Environment and Planning Committee

Notice of Meeting

Monday, 09 July 2018

 

 

 

A meeting of the Environment and Planning Committee will be held at 6.00pm on Monday, 9 July 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 Committee Meeting

Summary of Items

Monday, 09 July 2018

 

Previous Minutes

MINUTES: Environment and Planning - 12 June 2018  

 

Committee Reports

ENV017-18       Asbestos Awareness Education program

(Report by Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services)........................ 2

ENV018-18       Planning Proposal PP2017/0002 - 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights

(Report by Strategic Planner)....................................................................................... 6

ENV019-18       Planning Proposal - 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville

(Report by Strategic Planner).................................................................................... 29

ENV020-18       Planning Proposal and Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 - Hurstville City Centre for Nos.108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville

(Report by Senior Strategic Planner)....................................................................... 79

ENV021-18       Draft Georges River Economic Development Strategy

(Report by Manager Strategic Planning)............................................................... 129   

 


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Committee Meeting -  Monday, 9 July 2018                              Page 2

4.      Committee Reports

Item:                   ENV017-18        Asbestos Awareness Education program  

Author:              Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council note the Asbestos Awareness Education program and strategies to improve knowledge, regulation and enforcement of asbestos related matters.

 

Background

 

1.    Council resolved on 27 November 2017 as follows: 

 

(a)     That the General Manager prepare a report to Council on the introduction of an Asbestos Management and Education Program within the Local Government Area in early 2018.

 

(b)     That the report include options for improving community awareness and strategies to improve the regulation, enforcement and coordination of asbestos handling across the various levels of Government and relevant agencies.

 

(c)     That the report identify potential sources of funding and timeframes for implementation of the Program during 2018.

 

2.    Australia has one of the highest rates of asbestos related diseases in the world.  The large number of home renovations and maintenance where householders are exposed to asbestos fibres has the ability to increase asbestos related diseases.

 

3.    Asbestos can be found in any home constructed or renovated before 1987, it can be found under floor coverings e.g. carpets and linoleum, it can be found in internal and external walls, ceilings and eaves.

 

Improving community awareness

 

4.    A number of Government and Non-Government Agencies currently produce a range of free resources to raise awareness regarding asbestos within the environment and asbestos related illnesses.

 

5.    It is not proposed to ‘reinvent the wheel’ with the proposed Asbestos Management and Education Program, moreover it is proposed to harness the existing resources available and expand the coverage of these resources further into our community.

 

6.    Methods that will be used as part of the Education Program will include distribution of information with development consents, improved website/Facebook information via the creation of a dedicated page – Asbestos in the Community, targeted community education events and use of Council’s existing print communication networks to reach the community.

 

7.    An example of an existing web based resource that will be linked to Council’s Asbestos in the Community webpage is The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency.  This agency was established by the Australian Government on 1 July 2013, to provide a national focus on asbestos issues which goes beyond workplace safety to encompass environmental and public health concerns. The agency aims to ensure asbestos issues receive the attention and focus needed to drive change across all levels of government. Their website contains practical information to assist owner builders on how to conduct safe home renovations.

 

8.    In NSW, SafeWork NSW chairs The Heads of Asbestos Coordination Authorities (HACA) which works to improve the management, monitoring and response to asbestos issues in NSW by developing and supporting coordinated prevention programs. These programs include a public awareness campaign to promote the safe handling of asbestos during home renovations and maintenance to help prevent asbestos related diseases.

 

9.    The Asbestos Awareness Campaign is centred on the asbestosawareness.com.au web site which is jointly funded by the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, and all State Government Agencies. The website operates under the promotional banner “Don’t Play Renovation Roulette!” and features specific education information, educational videos featuring Australian actor John Jarratt and key promotional activities including ‘Betty’ the ADRI House and Asbestos Awareness Month in November. The website also contains the 1800 Asbestos Hotline (1800 272 378) to provide free advice and guidance on asbestos-related issues and is a central point of contact for all asbestos enquiries in NSW. Council will promote the website and the Asbestos Hotline number via the Asbestos in the Community webpage.

 

10.  ‘Betty’ the ADRI House is a purpose built, mobile model home designed to demonstrate where asbestos might be found in and around any Australian home built or renovated before 1987. Her exterior resembles a typical fibro home, but when opened up, she has extensive audio and visual information including a bathroom, kitchen, living room, man shed/garage and a dog house.  Betty is the first of her kind in Australia and the world, and is a community engagement and experiential awareness initiative of the Asbestos Education Committee in partnership with the Asbestos Diseases Research Institute (ADRI). Council will book the “Betty the ADRI House” to educate the community at one of Councils community education events.

 

11.  Council participated in Asbestos Awareness Month last November by hosting a staff morning tea and donated all funds raised to develop medical treatments to reduce the impact of asbestos on society. Council will again participate in Asbestos Awareness Month in November 2018. A number of Councils across Australia have become supporters of the Asbestos Awareness Campaign “Don’t Play Renovation Roulette!” and Council will this year become a supporter as part of its Education Program by promoting the above initiatives and events.

 

12.  Council’s Education Program will be implemented in November 2018, to coincide with and promote Asbestos Awareness Month, and will be promoted through Council’s social media and website as well as through information posters placed in all libraries.

 

13.  Face to face contact is the most beneficial method to change behaviour, and Council’s Building Assessment and Development Compliance Officers will continue to educate the community when they are discussing development plans with residents and during site inspections.

 


 

Improving regulation, enforcement and coordination across Government

 

14.  There is often confusion amongst the community as to the appropriate regulatory agency to contact to investigate asbestos related matters, particularly during the demolition of existing structures on residential premises. In such situations there may be a number of different regulators involved depending on the circumstances and enquiries may be referred to and from various agencies leading to frustration for the community.  For example WorkSafe NSW may be involved to regulate work sites from a Work Health and Safety perspective (i.e. worker safety) while Council or a Private Certifier may be involved to regulate removal and disposal of asbestos related building components to ensure asbestos does not remain on or leave the site (i.e. community safety).

 

15.  This issue will be clarified via the Asbestos in the Community webpage which will provide clear and direct information to the community to follow based on typical scenarios where asbestos may be encountered by the community such as building/renovating or illegal dumping. Each scenario will provide information and direct enquiries to the appropriate regulatory agency depending on the circumstances of the scenario.

 

16.  A positive example of existing inter-government cooperation in the investigation of asbestos dumping is the Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping Squad (RID Squad) which is partially funded by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and member Councils.  As a member of this group, Council is able to share information with other member Councils including the EPA which allows for a more thorough investigation.  Previous incidents of illegal dumping of asbestos on Council property have been investigated with the assistance of the RID Squad. In one case a successful prosecution was achieved against the people responsible for the dumping of a large load of asbestos in the Kingsgrove Commercial area.

 

17.  At a local level, Council’s Waste Field Officers conduct proactive patrols to ensure that any dumped asbestos is investigated and removed with in a timely manner.  Council’s Customer Service Team has received training, and has a system to prioritise referral of requests concerning the dumping of asbestos.  Council officers after being notified of a potential illegal dumping of asbestos attend the site to conduct an investigation and to cordon off the area so it is not accessed by the public.  The officer then contacts the SSROC panel contractor for asbestos removal, and the material is removed within 24 hours while the investigation continues.

 

18.  Nationally, the Australian Government has created the National Asbestos Exposure Register (NAER) to record the details of members of the community who believe that they may have been exposed to asbestos. The purpose of the NAER is to make sure that there is a record of asbestos exposures, and also so that the data gathered can be used to identify potential risks to members of the community. Council will include a link to the NAER on its new Asbestos in the Community webpage.

 

19.  Council has established communication networks with Local Government NSW and SafeWork NSW, and receives information regarding any updates to policy or any incidents that occur within the Georges River Council area. This information will be used to update the community on relevant asbestos related matters.

 

Conclusion

 

20.  Council will implement the an Asbestos education program in November 2018, which will include:

 

 

·    Creation of an asbestos specific webpage - Asbestos in the Community, to provide information to educate the community and enable a coordinated approach to asbestos regulation across the various levels of Government and relevant agencies.

 

·    Distribution of information on asbestos issues relevant to developers, private certifiers and residents through development applications.

 

·    Becoming a supporter of the Asbestos Awareness Campaign - “Don’t Play Renovation Roulette!”

 

·    Promotion of “Betty” the ADRI House at a community education event.

 

·    Promotion of Asbestos Awareness Month in November.

 

·    Promotion of the 1800 Asbestos Hotline (1800 272 378).

 

·    Continuation of membership of the Sydney RID Squad for 2018/2019.

 

·    Provision of feedback on any government policies relating to asbestos.

 

·    The use of social media e.g. Twitter, Facebook and potentially WeChat.

 

·    Explore the inclusion of flyers with Council’s rate notice.

 

Financial Implications

 

21.  No budget impact for this report.

 

Risk Implications

 

22.  No risks identified.

 

Community Engagement

 

23.  As detailed in the report.

 

File Reference

 

17/1831 and D18/116690

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Committee Meeting -  Monday, 9 July 2018                              Page 6

Item:                   ENV018-18        Planning Proposal PP2017/0002 - 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights 

Author:              Strategic Planner

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

(a)     That Council publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal PP2017/0002 for No. 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights, in accordance with the conditions of the Gateway Determination issued by the Department of Planning and Environment.

(b)     That a further report be submitted to Council following the public exhibition period.

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

1.      On 8 June 2017, the Planning Proposal (PP2017/0002) for No. 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights, was submitted by Capital Syndications Pty Ltd (trading as ‘Innova Capital’) on behalf of the owner (Learning Links).

2.      The proposal (as amended) is to change the land use zoning from SP2 Infrastructure (Church) to R2 Low Density Residential and include a maximum FSR control of 1:1, building height of 9m and minimum lot size of 450m2. The proposal also seeks to amend Schedule 1 to include office premises, and a restaurant or café as additional permitted uses.

3.      The Planning Proposal seeks to validate the existing employment based land uses on the site and allow for a broader range of land uses that would be consistent with the existing uses on the site by rezoning from SP2 to R2. The proposed height and FSR are compatible with neighbouring sites.

4.      Council at its meeting on 18 December 2017, considered the Planning Proposal for No. 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights, and resolved:

(a)     That Council forward the Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012) as follows, to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway Determination under Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

a.      To change the land use zoning from SP2 Church and Community Purpose to R2 Low Density Residential;

b.      To include a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control of 1:1;

c.      To include a maximum building height of 9m; and

d.      To amend Schedule 1 to include the following additional uses for the site: office premises; restaurant or cafe.

5.      The Planning Proposal was forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination on 21 February 2018, in accordance with Council’s resolution and Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (previously Section 56).

6.      A Gateway Determination was issued by the Department of Planning and Environment on 16 March 2018, subject to conditions as summarised below:

1.   Prior to community consultation the planning proposal is to be updated to:

(a)     include the proposed minimum lot size control within the explanation of provisions;

(b)     include maps indicating the current and proposed minimum lot size controls;

(c)     include a concept or block diagram to demonstrate the proposed built form controls; and

(d)     discuss in more detail why Council considers the proposed amendment to the zoning, built from controls and Schedule 1 of the LEP is suitable and the best means of achieving the proposal’s intended outcomes.

The revised planning proposal is to be provided to the Department for review and approval for public exhibition.

2.   The Planning Proposal is to publicly exhibited for a minimum of 28 days.

 

3.   The NSW Department of Education is required to be consulted.

 

4.   A public hearing is not required.

 

5.   The timeframe for completing the LEP is 9 months following the date of the Gateway Determination.

 

7.      Refer to Attachment 1 for a copy of the Gateway Determination.

 

8.      The Department has reviewed the Planning Proposal, and are satisfied it complies with the Gateway Determination conditions and can be placed on public exhibition. The Planning Proposal is Attachment 2 of this report.

9.      This report recommends that Council place the Planning Proposal on public exhibition.

10.    The existing development is a community facility registered as a not for profit organisation that services children with learning difficulties and disabilities such as speech pathology and occupational therapy. The proposal provides a significant public benefit to the community by providing services for children with learning difficulties. Accordingly, Council has not applied the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) Policy to the Planning Proposal.

 

BACKGROUND

 

11.    On 8 June 2017, the Planning Proposal (PP2017/0002) for No. 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights, was submitted by Capital Syndications Pty Ltd (trading as ‘Innova Capital’) on behalf of the owner (Learning Links).

12.    The subject site at No. 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights comprises two lots known as Lot 58 DP 206906 and Lot 59 of DP 206906 which have a primary street frontage to Pindari Road and a secondary frontage to Pindari Road Reserve.

13.    The Planning Proposal lodged on 8 June 2017 sought:

(a)     To change the land use zoning from SP2 Church and Community Purpose to B1 Neighbourhood Centre;

(b)     To include a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control of 1.5:1; and

(c)     To include a maximum building height of 9m.

14.    The Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) considered the Planning Proposal for the site at its meeting on 26 October 2017. The IHAP resolved to defer the Planning Proposal at the request of the proponent and recommended that the proponent address the following:

(a)     Consistency of the existing zoning pattern;

(b)     The required land uses for the continued operation of Learning Links and to ensure the future long term economic viability of the site; and

(c)     Built form controls that minimise the adverse impact on the adjoining R2 Low Density Residential development.  It was advised that a built form analysis of the proposed controls be undertaken.

15.    In making the decision to defer the Planning Proposal, the Georges River IHAP discussed with the proponent the following recommended changes to the current planning controls:

(a)     Amend the land use zoning from SP2 Infrastructure (Church) to R2 Low Density Residential;

(b)     Amend the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control to 1:1;

(c)     Amend the maximum building height to 9m; and

(d)     Amend Schedule 1 to include ‘educational establishment’ as an additional land use for the subject property.

16.    The Panel provided the following reasons for its decision:

The Panel did not consider the proposed change of the zoning to B1 Neighbourhood Centre to be an appropriate planning outcome in relation to the existing and likely future zoning and built form outcome.

17.    The applicant (Innova Capital) advised Council that amending Schedule 1 to include ‘educational establishment’ as an additional land use (as recommended by IHAP) was not appropriate for the subject site because Learning Links is not considered to be an ‘educational establishment’ defined by the Standard Instrument.

18.    As a result of IHAP’s recommendation at its meeting on 26 October 2017, the applicant amended the Planning Proposal by letter dated 6 November 2017, requesting the following:

(a)     To change the land use zoning from SP2 Infrastructure (Church) to R2 Low Density Residential;

(b)     To include a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control of 1:1;

(c)     To include a maximum building height of 9m; and

(d)     To amend Schedule 1 to include the following additional uses for the site: office premises, and restaurant or cafe.

19.    The IHAP at its meeting on 5 December 2017, considered the amended Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012) and recommended Council forward the Planning Proposal to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway Determination under Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (previously Section 56).

20.    Council at its meeting on 18 December 2017, resolved to support the recommendations of the IHAP and forward the Planning Proposal to the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway Determination.

21.    A Gateway Determination was issued by the Department of Planning and Environment on 16 March 2018, subject to conditions, including the following:

1.   Prior to community consultation the planning proposal is to be updated to:

a.    include the proposed minimum lot size control within the explanation of provisions;

b.    include maps indicating the current and proposed minimum lot size controls;

c.    include a concept or block diagram to demonstrate the proposed built form controls; and

d.    discuss in more detail why Council considers the proposed amendment to the zoning, built form controls and Schedule 1 of the LEP is suitable and the best means of achieving the proposal’s intended outcomes.

The revised planning proposal is to be provided to the Department for review and approval for public exhibition.

22.    In response to the conditions of the Gateway Determination, Council submitted an amended Planning Proposal to the Department which included the following information:

·        A minimum lot size control of 450m2 (currently there is no minimum lot size);

·        A proposed Lot Size Map (Sheet LSZ_002);

·        A concept diagram of an indicative building footprint and scale based on the proposed built form controls (building height of 9m and FSR of 1:1); and

·        Justification for the proposed amendments to the zoning, built form controls and Schedule 1 of the LEP (discussed under Assessment of the Planning Proposal).

 

23.    The Planning Proposal seeks to validate the existing employment based land uses on the site and allow for a broader range of land uses that would be consistent with the existing uses on the site by rezoning from SP2 to R2. The proposed height and FSR are compatible with neighbouring sites.

24.    The Department of Planning and Environment reviewed the amended Planning Proposal and notified Council on 1 June 2018, that they are satisfied that the Planning Proposal is consistent with the conditions of the Gateway Determination, and it can be publicly exhibited.  

25.    The existing development is a community facility registered as a not for profit organisation that services children with learning difficulties and disabilities such as speech pathology and occupational therapy. The proposal provides a significant public benefit to the community by providing services for children with learning difficulties. Accordingly, Council has not applied the VPA Policy to the Planning Proposal.

 

THE SITE AND LOCALITY

 

26.    The subject site includes two (2) lots with a combined area of 1,170m2 which are known as No. 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights as shown in the aerial image below (Figure 1) and comprise:

(a)     Lot 58 in DP 206906 (No. 12 Pindari Road) is generally rectangular in shape with an area of approximately 580m2 and frontage of approximately 15.85m to Pindari Road.

(b)     Lot 59 in DP 206906 (No. 14 Pindari Road) is irregular in shape with an area of approximately 590m2 and frontage of approximately 18.97m to Pindari Road and 38.105m to Pindari Road Reserve.

 

Figure 1: Aerial view of 12-14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights

 

27.    The subject site is owned and occupied by Learning Links. Learning Links is a not for profit organisation established by a group of parents who were concerned about the lack of appropriate education and support services to meet the needs of their children. Learning Links focuses on preventing learning difficulties from causing contemporary and future disadvantage. Learning Links provide a range of services that help support children with learning difficulties and disabilities such as speech pathology and occupational therapy.

28.    The subject site consists of the following building and open space elements as shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4 below:

 

(a)     An elevated building facing Pindari Road with a basement area (former church building) that is partitioned and used as an administrative office, tuition rooms and storage space (Figure 2).

(b)     A single storey building to the rear of the site accessed from Pindari Road Reserve that is connected to the main building. This is used as a child care centre (pre-school) (Figure 3).

(c)     An outdoor play and recreation area that is partly covered and adjoins the neighbouring dwelling at No. 10 Pindari Road. A high security gate to the outdoor play area runs along the Pindari Road front boundary (Figure 4).

 

Figure 2: Site as viewed from Pindari Road frontage

 

Figure 3: Site viewed from Pindari Road Reserve

 

Figure 4: Outdoor play/recreation area as viewed from Pindari Road

 

29.    A summary of the surrounding land is provided below and shown in Figures 5 and 6 below:

·        North: To the north of the site are low density residential dwelling houses. No.10 Pindari Road which immediately adjoins the site is a single storey brick dwelling house with a pitched roof and side carport. No. 8 Pindari Road is a two storey dwelling house with a pitched roof.

 

·        East: To the east of the site, on the opposite side of Pindari Road, is Peakhurst South Public School.

 

·        South: Immediately to the south of the site is a public open space area that is known as Pindari Road Reserve. The child care component of the subject site is accessed from this reserve. Further south of the reserve is the Peakhurst Heights Pindari Road Neighbourhood Centre.

 

·        West: To the west of the site are low density dwelling houses that front Karwarra Place, which is a cul-de-sac.  The rear boundaries of Nos. 4 and 5 Karwarra Place border the rear boundary of the subject site.

 

30.    It should be noted that there are no heritage items on or within the vicinity of the site.

 

Figure 5: Adjoining low density residential uses along Pindari Road

 

Figure 6: Adjacent shop top housing development in the

Peakhurst Heights Pindari Road Neighbourhood Centre

 

 

 

 

 

EXISTING PLANNING CONTROLS

 

31.    The Hurstville LEP 2012 applies to the site and the following provisions are relevant to the Planning Proposal:

 

Zoning

32.    The site is zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Church). The Learning Links component of the site is defined as a community facility under the HLEP 2012, and is therefore a permissible use in the SP2 zone. However, the centre-based child care facility, although previously approved, is prohibited under the current SP2 zone of the HLEP 2012. The child care centre was approved by the former Municipality of Hurstville in 1968 and operates under existing use rights.

33.    The current SP2 zone under the HLEP 2012 restricts redevelopment of sites for alternative uses by prohibiting all development types except for “roads” and “for the purposes shown on the Land Zoning Map” which for this site is a church use.

34.    The SP2 Infrastructure zone under the HLEP 2012, is considered overly restrictive and does not permit the range of uses that are existing on the site, and is out of date as the site has not been used as a place of public worship for over 25 years.

35.    The adjoining land to the south is zoned RE1 Public Recreation and B1 Neighbourhood Centre. Peakhurst South Public School on the opposite side of Pindari Road is zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Educational Establishment).

 

Development Standards

 

36.    Height of Buildings: the site has no nominated maximum building height. The adjoining and surrounding land has a maximum building height of 9m.

37.    Floor Space Ratio: the site has no nominated maximum Floor Space Ratio. The surrounding and adjoining low density residential housing has a maximum FSR of 0.6:1. Land to the south in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone has a maximum FSR of 1.5:1.

38.    Minimum Lot Size: the site has no nominated minimum lot size. The adjoining and surrounding land has a minimum lot size of 450m2.

 

THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

 

39.    The Planning Proposal requests the following amendments to the HLEP 2012, in relation to the site:

(a)     Amend the Land Zoning Map – Sheet LZN_002 to rezone the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church) to R2 Low Density Residential.

(b)     Amend the Height of Buildings Map - Sheet HOB_002 to include a maximum height limit of 9m.

(c)     Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map – Sheet FSR_002 to include a maximum FSR of 1:1.

(d)     Amend the Lot Size Map – Sheet LSZ_002 to include a minimum lot size of 450m2.

 

(e)     Amend Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses to include the following:

Use of certain land at 12 and 14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights;

(1)  This clause applies to land at 12 and 14 Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights, being Lot 58 and Lot 59, DP 206906.

(2)  Development for the purpose of an office premises, and restaurant or café is permitted with development consent.

40.    The proposed changes to the LEP maps are outlined below (Figures 7 to 10):

Figure 7: Proposed R2 Low Density Residential Zone

 

Figure 8: Proposed Building Height to 9m

 

Figure 9: Proposed FSR of 1:1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 10: Proposed Minimum Lot Size of 450m2

 

41.    The intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal are to:

(a)     Ensure the existing and approved use of the land is a permissible form of development in the zone.

(b)     Ensure principal building envelope controls (height and FSR) are legislated to allow for any future redevelopment of the site.

