Environment and Planning Committee

Notice of Meeting

Monday, 13 August 2018

 

 

A meeting of the Environment and Planning Committee will be held at 6.00pm on Monday,13 August 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, 13 August 2018

 

Previous Minutes

MINUTES: Environment and Planning - 09 July 2018

Committee Reports

ENV022-18       Planning Proposal - 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville

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

ENV023-18       Offer to Enter Into a Voluntary Planning Agreement in Association with Planning Proposal (PP2015/0005) and Subsequent  Development Application for 9 Gloucester Road and 420-430 Forest Road, Hurstville

(Report by Executive Strategic Planner)............................................................... 141

ENV024-18       Food Premises Inspection Fees and Charges for School Canteens

(Report by Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services)................... 188

ENV025-18       Dockless Bike Share

(Report by Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services)................... 190

ENV026-18       Annual School Zone Safety Program

(Report by Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services)................... 199

ENV027-18       Tender - Mattress Collection Tender SSROC T2017-09 for the collection and processing of mattresses

(Report by Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services)................... 204

ENV028-18       Planning Proposal - Road Widening at 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville

(Report by Strategic Planner).................................................................................. 209

ENV029-18       Environmental Audit of the Peakhurst Industrial Estate

(Report by Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services)................... 258

ENV030-18       Summary of Development Applications Lodged and Determined  - April - June 2018

(Report by Manager Development and Building)................................................ 263

ENV031-18       Draft Georges River Car Parking Strategy

(Report by Senior Strategic Planner)..................................................................... 271   

 


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 August 2018                      Page 3

Committee Reports

Item:                   ENV022-18        Planning Proposal - 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville 

Author:              Strategic Planner and Coordinator Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

(a)     That Council endorse the Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 as follows, in relation to 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville (Lot 30 DP785238):

i)    To amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to increase the floor space ratio from 3:1 to 4:1 (including a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.3:1); and

ii)   To amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the maximum building height applying to the site from 23m to a range of heights of 23m, 30m, 40m, 50m and 60m.

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

(c)     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.

(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 Gateway approval is given by the Department of Planning and Environment), to reflect 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.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      GTB Hurstville Pty Ltd submitted a Planning Proposal request (PP2015/0005) on 9 October 2015 that seeks to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”) in relation to 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville (Lot 30 DP785238).

 

2.      The Planning Proposal was subsequently amended a number of times with variations to the requested floor space ratio (“FSR”) and in particular the quantum of retail / commercial and residential gross floor area. The detailed chronology of the events leading up to this report on the revised Planning Proposal is provided in Table 1 of this report.

 

3.      The revised Planning Proposal request which is the subject of this report was submitted by the applicant on 30 May 2018 and was considered by the Georges River Local Planning Panel (“LPP”) at its meeting dated 21 June 2018.

 

4.      The LPP supported the subject Planning Proposal request and made the following recommendations:

 

a)      THAT the Georges River LPP recommends to Council that the Planning Proposal to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 as follows, in relation to 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville (Lot 30 DP785238), be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway Determination under Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

i)       To amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to increase the floor space ratio from 3:1 to 4:1 (including a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.3:1); and

ii)      To amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the maximum building height applying to the site from 23m to a range of heights of 23m, 30m, 40m, 50m and 60m.

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 Gateway approval is given by the Department of Planning and Environment), to reflect 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.

 

5.      Refer to Attachment 1 for a copy of the LPP meeting minutes including the Statement of Reasons for the Panel’s decision regarding this Planning Proposal.

 

6.      This report recommends that Council support the LPP recommendations and endorse this Planning Proposal to be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway Determination.

 

1  INTRODUCTION

7.      GTB Hurstville Pty Ltd submitted a Planning Proposal request (PP2015/0005) on 9 October 2015 that seeks to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”) in relation to 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville (Lot 30 DP785238).

 

8.      Table 1 below provides a chronology of the events leading up to this report on the revised Planning Proposal.

 

Table 1 – Summary of Key Events and Amendments

Date

Details

15 June 2015

Meeting between the applicant and Council staff to discuss a potential Planning Proposal. A preliminary concept scheme was presented, featuring:

·    20 to 60m height (5-18 storeys);

·    4.5:1 FSR;

·    481 residential apartments; and

·    1,600sqm commercial/retail floor space.

9 October 2015

Planning Proposal lodged (PP2015/0005). No VPA offer was submitted but references to a future offer were provided in the applicant’s Planning Proposal Report. The concept scheme featured:

·    23 to 60m height (5-18 storeys);

·    4.5:1 FSR;

·    450-475 residential apartments;

·    1,700sqm commercial/retail floor space;

·    300sqm community facility (subject to a future VPA offer);

·    1,000sqm publicly accessible park (subject to a future VPA offer); and

·    Public through-site link (subject to a future VPA offer).

19 November 2015

Planning Proposal was referred to the St George Design Review Panel (“DRP”). The Panel did not support the proposal and requested that the proposal be amended and referred to the Panel for further consideration.

20 January 2016

Revision no.1 was submitted in response to the DRP minutes:

·    23 to 60m height (5-18 storeys);

·    4.5:1 FSR;

·    Minimum 1:1 commercial FSR (approx. 9,250sqm);

·    347 residential apartments;

·    300sqm community facility (subject to a future VPA offer);

·    1,000sqm publicly accessible park (subject to a future VPA offer); and

·    Public through-site link (subject to a future VPA offer).

18 February 2016

Revision no.1 was referred to the DRP for consideration. The DRP supported the proposed density subject to the provision of sufficient deep soil and landscaping, and the preparation of a site-specific DCP to regulate future development.

11 March 2016

A revised Planning Proposal was lodged which formalises the amendments proposed as part of revision no.1.

March 2016 to May 2017

A draft VPA offer was submitted by the applicant to accompany the Planning Proposal. A series of correspondences occurred between Council staff and the applicants with regards to the proposed public benefits in the VPA offer and the method of calculating the uplift. The VPA offer is reported separately to the Environment and Planning Committee, and Council.

18 May 2017

An amended Planning Proposal (revision no.2) was submitted by the applicant featuring an increased residential dwelling yield by increasing the area of 60m building height by 415sqm. The scheme featured:

·    23 to 60m height (5-18 storeys);

·    4.5:1 FSR;

·    Minimum 1:1 commercial FSR (approx. 9,250sqm);

·    Approx. 400 residential apartments;

·    Provision of a publicly accessible open space which is 800 to 1,000sqm in area;

·    Provision of a public through-site link; and

·    Public domain improvements to be provided via the VPA.

26 May 2017

Council staff conducted a preliminary assessment of revision no.2 and requested additional information from the applicant to justify the increase in the residential yield by 53 units (from revision no.1 to no.2) whilst the FSR sought remained at 4.5:1. Furthermore, the applicant was advised of Council’s concern regarding the viability of the 1:1 commercial FSR requirement due to the site’s location away from the B3 Commercial Core.

13 July 2017

The applicant provided three development options with varying ratios of distribution between the residential and commercial/retail floor space. Option 3 below was identified by the applicant as their preferred option:

1.   3.5:1 residential FSR and 1:1 commercial/retail FSR

2.   4:1 residential FSR and 0.5:1 commercial/retail FSR

3.   4.2:1 residential FSR and 0.3:1 commercial/retail FSR

2 August 2017

The applicant was advised that Council supports in principle a minimum 0.3:1 commercial/retail FSR on the site.

5 September 2017

A letter from Council was provided to the applicant agreeing to the following:

·    An increase in the maximum FSR for the whole site from 3.5:1 to 4.5:1, with the FSR being based on the following breakup:

-     4.2:1 being the maximum residential floor space; and

-     0.3:1 being the minimum non-residential floor space.

8 September 2017

In response to Council’s letter, an amended Planning Proposal (revision no.3) was submitted by the applicant featuring a reduced commercial/retail FSR and increased residential dwelling yield. The scheme featured:

·    23 to 60m height (5-18 storeys);

·    4.5:1 FSR;

·    Minimum 0.3:1 commercial FSR (approx. 2,775sqm);

·    476 residential apartments;

·    Provision of a publicly accessible open space which is 800 to 1,000sqm in area;

·    Provision of a public through-site link; and

·    Public domain improvements to be provided via the VPA.

5 October 2017

Revision no.3 was referred to the DRP for consideration. The Panel believed that insufficient information had been provided to support the increase in density and height, and requested that the proposal be amended and referred to the Panel for further consideration.

12 February 2018

An amended Planning Proposal (revision no.4) was submitted by the applicant featuring an extensive reconfiguration of the building envelope and footprint as well as the introduction of a 4 storey podium form on Forest Road. The reduction in building bulk resulted in a reduced FSR and apartment yield of 420 units.

1 March 2018

Revision no.4 was referred to the DRP for consideration.

The DRP recognised that the building form had been substantially modified in response to the comments of the Panel at its meeting dated 5 October 2017. As such, the proposed height and FSR were supported subject to the retention of existing significant trees.

30 May 2018

An amended Planning Proposal (revision no.5) was submitted by the applicant with consideration of the DRP comments from its meeting dated 1 March 2018. This revision is the subject of this report.

 

9.      The revised Planning Proposal seeks:

 

a)      To amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to increase the floor space ratio from 3:1 to 4:1 (including a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.3:1); and

b)      To amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the maximum building height applying to the site from 23m to a range of heights being 23m, 30m, 40m, 50m and 60m.

 

10.    A Voluntary Planning Agreement (“VPA”) has been offered by the applicant. The details of the VPA and its associated Heads of Agreement (“HoA”) are provided in a separate report on this agenda (dated 13 August 2018).

 

2  SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Overview of the Site

11.    This Planning Proposal applies to land known as 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville (refer to Figure 1 below). The site has a legal description of Lot 30 DP785238 and is wholly in the ownership of GTB Hurstville Pty Ltd.

Figure 1 – Subject site at 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville

 

12.    The site is triangular in shape and is bound by Gloucester and Forest Roads to its north and south. These roads intersect at the eastern point in a splayed corner. The site is bound by private properties on its irregular western boundary and is located at the transition threshold between the central and western areas of the Hurstville City Centre.

 

13.    The site has a total area of 9,240sqm. It excludes a 4x6m area on Gloucester Road (refer Figure 1 above) which is used as an electrical substation. A detailed site survey is provided by the applicant and the overall frontage lengths are summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2 – Site Boundary Dimensions

Boundary

Overall Frontage

Gloucester Road

Approx. 148.7m

Forest Road

Approx. 158.3m

Western boundary (adjacent to 438-452 Forest Road and 15 Gloucester Road)

Approx. 108.5m

 

14.    The ground surface along the Forest Road frontage slopes gently downwards to the east and surface levels vary between about RL65.4 and RL61.4 relative to the Australian Height Datum (“AHD”). The ground surface level at the Gloucester Road frontage is relatively level between RL60.9 and RL61.4.

 

15.    The site is currently occupied by three commercial buildings between 2 to 4 storeys with a FSR of approximately 1:1. The existing built form represents a ‘suburban campus’ or ‘office park’ style configuration with a partially exposed basement car park. The remainder of the site comprises controlled access to the basement car park from Gloucester Road, an irregular through-site link and hardstand areas.

 

16.    There are four existing tenants occupying the three commercial buildings, namely Centrelink, Austbrokers Pty Ltd, Stockdale Personnel Pty Ltd and the ORS Group Pty Ltd. The Economic Impact Assessment specifies that there is currently an estimated total of 82 staff with an estimated vacancy rate of 77% (or 7,691sqm).

 

17.    The site is characterised by large trees with dense canopies lining the Forest Road and Gloucester Road street frontages, complemented by stretches of significant understorey planting which positively contribute to the area’s public domain. The highly landscaped appearance of the site, especially at the Forest and Gloucester Road corner, is particularly appreciated due to the relative lack of trees in the Hurstville City Centre. An assessment of existing tree specimens on site is provided by the Tree Study.

 

18.    Views of the site are shown in Figures 2-8;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2 – View of Gloucester / Forest Road corner

 

 

Figure 3 – View of 4 storey building from Gloucester Road

 

 

 

Figure 4 – View of car parking entrance on Gloucester Road

 

 

Figure 5 – View of recessed entrance to building on Forest Road

 

 

Figure 6 – View of 4 storey building from Forest Road

 

 

Figure 7 – View of pedestrian through-site link on Forest Road

 

 

Figure 8 – View of driveway at western boundary on Forest Road

 

2.2 Surrounding Land

19.    The site is located towards the western edge of the Hurstville City Centre; refer to Figure 9 below for the location of the site (marked by x) in relation to the extent of the Hurstville City Centre.

Figure 9 – Extent of Hurstville City Centre

 

20.    Its immediate context comprises of an array of underutilised sites including an at-grade public car park, service station, single storey factory outlet, other commercial premises and vacant railway land holdings. The site is isolated from other commercial use buildings. The primary interfaces of the site are described in Table 3 below.

 

Table 3 – Surrounding Development

Aspect

Surrounding Development

North

·    Gloucester Road – zone R3 Medium Density Residential

·    3 to 5 storey walk-up style residential flat buildings

East

·    Gloucester Road, Forest Road and Queens Road

·    Council owned car park on Gloucester Road

·    Coles service station

·    Various 2 storey commercial premises including Nara Lounge and Rivers

South

·    Railway track and vacant railway land

·    Low-scale (2 storey) retail / commercial buildings with shop-top housing

West

·    Adjoining 15 Gloucester Road – 4 storey walk-up style residential flat buildings

·    Adjoining 438-452 Forest Road – mixed use development with 2 storey podiums at street frontage and two towers (8 storeys and 16 storeys) towards the rear of the site

·    454-456 Forest Road – low-scale (2 storey) retail / commercial building with shop-top housing

·    458-460 Forest Road – ‘Toga’ mixed use development with tower forms of up to 60m

 

21.    Views of the surrounding land are shown in Figures 10-19 below.

 

Figure 10 – View of 2 storey premises on Forest Road

 

Figure 11 – View of Coles service station at corner of Gloucester and Forest Roads

 

 

Figure 12 – View of Council’s car park on Gloucester Road

 

 

 

Figure 13 – View along Gloucester Road (northerly) from intersection with Forest Road

 

 

Figure 14 – View of walk-up flats on Gloucester Road

 

 

 

 

Figure 15 – View of side boundary adjacent to No.15 Gloucester Road

 

 

Figure 16 – View along Forest Road (westerly) from intersection with Gloucester Road

 

 

 

Figure 17 – View of side boundary adjacent to No.438-452 Forest Road

 

 

Figure 18 – View of development at No.438-452 Forest Road

 

 

 

 

Figure 19 – View of mixed use residential development on Forest Road (R: ‘Toga’ development)

 

22.    The site has direct access to Forest Road, which is a major road with local and regional bus services and a high level of accessibility for pedestrians.

 

23.    The site enjoys good access to Hurstville and Penshurst Railway Stations, being located within approx. 600m and 1,000m walking distance respectively, refer to Figure 20 below.

 

Figure 20 – Map of Accessibility to Railway Stations

 

24.    Three major parks are within walking distance, comprising the Hurstville Oval and Velodrome, Arrowsmith Park and Penshurst Park and Aquatic Centre that provide for a range of major recreational opportunities.

 

 

3  PLANNING STRATEGIES, POLICIES AND CONTROLS

3.1 Existing Planning Controls

25.    The site is currently zoned B4 Mixed Use under the HLEP 2012 (refer to Figure 21 below).

 

Figure 21 – HLEP 2012 Land Use Zoning Map

 

 

26.    The site is identified as being affected by Active Street Frontages (“ASF”) under the HLEP 2012, refer to Figure 22 below. The ASF is applied along the Forest Road frontage. Clause 6.6 Active street frontages applies to the site.

 

Figure 22 – HLEP 2012 Active Street Frontages Map

 

 

27.    The site has a maximum building height of 23m under the HLEP 2012, refer to Figure 23 below. Clause 4.3 Height of buildings is applicable to the site.

 

Figure 23 – HLEP 2012 Height of Buildings Map

 

 

28.    The site has a maximum floor space ratio of 3:1 under the HLEP 2012, refer to Figure 24 below. Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio is applicable to the site.

 

Figure 24 – HLEP 2012 Floor Space Ratio Map

 

3.2 Background – Amendment No.3 to the HLEP 2012

29.    The HLEP 2012 is a Standard Instrument LEP which requires the inclusion of maximum building heights and maximum FSRs as LEP development standards via maps and clauses.

 

30.    At the date of its commencement on 7 December 2012, the HLEP 2012 did not contain height and FSR development standards for the Hurstville City Centre. Instead, height and FSR provisions were prescribed by the HDCP No.2. The subject site at 9 Gloucester Road had a maximum permissible building height of 23m and a maximum permissible FSR of 5:1 under the HDCP No.2.

 

31.    In 2014, the former Hurstville City Council prepared an amendment to the HLEP 2012 (known as Amendment No.3) which identified maximum building heights and FSRs for properties within the Hurstville City Centre. In relation to the subject site, the draft amendment identified a maximum building height of 23m and a maximum FSR of 3:1.

 

32.    During the public exhibition of draft Amendment No.3, a submission was received in relation to the subject site requesting a maximum FSR of 5:1 and maximum building heights “based on an urban design review of the appropriate redevelopment potential of the site”.

 

33.    In consideration of the submission received, the former Hurstville Council’s planning staff made the following recommendation to not support the submission:

 

It is not considered appropriate for the planning controls to be amended for this site or the site deferred from the draft LEP until such time as further planning investigations have been undertaken by the proponent and subject to a full assessment of their impact by Council”. [underlined added]

 

34.    At its meeting dated 17 September 2014, the former Hurstville Council resolved to support the above recommendation. Amendment No.3 to the HLEP 2012 was gazetted and came into effect on 24 July 2015 with the current planning controls for the subject site as outlined above in this report.

 

35.    In response to Council’s recommendation, the applicant submitted the subject Planning Proposal request (PP2015/0005) which includes planning investigations, detailed urban design considerations and an assessment of impacts.

 

3.3 Hurstville Development Control Plan No. 2

36.    This report recommends that an amendment to the HDCP No.2 be prepared in the form of a site-specific chapter, to run concurrently with an amendment to the HLEP 2012 (if Gateway approval is given by the Department of Planning and Environment), to reflect 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.

 

4 APPLICANT’S PLANNING PROPOSAL REQUEST

4.1 Background

37.    A Planning Proposal request (PP2015/0005) for 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville was lodged in October 2015 and since that time there have been five (5) amendments to the proposal.

 

38.    Table 1 above provides a summary of the key events and amendments received leading up to the revised Planning Proposal which is the subject of this report. It should be noted that all events relating to the VPA are excluded from Table 1 as the VPA will be reported to Council in a separate report.

 

4.2 Summary of Planning Proposal Request

39.    GTB Hurstville Pty Ltd submitted a Planning Proposal request (PP2015/0005) on 9 October 2015 that seeks to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”) in relation to 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville (Lot 30 DP785238).

 

40.    A revised Planning Proposal request was submitted on 30 May 2018 and included the following amended documents which form the basis of the Planning Proposal request being considered in this report:

 

i)       Planning Proposal Report for Gateway (refer Attachment 2)

ii)      Architectural Concept (refer Attachment 3)

iii)     Urban Design Report

iv)     Tree Retention and Replacement Study

v)      Tree Canopy Study

vi)     Economic Impact Assessment

vii)    Transport Report

viii)   Survey Plan

 

41.    The Planning Proposal seeks to:

 

a)    Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to increase the floor space ratio from 3:1 to 4:1 (as per Figure 25 below), including a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.3:1 via an amendment to Clause 4.4A. The proposed clause wording is as follows:

4.4A   Non-residential floor space ratios

(1C)  Despite clause 4.4, development consent must not be granted for development on the following land unless the non-residential floor space ratio is at least 0.3:1:

(a) 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville, being Lot 30, DP785238.

and

b)    Amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the maximum building height applying to the site from 23m to a range of heights being 23m, 30m, 40m, 50m and 60m (as per Figure 26 below).

 

42.    The Planning Proposal does not seek to alter the land zoning and active street frontage provisions of the HLEP 2012.

 

43.    It should be noted that although the precise dimension of the various maximum building heights will not be identified by the HLEP 2012, the maximum building envelope (in accordance with Figure 27 below) will be regulated by the site specific HDCP No.2 chapter which will accompany this Planning Proposal if Gateway approval is given by the Department of Planning and Environment. The DCP will contain prescriptive provisions including setback distances and building dimensions.


 

Figure 25 – Proposed Floor Space Ratio Map

 

Figure 26 – Proposed Height of Buildings Map

 

4.3 Summary of Architectural Concept Scheme

 

44.    This Planning Proposal is accompanied by an architectural concept scheme (Rev E dated 30 May 2018, refer to Attachment 3) prepared by Turner demonstrating the following:

 

a)    Building form with a variety of storeys ranging from 4 to 18 storeys:

i.    Building A – 4 to 18 storeys (60m)

ii.   Building B – 4 to 16 storeys (55m)

iii.  Building C – 12 storeys (40m)

iv.  Building D – 8 storeys (30m)

v.   Building E – 4 to 6 storeys (23m)

b)    Mixed use development featuring:

i.     Approx. 2,770sqm retail / commercial floor space (0.3:1 FSR)

ii.    Approx. 34,190sqm residential floor space (3.7:1 FSR)

c)    420 residential apartments comprising of:

i.     158 x one bedroom units

ii.    209 x two bedroom units

iii.   53 x three bedroom units

d)    Multi-level basement car parking

e)    At grade communal open space adjacent to the publicly accessible open space

f)     Rooftop communal open space on top of each building

g)    Public pedestrian underpass through-site link in the undercroft of Building B

h)   Publicly accessible open space of minimum 1,000sqm (identified as a VPA contribution)

 

45.    The concept scheme was considered by the Design Review Panel (“DRP”) on 1 March 2018 and the Panel generally supported the height and FSR proposed for the Planning Proposal subject to the resolution of a range of matters, which are addressed below in this report.

 

46.    Refer to Figure 27 below for the maximum building envelope proposed by the concept scheme.

Figure 27 – Maximum Building Envelope

 

5  ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

5.1 Strategic Planning Context

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

 

Greater Sydney Region Plan (A Metropolis of Three Cities)

48.    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.

 

49.    The applicant has provided their assessment of the Planning Proposal against the relevant Objectives of the Region Plan as below:

 

50.    Direction 4: Housing the city

Objective 10: Greater housing supply

Objective 11: Housing is more diverse and affordable

 

The Planning Proposal will provide approximately 420 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 (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 HDCP No.2.

 

51.    Direction 5: A city of great places

Objective 12: Great places that bring people together

 

The Planning Proposal facilitates the provision of a publicly accessible pocket park towards the centre of the site on Gloucester Road, as well as a public pedestrian underpass through-site link which connects Forest and Gloucester Roads. The pocket park will be activated by retail uses at ground level. The proposal intends to transform the existing underutilised office park into an attractive new community meeting space.

 

52.    Direction 6: A well-connected city

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

 

Housing in close proximity to a range of regional public transport services will assist in meeting the 30-minute job access target. It is noted that the site is located well within the walkable catchments of the following transport hubs:

·    400m walking distance from the Hurstville bus interchange (Woodville Street);

·    600m walking distance from the Hurstville Railway Station; and

·    1,000m walking distance from the Penshurst Railway Station.

Furthermore, the proposal does not preclude the development of the Hurstville CBD commercial core. Instead, it intends to generate additional demand for local services through the introduction of 420 new dwellings and provides contemporary street-based economic activity on Forest Road.

