 providing, in summary, the following:

a.   a monetary contribution of $976,147 (based on a rate of $954.20/m2 of additional gross floor area of 1,023m2) for providing infrastructure improvements in the Hurstville City Centre, including the embellishment of the Civic Plaza and upgrade of the local road network.

b.   the public benefits are over and above the usual Section 94, 94A and 94EF contributions applicable to the development.

c.   the cash contributions and offer will be formalised within a Heads of Agreement to be signed prior to the determination of the Development Application

d.   the final VPA will contain provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

3.      To assist Council in determining an appropriate VPA contribution, Council engaged Hill PDA consultants to undertake an assessment in accordance with Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements, of the proposal and residual land values. A copy of this confidential report is attached (Attachment 2). In summary, the report recommends a VPA contribution of $976,146 based on a rate of $954.20/m2 and an uplift in gross floor area of 1,023m2.

4.      The letter of offer and public benefits have been assessed against Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements and are considered to be satisfactory in respect of the Acceptability Test under the Council’s Planning on Agreements Policy.

5.      Therefore it is recommended that Council accept and endorse the offer to enter into a VPA dated 21 July 2017, subject to a Heads of Agreement being entered into prior to the determination of the Development Application. It is necessary that the binding Heads of Agreement be entered into before the Development Application is determined so that a condition of development consent can be imposed requiring the VPA to be entered into before the consent operates.

6.      Subject to the above, this report recommends that the Council delegate authority to the General Manager to negotiate and enter into the Heads of Agreement and to then negotiate the specific terms of the VPA, and to subsequently exhibit a draft of the VPA. Following this that the General Manager have authority to enter into the VPA on behalf of Council, with authority to make any minor changes to the draft VPA following public exhibition that do not diminish the value or nature of the public benefits.

 

Background

Development Application:

7.      The Development Application DA2017/0040 for 6 and 10 Cross Street, Hurstville was submitted to Council on 23 February 2017. The Application proposes a mixed use development comprising club activities, commercial space, carparking and 124 hotel rooms as an extension to the adjoining Club Central Central and seeks to amalgamate the existing land titles of 6 and 10 Cross Street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

          Figure 1: Aerial photo of 6 Cross Street, Hurtsville

 

8.      The Development Application includes a request for an exception to development standards under clause 4.6 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. Its seeks to vary two development standards relating to building height (an increase in the building height from 30metres to 39.35metres) and floor space ratio (an increase from 4.5:1 to 5.33:1 which equates to an additional gross floor area of 1,023m2).

9.      The Development Application has been publicly notified. The determination authority for the Development Application is the South Sydney Planning Panel. It is anticipated that the Development Application will be reported to the Panel in August/September2017.

Voluntary Planning Agreement – terms of offer

10.    An offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) was submitted in conjunction with the Development Application DA2017/0040 for 6 Cross Street, Hurstville (Lots 1 & 2, DP508397) on 30 June 2017, from Illawarra Catholic Club Limited (Developer).

11.    A revised letter of offer to enter into a VPA was submitted on 21 July 2017 (Attachment 1) following the submission of a revised DA and an assessment undertaken by Council’s economic consultants Hill PDA (see detail below).

12.    In summary, the offer to enter into a VPA provides for the following:

a.   a monetary contribution of $976,147 (based on a rate of $954.20/m2 of additional gross floor area of 1,023m2) for providing infrastructure improvements in the Hurstville City Centre, including the embellishment of the Civic Plaza and upgrade of the local road network.

b.   the cash contribution and offer will be formalised within a Heads of Agreement. This Agreement is to be signed prior to the determination of the Development Application.

c.   the VPA, which would give effect to the Developers offer does not exclude (partly or wholly) the application of contributions under Section 94, 94A or 94EF to the development.

d.   the final VPA will contain provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Assessment of the offer

13.    The letter of offer and public benefits has been assessed in accordance with Councils Policy on Planning Agreements and the ‘Acceptability Test’ contained in the Policy as follows:

 

Does the Planning Agreement:

Assessment

(a)  Satisfy the statutory requirements for planning agreements contained in the Act and Regulation?

·    The letter of offer to enter into a VPA from the Developer does not constitute ‘a planning agreement’ under the terms of the Act and Regulations. As such it does not need to fully satisfy the statutory requirements of the Act and Regulations.

 

·    The purpose of the letter of offer is to outline the general terms on which a binding Heads of Agreement is to be entered into and following this, the VPA will be based. The letter of offer states that “the cash contributions and offer will be formalised within a Heads of Agreement that is to be signed prior to the determination of the DA” and that “the final VPA will contain provisions to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979”.

