AGENDA


Environment and Planning Committee

 

Monday, 08 July 2019

7.00pm

 

Waratah Room

Ground Floor, Georges River Civic Centre

Hurstville

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Georges River Council –           Environment and Planning -  Monday, 8 July 2019                                                         Page 3

 

          Environment and Planning

ORDER OF BUSINESS

 

1.      Opening

2.      Acknowledgement of Country

3.      Apologies / Leave of Absence

4.      Notice of Webcasting

5.      Disclosures of Interest

6.      Public Forum

7.      Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting  

MINUTES: Environment and Planning - 11 June 2019

8.      Committee Reports

ENV023-19       Report on Submissions - Landmark Square Precinct Planning Proposal & Development Control Plan

(Report by Strategic Planner)....................................................................................... 3

ENV024-19       Planning Proposal for Low Rise Medium Density Residential Code - Results of Community Consultation

(Report by Manager Strategic Planning)............................................................... 156

ENV025-19       Hurstville Oval & Timothy Reserve Plan of Management and Masterplan

(Report by Strategic Planner).................................................................................. 324

ENV026-19       Planning Proposal 2017/0001 - 84D Roberts Avenue Mortdale - results of public exhibition

(Report by Manager Strategic Planning)............................................................... 422

 

 


Georges River Council –           Environment and Planning -  Monday, 8 July 2019                                                         Page 6

Committee Reports

Item:                   ENV023-19        Report on Submissions - Landmark Square Precinct Planning Proposal & Development Control Plan 

Author:              Strategic Planner

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

Recommendation:

(a)     That Council note the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal PP2015/0001;

 

(b)     That Council adopt the proposed amendments to Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 as exhibited in relation to the Landmark Square Precinct at 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville to:

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

(d)     That Council resolve in accordance with Clause 21(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, to adopt Amendment No. 10 to DCP No. 2 –          Hurstville City Centre, subject to amendments outlined in this report;

 

(e)     That Council give public notice of the decision to adopt Amendment No. 10 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre in the local newspaper in accordance with Clause 21(2) and (4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000;

 

(f)      That the Department of Planning and Environment be advised of Council’s decision to adopt Amendment No. 10 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

 

(g)     That Council endorse the General Manager to make minor modifications to any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors, if required, in the finalisation of the draft plans;

 

 

(h)     That all persons who made a submission to the Planning Proposal and Amendment No. 10 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre be advised of Council’s decision;

 

(i)      That Council withdraw the Planning Proposal known as the ‘Roberts Lane Road Widening Planning Proposal’ (PP2018/0002) which sought to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 in relation to 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane to:

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

b)   Amend Clause 5.1 Relevant acquisition authority to nominate Council as the relevant acquisition authority to acquire the land for local road widening; and

 

(j)      That Council address the road widening of Roberts Lane through amendments to Amendment No. 10 to DCP No.     2 – Hurstville City Centre and inclusion in the future Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The purpose of this report is to advise of the outcome of the public exhibition of a revised Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) for land at 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville, known as the Landmark Square Precinct.

 

2.      At its meeting on 9 July 2018, Council resolved to endorse the revised Planning Proposal (PP2015/0001) to be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for an alteration to the Gateway Determination. Council received an Alteration of Gateway Determination to publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal on 24 September 2018.

 

3.      At its meeting on 8 October 2018, Council resolved to endorse the proposed amendments to Amendment No. 10 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre for 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville for public exhibition.

 

4.      The Planning Proposal, draft DCP and supporting documentation were publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days, from 21 November 2018 – 19 December 2018. A total of 4 public authority submissions and 11 community submissions were received. The main issues raised were traffic impact and overdevelopment of the site.

 

5.      There are no recommended changes to the Planning Proposal, however Council’s Traffic section have requested amendments to Sections 8.2.4.3 Roberts Lane Widening, 8.2.4.4. Built Form and Setbacks, and 8.2.4.11 Vehicle Access of the draft DCP.

 

6.   The draft VPA for part of the Landmark Square Precinct is currently on public exhibition until 26 July 2019. Following exhibition, the General Manager has delegation to execute the VPA and make minor changes subject to any changes not diminishing the value or nature of the public benefits to be delivered.

 

7.      It is recommended that subject to the draft DCP amendments, that the Planning Proposal proceed to gazettal.

 

Background

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

 

9.      The Planning Proposal was subsequently amended a number of times with variations to the requested height, FSR, quantum of retail/ commercial and number of residential apartments. The detailed chronology of events was previously reported to the Georges River Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel on 20 July 2017, and subsequently to Council at its meeting dated 7 August 2017.

 

10.    In accordance with the Council resolution dated 7 August 2017, the Planning Proposal was forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment on 5 September 2017, and Council received a Gateway Determination on 19 October 2017, to publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal.

 

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

 

12.    On 17 May 2018, the applicant submitted a revised Planning Proposal request to Council seeking to amend the Planning Proposal through an Alteration to Gateway Determination.

 

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

 

14.    The revised Planning Proposal (Refer to Attachment 1 – Planning Proposal) was considered by the Georges River Local Planning Panel at its meeting on 21 June 2018, and was recommended:

 

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

b)   That the Planning Proposal be placed on formal public exhibition;

c)   That Council prepare an amendment to the Hurstville Development Control Plan No.2 – Hurstville City Centre (“HDCP No.2”) to run concurrently with an amendment to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, (if Alteration to the Gateway is given by the Department of Planning and Environment);

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

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

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

 

15.    With respect to item (e) of the above, it is noted that matters relating to the provision of affordable housing were reported to Council’s Environment and Planning Committee at its meeting dated 12 June 2018. The minutes of the Committee were adopted by Council on 25 June 2018.

 

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

 

17.    At its meeting on 9 July 2018, Council resolved to endorse the revised Planning Proposal PP2015/0001 to be forwarded to DPE for an Alteration to Gateway Determination.

 

18.    Council received an Alteration of Gateway Determination to publicly exhibit the Planning Proposal on 24 September 2018 (Refer to Attachment 2 – Gateway Determination). Council is required to finalise the proposed LEP amendment by 19 October 2019.

 

19.    The Planning Proposal, draft DCP and supporting documentation were publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days, from 21 November 2018 – 19 December 2018. 

 

20.    A total of 11 community submissions were received, primarily raising concerns relating to traffic and parking impacts, built form (including privacy and overshadowing constraints), child safety and noise. This will be further addressed later in this report.

 

The Subject Site and Locality

21.    The subject site is bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville, and is within the Hurstville City Centre. The site is shown in Figure 1 below.

 

http://infoweb.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/grinfocouncil/Open/2018/07/ENV_09072018_AGN_AT_files/image013.jpg

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

 

22.    It comprises nineteen (19) separate lots, being 53 – 75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street, and 9 Roberts Lane. The site is located within 400m from Allawah Railway Station and 800m from Hurstville Railway Station and transport interchange.

 

23.    The site has an area of 14,046sqm (approximately 1.4ha) and boundaries to Durham Street (140m), Forest Road (175m) and Roberts Lane (207m).

 

Current Planning Controls

24.    The Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012) applies to the subject site. The below provisions are relevant to the Planning Proposal.

 

25.    The site is currently zoned part IN2 Light Industrial and part R2 Low Density Residential under HLEP 2012 (Refer to Figure 2 below)

http://infoweb.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/grinfocouncil/Open/2018/07/ENV_09072018_AGN_AT_files/image027.jpghttp://infoweb.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/grinfocouncil/Open/2018/07/ENV_09072018_AGN_AT_files/image028.jpg
Figure 2 – HLEP 2012 Land Use Zoning Map

 

26.    The site currently has a maximum building height of 9m and 10m under the HLEP 2012, refer to Figure 3 below. Clause 4.3 Height of buildings is applicable to the site.

 

http://infoweb.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/grinfocouncil/Open/2018/07/ENV_09072018_AGN_AT_files/image029.jpghttp://infoweb.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/grinfocouncil/Open/2018/07/ENV_09072018_AGN_AT_files/image030.jpg

Figure 3 – HLEP 2012 Height of Buildings Map

 

27.    The site currently has a maximum floor space ratio between 0.6:1 and 1:1 under HLEP 2012, refer to Figure 4 below. Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio is applicable to the site.

 

http://infoweb.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/grinfocouncil/Open/2018/07/ENV_09072018_AGN_AT_files/image031.jpghttp://infoweb.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/grinfocouncil/Open/2018/07/ENV_09072018_AGN_AT_files/image032.jpg

Figure 4 – HLEP 2012 Floor Space Ratio Map

 

28.    The site contains 1 heritage item of Local significance, known as the Hurstville Scout Hall (I26) at 116 Durham Street, Hurstville. Refer to Figure 5 below. Clause 5.10 Heritage conservation is applicable to the site.

 

http://infoweb.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/grinfocouncil/Open/2018/07/ENV_09072018_AGN_AT_files/image033.jpg

Figure 5 – HLEP 2012 Heritage Map

 

29.    Local heritage items located in the vicinity of the site (as shown on the above map) include 76 Lily Street, Hurstville (I36) and Hurstville Public School, located at 80 Forest Road, Hurstville (I28).

 

Description of Planning Proposal

30.    In summary, the Planning Proposal requests an amendment to HLEP 2012 as outlined in Table 1 below:

 

Property

Current Controls in

HLEP 2012

Planning Proposal

53 Forest Road

R2 Low Density Residential

9m

0.6:1

B4 Mixed Use

12m

2:1

61-73 Forest Road

IN2 Light Industrial

10m

 1:1

B4 Mixed Use

12m, 15m, 21m, 28m, 40m, 65m

3.5:1

108-126 Durham Street

IN2 Light Industrial

10m

1:1

B4 Mixed Use

12m, 15m, 28m, 30m, 65m

3.5:1

9 Roberts Lane

IN2 Light Industrial

10m

1:1

B4 Mixed Use

12m

2:1

Table 1: Summary of current controls and controls in Planning Proposal request

 

31.    The proposed amendments to HLEP 2012, as identified in Table 1 above are shown in Figures 6 – 8 below:

 

Figure 6 – Proposed Height of Buildings Map

 

32.    It is noted that as part of the Planning Proposal, a bonus FSR incentive of 0.5:1 is proposed for the purpose of future hotel accommodation at the corner of Forest Road and Durham Street. This will increase the FSR to 4:1 in Area 1 on Figure 7 below.

 

http://infoweb.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/grinfocouncil/Open/2018/07/ENV_09072018_AGN_AT_files/image039.jpg

Figure 7 – Proposed Floor Space Ratio Map

 

33.    It is noted that the revised Planning Proposal intends to provide clarification regarding the application of the bonus FSR clause through an amendment to the wording of the proposed clause, so that the bonus is correctly calculated based on the total site area of the Precinct. The applicable location of the bonus FSR shall remain at Area 1.

 

34.    Accordingly, the revised Planning Proposal proposes to insert the following into Clause 4.4:

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

 

35.    It is noted that tourist and visitor accommodation is defined as a building or place that provides temporary or short-term accommodation on a commercial basis, and includes any of the following:

(a)  backpackers’ accommodation,

(b)  bed and breakfast accommodation,

(c)  farm stay accommodation,

(d)  hotel or motel accommodation,

(e)  serviced apartments,

but does not include:

(f)  camping grounds, or

(g)  caravan parks, or

(h)  eco-tourist facilities.

 

Figure 8 – Proposed Land Use Zoning Map

 

36.    The Planning Proposal proposes a mixed-use development with 14,046sqm of floor space, comprising the following:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b)      A Floor Space Ratio of between 2:1 – 3.5:1;

c)      A residential yield of approximately 450 units (approximately 37,700sqm at 2.69:1 FSR);

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

e)      A bonus Floor Space Ratio incentive of 0.5:1to facilitate 7,023sqm of hotel accommodation floor space (approximately 130 hotel rooms);

f)       At grade central area of communal open space of approximately 2,500sqm with public access;

g)      Rooftop communal open space on top of each building; and

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

 

Figure 9 – Ground floor concept plan

 

Assessment of the Planning Proposal

 

Strategic Planning Context

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

 

Greater Sydney Region Plan (A Metropolis of Three Cities)

38.    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 Plan is framed around 10 Directions relating to infrastructure and collaboration, liveability, productivity and sustainability.

 

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

 

Direction

Objectives

Council’s response

Direction 3: A city for people

 

Objective 6: Services and infrastructure meet communities’ changing needs

Objective 7: Communities are healthy, resilient and socially connected

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

 

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

 

Direction 4: Housing the city

 

Objective 10: Greater housing supply

Objective 11: Housing is more diverse and affordable

 

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

 

Direction 5: A city of great places

 

Objective 12: Great places that bring people together

 

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

 

Direction 5: A city of great places

 

Objective 13: Environmental heritage is identified, conserved and enhanced

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

 

Direction 7: A well connected city

 

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

 

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

·    400m from the Allawah Railway Station;

·    800m from the Hurstville Railway Station and transport interchange.

 

Direction 8: Jobs and skills for the city

 

Objective 22: Investment and business activity in centres

 

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

Council’s Employment Lands Study dated 9 March 2017 that the Precinct currently has 43 full-time equivalent employees. The proposal includes approx. 7,023sqm of commercial and retail floor space which would equate to a non-residential FSR of 0.5:1. The applicant’s Economic Impact Assessment calculated that this floor space could provide for an estimated 270 employees. Additional employees were estimated for the hotel (approx. 110 employees) and work from home (approx. 30 employees). This totals to a sum of approx. 410 employees. Although a different type of employment will be created as result of the rezoning, the Planning Proposal will facilitate an estimated increase of over 350 jobs compared to the site’s current industrial land use.

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

It is noted that the Planning Proposal was lodged prior to the undertaking of the study. It is also noted that the Planning Proposal was lodged prior to the finalisation and release of the Greater Sydney Region Plan and South District Plan.

 

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

 

Council resolved at its meeting dated 7 August 2017 to seek an independent peer review of the assessment and methodology undertaken on all of the City's Industrial Precincts as part of the preparation of the Georges River Employment Lands Study.

Council’s Industrial Lands Review dated July 2018 was endorsed by Council, recommending that Council s
trengthen its industrial lands assessment framework to better capture the importance of local population serving industrial precincts, and to establish guidelines for assessing rezoning proposals to ensure a consistent process for the assessment of planning proposals to rezone industrial lands.

Furthermore, considering the shortage of urban services land per capita in the Georges River LGA, existing industrial land should not be rezoned if there is a demonstrable need or shortage and alternative industrial opportunities do not exist.

It is noted that the Planning Proposal was lodged prior to the undertaking of the study. It is also noted that the Planning Proposal was lodged prior to the finalisation and release of the Greater Sydney Region Plan and South District Plan.

Table 2: Consistency with Directions and Objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan

 

 

South District Plan

 

40.    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.

 

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

a)      Increased employment opportunities within the proposed commercial and retail floor space (approximately 7,023sqm);

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

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


 

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

 

Direction

Planning Priorities relevant to the Planning Proposal

A city for people

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

Housing the city

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

A city of great places

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

Jobs and skills for the city

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

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

A well connected city

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

Table 3: Consistency with Planning Priorities of the South District Plan

 

Local Strategic Framework

43.    Consideration of the Planning Proposal request in relation to Council’s local strategic plans is provided below:

 

Hurstville City Centre Urban Design Strategy (2018)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 


 

State and Regional Statutory Framework

 

48.    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 

 

49.    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. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

 

55.    The traffic-generating development provisions of the Infrastructure SEPP require developments of a certain size or capacity to be referred to the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS). Council referred the Planning Proposal to RMS during the public exhibition period.

 

Ministerial Directions

 

56.    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.