 

53.    Direction 7: Jobs and skills for the city

Objective 22: Investment and business activity in centres

 

While the proposed redevelopment reduces the amount of commercial floor space offered by the existing development, the current office facilities are redundant with poor economic prospects as demonstrated by the existing 77% vacancy rate. Health, education, knowledge and professional services as well as tourism are recognised sectors of future employment growth. The site is outside the commercial core of the Hurstville CBD and is therefore better suited for personal and professional services with different and more flexible accommodation needs.

 

The Planning Proposal will allow for the feasible redevelopment of redundant office facilities on a highly accessible but underutilised site for the purpose of a mixed use development.

 

54.    Direction 8: A city in its landscape

Objective 30: Urban tree canopy cover is increased

Objective 31: Public open space is accessible, protected and enhanced

 

The proposal aims to retain the distinctive landscaped character of the site through the retention of the Gloucester Road street trees and the existing clusters of mature trees on the Forest Road frontage. The green corridor and microclimate will also be enhanced by the proposed introduction of an additional row of street tree planting on Forest Road. As a result, the proposal features an increase in urban tree canopy cover.

 

As part of the associated VPA and future redevelopment, all remaining overhead electricity wiring and services will be buried underground along this segment of Forest Road. This will provide an overhead clearance for the unobstructed growth of street trees.

 

The provision of a publicly accessible pocket park with a children’s playground in addition to the mandatory communal open space creates a new accessible open space which would enhance the amenity of the Hurstville City Centre.

 

South District Plan

55.    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.

 

56.    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

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

A city in its landscape

Planning Priority S15: Increasing urban tree canopy cover and delivering Green Grid connections

Planning Priority S16: Delivering high quality open space

 

57.    The South District Plan also sets out Actions that would strengthen the Hurstville Strategic Centre. The applicant has identified that the Planning Proposal will assist in delivering the following Actions:

·    “encourage new lifestyle and entertainment uses to activate streets and grow the night-time economy” and “recognise and support the role of Forest Road as a movement corridor and as an eat street” by providing contemporary commercial accommodation along the main Forest Road frontage suitable for a variety of purposes.

·    “encourage activation of secondary streets” by providing a pocket park and associated retail uses on Gloucester Street, which is considered to be a secondary street to Forest Road.

5.2 Council’s Local Strategic Plans

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

 

Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy (2018)

 

59.    The Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy was endorsed by Council at its meeting dated 25 June 2018 as a strategic planning document which informs the review and update of existing development standards within the Hurstville City Centre.

 

60.    The site is located in the City West Transition Area character precinct. The Strategy identifies that the area is well planted with mature street trees and creates a green gateway to the Centre when entering from King Georges Road.

 

61.    The Strategy acknowledges that the site is subject to a current Planning Proposal and recommends that the HLEP 2012 is amended to increase the height of the sub-block 2D (the subject site) from 23m to 60m at the western end of the site, stepping down to 40m at the eastern end, refer to Figure 28 below.

 

Figure 28 – Recommended height for subject site at sub-block 2D

 

62.    The Planning Proposal is consistent with the overall maximum building height identified by the Strategy and retains the existing landscaped character of the City West Transition Area character precinct.

 

5.3 State and Regional Statutory Framework

63.    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

 

64.    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.

 

65.    The Planning Proposal does not contain provisions that will contradict or hinder the application of this SEPP. The applicant advises that the site’s historical use was for commercial purposes and the proposed use will comprise of retail / commercial purposes with residential above.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

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

 

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

 

5.4 S9.1 Ministerial Directions

70.    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.

 

71.    The Planning Proposal is consistent with all relevant Ministerial Directions as assessed by the applicant in Table 4 below:

 

Table 4 – Consistency with S9.1 Ministerial Directions

S9.1 Direction

Assessment

1.1 Business and Industrial Zones

The proposal is consistent with the Direction as it will give effect to the objectives of this Direction by facilitating the redevelopment of a redundant underutilised business zoned site which has a 77% vacancy rate. The proposal provides the opportunity to renew commercial activity on a site that is located outside the commercial core of the Hurstville CBD with more suitable contemporary facilities that support the viability of Hurstville as a Strategic Centre.

3.1 Residential Zones

The Planning Proposal encourages a variety and choice of housing types to provide for existing and future housing needs, whilst making efficient use of existing infrastructure and services. The proposal retains the landscaped character of the locality and demonstrates appropriate built form whilst minimising the impact on surrounding residential development.

3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport

The Planning Proposal will enable retail and residential development in close proximity to jobs and services, thereby encouraging walking, cycling and use of public transport.

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 by the applicant in Section 5.1 above.

 

5.5 Design Review Panel

72.    The St George Design Review Panel (“DRP”) first considered the Planning Proposal request at its meeting dated 19 November 2015. The Planning Proposal was subsequently referred to the DRP on multiple occasions, including 18 February 2016, 5 October 2017 and 1 March 2018 thereafter.

 

73.    Table 3 of this report provides a chronology of the events leading up to this report on the revised Planning Proposal including the outcome of each DRP referral.

 

74.    At the latest meeting dated 1 March 2018, an amended proposal dated January 2018 was considered and generally supported by the DRP subject to the retention of existing significant trees and the preparation of a tree canopy cover study.

 

75.    The architectural concept scheme dated May 2018 (refer Attachment 3) is an updated version of the proposal considered by the DRP on 1 March 2018 and does not present any amendments or modifications to the maximum building envelope and proposed density.

 

76.    It should be noted that some of the DRP recommendations involve detailed design work that are beyond the scope and purpose of a Planning Proposal and would typically be resolved at the development application stage.

 

77.    Comments provided by the DRP are summarised below with respect to the applicable Design Quality Principles set out in SEPP 65:

 

Context and neighbourhood character

 

78.    DRP Comment: The FSR has now been reduced to 4:1 including minimum 0.3:1 for commercial, generally fronting the Forest Road and Gloucester Road corner and the east side of the public square. This is supported. The heights have also been modified with a maximum of 60m and are considered to be acceptable in principle.

 

Council Comment: The proposed FSR and building height are considered to be appropriate to the high density context of the subject site. This segment of Forest Road is characterised by high density mixed use developments with maximum building heights of up to 60m and FSRs of up to 5:1.

 

79.    DRP Comment: Substantial tree planting is a critical and positive aspect of the site, forming a landscaped ‘entry’ into Hurstville from the south. The proponent has still not devised a satisfactory strategy towards the conservation of this landscaping.

 

Council Comment: The canopy cover and landscaping provided by the existing development establishes a desirable green gateway to the Hurstville City Centre. The applicant has nominated the retention of all existing street trees on Gloucester Road as well as significant clusters of existing mature trees on Forest Road in light of the DRP comment.

 

Furthermore, the green oasis character of the site will be enhanced by an additional row of street trees on Forest Road to create a tunnel-like canopy over the pedestrian footpath. The overall surplus of ground level canopy cover provided by the proposal is considered to be an appropriate response to the conservation of this landscaped entry into Hurstville and positively enhances the existing character of the locality. A detailed tree retention schedule will be incorporated into the site specific DCP which accompanies this Planning Proposal.

 

Built Form and Scale

 

80.    DRP Comment: A complete clearance should be provided above the cluster of Evergreen Alder trees at the centre of the site’s Forest Road frontage (location of proposed Building B) to ensure the retention and conservation of these trees.

 

Council Comment: The existing cluster of Evergreen Alder trees are located adjacent to the Forest Road boundary and the proposal includes a 4m wide setback in the maximum building envelope and basement footprint to assist in the preservation of these trees. Council may request that the 4m wide setback be increased as a result of detailed design at the development application stage. The pedestrian underpass through-site link has been deliberately positioned to accommodate this tree cluster which enables the provision of a four storey undercroft void for the ongoing growth of these trees.

 

However, it should be noted that the existing basement of the office park development currently encroaches into the Tree Protection Zones of the trees at the Forest Road frontage and the retention of these trees cannot be guaranteed due to proposed demolition of the existing basement.

 

For the above reasons, Council considers that this matter has been satisfactorily addressed for the purpose of the Planning Proposal and that further refinement of the building form will occur at the development application stage.

 

81.    DRP Comment: Increase the proposed Gloucester Road setback of Building C from 2m to 4m to assist in the preservation of the existing London Plane trees and allow for an additional row of large tree planting.

 

Council Comment: The existing London Plane trees are located on Gloucester Road outside of the subject site and are required to be retained. Additional setback may be requested for this purpose subject to further detailed design.

 

Council recognises that the DRP request for an additional row of planting on Gloucester Road does indeed produce a more desirable outcome. However, this request is considered to be onerous in light of the surplus ground level canopy cover provided by the existing proposal. The concept scheme demonstrates the retention of Gloucester Road’s existing landscaped amenity and this is considered to be acceptable. Furthermore, additional large shade tree plantings on Gloucester Road are likely to reduce the solar access received by the publicly accessible open space.

 

Landscape

 

82.    DRP Comment: There should be no building over the existing tree canopies and existing microclimatic conditions must be maintained. The Panel requests that the applicant quantify the existing area of canopy cover as well as forecast the area of canopy cover that would be achieved with the present proposal, and identify the time period required to achieve equal or greater coverage than presently exists.

 

Council Comment: The applicant has prepared a Tree Canopy Study which quantifies the existing ground level canopy cover and provides a comparison with the proposed estimated canopy cover. The time period required to achieve equal or greater coverage can only be determined if the size and species of the proposed tree plantings are known, which are a detailed design matter that will be considered at the development application stage. However, a list of preferred planting species and planting sizes will be considered in the preparation of the site specific DCP. For the purpose of this Planning Proposal, the applicant has committed to the provision of a surplus in ground level canopy cover.

 

83.    DRP Comment: Roof gardens should be provided for each building on the roof of each building.

 

Council Comment: This has been satisfactorily demonstrated by the architectural concept scheme (refer Attachment 3).

 

5.6 Urban Design Analysis

84.    Located in the western end of the Hurstville City Centre, the subject site and its surrounding B4 Mixed Use zoned land are characterised by high density HLEP 2012 development controls that maximise redevelopment opportunities.

 

85.    The western corner of the subject street block is defined by the ‘Toga’ development known as 458-460 Forest Road and 1B Pearl Street. This site has been recently developed with a height of 59.8m and FSR of 4.5:1 under the development approval 13/DA-35.

 

86.    Immediately adjoining the western boundary of the site at 438-452 Forest Road is a 1990s mixed use development with approx. 130 residential units and comprised of two apartment towers of 16 and 8 storeys. Although this site has been granted a maximum building height of 60m and FSR of 5:1 under the HLEP 2012, redevelopment is not anticipated to occur in the immediate future due to the existing fragmented ownership.

 

87.    The adjoining R3 Medium Density Residential zoned land towards the northern portion of the street block on Gloucester Road is predominately occupied by three storey walk-up flats. These sites currently have a maximum permissible height of 12m and FSR of 1:1. However, the Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy has recommended that these areas be investigated for increases in height and FSR to 23m and 2:1-2.2:1 respectively.

 

88.    Furthermore, the Strategy has recommended to increase the maximum building height to 40m for surrounding land to the east of the subject site (refer Figure 28 above).

 

89.    In light of the existing development controls and recommended uplifts to the surrounding locality, the subject site is located in a critical location which requires the proposed built form to perform as the transition between medium and high density developments.

 

90.    Figure 29 below illustrates the formal rhythm of the general adjoining built form as viewed from Gloucester Road. The darker red shading illustrates the heights required on the subject site to achieve an appropriate transition to the R3 zoned land on Gloucester Road, whilst the lighter pink shading represents the transitional form that responds to the higher density development on Forest Road to the rear.

 

Figure 29 – Gloucester Road Elevation showing Transition to Surrounding Context

 

91.    The proposal is consistent with the above principle through the transitional heights of 23m, 30m and 40m proposed along the Gloucester Road frontage. The urban design strategy for the proposed envelope is outlined in the applicant’s Urban Design Report.

 

92.    The above principle is also applied to the Forest Road frontage where the maximum height increases from 40m at the Gloucester / Forest Road corner to 55m toward the centre of the site and 60m toward the western portion of the site. However, an additional 23m maximum building height (maximum 6 storeys) is applied at the western boundary adjoining 438-452 Forest Road to provide a low-scale buffer between the neighbouring 8 storey development and the proposed 18 storey (60m) tower.

 

93.    To maintain the pedestrian amenity of Forest Road, a 4 storey podium is proposed along the Forest Road frontage to complement the active street frontages. This is further enhanced by the proposed tree plantings, provision of a 4 storey high pedestrian underpass through-site link and a publicly accessible pocket park in addition to the at grade communal open space.

 

94.    The shadows cast from the proposed envelopes fall mainly on the vacant railway land to the south of the site.

 

95.    The Planning Proposal and the accompanying architectural concept scheme demonstrate an appropriate urban design response to its urban context and it also satisfies the relevant SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles. In this regard, the proposed density is considered to be suitable as the increased height and FSR does not compromise the amenity and design of any future development on site and the surrounding private and public spaces.

 

5.7 Economic Analysis

96.    The Economic Impact Assessment (“EIA”) submitted by the applicant concludes that although the Planning Proposal would lead to a net reduction in commercial floor space of approx. 7,230sqm, the number of jobs on the site compared to the ‘do nothing’ scenario is expected to increase by over 130 to reflect the improved use of space and amenity provided.

 

97.    The existing campus style office park currently provides approx. 10,000sqm of commercial floor space. However, over 75% of the existing floor space is currently vacant. The EIA states that leasing this space is difficult in the current and foreseeable market of high supply and low demand, resulting in a high vacancy rate of 23% across the Hurstville centre. The prevalent market conditions support the proposal and it would be consistent with current development activity in Hurstville.

 

98.    As discussed earlier in this report, the subject site is located in close proximity to major public multi-modal transport interchanges, essential amenities and services. The Planning Proposal will assist in meeting the strong housing demand in the area. The additional residential population would stimulate retail demand and employment within Hurstville City Centre.

 

99.    The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zoning by allowing residential development in the Hurstville City Centre whilst maintaining active retail, business and other non-residential uses at street level, and integrating suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

 

100.  Council recognises that commercial / office use demand on the subject site is limited due to its location on the outskirts of the Hurstville City Centre and subsequent separation from the B3 Commercial Core zoning in the centre of the CBD.

 

101.  The reduction in commercial floor space is consistent with HLEP 2012 (Amendment No. 9) which in part reduced the amount of non-residential floor space required for B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones from 0.5:1 to 0.3:1 under Clause 4.4A (Non-residential floor space ratios). The purpose of the amendment which was gazetted on 17 November 2017 is to encourage an appropriate mix of residential and non-residential uses in order to ensure a suitable level of non-residential floor space is provided to promote employment and reflect the hierarchy of the business zones.

 

102.  Council is to note the approval of the ‘Toga’ development at 458-460 Forest Road and 1B Pearl Street which is located at the north-western corner of the subject street block. A total of 36,558sqm gross floor area was approved at 4.5:1 FSR with 563sqm allocated for retail premises. This equates to a FSR of less than 0.07:1 for non-residential land use within the ‘Toga’ development.

 

103.  In comparison, the Planning Proposal will provide approx. 2,770sqm of non-residential floor space which equates to a 0.3:1 FSR. This is considered to be appropriate for the zoning and location of the site as the proposal will renew ageing offices.

 

104.  It should be noted that the financial viability of the applicant’s previous proposal which comprised of a 4.5:1 FSR (including minimum 1:1 non-residential FSR and 3.5:1 residential FSR) was peer reviewed by Council’s own consultant in June 2017 as part of the VPA negotiation process. The applicant concluded that whilst a minimum 1:1 non-residential FSR clearly provides more employment space, the development feasibility is compromised as the end sale value of the commercial floor space is insufficient to cover costs.

 

105.  Council’s consultant advised that the market appraisal and conclusions made by the applicant are reasonable and that the proposed development with a minimum 1:1 non-residential FSR appears to be financially unviable even without the VPA payment, or marginal at best.

 

106.  Given the vacancy rate of over 75% within the existing commercial building on site and an average vacancy rate of 23% across the Hurstville centre, a minimum non-residential FSR above 0.3:1 is likely to result in a financially unviable development with a high vacancy rate and bulky building envelope. It is recognised that a minimum 0.3:1 non-residential FSR on the site is sufficient to meet the existing demand for commercial floor space in this location.

 

107.  Council endorsed the minimum 0.3:1 non-residential FSR in a letter to the applicant dated 5 September 2017. It should be noted that since the date of the letter, further refinements to the building form have been made and that the maximum FSR sought has been reduced to 4:1 as a result, however, the minimum 0.3:1 non-residential FSR remains unchanged.

 

108.  The proposed retail / commercial floor space is located at ground level along the Forest Road frontage in Building A and is extended to the Gloucester Road corner at both ground floor and first floor in Building C. An open floor plate of over 750sqm is provided at the first floor of Building C to cater for the existing demand for office floor space.

 

5.9 Traffic and Transport

109.  The concept scheme demonstrates one vehicle access point for the proposal via Gloucester Road adjacent to Building E. All car parking and services will be located in the basement.

 

110.  The Transport Report submitted by the applicant outlines the following key conclusions:

 

a)   Vehicle traffic generation from the proposed development will be similar to the approved Hurstville City Centre Transport Management and Accessibility Plan 2013 (“TMAP”) scheme; and an insignificant change from the existing site uses;

b)   Traffic generated by the proposed development can be accommodated within acceptable levels of service without adversely affecting traffic efficiency on the existing road network. Intersections are maintained at existing acceptable levels of service;

c)   The impacts of the additional residential and commercial floor space and associated accessibility, traffic and infrastructure issues generated as a result of an increased height and FSR for the subject site are considered acceptable;

d)   Access points for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles are suitable and in accordance with TMAP and road hierarchy considerations. The proposed through-site link will improve pedestrian circulation, add route choices and reduce walking distances to bus stops and local services. The anticipated traffic can be appropriately managed with no significant impact on amenity;

e)   The proposed single driveway off Gloucester Road is appropriately located near the location of the existing subject site driveway, will not affect neighbours, and leaves Forest Road unobstructed for main road traffic, buses and bus stops, pedestrians and the future strategic bus corridor supported by the TMAP; and

f)    There will be no adverse effects on the safety of any road users including public transport, pedestrians and cyclists.

 

111.  Parking provisions, car park layout and road safety issues were not reviewed in detail as these will be subject to a detailed assessment at the development application stage.

 

5.10 Councillor Workshop

112.  A Councillor workshop outlining the Planning Proposal and the VPA for 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville was held on 12 March 2018. The proposal was generally supported at the workshop.

 

113.  Following the workshop, two issues were raised in relation to the Planning Proposal:

 

a)    Proposed building heights should be reduced at the western side boundary to ensure an appropriate transition to the adjoining development at 438-452 Forest Road; and

b)    Building separation distances between Buildings A, B and C must be compliant with the requirements of the Apartment Design Guide (“ADG”) to achieve reasonable levels of visual privacy.

 

114.  In response to the suggestion for a lower building height at the western side boundary, a 23m maximum building height (maximum 6 storeys) has been applied to the boundary adjoining 438-452 Forest Road to provide a low-scale buffer between the neighbouring 8 storey development and the proposed 18 storey (60m) tower. This is considered to be an appropriate outcome as discussed above in Section 5.6.

 

115.  With regards to the provision of an adequate building separation distance to achieve reasonable visual privacy between the residential towers of Buildings A, B and C, this is a detailed design matter which is typically resolved at the development application stage.

 

116.  Despite this, the applicant has provided additional information to clarify that in addition to a 12m separation between the towers for the purpose of building articulation, solid blank walls and solid ‘blinker walls’ are introduced to ensure visual privacy is achieved by directing the orientation of the primary outlook toward the communal and publicly accessible open spaces (refer Figure 30 and Figure 31 below). This design ensures that there is no direct line of sight between the windows and balconies of opposing apartments.

 

117.  The provision of solid blank walls is compliant with Objective 3F-1 of the ADG which states: “No separation is required between blank walls”. Furthermore, the proposal achieves a minimum 12m separation distance between the habitable rooms and balconies of Building A and the solid blank wall of Building B, which is compliant with the ADG.

 

118.  The minimum 12m separation distance between the residential towers of Buildings A and B, and Buildings B and C will be specified in the site specific DCP which accompanies this Planning Proposal together with other built form and design requirements.

 

Figure 30 – Visual privacy measure between Building A and Building B

 

Figure 31 – Visual privacy measure between Building B and Building C

 

 

6  OFFER TO ENTER INTO A VOLUNTARY PLANNING AGREEMENT

119.  The Voluntary Planning Agreement Policy was adopted by Council on 1 August 2016 and sets out Council’s objectives and principles in relation to the use of planning agreements.

 

120.  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 under a VPA.

 

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

 

122.  The Planning Proposal provides for uplift in the value of the land through the increase in FSR and height of buildings. The value of uplift prepared by the applicant has been independently assessed by Council’s consultant.

 

123.  A draft VPA offer was submitted in March 2016 by GTB Hurstville Pty Ltd (“the applicant”) to accompany the Planning Proposal. Since this time a series of correspondences occurred between Council staff and the applicants with regards to the proposed public benefits in the VPA offer and the method of calculating the uplift.

 

124.  On 19 June 2018, Council received a formal letter of offer to enter into a VPA from the applicant in association with the Planning Proposal.

 

125.  The VPA offer and Heads of Agreement (“HoA”) have been prepared in consultation with Council staff and set out a range of public benefits and terms for a VPA.

 

126.  The VPA offer and HoA, in summary, provide for a range of public benefits as below:

 

a)   Monetary contribution for public domain works and public road infrastructure;

b)   Public access easement to a 1,000sqm open space area/pocket park on the site with embellishments (refer Figure 32 below);

c)   Public access easement to and from and across the land and pocket park;

d)   Public art works; and

e)   Public domain improvements including the undergrounding of overhead powerlines outside the site.

Figure 32 – Location of VPA Works

 

7  SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT / CONCLUSION

127.  In summary, the Planning Proposal seeks to amend the HLEP 2012 in relation to 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville (Lot 30 DP785238):

 

a)      To amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to increase the floor space ratio from 3:1 to 4:1 (including a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.3:1); and

b)      To amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the maximum building height applying to the site from 23m to a range of heights being 23m, 30m, 40m, 50m and 60m.

 

128.  It is recommended that Council endorse the Planning Proposal for the following reasons:

 

a)      The Planning Proposal and the accompanying architectural concept scheme demonstrate an appropriate urban design response to its context and it also satisfies the relevant SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles;

b)      The proposed maximum building envelope demonstrates an appropriate urban design outcome through the formal transition to adjacent developments;

c)      The proposed density is considered to be consistent with the mixed use development typology of recent developments in the vicinity of the site;

d)      The proposal retains clusters of existing significant trees on the site and street trees along Gloucester Road whilst introducing additional street tree planting on Forest Road to enhance the existing canopy cover of this vital green corridor;

e)      The proposal provides additional residential dwellings in an accessible location which is in close proximity to major public transport interchanges and other essential amenities and services;

f)       The proposed commercial / retail floor space will generate a mixture of active and dynamic land uses; and

g)      The Planning Proposal facilitates the creation of a publicly accessible pocket park and through-site link to enhance the quality of the public domain within the Hurstville City Centre by providing critical open space infrastructure.

 

8  COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

129.  Should the Planning Proposal be supported it will be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission requesting a Gateway Determination.

 

130.  If a Gateway Determination (Approval) 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.

 

131.  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.

 

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

 

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

 

Task

Anticipated Timeframe

Lodgement of Planning Proposal request

9 October 2015

Report to Georges River LPP on Planning Proposal

21 June 2018

Report to Environment and Planning Committee on Planning Proposal

13 August 2018

(this report)

Report to Council on Planning Proposal

27 August 2018

Anticipated commencement date (date of Gateway Determination)

October 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

Dates for public hearing (if required)

N/A

Timeframe for consideration of submissions

February 2019

Report 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

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

 

9  NEXT STEPS

135.  If the Planning Proposal is endorsed by Council it will be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway Determination under Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

136.  If Council resolves not to support the Planning Proposal, the applicant has the opportunity to request a pre-Gateway Review by the NSW Planning Panels under the delegation of the Greater Sydney Commission. An applicant has 40 days from the date of notification of Council’s decision to request a review.

