Environment and Planning Committee

Notice of Meeting

Tuesday, 12 June 2018

 

 

   

A meeting of the Environment and Planning Committee will be held at 6.00pm on Tuesday 12 June 2018 in the Dragon Room, Level 1, Georges River Civic Centre, corner Dora and MacMahon Streets, Hurstville, for the consideration of the business available on Council’s website at

http://www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/Council/Council-Meetings

 

 

 

 

BUSINESS

 

1.      Apologies

2.      Disclosures of Interest

3.      Minutes of previous meetings

4.      Committee Reports

 


Environment and Planning Standing Committee Meeting

Summary of Items

Tuesday, 12 June 2018

 

Previous Minutes

MINUTES: Environment and Planning - 14 May 2018 

 

Committee Reports

ENV013-18       Planning Proposal for Landmark Square Precinct at 53-75 Forest Road 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane Hurstville

(Report by Strategic Planner)....................................................................................... 2

ENV014-18       Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy

(Report by Senior Strategic Planner)....................................................................... 16

ENV015-18       Notification & Advertising Development Control Plans - Amended Plans

(Report by Strategic Planner).................................................................................... 40

ENV016-18       Economic Development Advisory Committee Minutes Monday 4 June 2018

(Report by Economic Development Officer)............................................................ 44   

 


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Standing Committee Meeting -  Tuesday, 12 June 2018       Page 3

4.      Committee Reports

Item:                   ENV013-18        Planning Proposal for Landmark Square Precinct at 53-75 Forest Road 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane Hurstville 

Author:              Strategic Planner

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

(a) That Council rescind the Council resolution CCL146-17 (3) and (4)(iii) dated 7 August 2017 in relation to the provision of affordable housing at 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville (PP2015/0001) due to the absence of an Affordable Housing Policy and any substantive provisions in the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 requiring affordable housing.

 

(b) That Council endorse the preparation of a Planning Proposal to amend the Land Reservation Acquisition Map of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 to include a 3 metre wide local road widening along the Roberts Lane boundary of the properties at 53 Forest Road, 9 Roberts Lane and 108 Durham Street, Hurstville.

 

(c)  That all owners of the properties at 53 Forest Road, 9 Roberts Lane and 108 Durham Street, Hurstville be notified by Council, in writing, of the proposed Planning Proposal to amend the Land Reservation Acquisition Map of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 to include a 3 metre wide local road widening along the Roberts Lane boundary.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      At its meeting on 7 August 2017 (Item CCL146-17), Council endorsed that the Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) for the Landmark Square Precinct at 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”) as follows:

a)   Rezone the land 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)   To amend the Active Street Frontages Map to apply an active street frontage along Forest Road and Durham Street frontages of the site; and

e)   To provide a bonus FSR of 0.5:1 for hotel accommodation land uses at the portion of the site located on the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street.

 

2.      At this meeting, Council delegated the General Manager to negotiate the provision of affordable housing on the site.

 

3.      This report provides an outline of the progress to date regarding the negotiation to provide affordable housing in accordance with Council’s resolution (CCL146-17) and recommends that affordable housing requirements be removed from the Landmark Square Precinct in light of the legal advice obtained by Council due to the absence of State Environmental Planning Policy No 70—Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) and a draft Affordable Housing Policy for Georges River Council or any substantive provisions in the HLEP 2012 requiring the provision of affordable housing.

 

4.      This report also seeks Council’s endorsement for the preparation of a separate Planning Proposal that amends the HLEP 2012 in relation to the three (3) properties located at the eastern side of the Landmark Square Precinct (i.e. 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane) to:

a)   Amend the Land Reservation Acquisition Map to include a 3m wide local road widening along the Roberts Lane boundary (refer Figure 6); and

b)   Amend Clause 5.1 Relevant acquisition authority to nominate Council to acquire land for the public purpose of local road widening.

 

5.      It is anticipated that the road widening will occur when a future development application is lodged seeking consent for the redevelopment of 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and/or 9 Roberts Lane. When acquisition is required, negotiation between Council and the property owner will be conducted in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.

 

6.      It should be noted that the remaining allotment in the Precinct which has a frontage to Roberts Lane is located at street address 61-65 Forest Road. This allotment is one of the eight allotments affected by the Voluntary Planning Agreement (“VPA”) Offer associated with the Planning Proposal which identifies a 3 metre wide strip of land adjoining Roberts Lane to be dedicated at no cost to Council.

 

7.      Road widening at 61-65 Forest Road will be carried out as per the conditions of the VPA and will not be affected by the proposed amendments to the Land Reservation Acquisition Map and Clause 5.1 of the HLEP 2012.

 

8.      Refer to the following Figure 1 for the location of the land reservation acquisition (highlighted in yellow) and the location of the VPA road widening offer (highlighted in blue).

Figure 1 – Location of Land Reservation Acquisition and VPA Road Widening

 

Background

9.      The request to prepare a Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) for the Landmark Square Precinct bound by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane was originally submitted by Dickson Rothschild (“the applicant”) on 16 June 2015 on behalf of One Capital Pty Ltd (now Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd); refer to location plan in Figure 2.


 

Figure 2 – Location Plan of Landmark Square Precinct

 

10.    The Planning Proposal was subsequently amended a number of times with variations to the requested height, FSR, quantum of retail / commercial and number of residential apartments. The detailed chronology of events was previously reported to Council at its meeting dated 7 August 2017 (Item CCL146-17).

 

11.    The applicant’s latest revised Planning Proposal and associated documentation was lodged on 9 June 2017 and was referred to Council’s Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (“IHAP”) at its meeting dated 20 July 2017. IHAP recommended that the Planning Panel 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.

 

12.    At its meeting dated 7 August 2017 (Item CCL146-17), Council considered the Planning Proposal in light of the IHAP recommendations but the Planning Proposal request was supported to be forwarded for Gateway Determination. Council resolved:

 

(1) That Council acknowledge the recommendations of the Georges River IHAP in relation to the “Hurstville East” Planning Proposal for the provision of affordable housing, detailed urban design analysis and site amalgamation.

(2) That Council support forwarding to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission a request for a Gateway Determination under section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for the “Hurstville East” Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect of land known as 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville:

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

e.   To provide a bonus FSR of 0.5:1 for hotel accommodation land uses at the portion of the site located on the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street.

(3) (a) That Council delegate the General Manager to negotiate with the proponent on the provisions of the affordable housing on the site in association with the uplift proposed in the “Hurstville East” Planning Proposal, prior to the issue of the Gateway Determination by the Greater Sydney Commission.

(b) Should negotiations referred to in (a) above not be finalised prior to the issue of the Gateway Determination, a further report be submitted to Council outlining progress to date and providing options for satisfactory completion of the matter.

(4) That if a Gateway Determination is issued by the Greater Sydney Commission or its delegate under Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that the Planning Proposal should proceed, then prior to community consultation, the following shall be undertaken:

(i)   The proponent shall prepare a revised urban design analysis that assesses the inter-relationship between the proposed height and floor space ratio and considering provision of ground level communal open space, street setbacks, road widening and compliance with all aspects of the Apartment Design Guide; and

(ii)  Site amalgamation provisions are developed in order to ensure superior development outcome based on the maximum floor space ratios and heights; and

(iii) A suitable mechanism for the delivery of affordable housing on the site be agreed.

(5) That 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 should proceed, Council prepare an amendment to the Hurstville DCP to run concurrently with an amendment to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, which reflects the revised urban design analysis for future  development of the site including the inter-relationship between the proposed height and floor space ratio, amount and location of ground level open space, landscaped setbacks, deep soil areas, site  access, road widening, through site links and site amalgamation requirements. The DCP shall be prepared at the proponents cost.

(6) That all land owners the subject of the Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“Hurstville LEP 2012”) be notified of Council’s resolution.

(7) That the General Manager place the Planning Proposal on formal public exhibition subject to the satisfactory completion of the requirements of the recommendations 3 to 5 and in accordance with the conditions of any Gateway Determination issued by the Department of Planning and Environment.

 

13.    In accordance with the Council resolution, the Planning Proposal was forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment (“DPE”) on 5 September 2017 and Council received a Gateway Determination (approval) to exhibit the Planning Proposal on 19 October 2017. Refer to Attachment 1 for the Gateway Determination.

 

14.    The Planning Proposal and Gateway conditions do not propose any amendments pertaining to the provision of affordable housing or land reservation acquisition for the purpose of local road widening.

 

15.    The Planning Proposal is accompanied by a Voluntary Planning Agreement (“VPA”). Council considered a report on the Heads of Agreement (“HoA”) to enter into a VPA at its meeting of 7 August 2017 (CCL147-17). The HoA outlines the terms of the VPA, which delivers additional public benefits over and above the usual Section 7.11 contributions (former Section 94) applicable to the development.

 

16.    The VPA applies to the eight lots owned by the proponent, Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd, at street address 61-75 Forest Road and 126 Durham Street, Hurstville. The following public benefits are identified by the HoA accepted by Council at its meeting on 7 August 2017:

 

a)   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 HLEP 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.

b)   The construction and dedication at no cost to Council of 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.

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

 

Councillor Workshop

17.    A Councillor workshop outlining the Planning Proposal, the VPA and the draft DCP amendment for the Landmark Square Precinct at 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville was held on 9 April 2018.

 

18.    The following two issues were raised at the workshop in relation to the previous Council resolution at its meeting dated 7 August 2017 and the approved Planning Proposal:

 

a)   The inability to enforce the delivery of affordable housing on the site; and

b)   The absence of a road widening amendment to the HLEP 2012 in the Planning Proposal despite the intent to enable two-way traffic on Roberts Lane.