(c)     Ensure minimum lot size is legislated to provide a useable area for building and landscaping.

(d)     Provide certainty in the community in relation to any future redevelopment of the site.

ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

 

42.    A Gateway Determination was issued by the Department of Planning and Environment on 16 March 2018, subject to conditions, including the following:

1.      Prior to community consultation the planning proposal is to be updated to:

a.      include the proposed minimum lot size control within the explanation of provisions;

b.      include maps indicating the current and proposed minimum lot size controls;

c.      include a concept or block diagram to demonstrate the proposed built form controls; and

d.      discuss in more detail why Council considers the proposed amendment to the zoning, built form controls and Schedule 1 of the LEP is suitable and the best means of achieving the proposal’s intended outcomes.

The revised planning proposal is to be provided to the Department for review and approval for public exhibition.

43.    In response to the conditions of the Gateway Determination, Council submitted an amended Planning Proposal to the Department which included the following information:

·        A minimum lot size control of 450m2 (currently there is no minimum lot size);

·        A proposed Lot Size Map (Sheet LSZ_002);

·        A concept diagram of an indicative building footprint and scale based on the proposed built form controls (building height of 9m and FSR of 1:1); and

·        Justification for the proposed amendments to the zoning, built form controls and Schedule 1 of the LEP.

44.    The concept diagram and justification for the proposed amendments to the zoning, built form controls and Schedule 1 of the LEP are discussed below.

 

45.    The Department of Planning and Environment reviewed the amended Planning Proposal and notified Council on 1 June 2018, that they are satisfied that the Planning Proposal is consistent with the conditions of the Gateway Determination and it can be publicly exhibited. 

 

Zoning

 

46.    The current SP2 Infrastructure zone under the HLEP 2012, restricts redevelopment of sites for alternative uses by prohibiting all development types except for “roads” and for “the purpose shown on the Land Zoning Map”. With respect to the subject site, the Land Zoning Map identifies the site for a “Church” use only.

47.    The Learning Links component of the site is defined as a community facility and was permissible under the former Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. The child care centre was approved as a ‘pre-school kindergarten’ under BA-758 in 1968 by the former Municipality of Hurstville. The former Hurstville City Council also approved ‘office space and after school accommodation’ in 1990 under development application DA-479/90.

48.    The SP2 Infrastructure zone under the HLEP 2012, is considered overly restrictive to allow the range of uses that are existing on the site, and is out of date as the site has not been used as a place of public worship for over 25 years.

49.    An assessment was undertaken to determine the most appropriate zone for the site. The intention of the Planning Proposal is to formalise the existing uses on the site and to allow future expansion of the community facility to permit offices ancillary to the existing uses, including centre-based child care facility.

50.    The Planning Proposal recommends the site be rezoned to a R2 Low Density Residential zone which is consistent with the surrounding zoning.

51.    The objective of the R2 Low Density Residential zone is to provide for the housing needs of the community, as well as to encourage development of sites for a range of housing types. Community facilities and centre-based child care facilities are permissible in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

52.    The additional land uses sought by the proponent for office premises, and restaurant or café are not permissible in the R2 Low Density Residential zone and therefore, are proposed to be included in Schedule 1 (Additional Permitted Uses) of the HLEP 2012.

53.    This approach would allow the primary use of the site as a community facility to be maintained and formalised as a permissible land use on the site, preventing any potential misinterpretation under existing use rights. These additional land uses are considered appropriate in the context of the site which includes residential, commercial and educational uses.

 

Development Standards

 

54.    It is noted that currently under the HLEP 2012, there are no maximum height, maximum FSR or minimum lot size controls for the site due to its SP2 Infrastructure zoning.

55.    In addition to adopting the surrounding R2 Low Density Residential zoning, the Planning Proposal seeks to adopt the standard controls that apply to the R2 Low Density Residential zone in regards to maximum building height and minimum lot size. Furthermore, the proposed maximum building height control of 9m is consistent with the neighbouring B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone. Accordingly, the proposed maximum building height and minimum lot size is considered appropriate given the surrounding context.

56.    The maximum FSR on the adjoining R2 Low Density Residential zone is 0.6:1 and the maximum FSR on the nearby B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone is 1.5:1. The Planning Proposal seeks an FSR of 1:1, which is considered compatible with the surrounding FSR controls, providing a transition between the R2 and B1 zones.

57.    In accordance with the conditions of the Gateway Determination, a block diagram was submitted by the applicant to demonstrate the proposed built form controls. Figure 11 below illustrates an indicative building footprint and scale based on the maximum proposed built form controls (i.e. building height of 9m and FSR of 1:1). The proposed height and FSR controls are considered appropriate in the context of the adjoining R2 and B1 zones as:

·        The 9m height limit represents a building that does not appear excessive in terms of bulk and scale. It is consistent with the surrounding two storey dwelling houses and adjacent shop top housing.

·        The 1.1 FSR would ensure a future development is of a built form that provides an appropriate transition between the R2 (FSR 0.6:1) and B1 (FSR 1:1) zones.

·        The site adjoins the Pindari Road Reserve and the rear of properties fronting Karwarra Place, providing a building separation to adjoining dwelling houses and minimising adverse amenity impacts. A future development utilising the proposed maximum built form controls would also have minimal impact, such as overshadowing on the adjoining residential properties to the north given the site’s location to the south.

 

Figure 11: Extract of applicant’s Planning Proposal illustrating indicative building footprint

 

 

Strategic Planning Context

 

58.    Consideration of the Planning Proposal request in relation to the current plans and strategies – Greater Sydney Region Plan - A Metropolis of Three Cities, South District Plan, Draft Community Strategic Plan 2028, and Employment Lands Study is provided below.

 

Greater Sydney Region Plan – A Metropolis of Three Cities

 

59.    The Planning Proposal is consistent with the directions and objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan – A Metropolis of Three Cities which was released by the Greater Sydney Commission on 18 March 2018.

60.    The Greater Sydney Region Plan has ten directions:

·        A city supported by infrastructure

·        A collaborative city

·        A city for people

·        Housing the city

·        A city of great places

·        A well-connected city

·        Jobs and skills for the city

·        A city in its landscape

·        An efficient city

·        A resilient city

 

61.    The Planning Proposal achieves the following relevant directions and objectives:

 

Direction: A city for people

          Objective 6: Services and infrastructure meet communities’ changing needs

The proposal allows for the continuation of the existing uses on site within a permissible zone. The primary use of the site as a community facility that provides vital services to the growing community is proposed to be maintained.

 

Direction: Jobs and skills for the city

Objective 22: Investment and business activity in centres

The proposal will allow the site be used for employment, providing business activity in the Peakhurst Heights local centre. The existing employment uses, such as the Learning Links facility which is the largest employer in the precinct, is proposed to be maintained on the site, retaining jobs in the precinct.

 

South District Plan

 

62.    The South District Plan which was released by the Greater Sydney Commission on 18 March 2018 provides a 20 year plan to manage growth and achieve the 40 year vision, while enhancing Greater Sydney’s liveability, productivity and sustainability into the future. The Planning Proposal is consistent with the relevant planning priorities:

 

·        S3 Providing services and social infrastructure to meet people’s changing needs;

·        S4 Fostering healthy, creative, culturally rich and socially connected communities;

·        S6 Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the District’s heritage; and

·        S8 Growing and investing in health and education precincts, and Bankstown Airport trade gateway as economic catalysts for the District.

 

63.    The proposal is consistent with planning priorities S3 and S4 by protecting the employment land of the Learning Links site and the provision of existing children’s educational support services in the local community. Providing more flexibility in the allowable uses permitted on the site ensures that the owners can provide services that meet the changing needs of the community.

64.    The proposed rezoning is consistent with planning priority S6 and S8 as it provides the opportunity for new ancillary uses to cluster around existing health and education facilities. The site’s immediate adjacency and accessibility to Peakhurst South Public School addresses priorities of the Plan in relation to planning for connected and stronger economic and employment centres where proximity of health and education assets creates significant opportunity to drive economic activity and a sustainable and liveable city.

 

Community Strategic Plan 2028

 

65.    The Community Strategic Plan 2028 was adopted by Council on 25 June 2018. The Plan is an integrated community plan for the Georges River LGA that identifies the following six pillars with goals and strategies to shape our planning for the community for the next 10 years:

1.      A protected environment and green open spaces.

2.      Quality, well planned development.

3.      Active and accessible places and spaces.

4.      A diverse and productive economy.

5.      A harmonious and proud community with strong social services and infrastructure.

6.      Leadership and transparency.

66.    The Planning Proposal achieves the following relevant Goals of the Plan:

Pillar 4:     A diverse and productive economy

 

Goal 4.1: Local businesses are supported to help protect jobs and create employment opportunities


The proposal will protect existing and create local employment opportunities. The site generates a significant amount of employment for the local area and wider community.
 

Pillar 5: A harmonious and proud community with strong social services and infrastructure

Goal 5.3: The community is socially and culturally connected.

Goal 5.4: Diverse, vibrant community facilities and spaces are connected, well maintained and accessible.

 

The proposal will allow for the retention of a centre-based child care facility and community facility within close proximity to the Pindari Road local centre. This is essential to meet the community’s growing needs for child care centres and children services and in doing so will assist in satisfying the objective of this strategic plan in permitting the provision of more community facilities.

 

Employment Lands Study

 

67.    The Georges River Employment Lands Study provides Council with a strategic direction for employment lands across the Georges River LGA to ensure that sufficient land is zoned to accommodate future employment growth.

68.    The area to the south of the subject site is known as the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct.

69.    The Study considers the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct as a centre that has opportunity to accommodate growth. The Precinct is zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre. Key land uses in the precinct include neighbourhood shops, and shop top housing such as a hairdresser, yoga studio, and podiatry.

70.    Surrounding land uses are predominantly low density residential. The Learning Links site and Peakhurst South Public School are located on Pindari Road and adjoin the Precinct.

71.    The current development standards within the Precinct are a maximum FSR of 1.5:1 and building height limit of 9m. The draft Study makes the following recommendations in respect to the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct:

(a)     Retain the existing B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.

(b)     Increase the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1.

(c)     Review land uses in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone to allow additional land uses.

72.    The Study identifies the opportunity to increase the maximum building height in all B1 Neighbourhood Centre zones. The current height limits the potential for the permitted FSR of 1.5:1 to be realised.

73.    The subject site is not included in the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct as it is not currently zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

74.    The Learning Links facility is one of the largest employers in the Peakhurst Heights locality. The site generates a significant amount of employment for the local area and wider community. It comprises approximately 22 full time staff, 47 part time staff, 122 causal staff and 1 volunteer.

75.    Submissions on behalf of the landowners of the subject site were made during the public exhibition of the Employments Lands Study, requesting consideration of inclusion into the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct.

76.    The site, despite currently being zoned SP2 Infrastructure plays a vital role in providing employment that supports the Precinct. The Planning Proposal supports the viability of the Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road Precinct. 

 

State and Regional Statutory Framework

 

77.    The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following relevant State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) as assessed by the applicant below:

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017

 

78.    On 1 September 2017, the State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 was gazetted.

79.    The SEPP aims to facilitate the effective delivery of educational establishments and early education and care facilities across the State.

80.    The SEPP also introduces a common assessment framework comprising the Child Care Planning Guideline and non-discretionary development standards. The Guideline contains key national requirements and planning and design guidance for child care facilities which generally prevail over local development control plans.

81.    The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the aims of the SEPP by legitimising the existing centre-based child care facility land use on the subject site, and henceforth allowing future upgrades and/or expansion of the early education facility on site. This will ensure the essential services currently provided on the site are protected whilst promoting the employment growth and viability of the Peakhurst Heights Neighbourhood Centre.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 Remediation of Land

 

82.    SEPP 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing risk and harm to human health, or any other aspects of the environment.

83.    The Planning Proposal does not contain provisions that will contradict or hinder the application of this SEPP. The site is unlikely to be contaminated. The site has a long history of being used as a place of public worship and child care centre. This Planning Proposal aims to rezone the site to R2 Low Density Residential and permit office premises, restaurants and cafes only, and will not result in any activities that are likely to expose humans or the environment to risks of contamination.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 (Bushland in Urban Areas)

 

84.    SEPP 19 aims to protect and preserve bushland within urban areas.

85.    The SEPP applies to land that adjoins land zoned or reserved for public open space. The site adjoins Pindari Road Reserve which is zoned RE1 Public Recreation. The proposal does not affect the public open space land by way of erosion of soils, siltation of streams and waterways, or the spread of weeds and exotic plants.

 

S9.1 Ministerial Directions

 

86.    Ministerial Directions under Section 9.1 (formerly S117) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, set out a range of matters to be considered when preparing an amendment to a Local Environmental Plan.

87.    The Planning Proposal is consistent with all relevant ministerial directions as assessed by the applicant in Table 1 below:

 

S9.1 Direction

Assessment

3.1 Residential Zones

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of this direction. The Planning Proposal seeks to rezone the land from SP2 to R2. The R2 zone will allow a range of residential uses as well as uses that support the local community.

 

6.3 Site Specific Provisions

The proposal is consistent with the objective of this direction in that it discourages unnecessarily restrictive site specific planning controls. The range of uses permissible under the R2 zone and the additional permitted uses to be included under Schedule 1 of the LEP allows flexibility for redevelopment of the site.

7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney

A Plan For Growing Sydney has been replaced by the Greater Sydney Commission’s Greater Sydney Region Plan – A Metropolis of Three Cities. The Planning Proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan, as assessed by the applicant above.

 

 

 

Existing Use Rights

 

88.    Under Division 4.11 (Existing Uses) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, existing use is defined as “the use of a building, work or land for which development consent was granted before the commencement of a provision of an environmental planning instrument having the effect of prohibiting the use”.

89.    In accordance with the above definition, the existing development on the site is deemed to possess existing use rights in that the use of a ‘centre-based child care facility’ was approved prior to the commencement of the HLEP 2012, which prohibits the use. The use was approved as a ‘pre-school kindergarten’ under BA-758 in 1968, by the former Municipality of Hurstville. The former Hurstville City Council also approved ‘office space and after school accommodation’ in 1990, under development application DA 479/90.

90.    The Planning Proposal request to include ‘office premises’ as an additional permitted use in Schedule 1 of the HLEP 2012, will formalise the permissibility of the use on the site instead of relying on existing use rights.

91.    The Planning Proposal request to rezone the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church) to R2 Low Density Residential will ensure the ‘community facility’ and ‘centre-based child care facility’ are permissible forms of development in the zone, preventing any potential misinterpretation under existing use rights. The existing community facility and child care centre benefits the community which is the intent of the existing special use zone (Church).

 

VOLUNTARY PLANNING AGREEMENT

 

92.    The Voluntary Planning Agreement (“VPA”) Policy was adopted on 1 August 2016, and sets out Council’s objectives in relation to the use of planning agreements.

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

94.    Clause 5.13 of the Policy states through a formula, that Council capture fifty percent (50%) of the increase in the residual land value resulting from the planning uplift sought for a site via a planning proposal. For this Planning Proposal, it would be difficult to assess the uplift as there may not be any uplift due to the existing use rights on the land. Although the proposal seeks a rezoning from SP2 Infrastructure to R2 Low Density Residential, which will result in a broader range of land uses being permitted on the site, the proposal does not seek development uplift given that there are currently no FSR or height controls under the SP2 Infrastructure zone and the proposal is requesting height and FSR controls that are compatible with the adjoining R2 Low Density Residential and B1 Neighbourhood Centre zones.

95.    The Planning Proposal is seeking to validate the existing employment based land uses on the site and allow for a broader range of land uses that would be consistent with the existing uses on the site by rezoning from SP2 to R2. The proposed height and FSR are compatible with neighbouring sites.

96.    As outlined above, the existing development is a community facility registered as a not for profit organisation. The site is owned by Learning Links and operates as a community facility that services children with learning difficulties and disabilities such as speech pathology and occupational therapy. The site also consists of a community based pre-school that is owned and run by Learning Links.

97.    The proposal provides a significant public benefit to the community by providing services for children with learning difficulties.

98.    For these reasons, Council has not applied the VPA Policy to the Planning Proposal.

 

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

 

99.    In accordance with the Gateway Determination issued by the Department on 16 March 2018, the Planning Proposal will be exhibited for a minimum period of 28 days. The public exhibition will comply with the notice of requirements for material that must be made available along with planning proposals as identified in Section 5.5.2 of A guide to preparing local environmental plans (Department of Planning and Environment 2016). 

100.  Exhibition material, including explanatory information, land to which the Planning Proposal applies, description of the objectives and intended outcomes, copy of the Planning Proposal and relevant maps will be available for viewing during the exhibition period on Council’s website and hard copies available at Council offices and libraries.

101.  Notification of the public exhibition will be through:

·        Newspaper advertisement in The St George and Sutherland Shire Leader,

·        Exhibition notice on Council’s website,

·        Notices in Council offices and libraries, and

·        Letters to adjoining landowners (if required, in accordance with Council’s Notification Procedures).

102.  Consultation is required with the NSW Department of Education under Section 3.34(2)(d) of the Act, in accordance with Condition 3 of the Gateway Determination.

 

CONCLUSION

 

103.  The Planning Proposal request to rezone the site from SP2 Infrastructure (Church) to R2 Low Density Residential allows for the continuation of existing and approved community facility and centre-based child care facility uses.

104.  The proposed R2 zoning is considered an appropriate zone for the site. It allows for the continuation of the existing uses on site within a permissible zone and provides greater flexibility for redevelopment of the site for future upgrades and expansions. The primary use of the site as a community facility is being maintained. The proposed new zone ensures that future uses are compatible with existing surrounding uses.

105.  The proposed zoning, maximum FSR and height limits and minimum lot size are considered appropriate given its compatibility with the adjoining zones.

106.  The anticipated project timeline for completion of the Planning Proposal is shown below:

Task

Anticipated Timeframe

Anticipated commencement date (date of Gateway Determination)

16 March 2018

Anticipated timeframe for the completion of required technical information

June 2018

Timeframe for government agency consultation (pre and post exhibition as required by Gateway Determination)

August 2018

Commencement and completion dates for public exhibition period

August - September 2018

Dates for public hearing (if required)

N/A

Timeframe for consideration of submissions

September 2018

Timeframe for the consideration by Council of a proposal post exhibition

October 2018

Date of submission to the Department to finalise the LEP

November 2018

 

 

 

File Reference

TRIM folder PP2017/0002

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Gateway Determination dated 16 March 2018_ 12-14 Pindari Rd, Peakhurst Heights - published in separate document

Attachment 2

Planning Proposal_12-14 Pindari Rd, Peakhurst Heights (July 2018) - published in separate document

 


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Committee Meeting -  Monday, 9 July 2018                              Page 29

Item:                   ENV019-18        Planning Proposal - 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville 

Author:              Strategic Planner and Coordinator Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

(a)     That Council endorse the revised Planning Proposal to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, as follows, in relation to the Landmark Square Precinct at 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville:

a)   To amend the Land Zoning Map to rezone the site from IN2 Light Industrial and part R2 Low Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use;

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

c)   To amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the maximum building height applying to the site from 9m (R2) and 10m (IN2) to a range of heights being 12m (for a depth of 18m from Roberts Lane), 21m, 28m, 30m, 40m and 65m;

d)   To amend the Active Street Frontages Map to apply active street frontages along the Forest Road and Durham Street frontages of the Precinct; and

e)   To apply a bonus FSR incentive of 0.5:1 based on the total Precinct site area for the purpose of hotel accommodation at the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street.

(b)     That Council endorse the revised Planning Proposal to be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for an Alteration to the Gateway Determination under Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(c)     That the Planning Proposal be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the conditions of any Gateway Determination issued by the Department of Planning and Environment.

(d)     That Council endorse the preparation of an amendment to the Hurstville Development Control Plan No.2 – Hurstville City Centre (“HDCP No.2”) to run concurrently with an amendment to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (if Alteration to the Gateway is given by the Department of Planning and Environment), to reflect detailed urban design considerations for any future development of the site including the provision of public access, built form, boundary setbacks, deep soil areas, site amalgamation, vehicular access and any other relevant issues. The DCP is to be prepared at the proponent’s cost.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      The original request to prepare a Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) for the site bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville, was originally submitted by Dickson Rothschild on behalf of One Capital Pty Ltd / Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd (“the applicant”) on 16 June 2015.

 

2.      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 the Georges River Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (“IHAP”) on 20 July 2017, and subsequently to Council at its meeting dated 7 August 2017.

 

3.      In accordance with the Council resolution dated 7 August 2017, the Planning Proposal was forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment (“DPE”) on 5 September 2017, and Council received a Gateway Determination (approval) on 19 October 2017, to exhibit the Planning Proposal. Refer to Attachment 2 for the Gateway Determination.

 

4.      Since receipt of the Gateway Determination, the applicant has explored an alternative concept scheme which addresses the Council resolution requirement for the preparation of a revised urban design analysis.

 

5.      On 17 May 2018, the applicant submitted a revised Planning Proposal request to Council seeking to amend the Planning Proposal through an Alteration to the Gateway Determination, which is the subject of this report.

 

6.      The revised concept scheme does not seek to alter the proposed density on the site or the intent of the existing Planning Proposal. The amendments are solely informed by the Urban Design Report which proposes reconfigurations of the maximum building envelope.

 

7.      The revised Planning Proposal was considered by the Georges River Local Planning Panel (“LPP”) at its meeting on 21 June 2018, and was recommended for endorsement with amendments. The LPP report (refer Attachment 1) is comprehensive in its assessment and should be read in conjunction with this report.

 

8.      This report recommends that Council support the LPP recommendations and endorse this revised Planning Proposal.

 

 

1  BACKGROUND

9.      The existing Planning Proposal was endorsed by Council at its meeting dated 7 August 2017 (Item CCL146-17), to be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway Determination (approval), subject to the preparation of a revised urban design analysis prior to community consultation if a Gateway Determination is received.

 

10.    A Gateway Determination was received by Council on 19 October 2017, (refer Attachment 2) for the existing Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) which sought to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”), in relation to the Landmark Square Precinct as follows:

 

a)      Rezone the land from IN2 Light Industrial and part R2 Low Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use;

b)      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 remainder of the site (including a minimum commercial FSR of 0.5:1);

c)      Increase the maximum building height from 9m (R2) and 10m (IN2) to a range of heights being 12m (for a depth of 18m from Roberts Lane), 21m, 28m, 30m, 40m and 65m;

d)      Apply an active street frontage along Forest Road and Durham Street frontages of the site; and

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

 

11.    Following the receipt of the Gateway Determination on 19 October 2017, a revised Planning Proposal has been prepared by the applicant to address the Council resolution dated 7 August 2017, as below:

 

(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.

