AGENDA


Environment and Planning Committee

 

Monday, 14 October 2019

7.00pm

 

Level 1, Georges River Civic Centre

Hurstville

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Georges River Council –      Environment and Planning -  Monday, 14 October 2019                                                 

 

          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 - 09 September 2019 (17/1831)

8.      Committee Reports

ENV033-19       Planning Proposal for the reclassification of Part Lot 1 and whole of Lot 2 DP1200078, Taylors Reserve, Lugarno

(Report by Manager Strategic Planning)................................................................... 1

ENV034-19       Heritage Building Grants Program 2019-20

(Report by Strategic Planner).................................................................................. 127

ENV035-19       Adoption of the Local Strategic Planning Statement and endorsement of the Housing Precincts for LEP 2020

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

ENV036-19       Establishment of a Trial Program - Smoke Free Zone

(Report by Coordinator – Parking and Rangers)................................................. 580

ENV037-19       Legal Services Report - September 2019

(Report by Director Legal Services and General Counsel)................................ 590  

 

 


Georges River Council – Environment and Planning -  Monday, 14 October 2019                                                                 Page 5

Committee Reports

Item:                   ENV033-19        Planning Proposal for the reclassification of Part Lot 1 and whole of Lot 2 DP1200078, Taylors Reserve, Lugarno 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning and Independent Assessment

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council endorse the Planning Proposal (PP 2017/0003) to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 as it applies to the Council owned site known as the Taylors Reserve, bounded by Lime Kiln Road and Woodlands Avenue, Lugarno which seeks to:

i.    Amend Part 2 to Schedule 4 of HLEP 2012 to include Lot 2 and part of Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1200178 and noting in Column 3 Any trusts etc not discharged as Reservations to the Crown Grant and minerals;

ii.   Add a new map to HLEP 2012 titled ‘Land Reclassification (Whole Lots) Map - Sheet RPL_003’ which identifies Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 1200178 outlined in red as ‘Operational Land’; and

iii.  Add a new map to HLEP 2012 titled ‘Land Reclassification (Part Lots) Map - Sheet RPL_003’ which identifies part of Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1200178 outlined in red as ‘Operational Land’,

be forwarded to the delegate of the Minister for Planning requesting an Alteration to the Gateway Determination under Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

(b)     That prior to being forwarded for a Gateway Determination, Council seek an amendment of the Gateway Determination dated 17 July 2018 under section 3.34 (7) of the EP&A Act, requesting Condition 4 be amended to “The time frame for completing the LEP is 31 August 2020”.

(c)     That should an Alteration to Gateway Determination be issued by DPIE to permit exhibition of the Planning Proposal, a public hearing take place in accordance with the provisions of the NSW Local Government Act 1993 and the DPIE’s Practice Note PN 16-001 Classification and Reclassification of Public Land through a Local Environmental Plan.

(d)     That should an Alteration to Gateway Determination be issued by DPIE to permit exhibition of the amended Planning Proposal, a post-exhibition report be provided to Council, outlining any submissions received during the exhibition period, including any submissions made at the public hearing.

(e)     That Council note that the delivery of the public road will be a separate process.

(f)      That Council consider maintaining the existing alignment of the informal accessway in order to retain tree canopy and maximise the area available for public use of Taylors Reserve, noting that the low traffic volumes and low design speed on the informal accessway offers the flexibility to do so.

(g)     That should the Planning Proposal proceed to gazettal, Council commit to a program to replace the mature trees that will be required to be removed with plantings of appropriate species within Taylors Reserve.

(h)     That should the Planning Proposal proceed to gazettal, Council consider the loss of open space in Taylors Reserve in the implementation of the Council's Open Space, Recreation and Community Facilities Strategy.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      In August 2017, Georges River Council resolved to proceed with the reclassification of Lot 2 DP1200178 from Community Land to Operational Land for Right of Way and Easement purposes only (not for a public road).

2.      A Planning Proposal was prepared in August 2017 and referred to the (then) Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Determination.

3.      The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 15 November to 13 December 2017. Two submissions were received which did not require amendments to the Planning Proposal to be made. On 28 March 2018 a public hearing was independently chaired by Michael McMahon from M.E McMahon & Associates. The report of the hearing supported the reclassification of Lot 2 from "community land to “operational land”.

4.      On 26 November 2018 a supplementary report was considered by Council which identified the need to reclassify part Lot 1 DP1200178 in addition to Lot 2 to enable the delivery of a road that aligned with Council’s preferred option of a 6m wide road delivered to Australian Standards. At this meeting Council resolved that the road be a public road constructed at no cost to residents. The estimated cost of the road design and construction at that time was $550,000.

5.      Due to the need to include the reclassification of part Lot 1, as a requirement of the preferred option, an amended Planning Proposal has been prepared by Planning Ingenuity on behalf of Council reflecting the full extent of land to be reclassified to accommodate a public road. Figure 1 depicts the land the subject of the Planning Proposal and Figure 2 outlines in red the land to be reclassified to “operational land” in Taylors Reserve.

6.      The Planning Proposal is considered acceptable and is recommended that Council endorse it for the following reasons:

a.      The amended Proposal is not inconsistent with the NSW and Georges River Council strategic planning framework;

b.      The Community Land classification restricts Council from formalising the existing on ground access from which adjoining properties currently benefit. A reclassification will enable Council to dedicate part Lot 1 and Lot 2 as a public road at a later stage;

c.       A public road is considered to be inconsistent with the current POM that covers Taylors Reserve, a reclassification will remove the legal requirement for affected land to managed via a POM as per LG Act;

d.      The reclassification to Operation Land enables existing estates or interests in part Lot 1 and Lot 2 to be discharged;

e.      The current access arrangements are not formalised. Following a reclassification Council will have the opportunity and power to grant an estate such as a right of carriageway or right of access to the adjoining land; and

f.       Currently, Council may be considered to be acting in breach of the LG Act by allowing the use of Lot 2 as an access way by adjoining landowners, as such the amended Planning Proposal is a means to rectify this.

7.      Council sought and received an Alteration of Gateway on 17 July 2018. However, the Alteration of Gateway provided for an amended time frame for completing the LEP by 14 October 2018. It is recommended the Council seek an extension to 31 August 2020.

8.      Council should note that the delivery of the public road will be a separate process.

9.      Council should also note that the Planning Proposal and subsequent road 6m wide road would result in the loss of approximately 320m2 of open space and the loss of several mature trees that provide urban tree canopy. Recommendations have been included that seek to manage this issue through Council led processes.

10.    At its meeting on 5 September 2019, the Georges River Local Planning Panel (“LPP”) considered the amended Planning Proposal and recommended that Council endorse the Planning Proposal and recommendations.

11.    If a Gateway Determination (Approval) is issued, it is expected that the amended Planning Proposal will be exhibited for a period of 28 days.

12.    This report recommends that Council support the LPP recommendations and endorse this Planning Proposal. The report has been prepared by an independent consultant as the Planning Proposal involves Council owned land.

 

Figure 1 - Site Plan & Site Locality: Taylors Reserve (Lot 1 and Lot 2 DP 12000178)

 

Proposed Reclassification-01

Figure 2 – Reclassification Boundaries

 

SECTION 1 - BACKGROUND

13.    In August 2017, Georges River Council resolved to proceed with the reclassification of Lot 2 DP1200178 from Community Land to Operational Land for Right of Way and Easement purposes only (not for a public road).

14.    A Planning Proposal (PP2017/003) was prepared in August 2017 and referred to the (then) Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Determination. The Proposal sought to reclassify Lot 2 DP1200178 from “community land” to “operational land.

15.    The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 15 November to 13 December 2017. Two submissions were received which did not require amendments to the Planning Proposal to be made. On 28 March 2018 a public hearing was independently chaired by Michael McMahon from M.E. McMahon & Associates. The report of the hearing supported the reclassification of Lot 2 from “community land to “operational land”.

16.    On 26 November 2018 a supplementary report was considered by Council which identified the need to reclassify part Lot 1 DP1200178 in addition to Lot 2 to enable the delivery of a road that aligned with Council’s preferred option of a 6m wide road delivered to Australian Standards. At this meeting Council resolved that the road be a public road constructed at no cost to residents. The estimated cost of the road design and construction at that time was $550,000.

17.    Due to the need to include part Lot 1, as a requirement of the preferred option, an amended Planning Proposal has been prepared by Planning Ingenuity on behalf of Council reflecting the full extent of land to be reclassified to accommodate a public road.

18.    In order to reclassify the subject land, this amended Planning Proposal seeks to amend the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 for part of the land known as Taylors Reserve. The intention of the amended Planning Proposal is to reclassify part Lot 1 and Lot 2 DP1200178 from ‘Community Land’ to ‘Operational Land’ under the Local Government Act 1993.

19.    This report provides an assessment of the (amended) Planning Proposal (PP 2017/0003) submitted by Georges River Council in August 2017 and revised in August 2019 for the following changes to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012 for Council owned land bound by Lime Kiln Road and Woodlands Avenue, Lugarno (subject site – known as Taylors Reserve - refer to Figures 1 and 2):

a.      Amending Part 2 to Schedule 4 of HLEP 2012 to include Lot 2 and part of Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1200178 and noting in Column 3 Any trusts etc not discharged as Reservations to the Crown Grant and minerals;

b.      Adding a new map to HLEP 2012 titled ‘Land Reclassification (Whole Lots) Map - Sheet RPL_003’ which identifies Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 1200178 outlined in red as ‘Operational Land’, and

c.       Adding a new map to HLEP 2012 titled ‘Land Reclassification (Part Lots) Map - Sheet RPL_003’ which identifies part of Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1200178 outlined in red as ‘Operational Land’.

1.1 Issues

20.    The Planning Proposal is supported but there are two issues that are highlighted to Council. These arise from the reclassification of the land and consequential outcome of building a public road. They are:

a.      The removal of five mature trees; and

b.         The loss of approximately 320m2 of open space.