 

19.    The following sections of this report detail the proposed recommendations to resolve these two critical issues.

 

Removal of Requirement for Affordable Housing

20.    As noted above in resolution (3), Council at its meeting dated 7 August 2017 resolved to delegate the General Manager to negotiate with the proponent on the provision of affordable housing in the Landmark Square Precinct in association with the uplift proposed in the Planning Proposal, prior to the issue of the Gateway Determination.

 

21.    The Gateway Determination was issued by the DPE on 19 October 2017 (refer Attachment 1). Negotiations regarding the provision of affordable housing were not finalised before the Gateway Determination was issued.

 

22.    Through post-Gateway discussions between Council staff and the applicant, it was agreed that the site specific DCP which accompanies the Planning Proposal would be the most appropriate mechanism for the delivery of affordable housing on the site as affordable housing should be provided as part of any future development application.

 

23.    However, the legal advice obtained by Council (as summarised in the following paragraphs) indicates that if Council is to introduce affordable housing on the site by way of a DCP; that provision would be liable to be declared invalid by a court and severed from the DCP.

 

24.    The principal purpose of a DCP is to provide guidance on the achievement of any environmental planning instrument. Therefore, a DCP can be made in relation to both the aims of the relevant LEP, in this case being HLEP 2012, and any State Environmental Planning Policy. This is stipulated by Section 3.42(1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (“EP&A Act”) as below:

 

3.42   Purpose and status of development control plans;

(1)  The principal purpose of a development control plan is to provide guidance on the following matters to the persons proposing to carry out development to which this Part applies and to the consent authority for any such development:

(a) giving effect to the aims of any environmental planning instrument that applies to the development,

(b) facilitating development that is permissible under any such instrument,

(c)  achieving the objectives of land zones under any such instrument.

 

25.    Section 3.42(1) of the EP&A Act also stipulates that the provisions of a DCP are not statutory requirements; therefore cannot be legally enforced:

 

“The provisions of a development control plan made for that purpose are not statutory requirements.”

 

26.    In light of the above, a DCP requirement cannot be made in relation to the provision of affordable housing on the site due to the absence of any substantive provisions in the HLEP 2012 requiring the provision of affordable housing.

 

27.    Furthermore, based on previous advice provided by the Department of Planning and Environment, Council currently does not have an affordable housing policy and therefore is unable to demonstrate that there is a need for affordable housing in the LGA. For this reason, the State Environmental Planning Policy No 70—Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) does not apply to the Georges River LGA and Council cannot require the provision of affordable housing or levy contributions for affordable housing.

 

28.    It should be noted that Council has applied a consistent approach in the assessment of all incoming Planning Proposals. The provision of affordable housing has not been requested in any other Planning Proposal to date due to the absence of any substantive provisions in the HLEP 2012.

 

29.    For the above reasons, it is recommended that affordable housing requirements be removed from the site specific DCP and Planning Proposal for the Landmark Square Precinct, and that the previous Council resolution pertaining to the provision of affordable housing on the site be rescinded as per this report’s recommendation above. This is based on the reasoning that Council currently does not have any affordable housing policy in place and the provision of affordable housing cannot be legally enforced.

 

Addition of Road Widening to Roberts Lane

30.    At its meeting dated 20 July 2017, the Georges River Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (“IHAP”) considered a report on the Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) for the Landmark Square Precinct at 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville.

 

31.    In the IHAP report, Council officers recommended that all owners of the Precinct be notified by Council in writing of the Planning Proposal and the proposed DCP requirements of road widening and through-site links.

 

32.    The Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) for Landmark Square which was forwarded to the DPE for Gateway Determination is accompanied by various documentation including an Urban Design Report prepared by Dickson Rothschild (refer Attachment 2) and a Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment prepared by Mott MacDonald (refer Attachment 3).

 

33.    A 3 metre wide strip of land along the Roberts Lane boundary of the Precinct has been explicitly nominated by both the Urban Design Report and the Traffic Impact Assessment to be dedicated for the purpose of road widening to enable two-way traffic access and medium rigid vehicles (“MRV”) access on Roberts Lane e.g. waste collection and delivery vehicles.

 

34.    The Urban Design Report includes an architectural concept scheme which illustrates the uplift sought by the Planning Proposal through an envelope massing master plan (refer Figure 3 following). The indicative ground floor plan is illustrated in Figure 4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3 – Proposed Envelope Massing Master Plan

 


 

Figure 4 – Indicative Ground Floor Plan

 

35.    As evident in Figures 3 and 4 above, the proposed maximum building envelope features a 3m setback from the existing Roberts Lane boundary. This 3 metre setback is intended to be free of any built structures for the purpose of road widening for Roberts Lane.

 

36.    The Traffic Impact Assessment proposes 2, two-way vehicle access points with one on Durham Street and another on Roberts Lane (refer Figure 5) with the intention of consolidating access points to offer safe and efficient access to and from the surrounding road network.


 

Figure 5 – Proposed Vehicle Access Points

 

37.    Roberts Lane currently functions as a one-way (southbound) narrow laneway approximately 3.6 metres wide for vehicle access and a total width measuring approximately 6 metres between the property boundaries on either side of the lane.

 

38.    The 3 metre road widening would enable Roberts Lane to be increased to a 9 metre wide public road which could accommodate a 2 metre wide pedestrian footpath on the western side of the Lane and a minimum 6 metre wide two-way carriageway.

 

39.    To enable two-way vehicle access on Roberts Lane, the Traffic Impact Assessment states that the proposal includes a 3 metre wide strip of land along Roberts Lane for the purpose of road widening. The traffic modelling utilised by the Traffic Impact Assessment is based on the condition that Roberts Lane is widened by 3 metres.

 

40.    Furthermore, land dedication for the purpose of local road widening is also included in the Voluntary Planning Agreement (“VPA”) Offer associated with the Planning Proposal which identifies a 3 metre wide strip of land adjoining Roberts Lane to be dedicated at no cost to Council, refer to a detailed breakdown of the VPA above.

 

41.    However, due to the fragmented ownership of the various allotments within the Landmark Square Precinct, the VPA can only be made with the proponent of the Planning Proposal who is currently in possession of eight lots 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, known as 61-75 Forest Road and 126 Durham Street, Hurstville.

 

42.    For this reason, the 3 metre local road widening of Roberts Lane as part of the VPA can only be applied to a segment of Roberts Lane which is under the possession of the proponent as identified in Figure 6.

 

 

Figure 6 – Extent of Road Widening under VPA Offer

43.    Due to the absence of a VPA and other statutory means to implement the widening of Roberts Lane along the length of the Landmark Square Precinct, it is recommended that a separate Planning Proposal be prepared by Council to amend the Land Reservation Acquisition Map of the HLEP 2012 to include a 3 metre wide local road widening at the Roberts Lane boundary of 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane.

 

44.    A consistent 3 metre road widening will enable two-way vehicle access, access for service vehicles such as delivery and waste collection trucks and the provision of a continuous pedestrian footpath with street planting on Roberts Lane. Refer to Figure 1 for the extent of the proposed road widening in relation to the Precinct.

 

Land Reservation Acquisition amendment to the HLEP 2012

45.    This report is seeking Council’s endorsement for the preparation of a Planning Proposal that amends the HLEP 2012 in relation to the three properties located at the eastern boundary of the Landmark Square Precinct (i.e. 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane) to:

a)      Amend the Land Reservation Acquisition Map to include a 3 metre wide local road widening along the Roberts Lane boundary; and

b)      Amend Clause 5.1 Relevant acquisition authority to nominate Council to acquire the land for local road widening.

 

46.    The road widening Planning Proposal will be prepared as a separate but supplementary Planning Proposal to be publicly exhibited and gazetted concurrently with the Landmark Square Precinct Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) subject to Council endorsement and Gateway Determination.

 

47.    Under Section 3.14(1)(c) of the EP&A Act, an environmental planning instrument may make provisions to reserve land for the purpose of a public place within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

48.    Roberts Lane is a public road, which is defined by the Local Government Act 1993 as a type of public place. The proposed land reservation acquisition intends to designate land for the purpose of widening an existing public road.

 

49.    The local road widening will consist of a 3 metre wide strip along Roberts Lane and will affect the properties located at 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane. Refer to Figure 7 below for the proposed location of the land reservation acquisition in relation to the Landmark Square Precinct.

 

Figure 7 – 3m Wide Land Reservation Acquisition for Local Road Widening

 

50.    Clause 5.1 of the HLEP 2012 will apply to the local road widening of Roberts Lane. In accordance with this clause, the 3 metre wide strip of land is required to be acquired under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.

 

51.    It is anticipated that the road widening will occur when a future development application is lodged seeking consent for the redevelopment of 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and/or 9 Roberts Lane. When acquisition is required, negotiation between Council and the property owner will be conducted in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.

 

52.    Road widening at 61-65 Forest Road will be carried out as per the conditions of the VPA and will not be affected by the proposed amendments to the Land Reservation Acquisition Map and Clause 5.1 of the HLEP 2012.

 

Next Steps

53.    If endorsed, all owners within the Landmark Square Precinct at 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane will be notified by Council in writing that the requirement to deliver affordable housing in association with the development uplift is to be removed from the Precinct.

 

54.    If endorsed, owners of 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane will be notified by Council in writing that a separate Planning Proposal will be prepared by Council to amend the Land Reservation Acquisition Map of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 to include a 3 metre wide local road widening along the Roberts Lane boundary affecting their property.

 

55.    The road widening Planning Proposal will be prepared in accordance with Section 3.33 of the EP&A Act and the DPE's guidelines titled, “A guide to preparing local environmental plans” and “A guide to preparing planning proposals”.

 

56.    The road widening Planning Proposal will be forwarded to the Georges River Local Planning Panel (“LPP”) in accordance with the Direction from the Minister for Planning under Section 9.1 of the EP&A Act and the Charter of the Georges River Council Local Planning Panel 2018.