 

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

Section 9.1 Direction

Assessment

1.1 Business and Industrial Zones

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

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

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

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

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

2.3 Heritage Conservation

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

3.1 Residential Zones

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

3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport

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

6.3 Site Specific Provisions

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

7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney

A Plan for Growing Sydney has been replaced by the Greater Sydney Commission’s Greater Sydney Region Plan (A Metropolis of Three Cities). The Planning Proposal is consistent with the Objectives of A Metropolis of Three Cities, as assessed in Table 2 above.

Table 4 – Consistency with S9.1 Ministerial Directions

Roberts Lane Road Widening Planning Proposal

58.    While land dedication for the purpose of local road widening is included in the VPA offer associated with the Landmark Square Planning Proposal, the fragmented ownership of the various allotments within the Precinct restricts the application of the VPA to only the eight lots owned by the proponent, being 61-75 Forest Road and 126 Durham Street, Hurstville.

 

59.    Due to the absence of 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 (PP2018/0002) to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012) in relation to 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane to:

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

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

 

60.    At its meeting on 27 August 2018, Council considered the Planning Proposal and resolved to support the amendment.

 

61.    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 Reports 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).

 

62.    On 12 September 2018, Council forwarded the Planning Proposal to DPE requesting a Gateway Determination.

 

63.    On 30 April 2019, Council was advised that DPE did not support the stand alone Planning Proposal, on grounds that the two Planning Proposals have an intrinsic relationship and that the amendments to the LRA Map and clause 5.1 of HLEP 2012 should be included as part of the Landmark Square Precinct Planning Proposal, as ‘Roads’ are permitted in the B4 Mixed Use Zone. (Refer to Attachment 3 – Letter from Department of Planning and Environment regarding Road Widening Planning Proposal).

 

64.    Amending the subject Planning Proposal to include the land acquisition and road widening would require re-exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

 

65.    It is recommended that Council address the road widening through the below amendments to the DCP, and that it be included in the future Georges River LEP 2020.


 

66.    The following controls have been added to the DCP (Section 8.2.4.3 Roberts Lane Widening):

·   Roberts Lane is subject to a road widening affectation. Refer to “Figure 3” below.

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

·   No permanent structure may be built above or below the land nominated for road widening in “Figure 3”.

·   Road dedication and road widening is to be at the proponent’s expense.

 

“Figure 3”: Roberts Lane local road widening

(refer to HLEP 2012 Land Reservation Acquisition Map)

Figure 9 – Roberts Lane local road widening as per DCP amendment

 

67.    This report recommends that Council withdraw the road widening Planning Proposal.

 

Public Exhibition of the Planning Proposal

68.    The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 21 November 2018 – 19 December 2018. The notification for the public exhibition included the following:

·    Statutory notice in The St George and Sutherland Shire Leader Newspaper (21 November 2018);

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

·    Displays in Council’s Customer Service Centres and libraries including the Planning Proposal, draft DCP and supporting documentation; and

·    Telephone and face to face contact with Strategic Planning officers.

 

69.    A total of 286 letters were sent to adjoining and nearby landowners advising of the Planning Proposal being placed on public exhibition.

 

70.    During the exhibition, a total of 13 submissions were received and the comments raised which specifically relate to the Planning Proposal are considered in this report. Acknowledgement letters/emails were sent to all submission authors.

 

71.    Submissions were received from Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) after the public exhibition period concluded, raising the total submissions to 15.

 

72.    For the purpose of reviewing and summarising the key issues raised, the submissions received during the public exhibition are grouped in the following categories: Community submissions and public authority submissions. A summary is provided in Table 5 below:

 

Submission

Number received

Community

11

Public Authority

4

Total

15

Table 5 – Submission categories (Planning Proposal)

 

Community submissions

 

73.    A total of 11 community submissions were received during the exhibition period, primarily coming from adjoining residents raising concerns relating to the following:

 

Concern Raised

Council Response

Overdevelopment of the site

 

Concern regarding the density of the development being out of character with the current landscape, concern  regarding the nearby ‘Bing Lee’ planning proposal

 

Hurstville is defined as a Strategic Centre in the Greater Sydney Commission South District Plan. The subject site is an area to facilitate high density residential development as per the Hurstville City Urban Design Strategy 2018. Furthermore the subject site is in close proximity to Business zoned land such as B4 and B2 – these zones facilitate mixed used and neighbourhood friendly development.

 

Traffic and parking constraints

 

Concern regarding excessive traffic on roads and parking problems, concern of lack of traffic signalling

 

It is acknowledged by both Council and RMS that the subject proposal is likely to cause an increase in traffic generation potential of the subject site, altering arrival and departure traffic distributions. The Applicant has addressed concerns in relation to RMS’ road upgrade funding through their amended traffic impact assessment report, notably through demonstrating sufficient retail trip rates.

 

 

Amenity Impacts

 

Concerns regarding impacts to:

-     Residential amenity such as privacy, solar access and overshadowing.

-     Acoustic amenity impacts such as noise from traffic and future construction works.

-     Structural damage to adjacent sites as a result of construction/excavation.

Apartment design guidelines have been adhered to as part of this planning proposal – any further assessment (and construction/structural impacts) is subject to gazettal and a Development Application.

 

74.    A detailed summary of the submissions received, and Council’s response to the submissions is provided in Attachment 4 – Summary of Community Submissions.

 

75.    No changes have been recommended to the Planning Proposal as a result of the community submissions as the issues raised are anticipated to be considered in the future development application (DA) stage of the development.

 

Public Authority Submissions

76.    The following public authorities were consulted during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal:

·    Transport for NSW;

·    Roads and Maritime Services;

·    NSW Department of Education;

·    Sydney Airport Authority;

·    Civil Aviation Safety Authority; and

·    Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and Cities.

 

77.    A detailed summary of the comments received and a response to the submissions is provided in Attachment 5 – Summary of Public Authority Submissions, however a brief summary of the main issues are shown below.

 

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

78.    Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) acknowledges the Planning Proposal and raises no objection to planning related matters – however it was advised that the maximum height provision of 65m (above ground level) which equates to 127m above AHD could infringe an Obstacle Limitation Surface for Sydney Airport.

 

79.    Council Response: CASA’s comments in relation to the Planning Proposal are noted. Council will consult with the Bankstown and Sydney Kingsford Smith airport authorities as part of the assessment of any future DA and address it as part of a future report to the Local Planning Panel.

 

80.    Recommendation: No change to the Planning Proposal is recommended.

 

Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities

 

81.    DIRDC acknowledges the Planning Proposal and raises no objection – however it was recommended that Council continue to liaise with Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) on planned final heights for the proposed buildings on the subject site.

 

82.    Council Response: DIRDC’s comments in relation to the Planning Proposal are noted. Council will consult with airport authorities as part of the assessment of any future DA and address it as part of a future airport in the Local Planning Panel.

 

83.    Recommendation: No change to the Planning Proposal is recommended.

 

Roads and Maritime Services

 

84.    Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) acknowledges the Planning Proposal and raises no objection in principle of the Planning Proposal, as the subject site is part of a local road network. However it was acknowledged that the subject proposal was likely to cause an increase in traffic generation potential of the subject site, altering arrival and departure traffic distributions.

 

85.    RMS’ submission is attached in this report (Attachment 6 – Submission from Roads and Maritime Services). A summary of RMS’ comments are below:

 

a)   The traffic generation rates used for the retail component of the proposal, derived from other developments are not considered applicable for the subject proposal.

 

b)   As the subject traffic and transport assessment is assuming a high level of public transport usage for the proposal, it should include some analysis of the impact of additional person trips on existing rail, bus and active transport facilities and identify any potential improvements required.

 

c)   Roads and Maritime notes that traffic survey data for existing conditions was collected in 2014. This is considered to be outdated.

 

d)   Clarification should be provided of how the background traffic growth was determined.

 

e)   Additional information in relation to the changes to arrivals and departures/traffic distributions should be provided, as the traffic distribution rates are likely to change significantly as a result of the proposed residential uses.

 

f)    The traffic assessment report refers to certain upgrades on local roads and states these road upgrades are proposed by RMS. It is advised that the local road works referenced are not in RMS forward programs and there is no Government commitment for these works.

 

g)   RMS raises concerns with the potential traffic impacts of a roundabout proposed in close proximity to proposed traffic signals at Forest Road/Durham Street/Wright Street. The impacts should be modelled and any required mitigation measures identified.

 

h)  The future performance of some of the intersections appears to be dependent on the removal of existing parking. This should be clear in any communications with affected residents, businesses, etc.

 

i)    Access to the site should be designed and located to reduce potential impacts on the future proposed traffic signals at Durham Street/Wright Street/Forest Road.

 

86.    Council Response: RMS’ concerns were addressed in an amendment to the traffic and transport assessment report which was submitted to Council on 28 May 2019, and is currently being reviewed by RMS. Council gave RMS a deadline of 25 June 2019 to review the amended documentation.

 

87.    At the time of writing this report, RMS has not responded to the amended documentation. There are two options for consideration:

 

a)   Council defer the Planning Proposal until RMS has responded to the amended documentation.

·    Council Officer Comment: This option may have an impact on the LEP amendment deadline. As per the Gateway Determination, Council has until 19 October 2019 to finalise the LEP amendment. Council would need to request an extension of Gateway Determination to ensure the Planning Proposal can proceed.

 

b)   Proceed with the Planning Proposal to gazettal, without RMS’ comments.

·    Council Officer Comment: In its submission dated 2 February 2019, RMS raises no objection in principle of the Planning Proposal, as the subject site is part of a local road network. Council’s Traffic Officers have reviewed the amended documentation and are satisfied. Changes have been made to the DCP in accordance with their comments. This is further addressed later in this report. Any further matters relating to traffic impacts can be addressed in the Development Assessment stage.

 

88.    The preferred option recommended by Council Officers is Option B.

 

89.    Recommendation: No change to the Planning Proposal is recommended. Changes to the Draft DCP are addressed later in this report.

 

Transport for NSW

 

90.    Transport for NSW (TfNSW) reviewed the Planning Proposal and supporting documentation after the exhibition period concluded. No objection was raised, however the following comments were raised:

 

·   The affected roads are under the care and control of Council, and RMS do not have any plans or funding for the upgrade of the subject intersections. It is requested that Council facilitate the preparation of a design for the subject intersection that can meet the TfNSW operating requirements and which may identify additional land to accommodate the design.

 

·  It is requested that the proponent upgrades the above bus stops with shelters and DDA compliant bus stops to support future demand from the proposed development.

 

91.    Council response: TfNSW’s comments in relation to the Planning Proposal are noted. The Applicant has addressed concerns raised by TfNSW in its amended traffic impact assessment report.

 

92.    Furthermore, it is advised that transportation impacts of any future DA will be addressed during the assessment of the DA and addressed in a future report to the Sydney South Planning Panel.

 

93.    Recommendation: No change to the Planning Proposal is recommended.

 


 

Amendment No. 10 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre

94.    In accordance with Council’s resolution of 9 July 2018, Amendment No. 10 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre (draft DCP) was prepared.

 

95.    At its meeting on 8 October 2018, Council resolved to endorse the proposed amendments to Amendment No. 10 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre for 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville for public exhibition.

 

96.    The DCP amendment reflected urban design considerations such as provision of public access, built form, boundaries, setbacks, deep soil areas, site amalgamation, and vehicular access.

 

97.    The draft DCP was placed on public exhibition concurrently with the Planning Proposal, from 21 November – 19 December 2018.

 

98.    The notification for the public exhibition included the following:

·   Statutory notice in The St George and Sutherland Shire Leader Newspaper (21 November 2018)

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

·   Displays in Council’s Customer Service Centres and libraries including the public exhibition information, the Planning Proposal and appendices, draft Hurstville LEP 2012 Maps, Gateway Determination, relevant Council Reports and other legislative documents and information

·   Telephone and face to face contact with Strategic Planning officers.

 

99.    A total of 286 letters were sent to adjoining and nearby landowners advising of the draft DCP being placed on public exhibition.

 

100.  During the exhibition, 1 of the 11 community submissions that was received specifically referenced the draft DCP. Concern was raised relating to the following:

 

Concern Raised

Council Response

The Draft DCP provides an unsuitable increase of height and scale through the provision of an increased FSR.

The draft DCP does not reference the provision of an increased FSR, however it is noted that the provision of a bonus 0.5:1 FSR is based on the total Precinct site area for the purpose of hotel accommodation.

 

 

101.  The following control is proposed to be added into Section 8.2.4.4. Built Form and Setbacks of the DCP:

 

·    A scaled height map overlay on top of Architectural plans is required at the Development Assessment stage to ensure heights are consistent with heights in the Local Environmental Plan.

 

102.  Council’s Traffic section advised of the following controls to be added to section 8.2.4.11 Vehicle Access of the DCP amendment:

 

·    The development is to adhere to traffic generation rates from Roads and Maritime Services Guide to Generating Development for the specific uses of the site;

 

·    Service vehicles to the development must be restricted to Medium Rigid Vehicles (MRVs); Heavy Rigid Vehicles (HRV) cannot access Roberts Lane without kerb adjustment and significant loss of parking on local roads.

 

·    Service vehicle access to the development is to be outside of school peak times, being 8.00am-9.30am and 2.30pm-4.00pm Monday – Friday.

 

·    Three restricted left in /left out vehicular access points (labelled A, B and C) is the preferred and recommended access to the development. The access points will need to be utilised to separate Retail use access from Residential use access from Service vehicle access.

Figure 10 - Recommended Vehicular Access Points

103.  Furthermore, in light of Council recommending to withdraw the Roberts Lane Road Widening Planning Proposal, the following controls have been added to the DCP (Section 8.2.4.3 Roberts Lane Widening):

·   Roberts Lane is subject to a road widening affectation. Refer to Figure 3below.

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

·   No permanent structure may be built above or below the land nominated for road widening in Figure 3”.

·   Road dedication and road widening is to be at the proponent’s expense.

 

104.  All proposed amendments to the draft DCP are attached to this report (Attachment 7 – Amendments to Amendment No. 10 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre).

 

Voluntary Planning Agreement

105.  An offer to enter into a VPA relating to the Planning Proposal PP2015/0001 dated 11 July 2017 was received by the Applicant at the time, One Capital Group Pty Ltd.

 

106.  Council accepted the VPA Offer and Heads of Agreement at its Meeting dated 7 August 2017. The Heads of Agreement was executed by Council and the Applicant at the time (The One Capital Group) on 1 September 2017.

 

107.  On 29 January 2019, Prime Hurstville Pty Limited, the new owner of the land, agreed to enter into a planning agreement on the terms set out in the Heads of Agreement and VPA Offer dated 1 September 2017.

 

108.  The VPA requires the Applicant to provide:

a)    a monetary contribution to Council of $7,375,878 towards public facilities, public utilities, public domain works and public road infrastructure including upgrades and embellishments to Kempt Field and public domain works in the Hurstville City Centre.

b)    road works and dedication of a 3 metre strip of land for widening a portion of Roberts Lane, and

c)    the provision of public access easements through the site to enable public access.

 

109.  The draft VPA does not exclude any future section 7.11, section 7.12 and s7.24 contributions.

 

110.  The draft VPA and supporting documentation is currently on public exhibition from 26 June 2019, and will conclude on 26 July 2019.

 

111.  The Council resolution of the 7 August 2019 provided that following the public exhibition period:

 

That Council delegate authority to the General Manager to:

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

 

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

 

Conclusion and Next Steps

112.  Council in relation to the Landmark Square Precinct at 53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville has exhibited the Planning Proposal and Amendment No. 10 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre.