21.    These issues are discussed further in this report.

1.2 Georges River Local Planning Panel 5 September 2019

22.    The original Planning Proposal received a Gateway Determination dated 14 September 2017. It did not have to be referred to the Council’s IHAP as the previous delegation of the IHAP did not require a planning proposal that involved a reclassification to be considered by the then Council’s IHAP.

23.    The Charter of the Georges River Council Local Planning Panel (dated 6 March 2018) states in Clause 2(b)

Consider all Planning Proposals and make recommendations as to whether the matter should proceed to a Gateway Determination (excepting matters related to the classification or reclassification of public land).

24.    Mandatory Local Planning Panels for all councils in Greater Sydney as well as Wollongong City Council came into effect from 1 March 2018. The Direction issued by the Minister states in Clause 3:

The local planning panel must have given its advice on the planning proposal before council considers whether or not to forward it to the Minister or Greater Sydney Commission under section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

25.    The Direction does not exclude Planning Proposals which seek the classification or reclassification of public land.

26.    In order to ensure that the Minsters Direction was complied with, the amended Planning Proposal was referred to the Local Planning Panel for advice.

27.    The Planning Proposal was considered by the Local Planning Panel on 5 September 2019. A copy of the report is contained in Attachment 1.

28.    The Panel Members noted the report and voted unanimously to support the Planning Proposal with the following recommendations:

a.    That Council endorse the Planning Proposal (PP 2017/0003) to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 as it applies the Georges River Council owned site known as the Taylors reserve, bound by Lime Kiln Road and Woodlands Avenue, Lugarno which seeks to:

i. Amend Part 2 to Schedule 4 of HLEP 2012 to include Lot 2 and part of Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1200178 and noting in Column 3 Any trusts etc not discharged as Reservations to the Crown Grant and minerals;

ii.     Add a new map to HLEP 2012 titled ‘Land Reclassification (Whole Lots) Map - Sheet RPL_003’ which identifies Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 1200178 outlined in red as ‘Operational Land’,

iii.    Add a new map to HLEP 2012 titled ‘Land Reclassification (Part Lots) Map - Sheet RPL_003’ which identifies part of Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1200178 outlined in red as ‘Operational Land’,

be forwarded to the delegate of the Minister for Planning for a Gateway Determination under Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

b.    That prior to being forwarded for a Gateway Determination Council seek an amendment of the Gateway Determination dated 17July 2018 under section 3.34 (7) of the EP&A Act requesting Condition 4 be amended to “The time frame for completing the LEP is 31 August 2020”.

c.    That should an Alteration to Gateway Determination be issued by DPIE to permit exhibition of the Planning Proposal, a public hearing take place in accordance with the provisions of the NSW Local Government Act 1993 and the DPIE’s Practice Note PN 16-001 Classification and Reclassification of Public Land through a Local Environmental Plan.

d.    That should an Alteration to Gateway Determination be issued by DPIE to permit exhibition of the amended Planning Proposal, a post-exhibition report be provided to the Georges River Local Planning Panel and Council, outlining any submissions received during the exhibition period, including any submissions made at the public hearing.

e.    That Council note that the delivery of the public road will be a separate process.

f.     That Council consider maintaining the existing alignment of the informal accessway in order to retain tree canopy and maximise the area available for public use of Taylors Reserve, noting low traffic volumes and low design speed offers the flexibility to do so.

g.    That should the Planning Proposal proceed to gazettal that Council commit to a program to replace the mature trees that will be required to be removed with plantings of appropriate species within Taylors Reserve.

h.    That should the Planning Proposal proceed to gazettal that Council consider the loss of open space in Taylors Reserve in the implementation of the Council's Open Space, Recreation and Community Facilities Strategy.

SECTION 2 - SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Overview of the Site

29.    The land subject to this amended Planning Proposal is part of Taylors Reserve located in the suburb of Lugarno. The site is within 230 metres of the Georges River. The land comprising the site is represented in Figure 3 and in Table 1.


 

Table 1 – Taylors Reserve Lots, Area and Ownership

Lot and DP

Area m2

Ownership

Lot 1 DP 1200178

5,877 m2

Georges River Council

Lot 1 DP 1200178

2,899 m2

Georges River Council

TOTAL

8,776m2

 

Figure 3 – Location of Subject Site

30.    Taylors Reserve is under the ownership and management of Georges River Council and does not contain any Council buildings. The majority of Taylors Reserve is a park that contains a Scout Hall, public toilets and playground equipment along the Lime Kiln Road frontage. The site also contains a large grassed area. There are several mature trees within the site which are considered to contribute positively to the amenity, aesthetics and ecological values of the area.

Figure 4 – Subject Site

31.    An informal road, referred to as Taylor Avenue runs through part of Taylors Reserve. The informal road links Lime Kiln Road and Woodlands Avenue via Lot 2 of Taylors Reserve. Taylor Avenue is used by Council in particular for waste services and maintenance purposes. It is believed that this has been used by Council (be that Hurstville or Georges River) since the 1960s.

32.    Currently there are no legal arrangements for access to adjoining properties over Lot 2 via easements or other means. It should be noted that this amended Planning Proposal does not seek to enable access to Taylors Reserve for properties that adjoin Lot 1 – these properties are Nos 18, 20, 22, 24, 26A & 28A Lime Kiln Road and Not 2 Woodlands Avenue.

33.    The properties that may seek/request access via Lot 2 are highlighted in the Figure 5 below.

Figure 5 – Neighbouring properties with vehicles and/or pedestrian access to Lot 2

 

34.    The Figures 6 to 9 show the Reserve and surrounds.

Figure 6 – View to Taylors Reserve, playground and Scout Hall from Lime Kiln Road

 

Figure 7 – View south across Taylor Reserve, note the informal road and mature trees to the right

 

2.3 Surrounding development

35.    The site is surrounded by residential land, being a mix of one and two storey dwellings and several multi-dwelling developments. A local centre fronting Lime Kiln Road is located to the north of Taylors Reserve. Table 2 provides an outline of the development surrounding the site.

Table 2 – Built form surrounding Taylors Reserve

Area surrounding the site

Character of built form and uses

North

A Neighbourhood Centre with a cluster of shops that provide local scale goods and services.

Along the boundary are three dwellings. Both the shops and one dwelling enjoy vehicle and pedestrian access to the informal road in Lot 2 and Taylor Avenue.

Several buildings along the northern boundary encroach upon Taylors Reserve. These encroachments range from 10mm to 115mm.

South

There is one dwelling that is situated along the southern boundary which fronts Woodlands Avenue.

East

Lime Kiln Road adjoins predominately one and two storey detached dwellings.

West

Eight single or two storey detached dwellings are located directly adjacent to Lot 2. These all have access the informal road be that vehicular or pedestrian.

 

36.    In total ten of the 12 properties that are adjacent to Lot 2 currently have vehicle and or pedestrian access to the informal road (referred to as Taylors Avenue) and Taylors Reserve. Several have garage structures.

 

Figure 8 – Example of garages adjoining the informal road (known as Taylor Avenue)

 

37.    Historically, the former Hurstville Council has granted development consent and building approvals for subdivisions, dwellings, outbuildings, alterations and additions for properties which rely on the informal road as their only means to access their property.

38.    However, access arrangements have not been formalised. As such it is considered that proposals for development such as subdivision or the construction of dwellings within properties which rely solely on the access route would unlikely be supported today.  Further there are several structures relating to adjoining properties encroach into Lot 2. This includes drainage and landscaping that are likely to have been installed by owners and occupants of adjoining properties.

Figure 9 – Local centre on Lime Kiln Road


 

SECTION 3 - PLANNING STRATEGIES, POLICIES AND CONTROLS

3.1 Existing Planning Controls

39.    The principle planning instrument governing Taylors Reserve is Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012. Table 3 below provides an overview of the key local planning controls contained in HLEP 2012 in relation to the site.

 

Table 3 – HLEP 2012 controls applying to Taylors Reserve

Clause/standard

Provision

Zoning

RE1 Public Recreation

Objectives of zone

·    To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

·    To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

·    To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

Permitted without consent

 

Environmental facilities; Environmental protection works; Roads.

Permitted with consent

 

Aquaculture; Building identification signs; Business identification signs; Centre-based child care facilities; Community facilities; Information and educational facilities; Kiosks; Markets; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Respite day care centres; Restaurants or cafes.

Prohibited

 

Any development not specified in item 2 or 3 (above)

Height of Building

N/A

Floor Space Ratio

N/A

Minimum lot size

N/A

 

Figure 10 – Existing Zoning HLEP 2012

SECTION 4 - PLANNING PROPOSAL REQUEST

4.1 Background

40.    Since August 2000 Council have made a series of resolutions to create a right of carriageway across Taylors Reserve to provide formal legal access to properties that require vehicle access from the current informal road.

41.    On 18 September 2013 the former Hurstville Council resolved the following:

a.   “…. THAT Council resolves to prepare a plan of subdivision consolidating Taylors Reserve and identifying land for Taylor Avenue;

b.   THAT Council resolved to prepare a site-specific Plan of Management for Taylors Reserve and amend the Generic Plan of Management – Parks.

c.   THAT Council resolves to prepare a planning proposal to reclassify part of Taylors Reserve from Community Land to Operational Land.

d.   THAT Council create a right of carriageway for access across Taylors Reserve to provide formal legal access to properties that require access from the existing sealed road – Taylor Avenue.

e.   FURTHER THAT Council advise adjoining and adjacent landowners surrounding Taylors Reserve of its decision.

42.    In August 2017, Georges River Council resolved to proceed with the reclassification of Lot 2 DP1200178 from Community Land to Operational Land.  A Planning Proposal was prepared and referred to the (then) Department of Planning and Environment for Gateway Determination. A Gateway Determination was issued on 14 September 2017 (refer to Attachment 2 – Original Gateway Determination 14 September 2017).