 

12.    The applicant submitted the revised Planning Proposal request to Council on 17 May 2018, that seeks to amend the HLEP 2012, in relation to the Landmark Square Precinct as follows:

 

a)      To amend the land zoning from IN2 Light Industrial and part R2 Low Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use;

b)      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 remainder of the site (including a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.5:1);

c)      To increase the maximum building height applying to the site from 9m (R2) and 10m (IN2) to a range of heights being 12m, 15m, 21m, 28m, 30m, 40m and 65m;

d)      To apply active street frontages along the Forest Road and Durham Street frontages of the Precinct; and

e)      To apply a bonus FSR incentive of 0.5:1 based on the total Precinct site area for the purpose of hotel accommodation at the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street.

 

13.    The revised Planning Proposal is solely informed by the amended Urban Design Report and does not seek to alter the proposed density on the site or the intent of the existing Planning Proposal. No change is proposed to the FSR, gross floor area or the allocation of floor space for hotel, commercial / retail and residential land uses. For this reason, this report upholds the previous considerations made by Council with regards to the economic, hotel demand, social, heritage, traffic and transport impacts. This report only provides an assessment of the proposal with regards to urban design considerations.

 

14.    The Georges River Local Planning Panel (“LPP”) at its meeting dated 21 June 2018, considered a report on the revised Planning Proposal, and made the following recommendations:

 

a)    That the Georges River LPP recommends to Council that the revised Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, as follows, in relation to the Landmark Square Precinct at 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville, be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for an Alteration to the Gateway Determination under Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

i)     To amend the land zoning from IN2 Light Industrial and part R2 Low Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use;

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

iii)   To amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the maximum building height applying to the site from 9m (R2) and 10m (IN2) to a range of heights being 12m (for a depth of 18m from Roberts Lane), 21m, 28m, 30m, 40m and 65m;

iv)   To amend the Active Street Frontages Map to apply active street frontages along the Forest Road and Durham Street frontages of the Precinct; and

v)    To apply a bonus FSR incentive of 0.5:1 based on the total Precinct site area for the purpose of hotel accommodation at the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street.

b)    That the Planning Proposal be placed on formal public exhibition in accordance with the conditions of any Gateway Determination issued by the Department of Planning and Environment.

c)    That the LPP recommends to Council to prepare an amendment to the Hurstville Development Control Plan No.2 – Hurstville City Centre (“HDCP No.2”) to run concurrently with an amendment to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, (if Alteration to the Gateway is given by the Department of Planning and Environment), to reflect detailed urban design considerations for any future development of the site including the provision of public access, built form, boundary setbacks, deep soil areas, tree retention, vehicular access and any other relevant issues. The DCP is to be prepared at the proponent’s cost.

d)    That a report to Council be prepared by Council staff to advise of the LPP recommendations.

e)    That the Panel recommends that the provision of affordable housing be reconsidered in the context of the South District Plan, and whether such housing be provided through a revised Voluntary Planning Agreement.

f)     The Panel considered that site amalgamation requirements be reviewed in relation to an amendment to HDCP No.2 – Hurstville City Centre.

 

15.    In response to the LPP recommendation (a)(iii), the revised Planning Proposal retains the 12m (“M”) building height at a depth of 18m from Roberts Lane and removes the additional transitional height of 15m (“O”).

 

16.    No other amendments have been made to the applicant’s revised Planning Proposal.

 

 

2  SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1    Overview of the Site

17.    The Landmark Square Precinct is a triangular shaped site bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville with the street addresses of 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane. The site adjoins the area defined as the Hurstville City Centre, and is located within 400m from Allawah Station and 800m from Hurstville Station. The site is shown in Figure 1 below.

 

Figure 1 – Subject site (shown in red outline) (Source: SIX Maps)

 

18.    The site has multiple land owners and contains a total of 19 separate lots legally described in Table 1 below. The applicant, Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd, owns 8 of the allotments as shown in Figure 2 below.

 

Table 1 – Legal Site Description and Existing Ownership

Lot/DP & Address

HLEP 2012 Zone

Ownership

Lot A DP 372835

53 Forest Road

R2 – Low Density Residential

Mrs K Giacchi

Lot 1 DP 225302

61-65 Forest Road

IN2 – Light Industrial

Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd

Lot 101 DP 776275

67-69 Forest Road

IN2 – Light Industrial

Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd

Lot 100 DP 776275

71A Forest Road

IN2 – Light Industrial

Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd

Lot 10 DP 621395

73 Forest Road

IN2 – Light Industrial

Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd

Lot 4 DP 12517

75 Forest Road

IN2 – Light Industrial

Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd

Lot 3 DP 12517

75 Forest Road

IN2 – Light Industrial

Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd

Lot 1 DP 12517

126 Durham Street

IN2 – Light Industrial

Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd

Lot 2 DP 12517

126 Durham Street

IN2 – Light Industrial

Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd

Lot 15 DP 601341

122A Durham Street

IN2 – Light Industrial

A & C Motor Repairs Pty Ltd

Lot 1 DP 337499

120 Durham Street

IN2  - Light Industrial

Mr G & Mrs R Topalidia

Lot 1 DP 213685

118A Durham

IN2 – Light Industrial

Mr H and Mrs W Hage

Lot 2 DP 213685

118 Durham Street

IN2 – Light Industrial

Mr H and Mrs W Hage

Lot 5 DP 171179

116 Durham Street

IN2 – Light Industrial

(Heritage Item)

Boy Scouts Association Trustees

Lot A DP 391801

114 Durham Street

IN2 - Light Industrial

Bagi Pty Ltd

Lot B DP 391801

112 Durham Street

IN2 – Light Industrial

Bagi Pty Ltd

Lot C DP 391801

110 Durham Street

IN2 – Light Industrial

Bagi Pty Ltd

Lot D DP 391801

108 Durham Street

IN2 – Light Industrial

Bagi Pty Ltd

Lot 1 DP 172819

9 Roberts Lane

IN2 – Light Industrial

Mrs J and Mr I Kordic

 

Figure 2 – Allotments owned by applicant (Source: Intramaps)

19.    The site has an area of 14,046sqm (approx. 1.4 hectares) and the following boundaries:

 

·        Approx. 140m to Durham Street

·        Approx. 175m to Forest Road

·        Approx. 207m to Roberts Lane

 

20.    The site is currently occupied by a range of uses including self-storage facility, automotive services and sales, community uses (Hurstville Scout Hall), funeral home, two storey residential flat building and single dwelling houses. Views of the site are shown in Figures 3 – 7 below.

Figure 3 – Properties fronting Durham Street (Source: Dickson Rothschild)

 

Figure 4 – Heritage item at 116 Durham Street (Hurstville Scout Hall) (Source: Google Maps)

 


 

Figure 5 – Residential properties on corner of Durham Street and Roberts Lane (Source: Google Maps)

 

 

Figure 6 – Forest Road and Durham Street intersection (Source: Dickson Rothschild)

 


 

Figure 7 – Residential dwelling on the corner of Forest Road and Roberts Lane (Source: Dickson Rothschild)

 

2.2 Surrounding Land

21.    The site is located inside the boundary of the Hurstville City Centre in the Eastern Bookend Precinct (refer Figure 8 below). Council at its meeting held 3 July 2017, adopted a report and approved Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan (Amendment No. 2) to include Kempt Field, the subject site (bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane) and the Bing Lee site (being 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street) into the Hurstville City Centre land application map.

 


 

Figure 8 – Extent of Hurstville City Centre

 

 

22.    A summary of the surrounding land is provided below and shown in Figures 9 – 13:

 

a.      South: On the opposite side of Durham Street is a large mixed use development known as East Quarter with buildings up to 19 storeys in height. The large open space area of Kempt Field (approx. 3 hectares) is also located opposite the site.

 

b.      West: On the other side of Forest Road is an area of land zoned B2 Local Centre featuring a range of commercial uses including a car dealership at the corner of Forest Road and Wright Street. Residential land on Wright Street and Hudson Street is a mix of R2 Low Density and R3 Medium Density Residential and is characterised by 1-2 storey dwelling houses and 3 storey residential flat buildings respectively.

 

c.       North: A number of educational facilities are located to the north along Forest Road on land zoned SP2 Infrastructure. These include Hurstville Public School, Georges River College – Hurstville Boys Campus, Bethany College and Sydney Technical High School. There are also sites along Forest Road zoned B2 Local Centre which have recently been redeveloped with shops on the ground floor and generally 2 to 3 levels of residential apartments above.

 

d.      North / East: Land to the north and east along Lily Street, Cronulla Street and Botany Street is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. This area is predominantly characterised by 1-2 storey dwelling houses, with the rear yards of properties along Lily Street backing onto Roberts Lane.

 

Figure 9 – View of Kempt Field and the East Quarter development on the opposite side of Durham Street to the south of the Precinct (Source: Google Maps)

 

Figure 10 – View of Kempt Field looking west to the East Quarter site (Source: Google Maps)

 


 

Figure 11 – View of the opposite side of Forest Road at the intersection with Wright Street (Source: Google Maps)

 

Figure 12 – View along Forest Road of Hurstville Public School (Source: Google Maps)

 


 

Figure 13 – View of mixed use development along the southern side of Forest Road adjacent to the site (Source: Google Maps)

 

23.    The site is well located within the subregional road network and it is also within 400m of Allawah Railway Station and 800m walking distance of Hurstville Railway Station. Refer to the Figure 14 below.

 

 

Figure 14 – Transport Context (Source: Dickson Rothschild)

 

24.    The proposed development is also well positioned in relation to local amenities, including shops and schools. There are also numerous public open spaces and recreational facilities in close proximity to the subject site, including Kempt Field directly opposite the site on Durham Street.

 

3  PLANNING STRATEGIES, POLICIES AND CONTROLS

3.1 Existing Planning Controls

25.    The HLEP 2012 applies to the Landmark Square Precinct and the following provisions are relevant to the Planning Proposal:

 

26.    The site is currently zoned IN2 Light Industrial and part R2 Low Density Residential under the HLEP 2012 (refer to Figure 15 below).

 

 

Figure 15 – HLEP 2012 Land Use Zoning Map

 

 

27.    The site has a maximum building height of 9m and 10m under the HLEP 2012, refer to Figure 16 below. Clause 4.3 Height of buildings is applicable to the site.

 


 

Figure 16 – HLEP 2012 Height of Buildings Map

 

28.    The site has a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 and 1:1 under the HLEP 2012, refer to Figure 17 below. Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio is applicable to the site.

Figure 17 – HLEP 2012 Floor Space Ratio Map

 

29.    The site contains one (1) local heritage item, the Hurstville Scout Hall (Item I26) at 116 Durham Street under the HLEP 2012, refer to Figure 18 below. Clause 5.10 Heritage conservation is applicable to the site.

 

30.    Heritage items located in the vicinity of the site include the following: Item I36 – 76 Lily Street, Hurstville (Californian bungalow) and Item I28 – Hurstville Public School – 80 Forest Road, Hurstville.

 

Figure 18 – HLEP 2012 Heritage Map

 

4  APPLICANT’S PLANNING PROPOSAL REQUEST

4.1 Background

31.    The original request to prepare a Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) for the site bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville, was originally submitted by Dickson Rothschild on behalf of One Capital Pty Ltd / Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd (“the applicant”) on 16 June 2015.

 

32.    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 the Georges River Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (“IHAP”) on 20 July 2017, and subsequently to Council at its meeting dated 7 August 2017.

 

33.    The anticipated development from the existing Planning Proposal (based on the indicative built form provided by Dickson Rothschild, refer Figure 19 below) includes:

 

a)   Residential apartments (approx. 450 apartments);

b)   Soho units along Roberts Lane in a 3 storey element;

c)   Commercial and ground floor retail (approx. 7,023sqm);

d)   Hotel accommodation (approx. 110-130 rooms in 7,023sqm);

e)   Publicly accessible open space;

f)    Through-site connections; and

g)   Basement parking associated with the development.

 

34.    The Planning Proposal was referred to IHAP at its meeting dated 20 July 2017, where 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.

 

35.    At its meeting dated 7 August 2017, (CCL146-17), Council considered the Planning Proposal in light of the IHAP recommendations. The Administrator moved and declared carried:

 

(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 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 remainder 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 remainder 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.

 

36.    In accordance with the Council resolution dated 7 August 2017, the Planning Proposal was forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment (“DPE”) on 5 September 2017, and Council received a Gateway Determination (approval) on 19 October 2017, to exhibit the Planning Proposal. Refer to Attachment 2 for the Gateway Determination.

 

37.    Since receipt of the Gateway Determination, the applicant has explored an alternative concept scheme (refer to Figure 20 and Attachment 3) which addresses the request for the preparation of a revised urban design analysis as per Council resolution (4)(i) above. The alternative scheme provides increased articulation in the overall maximum building envelope, an additional pedestrian through-site link, reconfiguration of the proposed heights, and clarification of the bonus FSR application for the purpose of hotel accommodation at the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street to be calculated based on the total site area of the Precinct (i.e. 0.5:1 of the total area of Zone B4 Mixed Use land bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville).

 

38.    It should be noted that matters relating to the provision of affordable housing and road widening were reported to Council’s Environment and Planning Committee (“E&P”) at its meeting dated 12 June 2018.

 

39.    The Committee endorsed the recommendations that the requirement for affordable housing on the site as per Council resolution (3)(a), (3)(b) and (4)(iii) above be rescinded, as Council cannot legally enforce this due to the absence of SEPP No 70—Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) and a draft Affordable Housing Policy for Council, or any substantive provisions in the HLEP 2012, requiring the provision of affordable housing.

 

40.    The Committee also endorsed that a separate Planning Proposal be prepared to include a 3m wide local road widening on the HLEP 2012 Land Reservation Acquisition Map along the remaining length of the Roberts Lane boundary, not covered by the road widening in the VPA, to ensure a consistent road widening will occur to allow two-way vehicle access (including small vans) on Roberts Lane.

 

41.    At its meeting on 25 June 2018, Council resolved to adopt the minutes of the Committee meeting and endorsed the removal of affordable housing requirements on the site, and the preparation of a separate Planning Proposal to include a 3m wide local road widening on the HLEP 2012 Land Reservation Acquisition Map, along the remaining length of the Roberts Lane boundary not covered by the road widening in the VPA.

 

4.2 Summary of Planning Proposal Request

42.    On 17 May 2018, the applicant submitted a revised Planning Proposal request to Council seeking to amend the existing Planning Proposal through an Alteration to the Gateway Determination, and included the following amended documents which form the basis of the request being considered in this report:

 

a)      Planning Proposal Report prepared by Dickson Rothschild (available on Council’s website)

b)      Urban Design Report prepared by UrbanPossible (refer Attachment 3)

 

43.    The overall FSR and gross floor area proposed by the existing Planning Proposal remains unchanged. The revised Planning Proposal is solely informed by the amended Urban Design Report and does not seek to alter the proposed density on the site or the intent of the existing Planning Proposal. For this reason, this report only provides an assessment of the proposal with regards to urban design considerations.

 

44.    The following documents were previously assessed by Council and remain unchanged by this revision. For this reason, this report upholds the previous considerations made by Council with regards to the economic, hotel demand, social, heritage, contamination and, traffic and transport impacts. The applicant has also advised that the findings of the existing expert reports below are still applicable to the revised Planning Proposal.

 

i)       Economic Impact Assessment (available on Council’s website)

ii)      Social Impact Assessment (available on Council’s website)

iii)     Hotel Demand Assessment (available on Council’s website)

iv)     Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment (available on Council’s website)

v)      Heritage Impact Assessment (available on Council’s website)

vi)     Preliminary Site Investigation (available on Council’s website)

vii)    Detailed Site Investigation (available on Council’s website)

 

45.    The revised Planning Proposal as submitted by the applicant seeks to:

 

a)      Amend the Land Zoning Map to rezone the site 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 remainder of the site, including a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.5:1 via an amendment to Clause 4.4A. The proposed clause wording is as follows:

 

“Despite clause 4.4, development consent must not be granted on land in Zone B4 Mixed Use bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville, unless the non-residential floor space ratio is at least 0.5:1.”

 

c)      Amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the maximum building height applying to the site from 9m (R2) and 10m (IN2) to a range of heights being 12m, 15m, 21m, 28m, 30m, 40m and 65m;

d)      Amend the Active Street Frontages Map to apply active street frontages along the Forest Road and Durham Street frontages of the Precinct; and

e)      Apply a bonus FSR incentive of 0.5:1 based on the total Precinct site area for the purpose of hotel accommodation at the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street via an amendment to Clause 4.4. The proposed clause wording is as follows:

 

“Despite subclause (2), the floor space ratio for land identified as “Area 1” on the Floor Space Ratio Map may exceed the floor space ratio by up to 0.5:1 of the total area of Zone B4 Mixed Use land bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville for the purpose of hotel accommodation.”

 

46.    The applicant’s request for a revised Planning Proposal was considered by the LPP at its meeting on 21 June 2018, and was recommended for endorsement with the following amendments:

 

a)      That the new building height of 15m (“O”) located between the 12m (“M”) and 21m (“R”) heights be removed; and

b)      That the location of the 12m (“M”) building height be retained at a depth of 18m from the Roberts Lane boundary as per the existing Planning Proposal.

 

47.    In response to the LPP recommendations, the revised Planning Proposal retains the 12m (“M”) building height at a depth of 18m from Roberts Lane and removes the additional transitional height of 15m (“O”). No other amendments have been made to the applicant’s revised Planning Proposal.

 

48.    Table 2 below provides a comparison between the existing Planning Proposal which received the Gateway Determination, and the revised Planning Proposal which is the subject of this report. Amendments proposed by the revised request are shown in italics.

Table 2 – Comparison of existing Planning Proposal and revised Planning Proposal

 HLEP Amd

Existing Planning Proposal

Revised Planning Proposal

Zone

B4 Mixed Use

No change.

Active Street Frontage

Active Street Frontages to be applied along the Forest Road and Durham Street frontages of the site.

No change.

FSR

2:1 along Roberts Lane and up to 3.5:1 for the remainder of the site (including a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.5:1).

No change.

Height

A range of heights of 12m along Roberts Lane (at a depth of 18m from the Lane) and to 21m, 28m, 30m, 40m and 65m for the remainder of the site.

No change to the range of heights but a reconfiguration is proposed.

Bonus FSR

Provision of 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.

Provision of a bonus FSR of 0.5:1 based on the total area Zone B4 Mixed Use land bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville for hotel accommodation at the portion of the site located on the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street.

 

49.    In summary, the revised scheme comprises the following amendments:

 

a)      No change to the proposed FSR and gross floor area;

b)      No change to the allocation of floor space for hotel, commercial / retail and residential land uses;

c)      Increased articulation in the overall maximum building envelope (comparison provided in Figures 19 and 20 below);

d)      Reduced building footprint of Building A;

e)      Provision of additional pedestrian through-site link between Buildings C1 and C2 (previously Building C);

f)       Reconfiguration of the proposed heights on the Height of Buildings Map as below (comparison provided in Figures 21 and 22):

i)       Addition of transitional 28m (T) building height towards the northern portion of Forest Road between the 21m (R) and 40m (W) portions;

ii)      Reduction of the extent of the 40m (W) portion on Forest Road;

iii)     Adjustment of the 65m (AA2) portion to be concentrated primarily along Forest Road; and

iv)     Increase in area of the 30m (U) portion on Durham Street; and

g)      A provision to clarify the bonus 0.5:1 FSR application for the purpose of hotel accommodation at the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street.

 

 


 

Figure 19 – Existing proposed building massing

 

 

 


 

Figure 20 – Revised Planning Proposal building massing

 


 

Figure 21 – Existing Height of Buildings Map

 

Figure 22 – Revised Planning Proposal Height of Buildings Map

 

50.    The revised Urban Design Report prepared by UrbanPossible demonstrates a refined configuration of the proposed maximum building envelope with more building articulation and smaller building footprints (refer Attachment 3). The development provides for:

 

a)      No change to the proposed FSR and gross floor area;

b)      No change to the allocation of floor space for hotel, commercial / retail and residential land uses;

c)      Building form with a range of heights from 3 to 20 storeys:

i)       Building A – 7, 9 and 20 storeys including 3 storey podiums

ii)      Building B1 – 4, 5 and 7 storeys including 3 storey podiums

iii)     Building B2 – 9 and 19 storeys including podiums up to 3 storeys

iv)     Building C1 – 3 storey Roberts Lane frontage and transitions to 5 storeys towards the rear

v)      Building C2 – 3 storey Roberts Lane frontage and transitions to 5 storeys towards the rear

vi)     Building D – 3 storey podium frontages and transitions to 5 storeys towards the rear

d)      7,023sqm of retail / commercial floor space with active street frontages along Forest Road and Durham Street

e)      7,023sqm of hotel accommodation floor space (approx. 130 hotel rooms)

f)       Approx. 450 residential units (approx. 37,700sqm at 2.69:1 FSR)

g)      At grade central area of communal open space of approx. 2,500sqm with public access

h)      Rooftop communal open space on top of each building

i)       Public through-site links connecting Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane

j)        3m wide road widening along the Roberts Lane frontage

 

51.    The development yield remains unchanged in the revised Planning Proposal.

 

52.    The amendment has been prepared by the applicant to address Council’s resolution of 7 August 2017, which specifies if a Gateway Determination is issued, then prior to community consultation:

 

(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.

 

 

5  ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

5.1 Strategic Planning Context

53.    Consideration of the Planning Proposal request in relation to the Greater Sydney Region Plan (A Metropolis of Three Cities) and the South District Plan are provided below.

 

Greater Sydney Region Plan (A Metropolis of Three Cities)

54.    The Greater Sydney Region Plan was finalised and released by the Greater Sydney Commission in March 2018, and establishes the aspirations for the region over the next 40 years. The Region Plan is framed around 10 Directions relating to infrastructure and collaboration, liveability, productivity and sustainability.

 

55.    The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the following Directions and Objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan:

 

56.    Direction 3: A city for people

Objective 6: Services and infrastructure meet communities’ changing needs

Objective 7: Communities are healthy, resilient and socially connected

Objective 8: Greater Sydney’s communities are culturally rich with diverse neighbourhoods


The Planning Proposal assists in encouraging healthy communities by facilitating a mixed use development which accommodates and caters for a range of daily activities through the provision of a central plaza and commercial / retail floor space. The Precinct also benefits from its proximity to retail and services within the Hurstville City Centre. The location of the site in relation to public open space and recreational facilities (including Kempt Field) will also benefit future residents.