 

·    Hence at this initial stage the general terms of the offer should meet the requirements of Section 93F(2), which describes what a ‘public purpose’ includes (without limitation) on which Planning Agreements can be based. Section 93F(2) describes a public purpose (without limitation) as follows:

 

(a) “the provision of (or the recoupment of the cost of providing) public amenities or public services,

(b) the provision of (or the recoupment of the cost of providing) affordable housing,

(c)  the provision of (or the recoupment of the cost of providing) transport or other infrastructure relating to land,

(d) the funding of recurrent expenditure relating to the provision of public amenities or public services, affordable housing or transport or other infrastructure,

(e) the monitoring of the planning impacts of development,

(f)   the conservation or enhancement of the natural environment”.

 

·    The key terms of the offer fall under points ‘(a)’ and ‘(c)’ of the listed public purposes above, as they consist of a monetary contribution for public infrastructure works. The proposed infrastructure improvements in the Hurstville City Centre, including the embellishment of the Civic Plaza and upgrade of the local road network, are consistent with suggested infrastructure works listed in Appendix F of Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements.

 

·    Other legislative requirements for VPAs include, but are not limited to, securities, dispute mechanisms, the application of S94 and/or S94A contributions.

 

·    In this case the developer has indicated the public benefits included in the letter of offer are over and above the usual section 94, section 94A or section 94EF contributions that will be applicable to the development.

 

·    In respect to securities and dispute mechanisms, these will be addressed at the drafting stage of the Heads of Agreement and Planning Agreement between the parties. Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements template for Planning Agreements provides standard clauses in this regard and also require the VPA be registered on the title of the Developer’s Land.

 

·    A further significant statutory requirement is the public exhibition of the Planning Agreement, once both parties have agreed on its final form. The minimum exhibition period under Section 93G(1) of the Act is 28 days.

(b)  Comply with the principles set out in clause 2.3 of this Policy?

·    Clause 2.3 of the Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements contains the following eleven (11) principles:

(a) “planning decisions must not be bought or sold through planning agreements;

(b) the Council will not allow planning agreements to improperly fetter the exercise of its functions under the Act, Regulation or any other Act or law;

(c)  the Council will not use planning agreements for any purpose other than a proper planning purpose;

(d) the consideration, negotiation and assessment of a proposed planning agreement will be separate from the consideration of the planning merits of a development application or planning proposal;

(e) the Council will not use planning agreements as a means to overcome revenue raising or spending limitations to which it is subject or for other improper purposes;

(f)  development that is unacceptable on planning grounds will not be permitted because of public benefits offered by developers that do not make the development acceptable on planning grounds;

(g) the Council will not seek benefits under a planning agreement that are wholly unrelated to the development;

(h) in assessing a development application or planning proposal, the Council will not take into consideration planning agreements that are wholly unrelated to the subject matter of the development application or planning proposal, nor will the Council give disproportionate weight to a planning agreement;

(i)   the Council will not allow the interests of developers, individuals or interest groups to outweigh the public interest when considering a proposed planning agreement;

(j)   the Council will not improperly rely on its position in order to extract unreasonable public benefits from developers under planning agreements; and

(k)  where the Council has a commercial stake in development the subject of a planning agreement, it will take appropriate steps to ensure that it avoids a conflict of interest between its role as a planning authority and its interests in the development”.

 

·    Taking the above principles into consideration, Council Staff have negotiated the terms of the letter of offer to enter into a VPA.

 

·    The monetary contribution provides public benefits that are directly in relation to ameliorating impacts of the development brought about by the additional gross floor area of the development above the current development standards in Hurstville LEP 2012.

 

·    The Developer will only become obliged to provide the public benefits should the Development Application DA2017/0040 be approved by the South Sydney Planning Panel.

 

(c)   Be directed towards a proper or legitimate planning purpose ordinarily ascertainable from the statutory planning controls and other adopted planning policies applying to development and the circumstances of the case?

·    As discussed under item ‘(a)’ above, the proposed public benefit of a monetary contribution of $976,147 (based on a rate of $954.20/m2 for an additional gross floor area of 1,023m2), fall under the description of a public purpose, as described in Section 93F(2) of the Act.

 

·    The proposed infrastructure improvements in the Hurstville City Centre, including the embellishment of the Civic Plaza and upgrade of the local road network, are consistent with suggested infrastructure works listed in Appendix F of Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements.

(d)  Provide for public benefits that bear a relationship to the development that is not wholly unrelated to the development?

·    The public benefits in the letter of offer bear relationship to the development, and also provide benefit to the greater public in relation to the following:

-     Provide infrastructure improvements within the Hurstville City Centre.

-     Provide for the embellishment of Central Plaza that is located within close proximity to the subject site.

-     Provide for the upgrade of the local road network within the Hurstville City Centre.

·    The public benefits are within close proximity to the development, being within the Hurstville City Centre and address the additional demand and impacts of the development.

(e)  Produce outcomes that meet the general values and expectations of the public and protect the overall public interest?