 

Financial Implications

137.  No budget impact for this report.

 

Risk Implications

138.  No risks identified.

 

File Reference

PP2015/0005 - D18/129234

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Local Planning Panel Meeting Minutes - 21 June 2018

Attachment 2

Planning Proposal Report - 9 Gloucester Rd Hurstville

Attachment 3

Architectural Concept Scheme dated May 2018

 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV022-18             Planning Proposal - 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville

[Appendix 1]          Local Planning Panel Meeting Minutes - 21 June 2018

 

 

Page 43

 


 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV022-18             Planning Proposal - 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville

[Appendix 2]          Planning Proposal Report - 9 Gloucester Rd Hurstville

 

 

Page 45

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV022-18             Planning Proposal - 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville

[Appendix 3]          Architectural Concept Scheme dated May 2018

 

 

Page 86

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 August 2018                      Page 139

Item:                   ENV023-18        Offer to Enter Into a Voluntary Planning Agreement in Association with Planning Proposal (PP2015/0005) and Subsequent  Development Application for 9 Gloucester Road and 420-430 Forest Road, Hurstville  

Author:              Executive Strategic Planner

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

 

Recommendation:

(a)     That Council accept and endorse the Letter of Offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) dated 19 June 2018 from Great Tang Brothers (GTB) Hurstville Pty Ltd (Attachment 1) and Heads of Agreement (HOA) signed by the Developer (Attachment 2) in relation to Planning Proposal PP2015/0005 for 9 Gloucester Road and 420-430 Forest Road, Hurstville seeking to increase density and height of buildings on the land for a mixed use development. The VPA Offer and HOA provide for the following public benefits:

i.     The estimated total contribution value of the VPA Offer equates to $4,287,000. The contribution value is based on residual land value rates of $1,073 per square metre of  additional residential gross floor area and $349 per square metre of additional non-residential gross floor area (as established by a Hill PDA Consulting report). The total contribution value is to be recalculated at the time of payment on the monetary contribution based on the actual additional GFA permissible under the LEP amendment. The total contribution value is provided as follows as defined in the HOA;

 

ii.    The Developer make a monetary contribution of $2,824,808 to be used at Council’s discretion for public works, including any public facilities, public domain and public road infrastructure. The monetary contribution is subject to annual CPI adjustment.

 

iii.   The Developer is to carry out Public Domain Works to the total value of $1,273,736, as follows:

a.    Undergrounding of overhead powerlines ‘outside’ of the Land (estimated value of $508,839) – the Developer is to construct and undertake the undergrounding of overhead powerlines on the northern side of Forest Road between the Land and No. 458 Forest Road (Highpoint Hurstville site), with an approximate length of 111 metres, connecting with the existing underground lines and the provision of smart poles. This work is to include the re-instatement of the footpath as specified by Council.

 

b.    Children’s playground and construction and installation of a publicly accessible pocket park (estimated value of $764,897) – the Developer is to construct, embellish and complete a pocket park of 1,000sqm and provide a playground within the Land; and

 

c.    Registration of easement for public access to the pocket park and public positive covenant and public positive covenant – the landowner is to register an instrument under Section 88B to create an easement in gross favour of the Council allowing for public access to and from and across the land and pocket park. The terms of the easement and public positive covenant are to provide the Council does not have any maintenance or public liability obligations.

 

iv.          The Developer to construct and install Public Art to the value of $188,456 immediately within and around the site that is visible from the public domain areas of Forest Road.

 

v.           The VPA Offer and final VPA will not exclude the application of s7.11, 7.12 and 7.24 development contributions (previously referred to as s94, s94A and S94EF contributions) to the Development.

 

(b)     That Council delegate authority to the General Manager to negotiate the final terms and enter into the Heads of Agreement referred to above.

 

(c)     That Council delegate authority to the General Manager to negotiate the specific terms of the Voluntary Planning Agreement based on the VPA Offer and Heads of Agreement and to subsequently exhibit a draft of the Voluntary Planning Agreement in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulation.

 

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

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

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

 

(e)     That GTB Hurstville Pty Ltd be informed of Council’s decision.

 

Executive Summary

1.      A Letter of Offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) under section 7.4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) was submitted to Council on 19 June 2018 in association with the Planning Proposal PP2015/0005 for 9 Gloucester Road and 420-430 Forest Road, Hurstville (see Attachment 1).

2.      The Planning Proposal, which is subject to a separate report to this Meeting of 13 August 2018, seeks to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP) as follows:

-        increase the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) control from 3.0:1 to 4.0:1 (including a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.3:1); and

-        increase the maximum building height from 23m to a range of heights of 23m, 30m, 40m, 55m and 60m.

 

3.      The VPA Offer by the Applicant, GTB Hurstville Pty Ltd, seeks to provide public benefits commensurate with uplift sought via the Planning Proposal in accordance with Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements. The applicant has provided in consultation with Council staff and signed a Heads of Agreement (HOA) that sets out the monetary contributions and public domain works and key terms for the VPA (see Attachment 2).

4.      The VPA Offer and HOA provide the delivery of the following public benefits:

i.     Total Value of VPA Contributions - the estimated total contribution value of the VPA offer equates to $4,287,000. The contribution value is based on residual land value rates of $1,073 per square metre of  additional residential gross floor area (in this case is 7392m2) and $349 per square metre of additional non-residential gross floor area (as established by a Hill PDA Planning report and is 1848m2). The total contribution value is to be recalculated at the time of payment on the monetary contribution based on the actual additional GFA permissible under the LEP amendment. The total contribution value is provided as follows as defined in the HOA;

 

ii.    Monetary Contribution - the Developer to make a monetary contribution of $2,824,808 to be used at Council’s discretion for public works, including any public facilities, public domain and public road infrastructure. The monetary contribution is subject to annual CPI adjustment.

 

iii.   Public Domain works - the Developer is to carry out Public Domain Works to the total value of $1,273,736, as follows:

a.      Undergrounding of overhead powerlines ‘outside’ of the Land (estimated value of $508,839) – the Developer is to construct and undertake the undergrounding of overhead powerlines on the northern side of Forest Road between the Land and No. 458 Forest Road (Highpoint Hurstville site), with an approximate length of 111 metres, connecting with the existing underground lines and the provision of smart poles. This work is to include the re-instatement of the footpath as specified by Council. (NB this work does not include the undergrounding of powerlines within the Land which will be a condition on the development consent)

 

b.      Children’s playground and construction and installation of a publicly accessible pocket park (estimated value of $764,897) – the Developer is to construct, embellish and complete a pocket park of 1,000sqm and provide a playground within the Land; and

 

c.      Registration of easement for public access to the pocket park and public positive covenant and public positive covenant – the landowner is to register an instrument under Section 88B to create an easement in gross favour of the Council allowing for public access to and from and across the land and pocket park. The terms of the easement and public positive covenant are to ensure Council does not have any maintenance or public liability obligations.

 

iv.   Public Art - The Developer to construct and install public art to the value of $188,456 immediately within and around the site that is visible from the public domain areas of Forest Road.

 

v.    The VPA Offer and final VPA will not exclude the application of section 7.11, s7.12 and s7.24 development contributions (previously referred to as s94, s94A and s94EF contributions) to the Development.

 

vi.   The HOA agreement provides terms for the provision of bank guarantees as security and timing of the contributions and public domain works.

 

5.      The VPA Offer and value of the offer has been supported by specialist reports prepared by the Applicants consultants including Hill PDA Consulting and quantity surveyors. These reports have been assessed by Council staff and Council’s economic consultants SGS Economics in accordance with Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements as outlined in this report. The HOA has been prepared in consultation with the Applicant, Council staff and Council’s solicitors.

6.      The VPA Offer and public benefits have been assessed against Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements and are considered reasonable and satisfactory in respect of the Acceptability Test.  As the offer seeks to provide public benefits commensurate with uplift sought via the Planning Proposal in accordance with Council’s Policy, it is recommended that Council accept the Letter of Offer dated 19 June 2018 and the signed Heads of Agreement.

Background

7.      The Planning Proposal and VPA offer for 9 Gloucester Road Hurstville is one of the five (5) “legacy sites” remaining for Council to deal with. The “legacy sites” are those planning proposals which were lodged prior to the adoption of the Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements on 10 August 2016 and include the following other sites:

a.      Bing Lee Site at Forest Road Hurstville

b.      East Quarter site at Forest Road Hurstville

c.       Landmark Site at Forest road Hurstville

d.      Westfields Hurstville

8.      The Committee is to note the following table which outlines the progress of the planning proposal and VPA offer:

Table 3 – Summary of Key Events and Amendments

Date

Details

9 October 2015

Planning Proposal lodged (PP2015/0005). No VPA offer was submitted but references to a future offer were provided in the applicant’s Planning Proposal Report. The concept scheme featured:

·      23 to 60m height (5-18 storeys);

·      4.5:1 FSR;

·      450-475 residential apartments;

·      1,700sqm commercial/retail floor space;

·      300sqm community facility (subject to a future VPA offer);

·      1,000sqm publicly accessible park (subject to a future VPA offer); and

·      Public through-site link (subject to a future VPA offer).

19 November 2015

Planning Proposal was referred to the St George Design Review Panel (“DRP”). The Panel did not support the proposal and requested that the proposal be amended and referred to the Panel for further consideration.

20 January 2016

Revision no.1 was submitted in response to the DRP minutes:

·      23 to 60m height (5-18 storeys);

·      4.5:1 FSR;

·      Minimum 1:1 commercial FSR (approx. 9,250sqm);

·      347 residential apartments;

·      300sqm community facility (subject to a future VPA offer);

·      1,000sqm publicly accessible park (subject to a future VPA offer); and

·      Public through-site link (subject to a future VPA offer).

18 February 2016

Revision no.1 was referred to the DRP for consideration. The DRP supported the proposed density subject to the provision of sufficient deep soil and landscaping, and the preparation of a site-specific DCP to regulate future development.

11 March 2016

A revised Planning Proposal was lodged which formalises the amendments proposed as part of revision no.1.

10 August 2016

Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements became effective.

March 2016 to May 2017

A draft VPA offer was submitted in March 2016 by the applicant to accompany the Planning Proposal. A series of correspondences occurred between Council staff and the applicants with regards to the proposed public benefits in the VPA offer and the method of calculating the uplift. The VPA offer lodged in March 2016 and the associated negotiations on the public benefit, commenced prior to the framework set by the Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements dated August 2016.

18 May 2017

An amended Planning Proposal (revision no.2) was submitted by the applicant featuring an increased residential dwelling yield by increasing the area of 60m building height by 415sqm. The scheme featured:

·      23 to 60m height (5-18 storeys);

·      4.5:1 FSR;

·      Minimum 1:1 commercial FSR (approx. 9,250sqm);

·      Approx. 400 residential apartments;

·      Provision of a publicly accessible open space which is 800 to 1,000sqm in area;

·      Provision of a public through-site link; and

·      Public domain improvements to be provided via the VPA.

26 May to September 2017

Assessment of planning Proposal and VPA Offer

8 September 2017

An amended Planning Proposal (revision no.3) was submitted by the applicant featuring a reduced commercial/retail FSR and increased residential dwelling yield. The scheme featured:

·      23 to 60m height (5-18 storeys);

·      4.5:1 FSR;

·      Minimum 0.3:1 commercial FSR (approx. 2,775sqm);

·      476 residential apartments;

·      Provision of a publicly accessible open space which is 800 to 1,000sqm in area;

·      Provision of a public through-site link; and

·      Public domain improvements to be provided via the VPA.

5 October 2017

Revision no.3 was referred to the DRP for consideration. The Panel believed that insufficient information had been provided to support the increase in density and height, and requested that the proposal be amended and referred to the Panel for further consideration.

12 February 2018

An amended Planning Proposal (revision no.4) was submitted by the applicant featuring an extensive reconfiguration of the building envelope and footprint as well as the introduction of a 4 storey podium form on Forest Road. The reduction in building bulk resulted in a reduced FSR and apartment yield of 420 units.

1 March 2018

Revision no.4 was referred to the DRP for consideration.

The DRP recognised that the building form had been substantially modified in response to the comments of the Panel at its meeting dated 5 October 2017. As such, the proposed height and FSR were supported subject to the retention of existing significant trees.

30 May 2018

An amended Planning Proposal (revision no.5) was submitted by the applicant with consideration of the DRP comments from its meeting dated 1 March 2018.

 

19 June 2018

A final VPA offer was submitted by the applicant, with a Heads of Agreement signed by the owner of the land and lodged with Council on 3 August 2018. This offer and the resulting Heads of Agreement were negotiated in accordance with the provisions of the Georges river Council VPA Policy.

9.      The VPA negotiations commenced prior to the adoption of the Council’s Policy on 10 August 2016 and involved an assessment of the Hill PDA report (lodged by the proponent) by SGS Economics and Planning (appointed by Council). SGS advised that the Hill PDA assumptions and RLV rates were appropriate.

Planning Proposal

10.    GTB Hurstville Pty Ltd submitted a Planning Proposal request (PP2015/0005) on 9 October 2015 that seeks to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”) in relation to 9 Gloucester Road and 420-430 Forest Road, Hurstville (Lot 30 DP785238). The Planning Proposal was subsequently amended a number of times with the current revised Planning Proposal request submitted on 30 May 2018 and was considered and by the Georges River Local Planning Panel (“LPP”) at its meeting dated 21 June 2018.

 

11.    The Planning Proposal, which is subject to a separate report to this Committee Meeting of 13 August 2018, seeks to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP) as follows:

-     increase the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) control from 3.0:1 to 4.0:1 (including a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.3:1); and

-     increase the maximum building height from 23m to a range of heights of 23m, 30m, 40m, 55m and 60m.

 

12.    The proposed amendments result in a total additional floorspace of 9,240sqm across the Land, which will allow an additional 7,392sqm of residential floorspace and 1,848sqm of non-residential floorspace, above the current Hurstville LEP planning controls.

13.    The Planning Proposal architectural scheme demonstrates the following development:

-     420 residential apartments (a total of 34,190sqm of residential floor space)

-     2,770sqm of retail/commercial floor space

-     Mulit-level basement car parking

-     At grade communal open space adjacent to the publicly accessible open space

-     Rooftop communal open space on top of each building

-     Publicly accessible pedestrian underpass through site link in the undercroft of building on Forest Road

-     Publicly accessible open space of minimum 1,000sqm.

 

14.    The Planning Proposal has been assessed separately to the VPA Offer.

 

Offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement

15.    A Letter of Offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) under section 7.4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) was submitted by GTB Hurstville Pty Ltd on 19 June 2018 in association with the Planning Proposal PP2015/0005 (Version No. 5) for 9 Gloucester Road and 420-430 Forest Road, Hurstville.

16.    The Letter of Offer (see Attachment 1) offers to provide, in relation to the additional 9,240m2 of gross floor area (GFA) sought under the Planning Proposal, a cash and works-in-kind contribution to a total contribution value of $4,287,000.

17.    This contribution value is based on residual land value rates of $1,073/m2 for the additional residential GFA component (i.e. 7,392sqm) and $349/m2 for the additional commercial/retail GFA component (i.e. 1,848sqm) and calculated in accordance with the land value capture formula in Council’s Policy.

18.    The residual land value rates are based on and supported by reports prepared by the Applicants consultants, Hill PDA Consulting and report dated 12 April 2018 (Attachment 3 – Confidential). The Offer notes that the final GFA may change slightly when the LEP Amendment is made and as such the contribution value is to be recalculated at this time.

19.    The Letter of Offer does not exclude the application of s7.11, 7.12 or 7.24 contributions (previously referred to as s94, s94A and s94EF contributions) to the Development. The Offer also states that the contribution and offer will be formalised into a Heads of Agreement to be signed prior to Council endorsing the Planning Proposal.

20.    The VPA Offer and value of the offer as stated above has been supported and justified by economic reports prepared by the Applicants economic consultants. This is in accordance with Councils Policy on Planning Agreement that requires where the developer disputes the residual land values in Council’s Policy; the developer is required to provide the Council with sufficient details, costs and valuations to determine a realistic figure for the residual land values.

 

 

 

Heads of Agreement to enter into a VPA

21.    A Heads of Agreement (HOA) has been prepared based on the Letter of Offer in consultation the Applicant and Council officers. The document has been draft and reviewed by Council’s solicitors, Lindsay Taylor Lawyers and the Applicant’s solicitors. The HOA has been signed by the Applicant, GTB Hurstville Pty Ltd.

22.    The HOA contains the key commercial terms of a VPA to be entered into between GTB Hurstville and Council, if the Letter of Offer and HOA are accepted by Council. Nothing prevents the parties from requiring further terms to be included in the VPA which are consequential, incidental or supplemental to the terms in this HOA.

23.    The HOA states that “The parties agree that the terms of the HOA constitute an irrevocable offer by the Developer, pursuant to s7.7(3) of the Act, to enter into Agreement on the terms set out in this Heads of Agreement, and are binding on the parties to the extent that they constitute an irrevocable offer by the Developer pursuant to s93I(3) of the Act. The Developer does not object to the Council imposing a condition of development consent in respect of the Development requiring an Agreement on the terms set out in this Heads of Agreement to be entered into and complied with”.

24.    The HOA states that the VPA is to apply to the Land, the commencement of the LEP amendment and the Development and provides the following public benefits and provisions:

i.     Total VPA Contribution Value - estimated total contribution value of $4,287,000. This value is based on residual land value rate of $1,073 per square metre of  additional residential gross floor area and $349 per square metre of additional non-residential gross floor area (as established by a Hill PDA Consulting report, discussed below). The total contribution value is to be recalculated at the time of payment on the monetary contribution based on the actual additional GFA permissible under the LEP amendment. The total contribution value is provided as follows:

ii.    Monetary Contribution - a monetary contribution of $2,824,808 to be used at Council’s discretion for public works, including any public facilities, public domain and public road and traffic infrastructure.

The monetary contribution is to be subject to annual CPI adjustment and paid to Council within 28 days after the commencement of the LEP Amendment. A bank guarantee will be required upon execution of the VPA to the full monetary contribution amount.

iii.   Public Domain Works - The Developer is to carry out Public Domain Works to the total value of $1,273,736, as follows:

a.  Undergrounding of overhead powerlines outside the of the Land (estimated value of $508,839) – the Developer is to construct and undertake the undergrounding of overhead powerlines on the northern side of Forest Road between the Land and No. 458 Forest Road (Highpoint Hurstville site), with an approximate length of 111 metres, connecting with the existing underground lines and the provision of smart poles. This work is to include the re-instatement of the footpath as specified by Council.

 

b.  Children’s playground and construction and installation of a publicly accessible pocket park (estimated value of $764,897) – the Developer is to construct, embellish and complete a pocket park of 1,000sqm and provide a playground within the Land; and

 

c.  Registration of easement for public access to the pocket park and public positive covenant and public positive covenant – the landowner is to register an instrument under Section 88B to create an easement in gross favour of the Council allowing for public access to and from and across the land and pocket park. The terms of the easement and public positive covenant are to ensure the Council does not have any maintenance or public liability obligations.

 

Bank guarantees are to be provided to Council for the total cost of the public domain works and public art prior to the first construction certificate for the Development being issued.

All the public domain works & public art are to be completed before the issuing of any occupation certificate for the Development.

With regard to the easement, the VPA will allow the Council to compulsorily acquire the easement for $1 in the event the easement is not registered by the time it is required to be registered with further provisions providing for the Developer to reimburse the Council for any compensation the Council is required to pay in respect of the compulsory acquisition.

The easement and public positive covenants are to be registered before the issuing of any occupation certificate which, in conjunction with all earlier occupation certificates issued in respect of the Development, authorises the occupation and use of 50% or more of residential lots in the Development.

 

iv.   Public Art - The Developer is to construct and install public art to the value of $188,456 immediately within and around the site that is visible from the public domain areas of Forest Road.

v.    Development Contributions - The VPA will not exclude the application of s7.11, 7.12 and 7.24 development contributions (previously referred to as s94, s94A and S94EF contributions) to the Development.

 

Assessment of VPA Offer –Policy on Planning Agreements

25.    Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements (August 2016) sets out the principles and framework for the negotiation, assessment, preparation and implementation of VPAs.

26.    The Policy provides an Acceptability Test to assess the acceptability of a proposed planning agreement. The Letter of Offer and public benefits have been assessed in accordance with the ‘Acceptability Test’ contained in the Policy as follows:

 

Does the Planning Agreement:

Assessment

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

·    The letter of Offer and HOA do not form a ‘planning agreement’ (VPA) under the terms of the Act and Regulations.

 

·    The purpose of the Letter of Offer and HOA is to outline the general terms on which the VPA will be based. Hence at this initial stage the general terms should meet the requirements of section 7.4(2), which describes what a public purpose includes (without limitation) on which a VPA can be based. Section 7.4(2) describes a public purpose includes (without limitation) any of the following :

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Offer and key terms of the HOA fall under points (a) and (c) of the listed public purposes above. The HOA provides for a monetary contribution (to be used to Council’s discretion for public works, including public facilities, public domain and public road infrastructure) and public domain works (undergrounding of powerlines outside of the site and embellishment of a publicly accessible park and through site links) and public art.

 

Additionally, the Letter of Offer states that “the final voluntary planning agreement will contain provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979”.

 

·    Other legislative requirements for VPAs include, but are not limited to, securities, dispute mechanisms, the application of section 7.11 and 7.12 development contributions (previously section 94 and section 94A).

 

In this case, the Letter of Offer states that the VPA would not exclude the application of s7.11, 7.12 or 7.24 contributions. As such any future development application would be levied contributions in accordance with the relevant development contributions plan.

 

·      In respect of securities, the HOA provides that a bank guarantee is to be provided to Council at the time the VPA is executed for the full amount of the monetary contribution ($2,824,808). Bank guarantees are also to be provided to Council for the public domain works and public art prior to the first construction certificate for the Development being issued, in the amount of the sum of the agreed estimated values of those Works.

 

·    In respect of dispute mechanisms, the HOA provides for expert determination for matters for which can be determined and mediation for other matters.

 

·    Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements template for Planning Agreements provides standard clauses in this regard and also requires the VPA be registered on the title of the Developer’s Land.

 

·    A further statutory requirement is the public notification of the proposed Planning Agreement, once both parties have agreed on its final form. The minimum exhibition period under the EP&A Act is 28 days.

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

·    Clause 2.3 of the Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements contains the following eleven (11) principles on the Council’s use of planning agreements:

(a) “planning decisions must not be bought or sold through planning agreements;

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

(c)  the Council will not use planning agreements for any purpose other than a proper planning purpose;

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

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

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

(g) the Council will not seek benefits under a planning agreement that are wholly unrelated to the development;

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

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

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

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

 

·    Taking the above principles into consideration, Council staff have negotiated and assessed the terms of the Letter of Offer and terms of the HOA.

 

·    The Developer will only become obliged to provide the public benefits outlined in the Offer and HOA should the proposed amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012 outlined in the Planning Proposal be gazetted.

 

·    The monetary contribution, public domain works and public art will provide public benefits that are directly in relation to ameliorating impacts of the development brought about by the Planning Proposal and future Development.

 

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

·    As discussed under item ‘(a)’ above, the proposed public benefits outlined in the HOA fall under the description of a public purpose of the Act.