 

113.  Council received 15 submissions from the community and public authorities in relation to the Planning Proposal. The issues raised in the community submissions were primarily concerned with built form and traffic impacts.

 

114.  The above issues are to be addressed in the assessment report on a future DA to the Sydney South Planning Panel. It is noted that the public authorities did not raise any objections in principle to the Planning Proposal. No changes are required to the Planning Proposal as a result.

 

115.  It is recommended that Council endorse the Planning Proposal making the following amendments to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 for the subject site (53-75 Forest Road, 108-126 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane, Hurstville) and forward to the Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation:

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

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

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

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

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

 

116.  It is also recommended that Council withdraw the Planning Proposal known as the ‘Roberts Lane Road Widening Planning Proposal’ (PP2018/0002) which sought to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 in relation to 53 Forest Road, 108 Durham Street and 9 Roberts Lane to:

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

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

 

117.  Council concurrently publicly exhibited Amendment No. 10 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre.

 

118.  Council received 1 submission from the community on Amendment No. 10 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre. Changes to section 8.2.4.11 Vehicle Access have been recommended to the Draft DCP, and it is recommended that it be adopted subject to those changes.

 

119.  Subject to Council endorsement of the Planning Proposal for forwarding to the Department of Planning and Environment for finalisation and the approval of Amendment No. 10 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre, the anticipated next steps are included in Table 8 below:

 

 

Task

Anticipated Timeframe

Report to Council on community consultation and finalisation of the Planning Proposal and adopt Amendment No. 10 to DCP No. 2 – Hurstville City Centre

July 2019

Submission to the Department to finalise the LEP

August 2019

Anticipated date for notification

Post August 2019

DCP becomes effective when LEP is finalised

Post August 2019

Table 8: Project timeline

 

Financial Implications

120.  Within budget allocation.

 

Risk Implications

121.  No risks identified.

 

Community Engagement

122.  The Planning Proposal and supporting documentation was publicly exhibited from 21 November to 19 December 2018.

 

 

File Reference

15/793

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Planning Proposal

Attachment 2

Gateway Determination

Attachment 3

Letter from Department of Planning and Environment regarding Road Widening Planning Proposal

Attachment 4

Summary of Community Submissions

Attachment 5

Summary of Public Authority Submissions

Attachment 6

Submission from Roads and Maritime Services

Attachment 7

Post Exhibition Amendments to Amendment No. 10 to DCP No.2 - Hurstville City Centre

 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 July 2019

ENV023-19             Report on Submissions - Landmark Square Precinct Planning Proposal & Development Control Plan

[Attachment 1]        Planning Proposal

 

 

Page 102

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 July 2019

ENV023-19             Report on Submissions - Landmark Square Precinct Planning Proposal & Development Control Plan

[Attachment 2]        Gateway Determination

 

 

Page 110

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 July 2019

ENV023-19             Report on Submissions - Landmark Square Precinct Planning Proposal & Development Control Plan

Attachment 3]         Letter from Department of Planning and Environment regarding Road Widening Planning Proposal

 

 

Page 111

 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 July 2019

ENV023-19             Report on Submissions - Landmark Square Precinct Planning Proposal & Development Control Plan

[Attachment 4]        Summary of Community Submissions

 

 

Page 122

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 July 2019

ENV023-19             Report on Submissions - Landmark Square Precinct Planning Proposal & Development Control Plan

[Attachment 5]        Summary of Public Authority Submissions

 

 

Page 126

 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 July 2019

ENV023-19             Report on Submissions - Landmark Square Precinct Planning Proposal & Development Control Plan

[Attachment 6]        Submission from Roads and Maritime Services

 

 

Page 134

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 July 2019

ENV023-19             Report on Submissions - Landmark Square Precinct Planning Proposal & Development Control Plan

[Attachment 7]        Post Exhibition Amendments to Amendment No. 10 to DCP No.2 - Hurstville City Centre

 

 

Page 155

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council –           Environment and Planning -  Monday, 8 July 2019                                                         Page 178

Item:                   ENV024-19        Planning Proposal for Low Rise Medium Density Residential Code - Results of Community Consultation 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

Recommendation:

(a)     That Council note the submissions received to the exhibition of the Planning Proposal PP2018/0001.

(b)     That Council vary the Planning Proposal as a result of Community Consultation (and as permitted by Section 3.35 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) and resolve to retain Item 19 of Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses under KLEP 2012 which permits Dual Occupancy (detached) and Multi Dwelling Housing development on varies land.

(c)     That Council adopt the Planning Proposal PP2018/0001 as varied which seeks the following amendments to:

a.   The Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012:

i. The deletion of Items 17 and 18 of Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses to prevent manor houses, multi dwelling housing (terraces), villas and townhouses from being built through a development application under KLEP 2012 or through complying development under the Code, on land listed in the Items

ii.  The amendment to Clause 19(z) in Schedule 1 to add the correct Lot/DP for both sites 721A and 721B King Georges Road Penshurst:

(z) 721A and 721B King Georges Road Penshurst being Lot 32 DP.1010274 and Lot 12 DP.881035.

iii. The inclusion of a new savings provision to ensure that the proposed amendments do not affect any current development applications or appeal processes

b.   The Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012:

i. The prohibition of villas, townhouses, multi dwelling housing (terraces) and manor houses in the R2 Low Density Residential zone so that they cannot be built in the zone through a development application under HLEP 2012 or through complying development under the Code.

ii.  As a consequence of (i) above, the deletion of Clause 4.1A(3) which states: Development consent may be granted for development on a lot identified as “K” on the Lot Size Map in Zone R2 Low Density Residential for the purpose of multi dwelling housing, if an area of at least 500 square metres is provided for each dwelling.

iii. The increase the minimum lot size for dual occupancies under Area G of HLEP 2012 (630sqm) so that it mirrors the minimum lot size for dual occupancies under Area O of KLEP 2012 (650sqm).

iv. The inclusion of a new savings provision to ensure that the proposed amendments do not affect any current development applications or appeal processes.

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

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

(f)      That all persons who made a submission to the Planning Proposal be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      Council resolved in June 2018 to support a Planning Proposal (PP2018/0001) to amend Kogarah and Hurstville Local Environmental Plans in response to the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code (Code).

2.      A Gateway Determination was granted by the Department on 31 July 2018 with conditions. Refer to Attachment 1 for the Gateway Determination. By letter dated 18 April 2019 the Department granted an alteration to the Gateway Determination extending the timeframe for completing the LEP to 31 January 2020.

3.      Council resolved at its meeting held 17 December 2019 to amend the Planning Proposal as required by the Gateway Determination and to refer to post Gateway Planning Proposal to the Department for review prior to exhibition.

4.      Final approval to exhibit the Planning Proposal was granted by the Department on 29 March 2019.

5.      The Planning Proposal was placed on exhibition from 1 May 2019 to 31 May 2019.

6.      Council received:

a.   100 individual submissions – with 54% of respondents supporting the Council’s Planning Proposal, and 31% objecting to the Planning Proposal; and

b.   200 surveys lodged – which indicated mixed support to the introduction of medium density housing. There is more support for dual occupancy rather than manor housing; and there is support for Council’s local controls and not the NSW State Government controls.

7.      This report recommends that Council proceed with the Planning Proposal with a variation (as permitted by Section 3.35 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) and refer it to the Department for making.

8.      The variation relates to retaining Item 19 of Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses under KLEP 2012 which permits Dual Occupancy (detached) and Multi Dwelling Housing development on varies land.

 

Background – Low Rise Medium Density Code

9.      The Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code (Code) was scheduled to commence in the Georges River Local Government Area (LGA) on 1 July 2019.

10.    On 28 June 2019 Council was advised that State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 Codes SEPP) was amended to extend this deferral for 45 councils (one of which is Georges River) until 31 October 2019, to allow for an independent review to be undertaken of the Code.  The Code will now commence 1 November 2019.

11.    Professor Roberta Ryan commenced the independent review in mid June and is expected to provide her report to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces by the end of July. Professor Ryan will provide advice and recommendations to the Minister on implementation of the Code in the deferred council areas

12.    Terrace housing is permissible under the Code where multi dwelling housing is permitted under a relevant local environmental plan (LEP). Manor housing is permissible under the Code where multi dwelling housing or residential flat buildings (or both) are permitted under a relevant LEP. Dual occupancies (attached, detached and one on top of the other) are permitted where dual occupancies are permitted under a relevant LEP.

13.    The Code provisions do not allow the community to have their say about medium density development. Complying development approval can be issued within 20 days if the application complies with all the relevant requirements in the Code.

14.    In the Georges River LGA, applicants cannot use the Code or lodge development applications for Manor Houses or Terraces; or use the Code for Dual Occupancies until 1 November 2019.

15.    Applicants can still lodge development applications for Dual Occupancies under KLEP 2012 and HLEP 2012.

16.    In September 2018, Council wrote to the Department requesting an extension of the deferral from the Code in the Georges River LGA until July 2020 and until Council has a Housing Strategy, Inclusive Housing Strategy and principal LEP in place that provides planning provisions and a set of controls for dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing.

17.    A request was also made that dual occupancy and multi dwelling housing under the Code must comply with the development standards under Council’s LEPs, once the Code is in force. The aim is that such development reflects the character of the local area.

18.    The Planning Proposal should be finalised in time prior to the commencement of the Code.

19.    Under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012):

a.   Multi Dwelling Housing and Dual Occupancies are permitted in the R2 Low Density Residential zone and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. This means that manor houses, terrace houses and dual occupancies will be permitted and could be built under the Code in both the R2 and R3 Zones under the HLEP 2012.

b.   Dual occupancies require a minimum lot size of 630sqm for Area G or 1000sqm for Area K (Scenic Foreshore Protection Area) in accordance with HLEP 2012

c.   Manor Houses will be permitted under the Code on a minimum lot size of 600sqm (mandated from the Code)

d.   Terraces will be permitted under the Code on minimum lot size of 600sqm for Area G (mandated from the Code) or 500sqm per dwelling for Area K (Scenic Foreshore Protection Area), in accordance with HLEP 2012.

20.    For Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012):

a.   Multi dwelling housing is not permitted in the R2 Low Density Residential zone but is permitted in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. This means that Terraces and Manor Houses will only be permitted in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. The 800sqm minimum lot size for multi dwelling housing in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone under KLEP 2012 will apply to terraces but not manor houses, as the minimum lot size for manor houses is mandated under the Code.

b.   Dual Occupancy development is permitted in the R2 Low Density Residential zone and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. This means that Dual Occupancies can be built on a minimum lot size of 650sqm in the R2 Low Density Residential zone and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone under the Code and through a development application.

c.   Items 17 and 18 of Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses under KLEP 2012 permit Multi Dwelling Housing on a list of properties that are zoned R2 Low Density Residential. This means Terraces and Manor Houses may be built on land listed in Items 17 and 18 under the Code or via a development application with the following minimum areas:

i. Terraces – minimum lot size of 600sqm (mandated by the Code)

ii.  Manor Houses – minimum lot size of 600sqm (mandated by the Code)

d.   Item 19 of Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses under KLEP 2012 permits Dual Occupancy (detached) and Multi Dwelling Housing development. This means that:

i. Dual Occupancy development may be built on land listed in Item 19 under the Code or via a development application

ii.  Dual Occupancy - minimum lot size 650sqm

iii. Terraces and Manor Houses may be built on land listed in Item 19 under the Code or via a development application;

1.   Terraces – minimum lot size of 600sqm (mandated by the Code)

2.   Manor Houses – minimum lot size of 600sqm (mandated by the Code)

 

Background – Planning Proposal

21.    At the June 2018 Council meeting, Council resolved to support a Planning Proposal to amend Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 in response to the Code.

22.    A Gateway Determination (Gateway) was granted by the State Government on 31 July 2018. The Gateway states that the Planning Proposal should be updated to:

a.   Remove reference to amending the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan and State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (Codes SEPP)

b.   Remove references to amendments to controls relating to dual occupancy development under the Codes SEPP

c.   Provide additional quantitative analysis to assess the impacts of the proposal on housing diversity and supply as follows, but not limited to:

d.   The total area of land zoned R2 Low Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential in the local government area; and

e.   The number of multi dwelling housing and dual occupancy developments approved in the R2 Low Density and R3 Medium Density Residential zones in the LGA in the past five years

f.    Explain whether the proposal is supported by a housing strategy that has been developed in consultation with the community;

g.   Include a new savings transition clause to ensure that proposed amendments do not affect any development applications or appeal processes; and

h.   Provide mapping that demonstrates the proposed amendments

23.    As the Gateway sought amendments to the Planning Proposal prior to public exhibition; the Planning Proposal was amended accordingly and was reported to the Environment and Planning Committee on 3 December 2018.

24.    Council at its Meeting held 17 December 2018 adopted the minutes of the 3 December 2018 Committee Meeting and resolved:

a.   That Council endorse the attached Low Rise Medium Density Housing Planning Proposal...

b.   That the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Planning Proposal be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission in accordance with the Gateway Determination.

c.   That Council endorse that the General Manager may make minor modifications to correct any numerical, typographical, mapping, interpretation and formatting errors, if required, to improve clarity and readability.

d.   That Council be advised of when the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Planning Proposal will be placed on public exhibition.

25.    Council submitted the post-Gateway Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning (Department) for review on 21 December 2018, prior to exhibition.

26.    The Department requested amendments to the Planning Proposal on 1 March 2019. Council promptly submitted an amended Planning Proposal to the Department on 15 March 2019.

27.    Final approval to exhibit the Planning Proposal was granted on 29 March 2019.

28.    The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 1 May 2019 – 31 May 2019.

29.    One of the conditions of the Gateway Determination required that Council write to all affected landowners providing notice of the proposal and public exhibition, explaining the effect of the proposed changes.

 

Planning Proposal on Exhibition

30.    The planning proposal that was placed on community consultation sought the following amendments to Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012) and Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012), in response to the State Government’s Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code (Code).

a.   KLEP 2012:

i. Delete Items 17, 18 and 19 of Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses to prevent manor houses, multi dwelling housing (terraces), villas and townhouses from being built through a development application under KLEP 2012 or through complying development under the Code, on land listed in the Items

ii.  Include a new savings provision to ensure that the proposed amendments do not affect any current development applications or appeal processes

b.   HLEP 2012:

i. Prohibit villas, townhouses, multi dwelling housing (terraces) and manor houses in the R2 Low Density Residential zone so that they cannot be built in the zone through a development application under HLEP 2012 or through complying development under the Code

ii.  Increase the minimum lot size for dual occupancies under Area G of HLEP 2012 (630sqm) so that it mirrors the minimum lot size for dual occupancies under Area O of KLEP 2012 (650sqm).

This means that land between 630sqm – 649sqm will no longer be able to build a dual occupancy on their property through a development application under HLEP 2012 or through complying development under the Code

iii. Include a new savings provision to ensure that the proposed amendments do not affect any current development applications or appeal processes

 

Results of Community Consultation

31.    The Planning Proposal was on public exhibition from 1 May 2019 – 31 May 2019. Copies of the Planning Proposal were placed online at Council’s Your Say Page and at Kogarah Library, Hurstville Library, Hurstville Customer Service Centre and Kogarah Customer Service Centre.

32.    As stated above one of the conditions in the Gateway Determination was that Council write to all affected landowners providing notice of the proposal and public exhibition, explaining the effect of the proposed changes.

33.    Council had one letter dated 15 April 2019 delivered to 50,500 residents. This letter was general in nature as it went to each resident to advise them of the exhibition of the Planning Proposal. This letter was in addition to that notification required by the Gateway Determination dated 31 July 2018 which required that “Council is to write to all affected landowners providing notice of the proposal and public exhibition, explaining the effect of the proposed changes.”