·    The general expectations of the public and the protection of the public interest in the case of development, is an expectation that the developer will bear some cost in ameliorating against the impacts their private development of their land will have on its neighbours and the greater community. Whilst Section 94 plans raise funds for Council to put toward capital projects to mitigate against the impacts of ongoing development, those plans are based on particular predictions made from planning controls in place at the time the plans were published. Planning Agreements are able to step in where particular development was ‘unforeseen’ by the Section 94 plan, i.e. where the developer seeks an increase over and above the current development standards contained in a Local Environmental Plan to obtain a greater outcome.

 

·    The proposed Development Application seeking exceptions to the development standards in Hurstville LEP 2012 is such a case. The Development Application proposes to increase the building height and FSR beyond the development standards in Hurstville LEP 2012, creating an additional gross floor area of 1,023m2.

 

·    To assist Council in determining an appropriate value for the public benefits/contribution, Council engaged Hill PDA consultants to undertake an assessment in accordance with Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements, of the proposal and land values. In summary, the letter of offer reflects the contributions recommended by Hill PDA based on the uplift in gross floor area of 1,023m2.

 

·    As such the public benefits contained in the letter of offer, provide further mitigation against the impact of the development commensurate with the uplift sought in the development controls. As such they can be reasonably viewed to be meeting the general values and expectations of the public.

 

(f)    Provide for reasonable means of achieving the relevant purposes and outcomes and securing the benefits?

 

·    The Heads of Agreement and VPA will provide timelines by which the public benefits are to be delivered and the securities to be provided, to reduce Council’s risk should the Developer default.

 

·    It is recommended that a binding Heads of Agreement be entered into prior to the determination of the Development Application.

(g)  Protect the community’s reasonable planning expectations and avoid environmental harm?

·    As per item ‘(e)’ above, the public benefits to be provided under the VPA will enhance the public domain and provide some amelioration against the impacts of the development. In terms of avoiding environmental harm, this will be addressed in the assessment of the Development Application.

(h)  Ensure the quantum of the public benefit offered is commensurate with the value of the development contributions which the Council considers are reasonably due in the circumstances?

The quantum of the public benefit offered in the letter of offer is considered to be reasonable for the following reasons:

·    The proposed VPA will provide a monetary contribution of $976,147 for public infrastructure improvements.

·    The contribution is considered reasonable considering the estimated land value capture amount, which is discussed below. Council engaged economic consultants, Hill PDA to assess the proposal and recommend a VPA contribution.

 

Land Value Capture – Hill PDA Assessment

14.    Council’s Policy on Planning Agreement, 2016 provides that where development proposed in a development application does not comply with development standards and controls and it will, if approved, result in an increase in the value of the land or the development, Council will determine appropriate contributions by applying land value capture or use an alternative mechanism. For the purpose of the Policy, land value capture is a public financing mechanism by which Council captures for the community’s benefit a share of the unearned increment to developers in land value.

15.    The Policy provides a formula for calculating a monetary contribution associated with land value capture, by assessing the residual land value (RLV) of a site under the existing and proposed controls. The Policy then seeks to capture 50% of the increase in the RLV for public benefits.

16.    Council engaged Hill PDA Consulting to assess the RLV under the existing planning controls and for the Development Application and recommend a VPA contribution in accordance with Council’s Policy. The Hill PDA report is provided as Attachment 2 (Confidential).

17.    In summary Hill PDA recommends, based on Council’s Policy, a monetary contribution of $976,146 (which reflects 50% of the value of the uplift) for the proposed uplift of gross floor area of 1,023m2 based on a rate of $954.20/m2.

18.    If the building scale, range of uses (i.e. hotel and club with basement carparking) and supplied services are varied, a new assessment would need to be undertaken.

19.    As the Illawarra Catholic Clubs offer dated 21 July 2017 is for a monetary contribution of $976,147, the offer is considered to satisfy the Land Value Capture component of Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements.

 

Heads of Agreement

20.    In order for the offer for a proposed VPA to be considered when the Development Application is determined by the South Sydney Planning Panel, and for a condition to be imposed requiring a VPA to be entered into, there must be a binding offer from the Developer to enter into a VPA for the purposes of s93I(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

21.    As the Development Application is schedule to be determined by the South Sydney Planning Panel on 15 August 2017, there is insufficient time for a draft VPA to be prepared, agreed and publicly notified prior to the determination of the Development Application.

22.    Council’s solicitors advise that if the terms of the letter of offer are acceptable to Council, that the offer be endorsed subject to a Heads of Agreement being entered into before any assessment report on the Development Application is finalised and is determined so that a deferred commencement condition of development consent can be imposed requiring the VPA to be entered into before the consent operates.