 

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

·    The public benefits under the Offer and HOA bear relationship to the development, and also provide benefit to the greater public in relation to the following:

o Provide for public facilities including public infrastructure, amenities and services which includes the provision of key traffic and road infrastructure in the Hurstville City Centre.

o Public domain works including access to open space and play equipment and improved infrastructure services.

o Public art work

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

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

 

·    The Planning Proposal seeks to increase the FSR and building heights under Hurstville LEP. As such the public benefits contained in the Letter of Offer and HOA provide further mitigation against the impact of the Development commensurate with the uplift sought in the planning controls. As such they can be reasonably viewed to be meeting the general values and expectation of the public.

 

·    As outlined below, the Hill PDA Consulting report and peer review by SGS, provide support and justification for the contribution value of the VPA offer.

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

 

·    The HOA provides timelines by which the public benefits are to be delivered and requirements for the provision of bank guarantees as for security for the public benefits. These will be contained in the VPA.

 

·    Section 7.4(g) of the Act requires a Planning Agreement to contain suitable means of enforcement in the form of a bond or bank guarantee in the event of a breach of the VPA by the developer. The terms of the Act will be meet in the drafting of the VPA.

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

·    As per item ‘(e)’ above, the public benefits to be provided under the VPA will enhance the public domain, facilities and infrastructure and provide some amelioration against the impacts of the development. In terms of avoiding environmental harm, this is addressed by the Development Consent.

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

The quantum of the public benefit offered in the Letter of Offer is considered to be reasonable for the following reasons and as outlined in the section below:

·    The proposed VPA will provide a total contribution of $4,287,000 which is based on residual land values established by specialist economic consultants and in accordance with the land value capture formula in Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements.

·    The contributions are over and above the standard 7.11 or 7.12 development contributions (previously referred to as s94 or s94A contributions).

 

Securities and Timing of Works

27.    Section 7.4(g) of the EP&A Act requires a Planning Agreement to contain suitable means of enforcement in the form of a bond or bank guarantee in the event of a breach of the VPA by the developer. As such the HOA provides the following:

 

Public Benefit

Security

Timing of Provision

Monetary contribution

A bank guarantee is required upon execution of the planning agreement to full amount of the contribution.

To be paid to Council within 28 days after the commencement of the LEP Amendment

Public Domain Works

Bank guarantees are to be provided to Council for the public domain works and public art prior to the first construction certificate for the Development being issued, in the amount of the sum of the agreed estimated values of those Works

All the public domain works (ie undergrounding of overhead powerlines outside of the Land, embellishment of pocket park & playground & public art) are to be completed before the issuing of the any occupation certificate for the Development.

Public Art

As per public domain works.

As per public domain works.

Easement for Public access to the park and through site links

The VPA will allow the Council to compulsorily acquire the easement for $1 in the event the easement is not registered by the time it is required to be registered with further provisions providing for the Developer to reimburse the Council for any compensation the Council is required to pay in respect of the compulsory acquisition

The easement and public positive covenants are to be registered before the issuing of any occupation certificate which, in conjunction with all earlier occupation certificates issued in respect of the Development, authorises the occupation and use of 50% or more of residential lots in the Development.

 

 

28.    Additionally the VPA is to be registered on the title of the land following execution. The Council may lodge a caveat on the title of the Land or any part of it to which the charge applies and on which the Agreement is not registered.

 

Land Value Capture Assessment

29.    Council’s Policy on Planning Agreement, 2016 provides that where a planning proposal is likely to result in an increase in value of the unimproved land the subject of the planning proposal, Council will determine appropriate contributions by applying land value capture or use an alternative mechanism.

30.    For the purpose of the Policy, land value capture is a public financing mechanism by which Council captures for the community’s benefit a share of the unearned increment to developers in land value increases arising from an instrument change which facilitates development, plus any associated or consequential changes to any DCP.

31.    The Policy states that “Land Value Capture is distinguishable from development contribution mechanisms under s94 and s94A of the Act in that it is focused on value sharing between the Council on behalf of the community and developers, rather than on financing the costs to the Council of addressing particular impacts of development such as the need for public open space and recreation facilities, community facilities, road improvements and traffic management.”

32.    The Policy provides a formula for calculating a contribution associated with land value capture, by assessing the residual land value (RLV) of a site under the existing and proposed controls. The Policy then seeks to capture 50% of the increase in the RLV for public benefits.

                

Where:

C                =       Monetary Contribution or Value of Public Benefits Package

RLV(2)      =       Residual land value of a site following either and instrument change, plus associated of consequential changes to any Hurstville or Kogarah Development Control Plan(s), applying to the site, or the consent to development on the site allowing an exceedance of the development standards or other planning controls, which in both cases allow intensified development.

RLV(1)      =       Residual value of a site under the existing LEP and Hurstville or Kogarah Development Control Plan provisions.

33.    The Policy provides average residual land values for precincts in the Hurstville City Centre. These rates are averages and are subject to changes in the property market. The subject site is within the ‘Hurstville West Precinct’ which has an average residential RLV of $2,500 per sqm, retail RLV of $2,000 per sqm and commercial RLV of $1,500 per sqm.

34.    As the RLVs in the Policy are averages and where prepared at a given point in time, the Policy states in section 5.15 that if a developer does not agree with the RLVs in the Policy then:

the developer will be required to provide the Council with sufficient details, costs and valuations to determine a realistic figure for the residual land values under the existing and altered statutory planning controls, or resulting from the exceedance of development standards/planning controls.

 

Such documentation provided to the Council is to be verified by a certified practising valuer or a qualified and experienced land economist, or both if necessary. The Council’s staff responsible for the planning agreement may engage an independent land economist and other specialists to review information provided by the developer. Costs incurred by the Council will be met by the developer”.

 

35.    As outlined above, the Developer engaged land economists, Hill PDA Consulting, to assess the RLV for site. Hill PDA undertook a number of assessments of the site over the period of time that revisions to the Planning Proposal were made. The final report “Assessment of Value Uplift for the purpose of the VPA in relation to 9 Gloucester Road, Hurstville”, dated 12 April 2018  (see Attachment 3 – Confidential Report) and additional supporting documentation provided on 29 May 2018 provides justification and an assessment of the development and local market and recommends residential residual land values of $1,073 per square metre of additional residential GFA and non-residential residual land value rate of $349 per square metre of additional non-residential commercial GFA for the Development.

 

36.    Based on Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements Policy land value capture formula, the application of the Hill PDA RLV rates results in a total contribution value of approximately $4,287,000 (which reflects 50% of the land value uplift) for the additional residential GFA of 7,392sqm and non-residential GFA of 1,848sqm.

 

37.    Council engaged SGS Economics and Planning to undertake an independent peer review of the Hill PDA Consulting assessment reports over the course of the Planning Proposal revisions and of the final report referred to above. SGS Economics advised Council that they support the assumptions and methods applied by Hill PDA and that the residual land value rates are considered appropriate. SGS note that they are satisfied with the justification Hill PDA provided for the decrease in residential RLV from earlier reports.

 

38.    The Council is to note that there has been a downturn in the property market which has resulted in a reduction of the residual land value (RLV) for this site. In November 2017 the residual land value for residential was $1,500.00/m2. In April 2018 it was reduced to $1,073/m2 – a reduction of $427.00/m2.

 

39.    The value of public benefits offered include the following contributions and public works, in addition to public access to the pocket park of 1,000sqm and through site link connecting Forest Road and Gloucester Road:

·     Monetary Contributions:                                                                         $2,824,808

·     Public Domain Works – undergrounding of powerlines:                             $508,839

·     Public Domain Works – embellishment of park & playground:          $764,897

·     Public Art;                                                                                                             $188,456

       Total                                                                                                                    $4,287,000

40.    In summary the Applicants Hill PDA Consulting report and Council’s SGS Economics peer review provide a current analysis and justification for the residual land values for the subject site. Each site has unique residual land values reflecting the planning controls, site specific issues, neighbourhood amenity, access to local infrastructure and services, and as such there is variation of the RLV rates between sites and across the city centre. On this basis the offer is considered reasonable and to satisfy the Land Value Capture component of Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements. The Offer is consistent with Council’s Policy and is considered commensurate with the development uplift being sought via the Planning Proposal. 

Development Contributions

41.    The estimated development contributions under the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan (as at the June Quarter 2018) for a development comprising 420 residential units (158 x 1 bedroom units, 209 x 2 bedroom units and 53 x 3 bedroom units) and 2,770sqm of non-residential floor space is $5,728,727.

42.    As noted above the VPA contributions would be in addition to the developer contributions under s7.11, s7.12 or 7.24.

Next Steps

43.    Should Council endorse and accept the offer to enter into a VPA and terms of the Heads of Agreement and provide delegations to the General Manager, and also accept the Planning Proposal as reported separately, the following steps will need to occur:

a.      The General Manager negotiate the final terms and enter into the Heads of Agreement,

b.      The General Manager negotiate and finalise the draft Planning Agreement with the Developer. Council’s solicitor will prepare the draft documentation in accordance with Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements and EP&A Act,

c.       Once agreement is reached on the draft VPA between the parties, the draft VPA will be publicly notified for a minimum of 28 days in accordance with the EP&A Act and Regulation in conjunction with the Planning Proposal (subject to the Gateway being issued).

d.      Following public notification, should no submissions be received objecting the VPA, the General Manager, with be delegated authority to authorise minor changes to the draft VPA (provided that those changes do not diminish the value or nature of the public benefits to be delivered) will execute the VPA on behalf of Council.

e.      Once entered into, the VPA is registered on the title of the land.

44.    The VPA Offer relates to the Planning Proposal 2015/0005. The VPA will only proceed with the Planning Proposal process and exhibition of the VPA is subject to a Gateway Determination being issued by the Department of Planning.

 

Financial Implications

45.    Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements states that Council will generally require a planning agreement to make provision for payment by the developer of Council’s costs of negotiating, preparing, and executing the planning agreement, as well as monitoring, enforcing and administering the planning agreement. The draft VPA will make provision for Council’s reasonable costs to be meet by the Developer.

 

Risk Implications

46.    Enterprise risk/s identified and management process applied.

 

47.    As noted above, the VPA Offer is an offer under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Heads of Agreement, once signed, is a binding agreement between the Parties.

 

 

Community Engagement

48.    Public notice of the draft VPA will be conducted should Council endorse and accept the Letter of Offer to enter in to a VPA and the Planning Proposal and also subject to a Gateway being issued by the Department of Planning. The draft VPA will be on public notice for not less than 28 days before the agreement is entered into, in accordance with the EP&A Regulation. Copies of the draft VPA will be made available on Council’s website, Hurstville and Kogarah Libraries during this period. 

 

File Reference

TRIM File: 16/595 and SF18/1785

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Letter of Offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (relating to Planning Proposal PP2015-0005) from GTB Hurstville Pty Ltd - 19 June 2018

Attachment 2

Heads of Agreement - 9 Gloucestor Road Hurstville

 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV023-18             Offer to Enter Into a Voluntary Planning Agreement in Association with Planning Proposal (PP2015/0005) and Subsequent  Development Application for 9 Gloucester Road and 420-430 Forest Road, Hurstville

[Appendix 1]          Letter of Offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (relating to Planning Proposal PP2015-0005) from GTB Hurstville Pty Ltd - 19 June 2018

 

 

Page 157

 


 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV023-18             Offer to Enter Into a Voluntary Planning Agreement in Association with Planning Proposal (PP2015/0005) and Subsequent  Development Application for 9 Gloucester Road and 420-430 Forest Road, Hurstville

[Appendix 2]          Heads of Agreement - 9 Gloucestor Road Hurstville

 

 

Page 159

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV023-18             Offer to Enter Into a Voluntary Planning Agreement in Association with Planning Proposal (PP2015/0005) and Subsequent  Development Application for 9 Gloucester Road and 420-430 Forest Road, Hurstville

[Appendix 2]          Heads of Agreement - 9 Gloucestor Road Hurstville

 

 

Page 175

 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV023-18             Offer to Enter Into a Voluntary Planning Agreement in Association with Planning Proposal (PP2015/0005) and Subsequent  Development Application for 9 Gloucester Road and 420-430 Forest Road, Hurstville

[Appendix 2]          Heads of Agreement - 9 Gloucestor Road Hurstville

 

 

Page 177

 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV023-18             Offer to Enter Into a Voluntary Planning Agreement in Association with Planning Proposal (PP2015/0005) and Subsequent  Development Application for 9 Gloucester Road and 420-430 Forest Road, Hurstville

[Appendix 2]          Heads of Agreement - 9 Gloucestor Road Hurstville

 

 

Page 180

 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV023-18             Offer to Enter Into a Voluntary Planning Agreement in Association with Planning Proposal (PP2015/0005) and Subsequent  Development Application for 9 Gloucester Road and 420-430 Forest Road, Hurstville

[Appendix 2]          Heads of Agreement - 9 Gloucestor Road Hurstville

 

 

Page 181

 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV023-18             Offer to Enter Into a Voluntary Planning Agreement in Association with Planning Proposal (PP2015/0005) and Subsequent  Development Application for 9 Gloucester Road and 420-430 Forest Road, Hurstville

[Appendix 2]          Heads of Agreement - 9 Gloucestor Road Hurstville

 

 

Page 182

 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV023-18             Offer to Enter Into a Voluntary Planning Agreement in Association with Planning Proposal (PP2015/0005) and Subsequent  Development Application for 9 Gloucester Road and 420-430 Forest Road, Hurstville

[Appendix 2]          Heads of Agreement - 9 Gloucestor Road Hurstville

 

 

Page 183

 


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 August 2018                      Page 185

Item:                   ENV024-18        Food Premises Inspection Fees and Charges for School Canteens 

Author:              Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

(a)     That Registered Charities and school canteens run by Not for Profit associations be exempt from paying Annual Food Premises Inspection Fees.

 

(b)     That a note be added to the relevant Food Premises Inspection Fee categories in Georges River Council’s adopted Fees and Charges stating; “Registered Charities and Not for Profit School Canteens are Exempt”.

 

(c)     That in accordance with Section 610(f)(3)(a) Local Government Act, 1993, the waiving of food premises inspection fees for Registered Charities and school canteens run by Not for Profit associations be placed on public exhibition for a period of at least 28 days allowing the community to comment on the proposal.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      There are currently 40 school canteens registered as a food premises with Council’s Environmental Health section. Food premises inspections are carried out at these canteens on a financial year basis to ensure compliance with the Food Act, 2003.

 

2.      Each inspection incurs an inspection fee of $175 and an annual administration charge of $125 as per Council’s adopted fees and charges. In addition, if required, re-inspections are carried out at a rate of $80 per hour.

 

3.      A number of canteens operated by not for-profit Parents and Citizens Associations (P&C) have made representations to Council to consider waiving food inspection fees and the annual administration charge to decrease their operating costs.

 

Background

4.      Routine food inspections are carried out on all retail food premises by Council’s Environmental Health Officers on a financial basis as required by a partnership agreement with the NSW Food Authority.  Retail food premises, including school canteens, are subject to at least one inspection per financial year with additional re-inspections conducted where necessary. 

 

5.      There are currently 40 registered school canteens and of those 25 are P&C operated. Council has received representation from a number of P&C operated canteens requesting consideration be given to waive fees and charges relating to food inspections as revenue raised from these canteens is usually filtered back into the school towards maintenance or to fund educational resources.

 

6.      P&C operated canteens in the former Kogarah were not charged food inspection fees and the annual administration charge however, premises in the former Hurstville were charged these fees and charges.  The proposal to waive fees and charges for all P&C operated canteens within the LGA will result in the harmonisation of these fees.

 

Financial implications

7.      All school canteen operators are charged a base amount of $300 per financial year.  This is made up of $175 for the financial year inspection and $125 for an annual administration charge.  Should a re-inspection be required, this is charged at $80 per hour.

 

8.      Based on current registration numbers, waiving food inspection related fees and charges for P&C operated canteens will reduce Council’s income by $7,500 per financial year. This income reduction will be offset via new food premises registrations. Over the past financial year an additional 25 new food premises registered with Council which will cover the income lost from waiving fees for P&C operated school canteens.

 

9.      While Council will continue to charge food inspection fee and annual administration charge to school canteens operated by commercial food operators the costs associated with these fees and charges can be claimed as a deduction as legitimate cost of business.

 

10.    It is proposed that a note be added to the relevant Food Premises Inspection Fee categories in Georges River Council’s adopted Fees and Charges stating; “Registered Charities and Not for Profit School Canteens are Exempt”.

 

Risk Implications

11.    There will be no increased risk should fees and charges be waived as Environmental Health Officers will continue to carry out regulatory inspections as required under the Food Act 2003.

 

12.    Enforcement actions will still be undertaken for non-compliance with the Food Act 2003.  This may be in the form of penalty notices, Improvement Notices or Prohibition Orders as required under the Food Act 2003.

 

Community Engagement

13.    No community consultation is required.

 

File Reference

17/1831 and D18/141256

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 August 2018                      Page 187

Item:                   ENV025-18        Dockless Bike Share 

Author:              Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council note the information provided in this report and that a further report be provided following the finalisation of the NSW Governments enforceable code of conduct for bike share operators.

 

 

Background

1.      On 26 March 2018, Council resolved:

 

“That the General Manager prepare a report to Council on the operation of dockless bike share schemes in the Georges River local government area including:

 

(a)     options available for the impounding of abandoned bicycles;

(b)     the current approach being taken by Sydney metropolitan councils towards managing the adverse impacts of dockless bicycle schemes; and

(c)     a summary of the various legal and planning advices that have been obtained by councils on this matter.”

 

2.      This report provides an update of actions at a local and state level to address the matters raised in the resolution.

 

Recent History

3.      At the end of November 2017, Inner West Council in response to community concern regarding share bikes hosted a Mayors’ conference to discuss Dockless Bike Share Schemes (DBSS) also in attendance were Operators, Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and Police. The outcome of the forum was that a regional, preferably metropolitan-wide, response should be developed, comprising a set of agreed guidelines.

 

4.      The six inner city councils with the most urgent need to respond to the problems (Canada Bay, Inner West, Sydney, Randwick, Waverley and Woollahra) developed a set of guidelines that were published in December 2017 (attached).

 

5.      The guidelines seek to formalise the operation of DBSS, however are silent on requirements for the approval of the use and for infrastructure (designated parking areas) placed on public land.  The guidelines address issues of safety; correct parking of bikes; GPS tracking and monitoring of bikes; reporting and notification system; insurance requirements; data sharing; a hierarchy of response times for faulty, damaged or bikes parked in dangerous locations and a process for the impounding of bikes.

 

 

 

 

6.      While these guidelines were being implemented at a sub-regional level Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) along with representatives of the Office of Local Government, Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils and Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils met with TfNSW to advocate for the NSW Government to regulate via a state-wide approach.

 

7.      On the 21 May 2018, the NSW Government announced that it will “give Councils enhanced powers to deal with dumped share bikes through an enforceable code of practice”, the code of practice being based on the guidelines developed by the six (6) inner city councils. At the time of the announcement the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure’s Office advised that there will be a consultation process beginning in June 2018, with the final code to be considered by Parliament later this year.  This consultation has not as yet commenced.

 

8.      The proposed code of practice would set minimum standards for operators of DBSS, including safety standards, appropriate bike parking, user education, data sharing and service levels for reporting and responding to complaints.

 

9.      It is also proposed to require operators and users to use designated parking areas where they are provided, helping to address issues of bike build ups at the bottom of hills and major events. Controls are also proposed to be included to ensure riders park share bikes responsibly with options for Rangers to issue fines for non-compliance.

 

10.    The future of DBSS in Sydney is uncertain with the recent announcement that operators Reddy Go and Ofo Cycles will be ceasing operating within Australia by the end of August 2018.  Reddy Co has sited regulatory requirements and restructuring as reasons for its decision while Ofo Cycles has indicated that they will be focusing on priority markets overseas.  The future of another operator, OBike is also doubtful as its parent company has recently moved into liquidation.  These developments should see a reduction in associated issues with DBSS as there may be only one (1) operator Mobike remaining in Sydney.

 

Legal Advice and Regulation/Enforcement

11.    A number of councils, including Randwick and Waverly Councils, have sought legal advice on DBSS. The advice received was provided to SSROC who have provided the following summary:

 

1.      Councils may use the Impounding Act 1993 to impound bicycles that are considered to have been abandoned or left unattended.

 

2.      Land use under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EPA Act) has been discussed and two different opinions provided:

 

a)      For the periods between hire and while not actively reserved, the DBSS bicycles are using land in a way that amounts to development for the purposes of the EPA Act, implying that DBSS operators may be required to make a Development Application for the use of land under the EPA Act specifically for the purposes of parking their bicycles whilst not in use or being reserved.


 

 

b)      The other advice suggests that due to the transient and inconsistent nature of the use of land to park unused and unreserved bicycles, the EPA Act is inapt to address this situation. A relevant case was cited whereby a council tried to apply the EPA Act in this manner to food trucks, and it was ruled as not applicable. It was suggested that there would be legal and practical difficulties in applying the EPA Act to the use of land in this case.

 

3.      Other options for regulation were investigated, however each of these investigations concluded that councils lacked power to act, except in circumstances where an officer observed a DBSS user or member of the public committing an offence directly, such as littering or polluting by damaging or dumping a DBSS bicycle, or in the case of roads and traffic offences.

 

4.      In relation to the Local Government Act 1993 (the LGA Act):

 

a)      It was suggested that Section 68 could be amended to allow Item 10 in Part F to regulate the operations of DBSS, i.e. similar to the operation of a public car park.

 

b)      It was further suggested that councils may consider the use of notices or signs as set out in s. 632 and 670 of the LGA Act to prohibit the use of particular public land for DBSS.”

 

Note:  Part F of Section 68 lists activities in Parts 1-10 that require Council approval under the LGA Act. 

 

12.    While the advice regarding Land Use Approval may not be consistent, a similarity between permanent structures associated with footpath dining and designated parking areas for DBSS exists, Council currently issues and approvals for the commercial use of Council’s footpaths and also in the case of footpath dining a lease agreement.  Where a permanent structure is provided in association with the use of the footpath for outdoor dining such as an umbrella or similar shade structure a Development Application is required.  The placement of a permanent structure for the DBSS designated parking area would be a similar situation and to be consistent with Council’s existing practices should be subject to a Development Application.  The use could also be controlled as part of the conditions of consent and would be the most suitable method to regulate the use of Council’s land by DBSS.  This approach would be supported by the legal advice provided above under 2(a).  To-date Council has not been approached by any DBSS operator, for approval however it is recommended that all operators of DBSS within the LGA must have development consent where permanent designated parking is to be installed.

 

13.    As noted above the current approach Councils have to deal with bikes left in public places (while not in use) is via the Impounding Act as the approval mechanisms for the storage of the unattended bikes is still unclear under the EPA Act.

 

Current Approach at Georges River to DBSS

14.    Whilst Council has impounded a number of DBSS bicycles under the terms of the Impounding Act the LGA has not been as impacted upon by DBSS to the extent of the six inner-City Councils that operate under the developed guidelines. It is proposed therefore that Council continue to impound abandoned or unattended DBSS bicycles under the Impounding Act until such time as the NSW Government finalises its enforceable code of practice.

 

Next Steps

15.    Council staff will to take part in the upcoming consultation on the draft Enforceable Code of Practice and will prepare a further report to Council on the draft Code of Practice and recommended actions for controlling and regulating DBSS.

 

Financial Implications

16.    Within budget allocation.

 

Risk Implications

17.    Based on the recent reduction in the of number of DBSS operators and the limited number of bikes being operated within the LGA the risk to members of the public associated with un-actioned abandoned bicycles is somewhat diminished.  However, Council’s Rangers will continue to patrol the LGA and will impound any unattended bicycles to mitigate potential risk to Council.