34.    The Council letters (49,496 in number) prepared to address the notification standards required by the Gateway Determination dated 31 July 2018 clearly specified the impact of the Planning Proposal in each of the following scenarios:

a.   Land zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Kogarah LEP 2012 – 12,516 letters

b.   Land zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Kogarah LEP 2012 – 7,507 letters

c.   Land included in Item 17 of Schedule 1 under the Kogarah LEP 2012 – 1 letter

d.   Land included in Item 18 of Schedule 1 under the Kogarah LEP 2012 – 66 letters

e.   Land included in Item 19 of Schedule 1 under the Kogarah LEP 2012 – 37 letters

f.    Land zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Hurstville LEP 2012 - – 21,530 letters

g.   Land zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Hurstville LEP 2012 – 7,839 letters

 

Telephone

35.    Council received 191 telephone messages in response to the exhibition of the Planning Proposal. All messages were returned by strategic planning officers. The majority of the questions related to the impact of the Planning Proposal on property.

 


 

Survey

36.    A survey was placed on Councils Your Say Page. Attachment 2 contains the full list of responses from the survey for the Committee’s consideration. The following table - Table 1 - provides a summary.

 

Table 1 – Summary of Survey Responses

 

Question

 

“No” Answer

“Yes”

Answer

Question 1: - Would you support the introduction of terraces within our residential suburbs to provide housing choice for our residents?

 

94

58%

67

42%

Summary of main issues raised in the response to Q1: The main issues raised in the survey responses include lack of infrastructure, increase traffic congestion, terraces should not be in the R2 zone, and that the area is already overdeveloped.

The support for terraces is subject to the provision for off street parking for each unit and the provision of adequate open space.

 

 

 

Question 2: - Would you support the introduction of manor houses (two storey apartment building with no more than four (4) apartments) within our residential suburbs to provide housing choice for our residents?

 

109

55%

93

46%

Summary of main issues raised in the response to Q2: The main issues raised in the survey responses include lack of infrastructure, increase traffic congestion, four houses on one house block is too high a density, and that the area is already overdeveloped.

The support for manor houses is subject to the design being consistent with the streetscape and allowing provision for adequate landscaping, each unit has carparking; they are located around hubs and main roads, located only within the R3 zone, etc.

 

 

 

Question 3: Dual occupancies are currently allowed in our residential suburbs.  Do you think this housing style is a suitable housing type within these areas?

Summary of main issues raised in the response to Q3: The main issues raised in the survey responses are the design of dual occupancies, congestion from additional cars, the lot sizes are too small, the lack of associated infrastructure with employment growth, reduces the green space and increases the amount of hard surfaces.

There is support for dual occupancy development in the survey responses. The support includes comments that the existing dual occupancy lot size requirement is too high. Dual occupancies need to be well designed and well built.  Dual Occupancies also provide a more affordable form of housing.

 

65

41%

95

59%

Question 4: Do you think dual occupancies, terraces and manor houses should be built in accordance with local building controls that are developed by Council and the community – rather than a set of generic State wide controls developed by the NSW State Government (such as those included in the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code)?

 

61

39%

97

61%

Summary of main issues raised in the response to Q4: Majority of the survey responses believe that Council controls should prevail over the state Government Codes’ controls.  Each suburb has a different type of community feel that needs to be considered and honoured in order to maintain the integrity of the communities.

A couple of responses indicate that Councils controls are too onerous and the SEPP provisions should prevail.

A number of submissions raise overdevelopment as a major issue within the LGA.

 

 

 

Question 5: Into the future, where should multi dwelling housing such as villas, town houses, manor houses and terraces be located? Eg – closer to open space, local centres, railway stations?

161 responses received.

 

 

 

Summary of main issues raised in the response to Q5: This question raised many different responses as follows:

·    There is enough high rise already.

·    Only in local centres – such as Kogarah and Hurstville

·    They should be further away from stations whereas apartments should be closer to stations. Less high rises and more multi dwelling all over the suburbs.

·    Have areas assigned or designated for multi dwelling housing – that have the necessary characters needed such as location, open space, railway stations, orientation and topography.

·    Adequate infrastructure, public transport, parking, shops, schools, hospital beds and community services are essential to support any population growth.

·    Adjacent to railway stations and local centres only.

·    Too many in our area already.

·    Each development proposal should be examined on its merits and the local area’s needs, but a general non-binding set of guidelines would be useful eg that they be close to the supporting infrastructure needs of the local residents requiring such housing.

·    They should be built in any suburb where it has become ‘stale’ and run down because it increases prospects of all type and introduces people of many skills and opinions so that the same few opinions are not holding back the growth of the area.

·    They should be located within 20 minutes walking distance to train stations.

·    Away from the foreshore of George’s River.

·    On land previously occupied by factories and industry – with careful consideration of multiple green spaces.

·    In areas where they already exist and are zoned that way – don’t infiltrate the existing single use areas.

·    Prefer higher density around railway stations. 

·    Closer or adjacent to already existing buildings of this type and NOT in R2 low density residential zones already facing massive over development along the Princes Hwy and Railway Parade.

·    Only the Princess Highway and Railway Parade in the Carlton area.  NOT in R2 low density residential zones.

 

 

 

 

37.    In summary:-

·    Support to introduce medium density housing is mixed. The main issue is the lack of associated infrastructure and impact on street car parking and increased traffic congestion.

·    There is more support for dual occupancy rather than manor housing.

·    There is support for Council’s local building controls and not the NSW State Government controls.

 

Individual Submissions

38.    Council received 100 submissions. In summary 54% of the submissions support the Council’s Planning Proposal, with only 31% objecting to the Planning Proposal. The rest of the submissions received had no position.

39.    The following Table 2 is a numerical summary of the submissions.

 

Table 2 – Numerical Summary of Submissions received

 

Details

LEP

 

No of submissions received

Total

No position provided on the planning proposal

 

15

15

(no position)

Objects to the Planning Proposal  and owns land

KLEP

10

 

HLEP

11

 

Not known

10

31

(objecting to the PP)

Supports the Planning Proposal and owns land

KLEP

10

 

HLEP

17

 

Not Known

27

54

(supporting the PP)

Total no of submissions

 

100

100

 

40.    Attachment 3 contains a detailed summary of all written submission received. The main matters raised are:

a.   Objections to the Planning Proposal as it removes property redevelopment rights that have existed since 1998 (relates to Item 19 of the KLEP 2012).

b.   Objections to the Planning Proposal relating to the increase from 630m2 to 650m2 for dual occupancy under the HLEP 2012).

c.   Objections to the implementation of the NSW Government’ Code as it overrides the village character of the suburbs and reduces any opportunity for community consultation.

d.   Support to the delay in the implementation of the NSW Government Code until Council has had time to consider its impact in full.

e.   A number of submissions objected to high-rise development.

f.    Support for Council to restrict manor houses and terraces to medium density and high density areas.

 

41.    The following submissions are brought to Council’s attention:

 

Table 3 – Specific Submissions

 

Submitter

Summary of the submission

 

Comments

Owners of

24 Penshurst Avenue

Penshurst

Objects to the Planning Proposal:

·    No. 24 Penshurst Avenue Penshurst is a heritage item under the KLEP 2012.

·    Townhouses being permitted as a scheduled use were a trade-off for the owners allowing the site to be heritage listed.

·    The planning proposal removes the development rights and will cause financial hardship.

·    If the planning proposal exceeds request that the house be removed from the heritage listing.

·    Requests a special consideration to be exempt from the planning proposal.

 

No. 24 Penshurst Avenue is zoned R2 under the KLEP –but is also listed on APU - Item 19 (use of land for multi dwelling housing or dual occupancies (detached)). The house is also listed as a Heritage Item.

 

In 1994 No. 24 Penshurst Avenue Penshurst was identified for potential heritage listing in the Kogarah Heritage Study 1994 (prepared by Tropman and Tropman). During the preparation of the LEP amendment No.22 (Heritage Stage 2) in 2001, a submission was received from the owner who was concerned that the heritage listing would reduce their development opportunities under the Clause 22A (8) of Kogarah LEP 1998.

 

This clause allowed large freehold sites over 1500sqm to be developed for villas, townhouses or a detached dual occupancy. The property was consequently included in Schedule 1 Clause 19 of the KLEP for similar uses.

 

The site is approximately 2200sqm in size. Subsequently, Council designed a curtilage around the proposed heritage item to ensure the protection and retention of the heritage item whilst retaining their development rights under Clause 22A(8). The property was heritage listed when the LEP amendment was gazetted in 2005.  The curtilage is included as a site specific provision in the DCP. 

 

As the property is a heritage item, complying development under the CODES SEPP, including the low-rise medium density housing code, is not permitted. A DA would need to be lodged.

 

It is the recommendation of this report that Item 19 of Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses under KLEP 2012 which permits Dual Occupancy (detached) and Multi Dwelling Housing development on various land be retained. All the properties listed in clause 19 are zoned R2 under the KLEP but have land sizes well over 1500m2.

 

Owner of 42A Dudley Street Penshurst NSW 222

 

Objects to the planning proposal as it removes property development use rights for No. 42 Dudley Street Penshurst – including manor and terrace housing as well as villas and townhouses.

The ability to potentially develop the site as villa and town housing has existed since the KLEP commenced and before that under clause 22A of the KLEP 1998.

Planning proposal is unreasonable and is without compensation.

Request that Council review the matter and to consider amending item 19 to exclude terrace or manor housing but allow villas and townhouses.

 

No. 42A Dudley Street is zoned R2 under the KLEP –but listed on APU - Item 19 (multi dwelling housing or dual occupancies (detached)).

Clause 22A (8) of Kogarah LEP 1998 applied to this site.  This clause allowed large freehold sites over 1500sqm to be developed for villas, townhouses or a detached dual occupancy. The site was consequently included in Schedule 1 Clause 19 of the Kogarah LEP 2012.  The site is approximately 1960sqm in size.

It is the recommendation of this report that Item 19 of Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses under KLEP 2012 which permits Dual Occupancy (detached) and Multi Dwelling Housing development on various land be retained. All the properties listed in clause 19 are zoned R2 under the KLEP but have land sizes well over 1500m2.

Resident of the former Kogarah LGA

Raises concern with the wording of the notification letters sent to residents and requests that the Planning proposal be re-exhibited due to failure to comply with the EP&A Act and its regulations and the Gateway Determination.

Council had one letter dated 15 April 2019 delivered to 50,500 residents. This letter had the correct date and was more general as it went to each resident to advise them of the exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

Council also posted letters to each owner of land zoned R2, R3 and R4 within the Georges River LGA which involved 7 types of letters as there were 7 different effects from the land use changes proposed by Council, i.e.:

·    Land zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Kogarah LEP 2012

·    Land zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Kogarah LEP 2012

·    Land included in Item 17 of Schedule 1 under the Kogarah LEP 2012

·    Land included in Item 18 of Schedule 1 under the Kogarah LEP 2012

·    Land included in Item 19 of Schedule 1 under the Kogarah LEP 2012

·    Land zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Hurstville LEP 2012

·    Land zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Hurstville LEP 2012

Only one of the letters – being the Council letter sent to landowners within the R2 Low Density Residential zone under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 - did incorrectly state that the closing date for submissions was 1 May 2019. 

However, the letter correctly stated under the heading “Public Exhibition” that the exhibition period is 1 May 2019 - 31 May 2019.  Council’s website was updated on 2 May 2019 to advise the community that the closing date for submissions is 31 May 2019.

The Council letter which was placed in residents’ mailbox dated 15 April 2019 was a generalised letter to all households. This letter was in addition to that notification required by the Gateway Determination dated 31 July 2018 which required that “Council is to write to all affected landowners providing notice of the proposal and public exhibition, explaining the effect of the proposed changes.”

The Council letters prepared to address the notification standards required by the Gateway Determination dated 31 July 2018 clearly specified the impact of the Planning Proposal in each of the following scenarios:

·    Land zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Kogarah LEP 2012

·    Land zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Kogarah LEP 2012

·    Land included in Item 17 of Schedule 1 under the Kogarah LEP 2012

·    Land included in Item 18 of Schedule 1 under the Kogarah LEP 2012

·    Land included in Item 19 of Schedule 1 under the Kogarah LEP 2012

·    Land zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Hurstville LEP 2012

·    Land zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Hurstville LEP 2012

 

Owner of 721A King Georges Road

Objects to the planned changes the property at 721A King Georges Road, Penshurst to prevent villas and townhouses from being built on the land.

 

They propose to redevelop this land for multi-dwelling housing and to restrict this sort of development on the land will devalue the property and make unviable to do anything else.

 

This property and the adjoining land at 721B are the largest vacant lots in the immediate area which we understand was the reason they were included in Item 19 of Schedule 1 of the KLEP 2012.

 

We request Council to retain in Schedule 1 - Development for the purposes of multi-dwelling housing at 721A and 721B King Georges Road, Penshurst

721A King Georges Road is zoned R2 under the KLEP –but listed on APU - Item 19 (multi dwelling housing or dual occupancies (detached)).

No change is proposed for the land zoned R2 under the KLEP 2012. The R2 Low Density Residential zone does not permit multi-dwelling housing. This means that multi-dwelling housing (terraces) or manor houses cannot be built under the Code in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

The land is included in Schedule 1 – additional permitted uses.

Clause 22A (8) of Kogarah LEP 1998 applied to this site.  This clause allowed large freehold sites over 1500sqm to be developed for villas, townhouses or a detached dual occupancy (and is now currently Schedule 1 Clause 19 of the Kogarah LEP 2012).  The site is approximately 682m2 sqm in size.

It is the recommendation of this report that Item 19 of Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses under KLEP 2012 which permits Dual Occupancy (detached) and Multi Dwelling Housing development on varies land be retained. All the properties listed in clause 19 are zoned R2 under the KLEP but have land sizes well over 1500m2.

 

 

Amendment to Planning Proposal as a result of Community Consultation

 

Amendments to Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012)

42.    The exhibited Planning Proposal sought to prohibit villas, townhouses, multi dwelling housing (terraces) and manor houses in the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

Recommendation:

No change to the exhibited Planning Proposal is proposed. However as a consequence of the prohibition of villas, townhouses, multi dwelling housing (terraces) and manor houses in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, Clause 4.1A(3) will also need to be deleted which states:

Development consent may be granted for development on a lot identified as “K” on the Lot Size Map in Zone R2 Low Density Residential for the purpose of multi dwelling housing, if an area of at least 500 square metres is provided for each dwelling.

Multi dwelling housing and dual occupancies is currently permitted with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone under HLEP 2012. The existing definitions are:

·    Multi dwelling housing means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with access at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building.

·    Dual occupancy means a dual occupancy (attached) or a dual occupancy (detached).

·    Dual occupancy (attached) means 2 dwellings on one lot of land that are attached to each other, but does not include a secondary dwelling.

·    Dual occupancy (detached) means 2 detached dwellings on one lot of land, but does not include a secondary dwelling.

The objectives of the R2 Zone:

·    To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

·    To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

·    To encourage development of sites for a range of housing types, where such development does not compromise the amenity of the surrounding area, or the natural or cultural heritage of the area.

·    To ensure that a high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained.

·    To encourage greater visual amenity through maintaining and enhancing landscaping as a major element in the residential environment.

·    To provide for a range of home business activities where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the surrounding residential amenity.

The Low Rise Medium Density Residential Code (the Code) will permit manor houses and multi dwelling housing (terraces) in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, with no strategic justification or neighbour consultation and without development consent.

An amendment has been made to the Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan to include the new definitions of manor houses and multi dwelling housing (terraces) where multi-unit dwelling is already permitted.