43.    The Planning Proposal was placed on public exhibition from 15 November to 13 December 2017. Two submissions were received which did not require amendments to the Planning Proposal to be made. On 28 March 2018 a public hearing was independently chaired by Michael McMahon from M.E McMahon & Associates. The report of the hearing supported the reclassification of Lot 2 from "community land to “operational land”.

44.    On 26 November 2018 a supplementary report was considered by Council which identified the need to reclassify part Lot 1 DP1200178 in addition to Lot 2 to enable the delivery of a public road that aligned with Council’s preferred option of a 6m wide road delivered to Australian Standards. The estimated cost of the road is $550,000.

45.    Due to the need to include part Lot 1, an amended Planning Proposal has been prepared by Planning Ingenuity on behalf of Council reflecting the full extent of land to be reclassified to accommodate a public road.

46.    An Alteration of Gateway determination was provided by DPIE on 17 July 2018 (refer to Attachment 3 – Alteration to Gateway Determination dated 17 July 2018) It provided an extension for the timeframe for completion to 14 October 2018. As this date has since lapsed Council needs to lodge another alteration.  It is recommended the Council seek an extension to 31 August 2020.

4.2 Summary of the Planning Proposal

47.    In order to reclassify the subject land, the amended Planning Proposal seeks to amend the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 for part of the land known as Taylors Reserve. The intention of the amended Planning proposal is to reclassify part Lot 1 and the whole of Lot 2 DP 1200178 from “Community Land” to “Operational Land” under the Local Government Act 1993.

 

48.    This Planning Proposal seeks to:

a.   Amend Part 2 to Schedule 4 of HLEP 2012 to include Lot 2 and part of Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1200178 and noting in Column 3 Any trusts etc not discharged as Reservations to the Crown Grant and minerals;

b.   Add a new map to HLEP 2012 titled ‘Land Reclassification (Whole Lots) Map - Sheet RPL_003’ which identifies Lot 2 in Deposited Plan 1200178 outlined in red as ‘Operational Land’; and

c.   Add a new map to HLEP 2012 titled ‘Land Reclassification (Part Lots) Map - Sheet RPL_003’ which identifies part of Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1200178 outlined in red as ‘Operational Land’.

49.    Council should note that LEP mapping reflecting maters (b) and (c) above will be prepared in accordance with any requirement outlined in the Altered Gateway Determination.

50.    A copy of the amended Planning Proposal prepared by Planning Ingenuity is contained in Attachment 4.

SECTION 5 - ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

5.1 Strategic Planning Context

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

A Metropolis of Three Cities

52.    The Greater Sydney Region Plan (the Plan), A Metropolis of Three Cities, published in March 2018 outlines a vision for Sydney to 2056. The Plan’s 40 year vision is built upon a 20 year plan to manage the built and natural environment to accommodate the anticipated growth of Greater Sydney. The Plan includes 40 Objectives that further outline the intended outcomes of the Plan. The Objectives are supported by a series of Strategies and Actions that will give effect to the vision. These Strategies are to be adopted and Actions implemented by NSW Government agencies and Local Government. Of relevance to this proposal are the following Objectives:

53.    Objective 1 Infrastructure supports the three cities

This Objective outlines the planning of infrastructure to support the three-city vision including infrastructure that delivers the 30-minute city as well new health, cultural, education and community infrastructure to support growth within each city.

The amended Planning Proposal will result in local scale infrastructure that improves upon the current conditions of Taylors Avenue. It does not aim to deliver city-shaping infrastructure or further improve 30-minute accessibility. Nonetheless, it is considered that the amended Planning Proposal is consistent with this Objective.

54.    Objective 30 Urban tree canopy is increased

The expansion of the urban tree canopy in the urban realm is a direction that has potential to deliver environmental and community benefits. This includes reduction of heat island effects, providing habitat and offering shade to pedestrian and other active transport users. This Objective sets a target to increase tree canopy cover across Greater Sydney from 23 per cent to 40 per cent. 


 

The amended Planning Proposal will result in the removal of five mature trees which will result in an impact on the amenity and visual aesthetic appearance of the park. In order to address this, Council in its amended Planning Proposal lodged by Planning Ingenuity have expressed the intention to replace the removed trees with plantings of appropriate species within Taylors Reserve resulting in no net reduction of trees.

It is recommended that Council:

a.      Consider maintaining the existing alignment of the informal accessway in order to retain tree canopy, noting the low traffic volumes and low design speed offers the flexibility to do so; and

b.      If the trees are to be removed, commit to a program to replace the mature trees that are required to be removed with plantings of appropriate species within Taylors Reserve in accordance with its Tree Management Policy.

55.    Objective 31 Public open space is accessible, protected and enhanced

This Objective seeks to maximise the use of existing open space and protect, enhance and expand public open spaces through a variety of approaches.

In addition to land already used as informal road in Lot 2, the amended Planning Proposal will result in the loss of approximately 320m2 of public open space in part Lot 1, equating to a roughly 5 per cent reduction of open space in Taylors Reserve.

Part Lot 1 is approximately 5 metres at its widest along its length of approximately 150 metres. The main functions of the open space, being the playground and Scout Hall will remain and the passive and recreational opportunities in the grassed area are not considered to be impacted.

As outlined in the amended Planning Proposal, there will be no change to zoning of the land for public recreation. The establishment of legal access for adjoining properties will not prevent continued public access to Taylors Reserve as the access track must remain open at all times and the interests of public access will need to be considered in any future access agreements negotiated between Council and adjoining landowners.

Council at its meeting held 26 August 2019 endorsed the Open Space, Recreation and Community Facilities Strategy. The overarching purpose of the strategy is to ensure that the community within the Georges River local government area has adequate access to facilities and spaces to enhance the liveability of the city. These are places and spaces to meet and make connections, to keep fit and play sport, to connect with and enjoy the natural environment, to learn and celebrate the unique Georges River culture and lifestyle. The Strategy indicates that there is an estimated shortfall of 7.3ha (12.4 including ancillary facility area) by 2036 is no new supply or development that improve the capacity of existing supply of sport and recreation facilities are provided.

Whilst the volume of area lost is not of a dimension that will be detrimental to the use of function of the reserve, it is recommended that Council: 

a.      Consider maintaining the existing alignment of the informal accessway in order to maximise the area available for public use of Taylors Reserve, noting the low traffic volumes and low design speed offers the flexibility to do so; and,

b.      Consider the loss of any open space as part of implementing the Open Space, Recreation and Community Facilities Strategy.

 


 

South District Plan

56.    The South District Plan was published with the Greater Sydney Region Plan in March 2018. The South District Plan reflects the vision of the Region Plan, giving it effect at the District level. Through a series of Planning Priorities and actions, the District Plan informs local environmental plans, local strategic planning statements as well as other supporting strategies and policy. Of relevance to this proposal are the following Planning Priorities:

57.    Planning Priority S15 – Increasing urban tree canopy cover and delivering Green Grid connections

As noted above, the amended Planning Proposal will result in the removal of five mature trees and a reduction of tree canopy cover. However, Council have expressed the intention to replace the removed trees with plantings of appropriate species within Taylors Reserve resulting in no net reduction of trees. As such the Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with this Priority.

It is recommended that Council:

a.      Consider maintaining the existing alignment of the informal accessway in order to retain tree canopy, noting the low traffic volumes and low design speed offers the flexibility to do so; and

b.      If trees are to be removed, commit to a program to replace the mature trees that are required to be removed with plantings of appropriate species within Taylors Reserve in accordance with its Tree Management Policy.

58.    Planning Priority S16 – Delivering high quality open space

As noted above, there will be a minor loss of open space resulting from the amended Planning Proposal. It is recommended that Council: 

a.      Consider maintaining the existing alignment of the informal accessway in order to maximise the area available for public use of Taylors Reserve, noting the low traffic volumes and low design speed offers the flexibility to do so; and,

b.      Consider the loss of any open space as part of implementing the Open Space, Recreation and Community Facilities Strategy.

5.2 Council’s Local Strategic Plans

59.    Consideration of the Planning Proposal in relation to Council’s Local Strategic Plans is provided below.

Draft Georges River Local Strategic Planning Statement

60.    The Draft Georges River Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) outlines a series of priorities and actions that give effect to the directions for councils in the South District Plan. This includes actions covering housing, environment. Draft LSPS Planning Priorities and their supporting actions of relevance to this Proposal include:

a.      Priority P17 Tree canopy, bushland, landscaped settings and biodiversity are protected, enhanced and promoted.

b.      Action A81. Adopt, implement and resource the Tree Management Policy to increase urban tree canopy and biodiversity across the LGA.

c.       Priority P19. Everyone has access to quality, clean, useable, open green and recreation spaces.

d.      Action A94. Review and prepare required new plans of management for Council-managed parks and reserves that guide the development and embellishment of open space.

61.    As noted previously, the amended Planning Proposal will result in the reduction of tree canopy coverage and volume of open space within the LGA.

62.    It is recommended that Council:

a.      Consider maintaining the existing alignment of the informal accessway in order to retain tree canopy and maximise the area available for public use of Taylors Reserve , noting the low traffic volumes and low design speed offers the flexibility to do so; and if trees are to be removed,

b.      Commit to a program to replace the mature trees that are required to be removed with plantings of appropriate species within Taylors Reserve in accordance with its Tree Management Policy, and

c.       Consider the loss of any open space as part of implementing the Open Space, Recreation and Community Facilities Strategy.

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012

63.    The principle planning instrument governing Taylors Reserve is Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (HLEP) 2012. An overview of the key local planning controls contained in HLEP 2012 in relation to the site is provided earlier in this report (Refer to Table 3).

64.    The amended Planning Proposal does not seek to rezone the land. Roads are permissible within the RE1 Public Recreation and the amended Planning Proposal is consistent with the current zoning objectives.