 

57.    Direction 4: Housing the city

Objective 10: Greater housing supply

Objective 11: Housing is more diverse and affordable

 

The Planning Proposal will provide approximately 450 new apartment dwellings. The site is suitable for this increase in dwellings as it is located within the Hurstville Strategic Centre, close to jobs and public transport (Allawah Railway Station, Hurstville Railway Station and bus interchange) with frequent services capable of moving large numbers of people. Housing choice to suit different needs and lifestyles will be provided with a range of apartment sizes to satisfy the apartment mix, objectives and design guidance of the Apartment Design Guide and the apartment size mix in the Hurstville DCP No.2 (Hurstville City Centre).

 

58.    Direction 5: A city of great places

Objective 12: Great places that bring people together

 

The Planning Proposal facilitates the provision of a central plaza with unrestricted public access via a series of public through-site links connecting the bounding streets of Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane. It is envisaged that the central plaza will provide a venue to host occasional pop-up markets and community events in addition to its function as the communal open space for the proposed development.

 

Objective 13: Environmental heritage is identified, conserved and enhanced

 

The proposal retains the existing local heritage item, the Scout Hall at 116 Durham Street. The item is associated with the Australian Scouting movement. The Hurstville Scout Group was founded in 1908, the same year that the Scout movement commenced in Australia. This makes the Hurstville Scout Group one of the oldest in Australia. The Scout Hall has continued to be used by the Scouts today as well as catering for other leisure and recreational pursuits. These uses are retained by the proposal.

 

59.    Direction 7: A well connected city

Objective 14: A Metropolis of Three Cities – integrated land use and transport creates walkable and 30-minute cities

 

It is noted that the site is located well within the walkable catchments of the following transport hubs:

·        400m from the Allawah Railway Station;

·        800m from the Hurstville Railway Station; and

·        800m from the Hurstville bus interchange (Woodville Street).

 

60.    Direction 8: Jobs and skills for the city

Objective 22: Investment and business activity in centres

 

The Planning Proposal, specifically the minimum non-residential floor space requirement and the bonus hotel accommodation FSR, will contribute towards achieving an increase in jobs within the Hurstville Strategic Centre on a site which benefits from its proximity to commercial, retail and services within the Hurstville City Centre.

 

Council’s Employment Lands Study prepared by JLL reports that the Precinct currently has 43 full-time equivalent employees. The proposal includes approx. 7,023sqm of commercial and retail floor space which would equate to a non-residential FSR of 0.5:1. The applicant’s Economic Impact Assessment calculated that this floor space could provide for an estimated 270 employees. Additional employees were estimated for the hotel (approx. 110 employees) and work from home (approx. 30 employees). This totals to a sum of approx. 410 employees. Although a different type of employment will be created as result of the rezoning, the Planning Proposal will facilitate an estimated increase of over 350 jobs compared to the site’s current industrial land use.

 

This will assist in delivering more investment and business activity as well as increasing productivity in the Hurstville City Centre. The additional floor space bonus provided for the hotel accommodation development will further promote employment opportunities in the Hurstville Strategic Centre.

 

Objective 23: Industrial and urban services land is planned, retained and managed

 

Given the site’s proximity to relatively sensitive land uses such as schools, low scale residential dwellings and other new mixed use tower development, the range of permissible land uses in the IN2 Light Industrial zone is not considered to be wholly compatible with the character and land use of the locality. Permissible land uses within the IN2 zone include light industries, timber yards, vehicle hire premises and warehouse or distribution centres. These land uses are likely to have adverse impacts on surrounding residential land as they are typically noise generating and often require movements of large vehicles. The priority given towards the amenity of surrounding residential land greatly restricts the existing development potential of the site due to the inevitable amenity impacts despite the legal permissibility of certain land uses in the IN2 zone.

 

The types of land uses, which currently exist on the site, are largely private motor vehicle based, including a car wash, tyre store, car dealership and storage facilities. These types of uses, which attract car usage and private motor vehicle traffic, are not ideal for the subject site which is located within close walking distance of sustainable transport infrastructure.

 

The remnant industrial land is thus not well suited to the location, which has evolved over time into a city centre with a large residential population with good access to public transport. Analysis undertaken by HillPDA indicates that the subject site is not well suited to industrial land uses, performing poorly in terms of developable area, accessibility and connectivity, industrial agglomeration and environment.

 

South District Plan

61.    The South District Plan was finalised and released by the Greater Sydney Commission in March 2018. The District Plan is a guide for implementing A Metropolis of Three Cities at the district level and proposes a 20-year vision by setting out aspirations and proposals for the South District.

 

62.    The change in zone to B4 Mixed Use, and the proposed height and FSR increases for the site will provide:

 

·    Increased employment opportunities within the proposed commercial and retail floor space (approx. 7,023sqm);

·    Opportunity for hotel accommodation (through the proposed FSR bonus) which will provide for both employment opportunities and business and entertainment tourism in the Hurstville City Centre; and

·    Improvements to housing choice and availability in close proximity to public transport and the Hurstville City Centre which offers retail and essential services.

 

63.    The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the following Planning Priorities of the South District Plan:

 

Direction

Planning Priorities relevant to the Planning Proposal

A city for people

Planning Priority S3: Providing services and social infrastructure to meet people’s changing needs

Housing the city

Planning Priority S5: Providing housing supply, choice and affordability with access to jobs, services and public transport

A city of great places

Planning Priority S6: Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the District’s heritage

Jobs and skills for the city

Planning Priority S9: Growing investment, business opportunities and jobs in strategic centres

Planning Priority S10: Retaining and managing industrial and urban services land

A well connected city

Planning Priority S12: Delivering integrated land use and transport planning and a 30-minute city

 

5.2 Council’s Local Strategic Plans

64.    Consideration of the Planning Proposal request in relation to Council’s local strategic plans are provided below.

 

Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy (2018)

65.    Georges River Council engaged SJB to prepare the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy which reviews and updates the existing development standards partly with the aim to identify opportunities for additional housing capacity within the Hurstville City Centre.

 

66.    The subject site is located at the eastern end of the Hurstville City Centre boundary and is envisaged by the Strategy to become a bookend area with a concentration of high density residential developments.

 

67.    The Strategy acknowledges that the site is subject to a current Planning Proposal and does not recommend development standards for the site.

 

68.    The proposal is consistent with the intent of the Strategy which seeks to create a high density residential gateway into the Hurstville City Centre and provide an appropriate transition to the adjacent lower density residential area.

 

 

Georges River Employment Lands Study (2017)

69.    The Georges River Employment Lands Study provides Council with a strategic direction for employment lands across the Georges River LGA to ensure that sufficient land is zoned to accommodate future employment growth.

 

70.    The Study identifies the site as the “Hurstville Industrial Precinct” and comprises approximately 1.3 hectares. The Precinct provides employment for approximately 43 people within the 10,127sqm of gross floor area. Key land uses in the zone are car sales and auto related services, dry cleaners, funeral home, scout hall, storage facility, furniture and home improvements and a number of residential properties.

 

71.    The Study identifies low-medium demand for office uses, noting that the potential exists for a small amount of office space to support the industrial uses. Industrial use was also identified as low-medium in the Study, noting that the potential exists for intensification of the industrial uses. However, demand is most likely to come from services that satisfy the local community. Medium demand was identified for retail use as the site offers good exposure from Forest Road.

 

72.    The Study considers it likely that regional level industrial and logistics operators will continue to locate primarily in northwest and southwest of Sydney due to the availability of land in close proximity to the M5 Motorway and the rest of the Orbital Network in the western region. Considering the site’s proximity to the Hurstville CBD, it would likely be too costly to continue to be used for industrial as opposed to an alternate use.

 

73.    The Study identifies the demand for residential use (i.e. shop top housing) as medium-high, noting that the Precinct shares characteristics with the Hurstville East Forest Road B2 Local Centre, including proximity to the railway station and the CBD. However, the Precinct possesses greater redevelopment potential than the Hurstville East B2 Local Centre due to larger landholdings. It is noted that there has already been significant supply of residential in the immediate vicinity which may lessen demand to a degree.

 

74.    The Study makes the following recommendations for the Hurstville Industrial Precinct:

 

a)      Rezone the Precinct from IN2 – Light Industrial and R2 – Low Density Residential to B4 – Mixed Use;

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

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

 

75.    Council considered the Study’s review of IN2 – Light Industrial zoned land at its meeting of 7 August 2017, and resolved to endorse the categorisation of the site (being referred to as Hurstville Industrial Precinct) as an “Investigation Precinct”. A peer review was also endorsed at the meeting to consider the methodology and assessment recommendations of the Study.

 

76.    A peer review was undertaken which identified deficiencies in Council’s framework and recommended additional studies to improve the methodology for assessing industrial lands. These additional studies are currently being undertaken.

 

5.3 State and Regional Statutory Framework

77.    The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following relevant State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) as assessed by the applicant below:

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

 

78.    SEPP 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing risk and harm to human health or any other aspects of the environment. 

 

79.    A Preliminary Site Investigation prepared by Environmental Investigations was submitted on 31 August 2015. The investigation concluded that the site can be made suitable for the intended land use, including residential development, following the implementation of a number of remediation measures.

 

80.    A Detailed Site Investigation was also submitted by the applicant which identifies potential sources of contamination, and the contaminants of concern resulting from past and present land uses, evaluates the presence of contamination in the identified areas of concern and assesses the suitability of the site for its intended development.

 

81.    The Detailed Site Investigation concludes that the site is not currently considered suitable for future residential with gardens / accessible soil land use from a contamination perspective but can be made suitable for the proposed residential with gardens / accessible soil land use following the implementation of a Remediation Action Plan, which will be developed in accordance with the relevant regulatory requirements to address the identified contamination issues.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

 

82.    The proposed development will be subject to the provisions of SEPP 65, which aims to improve the quality of residential apartment design in NSW.

 

83.    The applicant has advised that the concept scheme has been designed in accordance with SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide and any future development application will demonstrate compliance with the standards contained in this SEPP.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

84.    The traffic-generating development provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP (Clause 104 and Schedule 3) require developments of a certain size or capacity to be referred to the Roads and Maritime Services (“RMS”).

 

85.    If the Planning Proposal is granted an Alteration to the Gateway Determination, it is anticipated that RMS will be included as a public authority to be consulted.

 

5.4 S9.1 Ministerial Directions

86.    Ministerial Directions under Section 9.1 (formerly S117) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, set out a range of matters to be considered when preparing an amendment to a Local Environmental Plan.

 

87.    The Planning Proposal is consistent with all relevant Ministerial Directions as assessed by the applicant in Table 3 below:

 


 

Table 3 – Consistency with S9.1 Ministerial Directions

S9.1 Direction

Assessment

1.1 Business and Industrial Zones

The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with this Direction due to the proposed rezoning of land from IN2 Light Industrial to B4 Mixed Use. However, a Planning Proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction if the inconsistency is justified by a study which gives consideration to the objective of this direction.

The Economic Impact Assessment prepared by HillPDA justifies that the Planning Proposal will encourage employment growth, retain employment floor space and support the viability of the Hurstville CBD and is therefore broadly consistent with the objectives of the Direction as below:

·    the proposed mix of land uses has the potential to provide an increase in employment generating uses, the number of jobs on the site and the Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) generated by the site;

·    the zoning change to B4 Mixed Use, the increase in development intensity (i.e. maximum height and FSR) and the requirement for a minimum commercial FSR of 0.5:1 will encourage employment in a suitable location on the eastern edge of the Hurstville City Centre; and

·    the site is isolated from other industrial uses while surrounding residential development and road networks makes the site unsuitable for industrial development.

2.3 Heritage Conservation

The Planning Proposal request does not propose to change the heritage status of the Scout Hall at 116 Durham Street, does not adversely impact on the heritage item and retains its existing uses in the proposal.

3.1 Residential Zones

While not proposing the rezoning of the site to a residential zone, the B4 Mixed Use zone will allow a greater provision of housing in an existing urban area, improve housing choice, and making efficient use of existing infrastructure, services and amenities.

3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport

The Planning Proposal allows for additional housing in a location with good access to public transport, services and facilities within the Hurstville City Centre. Additional housing in this location is less likely to generate an adverse impact on the existing traffic demand on the Sydney road network generally when compared to additional housing in a less accessible location.

6.3 Site Specific Provisions

The Planning Proposal includes a maximum floor space ratio incentive for hotel accommodation (Clause 4.4). This is not unnecessarily restrictive as it encourages the provision of hotels and other visitor accommodation on the site.

7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney

A Plan for Growing Sydney has been replaced by the Greater Sydney Commission’s Greater Sydney Region Plan (A Metropolis of Three Cities). The Planning Proposal is consistent with the Objectives of A Metropolis of Three Cities, as assessed in Section 5.1 above.

 

5.5 Design Review Panel

88.    The revised Planning Proposal and its accompanying Urban Design Report have not been referred to the St George Design Review Panel (“DRP”) for the following reasons.

 

89.    The existing concept plan shown in Figure 19 above was considered by the DRP on 6 April 2017. The proposed maximum FSR and the range of building heights were generally supported, subject to further detailed design to be conducted at the DA stage which will be subject to a future DRP referral.

 

90.    The revised concept shown in Figure 20 above does not seek to alter the proposed density on the site or the intent of the existing Planning Proposal. There is no change to the proposed FSR, gross floor area or the allocation of floor space for hotel, commercial / retail and residential land uses. Since the DRP previously supported the proposed density, the revised Urban Design Report was not referred to the DRP.

 

5.6 Background – Urban Design

91.    In 2016, GM Urban Design & Architecture (“GMU”) was engaged by Council to provide independent advice on the Landmark Square Precinct Planning Proposal. GMU provided an indicative concept plan (refer Figure 23 below) which demonstrates a permeable building footprint with through-site links on Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, a central plaza and concentration of density at the Forest Road and Durham Street corner. Based on the indicative concept plan, GMU recommended the following design principles and heights and FSRs:

 

·        FSR 2.3:1 based on GFA (with 75% efficiency) and floor areas and heights identified in the Indicative Concept Plan below (refer Figure 23). Distribution of heights can deliver an FSR of 2.3:1 to 2.5:1, depending on efficiency and uses within the development.

·        Recommended massing for the site includes maximum height of 13 storeys which equates to 41m (plus plant and roof features).

·        Tallest building form should be marking the corner of Durham Street and Forest Road.

·        Street to be addressed with a three (3) storey podium to relate to the existing podiums and lower scale surrounding the site.

·        Scale to the streets can be approx. seven (7) storeys with transition to lower scale through five (5) storeys on the eastern ends.

·        Eastern edge of the site is to be reopened to the existing low scale built form along Roberts Lane, therefore three (3) storeys is proposed.

·        Site has opportunity for through site links and a plaza that can be publicly accessible or partially closed to a private courtyard for residents and hotel visitors. It is to increase permeability of the site and link north (including school) with the open space and the station.

·        Recommended to provide retail and active uses on the ground level.

 

Figure 23 – Indicative Concept Plan recommended by GMU

 

 

5.7 Assessment of Revised Concept Scheme

92.    Whilst the revised concept scheme (refer Figure 20 above) retains the development intensity proposed by the existing Planning Proposal, the revision does present a more refined footprint that allows greater through-site permeability which more closely resembles the indicative concept plan recommended by GMU.

 

93.    There is no change to the FSR and gross floor area proposed by the existing Planning Proposal. The revised Planning Proposal is solely informed by the revised concept scheme and does not seek to alter the proposed density on the site or the intent of the existing Planning Proposal. All amendments made by the revised proposal have been considered by Council and are addressed below.

 

94.    The revised concept scheme features extensive articulation of the maximum building envelope and provides additional opportunities for pedestrian connections in between Buildings C1 and C2 on Roberts Lane.

 

95.    A formal building transition is created on the Forest Road frontage through the introduction of a 28m (T) height between the 21m (R) and 40m (W) heights. This amendment proposes a reduction in the area of the 40m (W) height from approx. 2,000sqm in the existing Planning Proposal to 760sqm, thereby reducing the bulk of the proposed built form.

 

96.    The addition of the 28m (T) building height is considered to be an appropriate way of providing a transition from the medium density development at the northern corner (Forest Road and Roberts Lane) of the Precinct towards the high density development at the south-western corner (Forest Road and Durham Street).

 

97.    The revised concept scheme also reduces the building footprint of Building A at the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street. The lost floor space from Building A is transferred to Building B2 to create an additional 19 storey tower in the revised scheme.

 

98.    In comparison to the existing Planning Proposal, the proposed extent of the 65m height remains at approx. 2,820sqm in area, but is reduced in width. This reconfiguration is supported due to the notable reductions in overshadowing to Kempt Field and the minor additional overshadowing to the East Quarter development to the south.

 

5.8 Bonus Hotel FSR

99.    Gateway Determination has been granted for the existing Planning Proposal which proposes an amendment to Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio of the HLEP 2012, to introduce a FSR incentive of 0.5:1 for part of the site identified on the Floor Space Ratio Map (Sheet FSR_008B) for “hotel accommodation”:

 

the floor space ratio for development on land identified as “Area 1” on the Floor Space Ratio Map may exceed the floor space ratio shown on the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map by 0.5:1 if the development is for the purposes of “hotel accommodation.”

 

100.  Based on the intended development outcome of approx. 130 hotel rooms, the existing Planning Proposal features approx. 7,023sqm of floor space dedicated to hotel use which includes allocations for lobby, function spaces, back of house and 5,260sqm for hotel rooms. For this reason, the proposal has always featured a bonus 0.5:1 FSR calculated from the entire 14,046sqm site area of the Precinct.

 

101.  However, the proposed LEP clause (italicised above) is interpreted as granting a bonus 0.5:1 FSR based on the area of Area 1. This is considered to be a significant departure from the original intent of the Planning Proposal as Area 1 is only comprised of approx. 1,500sqm in site area, which would lead to a mere 750sqm in bonus floor space for the purpose of hotel accommodation.

 

102.  In light of the above, this revised Planning Proposal intends to provide clarification regarding the application of this bonus FSR clause through an amendment to the wording of the proposed clause so that the bonus is correctly calculated based on the total site area of the Precinct, which is known as the B4 zoned land bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane. The applicable location of the bonus FSR shall remain at Area 1.

 

103.  Accordingly, the revised Planning Proposal proposes to amend the wording of Clause 4.4 as follows:

 

“Despite subclause (2), the floor space ratio for land identified as “Area 1” on the Floor Space Ratio Map may exceed the floor space ratio by up to 0.5:1 of the total area of Zone B4 Mixed Use land bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville, for the purpose of hotel accommodation.”

 

104.  It should be noted that the original Planning Proposal was presented to Councillors at a workshop on 9 April 2018, where the Councillors suggested that more FSR be allocated for hotel accommodation land uses whilst retaining the proposed overall FSR on the site. This suggestion was communicated to the applicant following the workshop and it was agreed that since hotel accommodation is considered as an employment-generating land use, some portions of the minimum 0.5:1 non-residential FSR may be utilised to provide for additional hotel floor space if required.

 

105.  It should also be noted that the proposed Floor Space Ratio Map as shown in Figure 24 below remains unchanged by the revised Planning Proposal.

 


 

Figure 24 – Proposed Floor Space Ratio Map

 

5.9 Councillor Workshop

106.  A Councillor workshop outlining the revised Planning Proposal for the Landmark Square Precinct at 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville, was held on 12 June 2018. The revised Planning Proposal was generally supported on the basis that the revised scheme does not alter the proposed development intensity.

 

107.  However, concern was raised in relation to the permissible land uses associated with the bonus 0.5:1 FSR on the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street (i.e. Area 1). It should be noted that the existing Planning Proposal seeks to include the bonus 0.5:1 FSR for the purpose of hotel accommodation.

 

108.  The revised Planning Proposal previously sought to introduce tourist and visitor accommodation in the location of Area 1 under the bonus 0.5:1 FSR. However, it was identified that the inclusion of the ‘serviced apartments’ land use in the group term ‘tourist and visitor accommodation’ is not a desirable outcome due to the potential for conversion to residential apartments. For this reason, the bonus FSR should not be granted for potential non-employment generating outcomes.

 

109.  In response to the Councillors’ concern, the revised Planning Proposal has been amended to retain the component of the existing Planning Proposal which provides a bonus 0.5:1 FSR for hotel accommodation in the location of Area 1 to meet the demand for hotel development in the Hurstville CBD. The bonus FSR will not be extended to accommodate serviced apartment developments.

 

110.  Furthermore, a query was raised with regards to the allocation of floor space for supporting hotel functions such as conference rooms, lobbies, back-of-house administration, swimming pools and other amenities. The applicant has clarified that the bonus 0.5:1 FSR (7,023sqm gross floor area) includes the provision of floor space for these supporting functions. The exact types of amenities and floor space allocation will be identified in a future development application.

 

6  VOLUNTARY PLANNING AGREEMENT

111.  A Voluntary Planning Agreement (“VPA”) is a mechanism which allows for negotiation and agreement between planning authorities and developers to extract public benefits from the planning process and ensure that development produces targeted public benefits over and above measures to address the impact of development on the public domain.

 

112.  Council considered a report on an offer to enter into a VPA and a HoA in relation to the Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) at its meeting on 7 August 2017 (Item CCL147-17). The HoA outlines the terms of the VPA, which delivers additional public benefits over and above the usual S7.11 contributions (formerly S94) applicable to the development.

 

113.  The VPA offer applies to all land owned by the applicant, Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd, which is eight (8) 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. The VPA was calculated based on the overall uplift of the whole Precinct and the following public benefits were identified in the signed HoA:

 

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 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.

 

114.  Figure 25 below identifies the VPA scope of works comprising the 3m wide road widening of Roberts Lane only on the portion of the Lane (highlighted in yellow, circle #1) for which the developer owns. It was recommended to the E&P Committee at its meeting on 12 June 2018, to prepare a separate Planning Proposal for a 3m wide local road widening on the HLEP 2012 Land Reservation Acquisition Map (as dotted in yellow) along the remaining length of the Roberts Lane boundary, to ensure a consistent road widening will occur to allow two-way vehicle access (including small vans) on Roberts Lane. Figure 25 also identifies the public through-site links in the form of publicly accessible easements (#2) which are part of the VPA.