23.    Council’s solicitor would prepare the draft Heads of Agreement.

 

Next Steps – Delegations

24.    Should Council endorse and accept the offer to enter into a VPA, subject to a Heads of Agreement being entered into, then the following steps will need to occur:

a.   The Council’s solicitor prepare a draft a Heads of Agreement based on the letter of offer and in accordance with the Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements.

b.   The General Manager be given delegation to negotiate and finalise the terms of the Heads of Agreement with the Developer and then enter into the Heads of Agreement.

c.   The parties enter into the Heads of Agreement before the Development Application is determined.

d.   The Council’s solicitor prepare a draft VPA based on the Heads of Agreement and that a copy be provided to Developer for review.

e.   The General Manager be given delegation to discuss the initial draft VPA and negotiate the specific terms of the VPA. This process is circular and may also involve the draft being circulated between legal parties representing Parties to the VPA, until both parties are in agreement with final content of the VPA.

f.    Once final contents of VPA are agreed, the draft VPA must be publicly notified for a minimum of 28 days in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulation.

g.   Following public notification, should no submissions be received objecting the VPA, the General Manager be delegated authority to authorise minor changes to the draft VPA, provided that those changes do not diminish the value or nature of the public benefits to be delivered, and to subsequently enter into the VPA on behalf of Council.

h.   Once entered into, the VPA can be registered on the Title of the land to which it relates.

 

Financial Implications

 

25.    No budget impact for this report.

26.    Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements states that Council will generally require a planning agreement to make provision for payment by the developer of Council’s costs of negotiating, preparing, and executing the planning agreement, as well as monitoring, enforcing and administering the planning agreement.

 

File Reference

17/639

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Club Central - Offer to Enter Voluntary Planning Agreement - 6 Cross Street Hurstville

Attachment View2

Hill PDA VPA Assessment Report for 6-8 Cross Street, Hurstville - July 2017 (Confidential)

 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 7 August 2017                                                                               Page 426

Item:                   CCL154-17        Changes to Notification and Advertising Provisions of Development Control Plans  

Author:              Team Leader Major Projects

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council endorses amendments to Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1, Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 2, and Kogarah Development Control Plan 2012 to harmonise the notification requirements for development applications to ensure consistency with all development applications throughout the LGA.

(b)     That the amended DCP’s be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and its regulation.

(c)     That Council delegate authority to the General Manager to adopt the DCP’s as amended by (a) above if no submissions are received.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      The notification requirements for development applications within Georges River LGA are located in three different Development Control Plans (DCPs).

 

2.      This results in inconsistency in the notification and advertising of development applications.

 

3.      It is proposed to harmonise the notification requirements to improve efficiencies and consistency in application processing through an amendment to the relevant DCPs.

 

4.      This report recommends the relevant DCPs are amended in accordance with the provisions outlined in this report and the draft amendments to the DCPs are placed on exhibition in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Background

5.      The requirements for notification and advertising of development applications for Georges River Council are located in three different DCPs.

 

These are:

 

·    Hurstville Development Control Plan No.1 – Part 2.2

·    Hurstville Development Control Plan No.2 – Part 2.4

·    Kogarah Development Control Plan 2012 – Part A2

 

6.      The notification and advertising requirements are inconsistent throughout the LGA in terms of the types of applications that are notified and the extent of notification.

 

7.      It is proposed to prepare an amendment to the three DCPs so that the notification requirements are clear, consistent and easily understood for different development types. The amendment to the DCPs will involve the deletion of the above DCP parts and the insertion of new provisions.

 

8.      Benefits of consistent requirements for the notification and advertising of DAs include:

·    Consistency in the "front end" process of development assessment.

·    Greater certainty for customer service staff in receipting applications.

·    One set of notification standards for development types.

·    Increased community confidence in what developments are notified.

·    Assisting applicants in determining whether a notification or advertising fee is required and reduce time spent requesting additional fees for notification if not paid.

·    Assisting in the implementation of the NSW Planning Portal.

 

9.      The provisions for the notification of DAs at Christmas and Easter Holiday periods have been amended to be consistent with the Draft Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2017.

 

Draft DCP Provisions

10.    The draft DCP provisions will be based on the following information/controls.

 

Purpose

11.    The primary aims of this Section are to:

·    Enable public participation in the consideration of development applications.

·    Provide a process for property owners and residents to make submissions.

·    Provide a process when notification is required.

·    Set out the matters Council will consider when forming its opinion as to whether or not the enjoyment of adjoining and neighbouring land may be detrimentally affected by a development after its completion.

·    This section applies to development applications, modifications, reviews of determinations.

 

Applications which will not be notified

12.    Council will not notify or advertise applications for proposals which in its opinion are unlikely to have an adverse impact on the locality.

 

13.    The following table outlines when the notification is not required:

Description

Criteria

The proposal represents exempt or complying development

-

Demolition of buildings

Buildings are not Heritage Items or items within a Heritage Conservation Area

Strata, Stratum or Company Title Subdivision

-

Torrens Title Subdivisions/Consolidation

No creation of new lots except for subdivision of existing dual occupancies

Applications to modify a consent under Section 96(1) or (1A) of the EP&A Act

Will not significantly alter the intensity or likely adverse impact of the proposal

Applications for new signage

Illuminated signage is not located in residential area.