5.3 State and Regional Statutory Framework

State Environmental Planning Policies

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

Table 4 – Assessment of the Planning Proposal against State Environmental Planning Policies

Name of SEPP

Compliance of Planning Proposal with SEPP

Complies Yes/No

SEPP No 55 – Remediation of Land

Clause 6 - Contamination and remediation to be considered in zoning or rezoning proposal

(1) In preparing an environmental planning instrument, a planning authority is not to include in a particular zone (within the meaning of the instrument) any land specified in subclause (4) if the inclusion of the land in that zone would permit a change of use of the land, unless:

(a) the planning authority has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

(b) if the land is contaminated, the planning authority is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable, after remediation) for all the purposes for which land in the zone concerned is permitted to be used, and

(c)     if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for any purpose for which land in that zone is permitted to be used, the planning authority is satisfied that the land will be so remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

(2) Before including land of a class identified in subclause (4) in a particular zone, the planning authority is to obtain and have regard to a report specifying the findings of a preliminary investigation of the land carried out in accordance with the contaminated land planning guidelines.

(3) If a person has requested the planning authority to include land of a class identified in subclause (4) in a particular zone, the planning authority may require the person to furnish the report referred to in subclause (2).

Comment: The site is within land zoned RE1 Public Recreation.

The amended Planning Proposal does not include a change of land use zone, or propose additional permitted uses for the site such as sensitive land uses like residential.

The site was previously used as a poultry farm prior to 1960 and has since been used as a park. The Planning Proposal seeks to facilitate the delivery of a road, which formalises the current access. These uses are not noted in Table 1 Some Activities that may Cause Contamination in Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines SEPP 55–Remediation of Land.

Given the above, the amended Planning Proposal complies with Clause 6 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land.

Yes

 

S9.1 Ministerial Directions

66.    Ministerial Directions under Section 9.1 (formerly S117) of the EP&A Act set out a range of matters to be considered when preparing an amendment to a Local Environmental Plan.

67.    The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with all relevant Ministerial Directions as assessed in Table 5 below:

 

Table 5 - Assessment of the Planning Proposal against Section 9.1 Ministerial Directions

 

Name of SEPP

Compliance of Planning Proposal with S9.1 Directions

Complies Yes/No

4.1

Acid Sulfate Soils

What a RPA must do:

The direction requires that a RPA must consider an acid sulfate soils study assessing the appropriateness of the change of land use given the presence of acid sulfate soils.

Comment: HLEP 2012 Acid Sulfate Solids Map ASS_006 indicates the site does not contain acid sulfate solids. Further, the amended Planning Proposal does not seek to change the land use or works which would trigger the need for an acid sulfate soils study.

Yes

5.10 Implementation of Regional Plans

What a RPA must do:

Planning Proposals must be consistent with a Regional Plan released by the Minister for Planning.

Comment: The Greater Sydney Region Plan, A Metropolis of Three Cities, outlines a series of Objectives, Priorities and Actions for NSW Government agencies and local government to consider when developing land use strategies. The amended Planning Proposal is not considered to be inconsistent with the Greater Sydney Region Plan.

 

Yes

6.1

Approval and Referral Requirements

A planning proposal must:

•minimise the inclusion of provisions that require the concurrence, consultation or referral of development applications to a Minister or public authority,

•not identify development as designated development unless the relevant planning authority has obtained the approval of the Director-General of the Department of Planning

Comment: The amended Planning Proposal does not seek to introduce additional concurrence requirements nor identify the development as designated development.

The Roads Act 1993 Part 2 Division 1 establishes that Council may, by notice published in the Gazette, dedicate any land held by it as a public road. Upon publication of the notices the land is dedicated as public road. As such no concurrences are required for the dedication of Lot 2 and part Lot 1 as a public road.

Yes

6.2

Reserving Land for Public Purposes

The objectives of this direction are:

(a) to facilitate the provision of public services and facilities by reserving land for public purposes, and

(b) to facilitate the removal of reservations of land for public purposes where the land is no longer required for acquisition.

What a RPA must do:

A planning proposal must not create, alter or reduce existing zonings or reservations of land for public purposes without the approval of the relevant public authority and the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General).

A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that: with respect to a request referred to in paragraph (7), that further information is required before appropriate planning controls for the land can be determined, or the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent with the terms of this direction are of minor significance.

 

Comment: The amended Planning Proposal does not seek to reduce the existing RE1 Public Recreation zone or any reservations for land for public purposes, nor the public’s access to Taylors Reserve.

Yes

6.3 Site Specific Provisions

A planning proposal that will amend another environmental planning instrument in order to allow a particular development proposal to be carried out must either:

(a) allow that land use to be carried out in the zone the land is situated on, or

(b) rezone the site to an existing zone already applying in the environmental planning instrument that allows that land use without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in that zone, or

(c) allow that land use on the relevant land without imposing any development standards or requirements in addition to those already contained in the principal environmental planning instrument being amended.

A Planning Proposal must not contain or refer to drawings that show details of the development proposal.

 

Comment: The amended Planning Proposal will amend HLEP 2012, identifying the land as reclassified as “operational” with interest changed in Part 2 of Schedule 4. The amended Planning Proposal does not seek to include any further amendments to the HLEP 2012.This will enable the construction of a Road which is permitted as development without consent in the RE1 Public Recreation zoned.

Yes

 

DPIE PN 16-001 Classification and reclassification of public land through a local environmental plan

68.    The practice note provides guidance to council on classifying and reclassifying land though an LEP. A planning proposal to reclassify public land is required to be prepared in accordance with the practice note.

69.    The check list detailed in Table 1 has been provided in the amended Planning Proposal (refer to Attachment 4 – Amended Planning Proposal: Planning Ingenuity) and is consistent with this assessment and recommendations.

5.4 Site Specific merit assessment

Natural environment

70.    The site does not contain any significant environmental values or constraints. The amended Planning Proposal will result in the removal of five mature trees and reduction in tree canopy cover for a period of time until new plantings mature. However, as noted previously, Council have expressed the intention to replace the removed trees with suitable plantings.

Future uses

71.    The amended Proposal does not seek to change existing or approved uses within or in the vicinity of the site.  However, it should be noted that formalising access arrangements could potentially facilitate future re-development or subdivision of existing lots. This is discussed further below.

Service and infrastructure demand

72.    It is not expected that there will be an increase in demand on other infrastructure or services as a result of the provision of the public road.

5.5 Other considerations

Statement of Intention and Rights and interests

73.    The registration of the current Deposited Plan on 1 June 2015 included a Statement of Intention to “dedicate for Lot 1 (DP 1200178) to the public as public reserve” in accordance with the Conveyancing Act, 1919. The proposed use of part Lot 1 as road is not consistent with this Statement of Intention.

74.    The site is not affected by any trusts, estates, dedications, conditions, restrictions or covenants with the exception of the universally applicable second schedule Item No.1 which is “1. Reservations and Conditions in the Crown Grant(s)”.

75.    Lot 1 is affected by an interest listed in the second schedule as “2. The land within described is Public Reserve” and “3. Lease to the Scout Association of Australia NSW Branch. Expires 31/12/2021”.

76.    Similarly, Lot 2 is affected by an interest in the second schedule as “2. Lease to the Scout Association of Australia, NSW Branch. Expires 31/12/2021. It should be noted, part Lot 1 which is proposed to be reclassified does not contain the Scout Hall. Nonetheless, the proposed reclassification is not consistent with the current rights and interests only if it eventuates before the lease expires. A copy of the lease is located in Attachment 5 – Scouts Association Lease for Taylors Reserve.

77.    With regard to both the Statement of Intention and the rights and interest that effect the land, Section 30 of the LG Act provides for:

(1) A local environmental plan that reclassifies Community Land as Operational Land may make provision to the effect that, on commencement of the plan, the land, if it is a public reserve, ceases to be a public reserve, and that the land is by operation of the plan discharged from any trusts, estates, interests, dedications, conditions, restrictions and covenants affecting the land or any part of the land, except for:

(a) any reservations that except land out of a Crown grant relating to the land, and

(b) reservations of minerals (within the meaning of the Crown Land Management Act 2016).

78.    Further Clause 5.2 of the Hurstville LEP 2012 provides that:

(5) The public land described in Part 2 of Schedule 4, to the extent (if any) that it is a public reserve, ceases to be a public reserve when the description of the land is inserted into that Part and is discharged from all trusts, estates, interests, dedications, conditions, restrictions and covenants affecting the land or any part of the land, except:

(a) those (if any) specified for the land in Column 3 of Part 2 of Schedule 4, and

(b) any reservations that except land out of the Crown grant relating to the land, and

(c)  reservations of minerals (within the meaning of the Crown Lands Act 1989).

79.    As the amended Proposal seeks to reclassify the land through inclusion in part Lot 1 and Part 2 into Schedule 4 of the HLEP 2012, it will cease to be a public reserve and as such the Statement of Intent would no longer apply. Further the above enables the existing Scout lease on part Lot 1 and Lot 2 to be discharged over the land being reclassified. The part of Lot 1 to remain classified as Community Land, containing the Scout Hall, will continue with the current Statement of Intention and rights and interests.

80.    A copy of the lease is located in Attachment 5 – Scouts Association Lease for Taylors Reserve.

Generic Plan of Management

81.    The Local Government Act 1993 ( LG Act) requires  Community Land to be managed in accordance with a Plan of Management. As such Taylors Reserve is categorised as a park and is governed by Council’s Generic Plan of Management 2007 (POM).

82.    The POM states the following points in relation to Access to Parks:

·       None of the city’s parks have off street car parking. They are seen as contrary to the objectives of management of parks and diminishing amenity and use;

·       Parking arrangements within and adjacent to some parks can occasionally cause disturbance to surrounding residential areas and due care should be exercised; and

·       Vehicular access onto parks is restricted to maintenance and emergency vehicles except where consent is obtained from Council for a specific purpose. Permits to obtain permanent vehicular access to private property over Community Land will not be granted, in accordance with Section 46 of the LG Act.