 

57.    The recommendations of the LPP will be presented at a future Environment and Planning Committee along with a report seeking endorsement to forward the road widening Planning Proposal to the DPE to request a Gateway Determination (approval).

 

Financial Implications

58.    No budget impact for this report.

 

Community Engagement

59.    Consultation will be conducted as detailed in this report subject to Council’s endorsement.

 

File Reference

15/793 - D18/89874

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Gateway Determination and Conditions for Planning Proposal PP2015/0001 issued by DPE dated 19 October 2017 - published in separate document

Attachment 2

Urban Design Report prepared by Dickson Rothschild - published in separate document

Attachment 3

Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment prepared by Mott MacDonald - published in separate document

 


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Standing Committee Meeting -  Tuesday, 12 June 2018       Page 17

Item:                   ENV014-18        Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy 

Author:              Senior Strategic Planner

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

(a)     That Council note the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy (September 2017).

 

(b)     That Council endorse the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy (May 2018 – Attachment 1) as a Strategic Planning document that will inform the preparation of the LEP and DCP controls for the Hurstville City Centre.

 

(c)     That Council pursuant to Section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 resolve to prepare a Planning Proposal to amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 in accordance with the recommendations of the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy (May 2018).

 

(d)     That Council pursuant to Section 3.43 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 resolve to prepare DCP No. 2 - Hurstville City Centre (Amendment No. 9) in accordance with the recommendations of Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy (May 2018).

 

(e)     That a further report to Council be provided on the preparation, costs and funding of the following documents for the Hurstville City Centre, including:

1.      Preparing a Place Management Strategy;

2.      Updating the Public Domain Plan;

3.      Investigating and implementing permanent and temporary open space solutions;

4.      Undertaking a feasibility study for the Hurstville City Centre within the study boundary, as outlined in the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy (May 2018); and

 

(f)      That the transition areas to the north of the study boundary and the area to the south of the railway line be considered as part of the Commercial Centres Strategy.

 

(g)     That Council resolve to prepare a new Development Contributions Plan for the Hurstville City Centre.

 

(h)     That the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy (May 2018) forms the basis for assessing site specific Planning Proposals and Development Applications within the Hurstville City Centre.

 

(i)      That Council notify the submitters and affected landowners of Council’s resolution.

 

(j)      That Council write to the landowners of sites where the FSRs/heights have been amended following the exhibition of the draft Strategy advising of the changes and inviting comments which will be considered along with the preparation of the Planning Proposal.

 

(k)     That Council continue to receive submissions on the Strategy during the preparation of the Planning Proposal.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

1.      Amendment No. 3 to Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (“HLEP”) 2012 (Hurstville City Centre LEP) was finalised in July 2015 and resulted in a number of sites having a mismatch between the maximum building height and maximum FSR.

 

2.      Since the gazettal of Amendment No. 3, Council has received nine (9) Planning Proposals within the Hurstville City Centre 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.

 

4.      On 7 August 2017, Council resolved to publicly exhibit the draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy (“the draft Strategy”) and report the submissions received by Council following the exhibition. Council also resolved to appoint GHD to update the Hurstville City Centre Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (the “TMAP”).

 

5.      The draft Strategy was exhibited from 27 September to 10 November 2017 for more than 40 days and 45 submissions were received. The key issues raised in the submissions related to residential amenity; design issues; traffic and parking; overshadowing/solar access; loss of privacy, views and property values; and lack of public infrastructure. Submissions received during the exhibition of the draft Strategy have been considered.

 

6.      In response to the submissions received and Councillor requests; SJB have undertaken additional investigation on a number of sites; resulting in an update to the Strategy.

 

7.      This report provides an overview of the public exhibition and additional investigation and the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy and recommends Council adopt the Strategy as a Strategic Planning document subject to the amendments, as outlined in the body of the report. The report recommends that Council resolve to prepare a Planning Proposal and a Development Control Plan in accordance with the recommendations of the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy (May 2018).

 

8.      The report also resolves that the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy forms the basis for the assessment of the site specific Planning Proposals and Development Applications.

 

Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy

9.      Georges River Council has prepared the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy that reviews and updates the existing development standards partly with the aim to identify opportunities for additional housing capacity within the Hurstville City Centre. A copy of the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy (May 2018) is included at Attachment 1.

 

10.    The key objectives of the 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.

 

Hurstville City Centre (Study area)

 

11.    The Hurstville City Centre (study area) is an elongated east-west shape straddling the Illawarra rail corridor with the Hurstville railway station, the Hurstville Bus Interchange and the Forest Road retail hub at its centre. It is bounded on the southern side by Forest Road, King Georges Road, Illawarra railway corridor, Woniora Road, Empress Lane, Railway Parade and Roberts Lane and has a jagged edge on the northern side surrounded by a residential area. Refer to Figure 1.

 

12.    The study area is zoned B3 - Commercial Core and B4 - Mixed Use under Hurstville LEP 2012 and B4 - Mixed Use under Kogarah LEP 2012.

 

13.    The study area includes three sites that are identified as a “Deferred Matter” by the Minister under Section 3.36(3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979. They include:

·   Civic Precinct - the site bound by Dora Street, Queens Road, Park Road, and MacMahon Street.

·   Westfield Shopping Centre - the site bounded by The Avenue, Humphreys Lane and Cross Street.

·   37-41 Treacy Street - the current Council at-grade car park on Treacy Street.

 

Note: This deferred matter has since received a Gateway Determination as per the Planning Proposal and has been incorporated into the Hurstville Urban Design Strategy. The two other Deferred Matter (DM) sites are the subject of separate Planning Proposals, which are currently under independent assessment.

 


 

Figure 1: Study Area

 

Strategic Context

14.    In the Greater Sydney Region Plan (A Metropolis of Three Cities), the priorities for the Hurstville strategic centre are to provide jobs, goods and services supported by a public transport, walking and cycling network. This would provide residents with a 30-minute public transport service to their nearest strategic centre seven days a week.

 

15.    The South District Plan identifies Hurstville as a strategic centre for the South District. The Plan lists a set of priorities that aim to enhance the centre as an important retail destination and transport hub for the South District. The development of this strategy reflects the key objectives of the District Plan Priorities, which focus on achieving “A Productive City; A Liveable City; A Sustainable City.”

 

16.    The Hurstville City Centre Masterplan 2004 (the “Masterplan 2004”) that was adopted by the former Hurstville City Council in 2004 has provided an integrated and coordinated approach to the future growth and revitalisation of the Hurstville City Centre since its adoption. The Masterplan 2004 presented a vision for the City Centre, identified character precincts and set a number of key directions for the future of the City Centre.

 

17.    The preparation of the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy 2018 (the “Strategy”) for the amalgamated Georges River Council has led to an analysis of the principles from the Masterplan 2004 and the Urban Design Study 2009 by Hassell and resulted in renewed design principles and vision. The Strategy includes the B4 area governed by the Kogarah LEP 2012 south of the railway line and identifies new character precincts. Subject to the endorsement of the Strategy as a Strategic Planning document, the Masterplan 2004 needs to be declared as a historical document and Council’s website updated to reflect that.


 

Development of the Draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy

18.    SJB worked closely with Council to develop the draft Strategy. As part of this process, a series of workshops were held with Council Officers from February to April 2017 to identify the renewed vision and key design principles.

 

19.    The draft Strategy was presented to Council’s Executive Team on 12 April 2017 and the St George Design Review Panel in May 2017.

 

20.    It has also been the subject of two (2) separate briefings to Councillors this year.

 

St George Design Review Panel

21.    The draft Strategy was reviewed by the St George Design Review Panel (the “DRP”) on 4 May 2017. The Panel provided in principle support and advice under the nine design principles of the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

 

22.    The DRP supported the intentions of the SJB Review, especially the rationalisation of controls and the lowering of the Forest Road street wall height. However, the DRP recommended:

·   reviewing the potentially adverse impacts that could result from excessive height and density on specific sites within the City Centre;

·   reviewing the public open space structure; and 

·   undertaking appropriate long term planning to improve walkability and access for pedestrians and cyclists which is of primary importance. This should be developed holistically and integrated into a comprehensive traffic strategy for the City Centre.

 

23.    A summary of DRP comments and recommendations, actions to be undertaken by SJB and Council comment is provided in Table 1:

 

 

DRP Comment

Recommendation

SJB Action and Council comment

Open Space &

Public Domain

×       A lack of significant public spaces offered in the Centre.

×       Spaces proposed in the structure plan are generally highly constrained, small spaces.

×       Strengthen recommendations for additional public space.

×       Propose more consolidated public space provisions through lot amalgamations and dedication of publicly owned land.

×       Recommend that at least 50% of the Civic Precinct is dedicated to public open space e.g. a park.

 

SJB Action

×       Include comments/recommendations in the report. E.g. Detailed assessment to be undertaken as part of the Public Domain Review.

Council comment

×       Support SJB recommendation.

 

×       Structure Plan lacks a comprehensive review.

×       Should be better integrated into other structure plans, especially built form.

×       Public Domain and amenity provisions should align with growth projections for the Centre.

×       Provide a detailed Public Domain Plan.

×       Align recommendations with projected growth for Hurstville.

×       Amenity of spaces should be assessed in greater detail, in alignment with other structure plans. E.g. Limited amenity for Central Plaza due to adjacent permissible heights.

 

SJB Action

×       Expand on explanation on purpose of structure plans in opening statement – to inform built form controls.

×       As above, add comments/ recommendations in the report.

Council comment

×       Block on western side of Central Plaza has been reduced from 45m to 35m in height to reduce overshadowing on Memorial plaza. See Strategy p100.

 

×       Poor interface of Westfield should be addressed in more detail.

×       Recommend removal of pedestrian ramp to improve access to new Central Plaza.