 

Figure 25 – VPA Scope of Works

 

115.  At its meeting on the 7 August 2017, Council resolved to delegate authority to the General Manager to execute the HoA, to negotiate the specific terms of the VPA and to subsequently exhibit a draft of the VPA in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

116.  Furthermore, authority was delegated to the General Manager to:

 

a)   Authorise any minor changes to the draft VPA following public exhibition, provided that those changes do not diminish the value or nature of the public benefits to be delivered as identified above; and

b)   Subsequently enter into the VPA on behalf of Council.

 

117.  The value of the VPA remains unchanged by the revised Planning Proposal as the density of the uplift remains unaltered.

 

118.  It should be noted that at its meeting dated 21 June 2018, the LPP made the recommendation that the provision of affordable housing should be reconsidered in the context of the South District Plan and whether such housing be provided through a revised VPA, which is permissible under Section 7.4(2)(b) of the EP&A Act.

 

119.  The South District Plan specifies that subject to viability, Affordable Rental Housing Targets should be provided generally in the range of 5 to 10% of new residential floor space. Since the proposal will provide approx. 450 new apartments within a total of 37,700sqm of new residential floor space, the site could provide approx. 22 to 45 affordable rental housing dwellings.

 

120.  However, at the previous Committee meeting dated 12 June 2018, the Committee endorsed the requirement for affordable housing on the site be rescinded. Council resolved to endorse the Committee’s recommendations at its meeting dated 25 June 2018.

 

121.  This is due to Council’s current inability to legally enforce the provision of affordable housing in light of the absence of SEPP No 70—Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) or any substantive provisions in the HLEP 2012. Council also does not have any affordable housing policy or procedure in place to inform the demand, management and operation of affordable rental housing.

 

122.  Council has applied a consistent approach in the assessment of all lodged planning proposals to date. The provision of affordable housing has not been requested for any other planning proposals due to the absence of an affordable housing policy and any substantive provisions in the HLEP 2012.

 

123.  During previous negotiations with the applicant as required by Council resolution CCL146-17 (3) and (4)(iii) dated 7 August 2017, Council staff were informed by the applicant that the value of any affordable housing provided will be deducted from the monetary contribution of $7,375,878 (indexed). The flexibility of the monetary contribution provides Council with the option to purchase dwellings for the purpose of affordable housing (public benefit) under Section 7.4 of the EP&A Act in the future subject to the findings of the future affordable housing policy.

 

124.  For the above reasons, it is not recommended that Council reconsider the provision of affordable housing through a revised VPA in association with the Landmark Square Precinct. However, the provision of affordable rental housing should be considered in the context of the South District Plan for future planning proposals following the preparation of Council’s affordable housing policy.

 

125.  If Council proceeds with the existing VPA without the provision of affordable rental housing, it is anticipated that the VPA will be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the Council resolution (Item CCL147-17) concurrently with the Planning Proposal and a future amendment to the HDCP No.2 containing the insertion of a site-specific chapter in relation to the Precinct.

 

7  SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT / CONCLUSION

126.  In summary, the revised Planning Proposal seeks to alter the existing Gateway Determination granted for PP2015/0001 in relation to the Landmark Square Precinct as follows:

 

a)    Reconfiguration of the proposed Height of Buildings Map as below:

a.    Addition of transitional 28m (T) building height towards the northern portion of Forest Road between the 21m (R) and 40m (W) portions;

b.    Reduction of the extent of the 40m (W) portion on Forest Road;

c.    Adjustment of the 65m (AA2) portion to be concentrated primarily along Forest Road; and

d.    Increase in area of the 30m (U) portion on Durham Street; and

b)    A provision to clarify the bonus 0.5:1 FSR application for the purpose of hotel accommodation at the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street.

 

127.  It is recommended that Council endorse the request for the following reasons:

 

a)    There is no change to the FSR, gross floor area or the allocation of the hotel, commercial / retail and residential floor space proposed by the existing Planning Proposal;

b)    The revised Planning Proposal is solely informed by the revised concept scheme and does not seek to alter the proposed density on the site or the intent of the existing Planning Proposal;

c)    The revised Urban Design Report demonstrates an appropriate urban design response through the increased formal transition and articulation and refinement in building form, thereby fulfilling Council’s resolution 4(i) for revised urban design analysis;

d)    The revised scheme provides opportunities for additional public through-site links to be created which enhances the permeability of the Precinct;

e)    The revised building envelope demonstrates a significant reduction in the overshadowing impacts to Kempt Field; and

f)     The revision provides clarification regarding the application of the 0.5:1 bonus FSR for hotel accommodation to prevent potential misinterpretation.

 

8  COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

128.  Should the revised Planning Proposal be supported, it will be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission requesting an alteration to the existing Gateway Determination.

 

129.  If a Gateway Determination is issued, and subject to its conditions, it is anticipated that the Planning Proposal will be exhibited for a period of 28 days in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and Regulation, 2000, and any requirements of the Gateway Determination.

 

130.  Exhibition material, including explanatory information, land to which the Planning Proposal applies, description of the objectives and intended outcomes, copy of the Planning Proposal and relevant maps will be available for viewing during the exhibition period on Council’s website and hard copies available at Council offices and libraries.

 

131.  Notification of the public exhibition will be through:

 

·    Newspaper advertisement in The Leader

·    Exhibition notice on Council’s website

·    Notices in Council offices and libraries

·    Letters to State and Commonwealth Government agencies identified in the Gateway Determination (if required)

·    Letters to affected and adjoining landowners (if required, in accordance with Council’s Notification Procedures)

 

132.  The anticipated project timeline for completion of the Planning Proposal is shown below:

 

Task

Anticipated Timeframe

Lodgement of revised Planning Proposal request

18 May 2018

Report to Georges River LPP on Planning Proposal

21 June 2018

Report to Environment and Planning Committee on Planning Proposal

9 July 2018

(this report)

Report to Council on Planning Proposal

23 July 2018

Anticipated commencement date (date of Gateway Determination)

September 2018

Timeframe for government agency consultation (pre and post exhibition as required by Gateway Determination)

November 2018

Commencement and completion dates for community consultation period

December 2018-February 2019 (concurrent public exhibition with the Road Widening Planning Proposal, DCP and VPA)

Dates for public hearing (if required)

N/A

Timeframe for consideration of submissions

February-March 2019

Reporting to Council on community consultation and finalisation

March 2019

Submission to the Department to finalise the LEP

April 2019

Anticipated date for notification

May 2019

133.  It is noted that the project timeline will be assessed by the DPE and may be amended by the Gateway Determination.

9  NEXT STEPS

134.  In moving forward, a site-specific chapter to the HDCP No.2 will be prepared to reflect detailed urban design considerations for any future development of the site, including the provision of public access, built form, boundary setbacks, deep soil areas, site amalgamation, vehicular access and any other relevant issues. The DCP is to be prepared at the proponent’s cost.

 

135.  The proposed DCP chapter for the Landmark Square Precinct will be reported to a future E&P Committee meeting for consideration and endorsement to be placed on public exhibition.

 

136.  If the revised Planning Proposal is endorsed by Council it will be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for an Alteration to the Gateway Determination under Section 3.34 of the EP&A Act.

 

137.  If Council resolves not to support the revised Planning Proposal, the existing Planning Proposal will be progressed in accordance with the conditions of the current Gateway Determination dated 19 October 2017.

 

138.  The public exhibition of the Planning Proposal will occur concurrently with the associated VPA and amendments to HDCP No. 2 for the Landmark Square Precinct in accordance with the EP&A Act and its Regulation.

 

Financial Implications

139.  No budget impact for this report.

 

Risk Implications

140.  No risks identified.

 

File Reference

15/793 - D18/130239

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Report to the Local Planning Panel dated 21 June 2018 - published in separate document

Attachment 2

Gateway Determination and Conditions dated 19 October 2017 - published in separate document

Attachment 3

Revised Urban Design Report dated May 2018 - published in separate document

Attachment 4

Alteration to Gateway Request - published in separate document

 


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Committee Meeting -  Monday, 9 July 2018                              Page 75

Item:                   ENV020-18        Planning Proposal and Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 - Hurstville City Centre for Nos.108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville 

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 Planning Proposal PP2014/0004 and Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre for 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville.

 

(b) That Council adopt the amendment to Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 as exhibited in relation to 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to:

a)   Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM ) to rezone Nos. 108 and 112 Forest Road, Hurstville from B2 - Local Centre Zone to B4 – Mixed Use Zone;

b)   Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM) to rezone Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from R3 - Medium Density Residential Zone to B4 - Mixed Use Zone;

c)   Amend the Height of Buildings Map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for Nos. 108 and 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 34.5m;

d)   Amend the Height of Buildings Map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for No. 124 Forest Road, Hurstville to 46.5m;

e)   Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map (FSR) to increase the maximum floor space ratio for Nos. 108 and 112 Forest Road and Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 4:1;

f)    Amend the Lot Size Map (Sheet LSZ_008) to remove Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from its application, consistent with the B4 - Mixed Use Zone; and

g)   Amend Clause 4.4A of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 to include a provision relating to the subject site stating that development consent must not be granted for development unless the non-residential floor space is at least 0.5:1.

 

(c)  That Council forward the Planning Proposal for gazettal to the Department of Planning and Environment in accordance with Section 3.36 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

(d) That Council resolve in accordance with Clause 21(1) (b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, to approve Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre, as exhibited with amendments to insert a new section relating to site amalgamation and amend the vehicle access requirements to enable flexibility of an additional access off Wright Street if supported by a traffic report.

 

(e) That Council give public notice of the decision to approve the amendment to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre in the local paper in accordance with Clause 21(2) and (4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, stating that the amendment will commence upon the making of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Amendment No. 8).

 

(f)  That the Department of Planning and Environment be advised of Council’s decision to approve Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

(g) That Council endorse the Director of Environment and Planning to make minor modifications to any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors, if required, in the finalisation of the draft plans.

 

(h) That all persons who made a submission to the Planning Proposal and Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.   In December 2014, the applicant, Tony Polvere, submitted a Planning Proposal for Nos. 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road, Hurstville to:

·    Rezone part of the site from B2 Local Centre to B4 Mixed Use;

·    Increase the height from 9m and 23m to 42m and 60m; and

·    Increase the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 1.5:1 and 4:1 to 6.6:1.

 

2.   Since the lodgement of the Planning Proposal in December 2014, an additional six (6) revised Planning Proposals have been received and reported to Council.

 

3.   The applicant’s revised Planning Proposal (Revision No. 6) was lodged on 11 March 2016 and included Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville. Revision No. 6 of the Planning Proposal requested to amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 (HLEP 2012) to:

·    Rezone parts of the site from B2 Local Centre and R3 Medium Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use (part of the site is already zoned B4 Mixed Use);

·    Increase the maximum height of the buildings on the site to a range between 34.5m and 46.5m (currently 9m, 12m and 23m); and

·    Increase the maximum floor space ratio control on the site to 4:1 (currently 1:1, 1.5:1 and 4:1).

 

4.   Council forwarded the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment with a request for Gateway Determination. Council received a Gateway Determination to exhibit the Planning Proposal on 24 February 2017.

 

5.   In response to Council’s resolution of 13 December 2016, Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre (draft DCP) for 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville (the “Bing Lee” site) was prepared.

 

6.   The Planning Proposal and the draft DCP were exhibited separately and submissions received. No changes have been recommended to the Planning Proposal in response to the submissions received. However, changes have been recommended to the draft DCP in response to the submissions received and the Local Planning Panel’s (LPP) recommendations of 21 June 2018.

 

7.   The LPP at its meeting on 21 June 2018 considered a report on the Planning Proposal for Nos. 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville and recommended in part:

 

a)   That the following amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012, as exhibited be supported:

·    Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM ) to rezone Nos. 108 and 112 Forest Road, Hurstville from B2 - Local Centre Zone to B4 – Mixed Use Zone;

·    Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM) to rezone Nos. 1 - 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from R3 - Medium Density Residential Zone to B4 - Mixed Use Zone;

·    Amend the Height of Buildings Map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for Nos. 108 and 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 34.5m;

·    Amend the Height of Buildings Map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for No. 124 Forest Road, Hurstville to 46.5m;

·    Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map (FSR) to increase the maximum floor space ratio for Nos. 108 and 112 Forest Road and Nos 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 4:1;

·    Amend the Lot Size Map (Sheet LSZ_008) to remove Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from its application, consistent with the B4 - Mixed Use Zone; and

·    Amend Clause 4.4A of Hurstville LEP 2012 to include a provision relating to the subject site stating that development consent must not be granted for development unless the non-residential floor space is at least 0.5:1.

 

b)   The Panel considered that the following matters be reviewed in relation to the draft DCP:

·    Additional access from Wright Street;

·    Site amalgamations

 

8.   In response to the LPP recommendations, the draft DCP has been amended by:

a)   inserting a new section on Site Amalgamation; and

b)   amending a control in the Vehicle Access section relating to the access to the Bing Lee site.

 

9.   It is recommended that Council adopt and forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for gazettal; and approve the draft DCP for the Bing Lee site with amendments.

 

Background

10. In December 2014, the applicant, Tony Polvere, submitted a Planning Proposal for Nos. 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road, Hurstville to:

 

a)   Rezone part of the site from B2 Local Centre to B4 Mixed Use;

b)   Increase the height from 9m and 23m to 42m and 60m; and

c)   Increase the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 1.5:1 and 4:1 to 6.6:1.

 

11. Since the lodgement of the Planning Proposal in December 2014, an additional six (6) revised Planning Proposals have been received (taking the total number of versions to seven and the addition of 1 and 3 Wright Street to the site) and reported to Council with variations to the requested height, FSR, quantum of retail/commercial and number of residential apartments.

 

12. Table 1 below provides a summary of the Planning Proposal revisions and an account of consideration by Council, St George Design Review Panel (DRP), Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP), Urban Design Peer Review, Local Planning Panel (LPP) and details regarding the preparation of the draft DCP:

 

Date

Details

4 December 2014

Planning Proposal request Revision 1 for 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road, Hurstville (3 lots)

·      Amend the two LEPs - Hurstville LEP 2012 and the then draft City Centre LEP:

-       Amend Hurstville LEP 2012 maps to remove 108 and 112 Forest Rd from the provisions of this LEP;

-       Amend draft City Centre LEP to include 108 and 112 Forest Rd within the City Centre land and to rezone 108 and 112 Forest Road from B2 Local Centre to B4 Mixed Use

·      Increase max. building height for:

108 and 112 Forest Rd. - From 9m to 27m (8 storeys)

124 Forest Rd - From 23m to 60m (19storeys)

·      Increase max. FSR to 6.6:1 on the three lots (from a range of 1.5 to 4:1)

 

·      No. of residential units - 242 (40% adaptable)

·      Retail floorspace - 1890sqm

·      Commercial floorspace - 3885sqm

·      Proposed VPA Offer

2m land dedication for road widening

Monetary contribution $2,600,000

6 May 2015

 

Council Report considering Revision 1 (as above)

Summary of Council resolution

·      The matter deferred for 2 months and for the applicant to work with Officers for a mutually acceptable outcome

 

1 July 2015

 

Council Report considering Revision 1

Summary of Council resolution

·      Council note the report and the matter be referred back to the 5 August 2015 Council Meeting.

 

10 July 2015

Hurstville LEP 2012 Amendment No. 3 made (City Centre LEP) and effective 24 July 2015

17 July 2015

Planning Proposal request Revision 2 for 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville (5 lots) (the “Bing Lee” site)

Amend Hurstville LEP 2012 by:

·      Rezoning:

·      108 and 112 Forest Rd from B2 Local Centre and 1-3 Wright St from R3 Medium Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use

·      Increasing max. height of:

108 and 112 Forest Road - From 9m to 42m (13 storeys)

1-3 Wright Street  - From 12m to 42m (13 storeys)

124 Forest Road - From 23m to 60m (19 storeys)

·      Increasing max. FSR to 4.8:1 on the five lots

 

·      No. of residential units - 264 (40% adaptable)

·      Retail floorspace - 1,100sqm

·      Commercial floorspace – Nil

 

Proposed VPA Offer:

·      Monetary contribution of $2,600,000.

·      Dedication of 2m wide land for road widening.

·      Provision of affordable rental housing.

·      Dedicated bus stopping lane.

·      Dedication of public access to plaza areas.

 

5 August 2015

 

Council Report considering Revision 2

Summary of Council resolution

·      Council refused the Planning Proposal.

(Rescission Motion subsequently lodged.)

10 August 2015

Rescission Motion on the 5 August 2015 Report

19 August 2015

Council Report considering Rescission Motion

Council resolution

·      RESOLVED THAT the following resolution of the Council Meeting of 5 August 2015 in relation to CCL807-15 – Revised Planning Proposal Request and Offer to enter into a Planning Agreement – 108 112 and 124 Forest Rd and 1-3 Wright St Hurstville be rescinded:

 

THAT Council refuse the recommendation to receive and note the report.

·      FURTHER THAT if the rescission motion is successful, that it be superseded by the following:

THAT Council receive and note the report.

FURTHER THAT a report come back to Council on the Meeting of 16 September 2015.

 

12 August 2015

 

DRP meeting 1 – Considered Revision 2

DRP Advice:

·      The Planning Proposal should be accompanied by a detailed Urban Design Study to justify the proposed variations to the height and FSR controls within the surrounding context.

·      A variety of design options must be explored before selecting the final option for the site.

·      Other concerns raised were in relation to:

·      the transition to the lower scale residential buildings on the northwest of the proposed tall buildings, and

·      the poor amenity of the proposed public open space fronting Forest Road, adverse impacts on view lines and overshadowing.

 

26 August 2015

Planning Proposal request Revision 3 for the Bing Lee site

Amend Hurstville LEP 2012 by:

·      Rezoning:

·      108 and 112 Forest Rd from B2 Local Centre and 1-3 Wright St from R3 Medium Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use

·      Increasing maximum height of:

108 and 112 Forest Road - From 9m to 42m (13 storeys)

1-3 Wright Street - From 12m to 42m (13 storeys)

124 Forest Road - From 23m to 60m (19 storeys)

·      Increasing max. FSR to 4.8:1 on the five lots

 

·      No. of residential units - 260 (20% adaptable)

·      Retail floorspace - 1,700sqm

·      Commercial floorspace - 600sqm

VPA Offer - As in Revision 2 above.

 

16 September 2015

 

Council Report considering Revision 3

Summary of Council resolution

·      A full assessment report on the revised Planning Proposal and the VPA offer be presented to Council following the completion of the assessment and referrals on the proposal.

 

12 October 2015

Planning Proposal request Revision 4 for 5 lots

Same as Revision 3 above – the urban design information was restructured only and not amended as per the DRP advice of 12 August 2015.

28 October 2015

Pre Gateway Review (PGR) application lodged with the Department of Planning and Environment (Request as per Revision No. 3 above)

4 December 2015

Council submission to the Department on the PGR application.

November/ December 2015

Independent Urban Design Peer Review - Based on Revision 3

Recommendation:

Two potential built form options recommended as follows:

Option 1

Height - 13-10 storeys (42m-33m); and

FSR of approximately 3.6:1.

This option allows more density and height in recognition of the corner’s role as the western edge of the gateway to the Hurstville City Centre.

Option 2

Height - 10 storeys (33m) to the corner with a podium base and a maximum of 7 storeys (23m) along Forest Road; and

FSR of approximately 3.1:1.

This option is driven by the principle of responding to the scale opposite the site on Forest Road.

19 November 2015

 

DRP meeting 2 - Based on Revision 3

Advice:

The DRP noted that they could not support the Planning Proposal in its current form and recommended the proposal be amended to be consistent with the recommendations of the Urban Design Peer Review, subject to further testing in relation to solar access, overshadowing and other amenity issues.

 

9 December 2015

 

Council Report 6 considering Revision 3

Summary of Council resolution

·      The applicant is to submit an amended Planning Proposal responding to the recommendations of the Urban Design Peer Review and the comments of the DRP by 18 January 2016.

·      Assessment report on the revised Planning Proposal and VPA offer be presented to Council in 2016 following the completion of the referrals on the amended Planning Proposal.

 

18 January 2016

Planning Proposal request Revision 5 for the Bing Lee site

Amend Hurstville LEP 2012 by:

·      Rezoning:

·      108 and 112 Forest Road from B2 Local Centre and 1-3 Wright Street from R3 Medium Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use

·      Increasing maximum height of:

108 and 112 Forest Road - From 9m to 34m (10 storeys)

1-3 Wright Street - From 12m to 34m (10 storeys)

124 Forest Road - From 23m to 43m (13 storeys)

·      Increasing max. FSR to 4:1 on the five lots

 

·      No. of residential units - 217 (36% adaptable)

·      Retail floorspace - 1,170sqm

·      Commercial floorspace - 645sqm

VPA Offer: A monetary contribution of $1,880,000.

 

18 February 2016

 

DRP meeting 3 – Based on Revision 5

DRP Advice:

·      The podium height needs to be decreased from 8 levels to 3-4 levels.

·      The extent, location and heights of the two towers need to be resolved.

·      The tower buildings to be set back from the podium by at least 4m.

·      The need for the bridging element between the two tower buildings.

·      Continuous commercial uses to be provided at street level along the three (3) frontages and awnings be provided on the three frontages (rather than the residential on the two (2) side streets).

·      Central courtyard to be developed as a communal space or an activated public space.

 

11 March 2016

Planning Proposal request Revision 6 for the Bing Lee site

Amend Hurstville LEP 2012 by:

·      Rezoning:

·      108 and 112 Forest Road from B2 Local Centre and 1-3 Wright Street from R3 Medium Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use

·      Increasing max. height of:

108 and 112 Forest Road - From 9m to 34.5m (10 storeys)

1-3 Wright Street - From 12m to 34.5m (10 storeys)

124 Forest Road - From 23m to 46.5m (14 storeys)

·      Increasing max. FSR to 4:1 on the five lots

·      No. of residential units - 217 (36% adaptable)

·      Retail floorspace - 1,150sqm (5% floorspace)

·      20,478sqm (95% of floor space)

·      Commercial floorspace - Nil

VPA Offer:

·      A monetary contribution of $2,280,000.

·      Dedication of land for road widening.