The new definitions are:

·    multi dwelling housing (terraces) means multi dwelling housing where all dwellings are attached and face, and are generally aligned along, 1 or more public roads.

·    manor house means a residential flat building containing 3 or 4 dwellings, where:

(a)  each dwelling is attached to another dwelling by a common wall or floor, and

(b)  at least 1 dwelling is partially or wholly located above another dwelling, and

(c)  the building contains no more than 2 storeys (excluding any basement).

 

A strip diagram showing low rise medium density housing types – detached dual occupancy, attached dual occupancy, a manor house and terraces.

Figure 1 – Spectrum of Medium density development (Department of Planning and Environment, 2018)

 

The purpose of the R2 Low Density Residential zone is to provide housing for the community in a low density residential environment, whilst ensuring that a high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained. Given the changes to the Standard LEP Instrument multi dwelling housing is no longer appropriate in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, as:

·    The inclusion of manor houses and multi dwelling housing (terraces) within the definition of multi dwelling housing threatens the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

·    It will adversely affect residential amenity and the natural and cultural heritage of the area

·    The Code will remove any consideration of the objectives of the zone and the impact of such development on the low density character of the area

·    Manor houses are a form of low-rise residential flat buildings.

·    Manor houses are unacceptable given that residential flat buildings are prohibited in the R2 Low Density Residential zone and are contrary to the objectives of the zone.

·    Multi dwelling housing (terraces) will significantly change the streetscape and increase the density within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. This is contrary to the objectives of the zone.

·    Council is completing a Housing Strategy and Inclusive Housing Strategy to review all of the land in the LGA. This will assist Council to determine what land has merit on strategic planning grounds to accommodate medium density housing

 

43.    Increase the minimum lot size for dual occupancies under Area G of HLEP 2012 (630sqm) so that it mirrors the minimum lot size for dual occupancies under Area O of KLEP 2012 (650sqm)

Recommendation:

No change to the exhibited Planning Proposal is proposed. The increase in the minimum lot size for dual occupancies under Area G of HLEP 2012 (630sqm) so that it mirrors the minimum lot size for dual occupancies under Area O of KLEP 2012 (650sqm) is supported for the following reasons:

·    It brings the minimum lot size for dual occupancies under HLEP 2012 (630sqm) in line with the minimum lot size for dual occupancies under Area “O” of KLEP 2012 (650sqm)

·    It will protect the integrity of the R2 Low Density Residential zone

·    It will reduce the impact on the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

·    It will uphold residential amenity, minimise the infrastructure burden, mitigate rows of dual occupancies and retain the suburban garden landscape character of our suburbs,

The properties with a land size of 630sqm – 649 sqm in the former Hurstville Local Government Area that will be affected by this proposed amendment is approximately 227 properties (with a 15m frontage) and 303 properties (with a 12m frontage, for properties that have a rear laneway).

Council should note that a number of objections have been received to the increase in the minimum lot size – refer to Attachment 3.

 

44.    Include a new savings provision to ensure that the proposed amendments do not affect any current development applications or appeal processes.

Recommendation:

No change to the exhibited Planning Proposal is proposed. This is a requirement of the Department of Planning & Environment.

 

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (KLEP 2012):

45.    Delete Items 17, 18 and 19 of Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses to prevent manor houses, multi dwelling housing (terraces), villas and townhouses from being built through a development application under KLEP 2012 or through complying development under the Code, on land listed in the Items.

Recommendation:

No change to the exhibited Planning Proposal in relation to Items 17 and 18.

However it is recommended that Item 19 of Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses under KLEP 2012 which permits Dual Occupancy (detached) and Multi Dwelling Housing development on various land be retained and Item 19(z) in Schedule 1 be amended to add the correct Lot/DP for both sites 721A and 721B King Georges Road Penshurst:

(z) 721A and 721B King Georges Road Penshurst being Lot 32 DP.1010274 and Lot 12 DP.881035.

Attachment 4 to this report identified all the properties listed in Items 17, 18 and 19 of Schedule 1.

Attachment 4 provides a background to why the properties in each of Items 17, 18 and 19 of Schedule 1 were originally listed and is summarised as follows:

 

a.   Clause 17 of Schedule 1 identified certain sites where development for the purpose of multi-dwelling housing is permitted.  Only 1 site remains listed in Schedule 1 Clause 17 of the KLEP 2012 and that is 243 West Street Blakehurst. This site has now been developed for multi-unit development under Development Consent No. 212/2015. Given that the site has been developed for multi-unit housing Clause 17 of Schedule 1 can now be deleted.

b.   Schedule 1, Clause 18 replaced the requirements relating to sites identified for villa developments in the conversion of KLEP 1998 to the Standard Instrument LEP, Kogarah LEP 2012 and identifies those sites in the R2 – Low Density Residential zone where multi dwelling housing up to 5m in height are permitted on sites where there is at least a 20m frontage.

Under the current planning provisions applying many of the sites listed in Clause 18 have frontages of 15m or less (ice are normal housing blocks); therefore, site consolidation is required if a multi-unit dwelling development is proposed. Height is also limited to 5m. The impact on the streetscape and adjoining development is minimal given these provisions. It is also noted that dual occupancies are currently permitted in the R2 zone under the KLEP 2012 on the sites listed in clause 18.

However the issue is insertion of manor houses where multi dwelling is permitted. As multi dwelling housing is permitted on the sites listed in clause 18, then manor houses will be permitted as from 1 July 2019. Manor houses will be able to be carried out as complying development on sites with a width of 15m and a site area of 600m2. Sites less than these standards will need to be subject to a DA lodged with Council.  If a DA is lodged the maximum height for the manor house is restricted to 5m but can be subject to a Clause 4.6 variation.

Manor houses on the sites listed in Clause 18 will have an impact on the streetscape – given that the surrounding streetscape in most instances is dwelling houses. The sites in Clause 18 are mainly residential housing blocks.

It should be noted that the following directions apply and overrule the local environmental plans of Council:

·    Direction 5: Only the following types of development may be included in the Land Use Table: Add “Multi dwelling housing (terraces)” after “Multi dwelling housing”.

·    Direction 6: Manor houses must be permitted wherever multi dwelling housing is permitted in the Land Use Table.

·    Direction 7: Multi dwelling housing (terraces) cannot be prohibited in a zone if multi dwelling housing is permitted in that zone.

Therefore it is recommended that the Planning Proposal retain the deletion of Clause 18 in Schedule 1.

c.   Schedule 1, Clause 19 represented a conversion of Clause 22A(8) of KLEP 1998 which permitted development for the purposes of villas or townhouses (or both) or detached dual occupancy to be carried out, with consent, on an allotment of land zoned R2 - Low Density Residential with a minimum area of 1500m2 .

The 17 sites listed in Clause 19 are outlined in Table 4:

 


 

Table 4 – Sites listed in Clause 19

 

Clause 19 - Use of certain land for multi dwelling housing or dual occupancies (detached)

 

Map

·    46–48 Princes Highway, Beverley Park, being Lot 102, DP 880129

 

Currently, a purpose built motor showroom exists on No 46-48 Princes Highway. The building has an existing height of approximately 11m, not including plant and is setback approximately 17m-20m from the rear boundary.

 

The proposed development site is surrounded by the rear yards of properties which front Ocean Street and Battye Avenue.

 

Site Area – 1931m2

Frontage – 41.85m

 

 

Zoned R2 under the KLEP 2012.

 

·    124 Princes Highway, Beverley Park, being Lot 1, DP 814106

 

Contains the St George Leagues Club.

 

Site area – 2.520ha

Frontage to Princes Highway – 27.43m

 

Zoned R2 under the KLEP 2012.

 

·    408 Princes Highway, Blakehurst, being Lot D, DP 362178,

 

The subject site contains an older style single storey brick dwelling. It is considered that the site would have redevelopment potential, subject to vehicular access being granted from the Princes Highway.

 

Site area – 1537m2

Site frontage – 21m

 

Zoned R2 under the KLEP 2012.

 

·    699 Princes Highway, Blakehurst, being Lot 11, DP 617346,

 

Has been redeveloped for multi unit dwelling (13 townhouses) – Strat Plan registered 3/8/2016

 

 

Zoned R2 under the KLEP 2012.

·    17 Planthurst Road, Carlton, being Lot 143, DP 2022,

 

The subject site contains a single storey building which is being utilised as a place of worship. The site has access from Planthurst Road and is approximately 1640m2.

 

Frontage: 19.2m

 

Zoned R2 under the KLEP 2012.

 

·    5 Denman Street, Hurstville, being Lot 12, DP 236321,

 

The subject site contains a significant dwelling which takes up a significant portion of the site.

 

The site is approximately 1700m2 and under the proposed provisions could be further subdivided and potentially be redeveloped for dual occupancy development.

 

Frontage 17.7m

 

Zoned mainly R2 under the KLEP 2012. Part of the site is affected by a RE1 Zone

 

·    15 Greenbank Street, Hurstville, being Lot 16, DP 662877,

 

The subject site is within the O’Briens Estate Heritage Conservation Area and the existing dwelling is identified as an Intrusive Item.

 

The site is approximately 1700m2

Frontage – 36.9m

Zoned R2 under the KLEP 2012

 

·    27 Hurstville Road, Hurstville, being Lot 31, DP 666112,

 

The subject site currently contains a child care centre with access from Hurstville Road and is located adjacent to the old quarry.

 

The site is approximately 1650m2.

Frontage 17.265m

 

Zoned R2 under the KLEP 2012

 

·    11 Hamer Street, Kogarah Bay, being Lot B, DP 340038,

 

The subject site contains a federation style single storey dwellings and Council has recently approved alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house.

 

The subject site is approximately 1630m2.

Frontage 13.7m

 

 

Zoned R2 under the KLEP 2012

 

·    40 Oatley Parade, Oatley, being Lot B, DP 363683,

·    44 Oatley Parade, Oatley, being Lot B, DP 381842,

·    54 Oatley Parade, Oatley, being Lot B, DP 382279,

 

No. 40 contains a significant dwelling with access via a 3m access handle fronting Oatley Parade. The site abuts the railway line and is adjoined to the north by multi-dwelling housing (townhouses – SEPP5)

The site is approximately 1515m2 and under the proposed provisions could be redeveloped for dual occupancy development. Frontage – 3m

 

No. 44 is approximately 1510m2 and under the proposed provisions could be redeveloped for dual occupancy development. Frontage – 3.6m

 

No. 54  contains a substantial dwelling with access via a 3m access handle fronting Oatley Parade. The site abuts the railway line and is adjoined to the south by multi-dwelling housing (townhouses – SEPP5) and to the east by a detached dual occupancy development. Frontage – 3.7m

The site is approximately 1580m2 and under the proposed provisions could be redeveloped for dual occupancy development.

 

 

 

Zoned R2 under the KLEP 2012

·    9 Belmont Avenue, Penshurst, being Lot 7, DP 11194,

·    24 Penshurst Avenue, Penshurst, being Lot 2, DP 320644.

 

9 Belmont is situated within the Penshurst Heritage Conservation Area and is identified as a contributory item.  The subject site contains a significant two storey dwelling and in ground swimming pool Site area is 1733.94m2 and frontage of 20.96m

 

24 Penshurst Avenue has specific DCP controls relating to redevelopment as a multi-dwelling development. A submission has been received from the owners of No. 24 Penshurst Avenue objecting to the Planning Proposal. Site area is 2068.93m2 with frontage of 35.18m.

 

 

Zoned R2 under the KLEP 2012

 

·    42 Dudley Street, Penshurst, being Lot 90, DP 5885,

·    721A and 721B King Georges Road, Penshurst, being Lot 12, DP 881035,

 

No. 721A is Lot 32 DP.1010274. It appears this allotment has been accidentally left out of the schedule as history pertaining to this scheduled item relates to both 721A and 721B King Georges Road.

 

No. 42 Dudley Street contains a dwelling house fronting the street and what appears to be a secondary dwelling to the rear of the block. The site is approximately 1964m2 with a frontage of 19.2m. Council has received an objection to the planning proposal from the owners of the site.

 

An objection to the Planning Proposal has also been received from the owners of No. 721A King Georges Road Penshurst.

 

The two properties labelled 721A and 721B in the map opposite were both originally affected by Clause 22A(8) of the KLEP 1998.

 

The property in light pink is 721A King Georges Road and the site adjoining is 721B King Georges Road. Both sites are affected by the Clause 19. It appears that the Lot and DP of No. 721A have been omitted from the KLEP 2012.

 

Currently, both sites are heavily vegetated and have a major drainage easement dissecting the properties. The properties do appear landlocked.

 

 

Zoned R2 under the KLEP 2012

 

In converting across the requirements of Clause 22A(8) to the SILEP (Kogarah LEP 2012), the former Kogarah Council identified those sites with an area of at least 1500m2 with multi dwelling housing and dual occupancy (detached) as additional permitted uses. Development on those sites identified in Clause 19 was permitted if the total site coverage of the proposed buildings did not exceed 30%. In addition, development for the purpose of multi-dwelling housing with frontage to a classified road required a minimum frontage of 27m.

These sites are large – 1500m2 and over. Some of the sites contain non-conforming uses such as a motor showroom on 46-48 Princes Highway and the St Georges leagues Club on 124 Princes Highway.

For Manor Houses to be complying development under the Code the following is required:

·    15m frontage

·    600m2 site area

Most sites in clause 19 would comply with the Code requirements – but unless a subdivision is permitted and consented to, the maximum number of dwellings would be 4. Manor houses – maximum of 4 dwellings – on these sites of over 1500m2 would be acceptable given the 30% restriction on site coverage.

For terrace housing each dwelling has to face the street and align along 1 or more public roads. On some of the sites listed in Clause 19 terrace housing would not be feasible as the site frontages are only battle axe handle width – for example  40, 44 and 54 Oatley Parade Oatley. For terrace housing to be carried out as complying development, the following is required:

·    18m width at building line

·    600m2 site area or minimum site area specified in the LEP

·    No dwelling must be located behind another dwelling on the same lot.

·    Each terrace must have a minimum width (measured parallel to the building line) of 6m.

It is therefore recommended that these sites be retained in Schedule 1 of the KLEP 2012 and that the correct Lot/DP be added for (x) 721A and 721B King Georges road Penshurst being Lot 12 DP.881035 and Lot 32 DP.1010274.

 

46.    Include a new savings provision to ensure that the proposed amendments do not affect any current development applications or appeal processes

Recommendation:

No change to the exhibited Planning Proposal as this is a requirement of the Department of Planning & Environment.

 

47.    The final Planning Proposal is attached in Attachment 5 to this report.

 

Financial Implications

48.    The work and exhibition costs of this Planning Proposal are within the budget allocation under Cost Centre 2500.

 

Risk Implications

49.    Operational risk/s identified and management process applied.

 

Community Engagement

50.    The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 1 May 2019 – 31 May 2019.

 

Next Steps

51.    The next step is to refer the Planning Proposal with the variation (as permitted by Section 3.35 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) to the Department for making.