×       Provide strategy to improve street frontage and access.

×       Proposed ‘sky garden’ should be marked as ‘future outdoor retail space’ rather than public space.

 

SJB Action

×       Amend diagrams as per recommendations.

×       Propose relocation or careful redesign of pedestrian ramp on concept plan for Central Plaza.

Council comment

×       Details to be incorporated in the Westfield Planning Proposal.

×       See Strategy p81.

 

Built Form

×       Height and density across the Centre should only be retained as existing controls or lowered, and not increased.

×       Heights at ‘bookends’, particularly the uplift to the west, should not be increased due to impact on adjacent low density areas.

×       Recommended heights surrounding proposed Central Plaza are too tall and would adversely impact on amenity for the space.

×       Revise heights at ‘bookends’ to create a better transition to adjacent areas.

×       Lower heights at ‘gateway’ sites.

×       Heights for publicly owned sites e.g. Pearl St car park, should be retained or lowered.

×       Lower increased height on Planning Proposal site at the Forest Road/Durham Street Junction.

×       Development along Forest Road and The Avenue should retain/lower existing heights to ensure preservation of fine-grain.

×       Park Road should be treated as the City Centre boundary.

SJB Action

×       Council to advise on the inclusion of the additional uplift outside of the study boundary – this will influence the uplift at the bookends.

×       Uplift on the western bookend (within the study boundary is minimal).

×       Disagree with comments on the reduction of height at ‘gateway’ sites.

×       Revise proposed heights at Western Bookend and confirm any changes with Council.

×       Check with Council whether to include Planning Proposal site at the Forest Rd/Durham St Junction, along with testing outside the City Centre boundary.

Council comment

×       The Hurstville City Centre boundary has been amended to include the Planning Proposal site at Forest Rd/Durham St Junction.

×       The additional uplift outside of the study boundary will be considered as part of the Commercial Centres Strategy.

 

See Strategy for final City Centre boundary.

 

×       Document principles do not adequately address the issues of increasing, unjustified height and density.

×       Revise/add to principles to address current issues, as well as those raised in previous studies.

SJB Action

×       Built Form Amenity diagram has been adjusted.

×       Flesh out framework for principles.

See p89, diagram 5.

Council comment

×       Additional investigation has been undertaken in April 2018 on 15 sites to check the consistency of building heights and FSRs.

×       See Appendix B of the final Strategy.

 

×       The adverse impact of the existing and proposed Westfield building should be addressed in detail.

×       Address Westfield built form in detail.

SJB Action

×       Westfield Planning Proposal Report to assess in detail.

Council comment

×       Support SJB recommendation.

×       Height and density recommendations are not proven to be sustainable.

×       Built form study does not address feasibility in line with future growth estimates for Hurstville.

×       Provide additional analysis that demonstrates how recommendations align with feasibility study.

×       Volume of proposed residential and commercial GFA should be clearly stated.

 

SJB Action

×       Council to undertake a feasibility study.

×       Total yields and commercial capacity have been added to the report as a summary.

See page 113.

Council comment

×       Additional investigation has been undertaken in April 2018 on 15 sites to check the consistency of building heights and FSRs.

See Appendix B of the final Strategy.

×       It is recommended that Council resolve to undertake a feasibility study following the adoption of the Urban Design Strategy.

 

×       Requires a more rigorous examination of built form controls and impact on amenity, particularly for the public domain.

×       Deep soil setbacks along rail corridor should be recommended.

×       Ensure maximised views, particularly through ‘wall of building’ to the south along Forest Road and Treacy Street.

×       Built form along Treacy Street should be ‘punctuated’ with gaps.

×       Integrate public space controls into built form controls.

SJB Action

×       Ensure specific requirements are noted in the report, where appropriate, and expanded on in a block-by-block DCP to be prepared by SJB.

×       Ensure process for study is clear in report – emphasise that in the built form section, the diagrams represent the recommended LEP height control as an extrusion of the amalgamated lot boundary and not a reflection of the compliant building envelope that takes into account other aspects like setbacks and building separation.

×       Add specific recommendations for Treacy St on the reference plan in each of the block tests.

×       Potential shadow study of tested blocks once built form has been finalised.

Council comment

×       Additional investigation has been undertaken in April 2018 on 15 sites to check the consistency of building heights and FSRs.

See Appendix B of the final Strategy.

Access & Movement

×       Traffic and pedestrian flow along Forest Road should be a key focus of the study.

×       Maintain vehicular access along Forest Road.

SJB Action

×       Provided as option in report.

Council comment

×       The TMAP update currently being finalised will provide recommendations under the themes of Land Use, Road Network, Public Transport, Active Transport and Travel Demand Management.

 

×       Circulation through one-way streets should be rationalised.

×       Investigate potential 2-way access for key secondary roads.

SJB Action

×       Traffic engineers to assess in detail – ensure note is included in report.

Council comment

×       See TMAP comment above.

 

Table 1: Summary of DRP comments and SJB action/Council comment 

 

Council Consideration

24.    Council, at its meeting on 7 August 2017, considered a report on the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy and resolved the following (CCL155-17):

 

(a)     That the draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy attached at Attachment 1 be publicly exhibited for no less than 40 days in accordance with the Engagement Strategy outlined 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 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.

 

(d)     That once the TMAP has been updated, a report be presented to Council outlining the recommendations for the Hurstville City Centre.

 

25.    A copy of the report to Council dated 7 August 2017 is included at Attachment 2.

 

Public Exhibition of the draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy (the “draft Strategy”)

26.    In accordance with the Council resolution of 7 August 2017, the draft Strategy and associated documentation, including a series of Fact Sheets; were placed on public exhibition from Wednesday 27 September to Friday 10 November 2017.

 

27.    The public exhibition included the following:

·   Statutory notices in The St George and Sutherland Shire Leader Newspaper (27 September, 11 October and 25 October 2017).

·   Dedicated page on Council’s website (under Public Exhibitions).

·   Facebook update (paragraph on project information linking to further details).

·   Approximately 5,550 letters were sent to the affected and adjoining land owners, including people in the additional capacity investigation area.

·   Displays in Council’s Customer Service Centres and libraries, including the public exhibition information, the draft Strategy and Fact Sheets. The Fact Sheets were prepared for the blocks where changes were proposed under the draft Strategy.

·   Individual meetings/Drop-In-Sessions with approximately 30 owners were held between Monday 16 October and Saturday 21 October 2017 at the Council building.

·   Telephone and one-on-one contact with Council’s Strategic Planning staff and Duty Planner.

 

28.    During the exhibition, forty five (45) written submissions were received that included a form letter (petition) signed by 319 signatories; with issues ranging from:

·   increased traffic and parking;

·   height, solar access, privacy and view loss issues;

·   pressure on amenities and services; and

·   need to review the bus interchange south of the railway line.

 

29.    A summary of the main submissions received, objections raised, consultant response and Planning Proposal recommendations is provided in Table 2 below:

 

Address, Block, no. of submissions and submission issue

Draft Strategy (September 2017) Proposed controls (Existing controls)

SJB Response and Planning Proposal  recommendation

454-456 Forest Road, Hurstville (Block 2B) (6 submissions)

Issue:

Objection to proposed increased height at 454-456 Forest Road due to impact on views, property value, proximity to neighbouring residential blocks, potential overshadowing, accessibility, fire safety and impact on parking and traffic flow.

Height : 40m (23m)

FSR: 3:1 (3:1)

SJB Response:

×  An approved DA is located on sub-block 2B and any future amendments are subject to court ruling.

×  Future development should ensure compliance with separation/setback controls to meet privacy/view requirements.

Planning Proposal  recommendation:

×  Reduce the height control for the rear half of the site to 15m, to create a sensitive transition to the adjoining residential area.

×  Retain recommended 40m height control along Forest Road.

 

Note: Refer to Tables 4 and 5.

282 Forest Road, Hurstville (Block 17A) (2 submissions)

Issue:

Objection to recommendation in the Strategy as an existing DA (2016/0322) was approved in August 2017 based on the current LEP controls.

Height : 45m (60m)

FSR: 6:1 (9:1)

SJB Response:

×  Permissible height control is subject to the DA, approved for 60m prior to the Strategy’s release.

Planning Proposal  recommendation:

×  Amend Strategy recommendation to retain existing height control of 60m and reduce FSR to 6:1 to ensure that the yield corresponds with the proposed height.

 

Note: Refer to Table 4.

Additional Capacity Study Area (Area to the immediate north of the Hurstville City Centre) (17 submissions)

Issue:

Various issues either supporting or objecting to proposed heights, FSRs and proposed through-site links.

 

Height : Varying between 19 and 40m (between 9m and 12m)

FSR: Varying 1.2 to 3.3:1 (between 0.6 to 2.2:1)

SJB Response:

×  SJB have undertaken an additional capacity study to provide Council with a planned approach to providing an appropriate transition and additional uplift close to the City Centre. Should Council wish to investigate this further, an additional economic feasibility study should be undertaken, along with community consultation.

 

Planning Proposal  recommendation:

×  Council is of the view that any amendments to the planning controls for the additional areas in the vicinity of the City Centre will be investigated as part of a later stage of work on the Hurstville Urban Design Strategy.

 

123-125 Forest Road, Hurstville

(Block 25B) (1 submission)

Issue:

Objection  to remove requirement for through-link at 123-125 Forest Rd as one already exists at 127-137 Forest Rd

Height : 23m (15-23m)

FSR: No change (4:1- 4.5:1)

SJB Response:

×  Submission identifies a through-site link, accessible within working hours already located on the block at 127-137 Forest Road.

Planning Proposal  Recommendation:

×  Retain recommended control for break in built form but don’t specify as through-site link - relabelled in diagram as ‘potential break in built form’.