 

Community Engagement

18.    Not applicable.

 

File Reference

17/1831 and D18/144122

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Inner-Sydney-Bike-Share-Guidelines for Dockless Bikes

 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV025-18             Dockless Bike Share

[Appendix 1]          Inner-Sydney-Bike-Share-Guidelines for Dockless Bikes

 

 

Page 191

 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 August 2018                      Page 196

Item:                   ENV026-18        Annual School Zone Safety Program 

Author:              Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council received and note the report on “Annual School Safety Program”.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

1.      On 27 November 2017 Council resolved:

 

(a)     That Council introduce an annual School Zone Safety program for all primary and special schools located within the Georges River area in 2018, and high schools by request.

 

(b)     That the program incorporate ongoing community engagement, including intensive engagement at the commencement of each school term with school Principals and staff, students, parents and carers to inform the community of the purpose, rules and regulations relating to school zones and the management of school drop-off/pick-up zones.

 

(c)     That the program include various components such as educational, community advertising/engagement, minor traffic works (where approved by the Local Traffic Committee) and enforcement components.

 

(d)     That the General Manager be authorised to fund the full annual cost of the program (including any additional staffing costs) from the program’s enforcement revenue.

(e)     That the General Manager provide a report detailing the progress, achievements and community response to the program following the first six months of operation.

 

Background

 

2.      The Georges River Local Government Area (LGA) contains a total of 40 schools, comprising primary, special and secondary schools with associated School Zones.

 

3.      Poor driver behaviour is a key contributing factor to child safety in school zones and Council has a responsibility to promote safe parking practices while deterring illegal and unsafe parking through education, community advertising /engagement, minor traffic works and enforcement.

 

4.      At the time of declaration of Georges River Council, both former councils were conducting patrols of each school in their area based on a risk-based approach to ensure the welfare and safety of school children and other pedestrians during school starting and finishing times.

 

New School Zone Parking Safety Program

 

5.      As part of service harmonisation, a city-wide roster for Parking Officers has been developed and implemented in 2018 that will ensure that every school zone in the LGA is patrolled at least once each quarter. Additional patrols will be provided to high risk schools based on the frequency of customer service requests and on-site observations by Parking Officers.

 

6.      Due to the high number of customer service requests in relation to parking issues within school zones, (61 between February and May this year), it was identified that safety issues were present at all schools, therefore patrols under the Program will be conducted at both primary and secondary schools.

 

7.      Typically, the School Zone Parking Safety Program would commence in January each year with Council sending a letter to all schools advising of Council’s Program. Included in the letter would be a link to Council’s educational brochure based on the successful former Kogarah ‘Know Your School Zones’ brochure (attached) for inclusion into the school’s newsletter, website and other forums so to pass the information onto parents/students.

 

8.      This information would then be followed up by Council’s Parking Officers providing a valuable visible presence in high risk school zones throughout the first week of term to educate parents on correct parking practices. Following the first week of term, Councils approach would move from predominantly an educational approach (except in dangerous situations) to predominantly an enforcement approach.

 

9.      Unfortunately, this year the above approach was not practical as changes proposed to be made to Road Rules 2014 were implemented in the first half of this year that included additional penalties for school zone offences. As such, the release of community advertising material to schools has been held off until these changes are fully implemented and CPI adjustments made to fine amounts effective from 1 July. This will help ensure that the most current and accurate information is provided to the community. Therefore, while various components of Council’s Program have been implemented at the commencement of 2018, the printed media component of the community education program will not commence until school Term 3.

 

10.    To date, Council’s Parking Officers have as part of their regular school zone parking patrols engaged directly with parents and teachers to inform them of the purpose, rules and regulations relating to school zones and the management of school drop-off/pick-up zones.

 

11.    While education provides an important component to the school safety programme the issuing of penalty notices is a key deterrent to any driver who unfortunately chooses to park illegally. School zone offences attract higher penalties under the Road Rules than general parking offences as well as in some cases demerit points.

 

12.    Council’s Parking Officers often observe situations that are best resolved by new or replacement signage or via an engineered traffic solution and in such cases these matters would be referred for investigation by Council’s Traffic Engineers Team prior to reporting to Council’s Traffic Committee.


 

 

Financial Implications

 

13.   During the 2017/2018 financial year Council’s Rangers issued penalty notices with a ticketed value of $162,853.00 for offences committed within school zones. This income will cover the costs of the program which are estimated to be approximately $160,000 per annum.

 

Risk Implications

 

14.    The implementation of this program in a coordinated and consistent manner will provide a safer environment around school zones which is anticipated to reduce the risk of accident of injury to the community and Council staff.

 

Community Engagement

 

15.    The community and participating schools will be advised of the Annual School Zone Safety Program as outlined in this report.

 

File Reference

 

17/1831 and D18/144144.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Draft School Zone Safety brochure

 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV026-18             Annual School Zone Safety Program

[Appendix 1]          Draft School Zone Safety brochure

 

 

Page 199

 


 


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 August 2018                      Page 201

Item:                   ENV027-18        Tender - Mattress Collection Tender SSROC T2017-09 for the collection and processing of mattresses 

Author:              Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

a)   That Council under Section 178 (1) (a) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, accept the tenders that are recommended by Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) as the most advantageous tenders for SSROC T2017-09 as per the confididential attachments to this report.

 

b)   That Council acknowledge by accepting the tender a framework is provided to commence negoitiatons to enter into a contract with the preferred successful tenderers for the collection and processing of mattresses.

 

c)   That Council provide delegated authority to the General Manager to sign the Commissioning Agreements with the preferred successful tenderers.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

1.    The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the results of the tender process completed by Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) in accordance with Part 3, Division 1, Section 55 and Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993, for the Mattress Collection and Processing.  The report seeks a resolution from Council to accept the tenders recommended by SSROC and to enter into Commissioning Agreements with the preferred successful tenderers.

 

2.    This report explains the background for Council to decide if it wishes to enter into Commissioning Agreements with the preferred successful tenderers. The report also details the tender process supporting the recommendation for Council’s consideration, with the confidential matters being within the confidential attachments.

 

Background

 

3.    Council at its meeting on 18 December 2017, adopted the minutes of the Finance and Governance Committee meeting held on 11 December 2017 (FIN 396-17 Waste Services Tender) and resolved:

 

       (a)       That Council invite tenders for the following:

i.     General Waste Processing (former Hurstville City Council LGA)

ii.    Green Waste Processing for the Georges River Council LGA as an optional component of the General Waste Processing tender

iii.   Clean up Processing for the Georges River Council LGA (in conjunction with SSROC)

iv.   Mattress collection and processing for the Georges River Council LGA (in conjunction with SSROC).

v.    Park and Litter bin collection and processing (former Kogarah City Council LGA).

 

(b)       That the General Manager be given delegated authority to accept the Tenders listed in a).

 

4.    Recommendations (a) i, (a) ii. and (a) v of the above resolution were actioned via a report to Council at its meeting on 28 May 2018 where tenders were awarded for General Waste Processing (former Hurstville City Council LGA), Green Waste Processing for the Georges River Council LGA and Park and Litter bin collection and processing (former Kogarah City Council LGA).

 

5.    This report provides an update on the progress of recommendation (a) iii and (a) iv and seeks a recommendation to enter into commissioning agreements with two (2) tenderers to provide mattress collection and processing as a result of a tender process hosted by SSROC as required by recommendations (a) iv.

 

Clean up Processing Tender

 

6.   Considerable work has been undertaken by the various member Councils in developing the technical and legal requirements for the Request for Tender for Clean–up Processing. It was agreed by the Participating Councils to apply to the ACCC for approval to jointly tender as a group of Councils.  Seeking this approval will extend the current Tender advertising timeframe.

 

7.   The Request for Tender for Clean–up Processing is expected to be advertised towards the end of November 2018 and a future report is anticipated to be provided to Council in February 2019 to consider the outcome of the tender evaluation.

 

Mattress Collection and Processing Tender

 

8.    Currently mattress collection occurs as part of the kerbside clean-up collection twice yearly.  In the former Kogarah, mattresses are collected separately to the other clean up materials and processed by Soft Landings (formerly TIC). The former Hurstville conducted a trial using Better Waste Recycling funding from 1 July 2017 to 30 December 2017 where mattresses were separated from the clean-up materials for collection and processing by Soft Landings (formerly TIC). Due to the number of missed mattresses during the trial, Hurstville returned to the process where mattresses were being collected as part of the clean-up service with all materials going to landfill.

 

9.    As part of the SSROC Supply Management Group’s work plan for 2017, the need to re-tender for the Provision of Mattress Collection and Processing Services was identified as the existing regional contract was due to expire in September 2017.

 

10.  The joint SSROC T2017-09 Request for Tender for Mattress Collection and Processing was conducted in accordance with the Department of Local Government’s Tendering Guidelines, the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.


 

 

11.  The initial contract term was offered for three (3) years subject to satisfactory performance, which will be determined by member Councils and SSROC, with an option to extend the contract for up to a further (2) years (via a 1 plus 1-year option). The collection method for mattresses will change slightly from existing arrangements to create a more efficient collection service.  Residents will be asked to put their mattresses out for collection separate to the other clean up materials instead of being included with the other clean up materials.  Using this method, the mattress collectors will be able to easily access the mattresses instead of waiting for the removal of the other clean up materials.

 

12.  The participating member Councils on SSROC T2017-09 Request for Tender for Mattress Collection and Processing were as follows:

 

•     Bayside Council;

•     Burwood Council;

•     Canterbury-Bankstown Council;

•     City of Sydney;

•     Georges River Council;

•     Inner West Council;

•     Randwick City Council; and

•     Sutherland Shire Council.

 

13.    Tenders for the “Provision of Mattress Collection and Processing Services” were advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Telegraph, SSROC website and the tendersonline.com.au/ssc website on Tuesday 28 November, 2017. Tenders closed at 10:00am Wednesday 17 January 2018.

 

14.    Two (2) submissions were received and after evaluation by the participating member Councils it was recommended to reject the tenders as both submissions were non-conforming and enter into negotiations with each of the tenderers.

 

15.    After negotiations, both tenderers agreed to provide improved services by providing flexibility of service in that mattresses would be collected from: outside properties as part of the kerbside collection; from a Council depot/facility and dropped off at the tenderers depot.

 

16.    One of the key tender requirements was demonstrated environmental outcomes, with two (2) options being offered:

 

·    Mattress Recycling – mattresses are broken down into the various recycling components.

 

·    Mattress Reuse and Recycling – mattresses considered suitable for reuse are inspected, peeled back, sanitized and provided with new dust covers. Refurbished mattresses are given to charities such as The Salvation Army, St. Vincent de Paul, Settlements Services International and Red Cross. Where the mattress cannot be reused they are broken down into the various recycling components.

 

17.    The outcomes of the tender negotiations and the agreed way forward was that SSROC member Councils accept the tender (as amended).  The services/pricing provided by the tenderers will provide a framework to enable each member Council to negotiate with the preferred successful tenderers.

 

18.    As a participating member Council on SSROC T2017-09 Request for Tender for Mattress Collection and Processing, Council along with all other participating member Councils is required to adopt the SSROC recommendation for the master tender. As each member Council’s requirements for mattress collection will be unique to their specific LGA, each Council has the freedom to decide which of the successful tenderer(s) they will engage and how they will provide the service. Each Council will then sign individual commissioning agreements with their preferred successful tenderers.

 

Other Staff Comments

 

19.    To increase the efficiency and uptake of the mattress collection service, Council will launch an education campaign through Councils website, My services and through the regular clean-up collection leaflet drop and Facebook.  Council’s focus will be to encourage residents to place their mattress next to their kerb side clean up materials. This will reduce missed collections and ensure mattresses are collected in a timelier manner.

 

Next Steps

 

20.    Council staff will commence negotiations with the preferred successful tenderers to identify the tenderer that best meets Councils specific needs and therefore the most advantageous tender.  Following this process it is recommended that the General Manager sign a Commissioning Agreement with the preferred successful tenderers.

 

Public Consultation

 

21.    Not applicable.

 

Conclusion

 

22.    The procurement process has complied with the relevant legislative requirements for tendering and with Council’s Procurement Policy.

 

23.    In accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, Section 10A subsection’s (c) and (d), it is advised that all attachments herewith be considered in closed committee because they may confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is proposing to conduct business and reveal commercial in-confidence information.

 

Financial Implications

 

21.    One of the key tender requirement was price with the following being offered by each of the tenderers.

 

·        Same price for pre-booked service.

·        Small price difference between the Tenderers for scheduled collection.

 

22.    The prices offered by both tenderers are less than what Council is currently paying for the existing scheduled collection.

 

24.    Tenderers have submitted their responses as strictly “Commercial in Confidence” and requested that commercially sensitive aspects of their respective offers be discussed by Council officers, Councillors and others in closed sessions only and is not to be made public.  The Tenderers consider the information that is commercial in confidence nature if disclosed to the public and to their competitors, could be damaging to their business.

 

Risk Implications

 

25.    No risks identified.

 

Community Engagement

 

26.    Not applicable.

 

File Reference

17/1831and D18/153080

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Confidential - SSROC T2017-09 Mattress Collection and Processing Services - Tender Recommendation Report (Confidential)

Attachment 2

SSROC T2017-09 Mattress PSMA Signed - Soft Landing (Confidential)

Attachment 3

SSROC T2017-09 Mattress PSMA Signed - Renewable EnergyCorp Australia (Confidential)

 


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 August 2018                      Page 206

Item:                   ENV028-18        Planning Proposal - Road Widening at 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville 

Author:              Strategic Planner

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

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

(b)     That Council endorse the Planning Proposal to be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a 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.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

1.      At its meeting on 25 June 2018, Georges River Council endorsed the preparation of a Planning Proposal to amend the Land Reservation Acquisition (“LRA”) Map of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”) to include a 3m wide local road widening along the Roberts Lane boundary of the properties at 53 Forest Road, 9 Roberts Lane and 108 Durham Street, Hurstville.

 

2.      This Planning Proposal (PP2018/0002) has been prepared to accompany the existing Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) to rezone and amend planning controls for the Landmark Square Precinct at 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville, which received a Gateway Determination on 19 October 2017.

 

3.      The Landmark Square Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) explicitly nominates that a 3m wide strip of land along the Roberts Lane boundary of the Precinct is to be dedicated for the purpose of road widening to enable two-way traffic access and medium rigid vehicles (“MRV”) access on Roberts Lane (e.g. waste collection and delivery vehicles).

 

4.      The 3m road widening would enable Roberts Lane to be increased to a 9m wide public road which could accommodate an approx. 2m wide pedestrian footpath with street planting on the western side of the Lane and a minimum 6m wide two-way carriageway.

 

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

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

 

7.      Accordingly, road widening at 61-65 Forest Road will be carried out as per the conditions of the VPA and will not be affected by this Planning Proposal to amend the LRA Map and Clause 5.1 (Relevant Acquisition Authority) of the HLEP 2012. Refer to Figure 1 below for the location of the proposed LRA and the VPA road widenings in relation to the Landmark Square Precinct.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.      At its meeting on 19 July 2018, the Georges River Local Planning Panel (“LPP”) considered the subject road widening Planning Proposal and recommended that Council endorse the Planning Proposal.

 

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

 

1. BACKGROUND

10.    The original request to prepare a Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) for the site bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville (now known as Landmark Square) was originally submitted by Dickson Rothschild on behalf of One Capital Pty Ltd / Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd (“the applicant”) on 16 June 2015. Refer to Figure 1 above for the location of Landmark Square as outlined in red.

 

11.    The Landmark Square 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. However, none of the revisions proposed an amendment to the LRA Map of the HLEP 2012 for the purpose of local road widening despite the intention of the Planning Proposal to enable two-way vehicle access.

 

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

 

13.    Since receipt of the Gateway Determination, the applicant submitted an alternative scheme which 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).

 

14.    The revised Landmark Square Planning Proposal is solely informed by an amended Urban Design Report and does not seek to alter the proposed density on the site or the intent of the existing Planning Proposal. As such, no amendments have been made in relation to the provision of a 3m wide local road widening along the Precinct’s Roberts Lane boundary.

 

15.    The revised Landmark Square Planning Proposal was endorsed by Council at its meeting on 23 July 2018 to be forwarded to the DPE for an Alteration to the existing Gateway Determination. Refer to Attachment 1 for a copy of Council’s resolution.

 

16.    Since the road widening of Roberts Lane is not included in the revised Landmark Square Planning Proposal, the LPP considered the road widening Planning Proposal on 19 July 2018 and provided the following recommendation:

 

a)   THAT the Georges River LPP recommends to Council that the Planning Proposal to amend the Land Reservation Acquisition Map of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 to include a 3m wide local road widening along the Roberts Lane boundary of the properties at 53 Forest Road, 9 Roberts Lane and 108 Durham Street, Hurstville be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway Determination under Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

b)   THAT the Planning Proposal be placed on formal public exhibition concurrently with the Landmark Square Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) and in accordance with the conditions of any Gateway Determination issued by the Department of Planning and Environment.

c)   THAT a report to Council be prepared by Council staff to advise of the LPP recommendations.

 


 

2. SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Overview of the Site

 

17.    The subject Planning Proposal relates to three (3) individual lots within the triangular-shaped Landmark Square Precinct bounded by Forest Road to the north, Durham Street to the south and Roberts Lane to the east:

 

·        53 Forest Road, Hurstville (Lot A DP372835);

·        108 Durham Street, Hurstville (Lot D DP391801); and

·        9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville (Lot 1 DP172819).

 

18.    The subject sites are located at the eastern edge of the Landmark Square Precinct immediately adjacent to Roberts Lane (refer Figure 2 below). The allotment at 53 Forest Road is isolated from 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane by the allotment located at 61-65 Forest Road (refer Figure 3 below).

 

Figure 2 – Aerial Map of Subject Sites in Relation to the Landmark Square Precinct

 


 

Figure 3 – Subject Sites at 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane

 

19.    61-65 Forest Road is not included within this Planning Proposal as the allotment is subject to land dedication for the purpose of road widening under a VPA in association with the Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) for the Landmark Square Precinct at 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville.

 

20.    The Landmark Square Precinct currently accommodates a range of industrial and residential uses including a self-storage facility, automotive services and sales, community uses (Hurstville Scout Hall), funeral home, two storey residential flat building and single dwelling houses.

 

21.  The existing buildings and land uses on the subject site at 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane are described below in Table 1:

 

Table 1 – Existing Buildings and Uses on the Subject Sites

Address

Lot / DP

Existing Buildings

53 Forest Road

Lot A DP372835

Two storey residential building ‘Baldovan’ containing four individual dwellings in a manor house typology.

108 Durham Street

Lot D DP391801

Half of a freestanding residential dwelling house as the existing dwelling house is located on two allotments – Lot C & D of DP391801 (known as 108-110 Durham Street).

9 Roberts Lane

Lot 1 DP172819

Warehouse-style buildings for an automotive electrical and air conditioning service with car parking.

 


 

2.2 Surrounding Land

 

22.    The Landmark Square Precinct is located on the eastern extent of the Hurstville City Centre, bound by Forest Road to the west, Durham Street to the south and Roberts Lane to the east. There is a concentration of smaller industrial / retail businesses and a number of educational facilities situated along the northern side of Forest Road between Durham and Lily Street in this eastern bookend region of the Hurstville City Centre.

 

23.    Roberts Lane currently functions as a one-way (southbound) narrow laneway approximately 3.6m wide for vehicle access with a total width measuring approximately 6m between the property boundaries on either side of the lane. Roberts Lane is a public road managed by Council.

 

24.    The primary interfaces of the Landmark Square Precinct are described below in Table 2. The surrounding context is shown below in Figures 4 to 8.

 

Table 2 – Surrounding Land Uses

Aspect

Land Uses

North

A number of educational facilities are located to the north of the site along Forest Road including 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 levels of residential apartments above.

East

R2 Low Density Residential area characterised by 1-2 storey dwelling houses, with the rear yards of properties along Lily Street backing onto Roberts Lane.

South

On the opposite side of Durham Street is a large development known as East Quarter which includes a number of mixed use buildings up to 19 storeys in height. The large open space area of Kempt Field (approx. 3 hectares) is also located opposite the site to the south and provides a direct pedestrian connection through the park to the Allawah Railway Station.

West

On the other side of Forest Road is an area of land zoned B2 Local Centre with a range of commercial uses. Residential land on Wright Street and Hudson Street is a mix of 1-2 storey dwelling houses and 3 storey residential flat buildings.

 


 

Figure 4 – View of rear boundary of Lily Street properties from Roberts Lane

 

Figure 5 – View of Kempt Field and the East Quarter development on the opposite side of Durham Street to the south of the site

 


 

Figure 6 – View to the north of the site on the opposite side of Forest Road at the intersection with Wright Street



Figure 7 – View along Forest Road of Hurstville Public School

 

Figure 8 – View of mixed use development along the southern side of Forest Road

 

3.  PLANNING STRATEGIES, POLICIES AND CONTROLS

 

3.1 Existing Planning Controls

 

25.    The HLEP 2012 applies to the subject sites which are located in the Landmark Square Precinct. There is no existing land reservation acquisition proposed at or surrounding the Precinct.

 

26.    The Precinct contains one (1) local heritage item, the Hurstville Scout Hall (Item I26) at 116 Durham Street under the HLEP 2012, refer to Figure 9 below. Clause 5.10 Heritage conservation of the HLEP 2012 is applicable to the site.

 

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

 

Figure 9 – HLEP 2012 Heritage Map

 

4.  PLANNING PROPOSAL REQUEST

 

4.1 Background

 

28.    The request to prepare a Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) for the Landmark Square Precinct bound by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane was originally submitted by Dickson Rothschild on 16 June 2015 on behalf of One Capital Pty Ltd (now Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd); refer to location plan in Figure 1 above.

 

29.    The Landmark Square Planning Proposal, which received a Gateway Determination from the DPE, is accompanied by various documentation including an Urban Design Report prepared by Dickson Rothschild and a Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment prepared by Mott MacDonald.

 

30.    Since receipt of the Gateway Determination on 19 October 2017, the applicant submitted a revised Planning Proposal for Landmark Square which seeks to retain the originally proposed development density but refine the building envelope through an amended Urban Design Report prepared by UrbanPossible.

 

31.    The revised Planning Proposal seeking an Alteration to the Gateway Determination from the DPE was considered by the LPP at its meeting dated 21 June 2018 where it was generally supported and was considered by Council’s Environment and Planning Committee at its meeting dated 9 July 2018, then subsequently endorsed by Council at its meeting on 23 July 2018.

 

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

 

33.    The amended Urban Design Report includes a revised architectural concept scheme which illustrates the uplift sought by the Planning Proposal through an envelope massing master plan. The indicative massing plan is illustrated in Figures 10 and 11 below where a 3m wide strip of land adjacent to the Roberts Lane boundary has been left undeveloped.

 

Figure 10 – Envelope Massing Master Plan from Original Urban Design Report

 

Figure 11 – Envelope Massing Master Plan from Amended Urban Design Report

 

4.2 Reason for Planning Proposal

 

34.    As evident in Figure 11 above, the proposed maximum building envelope features a 3m setback from the existing Roberts Lane boundary. This 3m setback is intended to be free of any built structures for the purpose of road widening for Roberts Lane.

 

35.    The Traffic Impact Assessment proposes 2, two-way vehicle access points with one on Durham Street and another on Roberts Lane (refer Figure 12 below) with the intention of consolidating access points to offer safe and efficient access to and from the surrounding road network.

 


 

Figure 12 – Proposed Vehicle Access Points

 

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

 

37.    Under Section 3.14(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“EP&A Act”), an environmental planning instrument may make provisions to reserve land for the purpose of a public place within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

41.    Furthermore, land dedication for the purpose of local road widening is also included in the VPA Offer associated with the Planning Proposal which identifies a 3m wide strip of land adjoining Roberts Lane to be dedicated at no cost to Council.