 

24 November 2016

 

IHAP Report considering Revision 6:

IHAP determination:

That a report to Council be prepared to advise of the IHAP recommendations and request that Council consider forwarding the Planning Proposal to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment to request a Gateway Approval for an amendment to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 in relation to Nos. 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and Nos 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to:

·      Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM ) to rezone Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road, Hurstville from B2 - Local Centre Zone to B4 – Mixed Use Zone;

·      Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM) to rezone Nos 1 - 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from R3 - Medium Density Residential Zone to B4 - Mixed Use Zone;

·      Amend the Height of Building map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 34.5m;

·      Amend the Height of Buildings map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for No 124 Forest Road, Hurstville to 46.5m;

·      Amend the floor space ratio map (FSR) to increase the maximum floor space ratio for Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road and Nos 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 4:1; and

·      Amend the Lot Size Map (Sheet LSZ_008) to remove Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street Hurstville from its application and consistent with the B4 - Mixed Use zone; and

·      Amend Clause 4.4A of HLEP 2012 to include the a provision relating to the subject site stating that development consent must not be granted for development unless the non –residential floor space is at least 0.5:1.

THAT the Georges River IHAP also support the following:

a)   The preparation of an amendment to the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 to include 108 Forest Road, 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street in the boundaries of the Hurstville City Centre to reflect the proposed B4 Mixed Use zoning of the land; and

b)   The preparation of an amendment to the Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 2 - Hurstville City Centre (Amendment No. 6) to include the subject site within the boundary of the Hurstville City Centre and site specific provisions including (but not limited to), setbacks to the adjoining residential development, street activation provisions and vehicular access points, building massing and form as well as provisions to upgrades to public domain, provide deep soil landscaped areas and through site connections and linkages.

 

13 December 2016

 

Council Report considering Revision 6

The Administrator moved and carried the IHAP recommendations as noted above.

 

16 December 2016

Planning Proposal was forwarded to the Department with a request for Gateway Determination in accordance with the Council resolution of 13 December 2016 to:

·      Rezone part of the site from B2 Local Centre and R3 Medium Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use;

·      Amend the height from 9m, 12m and 23m to 34.5m and 46.5m;

·      Amend the Floor Space Ratio for part of the site from 1:1 and 1.5:1 to 4:1;

·      Remove Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from the application of minimum lot size, consistent with the B4 - Mixed Use zone; and

·      Amend Clause 4.4A of HLEP 2012 to include a minimum non–residential floor space provision of 0.5:1 for the subject site.

 

24 February 2017

Gateway Determination received from the Department of Planning and Environment

27 April 2017

Planning Proposal was updated (Revision 7) in accordance with the conditions of the Gateway Determination to include a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.5:1

17 May – 16 June 2017

Planning Proposal exhibited and 16 submissions received.

11 December 2017

Environment and Planning Committee consideration to endorse the draft DCP for exhibition.

Committee recommendation: Matter deferred for Council consideration on 18 December 2017.

18 December 2017

Council consideration of draft DCP.

Council resolution: Matter deferred for consideration at a future Councillor Workshop.

5 February 2018

Councillor Workshop on the draft DCP

12 March 2018

Environment and Planning Committee consideration for endorsing the draft DCP for exhibition.

Committee recommendation: Matter deferred for Council consideration on 26 March 2018.

26 March 2018

Council consideration of draft DCP to endorse for public exhibition.

Council resolution: Council resolved to endorse the draft DCP for exhibition with amendments.

21 June 2018

LPP consideration of submissions received on the Planning Proposal

LPP recommendation: In summary, the recommendations included:

·      Planning Proposal - Council endorse the amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012 as exhibited

·      The draft DCP – Council amend the draft DCP in terms of vehicular access to the subject site and site amalgamation

Table 1: Summary of the Planning Proposal Revisions, preparation of draft DCP and Council, Environment and Planning Committee, DRP, IHAP, Urban Design Peer Review and LPP considerations

 

13. For ease of understanding, the various revisions of the Planning Proposal are provided in Table 2 below:

 

Planning Proposal request

Planning Proposal details

Revision 1 (4 December 2014) - 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road, Hurstville (3 lots)

Mixed-use development

Zone change from B2 Local Centre to B4 Mixed Use

Height: two towers - 27m (8 storeys) and 60m (19 storeys)

FSR: 6.6:1

Retail: 1,890m2

Commercial: 3,885m2

Apartments: approx. 242

Revision 2 (17 July 2015) - 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville (5 lots) (the “Bing Lee” site)

Mixed-use development

Zone change from B2 Local Centre and R3 Medium Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use

Height: two towers - 42m (13 storeys) and 60m (19 storeys)

FSR: 4.8:1

Retail: 1,100m2

Commercial: Nil

Apartments: approx. 264

Revision 3 (26 August 2015) for the Bing Lee site (5 lots)

Mixed-use development

Zone change from B2 Local Centre and R3 Medium Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use

Height: two towers - 42m (13 storeys) and 60m (19 storeys)

FSR: 4.8:1

Retail: 1,700m2

Commercial: 600m2

Apartments: approx. 260

Revision 4 (12 October 2015) for the Bing Lee site (5 lots)

Mixed-use development

Design concept same as Revision 3, the urban design information was restructured only and not amended as per the DRP advice of 12 August 2015.

Revision 5 (18 January 2016) for the Bing Lee site (5 lots)

Mixed-use development

Zone change from B2 Local Centre and R3 Medium Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use

Height: two towers - 34m (10 storeys) and 43m (13storeys)

FSR: 4:1

Retail: 1,170m2

Commercial: 645m2

Apartments: approx. 217

Revision 6 (11 March 2016) for the Bing Lee site (5 lots)

Mixed-use development

 

Zone change from B2 Local Centre and R3 Medium Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use

Height: two towers - 34.5m (10 storeys) and 46.5m (14 storeys)

FSR: 4:1

Retail: 1,150m2

Commercial: Nil

Apartments: approx. 217

Revision 7 (April 2017) for the Bing Lee site (5 lots)

Mixed-use development

 

 

Zone change from B2 Local Centre and R3 Medium Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use

Height: two towers - 34.5m (10 storeys) and 46.5m (14 storeys)

FSR: 4:1

Retail: 2,704m2

Commercial: Nil

Apartments: approx. 217

Notes:

1.     Revision 7 takes into account the Department’s Gateway Determination conditions including a minimum non-residential floorspace of 0.5:1.

2.     The EIA accompanying Revision 7 notes that the office market is well supplied within Hurstville, therefore Revision 7 proposes non-residential floorspace in form of retail (2,704sqm).

Table 2: Summary of Planning Proposal revisions

 

14. The applicant’s revised Planning Proposal (Revision No. 6) was lodged on 11 March 2016 and included Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville. Revision No. 6 of the Planning Proposal requested to amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 (HLEP 2012) to:

 

a)   Rezone parts of the site from B2 Local Centre and R3 Medium Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use (part of the site is already zoned B4 Mixed Use);

b)   Increase the maximum height of the buildings on the site to a range between 34.5m and 46.5m (currently 9m, 12m and 23m); and

c)   Increase the maximum floor space ratio control on the site to 4:1 (currently 1:1, 1.5:1 and 4:1).

 

Council consideration

15. At its meeting on 13 December 2016 (CCL127-16), Council considered the Planning Proposal and resolved:

 

(a) That Council endorse the forwarding of the Planning Proposal to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment to request a Gateway Approval for an amendment to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 in relation to Nos. 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and Nos 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to:

·    Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM) to rezone Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road Hurstville from B2 - Local Centre Zone to B4 – Mixed Use Zone;

·    Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM) to rezone Nos 1 - 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from R3 - Medium Density Residential Zone to B4 - Mixed Use Zone;

·    Amend the Height of Buildings Map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for Nos. 108 and 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 34.5m;

·    Amend the Height of Buildings Map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for No. 124 Forest Road, Hurstville to 46.5m;

·    Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map (FSR) to increase the maximum floor space ratio for Nos. 108 and 112 Forest Road and Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 4:1;

·    Amend the Lot Size Map (Sheet LSZ_008) to remove Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from its application, consistent with the B4 - Mixed Use zone; and

·    Amend Clause 4.4A of HLEP 2012 to include a provision relating to the subject site stating that development consent must not be granted for development unless the non –residential floor space is at least 0.5:1.

 

(b) That Council also note the IHAP resolution to support the following:

i.    The preparation of an amendment to the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 to include 108 Forest Road, 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street in the boundaries of the Hurstville City Centre to reflect the proposed B4 Mixed Use zoning of the land; and

ii.   The preparation of an amendment to the Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 2 - Hurstville City Centre (Amendment No. 6) to include the subject site within the boundary of the Hurstville City Centre and site specific provisions including (but not limited to), setbacks to the adjoining residential development, street activation provisions and vehicular access points, building massing and form as well as provisions to upgrades to public domain, provide deep soil landscaped areas and through site connections and linkages.

 

Request for Gateway Determination

16. In accordance with Council’s resolution of 13 December 2016, the Planning Proposal was forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment on 16 December 2016. Council received a Gateway Determination to exhibit the Planning Proposal on 24 February 2017; which conditioned a minimum 28 days public exhibition and the following:

·    Justification of the proposal’s inconsistency with Section 117 Direction 1.1 Business and Industrial Zones;

·    A preliminary investigation of the land carried out in accordance with the contaminated land planning guidelines, to meet the requirements under the State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55);

·    A revised Urban Design report illustrating the proposed built form taking into consideration the requirement for a minimum non-residential floor space of 0.5:1; and

·    A revised Economic Impact Assessment taking into consideration the requirement for a minimum non-residential floor space of 0.5:1.

 

17. The Gateway Determination required that both the Urban Design and the Economic Impact Assessment reports be placed on public exhibition with the Planning Proposal and the Planning Proposal to be updated to reflect the revised reports.

 

18. In response to the conditions of the Gateway, specifically the incorporation of a minimum non-residential floor space of 0.5:1, the applicant:

 

a)   Updated the Urban Design report;

b)   Updated the Economic Impact Assessment report;

c)   Updated the Planning Proposal (Revision 7); and 

d)   Prepared a preliminary investigation report to meet the requirements of SEPP 55.

 

19. The Gateway Determination required Council to finalise the amending LEP by 3 March 2018. Given the delays in ensuring DCP controls that provide for quality urban design outcomes are in place when the LEP is amended, in December 2017, Council requested the Department of Planning and Environment for an extension to the Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal. Council has been granted an extension to 3 July 2018.

 

20. The Planning Proposal was exhibited from 17 May to 16 June 2017 and a total of 16 submissions were received. The submissions included two petitions signed by 61 and 30 signatories respectively and mainly raised issues in relation to traffic and parking, amenity (including privacy, overshadowing and view loss), child safety and noise. Refer to points 60 to 106 of this report for further detail.

 

21. In accordance with Council’s resolution of 13 December 2016, Amendment No. 8 to DCP No.2 – Hurstville City Centre (the draft DCP) was prepared for the Bing Lee site and exhibited from 25 April to 1 June 2018. A total of four submissions were received and raised issues related to traffic and parking including one single entry/exit to the Bing Lee site, child safety and lack of infrastructure to support the development. Refer to points 109 to 114 of this report for further detail.

 

22. The Local Planning Panel (LPP), at its meeting on 21 June 2018 considered a report on the submissions received to the Planning Proposal for Nos. 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville and resolved:

a)   That the Georges River Local Planning Panel receive and note the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal PP2014/0004 for 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville.

 

b)   That the following amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012, as exhibited be supported:

 

·    Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM ) to rezone Nos. 108 and 112 Forest Road, Hurstville from B2 - Local Centre Zone to B4 – Mixed Use Zone;

·    Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM) to rezone Nos. 1 - 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from R3 - Medium Density Residential Zone to B4 - Mixed Use Zone;

·    Amend the Height of Buildings Map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for Nos. 108 and 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 34.5m;

·    Amend the Height of Buildings Map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for No. 124 Forest Road, Hurstville to 46.5m;

·    Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map (FSR) to increase the maximum floor space ratio for Nos. 108 and 112 Forest Road and Nos 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 4:1;

·    Amend the Lot Size Map (Sheet LSZ_008) to remove Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from its application, consistent with the B4 - Mixed Use Zone; and

·    Amend Clause 4.4A of Hurstville LEP 2012 to include a provision relating to the subject site stating that development consent must not be granted for development unless the non-residential floor space is at least 0.5:1.

 

c)   That a report to the Environment and Planning Committee be prepared to advise of the

Local Planning Panel recommendations and request Council to resolve to support the

Planning Proposal and the finalisation of the draft amendment to Hurstville Local

Environmental Plan 2012 in accordance with Section 3.36 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

d)   The Panel considered that the following matters be reviewed in relation to Amendment No.8 to DCP No.2 – Hurstville City Centre:

(a) Additional access from Wright Street;

(b) Site amalgamations

 

23. In summary, the LPP recommended that Council amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 as exhibited and described in this report. In relation to the draft DCP, the LPP recommended that the matters of additional access from Wright Street and site amalgamation be considered. In response to this, the draft DCP has been updated and this report considers these matters. Refer to point 115 of this Report.

 

The Site and Locality

24. The subject site fronts Forest Road, Wright Street and Hudson Street and is located on the eastern edge of the Hurstville City Centre (Figure 1 below).

 

Figure 1: Site Plan

 

25. It comprises five lots, being Nos 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville. The subject site has a total area of approximately 5,407sqm with the following frontages on three streets – Forest Road (90.6m), Hudson Street (49.3m) and Wright Street (70.9m).

 

26. The subject site is situated approximately 530m from Allawah Station and 650m from Hurstville Railway Station. The site surrounds are described as follows:

 

·    North: To the north along Hudson Road and Wright Street are 3-4 storey residential flat buildings (Figure 2).

Figure 2: 3-4 storey residential apartments (Source: Google Maps)

 

·    South: Opposite the subject site on the southern side of Forest Road is the East Quarter site (Figure 3). Stages 1 and 2 of this development are complete. The LEP for Stage 3 of the development was finalised on 5 May 2017.

This Planning Proposal requests two towers – 34.5m (10 storeys) and 46.5m (14 storeys) high, 210 residential units and 2,704sqm of commercial floor space on ground level.

 

Figure 3: Stages 1 and 2 of East Quarter (Source: Google Maps)

 

·    East: To the east of the subject site are industrial uses which are accommodated in one and two storey buildings between Forest Road, Wright Street and Durham Street (Figure 4). A Planning Proposal on the industrial site; on the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street (i.e. Landmark Square Precinct) was supported by the former Hurstville Council on 20 April 2016 and received a Gateway in late 2017.

This Planning Proposal requested to rezone the site from part IN2 - Light Industrial zone and part R2 - Low Density Residential zone to B4 - Mixed Use zone and currently proposes a range of heights from 12m to 65m and an FSR range from 2:1 to 4:1 that includes a bonus 0.5:1 FSR for a hotel.

Figure 4: 1-2 storey industrial uses (Source: Google Maps)

 

·    West: To the west of the subject site are two-storey shops and commercial offices (Figure 5).

 

Figure 5: 2 storey shops and commercial offices (Source: Google Maps)

 

Current Planning Controls

27. The Hurstville LEP 2012 applies to the subject site. The following provisions are relevant to the Planning Proposal; extracts of which are shown in Figures 6 to 11 below:

 

·    Land zoning: B2 Local Centre, R3 Medium Density Residential and B4 Mixed Use;

Note: As noted above and demonstrated in Figure 6, the subject site includes a combination of business and residential zones. It does not include any land zoned IN2 Light Industrial.

 

·    Height: ranges 9m, 12m and 23m;

 

·    FSR: 1:1, 1.5:1 and 4:1;

 

·    Active Street Frontages: active frontage along Hudson Street and Forest Road frontages;

 

·    Heritage: no heritage items located on the site;

 

·    Minimum Lot Size: 1 and 3 Wright Street affected by 450sqm minimum lot size; and

 

·    Airspace Operations: must be considered.

 

Figure 6: Land Zoning Map Extract adapted from Hurstville LEP 2012

 

Figure 7: Height of Buildings Map Extract adapted from Hurstville LEP 2012

 

Figure 8: Floor Space Ratio Map Extract adapted from Hurstville LEP 2012

 

Figure 9: Heritage Map Extract adapted from Hurstville LEP 2012

 

Figure 10: Active Street Frontages Map Extract adapted from Hurstville LEP 2012

 

Figure 11: Minimum Lot Size Map Extract adapted from Hurstville LEP 2012

 

Description of Planning Proposal

28. In summary, Revision 7 requests an amendment to Hurstville LEP 2012 as outlined in Table 3 below:

 

Property

Current Controls in

HLEP 2012

Planning Proposal (Revision 7)

108 & 112 Forest Road

(1,644m2)

B2 Local Centre zone

9m (2 storeys)

1.5:1 (2,466m2)

B4 Mixed Use zone

34.5m (10 storeys)

4:1 (6,576m2)

1 and 3 Wright Street

(992m2)

Note: The application of the minimum lot size is to be removed from these lots; consistent with the B4 Mixed Use zone.

R3 Medium Density Residential zone

12m (3 storeys)

1:1 (992m2)

B4 Mixed Use zone

34.5m (10 storeys)

4:1 (3,968m2)

124 Forest Road

(2,771m2)

B4 Mixed Use zone

23m (6 storeys)

4:1 (11,084m2)

B4 Mixed Use zone (No change)

46.5m (14 storeys)

4:1 (No change) (11,084m2)

Table 3: Summary of current controls and controls in Planning Proposal request (Revision 7)

 

29. The ownership of the four lots is with one owner who has two companies as listed in Table 4 below. No. 3 Wright Street, Hurstville is a deceased estate currently under another ownership and the owner is working towards acquiring the property.

 

Street Address

Owner

124 Forest Road, Hurstville

Shanghai Lihua Hurstville P/L

112 Forest Road, Hurstville

Slh 108 Pty Ltd

108 Forest Road, Hurstville

Slh 108 Pty Ltd

1 Wright Street, Hurstville

Slh 108 Pty Ltd

3 Wright Street, Hurstville

Mrs E M Gehringer

Table 4: Ownership of lots subject to Planning Proposal

 

30. The proposed amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012, as identified in Table 3 above are shown in Figures 12 – 15 below:

Figure 12: Planning Proposal Land Zoning Map (Source: Council GIS section)

Figure 13: Planning Proposal Maximum Building Height (Source: Council GIS section)

Figure 14: Planning Proposal Maximum Floor Space Ratio (Source: Council GIS section)

 

Figure 15: Planning Proposal Lot Size Map (Source: Council GIS section)

 

31. Revision 7 proposes a mixed-use development (predominantly residential development) with 21,628m2 of floor space comprising the following:

 

·    A four-storey podium and two (2) tower buildings varying in height from 10 to 14 storeys.

 

·    2,704m2 (12.5% of floor space) of retail floor space provided on the ground level fronting the three streets and split in four parts. The nature of the proposed retail use will be determined at the development application stage.

 

·    18,924m2 (87.5% of floor space) accommodating approximately 217 residential apartments on the upper levels within the two towers.

 

32. Under the current controls (HLEP 2012), the subject site can achieve a total floor space of 14,542m2 or an overall FSR of 2.69:1.

 

33. Revision 7 proposes a FSR of 4:1 which generates a floor space of 21,628m2.

 

34. The Planning Proposal was accompanied by an Offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA). The VPA has now been executed and further details are available in the Planning Agreement section (points 116 to 120) of this report.

 

35. Revision 7 is supported by the following documents:

·    Architectural Report (George El Khouri - Revision 7 – April 2017), including Architectural Plans and Calculations, Solar Studies and 3D Images

·    Urban Design Report (George El Khouri – April 2017)

·    Economic Impact Assessment (Urbis - March 2017)

·    Preliminary Site Investigation (Aargus, March 2017)

·    Hurstville Traffic Modelling Report (GHD - November 2015)

·    Traffic Study Confirmation Study (GHD - March 2016)

 

Assessment of the Planning Proposal

 

Independent Urban Design Peer Review

36. GM Urban Design and Architecture Pty Ltd (GMU) was commissioned by the former Hurstville Council in October 2015 to provide an independent urban design peer review of Revision 4 of the Planning Proposal, which proposed the following amendments to height and FSR:

 

·    Building height – from 23m to 60m and from 9-12m to 42m

·    FSR – 4.8:1

 

37. In summary, GMU concluded that the height and density as requested are not warranted by the site’s location and recommended that the applicant further amend the proposal to reduce the scale and density of the proposed development.

 

38. GMU in their report also provided two options for the applicant’s consideration (Refer Table 1 for details of the two options):

a)   Option1: Height to range between 13-10 storeys (42m-33m), FSR approximately 3.6:1

b)   Option 2: Height to range between 10-7 storeys (33m-23m), FSR approximately 3.1:1

 

St George Design Review Panel

39. The St George Design Review Panel (“DRP”) considered various revisions of the Planning Proposal on three occasions:

a)   12 August 2015 (Revision 2);

b)   19 November 2015 (Revision 4); and

c)   18 February 2016 (Revision 5).

Note: Refer to Table 2 above regarding details of Planning Proposal revisions.

 

40. A number of comments in relation to the built form and the Design Quality Principles of SEPP 65 Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development were identified by the DRP.

 

41. The DRP recommended:

a)   The four (4) storey podium be retained, brought forward to the street property alignment, and very desirably also be continued along the street alignments in both Wright and Hudson Streets; providing this alignment allows for a desirable streetscape.

b)   Continuous commercial uses be provided at street level along the three (3) frontages (rather than the residential as indicated in the submission on the two (2) side streets).

c)   The general arrangement of the central courtyard as proposed be maintained, and critically it be developed as either a communal space for residents with necessary security or as an activated and safe public space or as a combination of the two (2) with careful consideration of interfaces.

d)   Awnings be provided to commercial frontages along all three (3) streets, rather than colonnades, provided that Council’s policy in relation to street trees and other items can be accommodated.

e)   The additional five (5) slightly setback podium levels above the lower four (4) as proposed in the submission be deleted.

f)    There should be two (2) residential towers setback from the podium frontages by at least 4m.

g)   Tower heights could be in the seven (7) - fourteen (14) storey range provided they do not cause any unacceptable overshadowing impacts on residential development or the East Quarter plaza. At least 2hrs mid-winter sunlight must be maintained to existing or potential new residential units on nearby sites.

h)  Design and activation of the communal open space is to be improved through use, circulation patterns, connections with public areas, appropriate planting and activation of adjacent building frontages.

i)    Areas of deep soil for medium size trees are to be accommodated.

j)    The preparation of a site specific DCP is essential for this site.

 

42. The applicant has amended the Planning Proposal to incorporate the GMU and DRP recommendations in the final concept design (Revision 7). The Planning Proposal (Revision 7 – June 2018) and the Architectural Plans are attached to this Report. They include:

a)   Planning Proposal (Revision 7) - (Attachment 1)

b)   Architectural Plans - (Attachment 2)

 

43. The DRP recommendations have been incorporated in Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre (draft DCP). Refer to section on Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre at points 107 and 108 below.