11-13, 15-19, 21, 23-29 and 31 Treacy Street, Hurstville (Block 29C) (6 Submissions)

Issue:

Support proposed changes to building height at Block 29C

Height : 53m (15-23m)

FSR: 3:1 – 4:1 (3:1)

SJB Response:

×  Support acknowledged.

Planning Proposal  recommendation:

×  Height changed to 55m and FSR to 7:1.

 

Note: Refer to Tables 4 and 5.

49 Treacy Street; 183C Forest Road, Hurstville (Sub-block 29A) (1 submission)

Issue:

In support of the proposed height increase but request a further increase on both height and density to match adjacent properties

 

Height : 23m (15m)

FSR: No change (3:1)

 SJB Response:

×  Testing of the opportunity site at 29A indicated that a height increase from 15m to 23m was sufficient to achieve the existing FSR control of 3:1.

×  Any further increase in height would create a poor transition to the Forest Road walking street and enclose the area marking a key access point across the railway line.

Planning Proposal  recommendation:

×  Retain recommended amendments to height control (23m) to achieve existing FSR (3:1).

×  Potential to consider additional height to the eastern half of the site if 23m is maintained at the Forest Road junction and an improved built form outcome can be achieved. FSR increase is not considered appropriate.

Note: Refer to Tables 4 and 5.

9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville (Block 2D) (1 submission)

Issue:

Objection to increase in height controls as it will reduce property value and views

Height : 40m-60m (23m)

FSR: No change (3:1)

SJB Response

×  Analysis of the massing included in the Planning Proposal for 9 Gloucester Road indicates some obstruction of views from the concerned property looking east towards sub-block 2D.

 

×  Recommend a break in built form for any future development on sub-block 2D to reduce bulk and preserve existing view corridor across the site.

×  Future approval of the development is subject to a potential view assessment to ensure that key view corridors from neighbouring sites are maximised.

Planning Proposal  recommendation:

×  Retain height controls as recommended in the Strategy.

Note: Refer to Table 4

220 Forest Road, Hurstville (Block 17) (1 submission)

Issue:

Request for additional analysis and consideration to increase the height limit (currently proposed is 25m with 11m street wall).

Height : 11m street wall 23m overall (23m)

FSR: 3:1 (3:1)

 SJB Response:

×  Recommended height controls are considered appropriate to minimise impact along Forest Road High Street.

×  Additional uplift is focused around the commercial core and residential bookends.

Planning Proposal  recommendation:

×  Retain existing recommended controls for the remainder of Block 17 (23m), however reduce street wall from 15m to 11m to maintain the character of the high street at a human scale and maintain streetscape amenity.

Note: Refer to Tables 4 and 5.

6-8 Cross Street, Hurstville (Block 15) (1 submission)

Issue:

Objection to potential redevelopment of site at 6-8 Cross Street identified as an opportunity site to likely impact on adjacent property. Suggestion to include 2-4 Cross St  in this development

Height : No change (30m)

FSR: No change (4.5:1)

SJB Response:

×  Opportunity sites identified at 6-8 Cross Street are subject to a DA (Extension to Club Central Hurstville, submitted February 2017).

×  Suggested amalgamation with adjacent site to the north at 2-4 Cross Street is considered unlikely as this property has more than 8 strata titles and the site at 6-8 Cross Street has already been amalgamated with the adjacent Club Central.

Note: Block 15 was not subject to additional investigation within the Built Form section of the Strategy.

Planning Proposal  recommendation:

×  Remove opportunity site identified for 6-8 Cross Street.

×  Retain existing recommended controls for this cluster.

Note: Refer to Tables 4 and 5.

1-9, 15 Dora Street, 34 MacMahon Street,

360-384 Forest Road, Hurstville (Block 10 and sub-block 10A) (1 submission)

Issue:

Objection to proposed uplift in the block due to potential impact on solar access, views and privacy of adjoining property.

Height : 23m street wall 45m overall (15m-45m)

FSR: No change (3.5:1-6:1)

SJB Response:

×  Future development is restricted by an active frontage on the south facade of the existing development.

×  The approval of any future development should consider the impact on the existing context and is subject to the controls outlined in the ADG, SEPP65 and DCP.

Planning Proposal  recommendation:

×  Retain existing recommendations for a 23-45m height across the site.

×  Amend LEP to prescribe an FSR of 3.5:1 on two lots facing Forest Rd and adjacent to 34 MacMahon St.

9 Crofts Avenue, Hurstville (Block 16D) (1 submission)

Issue:

×  Objection to Strategy in general terms due to lack of:

×       economic basis for  the proposed controls

×       resolution of land fragmentation constraints and address of employment targets

×       sustainable urban outcomes

×  Submission proposes increase  to controls to height 70m (from 35m) and 14:1 FSR (from 5:1)

Height : 40m (23m)

FSR: 5:1 (3:1-5:1)

SJB Response:

×  There is significant additional overshadowing of Memorial Plaza from the proposed 70m uplift to sub-block 16D between 1-2pm. This is not addressed in the submission or Urban Design Study.

×  At 1pm, the Memorial Plaza is completely overshadowed due to the additional shadow cast by the 70m envelope.

×  No additional overshadowing is apparent for the proposed Central Plaza for the increased height envelope from 35m to 70m on Sub-Block 16D.

×  Furthermore, the proposed increase in height would be disproportionate to the scale within the surrounding context and is therefore considered inappropriate for the site.

Planning Proposal  recommendation

×  Retain existing height control of 35m and increase the FSR from 3.5:1 to 5:1.

Notes:

1. Refer to Tables 4 and 5.

2. Refer to Appendix B of the Strategy.

Ormonde Parade Bus Interchange (Not related to any block) (1 submission)

Issue:

Request for review of Ormonde Parade Bus Interchange to be part of the Strategy

Height : NA

FSR: NA

SJB Response:

×  Subject to a separate study to be initiated by Council.

Planning Proposal  recommendation:

×  No change to the Planning Proposal.

 

Table 2: Summary of key submissions received to the public exhibition of the draft Strategy

 

30.    Provided below in Table 3 is the breakdown of submissions in terms of objections and support:

Submissions

Objections

Support

Submissions with respect to block-based controls

14

8

Submissions with respect to Additional Capacity Study Area recommendations

11

6

General submissions on overall Strategy

3

3

Total

28

17

Grand total

45

Table 3: Breakdown of submissions received

 

31.    All submissions have been summarised in Attachment 3.

 

Councillor Workshops

 

32.    A Councillor Workshop was held in February 2018 that presented the Urban Design Strategy background, vision, principles, character areas, existing and proposed FSRs and heights, details of the public exhibition and submissions received, and identified sites requiring further analysis.

 

33.    The key recommendation from the Councillor Workshop was to further investigate an additional 15 sites where heights and FSRs did not match or the same block had inconsistent heights and/or FSRs.

 

34.    A second Councillor Workshop was held in May 2018 to present the results of the additional investigation on 15 sites. These sites are listed in the Structure section (paragraph 36(8)) below. Discussions centred around the consistency of heights and FSRs on sites and solar access/overshadowing issues.

 

Final Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy

35.    The draft Strategy (September 2017), which was exhibited in September-November 2017, has been refined and updated as a result of the DRP comments, submissions received, additional built form investigations work undertaken and input from Councillors during the two briefings. The structure of the final Strategy (May 2018) is discussed below.

 

Structure

36.    The Strategy comprises the following chapters:

1.  Introduction – This chapter provides the objectives of the Strategy, an introduction to the study area and surrounds; background to the project, strategic context and existing planning controls.

 

2.  Baseline Review – This chapter includes a review of existing information, studies and strategies that relate to the Centre and identifies any gaps in the findings.

 

3.  Urban Analysis – This chapter provides an analysis of the planning context and features of the Centre, including details of character areas within the Hurstville City Centre; and the surrounding context which will influence the design testing and modelling.

 

4.  Conceptual Development – This chapter provides renewed urban design vision and principles, exploration of Structure Plans and preliminary testing of concepts for the site.

 

5.  Structure Plans – This chapter includes the development of Structure Plans for Built Form, Access and Movement, Public Domain and Activity:

a.  Activity - This section investigates strategies to allow Hurstville City Centre’s vibrant street life to flourish.

b.  Access & Movement - This section investigates circulation through the Centre.

c.  Public Domain - This section investigates a strategy for the public domain and open spaces within the City to support Hurstville’s active and social public life.

d.  Built Form - A review of the existing LEP and DCP controls influencing built form within the Hurstville City Centre.

The built form section includes the methodology of testing built form controls, explores the rationalisation of heights and FSRs for various blocks within the Hurstville City Centre and references the additional capacity study (see detail on Additional Capacity Study in paragraphs 37-40 below) undertaken for areas north of the Centre, the additional built form investigations and includes a summary of recommended heights and FSRs.

 

6.  Recommendations – This chapter includes recommendations for further studies and strategies for Hurstville City Centre. It also includes LEP recommendations for amendments to the height and FSR for various sites within the Hurstville City Centre (refer to paragraphs 42 to 45 below).

 

7.  Appendix A – This includes an additional built form study that investigates the opportunity and impact of a potential mixed use development above the existing Hurstville Train Station.