 

File Reference

PP2018/0001

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Gateway Determination dated 31 July 2019

Attachment 2

Full list of survey responses

Attachment 3

Written Submissions Received

Attachment 4

Schedule 1 - Items 17, 18 and 19 of the Kogarah LEP 2012

Attachment 5

Final Planning Proposal

 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 July 2019

ENV024-19             Planning Proposal for Low Rise Medium Density Residential Code - Results of Community Consultation

[Attachment 1]        Gateway Determination dated 31 July 2019

 

 

Page 183

 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 July 2019

ENV024-19             Planning Proposal for Low Rise Medium Density Residential Code - Results of Community Consultation

[Attachment 2]        Full list of survey responses

 

 

Page 204

 


 


 



 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 July 2019

ENV024-19             Planning Proposal for Low Rise Medium Density Residential Code - Results of Community Consultation

[Attachment 3]        Written Submissions Received

 

 

Page 246

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 July 2019

ENV024-19             Planning Proposal for Low Rise Medium Density Residential Code - Results of Community Consultation

[Attachment 4]        Schedule 1 - Items 17, 18 and 19 of the Kogarah LEP 2012

 

 

Page 265

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 July 2019

ENV024-19             Planning Proposal for Low Rise Medium Density Residential Code - Results of Community Consultation

[Attachment 5]        Final Planning Proposal

 

 

Page 323

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council –           Environment and Planning -  Monday, 8 July 2019                                                         Page 333

Item:                   ENV025-19        Hurstville Oval & Timothy Reserve Plan of Management and Masterplan 

Author:              Strategic Planner and Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

Recommendation:

(a)     That Council endorse the categorisation of Community Land known as Hurstville Oval as Sportsground and Park.

(b)     That Council forward the draft Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve Plan of Management to the Department of Industry (landowners) for consent.

(c)     That Council delegate the General Manager to make amendments to the draft Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve Plan of Management to address points raised by the Department of Industry.

(d)     That Council endorse the draft Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve Plan of Management and Draft Masterplan (with any amendments resulting from the issuing of the consent from the landowner) for public exhibition.

(e)     That Council hold a public hearing for the Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve Plan of Management as the proposed plan would be altering the categorisation of, community land from park to park and sportsground.

 

Executive Summary

1.      A Draft Plan of Management and Draft Masterplan have been prepared for Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve by Gondwana Consulting.

2.      A report on the Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve draft Plan of Management and Draft Masterplan was previously considered by the Environment and Planning Committee on 8 April 2019.

3.      The Committee recommended that a further report be submitted to the Committee that undertakes a feasibility study examining the extension of the Booth Saunders Pavilion towards the entrance gate.

4.      The issues with the examining the extension of the Booth Saunders Pavilion were briefed to Councillors on Monday 1 July 2019. This report addresses the issues raised at the briefing.

5.      This report also summarises the provisions and actions included in the draft Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve Plan of Management and the improvements identified in the draft Masterplan.

6.      The draft Plan of Management details how Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve will be used, improved and managed in the future.  It identifies Council’s goals and objectives for the land and establishes the overall direction for planning, resource management and maintenance of the land.

7.      The draft Plan of Management is accompanied by the Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve Masterplan which shows the proposed landscape improvements and allows Council to set priorities when preparing works programs and related budgets.

8.      This report recommends that, subject to the support of the Department of Industry (landowner), Council place the draft Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve Plan of Management and Draft Masterplan on public exhibition in order to receive feedback from the local community.

 

Background

9.      Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve includes two parcels of land, one being Community Land (Lot 53 DP 9355) owned by Georges River Council and the other Crown Land (Lot 1 DP 919317)  and managed by as Reserve Trust by Georges River Council, and is known as 30 and 30D Dora Street, Hurstville. (Refer to Figure 1)

Figure 1 Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve

 

10.    In 2018, Council engaged Gondwana Consulting to finalise the draft Plan of Management and Master Plan for Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve; and the landscape improvements within the draft Plan of Management reflect those in the Masterplan as well as the matters that Council resolved on 25 May 2011.

11.    At its meeting on 23 April 2018, Council considered a report on the new Hurstville Oval and Timothy Plan of Management and Masterplan and resolved that:

That a further report be submitted to the Committee that undertakes a feasibility study examining the extension of the Booth Saunders Pavilion towards the entrance gate.

 

12.    Figure 2 (below) is the final concept draft Masterplan for Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve. The draft Masterplan provides the broad management direction and layout intended for the future use and development of the open space area.

Figure 2 – Concept Masterplan

 

13.    Key elements of the Masterplan are outlined below:

·    Construction of a new double storey community pavilion to be located on the eastern side of Hurstville Oval (corner of Gordon and Dora Streets) which will cater for top grade sports and the community incorporating:

o Public amenities with DDA compliance;

o 2 Change Rooms (including unisex showers, toilets etc);

o Referees/Umpires Room;

o Medical Room (including a doping control room);

o Canteen;

o Storage

o First floor viewing area with office and deck

·    Reconfiguration of the Hurstville Oval perimeter security fencing to enable secured events / sporting fixtures while providing for accessibility to surrounding parklands outside of scheduled events;

·    Removal of existing boundary fencing along Gordon and Patrick Streets, retention of trees and replacement of shrub plantings with lawn for public access;

·    New spectator seating at the south-eastern perimeter of the oval;

·    Upgrade of existing terrace seating at western perimeter of the oval;

·    Establishment of new entry from Gordon Street to avoid conflict with intersection with Dora Street;

·    Increased shade planting to park areas;

·    Perimeter pathways connecting all entries to Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve;

·    Upgrade and construction of new all abilities access to all entries;

·    Upgrade of all entry points to Timothy Reserve;

·    Retention and ongoing maintenance/upgrade of all listed Heritage items, including velodrome and Art Deco entry along Dora Street;

·    Redevelopment Players Pavilion as café and museum with all abilities access;

·    Upgrade of existing toilet facility to enable all abilities access;

·    Upgrade of existing turf practice wickets run ups to include a synthetic playing surface to increase carrying capacity and reduce wear and tear of natural turf run ups and incorporate an active playspace available to community use outside cricket club scheduled/licenced use;

·    Reconfiguration of contours at the interface of Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve to increase extent of level open grassed areas within Timothy Reserve; and

·    Reconfigure access pathway network between Dora Street and Patrick Street to incorporate all abilities access and connectivity to Hurstville Oval and Timothy Street.

 

Council Briefing held 4 March 2019 

14.    The draft Plan of Management and draft Masterplan was the subject of a briefing to the Councillors on 4 March 2019. The current location of the new double storey community pavilion in the Masterplan in Figure 2 above was raised as an issue at the briefing.

15.    The location of the new double storey community pavilion has been the subject of discussions with the Director Assets and Infrastructure and Manager Special Projects. The new pavilion has been proposed for the corner of Gordon and Dora Streets for the following reasons:

a.   There are two 450mm diameter stormwater pipes, one 750mm stormwater pipe and a 300mm sewerage pipe at a depth of 3 metres below the surface adjacent to the existing Booth Saunders Pavilion. New guidelines have been introduced by Sydney Water preventing the building over stormwater lines and it would be difficult, if not impossible, of relocating all of these pipes and getting enough fall/grade to ensure the continuous flow of stormwater and sewerage.

b.   In addition the above, the existing cricket table would need to be re-aligned to ensure the sightscreen did not block the building.

c.   The estimated costs of these works, if indeed it was capable of completing, and approval was given by Sydney Water, would be approximately $1 M.

d.   This would also add about 8 months to the construction program and possibly impact on the cricket season.

e.   An additional benefit of moving the new building to the proposed location is player safety and the separation of players from the spectators to comply with Cricket Australia guidelines.

 

Council Briefing held 1 July 2019 

16.    Councillors were advised at the briefing held 1 July 2019:

a.   A review of the current proposal to extend the Booth Saunders Pavilion has been undertaken by Harrison Friedmann & Associates Pty Ltd who is Council’s Water Service Co-ordinators for Sydney Water (SW). Harrison Friedmann advises that the proposal to extend the Booth Saunders Pavilion at Hurstville Oval will be rejected by Sydney Water on the following grounds:

i. The construction of any structure over a SW owned maintenance manhole is strictly prohibited*. There is a SW manhole located under the proposed site of the Booth Saunders extension.

ii.  Notwithstanding the existence of the manhole, the construction of a structure over a SW sewer pipe requires the clay pipe to be replaced with a UPVC, concrete encased pipe which must then be protected by concrete beams supported by piers to ensure the pipe is not weight bearing.  Pipe protection also applies to footings over storm water pipes.

iii. Sydney Water Act 1994 (No.88) Division 4, Section 44 Protection of Works

b.   Sydney Water may allow a diversion of the sewer pipe around the proposed structure but this would involve:

i. Considerable cost;

ii.  Taking a direct line across the field which would significantly damage the playing surface and potentially require the modification of the pitch square. 

iii. Lengthy re-establishment periods resulting in the field being out of play.

iv. A formal application to Sydney Water for the works which would be classed as a major sewer re-design and therefore subject to Sydney Water approval.  This could be a lengthy approval process which could ultimately be rejected.

c.   Other issues:

i. In the unlikely event that Sydney Water did approve a redesign of the sewer line the increased distance being added to the pipe may prevent Council achieving the required fall/grade to divert both the sewer and stormwater effectively.

ii.  The previous location had the building positioned directly behind the bowlers arm. This would require the rotation of the pitch square and relocation of the sight board.

iii. Cricket NSW have provided a written recommendation that the pavilion be located on the Cnr of Gordon and Dora Streets as indicated in yellow on the image provided.

iv. Cricket NSW have stated that the new location provides preferred accessibility and flow from the field of play or medical room.

v.  Cricket NSW prefer the new location because it would allow a designated players and match officials area during elite matches.

vi. Council avoids the need to relocate the site board, excavate into the velodrome and oval playing surfaces, alter the pitch orientation and undergo lengthy re-establishment times for a new pitch / outfield repairs.

vii.          Council avoids the cost of a Sydney Water major works application, redesign and associated construction works and extended approval timeframes.

17.    Therefore, it is recommended that due to the above issues that the pavilion be located as detailed in Figure 2 of this report.

 

Draft Plan of Management

18.    The Plan of Management has been prepared under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) and provides the statutory requirements, clear guidelines and designation of areas, to enhance the use of Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve by all the community and minimise any conflict between existing and future user groups.

19.    The key objective of the Plan of Management is to provide a clear strategic direction for the future management and use of Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve. The draft Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserves Plan of Management is structured in four (4) parts as follows:

20.    Part A – Management Context: introduces Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve and contains information about the management context within which the Plan of Management was developed. A basis for management is proposed, the planning context outlined and key site values identified.

21.    The Crown Land Management (CLM) Act 2016 commenced on 1 July 2018. The CLM Act introduces significant changes to the management of Crown Land by Councils. Councils are now required to manage dedicated or reserved Crown Land as if it were public land under the LG Act.

22.    In relation to Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve, Crown Reserve CR500461 covers the majority of the site as indicated in Figure 3. It is classified as “community land” under the LG Act and managed accordingly, meaning that Council is required to have a Plan of Management in place for the land.

 

Figure 3 – Crown Reserve (red is community land and green is Crown land)

 

23.    With the legislation changes to Crown Land, Council is required to submit the draft Plan of Management to NSW Department of Industry, as representative of the owner of the land under section 39 of the LG Act 1993.

24.    Part B – Site Description: contains a description of the current condition of Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve. It includes information about the Reserve’s local and regional context, heritage and history, recreational uses, landscape character, access and circulation and existing services and infrastructure.

25.    Part C – Management Framework: outlines the framework within which Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve is to be managed. Consistent with requirements of the LG Act, the site has been categorised and the associated objectives listed. Management, future use and development is described and a Concept Masterplan is also contained in Part C.

26.    A central requirement of the LG Act 1993 is that all Community Land must be assigned to one or more land “categories” whereby the land categorisation defines how Council will manage each parcel of land. Each category has an associated set of objectives in providing guidance to the management of land so categorised.

27.    Consequently any area of land can only be assigned to a single category, to avoid overlapping or conflicting objectives.

28.    Land is categorised into one of the below five categories:

·    Park

·    Sportsground

·    General Community Use Area

·    Area of Cultural Significance or

·    Natural Area, which must be further categorised as either

o Bushland

o Escarpment

o Foreshore

o Watercourse or

o Wetland.

29.    The Draft Plan of Management prepared in 2010 categorised the land as Sportsground and Park.

30.    In this Plan of Management dual categorisation will apply to the Crown Land parcel (Lot 1 DP919317) which incorporates all of Hurstville Oval, which will be managed in accord with the core objectives of ‘Sportsground’, whilst remaining areas of the park outside the physical limits of Hurstville Oval will be managed in accord with the core objectives of ‘Park’.

31.    Guidelines for categorisation of land as a sportsground – Land should be categorised as a sportsground under section 36 (4) of the Act if the land used or proposed to be used primarily for active recreation involving organised sports or the playing of outdoor games.

32.    Guidelines for categorisation of land as a park – Land should be categorised as a park under section 36 (4) of the Act if the land is, or is proposed to be, improved by landscaping, gardens or the provision of non-sporting equipment and facilities, for the use mainly for passive or active recreational, social, educational and cultural pursuits that do not unduly intrude on the peaceful enjoyment of the land by others.

33.    Figure 4 (below) shows the proposed land categorisation as Sportsground and Park as per the LG Act 1993.

Figure 4 – Land Categorisation as per the LG Act

 

34.    The Actions Table in Part C – Management Framework present a variety of management actions – comprising both policies and management directions or guidelines, as well as more specific on-ground or tangible actions that will implement the management direction of the Concept Masterplan. The actions cover matters such as access and circulation, buildings and facilities, landscaping, leases and licences, and park management. The actions are ranked minor, moderate, high or not applicable.

35.    Resource requirements are generalised according to the following categories:

·   minor – actions that are routinely part of the Reserve’s management and can be met from normal Reserve or Council operational budgets (eg installing signage around the park);

·   moderate – actions that will require special allocations in the Reserve’s or Council’s operational budgets, additional resourcing, may extend over a number of funding cycles, and/or require a level of capital works funding (eg install pedestrian lighting to enable evening use and safe access);

·   high – actions that are significant projects, typically requiring sizeable capital works or other funding; (eg the construction of the new community pavilion) and

·   Not applicable – actions that are of a policy nature or guidelines, that do not have a resource requirement attached or where implementation / operational costs are part of other actions.

36.    Part D – Implementation and Review: considers the implementation of this Plan of Management and contains information on potential funding sources, reporting, evaluation and review.

 

Native Title

37.    Native Title is a requirement for Council crown land managers to obtain written advice from qualified native title manager that the Plan of Management covers Crown Land that is not ‘excluded land’.

38.    Attachment 1 is the written Native Title advice Council has received for Hurstville Oval (Lot 1 DP 919317).

Next Steps

39.    If Council resolves to support the Draft Plan of Management and Masterplan for Hurstville Oval and Timothy reserve the following steps are anticipated:

·   Council refers the draft Plan of Management to Department of Industry as the owner of Crown Land in accordance with section 39 of the LG Act seeling landowners consent.

·   Once landowner approval is provided the draft Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve Plan of Management and Masterplan will be placed on public exhibition for a period of no less than 28 days.

·   Council must hold a public hearing for the Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve Plan of Management as the proposed plan would be altering the categorisation of, community land under section 36 (4) of the LG Act.

·   A revised draft Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve Plan of Management (and Masterplan) will be prepared which addresses comments raised during the public exhibition

·   The draft Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve Plan of Management and Masterplan will be reported back to Council for adoption.

 

Community Engagement

40.   The draft Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve Plan of Management and Masterplan will be placed on public exhibition for a period of no less than 28 days in accordance with section 38 of the LG Act 1993.

41. A copy of the draft Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve Plan of Management is contained in Attachment 2.