83.    With regard to Safety & Risk Management the POM states the following key points:

·       The need to provide for public safety is one of the greatest priorities for Council in the management of its open space areas, and Council has a duty of care to ensure its parks and associated facilities are safe to use. Risk management involves ensuring that all facilities are maintained to a high standard so that not only are severe accidents avoided, but also the likelihood of smaller injuries or damage is minimized.

84.    The current informal road is part of land that is classified as Community Land and used by adjoining residents to access their property. It is understood that none of the properties have obtained consent for Council for access for a specific purpose. As such it is contrary to the POM with regard to the restriction of vehicular access solely for maintenance and emergency vehicles and not for access to private property.

85.    The amended Planning Proposal seeks to reclassify the land from Community to Operational. Unlike Community Land, the LG Act does not require Operational Land to be managed in accordance with a Plan of Management. As such the reclassification will remedy the current conflict removing the obligation for it to be managed under a POM.

86.    Legal advice received by Council states that Council must first reclassify the land as operational land before it can open a public road over the land.

87.    However, it should be noted for the park (remaining part Lot 1 classified Community Land), the delivery of the public road and reduction of 5 per cent of the open space in order to accommodate the road is considered to be contrary to the POM’s intentions with regard to maximising the provision of open space. This issue has been addressed above and is considered acceptable.

Providing a public road on Community Land

88.    Part Lot 1 and Lot 2 forms part of ‘Taylors Reserve’ and is classified as ‘Community Land’ and categorised as ‘park’ under the LG Act. The purpose of classification as ‘Community’ land is to identify clearly that land which should be kept for use by the general public.

89.    Section 47F of the LG Act provides that community land may only be dedicated as a public road under s10 of the Roads Act, if the road is necessary to ‘facilitate enjoyment of the area of community land on which the road is to be constructed’. Lot 2 is currently, and has been for many years, used as an informal access way by adjoining landowners. This use is not consistent with the guidelines for the categorisation of land for a park in cl 104 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

90.    Therefore Council is required to reclassify the land – now Part 1 and the whole of Lot 2 from “community land” to operational land”

Granting of easements over Community Land

91.    As noted previously, there are several encroachments on Lot 2 from adjoining properties resulting from historic development approvals with adjoining lots currently enjoy informal access from Lot 2 to garages and similar structures.

92.    S46(1) of the LG Act prohibits the granting of leases, licences or other estates unless for purposes which are not presently relevant, or in accordance with an express authorisation in a plan of management and only if the purpose for which it is granted is consistent with the core objectives of its categorisation. As such Council cannot currently grant rights of carriageway or rights of access to the land adjoining Lot 2 unless it is in accordance with the POM applying to Lot 2 or otherwise authorised by Division 2. No such restrictions apply to land that is classified ‘Operational’.

5.6   Potential Implications of the Proposal

Development potential unlocked by the Planning Proposal

93.    If progressed, the amended Planning Proposal will enable Council the power to grant an estate such as a right of carriageway or right of access to the adjoining land. This in turn will allow adjoining properties to increase development densities within their land where the lack of formalised access would have prohibited additional development.

94.    The following is a high level assessment of potential development scenarios enabled by the formalisation of the public road. It should be noted that this assessment is not a detailed site analysis that considers other development factors and requirements such as setbacks, lot width and requirements under Council’s development control plans.

95.    The residential lots that will benefit from the public road are zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the HLEP 2012. Under this zone semi-detached dwellings, secondary dwellings, dual occupancies and multi-unit dwellings are currently permitted with development consent.

 

Figure 11 – Lots adjoining the informal road through Taylors Reserve with vehicle or pedestrian access

 

96.    Council’s Planning Proposal 2018/0001 seeks to amend HLEP 2012 so that Villas, townhouses, multi dwelling housing (terraces) and manor houses are prohibited in the R2 Low Density Residential zone through a development application under HLEP 2012 or through complying development under the Code.

97.    The land adjacent to Taylors Reserve is identified as “K” in the Lot Size Map.  Under Clause 4.1A(2) the minimum lot size for dual occupancies for areas identified as “K” is to remain as 1,000 square metres.

98.    This would mean dual occupancies, secondary dwellings and semi-detached dwellings will remain permissible in the R2 zone. As such the only adjoining property that could develop dual occupancies is 2A Woodlands Avenue which has a lot area of 2,363 m2.

99.    However, lots under 1,000 square meters may apply for a variation to HLEP 2012 control via a 4.6 variation which applies for an exception to development standard. This may allow for the development of dual occupancies on lots that do not meet Clause 4.1A(2) development standards.

100.  The table below identifies those lots which may develop their land for the purpose of a dual occupancy including those that may have justifiable claim to lodge a 4.6 variation due to their lot size.

 

Table 6 – Lots identified with potential to develop dual occupancies

Address

Lot Size

Development Potential

1043 Forest Road

999 m2

Potential to lodge a 4.6 variation for a Dual Occupancy

1045 Forest Road

973 m2

Potential to lodge a 4.6 variation for a Dual Occupancy

1059 Forest Road

993 m2

Potential to lodge a 4.6 variation for a Dual Occupancy

2A Woodlands Avenue

2,363 m2

Potential for up to four dwellings (comprised of Dual Occupancies across subdivided lots)

 

101.  As demonstrated above the amended Planning Proposal could allow for the development applications for up to six additional dwellings (other than secondary dwellings) on properties that will enjoy formalized access to the public road. The approval of a dual occupancy would increase the number of beneficiaries of the public road and road users.

102.  The provisions in the future Georges River LEP 2020 may increase the development potential for the land identified in Figure 11 above.

 

Value of the public road to adjoining properties

103.  In addition to the potential value uplift for several properties due to the ability to develop dual occupancies, it is considered that the provision of rights of way is another direct benefit of the amended Planning Proposal.

104.  The property valuation report Fair Market Valuation - Rear Lane access Value, 2018 prepared by PJC Property Services for Council, established an assumed value of Taylor Avenue (in its current informal capacity) to the properties that relied on it as their sole point of access.

105.  The report made the following observations:

a.   There is a difference in property values (derived from sales prices) between properties with and without direct street access or restricted access from street to the dwelling. For Lugarno this difference was estimated to be 9.2 per cent.

b.   If the properties were deprived of laneway access, each of the owners would be forced to park in Woodlands Avenue and walk through the park to their properties with a maximum distance being approximately 150 metres from either end of Taylor Avenue. It was calculated that the value impact of deprival of access via Taylor Avenue ranged from $50,000 to $150,000 for seven of the adjoining properties.

106.  While these figures are based on market data from October 2018, they indicate that Taylor Avenue provides significant value to those properties that rely on it as their sole means of access. It is reasonable to assume that the delivery of the public road will enhance the market value of several properties that will benefit from formalised access arrangements. 

Setting a precedent for other residents seeking rear access to their properties over Council land

107.  The amended Planning Proposal seeks to formalise an existing situation through the delivery of a public road in place of the informal road. To do so will provide Council a means to resolve any current legal and operational conflicts due to the road being on Community Land, encroachments from adjoining properties and providing rights to access.

Loss of Open space and Tree canopy

108.  As stated previously the expansion of the urban tree canopy in the urban realm is a direction that has potential to deliver environmental and community benefits. Tree canopy reduces heat island effects, providing habitat and offering shade to pedestrian and other active transport users.

109.  The amended Planning Proposal will result in the removal of five mature trees which will result in an impact on the amenity and visual aesthetic appearance of the park. In the short to medium term there will be visual and aesthetic impact on the park and the tree canopy.

110.  In addition to land already used as informal road in Lot 2, the amended Planning Proposal will result in the loss of approximately 320m2 of public open space in part Lot 1, equating to a roughly 5 per cent reduction of open space in Taylors Reserve.

111.  Whilst the volume of area lot is not of a dimension that will be detrimental to the use or function of the reserve the Council’s Open Space, Recreation and Community Facilities Strategy indicates that there will be a shortfall of 7.3ha (12.4 including ancillary facility area) by 2036 is no new supply or developments that improve the capacity of existing supply of sport and recreation facilities are provided.

112.  As such , this report recommended that Council:

a.   Consider maintaining the existing alignment of the informal accessway in order to retain tree canopy and maximise the area available for public use of Taylors Reserve , noting the low traffic volumes and low design speed offers the flexibility to do so; and

b.   If trees are to be removed, commit to a program to replace the mature trees that are required to be removed with plantings of appropriate species within Taylors Reserve in accordance with its Tree Management Policy, and

c.   Consider the loss of any open space as part of implementing the Open Space, Recreation and Community Facilities Strategy.

5.7 Legal implications of not pursuing the Planning Proposal

113.  The following is summary of the legal advice obtained from Lindsay Taylor Lawyers by Georges River Council.

114.  In the event the amended Planning Proposal is not supported and the land not reclassified, the following outcomes could occur:

·    If Council does not reclassify Lot 2 as ‘operational’ by amending HLEP 2012 then Council may be found to be acting in breach of the LG Act by allowing the continuation of the current use of Lot 2 as an access way by adjoining landowners;

·    Section 47F of the LG Act cannot be relied upon as the public road is intended to provide access to adjoining properties;

·    Council would have to consider an alternative course of action such as changing the category of Lot 2 as ‘community’ land from ‘park’ to ‘general use’ and amending the applicable POM to allow use as an access and the grant of a right of carriageway or right of access;

·    However, even if Council was to re-categorise Lot 2 to ‘general use’ and amend the POM to allow the grant of a right of carriageway or right of access:

o 33.1 such rights cannot be granted for a term greater than 5 years unless there has been a public notice of the proposal, and

o 33.2 the Minister’s consent must be obtained if there is any objection to that proposal (see s 47 LG Act), and the process of obtaining the Minister’s consent is onerous.