 

8.  Appendix B – This includes the Additional Built Form Investigation Study undertaken for 15 sites within the City Centre, where heights and FSRs do not match or the same block has inconsistent heights and/or FSRs (Refer to paragraphs 37 to 40 below). These 15 sites are listed and mapped in Figure 2 below:

 

Site 1: 1-5 Treacy Street, Hurstville

Site 2: Treacy Street, Hurstville

Site 3: Treacy Street Corner

Site 4: Corner of Forest Road and Treacy Street

Site 5: Forest Road South, Adjacent to Train Station

Site 6: Forest Road, West of Station

Site 7: Forest Road, West end of High Street

Site 8: Forest Road North, Western Bookend

Site 9: Forest Road South, Western Bookend

Site 10: Dora Street-Forest Road Block

Site 11: MacMahon Street- Forest Road Block

Site 12: Crofts Avenue - Forest Road

Site 13: Woodville Street - Crofts Avenue - Cross Street

Site 14: Forest Road East - Treacy Street

Site 15: Gloucester Road Car Park

 

These sites are shown in the Figure 2:

Figure 2: Sites Identified for Additional Investigation


 

Additional Capacity Study

37.    SJB has undertaken an additional capacity study to provide Council with a built form investigation to inform a planned approach to providing an appropriate transition and additional uplift in areas to the north of the City Centre.

 

38.    The investigation undertaken has identified that the blocks to the north of the City Centre have the ability to support increased uplift as they have direct connectivity to the City Centre, as well as being in close proximity to public transport and services. These additional expansion areas would provide an opportunity for improved development close to the City Centre while ensuring an appropriate transition between the City Centre. In addition, the area to the north of the City Centre is well placed to receive good solar access for new developments.

 

39.    It is recommended that Council resolve to undertake a feasibility study following the adoption of the Urban Design Strategy.

 

40.    The Strategy did not identify additional areas for uplift to the south of the railway line. It is proposed that any amendments to the planning controls for the additional areas in the vicinity of the City Centre will be investigated as part of the Commercial Centres Study. This will require an additional economic feasibility study along with additional community consultation.

 

3D Model

41.    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.

 

Key Recommendations of the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy

42.    The Strategy provides the following LEP recommendations in Section 6:

a.      Height of Buildings – Amendments to the maximum heights of building as summarised in Table 4 below.

b.      Floor Space Ratio - Amendments to the maximum FSRs as summarised in Table 4 below.

 

43.    As part of the rationalisation of heights and FSRs in the Hurstville City Centre, SJB were initially advised to prioritise the existing FSR controls over existing height controls to retain development value. Accordingly, recommendations in the Strategy generally relate to amendments on rationalised height controls, with the maximum FSR being retained in the majority of cases.

 

44.    As part of preparing the Strategy, an Additional Built Form Investigation Study was undertaken for 15 sites (listed in paragraph 36 (8)) within the City Centre where heights and FSRs do not match or the same block has inconsistent heights or FSRs. The study involved additional testing of potential built form envelopes to determine appropriate FSR and height controls, and understand the impact on overshadowing and views. Responses from submissions and development proposals, including current Development Applications, Planning Proposals and concept schemes, were also taken into consideration. This additional work involved height increases in certain cases to be consistent with adjoining heights, which resulted in an increase in FSR to ensure the height and FSR match.

 

45.    The height and FSR recommendations of the Strategy reflect the outcomes of the Additional Built Form Investigation Study, which have been incorporated into the final Strategy. The ‘Recommended Controls’ below reflects the final outcomes of the Additional Study. The Additional Built Form Investigation Study is provided as an attachment (Appendix B) to the Strategy.

 

Cluster

Sub

Block

Street Address

Strategy Pg #

Zone

Existing Controls

Recommended Controls

Height

FSR

Height

FSR

01

22A

180, 182 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 96)

B4

15m street wall

23m Overall

Varies

3:1 – 4:1

11m street wall

23m overall

No change

01

22B

160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 172, 176, 178 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 96)

B4

15m street wall

23m Overall -

Varies

3:1 – 4:1

11m street wall

23m overall

No change

01

22C

150, 154, 156, 158 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 96)

B4

15m street wall

23m Overall

Varies

3:1 – 4:1

11m street wall

23m overall

No change

02

25A

117, 119, 121 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 97)

B4

15m street wall

23m Overall

4:1 – 4.5:1

23m

4:1

02

25 B

1 Alfred Street; 123, 127 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 97)

B4

15m street wall

23m Overall

4:1 – 4.5:1

23m

No change

03

11F

243A, 245-247, 249, 251, 253 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 99)

B3

60m

6:1

11m street wall

45m overall

No change

03

11G

227, 235, 237, 239, 241, 243 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 99)

B3

15m – 60m

3:1 – 6:1

11m street wall

11 – 45m overall

No change

03

16A

312, 314, 316, 318 Forest Road, Hurstville

(Pg 99)

B3

15m street wall

23m & 45m overall

3:1 – 5:1

11m street wall

35m overall

5:1

03

16B

300, 302, 306, 308, 310 Forest Road, Hurstville

(Pg 99)

B3

15m street wall

23m & 45m overall

3:1 – 5:1

11m street wall

35m overall

5:1

03

16C

1, 7 Crofts Avenue, Hurstville

310 (Lot 12 DP 4799) Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 99)

B3

15m street wall

23m & 45m overall

3:1 – 5:1

11m street wall

35m overall

5:1

03

16D

9 Crofts  Avenue, Hurstville

(Pg 99)

B3

15m street wall

23m & 45m overall

3:1 – 5:1

11m street wall

35m overall

5:1

03

17A

282 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 99)

B3

60m

9:1

No change

6:1

04

11D

279, 281-283, 287, 291 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 101)

B4

30m

3:1

No change

No change

04

11E

255, 257, 259, 263, 265, 267, 269, 271, 273, 275 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 101)

B3

15m

3:1

11m street wall

23m overall

No change

04

12A

3, 3R Barratt Street, Hurstville

330, 332, 334, 336 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 101)

B3

15m street wall

15-40m Overall

4.5:1

11m street wall

40m overall

6:1

04

12B

1, 1A Barratt Street, Hurstville

338, 340, 342, 344, 346, 348, 350 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 101)

B3

15m – 23m

3:1

11m street wall

23m overall

No change

05

10A

360, 362, 364-366, 368, 370 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 103)

B4

15m – 45m

3.5:1 – 6:1

23m street wall

45m overall

FSR reduced to 3.5:1 on two lots

05

Rest of block 10

1-9, 15 Dora Street, Hurstville

34 MacMahon Street, Hurstville

372, 378, 380, 384 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 103)

B4

15m – 45m

3.5:1 – 6:1

23m part street wall

45m overall

No change

05

11A

309 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 103)

B4

40m

3.6:1

23m

No change

05

11B

309 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 103)

B4

23m

3.6:1

No change

No change

05

11C

299, 305 Forest Road, Hurstville

307, 307A Forest Road, Hurstville (heritage items)

 

(Pg 103)

B4

15m

3:1

23m

No change

06

2D

9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 105)

B4

23m

3:1

40m and 60m

No change

06

3

1, 11, 15, 17 Carrington Avenue, Hurstville

6 Gloucester Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 105)

B4

40m

5:1

No change

No change

06

4

 

388, 394, 410 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 105)

B4

23m

3:1

40m

No change

06

5C

307E Forest Road, Hurstville

Note: This site is in the ownership of NSW Rail Corporation

 

(Pg 105)

B4

23m and 45m

4.5:1

40m

No change

06

5D

309A-309B Forest Road, Hurstville

Note: This site is in the ownership of NSW Rail Corporation

 

(Pg 105)

B4

23m and 40m

4:1

40m

No change

07

28

1-5 Treacy Street, Hurstville

 

(Pg 107)

B4

23m

3:1

49m

6:1

07

29A

49 Treacy Street; 183C Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 107)

B4

15m

3:1

23m

No change

07

29B

33, 35 Treacy Street, Hurstville

 

(Pg 107)

B4

15m – 23m

3:1 – 4:1

55m

7:1

07

29C

11-13, 15-19, 21, 23-29, 31 Treacy Street, Hurstville

 

(Pg 107)

B4

15m – 23m

3:1 – 4:1

55m

7:1

07

DM

37 Treacy Street, Hurstville

 

(Pg 107)

B4

15m – 23m

3:1 – 4:1

55m

7:1

07

30A

199, 201, 203, 205, 207, 209 Forest Road, Hurstville

Note: There are no proposed changes to the controls within sub-block 30A

 

(Pg 107)

B4

15m street wall

23m behind

3:1

No change

No change

07

30B

185B Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 107)

B3

45m

5:1

23m

4:1

08

1A

39, 43 Bridge Street, Hurstville

319, 321 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 108)

B4

 

23m street wall

30m overall

2.5:1 – 4:1

40m

No change

08

1

323 Forest Road, Hurstville

Note: There are no proposed changes to the controls for this property

 

(Pg 108)

B4

40m

4.5:1

No change

No change

08

2A

1B Pearl Street; 458B-460B, 458, 460 Forest Road, Hurstville

Note: There are no proposed changes to the controls within sub-block 2A

 

 

(Pg 108)

B4

40m – 45m

4.5:1

No change

No change

08

2B

454-456 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

(Pg 108)

B4

23m

3:1

15-40m

No change

Table 4: Comparison of existing and recommended controls

 

46.    Amendments to the maximum heights and FSRs were made to eight (8) of the fifteen (15) sites investigated as part of the Additional Built Form Investigation Study. The justifications for the amendments to these sites derived from the Additional Built Form Investigation Study (Appendix B of the Strategy) are outlined in Table 5 below:

 

Block, street address and amendment

Justification

Street wall height:

·    As noted in the Table 4 above, the street wall height has been reduced from 15m to 11m (3 storeys) along Forest Road (blocks 22A, B and C, 11E, 11F, 11G, 12A, 12B, 16A, 16B, 16C and 16D) to create a more intimately scaled human experience and to ensure that the public domain receives direct solar access and reinforces Forest Road as a walking street.

·    Certain sites like the Bing Lee Planning Proposal site (108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville) are recommended to have a 15m (4 storeys) street wall based on its location at the edge of the Centre away from the Forest Road High Street and consistent with the building opposite and DRP advice.