 

File Reference

TRIM 18/1965

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Native Title Advice for Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve Plan of Management

Attachment 2

Draft Plan of Management

 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 July 2019

ENV025-19             Hurstville Oval & Timothy Reserve Plan of Management and Masterplan

Attachment 1]         Native Title Advice for Hurstville Oval and Timothy Reserve Plan of Management

 

 

Page 342

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 July 2019

ENV025-19             Hurstville Oval & Timothy Reserve Plan of Management and Masterplan

Attachment 2]         Draft Plan of Management

 

 

Page 376

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 




 



 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council –           Environment and Planning -  Monday, 8 July 2019                                                         Page 437

Item:                   ENV026-19        Planning Proposal 2017/0001 - 84D Roberts Avenue Mortdale - results of public exhibition 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

Recommendation:

(a)     That Council note the five submissions received in response to the community consultation of the revised Planning Proposal to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 by way of a Schedule 1 amendment to permit the additional uses of retail premises, bulky goods premises and centre-based child care facility at 84D Roberts Avenue (legally known as Lot 21 DP 542051).

(b)     That Council endorse the revised Planning Proposal to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 by way of a Schedule 1 amendment to permit the additional uses of retail premises, bulky goods premises and centre-based child care facility at 84D Roberts Avenue (legally known as Lot 21 DP 542051).

(c)     That Council, being the authorised local plan making authority to exercise the functions under section 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, resolve to make the plan to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 by way of a Schedule 1 amendment to permit the additional uses of retail premises, bulky goods premises and centre-based child care facility at 84D Roberts Avenue (legally known as Lot 21 DP 542051).

(d)     That Council request the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office for an Opinion to finalise the Local Environmental Plan under Section 3.36 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and in accordance with Council’s delegation for the finalisation of the Planning Proposal.

(e)     That the Department of Planning and Environment be advised of Council’s decision.

(f)      That all persons who made a submission to the Planning Proposal be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      The purpose of this report is to advise the outcome of the public exhibition in relation to the revised Planning Proposal (PP2017/0001) for land at 84D Roberts Avenue, Mortdale (legally known as Lot 21 DP 542051), referred herein as ‘the site’.

2.      On the 23 October 2017, Council resolved the following:

·    That Council endorse the Planning Proposal to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 by way of a Schedule 1 amendment to permit the additional uses of retail premises, bulky goods premises and centre-based child care facility, in relation to 84D Roberts Avenue (legally known as Lot 21 DP 542051).

·    That Council endorse the Planning Proposal to be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for a Gateway Determination under Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.


 

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

·    formalise and legitimise existing retail uses (pursuant to the 2009 consent issued under Development Application No. 08/DA-411) and enable speciality retail uses, to ensure existing employment within the shopping centre is protected and the centre remains economically viable; and

·    allow for centre-based child care facilities, a community service that is increasing in demand in the area.

4.      On the 31 October 2018, the Department of Planning and Environment issued a Gateway Determination to enable the Planning Proposal to proceed to exhibition subject to a number of conditions ( refer to Attachment 1). The Planning Proposal was supported for the following reasons:

·    it is consistent with state, regional and local planning directions seeking to retain and manage industrial and urban services- zoned land;

·    it will not result in the loss of industrial land; and

·    it will support the ongoing use of the site for existing approved uses.

5.      The Planning Proposal has since been updated to address the conditions of the Gateway Determination, namely to consider the adopted Greater Sydney Region Plan and South District Plan and replace references to 'bulky goods premises' with 'specialised retail premises', as a result of changes to Standard Instrument definitions. 

6.      The Planning Proposal has also been updated to address the Georges River Industrial Land Review which was endorsed by Council as a strategic planning document on the 17 December 2018.

7.      The revised Planning Proposal was submitted to the Environment and Planning Committee (E&P Committee) on the 8 April 2019, with the recommendation that the revised Planning Proposal proceed to public exhibition which was endorsed. The recommendation of the E&P Committee was submitted to the Council on the 23 April 2019, where it was resolved that the revised Planning Proposal be placed on public exhibition and a further report be submitted to Council following the public exhibition period.

8.      The revised Planning Proposal was subsequently placed on public exhibition for 28 days from 8 May to the 5 June 2019 and five (5) submissions were received. The key concerns raised in the submissions were in relation to traffic generation in the local street network.

9.      The Planning Proposal and submissions were referred to Council’s internal Traffic Engineer who confirmed that the proposal will result in no adverse impacts in terms of traffic.

10.    This report recommends that Council endorses the Planning Proposal and that Council - being the authorised local plan making authority to exercise the functions under section 3.36(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 – resolve to make the plan to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 by way of a Schedule 1 amendment to permit the additional uses of retail premises, bulky goods premises and centre-based child care facility at 84D Roberts Avenue (legally known as Lot 21 DP 542051.

11.    A copy of the updated Planning Proposal (including the results of the community consultation) is attached to this report in Attachment 2.

 


 

Background

12.    The site is located in the Peakhurst Industrial Precinct and is currently zoned IN2 Light Industrial under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012, which currently prohibits the use of retail premises, bulky goods and centre-based child care centres in the Land Use Table.

13.    The site contains an existing shopping centre development known as Mortdale Plaza shopping centre, which opened in 2014. The shopping centre was approved by the former Hurstville Council in 2009 under the former HLEP 1994 which enabled development for shops or commercial premises within industrial zones, but only when it was demonstrated that the development could not occur in an existing business centre. The consent (08/DA-411) permitted a three-storey mixed use development comprising a supermarket, bulky goods retail, gymnasium and office with basement parking.

14.    In accordance with paragraph 14 above, the development operates under existing use rights, which enables the lawful operation of uses which are otherwise prohibited by the HLEP 2012.

15.    In April 2017, Urbis (the Proponent) submitted the Planning Proposal request (PP2017/0001) on behalf of Romanous Construction, for the site, which sought an amendment to the HLEP 2012 to permit, with consent, retail premises, bulky goods premises and centre-based child care facilities.

16.    The Planning Proposal seeks to:

·    legitimise the existing retail uses pursuant to the 2009 (Development Application No. 08/DA-411), so that the existing employment within the shopping centre is protected and the centre remains economically viable

·    allow for centre-based child care facilities, a community service that is increasing in demand in the area.

17.    The Planning Proposal was referred to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) at its meeting on 21 September 2017 who supported the proposal and recommended that Council:

·    endorse the Planning Proposal to amend the HLEP 2012 by way of a Schedule 1 amendment to permit the additional uses of retail premises, bulky goods premises and centre-based child care facility at the site; and

·    forward the Planning Proposal to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) for a Gateway Determination.

18.    Council resolved to support the recommendations of the IHAP (detailed above) at its meeting on the 23 October 2017 following consideration at Council’s Environment and Planning Standing Committee on 9 October 2017.

19.    The Planning Proposal was then forwarded to the DPE in January 2018 for a Gateway Determination in accordance with Council’s resolution of the 23 October 2017 meeting and Section 3.34 (previously Section 56) of the Act.

20.    The DPE issued a Gateway Determination on the 31 October 2018 to enable the Planning Proposal to proceed to exhibition subject a number of conditions. Refer to Attachment 1 for a copy of the Gateway Determination.

21.    The Planning Proposal has since been updated to address the conditions of the Gateway Determination, namely to consider the final Greater Sydney Region Plan and South District Plan and replace references to 'bulky goods premises' with 'specialised retail premises', as a result of changes to Standard Instrument definitions.

22.    On 17 December 2018, Council resolved to endorse the Georges River Industrial Land Review and Community Strategic Plan 2018-2028 as strategic planning documents. Accordingly, Council also requested the Planning Proposal be updated to address the draft Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Amendment Order (No 2) 2016. These strategic planning documents have been addressed throughout the amended Planning Proposal.

23.    A Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) Policy was not applied to the Planning Proposal as it does not seek uplift, rather it solely pursues additional permissible uses.

24.    Site-specific development controls were not required to be adopted in the HLEP 2012 given that the Hurstville Development Control Plan (DCP) No.1 2007 applies to the site and provides controls to sufficiently govern development on the site.

25.    The revised Planning Proposal was submitted to the Environment and Planning Committee (E&P Committee) on the 8th April 2019, with the recommendation that the revised Planning Proposal proceed to public exhibition, which was endorsed.

26.    The revised Planning Proposal was submitted to the Council on the 23 April 2019, where it was resolved that the revised Planning Proposal be placed on public exhibition as per the E&P Committee recommendation.

27.    The revised Planning Proposal was subsequently placed on public exhibition for 28 days from 8 May to the 5 June 2019.

 

SITE DESCRIPTION & CONTEXT

Description of site

28.    The site is known as 84D Roberts Avenue, Mortdale and is legally described as Lot 21 DP 542051. The site is in an irregular battle-axe configuration with vehicle access on Roberts Avenue.

29.    The site contains one existing development at the eastern boundary, a shopping centre known as Mortdale Plaza which currently contains a range of tenancies. Within the western section of the site is an unbuilt upon area that surrounds a watercourse which cuts through this area. Refer to Figure 1 for an aerial view of the site and Table 1 for a list of land uses within the tenancies.

30.     The ground surface of the site generally slopes down from the eastern side towards the western side with an average difference of approx. 2m in height. There is a localised portion of change in topography at the watercourse in the western portion of the site as the existing watercourse is approx. 5m lower than the rest of the site.

Figure 1     Aerial view of the site and surrounds

Source: Urbis 2018

 

Table 1    Current Tenancies and land use types

Shop Name

Shop Type

Standard Instrument Definition

HLEP 2012 Land Use

Woolworths

Supermarket

Shop (a type of retail premise)

Prohibited

Diana Sadig

Pharmacy

Shop (a type of retail premise)

Prohibited

The Brasserie Club

Café

Food and drink premise (a type of retail premise)

Prohibited

BSW Liquor

Liquor Shop

Shop (a type of retail premise)

Prohibited

Crunch

Fitness Club / Gymnasium

Recreation facility (indoor)

Permitted with consent

 

31.    As noted in the table above, the existing retail uses operating on the site are prohibited under the current HLEP 2012. Notwithstanding, the retail uses are operating lawfully under existing use rights (pursuant to the Act), in accordance with development approval for the shopping centre issued under the former HLEP 1994 (consent referenced: 08/DA-411).   The consent permitted a three-storey mixed use development comprising a supermarket, bulky goods retail, gymnasium and office with basement parking.

32.    The shopping centre was approved by the former Hurstville Council in 2009 under the former HLEP 1994 which enabled development for shops or commercial premises within industrial zones, but only when it was demonstrated that the development could not occur in an existing business centre.  Supermarkets were identified as a form of “shop” and were therefore not permitted in the Light Industrial Zone under the HLEP 1994. However, the application was assessed using the Clause 16(1) mechanism of the HLEP 1994 and the proposed supermarket development was considered to be appropriately located in the industrial zone as it will service the needs of the local workforce.

 

Surrounding development

33.    Roberts Avenue is a two-way road with one lane of traffic for each direction. It also features street parking on both sides. It is used by both local residents and workers at the Peakhurst Industrial Precinct.

34.    The site is located at the interface of light industrial, residential and recreational land uses. Land immediately surrounding the site to the north, east, and west is characterised by light industrial uses, known as the Peakhurst Industrial Precinct.

35.    Further to the east, south, and west of the site are single dwelling houses.

36.    The primary interfaces of the site are described below in Table 2.

 

Table 2      Surrounding land uses

Aspect

Description

North

 

Light industrial warehouses are located to the north of the

site.

East

 

Light industrial warehouses are located immediately to the

east of the site. A series of single dwelling houses begin

approximately 200m east of the site.

South

 

Immediately to the south-west of the site is St George Masonic Club (86 Roberts Avenue). The site is bound to the south by Roberts Avenue. Beyond Roberts Avenue is a series of single dwelling houses and Hurstville Golf Club.

West

 

Land immediately to the west of the site is landscaped. Beyond this are light industrial warehouses.

 

EXISTING PLANNING CONTROLS

37.    Under the HLEP 2012 the site:

·    is zoned IN2 Light Industrial, which currently prohibits the use of retail premises, bulky goods premises and centre-based child care centres in the Land Use Table (Refer Figure 2 and Table 3);

·    has a maximum building height of 10m; and

·    has a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1:1.

38.     The allotments immediately adjoining the site are zoned IN2 Light Industrial.  Surrounding lots are zoned IN2 Light Industrial, R2 Low Density Residential and RE1 Public Recreation (Refer Figure 2)

 

Figure 2     Zoning Map of the site and surrounds

Source: Urbis 2018

Table 3      Excerpt land use Zone IN2 Light Industrial Land Use Table

Zone IN2   Light Industrial

1   Objectives of zone

·    To provide a wide range of light industrial, warehouse and related land uses.

·    To encourage employment opportunities and to support the viability of centres.

·    To minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.

·    To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of workers in the area

·    To support and protect industrial land for industrial uses.

·    To enable industrial development, which does not pollute or adversely affect adjoining land, air or water.

·    To ensure industrial development creates areas that are pleasant to work in, safe and efficient in terms of transportation, land utilisation and service distribution.

2   Permitted without consent

Home occupations

3   Permitted with consent

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; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

4   Prohibited

Agriculture; Air transport facilities; Airstrips; Amusement centres; Biosolids treatment facilities; Boat launching ramps; Boat sheds; Camping grounds; Caravan parks; Cemeteries; Centre-based child care facilities; Charter and tourism boating facilities; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Correctional centres; Crematoria; Eco-tourist facilities; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Environmental facilities; Exhibition homes; Exhibition villages; Extractive industries; Farm buildings; Forestry; Function centres; Health services facilities; Heavy industrial storage establishments; Helipads; Highway service centres; Home occupations (sex services); Information and education facilities; Industries; Jetties; Marinas; Mooring pens; Moorings; Mortuaries; Open cut mining; Passenger transport facilities; Public administration buildings; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Registered clubs; Research stations; Residential accommodation; Respite day care centres; Rural industries; Sewage treatment plants; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Water recreation structures; Water supply systems; Wholesale supplies

 

Source: HLEP 2012, NSW Legislation Website (Accessed 10/01/2019)

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

 

39.    The Planning Proposal seeks to permit the uses of retail premises, bulky goods premises and centre-based child care facilities on the site by way of a Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses amendment to the HLEP 2012.

40.    It seeks to amend Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses of the HLEP 2012 to insert the following: 

·    Use of certain land at 84D Roberts Avenue, Mortdale

(1)    This clause applies to land at 84D Roberts Avenue, Mortdale being Lot 21, DP 542051.

(2)    Development for the purpose of a retail premises, specialised retail premises, and centre-based child care facility is permitted with development consent.

41.    There are no amendments proposed to zoning or built form provisions (i.e. maximum building height and maximum FSR) and the proposal only concerns land use permissibility.

 

GATEWAY DETERMINATION

42.    On the 31 October 2018, the Executive Director of Regions Planning Services of the DPE (as delegate of the GSC) issued a Gateway Determination (Attachment 1) under section 3.34(1) of the Act to enable the Planning Proposal to proceed, subject to a number of conditions as follows:

1. Prior to community consultation, the planning proposal is to be updated to consider the final Greater Sydney Region Plan and South District Plan.

2. Prior to community consultation, the planning proposal is to be updated to replace references to 'bulky goods premises' with 'specialised retail premises’.

3. Community consultation is required under section 3.34(2)(c) and schedule 1 clause 4 of the Act as follows:

i. the planning proposal must be made publicly available for a minimum of 28 days; and

ii.  the planning authority must comply with the notice requirements for public exhibition of planning proposals and the specifications for material that must be made publicly available along with planning proposals as identified in section 5.5.2 of ‘A guide to preparing local environmental plans (Department of Planning and Environment 2016)’.

4. No consultation is required with public authorities/organisations under section 3.34(2)(d) of the Act.

5. A public hearing is not required to be held into the matter by any person or body under section 3.34(2)(e) of the Act. This does not discharge Council from any obligation it may otherwise have to conduct a public hearing (for example, in response to a submission or if reclassifying land).