·    If the Minister does not provide consent and the Council is not able to create a right of carriageway or right of access over Lot 2 as ‘community’ land then the owners of the adjoining land could apply to the Supreme Court for an order imposing an easement under s 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919. In this regard, there is precedent for a similar easement being granted by the NSW Court of Appeal in City of Canterbury v Saad [2013] NSWCA 251. However the owners of the adjoining land would have to bear the costs of the proceedings and compensate Council for the easement;

·    The Rights and Interests covering Lot 2 and part Lot 1 would remain which would be inconsistent with Council’s intended future use of the Land solely as a public road;

·    The Statement of Intention of Lot 1 as a public reserve may be inconsistent with the delivery of a road due to the fact the road primarily serves adjoining residential properties and not the park;

·    Some adjoining owners may be able to claim that as Council could not lawfully provide access to the garages and structures which were approved on their properties, Council may be considered to be negligent in granting those approvals; and

·    Council could be liable in damages if any accidents occur due to the state of the Track or conflicts between vehicles using the road and pedestrians.

115.  It is considered that the reclassification of the land through the Act, provides the most suitable avenue to deliver the public road and resolve outstanding issues.

116.  Council are to note that a separate approval process will be undertaken for the creation and construction of a public road. This report only deals with the reclassification of the land to enable that separate process to happen.

5.8 Alteration to Gateway

117.  On 17 September 2018 DPIE altered the Gateway Determination to allow for the time frame to complete the Planning Proposal and amendment to the HLEP 2012 by October 2018. As this time frame has lapsed, it is recommended that Council seek a further alteration to the Gateway Determination so that the LEP can be completed by 31 August 2020.

SECTION 7 - SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT / CONCLUSION

118.  In summary, this Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 to reclassify Community Land to Operational Land in order to deliver a public road that meets Australian Standards.

119.  It is recommended that Council support the Planning Proposal, subject to the recommendations in this report, for the following reasons:

a.   The amended Proposal is not inconsistent with the NSW and Georges River Council strategic planning framework;

b.   The Community Land classification restricts Council from formalising the existing on ground access from which adjoining properties currently benefit. A reclassification will enable Council to dedicate part Lot 1 and Lot 2 as a public road at a later stage;

c.   A public road is considered to be inconsistent with the current POM that covers Taylors Reserve, a reclassification will remove the legal requirement for affected land to managed via a POM as per LG Act;

d.   The reclassification to Operation Land enables existing estates or interests in part Lot 1 and Lot 2 to be discharged;

e.   The current access arrangements are not formalised.  Following a reclassification Council will have the opportunity and power to grant an estate such as a right of carriageway or right of access to the adjoining land; and,

f.    Currently, Council may be considered to be acting in breach of the LG Act by allowing the use of Lot 2 as an access way by adjoining landowners, as such the amended Planning Proposal is a means to rectify this.

120.  Council are to note that a separate approval process will be undertaken for the creation and construction of a public road. This report only deals with the reclassification of the land to enable that separate process to happen.

SECTION 8 - COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

121.  Should the Planning Proposal be supported it will be forwarded to the delegate of the Minister for Planning requesting an Alteration to the Gateway Determination.

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

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

124.  Notification of the public exhibition will be through:

a.   Newspaper advertisement in The Leader

b.   Exhibition notice on Council’s website- “Have your say”.

c.   Notices in Council offices and libraries

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

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

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

 

Task

Anticipated Timeframe

Report to Environment and Planning Committee on Planning Proposal

14 October 2019

(this report)

Report to Council on Planning Proposal

28 October 2019

Anticipated commencement date (date of Gateway Determination)

November 2018

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

December 2019 -January 2020

Commencement and completion dates for community consultation period

February/March 2020

Dates for public hearing (if required)

March 2020

Timeframe for consideration of submissions

April 2020

Report to Council on community consultation and finalisation

May 2020

Submission to the DPE to finalise the LEP

June 2019

Anticipated date for notification

August 2019

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

SECTION 9 - NEXT STEPS

127.  The minutes of the Environment and Planning Committee meeting will be considered at the Georges River Council meeting to be held on 28 October 2019.

128.  If the Planning Proposal is endorsed by Council (the relevant planning authority) it will be forwarded to the delegate of the Greater Sydney Commission for an Alteration to Gateway Determination under Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Financial Implications

129.  Within budget allocation.

Risk Implications

130. No risks identified.

File Reference

PP2017/0003

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Report to Local Planning Panel on 5 September 2019

Attachment 2

Original Gateway Determination dated 14 September 2017

Attachment 3

Alteration to Gateway Determination dated 17 July 2018

Attachment 4

Planning Proposal prepared by Planning Ingenuity

Attachment 5

Scout Association Lease for Taylors Reserve

 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 14 October 2019

ENV033-19             Planning Proposal for the reclassification of Part Lot 1 and whole of Lot 2 DP1200078, Taylors Reserve, Lugarno

[Appendix 1]          Report to Local Planning Panel on 5 September 2019

 

 

Page 59

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 14 October 2019

ENV033-19             Planning Proposal for the reclassification of Part Lot 1 and whole of Lot 2 DP1200078, Taylors Reserve, Lugarno

[Appendix 2]          Original Gateway Determination dated 14 September 2017

 

 

Page 60

 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 14 October 2019

ENV033-19             Planning Proposal for the reclassification of Part Lot 1 and whole of Lot 2 DP1200078, Taylors Reserve, Lugarno

[Appendix 3]          Alteration to Gateway Determination dated 17 July 2018

 

 

Page 63

 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 14 October 2019

ENV033-19             Planning Proposal for the reclassification of Part Lot 1 and whole of Lot 2 DP1200078, Taylors Reserve, Lugarno

[Appendix 4]          Planning Proposal prepared by Planning Ingenuity

 

 

Page 94

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 



 


 


 


 




 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 14 October 2019

ENV033-19             Planning Proposal for the reclassification of Part Lot 1 and whole of Lot 2 DP1200078, Taylors Reserve, Lugarno

[Appendix 5]          Scout Association Lease for Taylors Reserve

 

 

Page 126

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council –      Environment and Planning -  Monday, 14 October 2019                                                    Page 137

Item:                   ENV034-19        Heritage Building Grants Program 2019-20 

Author:              Strategic Planner

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation

a)   That the Heritage Building Grants Program 2019-20 offers be made to successful applicants as outlined in Table 3 and in Attachment 1 of this report – ‘Summary table of submissions and recommendations for Heritage Grant Funding 2019-20’.

b)   That Council note the grants received from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage:

a.   up to $7,000 (ex. GST) annually over a two year period for the Local Heritage Advisor Service; and

b.   up to $6,250 (ex. GST) annually over a two year period for the Small Heritage Grants Service (‘Georges River Council’s Local Heritage Grants’).

c)   That, if required, the General Manager allocates up to $7,241.50 from savings identified in the Environment and Planning Directorate to the Heritage Building Grants Program.

d)   That the variation to the 2019/20 Budget be made at the Quarter 2 budget review.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement of methodology, funding approach and recommendations for the allocation of grant funding under the Georges River Heritage Building Grants program 2019-20.

2.      A total of 73 applications were received, which comprised 19 Heritage Items and 54 Contributory Heritage Conservation Items.

3.      A total of 37 applications are recommended for funding, amounting to $57,241.50.

4.      Council allocated $50,000.00 in the Strategic Planning Budget’s Cost Centre 2556 for the Heritage Building Grants Program in 2019-20.

5.      Not all grants are accepted and there is usually money left over. In the case of 2018-19 $50,000.00 was allocated by Council but only $45,383.00 was spent. 

6.      Furthermore, the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) advised Council in May 2019 that Council had been successful in its application for a grant of up to $6,250 (ex. GST) annually over a two year period for the Small Heritage Grants Service (‘Georges River Council’s Local Heritage Grants’).

7.      Therefore, taking into account the grant of $6,250.00 from the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), and subject to all grants being accepted by applicants and reimbursed by Council, then this report recommends that the General Manager reallocates a maximum $7,241.50 from savings identified in the Environment and Planning Directorate Budget to the Heritage Building Grants program; noting that after reimbursement from the OEH, only $991.50 will be required to be found from savings.

 

Background

8.      The Heritage Building Grants program aims to encourage the retention and maintenance of properties that have heritage significance, and promote and celebrate our community’s local heritage. In previous years, owners and agents of heritage listed buildings in Hurstville LEP 1994, Hurstville LEP 2012 and Kogarah LEP 2012, were eligible for financial assistance for specific restoration or conservation works on their property. The grants did not extend to Contributory Items in the three Heritage Conservation Area under the Kogarah LEP 2012.

9.      Previously grants ranged from $100 to a maximum of $10,000 and funding is provided on a dollar for dollar basis up to a maximum of 50% of the project value.

10.    Whilst Council endorsed the allocation of $50,000 for the Heritage Building Grants program 2018-19 for the Georges River LGA, the grants program for 2018-19 was completed on 30 June 2019 with a total of $45,383 being granted to owners of heritage items.

11.    Council reimbursed a total of 13 out of 17 successful applicants. Two applicants did not respond to any letters and two applicants withdrew due to time constraints. The works had to be completed by end of June 2019.