Change of use

Not located in a residential zone

New use is not a pub, brothel, registered club or child care centre

The proposed operating hours are between 6am -10pm

Proposal does not rely on "existing use" rights

New secondary dwellings

Proposals comply with setback and height controls in any LEP or DCP

Works in drainage easements

 -

Additions to dwellings

Single storey and comply with DCP setbacks

New single dwellings and alterations and additions to dwellings

There are no first floor rear balconies

 

The application complies with:

 · Maximum Height;

 · Maximum FSR;

 

The site is not in a Foreshore Protection Area (FSPA).

 

Outbuildings, swimming pools, landscape works and ancillary structures (eg, awnings, cabanas, sheds, detached garages; carports; retaining walls; decks)

Associated with residential use

Home business/home activity

Use is contained within a dwelling or outbuilding and is unlikely to cause an amenity impact through noise, odours, etc

Minor structures in public reserves (eg, amenities blocks, shade structures, fencing etc)

Minimal impact on any adjoining residential development

Alterations to industrial or commercial premises

Minimal likely impact any adjoining residential development

Proposal complies with car parking provisions

Internal alterations to any building

Will not significantly alter the intensity or likely adverse impact of the existing building

 

Amendments to an undetermined application

Will not significantly alter the intensity or likely adverse impact of the proposal

 

Other minor development applications

Minimal likely impact any adjoining residential development

 

Applications for Review under S82A or s96AB of the Act

No significant amendments to the plans or significant new information has been submitted

 

Category A Notification requirements - Minor Local Development

14.    The following notification requirements apply to developments that are unlikely to have a major impact on the amenity of the locality eg:

·    New dwelling houses in FSPA;

·    New dual occupancies;

·    New secondary dwellings (granny flats) greater than single storey;

·    New semi-detached dwellings, or new small lot housing;

·    New Torrens Title subdivisions (excluding subdivision of approved dual occupancy developments and consolidations); and

·    Any other development Council considers should be notified.

 

(a)  A written notice will be forwarded to the owners and occupiers of land on either side of the proposal, the property at the rear and one (1) property on either side of the rear and three (3) properties generally opposite (across any road, except for a main road eg. Princes Highway).

 

(b)  The owners and occupiers of other neighbouring land and other strata units of the subject site may be notified if in the opinion of Council, the proposed development is likely to result in an adverse impact for those owners or occupiers.

 

(c)   In the case of Strata Titled properties, a notice will be forwarded to the Owners Corporation, or an Association (under the Community Land Development Act 1989), as well as the owners and occupiers of each strata unit.

 

Category B Notification requirements – Other Local Development

15.    For other development not listed above including, but not limited to:

·    New attached dwellings;

·    New multi-unit housing;

·    New residential flat buildings;

·    New mixed use premises;

·    New seniors housing developments; 

·    Tourist & visitor accommodation;

·    New buildings in a Business or Light Industrial Zone; 

·    New child care centres;

·    Affordable rental housing and boarding houses; and

·    Any other development Council considers should be notified.

 

(a)  A written notice will be forwarded to the owners and occupiers of land located two (2) properties on either side of the proposal, the property at the rear and one (1) property on either side of the rear and three (3) properties generally opposite (across any road).

(b)  The owners and occupiers of other neighbouring land and other strata units of the subject site may be notified who, in the opinion of Council, may be impacted by the proposal.

(c)   In the case of Strata Titled properties, a notice will be forwarded to the Owners Corporation, or an Association (under the Community Land Development Act 1989), as well as the owners and occupiers of each strata unit

(d)  For alterations and additions to any of the above, notification will be based on the discretion of Coordinator or Manager Development Assessment.

 

Where public concern is raised to any application, Council may consider a wider notification of an application or extension in the time available for comment should the case warrant such action.

 

Category C – Major Developments to be Advertised

16.    The following development applications will be advertised:

·    Demolition and/or alteration of a building or land that is or contains a heritage item listed on Schedule 5 of the Hurstville LEP 2012; and KLEP 2012 and or within HCA.

·    New hospitals or major works to existing hospitals;

·    New educational establishments or major works to existing educational establishments;

·    New places of public worship;

·    New applications for Seniors Housing or Group Homes;

·    New Pubs and Registered Clubs or major intensification of existing pubs and clubs; and

·    Any development required to be advertised under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, Regulations or any other Environmental Planning Instrument.

 

17.    All applications requiring advertising will be subject to the notification requirements in Category B above.

 

18.    A notice will be placed in a local paper (currently The St George and Sutherland Shire Leader) and will provide the address of the application and a brief description of the application.