 

Strategic planning context

44. Consideration of the Planning Proposal request in relation to the Greater Sydney Region Plan (A Metropolis of Three Cities), the South District Plan, the State and Regional Statutory Framework and Section 9.1 Directions is provided below:

 

Greater Sydney Region Plan (A Metropolis of Three Cities)

45. A Metropolis of Three Cities was finalised and released by the Greater Sydney Commission in March 2018 and establishes the aspirations for the region over the next 40 years. The Region Plan is framed around 10 directions relating to infrastructure and collaboration, liveability, productivity and sustainability.

 

46. The Planning Proposal (Revision 7) is considered to be consistent with the following Directions and Objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan:

 

Direction 3: A city for people

Objective 6: Services and infrastructure meet communities’ changing needs

Objective 7: Communities are healthy, resilient and socially connected

Objective 8: Greater Sydney’s communities are culturally rich with diverse neighbourhoods

 

The Planning Proposal assists in encouraging healthy communities by creating a mixed-use development that provides a convenient focus for daily activities and benefits from its proximity to retail and services, and employment opportunities within the Hurstville City Centre. It is also in close proximity to Kempt Field, which provides a recreation focus for the local community.

 

Direction 4: Housing the city

Objective 10: Greater housing supply

Objective 11: Housing is more diverse and affordable

 

The Planning Proposal will increase housing opportunities within Hurstville City Centre (with an estimated 217 new residential apartments) within walking distance from Hurstville Railway Station and bus interchange.

 

Housing choice to suit the varying needs of residents will be provided through the development of the 217 new dwellings on the site, with a range of sizes provided. The variety of housing available will provide housing choice to suit different lifestyles, household sizes and affordability.

 

Direction 5: A city of great places

Objective 12: Great places that bring people together

 

The Planning Proposal anticipates creating a quality mixed-use development with retail floorspace on the ground floor and residential above. Other key considerations of the development include:

 

·    Design Excellence - Promote design excellence through the creation of a sustainable and liveable environment for people through use of expert panels and active engagement between Council and applicants; that aligns with the vision for the Hurstville City Centre.

·    Transition / Interface - Provide adequate transition compliant with the Apartment Design Guide between the new development and the adjoining residential development on Wright and Hudson Streets.

·    Active Street Frontages – Ground floor frontages along Hudson Street, Forest Road and Wright Street to be active and pedestrian oriented.

 

Direction 7: A well connected city

Objective 14: A Metropolis of Three Cities – integrated land use and transport creates walkable and 30-minute cities

 

It is noted that the site is located well within the walkable catchments of the following transport hubs:

·    530m from the Allawah Railway Station;

·    650m from the Hurstville Railway Station; and

·    700m from the Hurstville bus interchange (Woodville Street)

 

The Planning Proposal anticipates providing approximately 217 new dwellings in the form of a mix of apartments. The site is suitable for this increase in dwellings as it is located within the Hurstville Strategic Centre, close to job opportunities and public transport services (Illawarra Railway line and bus interchange) with frequent services.

 

Direction 8: Jobs and skills for the city

Objective 22: Investment and business activity in centres

Objective 23: Industrial and urban services land is planned, retained and managed

 

The incorporation of the minimum non-residential floor space requirement of 0.5:1 will contribute towards achieving this Direction through providing employment floor space within the Hurstville Strategic Centre, on a site which benefits from its proximity to the commercial, retail and services within the Hurstville City Centre. This will also assist in delivering more investment and business activity and increased productivity.

 

South District Plan

47. The South District Plan was finalised and released by the Greater Sydney Commission in March 2018. The District Plan is a guide for implementing A Metropolis of Three Cities at the district level and proposes a 20-year vision by setting out aspirations and proposals for the South District. The District Plan provides eight Planning Priorities under six Directions.

 

48. The South District Plan sets five year dwelling and employment targets which councils in the South District are expected to accommodate in their LEPs. The Plan specifies a five year housing supply target of 4,800 for Georges River Council. Councils need to develop 6-10 year housing targets through the preparation of housing strategies.

 

49. The change in zone for the part of the site from R3 Medium Density Residential and B2 Local Centre to B4 Mixed Use, and the proposed height and FSR increases for the site will provide:

 

·    Employment opportunities within the proposed retail floor space (approx. 2,704sqm); and

·    Improvements to housing choice and availability in close proximity to public transport and the Hurstville City Centre which offers retail and essential services.

 

50. The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the following Planning Priorities of the South District Plan as in Table 5 below:

 

Direction

Planning Priorities relevant to the Planning Proposal

Housing the city

Planning Priority S5: Providing housing supply, choice and affordability, with access to jobs, services and public transport

A city of great places

Planning Priority S6: Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the District’s heritage

Jobs and skills for the city

Planning Priority S9: Growing investment, business opportunities and jobs in strategic centres

A well connected city

Planning Priority S12: Delivering integrated land use and transport planning and a 30-minute city

Table 5: South District Plan - Directions and Planning Priorities applicable to the subject Planning Proposal

 

State and Regional Statutory Framework

51. The following is a list of State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) that apply to the subject site and consideration of the Planning Proposal’s consistency with the objectives and provisions of the SEPPs. See Table 6 below:

 

State Environmental Planning Policy

Applicable

Consideration

SEPP No.55 – Remediation of Land

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Proposal is generally consistent with this SEPP. A preliminary investigation of land in accordance with the contamination land planning guidelines was undertaken by the applicant as part of the conditions of the Gateway.

 

SEPP No.64 – Advertising and Signage

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Consistent. The Planning Proposal will not hinder the application of this SEPP.

 

SEPP No.65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Refer to consideration in points 39 to 43 of this report.

SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Not inconsistent. The Planning Proposal request will not hinder the application of this SEPP.

 

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Any future residential development will be required to comply with the BASIX requirements.

 

SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Not inconsistent. The Planning Proposal does not hinder the application of this SEPP.

 

SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Not inconsistent. The Planning Proposal request will not hinder the application of this SEPP.

 

SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Not inconsistent. The Planning Proposal request will not hinder the application of this SEPP.

 

Table 6: SEPPs applicable to the subject Planning Proposal

 

Section 9.1 Directions

52. The following is a list of Directions issued by the Minister for Planning to relevant planning authorities under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. See Table 7 below:

 

S9.1 Ministerial Direction

Applicable

Comment

1. Employment and Resources

1.1 Business and Industrial Zones

Objectives:

(a) Encourage employment growth in suitable locations,

(b) Protect employment land in business and industrial zones, and

(c) Support the viability of identified strategic centres.

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Consistent. No change is proposed to the B4 Mixed Use zoning of the site for 124 Forest Road. The proposed zoning change of the remaining site from R3 Medium Density Housing and B2 Local Centre will increase the amount of business zoned land in the Hurstville City Centre.

 

The Planning Proposal includes a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.5:1 to ensure that employment opportunities on the site are maintained.

3. Housing, Infrastructure and Urban Development

3.1 Residential Zones

Objectives:

(a) To encourage a variety and choice of housing types to provide for existing and future housing needs,

(b) To make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services and ensure that new housing has appropriate access to infrastructure and services, and

(c) To minimise the impact of residential development on environment and resource lands.

 

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

While not proposing the rezoning of the site to a residential zone, the retention/introduction of the B4 Mixed Use Zone and the proposed increase in the maximum height and FSR controls will allow for additional housing (approx. 217 dwellings) in an existing urban area, making efficient use of existing infrastructure, services and amenities.

3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport

Objective:

To ensure that urban structures, building forms, land use locations, development designs, subdivision and street layouts achieve the following planning objectives:

(a) Improving access to housing, jobs and services by walking, cycling and public transport, and

(b) Increasing the choice of available transport and reducing dependence on cars, and

(c) Reducing travel demand including the number of trips generated by development and the distances travelled, especially by car, and

(d) Supporting the efficient and viable operation of public transport services, and

(e) Providing for the efficient movement of freight.

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The Planning Proposal is partly consistent with Direction 3.4 as it would allow for additional housing (approx. 217 dwellings) in a location with good access to the facilities within the Hurstville City Centre, in particular public transport.

 

Consideration of the traffic impact of the development on the road network is provided in points 90 to 102 of this Report. In addition, refer to point 115 for response to the LPP recommendations.

 

Further details on an executed Planning Agreement are provided in points 116-120 of this Report. This includes provisions for:

land dedication for road widening; and

monetary contribution for the provision of public infrastructure, amenities and services within the Hurstville City Centre.

 

3.5 Development Near Licensed Aerodromes

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Consultation with Airport authorities has been undertaken as part of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal and comments received and their consideration has been included in this Report.

 

Refer to points 74 to 89 of this Report for details.

6. Local Plan Making

6.1 Approval and Referral Requirements

Objective:

To ensure that LEP provisions encourage the efficient and appropriate assessment of development.

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

Consistent. The Planning Proposal does not include provisions that require concurrence, consultation or referral of development applications to the Minister or public authority or identify development as designated development.

6.3 Site Specific Provisions

Objective:

To discourage unnecessarily restrictive site specific planning controls.

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The Planning Proposal includes a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.5:1 on the site which is considered a means to ensure employment uses are provided on the site. The requirement will be included in the Hurstville LEP 2012 through an amendment to the existing Clause 4.4A.

7. Metropolitan Planning

7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney

Objective:

To give legal effect to the planning principles, directions and priorities for subregions, strategic centres and transport gateways contained in A Plan for Growing Sydney.

Note: This Direction needs to be updated in light of the recently released Greater Sydney Region Plan (A Metropolis of Three Cities).

Applicable to the Planning Proposal.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the latest metropolitan plan for Sydney, the Greater Sydney Region Plan (A Metropolis of Three Cities).

The discussion is available in points 45 and 46 above.

Table 7: Section 9.1 Directions applicable to the subject Planning Proposal

 

Local Planning Context

Consideration of the Planning Proposal in relation to Council’s local strategic plans is provided below:

Georges River Community Strategic Plan 2028

53. The Community Strategic Plan is a primary document that represents the community’s aspirations for the next 10 years. It is accompanied by an annual Operational Plan, a three year Delivery Program and a Resourcing Strategy. The plan identifies six themes (called ‘pillars’) that underpin the future work. They include:

1.      A protected environment and green open spaces

2.      Quality, well planned development

3.      Active and accessible places and spaces

4.      A diverse and productive economy

5.      A harmonious and proud community with strong social services and infrastructure

6.      Leadership and transparency.

 

54. The proposal meets a number of these themes as explained in the Planning Proposal attached with this Report (Attachment 1).

 

Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy (2018)

55. Georges River Council engaged SJB to prepare the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy which envisions maintaining and strengthening the role of the Hurstville City Centre as a vibrant regional Centre by improving the day-to-day liveability within the Centre.

 

56. The Strategy reviews and updates the existing development standards partly with the aim to identify opportunities for additional housing capacity within the Hurstville City Centre. The subject site is located at the eastern end of the Hurstville City Centre within the Eastern bookend and is envisaged by the Strategy to have a concentration of high density residential developments.

 

57. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the Strategy which seeks to create a high density residential gateway into the Hurstville City Centre and provide an appropriate transition to the adjacent lower density residential area.

 

Georges River Employment Lands Study (2017)

58. The Georges River Employment Lands Study provides Council with a strategic direction for employment lands across the Georges River LGA to ensure that sufficient land is zoned to accommodate future employment growth.

 

59. The Study includes part of the subject site zoned B2 Local Centre with an area of 1,644 m2.  The Planning Proposal is consistent with the intent of the Study which recommends a B4 Mixed Use zone for this part of the subject site and a minimum non-residential floor space ratio requirement of 0.5:1 to take advantage of the railway infrastructure and proximity to the Hurstville City Centre.

 

Public Exhibition of the Planning Proposal

60. The Planning Proposal (PP2014/0004) was placed on public exhibition from 17 May to 16 June 2017, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Regulation.

 

61. The notification for the public exhibition included the following:

 

·    Statutory notice in The St George and Sutherland Shire Leader Newspaper (17 May 2017)

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

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

·    Displays in Council’s Customer Service Centres and libraries including the public exhibition information, the Planning Proposal and appendices, draft Hurstville LEP 2012 Maps, Gateway Determination, relevant Council Reports and other legislative documents and information (e.g. section 117 Directions compliance table, State Environmental Planning Policy compliance, Hurstville LEP 2012 written instrument and Maps).

·    Approximately 271 letters were sent to the affected and adjoining land owners and the key transport agencies, airport agencies and the Department of Education and Communities (in accordance with the Department’s Gateway Determination)

·    Telephone and face to face contact with Strategic Planning and Council’s Duty Planner

 

62. During the exhibition, fifteen (15) submissions were received and the comments raised which specifically relate to the Planning Proposal are considered in this report. A late submission was received from TfNSW in May 2018 taking the total submissions to 16. Acknowledgement letters/emails were sent to all submitters following the end of the public exhibition/notification period.

 

63. For the purpose of reviewing and summarising the key issues raised, the submissions received during the public exhibition are grouped in the following categories: community submissions and public authority submissions. A summary is provided in Table 8 below:

 

Submission

Number received

Community

7

Public Authority

9

Total

16

Table 8: Submissions received on the subject Planning Proposal

 

64. A summary of all submissions received during the public exhibition (17 May to 16 June 2017) is provided in Attachments 3 and 4.

 

Community submissions

65. A total of seven community submissions were received during the exhibition period (as detailed in Table 8 above).

 

66. These submissions predominately came from adjoining residents and included issues related to traffic and parking, residential amenity, child safety issues, overcrowding / overdevelopment and view loss. A detailed summary of the submissions received, and a response to the submissions is provided in Attachment 3 – Summary of Community Submissions.

 

67. The following is a summary of issues raised in the community submissions (note that an individual submission may raise more than one topic):

 

·    Overcrowding / overdevelopment (1 submission) - concern over the density of the development

·    View loss (1 submission) - concern over loss of views and natural light for apartments and homes on Forest Road, Wright Street and neighbouring properties

·    Loss of property value (1 submission) - this is in conjunction with the loss of view and noise

·    Traffic and parking issues (6 submissions) - concerns over excessive traffic on roads and parking problems

·    Residential amenity (2 submissions) - concerns over solar access, privacy, overlooking and overshadowing issues

·    Planning justification and rationale for rezoning (1 submission) - concern over planning and rezoning justification

·    Child safety (1 submission) - concern regarding child safety due to a number of schools and coaching centres in the vicinity

·    Infrastructure upgrades (1 submission) - concern regarding lack of infrastructure upgrades

·    Allocate housing on alternative sites (1 submission) – request that sites developed below the specified FSR instead provide a source of new housing supply

·    Acoustic amenity (4 submissions) - concern over noise from road traffic and wind

·    Engagement with non-English communities (1 submission) - concern over the lack of information to these communities

·    Community engagement (1 submission) - concern regarding the limited time provided for lodging submissions

·    Non-residential floorspace/retail (1 submission) - concern regarding the ability to lease these spaces in light of 120 unleased commercial properties in Hurstville as on 31 May 2017 (realestate.com.au)

 

68. Of the total seven community submissions, two submissions (signed by 40 and 61 people respectively) also concur with the issues listed above including traffic and parking, noise pollution, overcrowding / overdevelopment, loss of view and child safety.

 

69. No changes have been recommended to the Planning Proposal as a result of the community submissions as the issues raised are anticipated to be considered in the future development application (DA) as part of SEPP65 and Apartment Design Guide (ADG) compliance.

 

70. As considered below, the Planning Proposal (PP2014/0004) was peer reviewed by an independent urban design consultant, GM Urban Design and Architecture Pty Ltd (GMU) and considered by the St George Design Review Panel (the “DRP”) on three occasions: 12 August 2015, 19 November 2015 and 18 February 2016. A number of comments in relation to the built form and the Design Quality Principles of SEPP 65 Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development were identified by the DRP; these issues have been addressed in the final revision of the Planning Proposal (Revision 7 – Refer Table 2).

 

Public Authority Submissions

71. The following public authorities were consulted and submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal:

 

·    Sydney Airport Corporation Limited;

·    Civil Aviation Safety Authority;

·    Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development;

·    Roads and Maritime Services;

·    Transport for NSW; and

·    Department of Education and Communities.

 

72. A detailed summary of the comments received and a response to the submissions is provided in Attachment 4 – Summary of Public Authority Submissions.

 

73. The main issues raised in the submissions are summarised below.

 

Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) (Two submissions)

74. This summary is based on both submissions from Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL).

 

Prescribed Airspace

75. SACL notes that 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street lie within an area defined in schedules of the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations, which limit the height of structures to 15.24 metres above existing ground height (AEGH) without prior approval of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

 

Property

Prescribed Airspace (SACL)

Proposed height in Planning Proposal (inclusive of lift over-runs, vents, chimneys, aerials, TV antennae, construction cranes)

124 Forest Road

130 metres above AHD

104.5 metres AHD

108 and 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street

128m AHD

93.5m AHD

Table 9: Prescribed Airspace and proposed heights in Planning Proposal approved by SACL

 

76. Table 9 above compares SACL specified Prescribed Airspace heights for the respective sites with the maximum proposed heights in the Planning Proposal. SACL do not have any objections to the proposed heights as they are below the Prescribed Airspace heights. A new application must be submitted if the heights at these respective locations exceed these specific heights.

 

77. SACL advises that approval to operate construction equipment (i.e. cranes) should be obtained prior to any commitment to construct, in accordance with the information provided. A new approval must be sought in accordance with the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations if the height of any temporary structure and/or equipment is greater than 15.24m AEGH.

 

78. Planning for Aircraft Noise and Public Safety Zones

SACL advises that the planning provisions (Section 9.1 Direction 3.5– Development near licensed aerodromes) for the assessment of aircraft noise for certain land uses are based on the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF). The current ANEF which Council may use as a land use planning tool was endorsed by Airservices in December 2012 (Sydney Airport 2033 ANEF).

 

79. Response: SACL’s comments in relation to the Planning Proposal are noted. The airport impacts of any future development application (DA) will be addressed during the assessment of the DA and addressed in a future report to the Sydney South Planning Panel.

 

80. Recommendation: No change to the Planning Proposal is recommended in light of SACL’s comments.

 

Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

81. The Department notes building heights for the Planning Proposal are 104.47m AHD and 92.50m AHD.

 

82. The Department understands that Council has consulted with SACL regarding this proposal, and note that SACL would be able to provide detailed information about the relevant airspace above the site.

 

83. The Department advises that given the heights of the buildings and their proximity to Sydney Airport, approval for the construction of these buildings may require approval under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations, including assessment by Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Air Services.

 

84. The Department recommends the proponents to continue to advise SACL of the planned final heights of the buildings as well as any associated crane activities.

 

85. Response: The Department’s comments in relation to the Planning Proposal are noted. Council will consult with the airport authorities as part of the assessment of any future DA and address it as part of a future report in the Sydney South Planning Panel.

 

86. Recommendation: No change to the Planning Proposal is recommended in light of the Department’s comments.

 

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

87. CASA advises that due to the proximity of the development site to the Bankstown and Sydney Kingsford Smith aerodromes and the potential for cranes to be used during construction, Council should refer the proposal to both aerodromes and the procedure design organisation(s) responsible for the maintenance of the instrument flight procedures at these aerodromes.

 

88. Response: CASA’s comments in relation to the Planning Proposal are noted. Council will consult with the Bankstown and Sydney Kingsford Smith airport authorities as part of the assessment of any future DA and address it as part of a future report to the Sydney South Planning Panel.

 

89. RECOMMENDATION: No change to the Planning Proposal is recommended in light of CASA’s comments.

 

 

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

90. Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) has reviewed the Planning Proposal and believe the proposed amendments will not have a significant impact on the classified road network.

 

91. RMS note that the Planning Proposal includes a draft amendment to the Development Control Plan No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre that requires a vehicular access to the future mixed-use development “to be off Wright Street or Hudson Street and as close as practical to the interface with the residential boundary”.

 

92. While no infrastructure upgrade works are proposed as part of the subject proposal, it is understood that the intersection of Forest Road / Durham Street / Wright Street is proposed to be upgraded to a signalised intersection as part of the Stage 3 development of the ‘East Quarter’ development, south of the subject site. RMS are supportive of a development control that encourages access to be located as far from the future signalised intersection of Forest Road / Wright Street and Forest Road / Hudson Street to prevent potential conflict.

 

93. Response: RMS’s comments in relation to the Planning Proposal are noted. The traffic impacts of any future DA will be addressed during the assessment of the DA and addressed in a future report to the Sydney South Planning Panel.

 

94. Recommendation: No change to the Planning Proposal is recommended in light of RMS’s comments.

 

Transport for NSW (TfNSW) (Three submissions – the discussion below summarises all three submissions)

 

95. TfNSW has reviewed the various traffic studies accompanying the Planning Proposal and raised the following concerns:

o The traffic studies did not include any intersection analysis, and

o The proposed intersection upgrade within the proposed development at Forest Road/Hudson Street conflicted with the Development Application (DA/2016/0218) and its plan to upgrade the Forest Road/Wright Street/Durham Street intersection.

 

96. TfNSW requested Council to advise TfNSW of the outcome of DA/2016/0218, and if approved, revise the subject Planning Proposal to incorporate the approved intersection configuration in the traffic network modelling and road design and assess the implication of the two closely spaced signalised intersections; in particular from road safety and vehicle queuing perspectives.

 

97. Council advised TfNSW that the proposed intersection upgrade of Forest Road/Hudson Street did not form part of the subject Planning Proposal but was identified as a mitigation measure in the independent Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA, 2015) initiated by Council. Council also confirmed that upgrade of the Forest Road/Wright Street/Durham Street intersection had been approved as part of DA2016/0218 for the East Quarter site.

 

98. TfNSW acknowledged this in their second submission and advised that the proponent should assess the cumulative traffic impact with regard to the subject Planning Proposal and other approved developments within its area of influence.

 

99. Council clarified that the cumulative traffic impact of the subject site was included in the TIA study initiated by the former Hurstville Council in 2015 (now Georges River Council). The aforementioned TIA assessed the intersection performance and proposed mitigation measures of the cumulative traffic impact of five developments within the Hurstville City Centre, including the subject site. Further, the applicant’s traffic response prepared for the subject Planning Proposal in August 2017 demonstrated a reduction in peak hour traffic generation in conjunction with a reduction in residential units and an increase in retail space (Revision 7) as compared to the TIA (2015) that had modelled Revision 2.