12.    The following sites were the subject of Heritage Building Grants reimbursements for the 2018-19 Financial Year:

·    St Johns Anglican Church, Penshurst – 2 Carrington Rd, Penshurst (Also known as 645 King Georges Rd) - $4000

·    17 Kensington St, Kogarah - $750

·    281 Forest Road, Hurstville - $1000

·    236 Forest Road, Hurstville - $1000

·    1a Kensington St, Kogarah - $5000

·    52 English Street, Kogarah - $1235

·    55 Penshurst Street, Penshurst - $5089

·    1/11 Denman Street, Hurstville - $3182

·    1 Derwent Street, South Hurstville - $2602

·    55 Cambridge Street, Penshurst - $2723

·    84 Woronora Parade, Oatley - $10,000

·    6 Carysfort Street, Hurstville - $6200

·    Hurstville Scout Hall - $2602

13.    For the 2019-20 financial year, Council Officers extended the invitation to those who own Contributory Items within Council’s three Heritage Conservation Areas (Penshurst, Kogarah South, and O’Briens Estate). This is due to requests for funding from owners of Contributory Items since the commencement of the program.

14.    Council’s Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs) add a collective significance to the area through distinctive historic streetscape and building character. Contributory items are identified as properties that have particular characteristics and integrity, and have had little to no intrusive alterations or modifications to the dwelling or landscape. The Council’s three Heritage Conservation Areas are listed in the Kogarah LEP 2012 as being of heritage significance.

15.    Contributory Items are defined in the Kogarah DCP 2013. These are buildings, structures and landscape features within the area which contribute to the heritage significance of the Heritage Conservation Area because of their age, particular characteristics and integrity. Individually, they are not necessarily items of heritage significance, otherwise they would be listed as such, but they do add to a collective significance. Loss of any one of them will erode the heritage significance of the area as a whole.

16.    It is recognised that like heritage items, minor adaptations to buildings in conservation areas are often needed to be made to accommodate modern working/lifestyle requirements and to prevent the item from becoming structurally unsound. Council supports minor adaptations, on the basis that the significance of the heritage conservation area as a whole is not adversely affected.

17.    There are over 550 Contributory items within the HCAs, as shown below:

 

Heritage Conservation Area

Total Contributory items

Of which are also listed as Heritage Items

Penshurst Heritage Conservation Area

450

7

Kogarah South Heritage Conservation Area

31

9

O’Briens Estate Heritage Conservation Area

82

0

Table 1 – Distribution of Contributory Items within the Heritage Conservation Areas

 

Community Heritage Grant Funding from Office of Environment and Heritage

18.    In December 2018 Council was invited by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) to apply for the Community Heritage Grants for Local Government program.

19.    The funding round offered $6 million over a two year period (2019-21) for a number of grant categories, including Aboriginal Culture, Caring for State Heritage, Community Heritage, and State Heritage Register Emergency Works.

20.    In February 2019 Council submitted an application for two items within the Community Heritage category, being the Local Heritage Advisor Service, and Small Heritage Grants.

21.    On 27 May 2019, OEH advised that Georges River Council were successful, offering up to $7,000 (ex. GST) annually over a two year period for the Local Heritage Advisor Service, and up to $6,250 (ex. GST) annually over a two year period for the Small Heritage Grants Service (‘Georges River Council’s Local Heritage Grants’). The grants are for the 2019/20 and the 2020/21 financial years.

22.    The grants will be paid as a reimbursement, where Council will need to report on grant expenditure at the end of each financial year to make the claim for funds. It is noted that there is no matching of funds required.

23.    Council has formally accepted the abovementioned offers.

 

Criteria and process for assessment of Heritage Building Grants

24.    Attachment 1 contains the assessment criteria that were followed in assessing the Heritage Building Grant Applications received. This information is made publicly available to all owners of heritage listed buildings and contributory items in the three Heritage Conservation Areas. The Assessment Criteria is stated in Paragraph 27 below.

25.    The purpose of the fund is to assist in the promotion and protection of heritage items in the Georges River LGA.  As stated previously normally only items listed as a heritage item in the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 or Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, or Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 were eligible for grants.  Due to requests from owners of contributory items the eligibility for funding was extended to contributory items in the three Heritage Conservation Areas.

26.    The works supported are generally limited to small conservation projects or extraordinary maintenance requirements.  Where works are supported, Council will fund up to 50% of the cost of a project. The following are examples of the range of previous projects that were supported under the program:

·    Removal of paintwork to reveal original sandstone;

·    Repointing of brickwork;

·    Restorative work to windows;

·    Reconstruction of original elements;

·    External painting in traditional colour schemes;

·    Repair of tessellated floor tiles; and

·    Reinstatement of traditional fencing.

 

27.    In assessing applications priority is given to those projects that:

·    Result in sympathetic repairs to original fabric of the building, (e.g. repair of walls, verandahs, windows or roof plumbing etc);

·    Reinstate original architectural features, (e.g. reconstruction of timber frame windows);

·    Lead to streetscape improvements, (e.g. reconstruction of front fences in a style appropriate for the architectural style of the building);

·    Enhance public amenity and are highly visible to the public, (e.g. the replacement of a front verandah);

·    Are for projects which have high public accessibility, (e.g. a local museum or church);

·    Works are visible from the public realm;

·    Meet other major strategic objectives and complement broader conservation objective, (e.g. projects which implement key findings of heritage studies or projects); and

·    Have been undertaken by a non-profit organisation (e.g. community group or church).

 

28.    Projects typically funded include:

·    External painting and building repairs.

·    Replacement and repair of front fences.

·    Landscaping work of heritage or conservation value.

·    Building work that ensures public safety and prevents structural failure or damage to the heritage fabric.

 

29.    Projects not typically funded are:

·    Repairs to non-original fabric or additions;

·    Replacement of original fabric;

·    Internal alterations or new internal fittings;

·    Interior decorating;

·    New buildings and external additions;

·    Routine maintenance, example lawn mowing, gutter cleaning, or carpet cleaning

·    The purchase of equipment.

·    Floodlighting of heritage buildings.

·    Property owned or controlled by any government body authority.

·    Property owners receiving State and Federal heritage assistance will generally not be eligible to apply for funding. (There may be a case for funding for items on the State Heritage Register where the owner has funding difficulties and where a grant will assist in conserving an important item).

 

30.    Once the application is received, the Council’s Officers and Heritage Advisor inspect the building/site to ensure that the application is correctly stated (complete and clarity of the information available), is in accordance with the assessment criteria and whether or not any conditions should be imposed upon the successful funding.

 

Heritage Building Grants Program 2019-20

31.    Letters inviting applications for grant funding were sent to the owners of all heritage listed properties including contributory items in the three HCAs on 21 July 2018. The program was open for a period of four weeks, from Monday 29 July – Friday 30 August 2019.

32.    Submissions were requested to be made in writing, providing a detailed outline of the proposed work, quotations, photos, and sketches (if warranted). Applicants were advised that works must be completed by the end of the 2019-20 financial year.

33.    A total of 73 applications were received, which comprised 19 Heritage Items and 54 Contributory items in the Heritage Conservation Areas:

·    Two applications from Kogarah South;

·    Forty-one from Penshurst; and

·    Eleven from O’Briens Estate

 

34.    A summary table outlining the proposed works, indicative costs and recommendations of Council’s Heritage Advisor and Council officers is provided in Attachment 2 of this report – ‘Summary table of submissions and recommendations for Heritage Grant Funding 2019-20’.

35.    Thirty-seven (37) projects are supported and recommended for grant funding, which includes 10 Heritage Items and 27 Contributory Items. The supported projects total $57,241.50 which is slightly more than the budget allocation of $50,000.

36.    The applications recommended for grant funding this year largely relate to external painting, roof and window repairs and tuck-pointing/repointing original face brick.

37.    Due to the high volume of applications in the 2019-20 financial year, funding was allocated based on the item’s listing as either a Heritage Item or Conservation Item, and the cost of works (Refer to Table 2). This allowed Council to fairly grant funding to the successful applicants.

 

Criteria for funding allocation:

Cost of works:

Up to $5,000

Cost of works:

$5,000 – $9.999

Cost of works:

$10,000 +

Contributory HCA Items

$500

$1,000

$1,500

Heritage Items

50% of cost of work

$2,000

$3,000

Table 2 – Funding Allocation

 

38.    A total of thirty-six (36) applications did not satisfy the assessment criteria in the Georges River Council Heritage Building Grant Funding Guidelines 2019-20 and are not recommended for grant funding.

39.    Thirty (30) of the unsuccessful applications generally involved routine maintenance, did not propose sympathetic repairs to original fabric, or did not reflect best heritage practice principles. A further 6 applications were unsuccessful for the following reasons:

·    Works would require a Development Application, and therefore it is unlikely that Development Consent would be issued and works be completed by the end of the 2019-20 financial year (2);

·    The dwelling is not listed as a Heritage Item or Contributory Heritage Conservation Item (1);

·    Works are associated with current Stop Work Orders on the property (2); and

·    Substantial funding has previously been allocated. (1)

Next Steps

40.    It is recommended that Heritage Building Grant funding be offered as outlined in Attachment 2 of this report – ‘Summary table of submissions and recommendations for Heritage Grant Funding 2019-20’. Table 3 summarises the awardees of the 2019-20 Heritage Building Grants program:

 

Address

Summary of proposed works

Amount of funding recommended

 

12 Bowns Road, Kogarah

 

Repoint brickwork with new mortar on front façade and side wall.

Finish with white tuck-point ribbons on front façade.

 

 

 

$1,500

 

 

23 Lansdowne Street, Penshurst

 

Tuck-pointing to front façade, verandah and columns.

 

 

$1,500

 

71 Lansdowne Street, Penshurst

 

Remove mortar and repoint front façade, verandah and garden wall

 

 

$1,500

(front façade and verandah only)

 

 

28 Leeder Avenue, Penshurst

 

Repoint brickwork with new mortar and finish with white tuck-point ribbons to front façade of house. 

Remove existing mortar and repoint with new mortar to stone foundation of front of house.

Install dry fix stainless steel wall ties to structural crack in verandah wall.

Remove existing verandah wall brickwork, clean and relay with existing bricks.

 

 

 

 

 

$1,500

 

59 Pacific Avenue, Penshurst

Repoint original heritage brickwork at front and right side wall of original part of the house due to erosion of mortar.