 

42.    However, due to the fragmented ownership of the various allotments within the Landmark Square Precinct, the VPA can only be made with the applicant (Prime Hurstville Pty Ltd) of the Planning Proposal who is currently in possession of eight lots legally described as Lot 1 in DP 225302, Lot 100 & 101 in DP 776275, Lot 1, 2, 3 & 4 in DP 12517, and Lot 10 in DP621395; known as 61-75 Forest Road and 126 Durham Street, Hurstville.

 

43.    For this reason, the 3m local road widening of Roberts Lane as part of the VPA can only be applied to a segment of Roberts Lane which is under the possession of the applicant (i.e. 61-65 Forest Road) as identified in Figure 13 below.

 

Figure 13 – Extent of Road Widening under VPA Offer

 

44.    Due to the absence of a VPA and other statutory means to implement the widening of Roberts Lane along the entire length of the Landmark Square Precinct boundary, Council at its meeting dated 25 June 2018 resolved to prepare a Planning Proposal to amend the LRA Map of the HLEP 2012 to include a 3m wide local road widening at the Roberts Lane boundary of 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane.

 

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

 

4.3 Summary of Planning Proposal

 

46.    At its meeting on 25 June 2018, Georges River Council endorsed the preparation of the subject road widening Planning Proposal in its resolution as follows:

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

 

47.    This is a separate Planning Proposal (refer to Attachment 2) intended to accompany the Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) to rezone and amend planning controls for the Landmark Square Precinct at 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville.

 

48.    This Planning Proposal seeks to:

·     Amend the Land Reservation Acquisition Map (Sheet LRA_008) to include a 3m wide local road widening along the Roberts Lane boundary (refer Figure 14 below); and

·     Amend Clause 5.1 Relevant acquisition authority to nominate Council to acquire the land for local road widening as follows:

 

Clause 5.1 Relevant acquisition authority

Type of land shown on Map

Authority of the State

Zone B4 Mixed Use and marked “Local road widening”

Council

 

Figure 14 – Proposed Land Reservation Acquisition Map (HLEP 2012)

 


 

5.  ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

 

5.1 Strategic Planning Context

 

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

 

Greater Sydney Region Plan (A Metropolis of Three Cities)

 

50.    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.

 

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

 

52.    Direction 1: A city supported by infrastructure

Objective 3: Infrastructure adapts to meet future needs


The Landmark Square Planning Proposal seeks to deliver a large-scale mixed use development comprising of over 14,000sqm of employment generating floor space and approx. 450 new residential apartments. The supporting Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment submitted by the applicant nominates Roberts Lane to accommodate one of the two-way vehicle access points.

 

This Planning Proposal intends to widen an existing laneway to enable two-way traffic access and medium rigid vehicles (“MRV”) access on Roberts Lane (e.g. waste collection and delivery vehicles).

 

53.    Direction 6: A well-connected city

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


The 3m road widening would enable Roberts Lane to be increased to a 9m wide public road which could accommodate a pedestrian footpath of approx. 2m on the western side of the Lane and a minimum 6m wide two-way carriageway. The provision of a dedicated pedestrian footpath would greatly enhance the pedestrian safety of Roberts Lane and provide an appropriate route for surrounding residents to access Kempt Field to the south and Allawah Railway Station beyond.

 

54.    Direction 8: A city in its landscape

Objective 30: Urban tree canopy cover is increased


In addition to the provision of a pedestrian footpath, the road widening will also enable the provision of street trees to enhance the amenity and microclimate of Roberts Lane.

 

South District Plan

 

55.    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.

 

56.    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 supported by infrastructure

Planning Priority S1: Planning for a city supported by infrastructure

A well connected city

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

A city in its landscape

Planning Priority S15: Increasing urban tree canopy cover and delivering Green Grid connections

 

5.2 Council’s Local Strategic Plans

 

57.    Consideration of the Planning Proposal in relation to Council’s Hurstville Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP, 2013) is provided below.

 

58.    During the development of planning controls for the Hurstville City Centre, Council was required to develop a Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (“TMAP”) in response to the amount of floor space (1,141,000sqm) contained in the draft City Centre LEP (Amendment No.3), the potential accessibility and infrastructure implications and inconsistency with S9.1 Direction 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport.

 

59.    The purpose of the TMAP was to recommend the amount of additional GFA which can be accommodated in the Hurstville City Centre with consideration to potential accessibility and infrastructure implications.

 

60.    The Hurstville City Centre TMAP is currently under review. The modelling and assessment undertaken as part of the review will consider the development potential (residential, retail, commercial and hotel floor space) in relation to the Landmark Square Precinct. The proposed widening of Roberts Lane will also be considered in the TMAP review.

 

5.3 State and Regional Statutory Framework

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

 

62.    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. 

 

63.    The Detailed Site Investigation submitted by the applicant to accompany the Landmark Square Planning Proposal concludes that the Precinct 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.

 

5.4 S9.1 Ministerial Directions

 

64.    The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with all relevant Ministerial Directions as assessed 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 affects two parcels of land which are currently zoned IN2 Light Industrial and proposed to be rezoned to B4 Mixed Use under the Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) for the Landmark Square Precinct. This Planning Proposal only involves the inclusion of land on the LRA Map. The proposal does not seek to alter the applicable zoning boundaries, zone and development controls and accordingly is considered to be consistent with this Direction.

3.1 Residential Zones

The Planning Proposal affects one parcel of land which is currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential and proposed to be rezoned under the Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) to B4 Mixed Use which permits shop top housing. The addition of this land to the LRA Map is consistent with this Direction as the 3m wide road widening will ensure new housing has appropriate vehicle access and pedestrian safety.

3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport

The Planning Proposal intends to ensure a consistent 3m wide road widening is carried out so that a continuous pedestrian footpath may be provided. This is consistent with this Direction as the provision of a new footpath significantly improves pedestrian access to Kempt Field and Allawah Railway Station, which are within 400m walking distance from 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.

 

6.  VOLUNTARY PLANNING AGREEMENT

 

65.    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.

 

66.    The subject Planning Proposal is a Council-initiated amendment to the LRA Map of the HLEP 2012 and no development uplift is proposed. As such, Council’s VPA Policy is not applicable to the Planning Proposal.

 

67.    However, it is to be noted that the Landmark Square Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) is accompanied by a VPA. Council considered a report on the Heads of Agreement (“HoA”) to enter into a VPA at its meeting of 7 August 2017 (CCL147-17). The HoA outlines the terms of the VPA, which delivers additional public benefits over and above the usual Section 7.11 contributions (formerly Section 94) applicable to the development.

 

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

 

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

i)       $1 million within 30 days of HLEP 2012 Amendment;

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

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

b)      The construction and dedication at no cost to Council of a 3m wide strip of land adjoining the Developer’s Land and Robert’s Lane prior to the issue of the first subdivision certificate or the issue of the first occupation certificate for building C as referred to in the Planning Proposal. The widened Robert’s Lane shall be constructed in accordance with 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.

 

69.    As detailed above in Section 4.2, the 3m wide road widening at the Roberts Lane boundary of 61-65 Forest Road will be executed in accordance with the VPA.

 

7.  SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT / CONCLUSION

 

70.    In summary, this Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Land Reservation Acquisition Map of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 to include a 3m wide local road widening along the Roberts Lane boundary of the properties at 53 Forest Road, 9 Roberts Lane and 108 Durham Street, Hurstville.

 

71.    It is recommended that Council endorse the Planning Proposal for the following reasons:

 

a.      A consistent 3m wide road widening on Roberts Lane will enable two-way vehicle access and access for service vehicles such as delivery and waste collection trucks;

b.      Vehicle access to and from the Landmark Square Precinct will be provided on Roberts Lane and Durham Street, thereby reducing congestion on Forest Road; and

c.       The proposed road widening will significantly enhance the pedestrian amenity and safety on Roberts Lane by providing a continuous pedestrian footpath with street planting.

 

8.  COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

 

72.    Should the Planning Proposal be supported it will be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission requesting a Gateway Determination.

 

73.    If a Gateway Determination (Approval) 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.

 

74.    Given that this Planning Proposal has been prepared as a separate but supplementary amendment to the HLEP 2012, it will be publicly exhibited concurrently with the Landmark Square Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) and the associated VPA and amendments to Hurstville DCP No. 2 for the Landmark Square Precinct.

 

75.    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.

 

76.    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 landowners of 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane

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

 

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

 

Task

Anticipated Timeframe

Report to Georges River LPP on Planning Proposal

19 July 2018

Report to Environment and Planning Committee on Planning Proposal

13 August 2018

(this report)

Report to Council on Planning Proposal

27 August 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 Landmark Square Planning Proposal PP2015/0001, DCP and VPA)

Dates for public hearing (if required)

N/A

Timeframe for consideration of submissions

February-March 2019

Report to Council on community consultation and finalisation

March 2019

Submission to the DPE to finalise the LEP

April 2019

Anticipated date for notification

May 2019

 

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

 

9.  NEXT STEPS

 

79.    If the Planning Proposal is endorsed by Council it will be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway Determination under Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

80.    The public exhibition of the Planning Proposal will occur concurrently with the Landmark Square Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) and the associated VPA and amendments to Hurstville DCP No. 2 for the Landmark Square Precinct.

 

Financial Implications

81.    No budget impact for this report.

 

Risk Implications

82.    No risks identified.

 

Community Engagement

83.    Community engagement will be conducted in accordance with Section 8 above.

 

File Reference

PP2018/0002 - D18/159364

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Council Resolution dated 23 July 2018

Attachment 2

Planning Proposal Report for Gateway

 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV028-18             Planning Proposal - Road Widening at 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville

[Appendix 1]          Council Resolution dated 23 July 2018

 

 

Page 225

 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV028-18             Planning Proposal - Road Widening at 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville

[Appendix 2]          Planning Proposal Report for Gateway

 

 

Page 227

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 August 2018                      Page 254

Item:                   ENV029-18        Environmental Audit of the Peakhurst Industrial Estate 

Author:              Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council not commence an environmental audit program of the Peakhurst Industrial Estate (PIE) until funding and resourcing of the program is identified through grant funding or via an approved business case to be considered as part of the 2019/2020 budget process.

 

 

Background

 

1.    Council at its meeting on 29 June 2017 considered a report on the Draft 2017-2018 Operation Plan and resolved in part:

 

(w)    The Council note that the summary of the submission on the Operational Plan does not include reference to the need to complete an environmental audit of the Peakhurst Industrial Estate.

 

(x)     That the General Manager provide an updated report on the matter of an environmental audit of the Peakhurst Industrial Estate.

 

2.      Since that time Council’s Environmental Health and Regulatory Services staff have continued to monitor and respond to customer requests and pollution incidents within the Peakhurst Light Industrial precinct.

 

3.      During the public exhibition of the 2018-2019 Operation Plan a total of three submissions were received requesting that Council commence a program of environmental audits of premises within the Peakhurst Industrial Estate.

 

4.      This report provides a response to these requests from the community.

 

Peakhurst Industrial Estate

 

5.      The Peakhurst Industrial Estate (PIE) has an area of approximately 63 ha arranged in an irregular triangular shape bounded by Forest Road to the North, Loraine Street to the West, Roberts Avenue to the South and to the East by Boundary Road and residential dwellings.

 

6.      The PIE contains 644 rateable properties many with multiple business due to the large number of traditional industrial factory unit complexes. The built form is typically small scale industrial, one to two storey buildings and factory units (housing a broad range of service and small-scale manufacturing), Council’s Works Depot, a nursery, a gutter manufacturer and some more recent retail (Woolworths) and entertainment (Club) uses.

 

7.      The Peakhurst Industrial Estate is zoned Light Industrial (Zone IN2) under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the existing uses are generally consistent with those permitted with consent as listed in the land use table for the zone as follows:

 

Depots; Garden centres; Hardware and building supplies; Industrial training facilities; Kiosks; Landscaping material supplies; Light industries; Neighbourhood shops; Places of public worship; Plant nurseries; Roads; Take away food and drink premises; Timber yards; Vehicle sales or hire premises; Warehouse or distribution centres; Water recycling facilities;

 

8.      While there is the potential for pollution to occur from a number of these uses, the overall pollution load would be significantly less when compared to other industrial uses such as hazardous storage establishments; heavy industries and offensive storage establishments.

 

Legal Requirements

 

9.      The Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997 (the Act) provides Council with a mandated role to respond to pollution incidents or to rectify activities on premises, (not regulated by the Environment Protection Authority), that are carried out in an environmentally unsatisfactory manner. This role is expressed as a responsive role where a pollution incident has occurred or is likely to occur.

 

10.    A pollution incident is defined by the Act as - an incident or set of circumstances during or as a consequence of which there is or is likely to be a leak, spill or other escape or deposit of a substance, as a result of which pollution has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur. It includes an incident or set of circumstances in which a substance has been placed or disposed of on premises, but it does not include an incident or set of circumstances involving only the emission of any noise.

 

11.    Pollution means water pollution, or air pollution, or noise pollution, or land pollution and these are separately defined under the Act.

 

12.    The Act defines an environmental audit as follows:

 

“An environmental audit is a documented evaluation of an activity (including an evaluation of management practices, systems and plant) for either or both of the following purposes:

 

(a)     to provide information to the persons managing the activity on compliance with legal requirements, codes of practice and relevant policies relating to the protection of the environment,

 

(b)     to enable those persons to determine whether the way the activity is carried on can be improved in order to protect the environment and to minimise waste.”

 

13.    The Act also provides at Chapter 6 for mandatory and voluntary environmental audits. A mandatory audit is only applicable to premises licensed by the Environment Protection Authority, while a voluntary environmental audit is an environmental audit commissioned or carried out voluntarily, whether or not in relation to activities licensed under the Act. Currently there are only two premises within the LGA licenced by the EPA being Mortdale Recycling Pty Ltd at 20 Hearne St, Mortdale and The St George Motor Boat Club Ltd at 2 Wellington St, Sans Souci.

 

14.    Documents prepared for the sole purpose of a voluntary environmental audit are protected documents for the purposes of the Act and are not admissible in evidence against any person in any proceedings connected with the administration or enforcement of the environment protection legislation.

15.    Therefore, a voluntary environmental audit is not a legislatively mandated function of Council and if conducted is useful only for an educational or for self-regulating purpose. Businesses currently have the option to have their operations independently audited by an accredited environmental auditor to either comply with environmental legislation requirements or to seek accreditation under the ISO Environmental Management Standards.

 

16.    To-date Council has not formed a policy position on conducting environmental audits.

 

Existing Response to Legislative Requirements

 

17.    Council records service requests received from the community into a customer request management system known as TechOne. A review of TechOne has identified the following number of pollution related service request associated with the PIE over the past three financial years:

 

·        2015/2016 – 17 Service requests (6 related to one property)

·        2016/2017 – 4 service requests

·        2017/2018 – 6 service requests

 

18.    These service requests regarding environmental pollution and any premises-based pollution incidents are currently investigated by Council’s Environmental Health Officers (EHO). As part of each investigation the Officer will audit the premises to determine the cause of the incident and identify what measures can be put in place to remedy the situation and prevent a recurrence.

 

Environment Audit Program – Issues relating to resourcing the Program and similar activities

 

19.    While Council’s EHO’s are responsible for investigating pollution incidents from industries there is no capacity for this team to conduct a systematic Environmental Audit Program. The EHO team with the assistance of Environmental Health contractors only just achieves Councils’ legislative requirements under the Food Act and Public Health Act in relation to the inspection of food and public health related premises.

 

20.    Resourcing of the EHO team is being closely monitored following the receipt of correspondence from the Food Authority in response to Council’s previous annual activity return which raised concern over council’s sustained ability to fulfil our food regulatory responsibilities.

 

21.    Additional work load will be allocated the EHO team when the regulation of Underground Petrochemical Storage Systems, which is currently the responsibility of the NSW EPA, is transferred to Council after 31 August 2019 by amendment to the Protection of the Environment Operations (Underground Petroleum Storage Systems) Regulation 2014 (UPSS Regulation).

 

22.    Further details will be provided by the EPA on the full extent of Councils role to ensure integrated management and regulatory oversight of fuel handling and storage systems leading up to the 31 August 2019.


 

 

Options for Resourcing the Environmental Audit Program and the Underground Petroleum Storage Systems Program (UPSS)

 

23.    The introduction of Environmental Audit Program and a (UPSS) program requires additional resources provided by a staff member or contractor/consultant.  Due to the similarities in these areas it is considered that the functions/tasks required to manage the programs could be combined into one (1) position.

 

24.    The options to fund the program are:

 

(1)     Creation of a new position within the Environmental Health team, the initial cost of creating this position is estimated at $120,000 per annum.  This cost may be reduced if the position is employed on a part time basis.  The creation of the role contributes to increasing the FTE for the organisation and expending funds from general revenue.

 

(2)     Council seek grant funding to employ a contractor/consultant to conduct the environmental audits and oversee implementing actions arising from the audits.

 

25.    While a number of Council’s have previously performed or currently perform environmental audits of industrial premises, these programs have often commenced via a grant funded trial. For example, Sutherland Shire Council and Ryde City Council, commenced their environmental audit program using grant funding from the previous NSW Stormwater Trust grant for the purpose of auditing the "Automotive Industry".

 

26.    However, in recent times grant funding offered by the EPA is focused on waste reduction/recovery and recycling as evidenced by the current grant funding programs which include: Organics Infrastructure (Large and Small), Council Regional Capacity Building Program, Recycling Relief Fund, Round 5: Weighbridge fund, Product Improvement Program, Civil Construction Market Program and Bin Trim rebates.

 

Suggested Way Forward

 

27.    Given the number of service requests over the last few years and the financial impacts of employing a new staff member to undertake the audit program, it is considered such a position is not created at this point in time.  Council staff will explore funding opportunities with the EPA for this program.  In the longer term staff will develop a business case for Council to consider the funding of this position as part of the implementation program for the regulation of Underground Petroleum Storage Systems during 2019/2020 budget considerations.

 

Conclusion

 

28.  Considering that:

 

·        Council does not have a mandated legislative role to conduct environmental audits,

·        the typical uses within the Peakhurst Industrial Estate are not considered high risk,

·        the level of pollution related complaint from the Peakhurst Industrial Estate is low and has fallen over recent years;

·        there is no suitable grant funding available to implement a program and

·        Council is not currently resourced to perform the function.

 

It is recommended that Council not commence an environmental audit of the Peakhurst industrial estate at this time.

 

29.    It is suggested that Council reconsider an environmental audit of the Peakhurst Industrial Estate in conjunction with the implementation program for the regulation of Underground Petroleum Storage Systems for consideration with the 2019/2020 budget.

 

Financial Implications

30.  Within budget allocation.

 

Risk Implications

31.  No risks identified.

 

Community Engagement

32.  Not applicable.

 

File Reference

17/1831 and D18/160856

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 August 2018                      Page 259

Item:                   ENV030-18        Summary of Development Applications Lodged and Determined  - April - June 2018  

Author:              Manager Development and Building

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council receive and note the report, Summary of Development Applications Lodged and Determined April – June 2018.

 

Executive Summary

1.         This report provides a snap-shot of Council’s development applications lodged and determined over the past 3 months. 

 

2.         The information includes details on development applications received for processing and determined, a breakdown of application types, mean and median time-frames, the estimated value of applications determined and the number of applications that have been under determination for more than 40 days. This information is reviewed monthly to enable review of trends in assessment timeframes.

 

3.         This report also provides a list of current major development applications and applications determined by Regional and Local Planning Panels.

 

Report

4.         Development application determination numbers and timeframes for the past three months are set out below.

 

Month

Applications Received

Applications Determined

Value of Approved Construction Cost

Mean processing time (days)

April

DA:        48

MOD:     13

REV:      1

DA:        42

MOD:     10

REV:      0

 

$27,877,741

DA:      183

MOD:   134

May

DA:        47

MOD:     11

REV:      0

DA:        36

MOD:     16

REV:      0

 

$35,827,000

DA:      130

MOD:   118

June

DA:        43

MOD:     18

REV:      3

DA:        51

MOD:     19

REV:      1

 

$70,292,916

DA:      152

MOD:   107

Q4

184

176

$133,997,657

 143

 

As at end of Qtr

Apps – between 40 – 100 days

Apps – with Council over 100 days

 

DA:               42

MOD:           12

DA:                  205

MOD:              39

 

 

5.         To note - Outstanding Applications relates to applications that:

·    have been lodged with Council

·    are under neighbour notification

·    are under assessment

·    are awaiting determination via the relevant planning pathway.

 

6.         The above figures are based on the gross turn-around times and include development applications, modification applications, and Review of Determinations (included in the DA figures).

 

7.         The figures for 2017/2018 financial year show that a total of 936 (DA’s 719, MOD’s 207, REV’s 10) applications were lodged during that period. This is consistent with the 981 lodged in the last financial year (16/17) and 932 the year before (15/16).

 

8.         Council has had an increase in the number of major and mid-range applications received, however, the majority of applications are still for residential, dual occupancies and secondary dwellings.

 

9.         The Development Assessment team continue to implement actions that assist in improving processing times and customer service.  Such actions include referral templates, standardised conditions of consent, focus on provision of development planning advice

 

10.       Development Applications - Attachment 1 provides a detailed breakdown of each development type, the value of work for each type, the numbers received and determined, and the mean determining times for each category.

 

11.       Planning Panels - Attachments 2 and 3 provide an overview of the applications to be determined by the Local Planning Panel (former Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP)) and the Sydney South Planning Panel (SSPP) has been attached to this report.

 

Financial Implications

12.    Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

17/1645

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

GRC DA Reporting May-Jun-Jul - Q4

Attachment 2

Applications Determined by Local Planning Panel in Q4

Attachment 3

Applications Determined by the Sydney South Planning Panel for Q4

 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV030-18             Summary of Development Applications Lodged and Determined  - April - June 2018

[Appendix 1]          GRC DA Reporting May-Jun-Jul - Q4

 

 

Page 260

 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV030-18             Summary of Development Applications Lodged and Determined  - April - June 2018

[Appendix 2]          Applications Determined by Local Planning Panel in Q4

 

 

Page 262

 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Environment and Planning Committee Meeting - Monday, 13 August 2018

ENV030-18             Summary of Development Applications Lodged and Determined  - April - June 2018

[Appendix 3]          Applications Determined by the Sydney South Planning Panel for Q4

 

 

Page 265

 


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning Committee Meeting -  Monday, 13 August 2018                      Page 267

Item:                   ENV031-18        Draft Georges River Car Parking Strategy 

Author:              Senior Strategic Planner

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a) That the draft Georges River Council Car Parking Strategy (Attachments 1 to 15) be publicly exhibited for a minimum of 60 days.

 

(b) That a further report be presented to Council following the exhibition of the draft Strategy, including a summary of submissions and recommendations with respect to the finalisation of the draft Georges River Council Car Parking Strategy.

 

(c)  That the General Manager investigates the relocation of the 150 public car parking spaces within the Waratah Private Hospital car park into any future development of the Civic Centre and the Treacy Street car park sites.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.   In December 2017, Council engaged PTC consultants to prepare a Car Parking Strategy for all business centres in the Georges River Local Government Area (LGA).

 

2.   The draft Georges River Council Car Parking Strategy (the ‘draft Strategy’) applies to all of the commercial centres across the LGA. A copy of the draft Strategy is included at Attachments 1 to 15. This report seeks Council’s endorsement to exhibit the draft Strategy.

 

3.   The overall aim of the draft Strategy is to set the strategic direction for car parking across the Georges River Council LGA so as to maintain and enhance economic activity within the commercial centres.