 

19.    Due to the sometimes protracted period of time required to schedule advertisements in newspapers and to avoid delays the notice is for information purposes only and will not offer a 14 day period for submissions. Notification will still be undertaken to affected neighbours in accordance with this DCP.

 

20.    The notice will advise citizens to visit Council’s website or administration centre to view the application. Where legislation requires particular proposals to be advertised in a newspaper in a specific manner, the requirements of the relevant legislation will be followed instead of this guideline.

 

Site Notice/Site Sign

21.    A site notice/site sign will only be placed on sites for development in Category B and C, and new dual occupancies (outlined in Category A).

 

22.    The notice must be erected by Council on the land to which the development application relates.

 

23.    The notice must:

·    Contain lettering which is clear, legible and able to be read from a public road, public place or public reserve.

·    A statement that the application has been lodged; The name of the applicant; a brief description of the development application.

·    A statement specifying that any person may make a submission in writing to Council in relation to the development application.

·    A statement outlining that any submissions are available for viewing by the applicant or any other person with a relevant interest in the application.

·    Directions to Council’s webpage and specifically to online tracking.

 

Section 96 Modifications

 

24.    Where Council receives an application under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify a development consent where the proposed modification would have more than a minor increased impact on any neighbouring property, Council will notify:

·    The owners of land and any other person who has previously lodged a submission to the original or previous application to which the s96 application relates; and

·    Any other owners of land, who, in the opinion of Council, may be impacted by the proposal and any amendments or variations to that application.


 

Notification Period for Development Applications

 

25.    A period of 14 calendar days, excluding public holidays, will be allowed for persons to inspect an application and make a submission. The inspection period may be extended by Council if warranted by the circumstances of the case.

·    In the case of nominated integrated development or threatened species development, any period specified by the Regulations.

·    To account for the holiday period associated with Christmas and New Year, from 15 December to 15 January the following year, the period to inspect an application and make a submission will be extended to 21 calendar days, excluding public holidays.

·    To account for the holiday period associated with Easter, the period to inspect an application and make a submission will be extended to 21 calendar days, excluding public holidays. The holiday period for Easter is defined as the week before and the week after the Easter Long Weekend.

·    Council will not determine a development application before the notification period has expired.

 

26.    Development applications that have been notified are available to view on Council’s website: www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au.

 

27.    Development applications may also be inspected electronically at Council from Monday to Friday during business hours and submissions can be made by any one during the notification period.

 

Who Can Inspect Plans and make a submission?

28.    Any person, whether or not entitled to be given formal notice under the provisions of this Plan, may at any time during the notification period, inspect free of charge, the details or plans of a development application.

 

29.    A copy of the notification plan and/or copies of other parts of the application plans (as permitted by copyright laws) can be obtained by any person under the provisions of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.

 

30.    Any person, whether or not they were notified of a development may make a submission to an application

 

31.    Council will consider all submissions, but not take into account matters extraneous to those prescribed within this DCP, other policies of Council, or the relevant Acts and Regulations. Personal disputes between neighbours will not be considered.

 

32.    Where a submission in the form of a petition is received, the petition should specify the details of the contact person to whom all correspondence must be addressed. A letter or email sent to that contact person is taken to be a letter to all signatories on that petition. 

 

33.    Council will not acknowledge the receipt of submissions, but will notify all submitters of any IHAP or Council meeting. All persons who made submissions (and head petitioners) will be advised in writing of Council’s decision after the application is determined.

 

Next Steps

34.    The draft amended DCPs will be publicly exhibited in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for public comment and a further report will be presented to Council following public comment.


 

Financial Implications

8.      No budget impact for this report.

 

File Reference

17/1955

 

  Item:        CCL155-17        Draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy 

 

Author:              Coordinator Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

Recommendation

(a) That the draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy attached at Attachment 1 be publicly exhibited for no less than 28 days in accordance with the Engagement Strategy out lined in the body of the report.

 

(b) That a further report be presented to Council following the exhibition of the draft Strategy, including a summary of submissions and recommendations with respect to the finalisation of the draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy.

 

(c)  That if no submissions are received on the draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy that the Strategy is submitted to the General Manager for adoption.

 

 

(d) That GHD be appointed for the purposes of updating the Hurstville City Centre Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (the “TMAP”) for the reasons outlined in the body of the report, with the scope of works to be determined but at a minimum for the work to be undertaken as outlined in the body of the report.

 

(e) That once the TMAP has been updated, a report be presented to Council outlining the recommendations for the Hurstville City Centre.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

1.   The finalisation of planning controls for the Hurstville City Centre has had a long history and the making of Amendment No. 3 to Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (“HLEP”) 2012 (Hurstville City Centre LEP) in July 2015 resulted in a number of sites having a mismatch between the maximum building height and maximum FSR.

 

2.   Council has received nine (9) Planning Proposals within the Hurstville City Centre since the gazettal of Amendment No. 3, including the three planning proposals for the deferred matters, requesting amendments to the existing land use zones and increases in the development standards.