6. The planning proposal authority is authorised as the local plan-making authority to exercise the functions under section 3.36(2) of the Act subject to the following:

iii. the planning proposal authority has satisfied all the conditions of the Gateway determination;

iv. the planning proposal is consistent with section 9.1 Directions or the Secretary has agreed that any inconsistencies are justified; and

v.  there are no outstanding written objections from public authorities.

7. The time frame for completing the LEP is to be nine months following the date of the Gateway determination.

43.    Further, the delegate also agreed that the planning proposal's inconsistency with Section 9.1 Direction 1.1 Business and Industrial Zones, is justified in accordance with the terms of the Direction. No further approval is required in relation to this Direction.

44.    The correspondence also noted that while the South District Plan supports the retention and management of industrial and urban services land, the Planning Proposal is supported on the basis that there are existing uses that are operating in accordance with a valid development consent. These uses are lawful and were existing prior to the District Plan. Further, the proposal does not seek to amend the zoning or development standards applying to the site. The issuing of the Gateway does not hinder the objectives or the ongoing implementation of the District Plan. It seeks to manage the existing uses on the site and provide alternative urban services uses to those that are already permitted onsite.

45.    At the time of preparing the Planning Proposal the Greater Sydney Region Plan and South District Plan were in draft form. The Planning Proposal was updated to address the finalised Plans in accordance with Condition 1 of the Gateway Determination.

46.    When the Planning Proposal was submitted, ‘bulky goods’ was a Standard Instrument LEP term. Since then, the land use term ‘bulky goods premises’ has been replaced by a new term, ‘specialised retail premises’ to reflect the changing business models in the large format retail industry. As such the Planning Proposal was also updated to reference the new term in accordance with Condition 2 of the Gateway Determination.

47.     The revised Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition for a 28 day period from the 8 May to the 5 June 2019, in accordance with Condition 3 of the Gateway determination.

 

STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXT 

48.    The Planning Proposal is consistent with the actions and directions of the Greater Sydney Region Plan and South District Plan as:

·    It does not seek to rezone industrial land;

·    It does not result in the reduction of available existing industrial land;

·    The site is located at the interface of light industrial, residential and recreational land uses;

·    The additional land uses will promote opportunities for employment diversification and growth; and

·    It will not result in conflict with surrounding land uses. 

49.    The Planning Proposal is consistent with the relevant key goals and objectives of the Georges River Community Strategic Plan 2018-2028 as follows:

·    Provide high quality, affordable and economically viable education and care across Council’s children’s services.

The Planning Proposal will allow for the provision of a centre-based child care facility within the existing shopping centre. This is essential to ensure the economic viability of the shopping centre as well as meet the community’s growing needs for centre-based child care facilities, which satisfies the above objective.

·    Local businesses are supported to help protect jobs and create employment opportunities.

The Planning Proposal will serve to support the existing employment generating uses whilst providing additional local employment opportunities within the shopping centre. This will ensure the ongoing viability of the shopping centre, which supports local businesses and serves the local community.

50.    The Planning Proposal is consistent with the recommendations contained in the Georges River Industrial Land Review, where it is retaining the existing IN2 Light Industrial zone pertaining to the site. This document clearly indicates that the Mortdale Plaza and its current uses should be retained as they strengthen the precinct and support the surrounding industrial uses. This Planning Proposal will protect the existing uses, which in turn will protect the amenity of this industrial precinct.

51.    The Planning Proposal is generally consistent with the relevant State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) summarised as follows:

·    SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Land; The existing development (shopping centre and associated retail uses) was approval under DA 08/DA-411, which indicates that the site is unlikely to be subject to further contamination. This planning proposal is for the purpose of permitting additional land uses only, and is consistent with this SEPP.

·    SEPP (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017; Any future Development Application for the purposes of a centre-based child care facility will be assessed under the relevant provisions of this SEPP.

52.    The Planning Proposal is consistent with all relevant ministerial directions as assessed by the applicant in Table 4 below:

 

Table 4 – Ministerial Directions

 

S9.1 Direction

Assessment

1.1 Business and Industrial Zones

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of this direction. The Planning Proposal does not seek to rezone the industrial land, rather, it seeks to include additional permissible uses, which will expand upon the variety of employment generating uses on the site, as well as uses that support the local community, such as centre- based child care facilities.

 

The existing uses were considered appropriate in the approval of

08/DA-411 and the additional uses sought under the Planning Proposal will serve to provide a new variety of employment opportunities which do not conflict with the existing uses on the site.

6.3 Site Specific Provisions

The proposal is consistent with the objective of this direction in that it discourages unnecessarily restrictive site-specific planning controls.

 

The range of uses currently permissible under the IN2 Light Industrial zone and the additional permitted uses to be included under Schedule 1 of the HLEP allows flexibility for the type of employment generating land uses on the site, which are compatible with those currently operating and approved under DA approval referenced: 08/DA-411

7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney

A Plan For Growing Sydney has been replaced by the Greater Sydney Commission’s Greater Sydney Region Plan – A Metropolis of Three Cities.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan.

 

 

INTERNAL REFERRALS

53.    The revised Planning Proposal was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineers whom provided comments as follows:

·    Council’s Traffic Engineers have conducted investigations to determine current sight distance conditions at intersecting roads such as Beatty Street and Barr Street with Roberts Avenue.  The inspection revealed that drivers have approximately 70m of sight distance for vehicles approaching from the east on Roberts Avenue at each intersection.  According to “Austroads Guide to Road Design - Part 3: Geometric Design”, the desirable minimum Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) required for a car travelling 50 km/hr with no grade corrections, is 48m. Stopping Sight Distance is the distance to enable a normally alert driver, travelling at the design speed on wet pavement, to perceive, react and brake to a stop before reaching a hazard on the road ahead. The horizontal sight distance at the intersection of Beatty Street and Barr Street with Roberts Avenue satisfies the desirable minimum SSD requirement for urban roads.

·    Council has also undertaken a traffic study in Roberts Avenue, near Beatty Street, to determine the speed and volume of vehicles utilising the street.  This data revealed that the 85th percentile speed (the speed at or below which 85% of all vehicles are observed to travel) and traffic volume was deemed acceptable under the Roads and Maritime Services Guidelines and did not warrant the installation of traffic calming devices.

·    Council has also undertaken a traffic study in Roberts Avenue, near Bowman Street, to determine the speed and volume of vehicles utilising the street. This data revealed that the 85th percentile speed (the speed at or below which 85% of all vehicles are observed to travel) and traffic volumes were deemed acceptable under the Roads and Maritime Services Guidelines and did not warrant the installation of traffic calming devices.

·    Council officers presented a report to the 2 April 2019 meeting of the Traffic Advisory Committee with recommendations for "No Stopping" signs to be installed on the western side of Bowman Street at the intersection of Roberts Avenue, as well as Give Way line markings and edge lines in Roberts Avenue, to assist in vehicle movements in this location.

·    Council has recently undertaken traffic counts to ascertain the volume of traffic entering Roberts Avenue from side streets in Mortdale. Based on the results of these traffic counts and the low volume of traffic using the intersections within the study area, it is not proposed to make any changes to the existing traffic conditions at this time.

·    Council is currently investigating the feasibility of right turn arrows at the intersection of Roberts Avenue and Boundary Road.  Traffic modelling is required to be undertaken as to the potential traffic congestion that this additional right turn green phase will have on both streets.  Once this assessment has been undertaken a determination can be made if the green right turn arrow is feasible.

·    Council’s traffic engineers confirm that no additional works will be required to support the Planning Proposal.

54.    As can be seen from above, Council is continually monitoring the traffic situation in Roberts Avenue and acting accordingly, Council’s Traffic Engineers will continue to periodically review vehicle volumes in Roberts Avenue to determine if any further action is required on a regular basis.

 

PUBLIC EXHIBITION

55.    In accordance with the Gateway Determination issued on the 31 October 2018, the Planning Proposal was exhibited for a minimum period of 28 days, from the 8 May to 5 June 2019. The public exhibition complied with the notice of requirements for material that must be made available along with planning proposals as identified in Section 5.5.2 of A guide to preparing local environmental plans (DPE 2018).

56.    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 were available for viewing during the exhibition period on Council’s website and hard copies made available at Council offices and libraries.

57.    Notification of the public exhibition was through:

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

·    Exhibition notice on Council’s website;

·    Notices in Council offices and libraries; and

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

58.    As per Condition 4 of the Gateway Determination, no consultation was required with public authorities/organisations under section 3.34(2)(d) of the Act.

59.     Five (5) submissions were received via Council’s website.  A summary of these submissions and Council’s response is included in Table 5 below.

 


 

Table 5 Summary of submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal

Submission Number

Submission details

Council Response

1

Proposal at 84D Roberts Avenue, Mortdale - PP 2017/0001 should include traffic control/flow and traffic conditions on Roberts Rd due to an increase of use. As a resident of Mortdale Heights, I have noticed an increase in traffic on Roberts Rd since the Woolworths complex opened. It is dangerous and near impossible to right turn onto Roberts Ave from any of the streets of Mortdale Heights during peak traffic times.

A roundabout on any of these streets has to be the best solution and council should survey residents and seek their proposals before the expected increase that additional retail and child care centre will bring to an already busy street. An increase in traffic on this road is a disaster waiting to happen.

The Planning Proposal and submissions were referred to Council’s internal Traffic Engineer who confirmed that the proposal will result in no adverse impacts in terms of traffic.

Based on the results of traffic counts of the volume of traffic entering Roberts Avenue from side streets in Mortdale and the low volume of traffic using the intersections within the study area, it is not proposed to make any changes to the existing traffic conditions at this time.

Notwithstanding, Council’s Traffic Engineers will continue to periodically review vehicle volumes in Roberts Avenue to determine if any further action is required, on a regular basis.

 

2

Another child care centre? These are everywhere.

How about before considering more infrastructure you fix up the traffic light phasing and make it safer for people to get around. The corner of Roberts Ave and Boundary Rd has had many many accidents. It's time to upgrade traffic light and put in right turn arrows. Don’t make the excuse that this isn’t your job. It is. Work with RMS to make community safer.

Then maybe consider if it's safe for a child care centre to be there. Otherwise some poor family will have a horror accident due to Council failure to keep people safe on local roads!!

There is an expected increase in demand for Childcare Centres within Sydney.  Therefore, the proposal has provided for the incorporation of a childcare facility within an accessible development. 

Traffic studies have indicated that at Roberts Avenue, near both Beatty Street and Bowman Street, traffic volumes are deemed acceptable under the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) Guidelines and do not warrant the installation of traffic calming devices.

Council has also undertaken traffic counts to ascertain the volume of traffic entering Roberts Avenue from side streets in Mortdale. Based on the results of these traffic counts and the low volume of traffic using the intersections within the study area, it is not proposed to make any changes to the existing traffic conditions including traffic light phasing.

Notwithstanding, recommendations have been made for "No Stopping" signs to be installed on the western side of Bowman Street at the intersection of Roberts Avenue, as well as Give Way line markings and edge lines in Roberts Avenue, to assist with safer vehicle movements.

3

I live in the area (Ballantyne Road, Mortdale); the traffic at Robert Ave is very bad in the morning - it almost impossible for me to cross from Beattie St or any streets in parallel into Robert Avenue. Although it's zone 50km, people also rush and speeding in this road during peak hour. As a resident I will be very cautious and incline for the council to improve the traffic road for Robert Avenue given now more people outside Mortdale/Peakhurst/Penshurst/Oatley suburbs shop at this place.

Refer to comments made above.

4

We visit this particular site regularly, to shop at Woolworths, and support the proposal. Will the existing car-parking numbers be adequate however, at times that children are being dropped off/picked up from the proposed childcare centre?

Car parking will need to be provided in accordance with the required DCP rates for the proposed use and will be assessed once a development application is made.

5

I object to the planned changes to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (HLEP 2012) in relation to the Mortdale Plaza Shopping Centre located at 84D Roberts Avenue, Mortdale (Lot 21, DP 542051).

 

I object based on:

·    unsafe vehicle volumes and vehicle speed on Roberts Ave and insufficient access to/from Mortdale Plaza

·    a child care centre in the Plaza would exasperate the already at capacity Roberts Ave band Plaza itself

 

I live on Roberts Ave and I have witnessed firsthand:

·    Since the opening of the Plaza, the traffic on Roberts Ave has increased substantially, to the extent that local residents are not able to turn in or out of their driveways and side streets

·    We get speeding vehicles coming down Roberts Ave. The 50km/hr is rarely observed by motorists.

·    We have traffic banking up both sides of Roberts Ave during peak hour creating traffic jams in surrounding streets and even banking back to Boundary Rd.

·    Roberts Ave and the Plaza is already at capacity. You cannot even park there especially during the afternoon peak.

 

Council must:

·    do due diligence and conduct a new traffic count on Roberts Ave and publish the data

·    look for additional entry/exit points to the Plaza e.g. to/from Depot Rd

provide residents with alternatives to over the development and overcrowding of the Plaza area

Council’s Traffic Engineers have undertaken Traffic studies to determine the level of traffic within the area.  These studies have determined that the 85th percentile speed (the speed at or below which 85% of all vehicles are observed to travel) and traffic volumes travelling on Roberts Avenue near both Beatty and Bowman Streets were deemed acceptable under the RMS Guidelines and did not warrant the installation of traffic calming devices.

 

 

60.    A copy of the updated Planning Proposal is contained in Attachment 2 to this report.

 

CONCLUSION

61.    The Planning Proposal seeks to permit additional uses of retail premises, speciality retail bulky goods premises and centre-based child care facilities at 84D Roberts Avenue, Mortdale, by way of a Schedule 1 additional permitted uses amendment to the HLEP 2012

62.    In summary, the Planning Proposal has strategic and site-specific merit, in that:

·    it is generally consistent with the objectives and actions of state, regional and local strategies as it does not seek to rezone or reduce available industrial zoned land

·    it will support the ongoing use of the site for existing approved uses;

·    the proposed land uses will utilise spaces within the existing development on the site and as such, there are no identified environmental constraints;

·    it will not cause any conflict with neighbouring sites given the context of the existing and surrounding land uses; and

·    permitting retail/non-industrial land uses on this site represents an isolated case and will not set a wider precedent as the proposal is supported on the basis of its existing use rights.

63.    Accordingly, it is recommended that Council endorse the revised Planning Proposal to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and forward to DPE to be finalised for gazettal.

64.    As per the Gateway Determination, the Planning Proposal is due to be completed by 31 July 2019. The anticipated project timeline is shown in Table 6.

 

Table 6      Indicative Planning Proposal timeline

Task

Timeframe

Status

Commencement and completion of public exhibition period (28 days)

May-June 2019

 

Complete

Consideration of submissions

June 2019

Report to Environment and Planning (E&P) Committee post-exhibition

July 2019

We are here

Report to Council post exhibition

July 2019

 

 

Date of submission to the Department to finalise the LEP

July-August 2019

Amendments to the LEP Published on the NSW Legislation Website

August 2019

 

 

Financial Implications

65.    Within budget allocation.

 

Risk Implications

66.    Operational risk/s identified and management process applied.

 

Community Engagement

67.    Community engagement was conducted.

 

File Reference

PP2017/0001

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Gateway Determination dated 31 October 2018

Attachment 2

Planning Proposal - 84D Roberts Road Mortdale

 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 July 2019

ENV026-19             Planning Proposal 2017/0001 - 84D Roberts Avenue Mortdale - results of public exhibition

[Attachment 1]        Gateway Determination dated 31 October 2018

 

 

Page 441

 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 July 2019

ENV026-19             Planning Proposal 2017/0001 - 84D Roberts Avenue Mortdale - results of public exhibition

Attachment 2]         Planning Proposal - 84D Roberts Road Mortdale

 

 

Page 480