·    Block 10 is recommended to have a 23m part street wall, due to constraints imposed by recent and future development across the block – this will facilitate a good built form outcome for future development on the opportunity site. A lower street wall is less critical along this stretch of Forest Road, which is characterised by larger lots and is outside of the commercial core.

 

Block 25A – (117, 119 and 121 Forest Road, Hurstville)

FSR has been reduced from a range 4:1-4.5:1 to 4:1

·    FSR testing indicates that an FSR of 4:1 is appropriate for the site. The remaining site consists of a recent development and therefore has not been tested.

 

Block 16 A, B, C and D - (300, 302, 306, 308, 310 and Lot 12 DP 4799, 312, 314, 316 and 318 Forest Road, Hurstville, 1, 7 and 9 Crofts Avenue, Hurstville)

Heights and FSRs have been changed (see Table 4 above) to 11m street wall and 35m overall and 5:1 FSR.

 

Note:

·    A DA has been approved for the block 16D

·    A concept planning proposal has been submitted requesting 70m height and 13.3:1 FSR.

·    The proposed increase in height on block 16D would be disproportionate to the scale within the surrounding context and is therefore considered inappropriate for the site.

 

·    The shadow analysis shows that the existing height of up to 45m creates significant further overshadowing of both the key open spaces – especially the existing Memorial Park and the proposed Central Plaza. Therefore, it is recommended that a consistent 35m height with 11m street wall be applied across the block.

 

·    The FSR testing indicates that an FSR of 5:1 is appropriate for the sites including that for 16D, which is also approved for an FSR of 5:1.

Block 17A – (282 Forest Road, Hurstville)

FSR has been reduced to 6:1.

·    There is an existing DA which has been assessed and is fully compliant with the existing height of 60m.

 

·    The FSR has been reduced to 6:1 to correspond with the height.

 

Block 12A – (3, 3R Barratt Street, Hurstville, 330, 332, 334 and 336 Forest Road, Hurstville)

FSR increased from 4.5:1 to 6:1

·    The testing indicates that an FSR of 6:1 is appropriate for site12A to match the height increase to 40m on the whole Block to rationalise height across the Block. This will assist in creating a better outcome for potential future redevelopments.

 

Block 10A – (360, 362, 364-366, 368 and 370 Forest Road, Hurstville)

Retain recommended heights of 23-45m, while rationalising height across the Block with partial 23m street wall and reduce FSR to 3.5:1 on two lots on Forest Road next to 34 MacMahon Street.

·    Two FSR options have been tested – one with commercial and retail floorspace and the other with residential floorspace above 23m. It was found that the second option was unlikely to be achieved in terms of solar access and the NSW Apartment Design Guideline and would result in an unviable floorplate.

 

·    GFA testing and potential massing indicates that the FSR of 3.5:1 is adequate on the subject lots given the constrained nature of the site.

 

Block 28 – (1-5 Treacy Street, Hurstville)

Height increased to 49m and FSR to 6:1

·    While some additional overshadowing occurs, the overall impact is considered acceptable for the additional height.

 

·    FSR amended to match the height control.

 

Block 29B, 29C and DM – (11-13, 15-19, 21, 23-29, 31, 33, 35 and 37 Treacy Street, Hurstville)

Height increased to 55m and FSR to 7:1

 

·    Height and FSR for the subject Blocks increased to be consistent with the planning controls approved at the Gateway Determination stage for the Treacy Street car park site.

 

Block 30B – (185B Forest Road, Hurstville)

Height decreased to 23m and FSR decreased to 4:1

 

·    The location of this site at the intersection of Treacy Street and Forest Road is significant as it marks a key threshold leading south across the railway line. The impact of the additional height would create a poor outcome for the legibility of this intersection, in which a 45m building on the site would appear out of context with the surrounding built form.

 

·    The site also marks the transition into the Forest Road High Street, which is denoted by built form of a finer grain and heights generally of a more human scale.

 

·    Amend FSR control from 3:1 to 4:1, to reflect the new height control.

 

Table 5: Justification of key planning control changes (refer to Table 4) as result of the Additional Built Form Investigation Study – refer to Appendix B of the Strategy

 

47.    It is recommended that Council write to the landowners of sites where the FSRs/heights have been amended following the exhibition of the draft Strategy and the Additional Built Form Investigation advising of the changes and allowing an opportunity to comment which will be considered along with the preparation of the Planning Proposal.

 

48.    The Strategy also provides recommendations for further studies in Section 6 under the themes as provided in Table 6:

·   Activity

·   Access and movement

·   Public Domain and Open Space

·   Built Form

 

Recommendation

Council response

Activity

1.   Council to prepare a Place Management Strategy.

 

It is recommended that Council resolve to investigate a Place Management Strategy following the Council adoption of the Urban Design Strategy.

 

2.   Council to prepare a DCP amendment to address activation within the City Centre.

It is recommended that Council resolve to prepare a DCP amendment to address activation within the City Centre following the Council adoption of the Urban Design Strategy.

 

Access and Movement

3.   Council to undertake an updated TMAP that investigates traffic management, improved intersections, and car parking locations within the City Centre.

GHD has prepared a draft TMAP for Hurstville City Centre. It is anticipated that it will be finalised by the end of June 2018.

Note: More information is provided in the TMAP section below.

 

Public Domain and Open Space

4.   Council to update the current Public Domain Plan in conjunction with the Place Management Strategy.

 

It is recommended that Council resolve to update the Hurstville Public Domain Plan following the Council adoption of the Urban Design Strategy.

5.   Council to investigate WSUD treatments and other sustainable initiatives to be applied through the Public Domain Plan and Council’s DCP.

 

It is recommended that Council resolve to investigate WSUD treatments and other sustainable initiatives to be applied through the Public Domain Plan and Council’s DCP following the Council adoption of the Urban Design Strategy.

 

6.   Council to investigate and implement the permanent and temporary open space solutions outlined within this report.

 

It is recommended that Council resolve to investigate and implement the permanent and temporary open space solutions following the Council adoption of the Urban Design Strategy.

7.   Provision of open spaces and amenity within the public domain to be closely aligned with the findings and recommendations of the other structure plans within this report, as well as the overall projected growth for Hurstville.

 

It is recommended that Council resolve to investigate the provision of open spaces and amenity in the public domain as part of the update to Public Domain Plan following the Council adoption of the Urban Design Strategy.

Built Form

8.   That Council prepare a Planning Proposal to amend the LEP to reflect the recommendations made in Section 6.2, Chapter 6 of this report.

 

It is recommended that Council resolve to prepare a Planning Proposal following the Council adoption of the Urban Design Strategy.

9.   That Council prepare an amendment to the DCP that reflects the changes made to the LEP.

It is recommended that Council resolve to prepare an amendment to the DCP that reflects the changes made to the LEP following the Council adoption of the Urban Design Strategy.

 

10. That Council undertake a feasibility study for the City Centre, including transition areas outside the study boundary.

 

It is recommended that Council resolve to investigate a feasibility study for the City Centre.

 

It is recommended that the transition areas be considered as part of the Commercial Centres Strategy.

 

11. That Council prepare a new Georges River Council Development Contributions Plan.

It is recommended that Council resolve to prepare a new Georges River Council Development Contributions Plan.

 

Table 6: Strategy recommendations for further studies

 

Hurstville City Centre Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (the “TMAP”)

49.    As Council is aware, the Hurstville City Centre TMAP is currently being updated to consider the recommendations of the Strategy.

 

50.    The consultants have prepared a draft TMAP Report which provides analysis of the current transport situation in Hurstville through analysis of a wide range of traffic and transport data:

·   Traffic count data, travel times and queue length surveys, pedestrian and cycling

·   Opal and PTIPS public transport data

·   Household travel surveys and journey to work surveys

·   Crash data

 

51.    The report also summarises the proposed land use changes as documented in the Draft Urban Design Strategy and current Planning Proposal and Development Applications for Hurstville City Centre. Prior to the finalisation of the TMAP Report, the increases in FSR outlined in Table 5 need to be further considered by the TMAP.

 

52.    The TMAP Report notes that Hurstville is a strategic centre for Sydney’s South District. It is a significant retail destination and has a growing population. There are capacity constraints on the existing road network, specifically on King Georges Road, Railway Parade, Woniora Road and Treacy Street; Queens Road and Park Road. The Report recommends that there is a need to shift people’s focus and interest from car rides to public and active transport.

 

53.    The TMAP Report is anticipated to be finalised in June 2018 and reported to the August 2018 Environment and Planning Committee Meeting.

 

Development Contributions / Voluntary Planning Agreement

54.    In conjunction with the preparation of the Hurstville City Centre Planning Proposal, a new Georges River Council Development Contributions Plan will be prepared. This Plan will identify and seek contributions from development for community facilities and services required within the Hurstville City Centre.

 

55.    Work has commenced on the new Contributions Plan with a number of background studies underway.

 

56.    If Council receives Planning Proposals for land within the Hurstville City Centre during this period, Council’s existing “Planning Agreement Policy” will be triggered.

 

Next Steps

57.    Council prepare a Planning Proposal incorporating all zoning, height and FSR changes discussed in the body of the report.

 

58.    Council to consider the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy as a policy document for all future Planning Proposals until the Hurstville City Centre Planning Proposal is prepared and finalised.

 

59.    Council to notify those who made submissions during the public exhibition period and affected landowners of the Council resolution.

 

60.    Council to write to the landowners of sites where the FSRs/heights have been amended following the exhibition of the draft Strategy advising of the changes and allowing an opportunity to comment.

 

61.    Council to undertake the following:

·   Prepare a Place Management Strategy;

·   Update the Public Domain Plan;

·   Investigate and implement permanent and temporary open space solutions; and

·   Undertake a feasibility study for the Hurstville City Centre within the study boundary, as outlined in the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy (May 2018)

·   Consider the transition areas to the north of the study boundary as part of the Commercial Centres Strategy.