 

3.   In December 2016, Council engaged SJB Architects to prepare a draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy to review and update the existing urban design principles for the Hurstville City Centre, review the existing development standards (including maximum building height and maximum FSR) and prepare block by block urban design controls. A copy of the draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy in included at Attachment 1.

 

4.   The key objectives of the revised Urban Design Strategy include:

 

a)   To provide a logical approach to the built form controls;

b)   To reinforce the role of Hurstville as a gateway to southern Sydney;

c)   To strengthen the use of public and active transport to and within the centre;

d)   To enhance and strengthen the identity of the centre;

e)   To improve pedestrian connectivity and movement; and

f)    To provide block by block planning controls for the centre.

 

5.   The draft Strategy has been informed by an in-depth urban design and planning analysis and a series of place based considerations. This includes a review of the current and proposed role of the Hurstville City Centre, as well as detailed analysis of the existing urban and environmental conditions within the study area and the surrounding context.

 

6.   The study area has been subdivided into eight character precincts, based on the physical features and predominant uses within each area of the City Centre. The division of precincts is adapted from those included in the current Development Control Plan No. 2 - Hurstville City Centre (Amendment No. 6) (“DCP2”) and informed by the detailed analysis and understanding of the existing and future character of the centre.

 

7.   The findings from the analysis have been categorised as a set of opportunities and constraints that assess the impact of built form on existing features and summarise key considerations for the future growth and development of the Hurstville City Centre.

 

8.   A set of consolidated principles have been adapted from those proposed by the two previous studies; the Hurstville City Centre Master Plan (Government Architect’s Office, 2004) and the Urban Design Options Report (Hassell, 2009). The principles and objectives outlined in these two reports were assessed against the analysis and data collected by SJB and summarised under the following themes:

 

a)   Connectivity

b)   Public Domain and Open Space

c)   Built Form and Design Excellence

d)   Character and Views

e)   Sustainability and Wellbeing

f)    Liveability

g)   Employment

 

9.   Following a workshop undertaken with Georges River Council staff, a renewed vision was established for the Hurstville City Centre:

 

“Hurstville is a dynamic and vibrant city centre that reflects the cultural diversity of its community. The centre offers a range of opportunities to live, work and play, as well as excellent connections to other nearby centres. A range of general and civic services and employment uses thrive throughout the centre, enhanced by excellent access to public transport. A commitment to excellence in design and governance will ensure an improved built form and public domain that showcases environmental sustainability, promotes social well-being and contributes to a revitalised Hurstville identity.”  (Chapter 4, Section 4.4 - p.59)

 

10. An overarching strategy was developed to outline the key changes required to achieve the key objective; “…to strengthen the role of the Hurstville City Centre as a vibrant regional centre by improving the day-to-day liveability within the centre.” (Chapter 4, Section 4.5 - p.60) The primary objectives are listed below:

a)   maintain primacy of Forest Road as a pedestrian high-street with local businesses, supported by Westfield Shopping Centre;

b)   maintain amenity and safety along Forest Road to enhance and support the vibrant street life;

c)   create and strengthen existing key gateways to mark the entrances to the Centre;

d)   improve connectivity to surrounding open spaces;

e)   encourage public transport as the primary mode of transport;

f)    ensure amenity is retained through the public domain via built form controls; and

g)   rationalise Height and FSR controls to allow appropriate built form.

 

11. A set of four structure plans expand on the conceptual strategy. The plans enable the renewed vision and principles to be delivered through a series of strategic moves, outlined by key principles for each structure plan. These principles are supported by the analysis and explored through case studies, testing of options and research of precedents. The structure plans address the following:

 

a)   Day and Night Time Activity

b)   Access and Movement

c)   Public Domain and Open Space

d)   Built Form

 

12. The draft Strategy presents a series of recommendations for the opportunity sites. It is recommended that Council seek the views of landowners and other affected stakeholder with respect to these recommendations.

 

Background

 

13. The finalisation of planning controls for the Hurstville City Centre has had a long history and the making of Amendment No. 3 to Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012 (Hurstville City Centre LEP) in July 2015 resulted in a number of sites having a mismatch between the maximum building height and maximum FSR.

 

14. In May 2016, the former Hurstville and Kogarah Councils were amalgamated to form the Georges River Council.

 

15. Georges River Council has received nine (9) Planning Proposals within the Hurstville City Centre since the gazettal of Amendment No. 3, including the three (3) planning proposals for the deferred matters. These Planning Proposals request amendments to the existing land use zones and increases in the development standards (maximum building height and maximum floor space ratio).

 

16. The consultant firm, SJB Architects were engaged in December 2016 to prepare a draft Urban Design Strategy for the Hurstville City Centre (the “draft Strategy”). The extent of the study area is indicated in Figure 1 below.