 

4.   The focus of the draft Strategy is:

 

a.   To provide Council with up to date information on the quantum of existing parking available to the public and employees both on street and off street for each of the commercial centres.

b.   To review the existing public car parking available in the commercial centres across the Georges River Council LGA and make recommendations for disposal, retention and enlargement.

c.   To assess and make recommendations in relation to existing on-street parking restrictions to improve parking efficiency in the centre.

d.   To provide advice on the availability and suitability of on street service vehicle facilities (loading areas) and spaces for disabled.

e.   To suggest ways in conjunction with enforcement that might assist in decreasing the incidence of shopkeepers parking for lengthy periods close to their businesses (e.g. issue of a Business Parking Permit in certain areas).

f.    To review the adequacy of the parking requirements in the relevant Development Control Plans (DCP).

g.   To estimate the likely parking demand of future developments.

h.   To formulate a strategy to improve parking availability to better meet existing and future demand within each of the commercial centres.

 

5.   PTC has undertaken parking surveys of key centres and other business centres that indicates that a high proportion of the parking supply is well within acceptable utilisation levels at peak; which may indicate that current strategies are working well.

 

6.   The draft Strategy provides a range of strategies and recommendations for each of the commercial centres to ensure their ongoing economic vitality.

 

7.   Strategies available to manage parking primarily fall under three main categories which will be discussed in this report:

a.   Improve the use of existing supply;

b.   Encourage more non-car trips; and

c.   Increase supply.

 

STUDY AREA

8.   The study area includes all land within the Georges River LGA that is zoned:

·    B1 – Neighbourhood Centre (under Hurstville LEP 2012 and Kogarah LEP 2012)

·    B2 – Local Centre (under Hurstville LEP 2012 and Kogarah LEP 2012)

·    B3 - Commercial Core (under Hurstville LEP 2012)

·    B4 - Mixed Use (under Hurstville LEP 2012 and Kogarah LEP 2012)

·    B6 – Enterprise Corridor Zone (under Kogarah LEP 2012).

 

9.   On-street and off-street parking areas not zoned as above were included in the study area if they supported the key centres and other business centres.

 

10. The draft Strategy investigated only public car parks and both on-street and off-street car parks.

Note: Private car parks providing timed parking available for public use such as Waratah hospital and Westfield was not investigated as part of the draft Strategy.

 

11. A total of 36 centres were included in the study area. This included 15 key centres and 21 other business centres as identified in Figure 1 and Table 1 below:

 

Figure 1: Study Area – Georges River Council Key Centres and Business Centres

 

Table 1: Key Centres and other Business Centres included in the Study Area

No.

Key Centres

No.

 

Other Business Centres

1

Allawah

1

B1-Forest Rd shops, Lugarno

2

Beverly Hills

2

B2-Bar&Café Lugarno

3

Blakehurst

3

B3-Baker St Office, Oatley

4

Carlton

4

B4-Shops Oatley

5

Hurstville

 

5

B5-Hair Salon Corner Shops, Peakhurst

6

Kogarah

6

B6-Shop on Isaac St, Peakhurst*

7

Kogarah Bay (along Princes Hwy)

7

B7-Café Peakhurst

8

Kingsgrove

8

B8-Shops on Ogilvy St, Peakhurst

9

Narwee

9

B9-Shops on Forest Rd, Peakhurst

10

Oatley

10

B10-Shops on Pindari Rd, Peakhurst Heights

11

Penshurst

11

B11-Corner Shops Narwee

12

Princes Hwy Shops, Carlton

12

B12–Kogarah Shops

13

Ramsgate

13

B13-Shops Rocky Point Rd

14

Riverwood

14

B14-Café near Swimming Pool

15

South Hurstville

15

B15–Shops on Andover St, Carlton*

 

 

16

B16-Shops on Carwar Ave, Carss Park

 

 

17

B17-Coffee Shop, Kyle Bay

 

 

18

B18–Worldwide, Kogarah*

 

 

19

B19–Shop on Seymour St, Hurstville Grove*

 

 

20

B20-Shops Hurstville Grove

 

 

21

B21-Cheesecake Shop, Carlton

*Note: Four business centres numbered 6, 15, 18 and 19 were not surveyed as they included either a corner shop with no parking restrictions, had no stopping restrictions or are part of a development site.

 

METHODOLOGY

12. In order to gain an understanding of the existing parking supply and demand in the study area, PTC collected inventory data and conducted parking surveys within the key centres and other business centres.

 

Parking Inventory - Types

13. The existing parking inventory was documented for each centre in terms of location and number of spaces as well as the applicable restriction as follows:

·    On-street by parking restriction;

·    Off-street by parking restriction;

·    Disability parking;

·    Mail Zones;

·    Loading Zones;

·    Work Zones;

·    Taxi Zones; and

·    Bus Zones.

 

Parking Inventory - On-street and off street spaces

14. The inventory documented 10,405 on-street parking spaces, representing 85% of the total parking surveyed in the study area (on-street and off-street). Hurstville, Kogarah, Riverwood, Beverly Hills and Penshurst were the top five centres in terms of on-street parking provision (Refer Table 11 in the draft Strategy).

 

15. In the majority of the key centres, more than 50% of the surveyed on-street parking supply was unrestricted at all times. Exceptions were Kogarah (16%), Penshurst (43%), Mortdale (49%), Kingsgrove (38%) and Narwee (0%).

 

16. Similarly, in the 17 business zones, 13 had more than 50% unrestricted on-street spaces at all times, the exceptions being B1-Forest Road shops, Lugarno, B8-Shops on Ogilvy Street, Peakhurst, B10-Shops on Pindari Road, Peakhurst Heights and B12-Kogarah shops. There was no ticketed parking on-street.

 

17. The inventory documented 1,770 off-street parking spaces (15% of total parking supply in the study area) (Refer Table 12 in the draft Strategy).

 

18. In the off-street car parks, the majority of restricted spaces are 3P whilst the only ticketed parking (Pay and Display) areas are located in the Town Square Car Park, Kogarah (253 spaces) and Woniora Car Park, Hurstville (100 spaces).

Note: Inventory was not collected for all off-street car parks within the study area, which are privately owned but available for public use, for example Westfield Hurstville and Kogarah TAFE car park.

 

Parking Surveys

19. Occupancy surveys were conducted for all key centres and business centres and length of stay and turnover surveys were conducted for all key centres and ten business centres from 8am-6pm (one weekday and one Saturday). The purpose of these surveys was to determine the demand profile for parking on a “typical” weekday and weekend day (Refer section 5.3 in the draft Strategy).

 

20. It is acknowledged that the surveys conducted were limited to two days and provide indicative data only. They do not include privately owned car parks available for public use.

 

21. Due to the size of the study area, the parking surveys were conducted over a four-week period (non-school holiday) from Wednesday 7th February to Saturday 3rd March 2018.

 

Workshops

22. Workshops were undertaken with key stakeholders and Councillors to inform the preparation of the Strategy.

 

Stakeholder Workshops

23. Two workshops were held with stakeholders (20 March and 14 June 2018) to gauge ideas/concerns with respect to future parking management controls and strategies. Stakeholders who attended included:

 

·    Danebank School

·    Lugarno Business Owners Group

·    Former Kogarah Chamber of Commerce

·    Bayside Council staff

·    Hurstville Public School

·    Transport for NSW

·    Transdev

 

24. Input was also requested from Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and State Transit Authority who could not attend the workshop. The draft Strategy has been updated in light of the issues raised by the key stakeholders as identified in Attachment 13 of this Report.

 

Councillor Workshops

 

25. Two Councillor Workshops were held (16 April and 16 July 2018) to obtain Councillor feedback and support in relation to the recommendations of the draft Strategy; and to ensure they align with Council’s overall vision for the LGA. The key issues raised by the Councillors related to the maximum parking rates recommended in the DCP for Hurstville and Kogarah key centres, rates (for business and office premises) for other centres, comparison of Section 7.11 (former 94) Contribution rates for adjoining councils, parking restrictions in the Connelly Street and Morgan Street car parks and use of mechanical devices for on-street parking. The draft Strategy has been updated in light of the issues raised by the Councillors.

 

KEY SURVEY FINDINGS

26. The detailed survey findings for key centres and business zones were recorded under peak occupancy and length of stay and turnover.

 

Peak Occupancy

27. Generally, parking, particularly on-street, is considered at practical capacity when occupancy is in excess of 85% as vacant spaces are more difficult to locate without a wayfinding solution.

Note: Concept of practical capacity means the level of utilisation at which potential parkers perceive parking is full.

 

28. Of the 15 key centres surveyed, 4 centres (Mortdale, Oatley, Kogarah and Carlton) had weekday peak occupancies greater than 80% between 10am-11am; and 2 centres (Mortdale and Narwee) on the weekend between 11am-12pm. Of the 17 business centres surveyed, 3 (B16-Shops on Carwar Ave, Carss Park; B21-Cheesecake Shop, Carlton; and B1-Forest Rd shops, Lugarno) had weekday peak occupancies over 80% at varying times during the day and 3 (B1-Forest Rd shops, Lugarno; B8-Shops on Ogilvy St, Peakhurst; and B17-Coffee Shop, Kyle Bay) on the weekend.

 

29. The peak occupancy for key centres and business zones with occupancy over 80% is summarised for Wednesday and Saturday in Table 2 below (highlighted in pink if peak):

 

Table 2- Peak occupancy weekday and weekend for key centres and business centres with over 80% occupancy

Key Centre/Business Zone

Total Supply (av no. spaces)

Peak Hour

Peak Occupancy

Peak Hour

Peak Occupancy

On Street

Off Street

Wednesday

Wednesday

Saturday

Saturday

Mortdale

467

107

11:00

86%

12:00

88%

Oatley

438

45

11:00

86%

8.00

71%

Carlton

325

0

10:00

85%

10:00

63%

Kogarah

1259

253

11:00

84%

11:00

72%

Narwee

42

0

10:00

79%

11:00

86%

B16 Shops on Carwar Ave, Carss Park

31

24

11:00

91%

8:00

65%

B21 Cheesecake Shop, Carlton

75

0

9:00

89%

13:00

65%

B1 Forest Rd shops, Lugarno

49

0

15:00

84%

10:00

92%

B8 Shops on Ogilvy St, Peakhurst

45

0

17:00

79%

16:00

92%

B17 Coffee Shop, Kyle Bay

73

0

10:00

47%

9:00

96%

 

Length of Stay (LOS) and Turnover

30. Average Length of Stay (ALOS) refers to the average period of time a car is parked in a space. The longer a car is parked in a space, the fewer times the space can turnover (i.e. become available for new parkers).

 

31. Parking turnover refers to the number of times a car space is used over a day. The greater the turnover the greater the number of vehicles the car space can accommodate. In a town centre, we would expect to see shorter stay parkers parking in the more conveniently located on-street spaces which would have a higher turnover and longer stay parkers parking off-street in lower turnover spaces.

 

32. In the majority of areas, the ALOS and turnover were similar for the weekday and weekend. Generally, the ALOS was 2-4 hours with the following exceptions:

 

·    Blakehurst on-street (weekday and weekend) and off-street (weekday): approximately 6.5 hours – the greater number of longer stay parkers may be attributed to residents and/or staff of nearby shops.

·    Hurstville Woniora Car Park: approximately 5 hours (weekday) – this is an all-day paid car park so longer stay parkers are most likely to be commuters or workers in the area.

·    B21-Cheesecake Shop Carlton weekday: approximately 6 hours vs. 3 hours on weekends. It is located close to a public school so longer stay parkers are likely to be work related.

·    B7-Café Peakhurst weekday: approximately 5 hours on a weekday vs. 4 hours on a weekend. Potentially longer stay parkers are also work related.

 

33. The ALOS and turnover analysis for all key centres and business centres for on-street and off-street parking spaces are summarised in Tables 17 and 18 of the draft Strategy.

 

FUTURE PARKING DEMAND AND SUPPLY

34. To determine the effect of future parking demand on parking supply, PTC developed a forecasting model to project parking demand in 5 key centres with the largest surveyed inventories (Hurstville, Kogarah, Riverwood and Beverly Hills) and the highest peak occupancy (Mortdale). Projections were undertaken in 5 year increments from 2018 to 2038.

 

35. The forecasting model uses the 2016 census data to predict population growth as detailed in Table 3 below.

 

Table 3 – Population Growth Projections - Georges River LGA

Item

Georges River LGA

2018 Population

156,622

2036 Population

185,346

Change

18.34%

Annual Increase

0.94%

Increase for each 5 year increment

4.79%

 

36. PTC have made an allowance for the effect of changes in mode share in response to changes in transport options and/or as a result of the implementation of parking demand strategies. For the purpose of the projections, two scenarios have been assumed:

 

·    no change in mode share, and

·    a mode shift factor of 5% every 5 years (for comparison purposes only).

 

37. The projections indicate that if parking demand increases in line with the future population growth and there was no change in supply or parking behaviour, peak occupancy levels would reach or exceed 85% in the following timeframes as indicated in Table 4 below.

 

Table 4 – Summary outcomes of future projections of parking demand

Key Centre

Peak Occupancy >85%

Minimum change in travel mode required every 5 years to maintain peak occupancy at or below 85% to 2038

Hurstville

2028

3%

Kogarah

2018

>5%

Riverwood

After 2038

0%

Beverly Hills

After 2038

0%

Mortdale

2018

> 5.5%

 

38. The analysis (Table 4) indicates the minimum change in travel mode required to maintain peak occupancy at or below 85% to 2038 was between 0% -> 5.5% every 5 years.

 

39. If the required change in travel mode is not achieved it will be difficult for drivers to locate available parking at peak times and it will be necessary to supply more parking. Strategies will be discussed later in the Report.

 

40. The analysis also indicates that there may be the opportunity to consolidate off-street parking in Riverwood and Beverly Hills centres; freeing up land for sale, redevelopment or repurposing for public use.

 

 

CURRENT & EMERGING ISSUES

41. The analysis undertaken by PTC has identified the following current and emerging issues with respect to parking within the study area (refer Table 5):

 

Table 5 - Existing & Emerging Issues

 

Issue No.

Issue

PTC comment

1

Peak occupancy at or above practical capacity (85%)

The centres with a peak occupancy at or above 85% are Mortdale, Oatley, Carlton, Kogarah, Narwee (weekend) and selected business zones (B1-Forest Rd Shops, Lugarno; B8-Shops on Ogilvy Street, Peakhurst, B16-Shops on Carwar Ave, Carss Park; B17-Coffee Shop, Kyle Bay; and B21-Cheesecake Shop, Carlton).

2

Perception regarding parking availability does not align with reality

In the majority of areas parking was available at peak times; however, the location may be unknown.

 

3

Misalignment of time restrictions with parking demand

Shorter stay parkers should be accommodated on-street and longer stay parkers in off-street car parks on the periphery of the centre.

 

4

Insufficient disabled spaces

To improve or maintain social equity disabled spaces to be supplied in convenient locations to meet demand.

 

5

Effective enforcement of time restrictions

Limitations due to the size of the LGA and the number of parking officers.

 

6

Underutilisation of off- street parking

Some off-street car parks were at or above practical capacity whilst others were below 50% occupied at peak – may indicate insufficient wayfinding. Examples include Gloucester Road & Woniora car

parks.

 

7

Car dependency

High percentage of car use; however, trend towards public transport is in the right direction.

 

8

There may be insufficient parking supply in the future

With expected population growth, areas which currently have sufficient supply may not in the future unless demand strategies are implemented. Ptc recommends strategies to reduce car dependency (including encouraging public and active transport, shuttle bus services between key nodes and introducing car share zones near key stations).

 

9

Other demand generators compete with town centres

 

Hospitals, schools and commuters compete for limited spaces, especially in key centres like Hurstville and Kogarah.

 


 

STRATEGIES

42. Strategies available to address the issues identified above primarily fall under three main categories:

 

·    Improve the use of existing supply;

·    Encourage more non-car trips; and

·    Increase supply.

 

Improve the use of existing supply

 

1.   User Group Allocation

 

Strategy

Explanation

1.   Council to consider the needs and priorities of the various user groups to create a safe environment and improve kerbside road efficiency whilst fostering a vibrant environment in the key centres and business zones and to ensure that the aged and disabled members of the community are not disadvantaged.

As in many commercial centres and business zones, there is strong competition for parking from a number of user groups. An action plan to prioritise user groups needs to be prepared noting that the priority may vary depending on the centre.

 

Recommended Actions

Explanation

1.   Consult with user groups

 

Consult with special needs groups such as those representing the disabled, school, senior, bicycle groups as well as delivery/transport companies to determine the demand and locations for parking for these groups.

2.   Improve Disabled Parking

 

A detailed analysis of disabled parking spaces by location and utilisation identified opportunities for consideration by Council as detailed in Table 6 below.

3.   Limit Loading Zones to off-peak times

 

A detailed analysis of Loading Zones by location and utilisation identified opportunities for consideration by Council, subject to consultation with local businesses as detailed in Table 7 below.

4.   All day parking

 

Consult with local businesses/agencies:

·    to determine the demand for all day parking (staff working in the area/volunteers coming to the centre to work in facilities such as hospitals, libraries and the like) not satisfied by the private parking provision and where staff currently park.

·    to understand the utilisation of private car parks and whether there is scope to increase utilisation at non-peak times by making the spaces available for others to use.

 

This will enable Council to determine:

·    the parking demand profile within the study areas and better inform the required parking ratios for future developments.

·    if there is insufficient parking adjacent to local businesses because their staff are parking in the most conveniently located spaces that should be used by short term parkers.

 

Table 6 – Key opportunities to consider for disabled parking

Location

Opportunity

 

Kogarah

Additional 1 to 2 time-restricted (1/2P) disabled spaces along Railway Parade.

 

Riverwood

Conversion of loading zones to additional on-street disabled spaces (2) and public parking.

 

Beverly Hills

Additional 2 spaces west of King Georges Road - preferably Edgbaston Road given the greater road width and proximity to businesses and 2 within the Edgbaston car park.

 

Penshurst

Reducing the off-street disabled parking provision to 4 spaces and reallocating the other spaces to public use.

 

Kingsgrove

Additional space recommended on Kingsgrove Road.

 

Note: Refer Table 44 in the Strategy

Table 7 – Key Recommendations for Loading Zones

Location

Opportunity

Hurstville, Oatley

Explore the introduction of time restricted Loading Zones to increase turnover; other times clearways to improve traffic flow.

Hurstville

Loading zones to be used at times outside peak hours to reduce congestion.

Riverwood, Carlton, Kogarah Bay

Reallocate Loading Zones to disabled parking due to low utilisation (subject to business consultation).

Mortdale, Oatley, South Hurstville, B2 Bar &Café Lugarno

Engage with local businesses to determine the adequacy of Loading Zones.

Note: Refer Table 45 in the Strategy

 

2.   Review Time Restrictions

 

Strategies

Explanation

1.   The closer the parking supply is to the key centres and business zones the shorter the time restriction.

 

·    An example of recommended time restrictions based on the distance from commercial centres is as follows:

·    0-50m: ½ P

·    50-150m: 1P

·    150-300m: 2P

·    300m-500m 4P

·    +500m unrestricted

·    Some exceptions may be provided on a case by case basis such as ¼ P in pick up and drop off in front of medical centres, schools and areas of special need.

·    Council to provide motorcycle parking in areas deemed inappropriate for parking cars to increase kerbside and off-street supply.

 

2.   Shorter time restrictions should apply to on-street parking supply vs off-street parking supply. Available on-street parking should support high turnover users.

The general principle, recognised across Australian LGAs as well as overseas is that only those drivers who want to make a short stop at a particular location should park in the street, whilst drivers who want to spend longer periods (or even all day) should park in off-street car parks. Off-street car parks in the LGA generally comply with this principle; the majority is 3P whilst the majority of time restricted parking is 2P or less.

However, there may be some exceptions with off-street car parks requiring a mix of timed spaces with the majority unrestricted for longer stay parkers.

 

3.   Where occupancy levels exceed 85% on a consistent basis, consider a change in time restrictions to manage parking demand.

As a parking area approaches practical capacity (deemed 85%), consideration should be given to reducing the time restriction and, ultimately, introducing paid parking, therefore managing supply through a pricing strategy.

 

 

Recommended Actions

Explanation

1.   Use parking surveys to inform changes to time restrictions

The review should be informed by the parking surveys undertaken as part of the Strategy, which indicated occupancy exceeds (or was close to) 85% at peak times as summarised in Table 8 below.

2.   Paid Parking

 

Review pricing strategy.

Replace Pay and Display with ticketed access control (e.g. at Woniora and Kogarah Town Square car parks – subject to a cost benefit analysis) as it has the following advantages:

 

·    Car park no longer requires enforcement by parking officers reducing workload and level of non- compliance,

·    Minimises revenue leakage and if installed with license plate recognition cameras can manage abuse of free parking periods, and

·    Data available from the car park management system with respect to length of stay and occupancy for Council analysis on an ongoing basis.

 

 

Table 8 - Key centres and business zones with peak occupancy > (or close to) 85%

Key Centre/

Business Zone

Total Supply (average no. bays)

Peak Occupancy

Peak Occupancy

Recommendation

 

On-Street

Off-Street

Wednesday

Saturday

 

Mortdale

467

107

86%

89%

The high occupancy relates mainly to unrestricted spaces. A proportion of parkers in these spaces are short stay parkers (<2 hours). Recommend extending time restrictions.

Oatley

438

45

86%

71%

Convert unrestricted spaces in the Letitia car park to 3P.

Carlton

325

0

85%

63%

Extend time restricted area as 67% of supply unrestricted spaces and only 50% occupied by all day parkers (>7hrs).

Kogarah

1,259

253

84%

72%

Convert 2P and unrestricted spaces in Kensington Street to 1P, convert unrestricted spaces in Gladstone Street and Montgomery Street to 2P, consider

installation of in-ground sensors in 1/2P and 1P spaces to facilitate enforcement.

Narwee

42

0

79%

86%

Extend 2P time restrictions in Mercury Street to Berrille Road.

B16 - Shops Carwar Ave, Carss Park

31

24

91%

65%

Extend time restricted on-street parking – 3 times the number of all-day parkers on a weekday vs. weekend.

B21 – Cheesecake Shop, Carlton

75

0

89%

65%

Extend time restricted on-street parking – 6 times the number of all-day parkers on a weekday vs. weekend

B1 – Forest Road Shops, Lugarno

49

0

84%

92%

94% supply 1P; 96% of vehicles parking for 1 hour or less. Consider extending time restrictions into Grandview Crescent and/or Chivers Ave.

B8 – Shops Ogilvy Street, Peakhurst

45

0

79%

92%

Extend time restrictions on a Saturday to 6pm.

B17 – Coffee Shop, Kyle Bay

73

0

47%

96%

Peak at 9am Saturday – less than 80% other times of the day. No action required.

 

3.   Signage & Wayfinding

 

43. One of the most common problems in town centres is that the location of off-street car parks is not always well known. Even for residents, some car parks may have a higher profile than others.

 

Strategy

Explanation

1.   Provide wayfinding through key centre parking signage plans where applicable for the main off-street car parks. Alternatively, or in conjunction with the signage, Council could consider mobile based apps to promote efficient use of available space.

Wayfinding would direct drivers to available parking, reducing traffic circulation and congestion. In implementing a signage strategy, it is important to consider that street signs compete with many other visual stimuli for drivers and there is a fine line to walk between good signage and signage clutter.

 

Recommended Actions

Explanation

1.   Prepare integrated signage plans

 

Integrated signage plans should be prepared for the key centres with off-street parking, considering technology solutions such as dynamic signage (similar to that installed at Westfield Hurstville), and mobile apps /web based real time data to “find a park”.

 

Examples of where these signs would improve utilisation are as follows:

·    Hurstville - at peak on a weekday the Gloucester Road car park is less than 50% occupied; similarly on a weekend the Woniora car park is less than 50% occupied. The Woniora car park in particular is difficult to locate as it is a basement car park with laneway access.