 

62.    Council to prepare a new block based DCP for the Hurstville City Centre which will be presented to Councillor Workshops in the coming months.

 

63.    Development of a 3D model to allow officers to test Planning Proposals and development applications within the Hurstville City Centre.

 

64.    The Strategy will form the basis of site-specific Planning Proposals and Development Applications.

 

Note: A variation to the Hurstville LEP 2012 and Kogarah LEP 2012 controls will trigger the consideration of Council’s existing Planning Agreement Policy.

 

Financial Implications

65.    Within budget allocation.

 

Community Engagement

 

66.    The draft Strategy was exhibited from 27 September to 10 November 2017 comprising a week of drop-in sessions.

 

67.    It is recommended that if Council adopts the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy, those who made submissions during the public exhibition period and affected landowners be notified.

 

68.    It is recommended that Council continue to receive submissions on the Strategy during the preparation of the Planning Proposal.

 

File Reference

16/1127

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy - Final - 4 June 2018 - published in separate document

Attachment 2

Council Report 7 August 2017 - Draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy - CCL155-17 - published in separate document

Attachment 3

Summary of Submissions - Draft Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy - published in separate document


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Standing Committee Meeting -  Tuesday, 12 June 2018       Page 40

Item:                   ENV015-18        Notification & Advertising Development Control Plans - Amended Plans 

Author:              Strategic Planner and Executive Assistant to Director Environment and Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

(a)     That Council endorse the draft amendments to Hurstville Development Control Plan No.1 Amendment No 6– Part 2.2, Hurstville Control Plan No.2 Amendment No. 7 – Part 2.4 and Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 Amendment No. 3 – Part A2 relating to the notification of amended plans to undetermined applications and Class 1 development appeals in the Land and Environment Court.

(b)     That the draft Development Controls Plans be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the provision of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations.

 

(c)     That the information contained in Attachment 1 relating to Land & Environment Court matters be placed on Councils website.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

1.      Council at its meeting in December 2017 adopted amendments to Hurstville Development Control Plan No: (HDCP No1), and Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP) in order to harmonise the notification and advertising requirements for development applications.

2.      In the previous review of the three Development Control Plans (DCPs) that apply to Georges River Local Government Area, a provision for amended plans in undetermined applications was inadvertently excluded in the exhibited and adopted DCP versions.

3.      This report recommends that all three DCPs be amended by including the requirements for notification of amended plans in undetermined applications and controls around Class 1 development appeals and residential development appeals in the Land and Environment Court.

4.      The proposed amendment will improve application processing time and reduce the need to notify amendments that do not significantly alter the intensity of likely adverse impact of the proposed development application.

5.      The proposed changes to the DCPs, aim to make the re-notification process consistent with the practice of other Council’s and with the recent amendments to the Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979, where clause 13 of Division 2 Schedule 1 makes it clear that amended applications may not require re-notification.

6.      The proposed website content will make the Class 1 appeals process transparent to resident objectors.

 

Background

 

7.      The requirements for notification and advertising of amendments to Georges River Council are located in three different DCPs. These are:

·      Hurstville Development Control Plan No.1 (Amendment No. 6) – Part 2.2

·      Hurstville Development Control Plan No.2 (Amendment No. 7) – Part 2.4

·      Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (Amendment No. 3) – Part A2

A review of the 3 DCPs occurred in late 2017 in order to harmonise the notification requirements of development applications.

The key approach of the review of the DCP provisions was categorisation of the DA’s based on developed type and the associated notification and advertising that is required.

The four categories are:

·    Category A- Das which will not be notified as they are unlikely to have an adverse impact on the locality by flooding.

·    Category B – Minor developments which will be notified, but are unlikely to have a major impact on the amenity of the locality.

·    Category C – Other local developments which will be notified, and are likely to have a major impact on the amenity of the locality.

·    Category D – Major developments which will be advertised due to the significant impacts that may be generated by the development.

Council adopted the amended DCPs at its meeting on 18 December 2017.

8.      The purpose of this proposed amendment is to:

·      Add provisions to the above DCPs in relation to when amendments to undetermined applications will not have to be notified or advertised.

·      Include a section relating to development applications and modification applications before the Land and Environment Court in a Class 1 appeal.

Reason for the proposed amendment

A further amendment to the notification of DCPs to introduce provisions for the notifications to amend plans in undetermined applications and development appeals in the Land and Environment Court are aimed at improving application process times and reduce the need to re notify amended plans that do not significantly intensify the impacts of the proposed development.

 

Amendments prior to determination

9.      The amendments will be inserted into the Neighbour Notification and Advertising of Development Applications as follows:

·      Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 – Section 2.2.8

·      Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 2 – Section 2.4.8

·      Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 – Section 2.5

 

10.    The words to be inserted into the sections listed above are as follows:-

Where Council received amended plans prior to determination, Council will notify:

a) If an application is amended prior to determination, it will be re-notified if, in the opinion of the Council Officer, the amendments are considered to result in significant additional environmental impacts.

b) The notification period may be reduced if, in the opinion of the Council officer all persons affected by the change(s) have been given an opportunity to make a submission.

c)  The extent of the notification may be limited to those persons who in the opinion of the Council officer may be affected.

 

Class 1 development appeals in the Land and Environment Court

11.    It is proposed to add a section relating to Class 1 appeals in the Land and Environment Court within the Neighbour Notification and Advertising of Development Applications in relevant places. These sections are:

·      Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 1 – Section 2.2.9

·      Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 2 – Section 2.4.9

·      Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 – Section 2.6

 

12.    The words to be inserted are as follows:-

Provisions for notification of amended plans in Class 1 development appeals in the Land and Environment Court:

a) In Class 1 development appeals the Court, rather than Council, is the consent authority.

b) If amended plans are submitted as part of a confidential conciliation conference and the Council’s experts consider that they adequately address Council’s concerns and can be approved, the amended plans will not be re-notified. This is because the resident objectors are not a party to the proceedings and the experts, in making their assessment, will have regard to the matters for consideration specified in section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including any submissions made.

 

c)  If the applicant is granted leave by the Court to rely on amended plans during the course of an appeal, the amended plans will be re-notified by Council if required under this DCP to the extent that the Court, in its discretion, determines that re-notification takes place.

 

Notes

·      Amended plans submitted during the course of proceedings will often not require notification under this DCP because the amended development will result in no significant additional environmental impacts.

·      The Court’s Conciliation Conference Policy and Site Inspection Policy both provide that Council should ensure that:

“People who made submissions to the council have a full understanding of the proposal (including recent amendments) so that any concerns expressed on-site are relevant”.

 

Georges River Council Internet Website

13.    In conjunction with the amendments to the three DCPs, it is also proposed to insert information on the Council’s website to cover the following masters:-

·      Class 1 Development Appeals

·      Resident involvement in Class 1 Development Appeals

·      Section 34 Conciliation Conferences

·      Hearings – resident involvement

·      Amended Plans when they are renotified

 

14.    The text for the website is attached as Attachment 1 to this report.

 

Next Steps

15.    A copy of the draft Hurstville Development Control Plan No.1 (Amendment No. 7) – Part 2, Hurstville Development Control Plan No.2 (Amendment No. 8) – Part 2 and Kogarah Development Control Plan (Amendment No.4) – Part A2 for public exhibition in accordance with the Environmental and Assessment Act 1979 is provided in Attachments 2 to 4.

16.    The notification requirements for amended plans are entirely consistent with the amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, where clause 13 Division 2, Schedule 1.

 

17.    The draft amended DCPs will be publicly exhibited in accordance with the Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979 for public comment.

 

Financial Implications

18.    Within budget allocation.

 

Community Engagement

19.    The draft amended DCPs will be publicly exhibited in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for public comment and community engagement.

 

File Reference

17/1955   D18/110108

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Class 1 appeals - website wording - published in separate document

Attachment 2

DCP 1 - Section 2 Application Process Amendment 7 - DRAFT - published in separate document

Attachment 3

DCP 2 - Section 2 Application Process Amendment 8 - DRAFT - published in separate document

Attachment 4

Kogarah DCP - Part A2 Application Process Amendment 4 - DRAFT - published in separate document

 


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Standing Committee Meeting -  Tuesday, 12 June 2018       Page 44

Item:                   ENV016-18        Economic Development Advisory Committee Minutes Monday 4 June 2018 

Author:              Economic Development Officer

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation

That the Environment and Planning Committee adopt the recommendations contained within the Minutes of the Economic Development Advisory Committee held on Monday 4 June 2018.

  

 

Executive Summary

 

1.      Minutes of the Economic Development Advisory Committee meeting held on Monday 4 June 2018 are attached for Council’s consideration and adoption.

 

Background

 

2.      In accordance with the adopted Terms of Reference the Economic Development Advisory Committee will meet quarterly and items considered by the Committee will be presented to the Environment and Planning Committee for their adoption and posted to Council’s website.

The agenda items considered by the Advisory Committee were:

·    Draft Economic Development Strategy

·    Big Wash and Kogarah Clean Update

·    Advertising and Signage Requirements Update

·    Economic Development Advisory Committee vacancy

·    Smart Cities Update

·    Night Time Economy

·    NSW Small Business Month

 

Financial Implications

 

3.      No budget impact as a result of this report.

 

Community Engagement

 

4.      Community engagement is not required for the purpose of this report.

 

File Reference

17/1831 and D18/120099

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Economic Development Committee Minutes - 4 June 2018

 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Standing Committee Meeting - Tuesday, 12 June 2018

ENV016-18             Economic Development Advisory Committee Minutes Monday 4 June 2018

[Appendix 1]          Economic Development Committee Minutes - 4 June 2018

 

 

Page 46