 

Figure 1: Study Area – Hurstville City Centre [Refer to Attachment 2 for higher resolution detail]

 

17. The subject land is zoned B3 - Commercial Core and B4 - Mixed Use under Hurstville LEP 2012 and B4 - Mixed Use under Kogarah LEP 2012.

 

18. The subject land includes three sites that are identified as a “Deferred Matter” by the Minister under Section 59(3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. These sites are marked “DM” and demonstrate the built form requested in the planning proposals lodged on the Map in Figure 1. They include:

a.   Hurstville Civic Precinct

b.   Westfield Hurstville site

c.   Treacy Street car park site

 

19. Planning Proposals have been lodged for these “deferred” sites and are currently undergoing independent assessment. The assessment of these planning proposals needs to be finalised by 10 March 2018.

 

20. SJB Architects provided urban design advice on the deferred matters in advance to assist the consultants undertaking independent assessment of the planning proposals and it is anticipated that the consultant’s independent reports on the deferred matters will be presented to Council later this year.

 

21. The draft Strategy provides a block by block analysis of specific sites (identified as opportunity sites) within the Hurstville City Centre and provides recommendations with respect to height and in some cases, FSR.

 

22. It should be noted that the recommendations in the draft Strategy generally do not increase the overall FSR within the Centre, rather they aim to rationalise the heights and FSRs across the blocks to allow appropriate built form.

 

23. The draft Strategy also includes:

 

i.    An analysis the metropolitan and strategic context,

ii.   An overview of the key background documents,

iii.  A built form analysis

iv.  Draft urban design recommendations for the Hurstville City Centre.

 

24. In conjunction with the draft Strategy, the consultant has prepared a 3D Model of the Hurstville City Centre that has facilitated the urban design analysis and assisted in identifying built form and spatial outcomes. The model will be handed over to Council in a suitable format and can be utilised by Council to test any future development applications or planning proposals in the City Centre.

 

25. As background to the preparation of the draft Strategy the following studies were reviewed:

i.    Hurstville City Centre Masterplan (2004) – NSW Government Architect’s Office.

ii.   Hurstville City Centre Public Domain Plan (2007) – Environmental Partnership.

iii.  Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Options (2009) – Hassell.

iv.  Hurstville City Centre Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP, 2013) – GHD.

v.   Review of Commercial Core Zone in Hurstville LEP, 2012 (2015) – AEC Group and SJB Planning.

 

Background to the Preparation of the draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy

 

26. The structure of the draft final report captures the process undertaken in the development and preparation of the draft Strategy.

 

27. Each chapter represents a new phase in the advancement of the Strategy, supplementing and advancing the findings from the previous chapters. Re-evaluation of the project as it evolved has led to an iterative design process with regular input from Council, which has ensured an integrated and cohesive final draft Strategy.

 

28. SJB Architects worked closely with Georges River Council to develop the final draft Strategy. As part of this process, a series of workshops were undertaken with council to identify the renewed vision and key design principles for the Hurstville City Centre. Testing and refinement of the built form recommendations occurred over several workshops and mark-ups of draft reports by Council, all of which has informed the final strategy presented within the report. 

 

29. The draft Strategy was also presented to the Executive Team at Georges River Council on 12 April 2017 and assessed by the St George Design Review Panel (the “Panel”) on 4 May 2017. The comments and recommendations from these reviews have been integrated into the final draft Strategy.

 

30. The Panel has provided advice under the nine design principles of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development. The Panel have provided in principle support to the draft Strategy and have advised that the proposed height and density be arranged based on agreed urban design principles leading to sustainable built form outcomes that will minimise overshadowing impacts on adjacent public and private spaces.

 

The Hurstville City Centre

 

Regional Context:

 

31. The study area is situated in South Sydney, 15km south west of the Sydney CBD.

 

32. Hurstville is considered a ‘gateway’ to Southern Sydney and is identified as a regional centre in the southern region. The centre is considered a highly liveable location with good access to services and employment.

 

33. The centre is well-connected, with the region’s main transport interchange located in the centre and the nearby M5 Motorway providing easy access to other strategic centres and employment and entertainment opportunities.

 

LEP Controls:

 

34. The two Local Environmental Plans that apply in the Hurstville City Centre are:

a)   Hurstville LEP 2012 - Area to the north of the rail line.

b)   Kogarah LEP 2012 (Amendment No. 2) gazetted on 26 May, 2017 - Remaining area to the south of the rail line.

 

35. The central part of the City Centre is zoned B3 - Commercial Core, surrounded by B4- Mixed Use and pockets of SP2 - Infrastructure zones.

 

36. The maximum height and FSR controls vary considerably across the City Centre. The bulk of the height is focused around the Eastern and Western ends, as well as the Hurstville Station and bus interchange. The current built form controls are generally a result of recent residential developments in these areas.

 

37. Several heritage items are identified within the area to the north of the railway line, including churches, houses, substations, signific