·    Town Square car park in Kogarah – the entrance is difficult to locate.

 

2.   Update Council website with parking information

 

Load maps showing the location of various parking areas on the Council website so that people can check the location of car parks and where parking is available prior to undertaking a visit (especially if they only do so occasionally).

 

 

4.   Enforcement Policy

44. The success of any strategy to increase the availability of parking through the management of time restrictions is dependent upon the consistent application of an enforcement regime. Given the size of the LGA, an economically viable solution requires the adoption of technology in conjunction with appropriate resourcing.

 

Strategy

Explanation

1.   Consider more efficient ways to ensure that time restrictions are complied with to maximise turnover of spaces. The selected methodologies and polices are to be applied consistently across all streets and car parks.

To maximise the utilisation of available parking supply, the role of the Enforcement Officer is crucial to the extent that unless the parking time limits are enforced, drivers will tend to abuse them by staying longer thus impacting on turnover.

 

Recommended Actions

Explanation

1.   Adopt technology solutions

 

Investigate and adopt technology solutions to improve the efficiency and productivity of the enforcement team.

 

Examples of the technology solutions available to improve the efficiency of the enforcement team include camera licence plate recognition and in-ground sensors.

 

Subject to a cost/benefit analysis, PTC recommends as a first step, sensors are installed in a trial area such as the streets with 1/2P and 1P time restrictions in Kogarah and off-street car parks in Riverwood (Belmore Lane and Belmore Road) to assess the effectiveness of the time restrictions and assist with enforcement.

 

Should the trial be successful, there may be opportunity to extend to other on-street areas and free CBD car parks and other car parks with a capacity of more than 50 spaces within the key centres.

 

2.   Publicise the benefits of time restricted parking

 

Conduct a publicity campaign utilising the local newspaper, the Council website and social media to inform the community of the enforcement regime and the importance of enforcing time restrictions in managing parking availability.

 

 

Encourage more non-car trips

 

1.   Public Transport

 

Strategies

Explanation

1.   Reduce car dependency by working closely with Transport for NSW (TfNSW) in optimising bus and train connections, improving bus stops and increasing the regularity of services.

 

The train and bus timetables need to be reviewed and aligned better.

2.   Ensure the Council website and social media platforms promote public transport including smart scheduling apps.

Mobile apps such as TripView, Moovit and TripGo provide real-time data of the estimated times of the next scheduled service as well as updated information regarding any services experiencing delays.

 

Recommended Actions

Explanation

1.   Collaborate with TfNSW

 

Council establish a framework to facilitate collaboration with TfNSW aimed at optimising routes and improving amenity and frequency of services ensuring that all train stations and bus stops are fully accessible.

2.   Update Council website to promote use of public transport

 

Council to advertise the use of transport apps on their website and social media platforms.

 

2.   Walking and Cycling Considerations

 

Strategy

Explanation

1.   Ensure a safe and accessible environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

Improvements to pedestrian and cycling amenity within the LGA will need to be considered.

 

Recommended Actions

Explanation

1.   Update Council Website

Council website to be improved by including the walkways and cycle routes within an easy-to-read map.

Public reserves and recreational areas within the locality can be promoted on Council’s social media platforms to further encourage walking and cycling.

2.   Update Bike Plan

It is recommended that an updated Bike Plan be developed which expands across the entire Georges River LGA.

3.   Update Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP)

It is recommended that the existing PAMP (for Kogarah LGA, 2009) is updated to better reflect the current pedestrian infrastructure within the Georges River LGA. The primary focus should be to establish new pedestrian links to improve connections between key pedestrian attractors and generators.

 

3.   Car Share Schemes

 

Strategy

Explanation

1.   Ensure provision for car sharing spaces in any new development and /or in existing on-street and off-street car parks adjacent to major transport hubs.

 

Dedicated car share parking spaces should be provided (not more than 5% of the parking spaces in a given street or off-street car park) and should be located close to public transport hubs and high density residential and commercial areas.

 

Recommended Action

Explanation

1.   Introduce car share zones where appropriate and incentivise use

 

Introduce additional car sharing zones adjacent to major train stations such as Hurstville and Kogarah to provide an alternative option for public transport users.

 

4.   Kiss & Ride

 

Strategy

Explanation

1.   Collaborate with local schools to encourage students residing within a suitable walking/cycling distance to use non-motorised forms of transport (e.g. walking and cycling) on their journey to and from school as well as educating students on road safety.

Where travel by private vehicle is necessary, Council can collaborate with local schools to develop travel smart initiatives which encourage the use of car-pooling and public transport services.

 

Recommended Action

Explanation

1.   Work with local schools and businesses to promote alternate travel modes.

 

Council should work with local schools and businesses to promote travel smart initiatives (e.g. public transport, car-pooling, walking and cycling).

 

5.   Shuttle Bus Operation

 

Strategy

Explanation

1.   Explore alternative locations for all day parking to alleviate parking demand within the town centres.

For example, a shuttle bus service could be provided between the Kogarah St George Leagues Club car park (which seems under-utilised during the day – to be confirmed with the club) and Kogarah town centre to provide a convenient connection for those who require a parking space (subject to a cost benefit analysis).

 

This may assist in freeing up on-street parking spaces in Kogarah town centre.

 

Recommended Action

Explanation

1.   Introduce a shuttle bus service to access underutilised parking if demand warrants.

 

A shuttle bus service could be provided between key points to provide a convenient connection for those who require a parking space (subject to a cost benefit analysis).

 

Increase supply

45. Increasing the public parking supply should only be considered by Council as part of its overall strategic development plan for the area as it can be costly and may lead to increased traffic demand. It should be noted that increasing supply would only be required if all other strategies have been exhausted without achieving the desired outcome.

 

1.   DCP Parking Rates

 

Strategy

Explanation

1.   Adopt sustainable and consistent parking rates across the LGA for future non-residential developments to encourage reduced car dependency and congestion, facilitating a shift towards sustainable transport modes.

Based on a review of the existing parking rates as well as the previous parking and traffic studies, there is opportunity for the parking requirements for future non-residential developments within the Georges River LGA to be adjusted.

 

Recommended Actions

Explanation

1.   Recommended DCP Rates for Key Centres

 

A comparison of the existing parking rates within the major town centres of adjoining local government areas and recommended rates are provided in Tables 9 and 10 below:

2.   Recommended DCP Rates for Other Centres (excluding Key Centres)

 

A summary of the existing parking rates applicable to developments located outside of the key centres in Hurstville, Kogarah and adjoining LGAs and the recommended rates are provided in Tables 11 and 12 below:

 

Table 9 – Existing DCP Parking Rate Comparison Summary

 

Land Use / Town Centre

Hurstville – Georges River LGA^ (Benchmark)

Kogarah – Georges River LGA

Bankstown

Canterbury*

Sutherland Shire

Rockdale

Botany Bay

Business and Office premises

1 per 66.7sqm.

1 per 40sqm.

1 per 80sqm.

1 per 60sqm.

1 per 30sqm.

1 per 40sqm.

1 per 40sqm.

Retail Premises (shops)

1 per 40sqm.

1 per 40sqm.

1 per 40sqm.

1 per 33sqm.

1 per 30sqm.

1 per 40sqm.

1 per 25sqm.

Restaurant

1 per 13.3sqm.

1 per 40sqm.

Parking Study Required

1 per 30sqm.

1 per 6.67sqm. (RMS Rate)

1 per 40sqm.

1 per 10sqm.

Medical Centre

3 per consulting room

1 per 40sqm.

1 per 25sqm.

2 per consulting room

1 per 30sqm.

1 per 40sqm.

2 per consulting room

Note:

* For developments with 120sqm. to 1000sqm. GFA

^ Rates converted from GLFA to GFA for comparison, assuming GLFA = 75% x GFA (RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, 2002)

- Rates are minimum parking rates

 

Legend:

 

Benchmark rate

 

Less than benchmark rate

 

Greater than benchmark rate

 

Non-comparable rate

 

Table 10 – Summary of Existing and Recommended DCP Car Parking Rates in Key Centres (Hurstville and Kogarah)

 

Type of Development

Existing Minimum Parking Rate - Hurstville

Existing Minimum Parking Rate - Kogarah

 

Recommended DCP Parking Rate (Minimum)

Recommended DCP Parking Rate (Maximum)

Business and Office Premises

 

1 per 66.7sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 60sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

Retail Premises (shops)

 

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 60sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

Restaurants/ Cafes

 

1 per 13.3sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 60sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

Medical Centre

 

3 per consulting room

 

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 50sqm. GFA

1 per 30sqm. GFA

 

Justification for Maximum and Minimum Rates

46. The parking rates for the key centres are provided as a range with a minimum and maximum rate for non-residential developments. This provides greater flexibility for Council to manage parking supply within the LGA by imposing an upper limit, whilst a minimum rate will ensure that opportunistic developers do not abuse the maximum rates by not providing any parking which results in increased strain on the available on-street parking.

 

47. The key centres of Hurstville and Kogarah are proposed to adopt lower minimum parking rates to align with Council’s strategy to reduce car usage within these congested precincts. The lower parking rates provide a concession for non-residential developments to reflect the greater level of accessibility to public transport services.

 

48. Hurstville and Kogarah are well served in terms of public transport. Trains and buses provide alternative travel modes which help facilitate the shift in mode away from the private car. The proposed maximum parking rates have been recommended to align with the current minimum rates for Hurstville and Kogarah, as well as the parking requirements of neighbouring LGAs.

 

49. For example, business and office premises are recommended to adopt a minimum parking rate of 1 space per 60sqm. which aligns with the Canterbury DCP, being an intermediate rate in the neighbouring LGAs (refer to Table 9 above for the DCP rate comparison). The maximum parking rate of 1 space per 40sqm. aligns with the current minimum rate for the Kogarah, Rockdale and Botany Bay DCPs. Similarly, the minimum parking rates for restaurants, retail premises and medical centres have been lowered due to the proximity to public transport infrastructure, with a proposed reduction of approximately 33% when compared to the existing Kogarah parking rates. The existing minimum parking rates for Kogarah have been adopted as the recommended maximum rates to support the reduced dependence on car usage.

 

50. It is noted however, that for particular uses such as medical centres, driving may be necessary to accommodate patients who may be mobility impaired and require pick-up and drop-off by a family member. The higher parking demand associated with such uses has been reflected in the prescription of higher maximum rates permitted for medical centre developments. For medical centres, the RMS Guide presents a parking requirement of 1 space per 25sqm. GFA. The recommended maximum rate of 1 space per 30sqm. GFA for the Hurstville/Kogarah town centres has been adopted with consideration of the RMS rates and the existing Bankstown DCP rate of 1 space per 25sqm.

 

51. These amended rates will have an effect of reducing the overall parking required for non-residential developments, thus making the centres more attractive to developers due to the significant costs associated with providing off-street parking. A lower parking provision within future non-residential developments will also assist in controlling congestion levels during peak commuter periods, providing a safer environment for pedestrians and non-motorised transport users such as cyclists.

 

52. The costs associated with providing parking in new developments are considerable and may impact on the viability of the development. Reducing the parking rates would provide an incentive for developers to bring new developments into the precinct as the added flexibility in parking requirements would make new developments more economically favourable.

 

Table 11 – Existing Minimum DCP Parking Rate Summary (Developments outside key centres)

Land Use / Town Centre

Hurstville

Kogarah

Bankstown

Canterbury

Sutherland Shire

Rockdale

Botany Bay

Business and Office Premises

1 per 60 sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 30sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

Retail Premises (shops)

1 per 50sqm. GFA

1 per 33.3sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 30sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 25sqm. GFA

Restaurants/ Cafes

1 per 50sqm. GFA

1 per 5sqm. GFA24

0.15 per sqm. in excess of 100sqm.

1 per 40sqm. GFA

Parking Study Required

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 10sqm. GFA

Medical Centre

1 space per practitioner + 1 space per consulting room

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 25sqm. GFA

2 spaces per health consulting room

1 per 30sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

3 spaces per consulting


 

Table 12 - Summary of Existing & Recommended DCP Car Parking Rates for Other Centres (Georges River LGA excluding Hurstville & Kogarah Town Centres)

 

Type of Development

Existing Minimum Parking Rate – Hurstville (outside City Centre)

Existing Minimum Parking Rate – Kogarah (outside City Centre)

Recommended DCP Parking Rate (Minimum)

800m Walking Distance from Railway Station

Recommended DCP Parking Rate (Minimum)

> 800m Walking Distance from Railway Station

Business and Office Premises

 

1 per 60 sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 60sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

Retail Premises (shops)

 

1 per 50sqm. GFA

1 per 33.3sqm. GFA

1 per 60sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

Restaurants/ Cafes

1 per 50sqm. GFA

1 per 5sqm. GFA23

1 per 60sqm. GFA

1 per 30sqm. GFA

Medical Centre

1 space per practitioner + 1 space per consulting room

 

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 40sqm. GFA

1 per 30sqm. GFA

 

Justification for Rates in other Business Centres

53. For other centres within the LGA (excluding the key centres of Hurstville and Kogarah), the parking requirements have been assessed based on accessibility to public transport, whereby the criterion adopted is the proximity of the development site to the nearest railway station. Furthermore, reference is made to the NSW Planning Guidelines for Walking & Cycling which states that 800m is a suitable walking catchment for access to public transport. In light of this, two separate rates based on proximity to the closest railway station are recommended for each development type. In general, the parking requirements for the greater Georges River LGA are higher than those within the key centres to reflect the reduced accessibility via public transport.

 

54. Minimum parking rates are proposed for other centres as access to public transport within these zones are limited and provide less frequent train and bus services, resulting in a higher utilisation of private vehicles as the main transport mode. In order to accommodate this higher demand, the minimum parking rates will help to ensure adequate parking supply is provided in new developments whilst minimising the potential for parking overflow onto neighbouring residential streets. The recommended parking rates for the other centres have been proposed by achieving a balance between the existing minimum rates for centres outside the Hurstville and Kogarah town centres, taking into consideration the distance to the nearest railway station.

 

55. Business premises are recommended to retain the existing minimum parking rate of 1 space per 60sqm. The corresponding minimum rate for developments situated greater than 800m from a railway station is 1 space per 40sqm. which aligns with the existing rate for Kogarah business zones (outside of the town centre) and the RMS Guide.

 

56. Similarly, the recommended rates for retail premises and restaurants have reduced when compared to existing parking rates within the Hurstville and Kogarah DCPs to reduce the reliance on private car usage. Standalone retail premises (shops) are more likely to be visited by people living locally to the area which may lead to higher levels of walking and cycling, resulting in a lower demand for parking. It is noted that the current rate of 1 space per 5sqm. for restaurants stipulated within the Kogarah DCP is very high. The recommended rate of 1 space per 30sqm. (>800m from railway station) has been adopted to align more closely with the existing rates for Canterbury and Rockdale (1 space per 40sqm.).

 

57. It is noted that the existing minimum rate for medical centres within the Hurstville DCP is determined based on the number of consulting rooms which is inconsistent with the Kogarah DCP. Furthermore, a parking rate based on the number of consulting rooms is variable as the size of consultant rooms can vary depending on the site. For simplicity, it is recommended to adopt a parking rate which is calculated based on gross floor areas for consistency. In light of this, the proposed parking rate for medical centres located outside the key centres adopts a parking requirement based on the gross floor area and aligns with the existing Kogarah parking rate of 1 space per 40sqm. The recommended rate is also reflective of the current rate for developments in the Sutherland Shire (1 space per 30sqm.) and Rockdale (1 space per 40sqm.) areas. Furthermore, the RMS Guide recommends a parking provision rate of 1 space per 25sqm. In light of this, the recommended rate of 1 space per 30sqm. aims to achieve a balance between the neighbouring Council DCPs as well as the provisions outlined within the RMS Guide.

 

58. The proposed minimum rates for developments located further than 800m from a railway station have generally adopted the proposed maximum rates corresponding to developments located within the key centres. As such, the proposed parking rates for other centres account for the reduced accessibility to public transport services. Comparison with neighbouring LGAs also indicates that the proposed parking provision rates align with the existing rates required by adjoining Councils to ensure competitiveness.

 

2.   Review off–street parking supply

 

Strategy

Explanation

1.   Consider alternative locations for additional parking supply, when and if required. Off-street parking should be located on the periphery of the town centre to minimise traffic flow within the centre. Where possible parking should be consolidated into larger parking areas and smaller car parks either sold for redevelopment or repurposed as public spaces.

A review of all off-street car parks surveyed as part of the draft Strategy is included at Attachment 15 of this Report.

Car parks proposed for change are summarised in Table 13 below:

 

Table 13 –Recommendations for off-street car parks

Town Centre

Car Park

Recommendation

Comments

Hurstville

Gloucester Road

 

·      Retain

·      Change Unrestricted to 3P 730am-9pm Mon - Fri, 8am-4pm Sat

 

·      Peak occupancy of the car park is close to practical capacity on the weekend.

·      Weekday peak occupancy (83%) and weekend peak occupancy (84%). Refer to Attachment 15 of this Report.

·      Introduce time-restricted parking to increase turnover.

 

Hurstville

Palm Court

 

·      Convert to a public space to ease traffic flow on Forest Road and incorporate provision in redevelopment of Treacy Street car park.

 

·      Existing site can be reclaimed for public recreational use if redevelopment of the Treacy Street car park proceeds.

·      The displaced parking spaces can be incorporated into the expanded Treacy Street car park to maintain current supply.

 

Hurstville

Park Road & MacMahon Street

 

·      Retain

·      Install in-ground sensors to help manage time compliance.

 

·      Car park operating at full capacity.

·      Introduce time-restricted parking to increase turnover.

 

Hurstville

Treacy Street

 

·      Increase as part of redevelopment incorporating lost spaces in Palm Court.

·      Recommend signalisation at Treacy St/Forest Road.

·      Propose two – way traffic flow in Treacy Street between Ormonde Pde and Alfred Street.

·      Install in-ground sensors to help manage time compliance.

 

·      Expansion of the Treacy Street car park as part of the future development allows the site to be redeveloped whilst maintaining parking supply (to be negotiated with future developer).

·      Incorporation of spaces currently within Palm Court car park to offset loss in supply.

·      Proposed two-way traffic flow on Treacy St between Ormonde Pde and Alfred St allows car park users to enter the car park from the south by turning right onto Treacy Street from Forest Road. This will provide greater accessibility for users of the car park as well as associated future developments at the site.

·      Signalisation of intersection provides pedestrian connection to the public space at the Palm Court site and allows more streamlined access into the new Treacy St car park from the south.

 

Hurstville

Woniora

 

·      Install new access control to manage parking.

 

·      Installation of access control equipment and provision of wayfinding signage to guide users to this car park which is currently difficult to find. 

 

Kogarah

Town Square

 

·      Install new access control to manage parking and review pricing.

 

·      Pricing review recommended as there may be potential to increase prices (existing prices comparatively lower than surrounding paid car parks). Low utilisation may be attributed to difficulty in finding this car park.

·      Access control to manage paid parking and wayfinding required to guide users to car park.

 

Riverwood

Belmore Lane

 

·      Convert 3P spaces to 2P.

·      Install in ground sensors to help manage time compliance.

 

·      Amend time restriction to increase turnover within the car park (currently at 100% peak occupancy during weekday and 91% during weekend).

·      In-ground sensors are recommended to enforce time restrictions as overstays have been identified.

 

Riverwood

Belmore Road

 

·      Install in ground sensors to help manage time compliance.

 

·      In-ground sensors are recommended to enforce time restrictions as overstays have been identified.

 

Riverwood

Webb Street North

 

·      Potential redevelopment site for Riverwood Plaza.

 

·      Potential for Council to negotiate with Riverwood Plaza to expand the shopping centre car park.

·      Displaced parkers can be relocated to Webb Street South car park and/or incorporated into plaza car park if enlarged.

 

Riverwood

Littleton Street South

 

·      Potential redevelopment site if Webb Street Car Park North retained or increased parking provided as part of Riverwood Plaza redevelopment.

 

·      Should there be a car park expansion at Riverwood Plaza the existing supply within the Littleton car park can be incorporated into the redevelopment.

·      The site can later be redeveloped for alternative uses.

 

Beverly Hills

Edgbaston Rd car park

 

·      Proposed development of 400-600 space commuter car park – current weekday all day demand (7+hours) 400 vehicles. Would need to extend parking restrictions on-street next to shops and station to encourage use of car park.

 

·      Occupancy of existing at-grade car park 70% (weekday) and 51% (weekend) indicates spare capacity. The car park is currently 3P time-restricted.

·      On-street parking indicates peak occupancy of 93% (both weekday and weekend). High occupancy attributed to unrestricted parking.

·      Conversion of current unrestricted on-street parking to restricted parking will facilitate higher turnover.

·      Objective is to push all-day parkers into the proposed 400-600 space commuter car park (subject to approval by TfNSW) and free up on-street spaces for visitors to local businesses.

 

Mortdale

Cook Lane

 

·      Council previously resolved to compulsorily acquire 23 and 25 Cook Street to undertake car park expansion. Recommend incorporate provision currently provided in Cook Street car park in the expansion plans.

 

·      Cook Street car park can be redeveloped upon acquisition of additional lots for Cook Lane car park expansion.

·      Existing parking spaces within the Cook Street car park are to be incorporated into the extended car park to accommodate current users.

 

Mortdale

Cook Street

 

·      Potential re development site to subsidise car park expansion in Cook Lane car park.

 

·      Existing parking spaces are to be incorporated into the extended Cook Lane car park to accommodate current  users.

 

Oatley

Letitia Street

 

Convert unrestricted spaces to 3P 8:30am-6pm MF, 8:30am-12:30pm Sat

 

·      Car park at full capacity during weekday and weekend.

·      Introduce time restriction to increase turnover.

 

Ramsgate

Ramsgate Road

 

·      Convert unrestricted spaces to 3P 8am-6pm MF

 

·      High peak occupancy level during weekday (93%).

·      Introduce time restriction to increase turnover during weekdays.

 

Penshurst

Connelly Street

 

·      Convert some 3P time restricted spaces to unrestricted (e.g. 50% unrestricted and 50% 3P) – encourage all day parkers to park off-street.

·      If required, extend time restricted area on-street to meet short term parking demand – e.g. Connelly Street.

 

·      Currently weekday peak occupancy level of 63% (relatively low). Short term parking should be accommodated on-street whilst all-day parkers accommodated within off-street facility.

 

Blakehurst

Stuart Lane

 

·      Convert unrestricted spaces to 3P 8am-6pm M-F.

 

·      96% peak occupancy during weekday and weekend.

·      Introduce time restriction to increase turnover

 

Blakehurst

Water Street

 

·      Potential redevelopment site.

 

·      Located away from shops with high length of stay and low turnover (potentially used by residents).

 

Kingsgrove

Morgan Street

 

·      Convert unrestricted spaces to 2P.

·      First half closest to shops to be 1P 8.30am-6pm Mon-Fri.

·      Second half away from shops to be 2P 8.30am-6pm- Mon-Fri.

·      Convert some time-restricted spaces to unrestricted spaces on Saturdays (weekend occupancy is currently low). For example, 50% unrestricted, 50% to retain current restriction.

 

·      Provide time restricted parking to increase overall turnover, with restriction dependent on distance to shops.

 

South Hurstville

Allen Street

 

·      Extend restrictions to weekend

 

·      100% peak occupancy identified during weekend. Extend time restrictions to manage parking during weekend period.

 

B16-Shops Carwar Ave,

Carss Park

 

Carwar Avenue

 

·      Retain.

·      Convert Carwar Avenue unrestricted spaces to 1P to match other on-street parking restrictions.

 

·      Operating at 100% capacity during weekday, 79% weekend.

·      Provide time restricted parking to increase o