 

100.  In the May 2018 response, TfNSW acknowledged the Planning Proposal to be acceptable in relation to traffic issues. TfNSW requested Council, as the Planning Authority, to undertake the intersection upgrades identified in the TIA (2015) to ensure the additional traffic generation and impact of the five developments were appropriately addressed and did not pose further adverse impacts on the road network.

 

101.  Response: TfNSW’s comments in relation to the Planning Proposal are noted.

A Planning Agreement was executed between Council and the applicant on 26 March 2018 that requires the developer to dedicate land to Council for the purpose of widening Forest Road to facilitate traffic movement on Forest Road; and make a monetary contribution to Council for the purpose of public infrastructure, amenities and services within the Hurstville City Centre. Details are available on Council’s website.

 

In relation to the upgrade of the Forest Road/Durham Street/Wright Street intersection, a VPA has been executed between the developer and Council as part of the East Quarter Stage 3 development; where the developer is required to carry out road works at the intersection of Forest Road and Durham Street ($1.76 million). Further details are available on Council’s website.

 

102.  Recommendation: No change to the Planning Proposal is recommended in light of TfNSW’s comments.

 

Department of Education and Communities

103.  The Department of Education raised no concerns in relation to the Planning Proposal.

 

104.  Response: The Department’s comments in relation to the Planning Proposal are noted.

 

105.  Recommendation: No change to the Planning Proposal is recommended in light of the Department’s comments.

 

106.  No changes have been recommended to the Planning Proposal as a result of the Public Authority submissions; as the issues raised either relate to further consultation with the Airport Authorities during the consideration of the future DA or relate to the management of traffic impacts of the development and upgrade of key intersections in the vicinity. The traffic impacts of any future DA will be addressed during the assessment of the DA and addressed in a future report to the Sydney South Planning Panel.

 

Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre

107.  In accordance with Council’s resolution of 13 December 2017, Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre (draft DCP) was prepared (See Attachment 5). The draft DCP incorporated the key recommendations of the DRP (Refer to point 41 above).

 

108.  The key elements of the draft DCP include:

·    Design Excellence - Promote design excellence through the creation of a sustainable and liveable environment for people through use of expert panels and active engagement between Council and applicants; that aligns with the vision for the Hurstville City Centre.

·    Land Dedication – Include details of the land to be dedicated to Council for road widening to address the traffic impacts of the future development of the site.

·    Built Form and Setbacks – Provide a vibrant mixed use development that takes advantage of the site’s location.

·    Façade Treatment and Street Corners – Articulate the building facades and emphasise street corners.

·    Open Space and Landscaping - Ensure that development contributes to the amenity and quality of streets and the public domain.

·    Pedestrian Experience – Promote a built form that provides a comfortable pedestrian environment.

·    Transition / Interface - Provide adequate transition compliant with the Apartment Design Guide between the new development and the adjoining residential development on Wright and Hudson Streets.

·    Active Street Frontages – Ground floor frontages along Hudson Street, Forest Road and Wright Street to be active and pedestrian oriented.

·    On-Site Parking – Parking for the future development is to be accommodated underground.

 

Public Exhibition of Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre

109.  The draft DCP was placed on public exhibition from 25 April to 1 June 2018, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Regulation.

 

110.  The notification for the public exhibition included the following:

 

·    Statutory notices in The St George and Sutherland Shire Leader Newspaper (25 April and 9 May 2018);

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

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

·    Displays in Council’s Customer Service Centres and libraries including the public exhibition information, the draft DCP and relevant Council Reports;

·    Approximately 271 letters were sent to the affected and adjoining land owners; and

·    Telephone and face to face contact with Strategic Planning and Council’s Duty Planner

 

111.  During the exhibition, four (4) submissions were received from the community and the comments raised are considered in this report. Acknowledgement letters/emails were sent to all submitters following the end of the public exhibition/notification period. Out of the four submissions, one submission supported the Planning Proposal as tabulated in Table 10:

 

Submissions

Number received

Supports

1

Objects

3

Total

4

Table 10: Submissions received to the public exhibition of the draft DCP

 

112.  The submission supporting the draft DCP (and consequently the Planning Proposal) included the following reasons for support:

·    The Planning Proposal and the resulting transition will contribute to meeting the residential targets in accordance with the South District Plan and lead to a more aesthetic and appealing urban area at the eastern entrance to Hurstville City Centre.

·    The Planning Proposal will rationalise the zoning for the Bing Lee site from three different zones (B4 Mixed Use, B2 Local Centre and R3 Medium Density Residential) to a B4 Mixed Use zone, consistent with the zoning in the majority of the Hurstville City Centre. This will enhance the residential living space and neighbourhood character.

·    The development will not lead to traffic congestion; as Hurstville has access to public transport options – Hurstville Railway Station and Hurstville Bus Interchange.

 

113.  The following is a summary of issues raised in the submissions objecting to the draft DCP (and consequently the Planning Proposal):

 

·    Traffic and parking - concerns over excessive traffic on roads and parking problems, including the sole entry/exit on Hudson Street.

·    Child safety - concern regarding child safety due to a number of schools and coaching centres in the vicinity.

·    Infrastructure upgrades and other social infrastructure - concern regarding the lack of infrastructure to support the development.

 

114.  A detailed summary of the submissions received, and a response to the submissions is provided in Attachment 6 – Summary of Submissions to Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre.

 

LPP recommendations on the Planning Proposal and Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre

115.  The key LPP recommendations from 21 June 2018 and how they have been addressed are presented in Table 11 below:

 

LPP recommendation

Council consideration

a)   That the following amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012, as exhibited be supported:

 

·    Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM ) to rezone Nos. 108 and 112 Forest Road, Hurstville from B2 - Local Centre Zone to B4 – Mixed Use Zone;

·    Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM) to rezone Nos. 1 - 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from R3 - Medium Density Residential Zone to B4 - Mixed Use Zone;

·    Amend the Height of Buildings Map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for Nos. 108 and 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 34.5m;

·    Amend the Height of Buildings Map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for No. 124 Forest Road, Hurstville to 46.5m;

·    Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map (FSR) to increase the maximum floor space ratio for Nos. 108 and 112 Forest Road and Nos 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 4:1;

·    Amend the Lot Size Map (Sheet LSZ_008) to remove Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from its application, consistent with the B4 - Mixed Use Zone; and

·    Amend Clause 4.4A of Hurstville LEP 2012 to include a provision relating to the subject site stating that development consent must not be granted for development unless the non-residential floor space is at least 0.5:1.

 

This report recommends that Council endorse the amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012, as exhibited for forwarding to the Department of Planning and Environment for gazettal.

b)   The Panel considered that the following matters be reviewed in relation to Amendment No.8 to DCP No.2 – Hurstville City Centre:

(a) Additional access from Wright Street;

(b) Site amalgamations

 

Section 8.1 – 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville (the “Bing Lee” site) of the draft DCP has been amended in response to the LPP recommendations as follows:

·    Section 8.1.3.1 – A new section titled ‘Site Amalgamation’ has been inserted to prevent the isolation of No. 3 Wright Street, Hurstville which is not in the ownership of Shanghai Lihua Pty Ltd. or SLH 108 Pty Ltd. They own the remaining lots; 108 and 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 Wright Street, Hurstville (Refer Table 4).

Note: The content of this section has been incorporated from Section 5.3.1 Site Amalgamation of Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre and was already a part of the documentation publicly exhibited from 25 April to 1 June 2018.

·    In response to the LPP recommendation of additional access for the subject site off Wright Street, Council’s Traffic section has advised the following:

Hudson Street was preferred to Wright Street due to the following reasons:

 

·    Hudson Street is much wider than Durham Street and accordingly can facilitate easier ingress and egress of large vehicles such as service vehicles and loading and unloading, which enables the property to be more self-sufficient in providing loading and unloading off our public road and into their private property.

 

·    Both Hudson Street and Wright Street have been shown to perform at a service level of F (See Notes below for Level of Service criteria) when SIDRA analysis was performed for 2021 network intersection performance as per Hurstville Traffic Modelling Report November 2015 prepared by GHD.

 

·    However in the same report, when mitigating measures (traffic signals and removal of parking on Forest Road) were implemented at both intersections, the results indicated that Hudson Street would perform at a better capacity than Wright Street, whereby Hudson Street would perform at service level B and Wright Street at service level C (see Level of Service Notes below).

 

·    However, should a development application be submitted that indicates that vehicular access can be maintained from both Hudson and Wright Streets, whereby all parking demands from the development can be accommodated on site, including loading and unloading vehicles, without the loss of significant public amenities and can demonstrate turning manoeuvres in and out of the site at both streets for all vehicles accessing the development, then Council would consider that alternative.

 

·    If Hudson Street is signalised in accordance with the GHD Report, November 2015, the SIDRA analysis indicates that Hudson Street would have more capacity within its intersection performance in comparison with Wright Street.

In response to the above, an additional control has been inserted after control b) of 8.1.3.9 (previously 8.1.3.8) Vehicle Access section of the draft DCP as follows:

An additional vehicle access may be provided off Wright Street if supported by a traffic report that demonstrates:

·    all parking demands from the development including loading and unloading vehicles, can be accommodated on site, without the loss of significant public amenities; and

·    it is demonstrated that turning manoeuvres in and out of the site for all vehicles accessing the development are maintained.

 

Notes on Level of Service (LoS) adapted from A Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (Roads and Maritime 2002):

LoS B - This level is in the zone of stable flow and drivers still have reasonable freedom to select their desired speed and to manoeuvre within the traffic stream, although the general level of comfort and convenience is little less than that of the level of Service A.

LoS C - This service level is also in the zone of stable flow, but most drivers are restricted to some extent in their freedom to select their desired speed and to manoeuvre within the traffic stream. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level.

LoS F - This service level is in the zone of forced flow. With it, the amount of traffic approaching the point under consideration exceeds that which can pass it. Flow break-down occurs and queuing and delays result.

 

Table 11: Key LPP recommendations and Council consideration

 

Planning Agreement

116.  Council received an Offer to enter into a VPA on 7 December 2016 and it was reported to the Council meeting on 13 December 2016, where Council accepted the offer.

 

117.  The Planning Agreement was placed on public exhibition from 15 November 2017 to 15 December 2017.

 

118.  Georges River Council entered into a Planning Agreement pursuant to Section 7.4 of the Act with Shanghai Lihua Hurstville Pty Ltd and SLH 108 Pty Ltd on 26 March 2018.

 

119.  The VPA requires the Developer to provide land dedication to Council for the purpose of widening Forest Road to facilitate traffic movement on Forest Road; and make a monetary contribution to Council of $3,775,750 for the purpose of the provision of public infrastructure, amenities and services within the Hurstville City Centre that may include possible future road works, and obtaining relevant studies, and payment of consultants fees.

 

120.  The monetary contribution is over and above any Section 7.11 and Section 7.12 contributions applicable to the development.

 

Conclusion and Next Steps

121.  Council in relation to Nos. 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville has exhibited the Planning Proposal and Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre.

 

122.  Council received sixteen (16) submissions from the community and public authorities in relation to the Planning Proposal. No changes have been recommended to the Planning Proposal as the issues raised in the community submissions were design and traffic related rather than the Planning Proposal. These issues will be addressed in the assessment report on a future DA to the Sydney South Planning Panel. The public authorities did not raise any objections to the Planning Proposal and therefore, no changes are required to the Planning Proposal as a result.

 

123.  It is recommended that Council endorse the Planning Proposal making the following amendments to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 for the subject site (Nos. 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville) and forward to the Department of Planning and Environment for gazettal:

 

a)   Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM) to rezone Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road, Hurstville from B2 - Local Centre Zone to B4 – Mixed Use Zone (Figure 12);

b)   Amend the Land Zoning Map (LZM) to rezone Nos 1 - 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from R3 - Medium Density Residential Zone to B4 - Mixed Use Zone (Figure 12);

c)   Amend the Height of Buildings Map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 34.5m (Figure 13);

d)   Amend the Height of Buildings Map (HOB) to increase the height of buildings for No 124 Forest Road, Hurstville to 46.5m (Figure 13);

e)   Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map (FSR) to increase the maximum floor space ratio for Nos 108 and 112 Forest Road and Nos 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville to 4:1 (Figure 14);

f)    Amend the Lot Size Map (Sheet LSZ_008) to remove Nos. 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville from its application, consistent with the B4 - Mixed Use Zone (Figure 15); and

g)   Amend Clause 4.4A of Hurstville LEP 2012 to include a provision relating to the subject site stating that development consent must not be granted for development unless the non-residential floor space is at least 0.5:1.

 

124.  Council received 4 submissions from the community on Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre. In response to submissions received and LPP recommendations, the draft DCP has been amended in terms of vehicular access to the subject site and site amalgamation as explained in point 115 above.

 

125.  It is recommended that Council adopt the DCP with the following amendments:

1.   A new section titled ‘Site Amalgamation’ has been inserted to prevent the isolation of No. 3 Wright Street, Hurstville which is not in the ownership of Shanghai Lihua Pty Ltd. or SLH Pty Ltd which are companies owned by the same owner.

 

8.1.3.1     Site amalgamation

 

Objective:

 

a)      Avoid the creation of isolated sites that have no prospects of amalgamating with adjoining sites.

 

Controls:

 

a)   Where lot consolidation is proposed, applicants must demonstrate that:

·    Adjoining sites are not isolated and retain access;

·    The objectives and principles of this section can be achieved;

·    Adequate onsite parking, where permitted, can be achieved to meet the parking demands of the development;

·    The design and function of the development above podium level will achieve a high level of amenity to both its future occupants and to adjoining properties.

 

b)   Where a development may result in the creation of an isolated site or sites, the applicant is required to demonstrate any negotiations between the owners of the properties commenced prior to the lodgement of the Development Application (DA). Where no satisfactory result is achieved, the DA must include evidence of negotiations with the owners of the properties. These details must include evidence of offers to such owners. Such offers are to be reasonable and are to be based on at least one recent independent valuation and include other reasonable expenses likely to be incurred in the sale of the process.

 

c)   Where a development may result in the creation of an isolated site on an adjoining site, applicants must demonstrate that orderly and economic use and development of the isolated site can be achieved in a manner consistent with the planning controls. The applicant must provide:

·    A building envelope for that site, indicating height, setbacks, resultant site coverage and/or built area (building and basement), sufficient to understand the relationship between the development and that site, and

·    An assessment of the likely impacts the developments will have on each other, such as solar access, visual and acoustic privacy, impacts for residential development and ability to provide site servicing such as parking.

Note:

·    Isolated sites are sites that cannot comply with the frontage requirements for redevelopment because the adjoining sites have been developed at or near the maximum potential allowed in the zone.

·    Refer to Section 5.3.1 of this DCP for more detail.

2.   Insert additional objective under objective b) in the section 8.1.3.9 Vehicle Access (previously 8.1.3.8):

o An additional vehicle access may be provided off Wright Street if supported by a traffic report that demonstrates:

§ all parking demands from the development including loading and unloading vehicles, can be accommodated on site, without the loss of significant public amenities; and

§ it is demonstrated that turning manoeuvres in and out of the site for all vehicles accessing the development are maintained.

 

126.  Subject to Council endorsement of the Planning Proposal for forwarding to the Department of Planning and Environment for gazettal and the approval of Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre, the anticipated next steps are included in Table 12 below:

 

Task

Anticipated Timeframe

Report to Council on community consultation and finalisation of the Planning Proposal and adopt Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre

23 July 2018

Submission to the Department to finalise the LEP

Late July/early August 2018

Anticipated date for notification

Post August 2018

DCP becomes effective when LEP is finalised

Post August 2018

Table 12: Project timeline

 

Financial Implications

127.  Within budget allocation.

 

Risk Implications

128.  No risks identified.

 

Community Engagement

129.  The Planning Proposal was publicly exhibited from 17 May to 16 June 2017 and Amendment No. 8 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre for 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road and 1 and 3 Wright Street, Hurstville was exhibited from 25 April to 1 June 2018.

 

File Reference

14/1910

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Bing Lee Planning Proposal (Rev F) - July 2018 - published in separate document

Attachment 2

Architectural Plans - Bing Lee Site - published in separate document

Attachment 3

Planning Proposal - Summary of community submissions - published in separate document

Attachment 4

Planning Proposal - Summary of Public Authority submissions - published in separate document

Attachment 5

Draft DCP - Bing Lee Site - published in separate document

Attachment 6

Draft DCP - Summary of community submissions - published in separate document

 


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Committee Meeting -  Monday, 9 July 2018                              Page 123

Item:                   ENV021-18        Draft Georges River Economic Development Strategy 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

(a)     That the draft Georges River Economic Development Strategy be placed on public exhibition for a minimum period of two (2) months.

(b)     That a workshop be held with Councillors following the end of the exhibition period to provide feedback on the submissions received.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      Funding from the Stronger Communities Fund was allocated to the development and implementation of an Economic Development Strategy.

2.      The preparation of the draft Economic Development Strategy was based on community consultation with younger people, the business community and the Economic Development Advisory Committee.

3.      The Draft Place Based Economic Development Strategy has been prepared and is attached in Attachment 2. Attachment 3 contains a draft of the Strategy on a page as was requested in the workshops held with businesses and the EDAC Committee.

4.      The Draft Economic Development Strategy was the subject of a report and PowerPoint presentation to the Economic Development Advisory Committee on 4 June 2018. The Committee endorsed the draft Economic Development Strategy for the purpose of proceeding to Council and public exhibition.

 

Background

5.      Key components of the evidence informing this work and the resulting ‘Place-Based’ approach to Economic Development were:

·    Available quantitative data including Census and ID profile data and projections;

·    Other jurisdiction’s strategy documents and approaches to economic development;

·    Strategic planning documents including the South District Plan;

·    Town Centre Care Factor Survey results;

·    Business Survey results;

·    ‘One on one’ consultations with key employers across the LGA, and

·    Targeted Economic Development Workshops.

6.      Specific to the drafting of the Strategy; objectives, principles and themes to frame the strategies and actions were tested at the four (4) Economic Development Workshops. The workshops were attended by:

·    The Youth Advisory Committee;

·    Business and Community Representatives (x2); and

·    EDAC and non EDAC Councillors.

7.      Over 70 community members took part in the workshops. Key outcomes from the workshops are in the attached summary report (Attachment 1).

8.      As a consequence of workshop feedback, the draft has been further developed and refined, in terms of its structure, length and framework. Workshop feedback has also allowed for the development of ‘Themes’ to which goals and measurable actions have been assigned.

 

Contents of the Draft Strategy

9.      A summary of the contents is as follows:

·    About this Strategy: states that it’s a place-based approach to local economic development and provides an overview of that approach. This section outlines the framework which is:

A.    Provide the why and how to grow our local economy

The Strategy is responsive to community and local business feedback and prepared in the context of ensuring the economic development framework still delivers positive outcomes for people (our community) and places (our town centres.)

This Strategy responds to the strategic planning context set by the State Government, key locational attributes, data and trends in providing the evidence based direction for the economic growth and liveability of the Georges River LGA.

B.   Outline opportunities and challenges for each centre as part of growing the local economy

The available evidence, together with business and community feedback indicate that each key centre has its own unique assets, opportunities and challenges in growing a diverse and productive local economy. Understanding the composition, attributes and character of each key centre will allow for targeted localised actions where required.

C.   Provide meaningful themes, goals and measurable actions for delivery

In preparing this document measurable actions have been identified by place based economic development themes, so that delivery can be efficiently applied across Council’s plans, policies, procedures and programmes.

D.   Support employment and foster business growth, innovation and resilience

The Strategy is not only about enabling new business growth, innovation and opportunity, it’s also about acknowledging and supporting existing, successful business and employment providers within the LGA and ensuring their resilience into the future.

 

·    What we know: In preparing the Strategy, community opinions were sought in terms of:

i. Georges River Council Business Survey – collecting data on the nature and composition of businesses in Georges River and better understand the opportunities and challenges in supporting a sustainable business environment, and

ii.    Georges River Town Centres (‘Place Score’) Survey - collecting people’s opinions of a place and what they value, including any ideas for making places better.

iii.    Creating the 30 Minute City Economic Development Workshops – draft strategy objectives and principles were tested, economic development themes were developed and big ideas for town centres were captured over three separate community consultation workshops.

·    Centre Snapshots: Our key centres are those places with high levels of employment, employment opportunity and/or are projected to have significant population growth and are: Kogarah; Hurstville; Kingsgrove; Peakhurst, and Riverwood. Character snapshots and significant attributes of each of these key centres can be found in Section 4 -Centre Snapshots. Other neighbourhood centres throughout the LGA also play an important role in local economic development and these are listed as well.

·    Themes, goals and actions: The Themes are:

A.   Building on local jobs for local people for a good lifestyle

B.   Attractive and healthy places to work, live and invest in – day and night

C.   Growing a progressive, diverse and productive local economy

Each Theme has a goals, actions and deliverables/measurement.

·    Delivery Plan: The strategy is a high-level plan for economic development and place making in our centres for the next 4 years. Council’s Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) will have an on-going role in the life of this Strategy in terms of its implementation, monitoring and review. A Place Making and Economic Development Works Program support the Strategy’s on-going delivery. An implementation plan including priority initiatives for the Works Program can be found in Section 6 of the Draft.

10.    To align with Council’s other strategic plans, including Council’s draft Community Strategic Plan to which many of the actions align; it’s proposed this Strategy also has a life of four years.

11.    Once the Strategy is finalised and adopted, EDAC’s on-going role will be to oversee monitoring, implementation and review of the Strategy.

 

Financial Implications

12.    Within budget allocation.

 

Risk Implications

13.    No risks identified.

 

Community Consultation & Exhibition

14.    Community engagement will be conducted during the two month exhibition of the Draft Economic Development Strategy.

15.    Community engagement will involve:-

·     A copy of the Draft Economic Development Strategy will be supplied to all attendees of the workshops held – Youth Advisory Committee; the two workshops with the Business and Community representatives; and EDAC.

·     Advertisements in the Local Newspaper.

·     “Have your say” site.

·     Email out to the Council’s Business database.

·     Referral to the St George Business Chamber, Realise Business and other community groups.

·     Available of Council officers to attend meetings/discussions as required/requested.

·     Councillor Workshop.

 

16.    Community Consultation will commence in mid-August for 8 weeks.

 

File Reference

SF16/710

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Economic Development Workshop Report dated April 2018 - published in separate document

Attachment 2

Draft Economic Development Strategy - published in separate document

Attachment 3

Draft strategy on a page - published in separate document