 

$1,500

(front façade only)

10 Braeside Avenue, Penshurst

Repointing of brickwork on the original portion of the house,  including front façade, porch/patio, and side of house

 

 

$1,500

(front façade only)

49 McRaes Avenue, Penshurst

Repoint front façade of house with mortar with tuck-point tape

 

 

$1,500

74 Pacific Avenue, Penshurst

 

Tuck-pointing of front façade including the porch to bring back to original condition

 

 

$1,000

 

18 Denison Street, Penshurst

 

Repointing of front fence and front of dwelling

 

 

$1,000

 

2 Leeder Avenue, Penshurst

 

Tuck-pointing of front elevation of house

 

 

$1,000

 

25 Greenbank Street, Hurstville

 

Repair of woodwork to large gable roof and small gable that has rotted – to be painted Mid Brunswick Green and White to match existing heritage colours

 

 

$1,000

(large gable only)

 

 

32 Bowns Road, Kogarah

Tuck-pointing to front façade.

Reinstate damaged plaster panels

 

$1,000

(tuck-pointing works only)

 

58 Railway Parade, Penshurst

 

Repointing of brickwork on front façade and driveway side

 

 

$1,000

 

19 Pacific Avenue, Penshurst

 

Replacement of leadlight windows to match the design of existing side window

 

 

$500

 

4 Regent Street, Kogarah

(Heritage Item I106 – ‘Shop’)

 

Repair of minor external racks, exterior painting

 

                                                            

$3,000

 

36 Lloyd Street, Oatley

(Heritage Item I79 – ‘House’)

 

Paint exterior of house in the colour scheme that is sympathetic to the era – to be painted Dulux Gawler, Cream, Custard, Indian Red.

 

                                                            

 

$3,000

 

53-57 Princes Highway, Kogarah

(Heritage Item I96 – ‘St Paul’s Anglican Church and Hall’)

 

 

Repair of Lych Gate

                                                        $2,000

106 Penshurst Street, Penshurst

(Heritage Item I116 – ‘Semi-detached Federation Cottages’)

 

Repair of existing timber framed windows with green and yellow decorative glass to front porch of dwelling

Painting of timber to match existing

Repair of 8 timber sash windows

 

                                                                $742.50

 

14 Garden Street, Kogarah

(Heritage Item I74 – ‘House and Garden’)

 

Exterior painting - including the removal of loose flaking paint and repair of wood rot.

Colour scheme to remain the same (original) - Heritage Red, Green and Cream

 

                                                          $2,000

 

4 Maher Street, Hurstville

(Heritage Item I44- ‘House and Garden, “Leyholme”’)

 

Repair timber eaves, repair compress to fibre eaves on NW corner of house

Repair to timber roof awning on west and south side

Repaint undercroft and two top coats using existing heritage colours

 

                                                               $499

 

60 McRaes Avenue, Penshurst

Brick repointing on the front and left façade of the house

Change mortar colour to off-white to match what was original

 

                                                            $1,500

 

53 Kuroki Street, Penshurst

 

Repointing brickwork at front façade of house

Concrete driveway as some pavers have broken

 

                                                          $1,500

(repointing works only)

25 Lansdowne Street, Penshurst

 

Repointing of brickwork on the house

 

 

$1,500

(front façade only)

10 Kuroki Street, Penshurst

 

Repointing of brickwork on front façade, side and rear of property

 Repair of distorting original brickwork at front and side of house

 Repair cracks in decorative arches on entrance

 Repair of collapsed original brickwork on steps at side of house

 

 

 

 

 

$1,500

(front and side façade only)

65 Laycock Road, Penshurst

 

Repoint of small area of the front and side of the house.

 Repoint parts of brick fence

 

                                                                 $500

 

67 Millett Street, Hurstville

(Heritage Item I39 – ‘Victorian Cottage’)

 

Reinstate 2 double hung windows and a single double hung window to match original window

Replace aluminium framed windows x5 with double hung timber framed and counter balanced windows

 

                                                            

 

 

$3,000

 

222 Connells Pt Road, Connells Point

(Heritage Item I35 – ‘House and Garden, “Jacma”’)

 

Repair and restoration of tiled roof including replacement of broken tiles like for like

Pressure cleaning.

Repoint all ridge capping and gable tiles.

Paint roof with terracotta primer.

 

 

 

$2,000

 

12 Laycock Road, Penshurst

 

Tuck-pointing brickwork.

Repainting front façade barge boards and fascia

                                                          $1,500

(tuck-pointing works only)

 

36 Laycock Road, Penshurst

 

Repair and repainting of window frames as original

Removal of rust, readjustment and part replacement of window glazing in Laundry

 

 

                                                      $1,500

(window repair and repainting works only)

 

19 Greenbank Avenue, Hurstville

 

Undertake sympathetic repairs to damaged original timber windows.

Restore, protect and conserve original windows and doors to maintain heritage value - paint in colour scheme consistent with guidance Council

Replace non-original leadlight at front of house with fixed clear window matching horizontal elements of original windows.

Repaint entrance portico in a more suitable colour for interwar period style home.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$1,500.00

88 George Street, South Hurstville

(Heritage Item I59 – ‘St Raphael’s Church and School’)

 

Repairs to windows at St Raphael's Church due to long term water leakage from the gutter

Restore bricks at the top of windows, as they have come loose and fallen

 

 

 

$3,000

 

59 Laycock Road, Penshurst

 

Tuck-pointing front façade, patio wall and garage face

 

                                                          

$1,500

42 Railway Parade, Penshurst

 

Repointing of front brickwork to repair degraded mortar

Repair/replace tessellated tiles on front verandah

 

 

 

$1,500

6 Kuroki Street, Penshurst

 

Repointing of front brick façade on three sides

Rebuild/reinstate deteriorating missing portion of front fence

Repair broken original stained glass windows and reseal.

 

 

$1,500

60 Lansdowne Street, Penshurst

 

Painting exterior of house – Colours to be confirmed by Council

 

 

$1,500

7 Myall Street, Oatley

(Heritage Item I81 – ‘Bangala’)

 

Underpinning to front of the house. Repair of cracks near front door and verandah and tessellated tiles.

$3,000

11 Laycock Road, Penshurst

Tiling of front verandah

$1,000

Funding allocated to Heritage Items: $22,241.50

Funding allocated to Conservation Items: $35,000

Total: $57,241.50

Table 3 - awardees of the 2019-20 Heritage Building Grants program

 

41.    The successful applicants will be notified by mail and the funding offer package will include a covering letter, standard conditions and any project specific conditions or design changes required prior to commencement of work.

42.    Unsuccessful applicants will be notified by mail and informed about other future funding opportunities.

 

Financial Implications

43.    This financial year (2019-20) there is $50,000 available for the Heritage Building Grants program.

44.    Thirty-seven (37) projects are supported and recommended for grant funding. The supported projects total $57,241.50 which is more than the budget allocation of $50,000.

45.    Successful applicants will have until the end of this financial year to complete their projects and submit their paid invoices to Council to organise reimbursement of grant funds.

46.    Not all grants are accepted and there is usually money left over. In the case of 2018-19 $50,000.00 was allocated by Council but only $45,383.00 was spent.

47.    Therefore, taking into account the grant of $6,250.00 from the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), and subject to all grants being accepted by applicants and reimbursed by Council, then this report recommends that the General Manager reallocates a maximum $7,241.50 from savings identified in the Environment and Planning Directorate Budget to the Heritage Building Grants program; noting that after reimbursement from the OEH, only $991.50 will be required to be found from savings.

 

Risk Implications

48.    No risks identified.

 

Community Engagement

49.    Owners of all heritage listed properties and Contributory Heritage Conservation Items were invited to submit an application for the Heritage Building Grants program 2019-20 via a letter and on Council’s website.

 

File Reference

19/1359

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Criteria for the assessment of Heritage Building Grants

Attachment 2

Summary Table of Submissions and Reccomendations for Heritage Building Grant Program 2019-20

 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 14 October 2019

ENV034-19             Heritage Building Grants Program 2019-20

[Appendix 1]          Criteria for the assessment of Heritage Building Grants

 

 

Page 140

 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 14 October 2019

ENV034-19             Heritage Building Grants Program 2019-20

[Appendix 2]          Summary Table of Submissions and Reccomendations for Heritage Building Grant Program 2019-20

 

 

Page 155

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council –      Environment and Planning -  Monday, 14 October 2019                                                    Page 191

Item:                   ENV035-19        Adoption of the Local Strategic Planning Statement and endorsement of the Housing Precincts for LEP 2020 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council note the outcomes of the LSPS Stage 2 Community Engagement.

(b)     That Council note the submissions received to the exhibition of the Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement.

(c)     That Council endorse the Local Strategic Planning Statement, as amended in response to the issues raised during the exhibition period, for submission to the NSW State Government for the purpose of Assurance (due date for lodgement 30 October 2019).

(d)     That Council provide delegation to the General Manager to approve any minor and/or insignificant changes as required following the Greater Sydney Commission’s final Health Check and Assurance of the Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement.

(e)     That Council endorse the following staged approach to implementing actions of the Local Strategic Planning Statement:

a.   LEP 2020 to focus on Harmonisation and Housing,

b.   LEP 2021 to focus on Housing Choice

c.   LEP 2022 to focus on Jobs and Activation,

d.   LEP 2025 to focus on land use changes beyond the next 5 years.

(f)      That Council place the final Local Strategic Planning Statement on its website.

(g)     That Council include the following Precincts for rezoning under LEP 2020 and inclusion in the Council’s Housing Strategy:

a.   Peakhurst (North and West of Peakhurst Park) Precinct

b.   South Hurstville – Culwulla Street Precinct

c.   South Hurstville Hillcrest Avenue Precinct

d.   Penshurst Apsley Estate Precinct and

e.   Connell’s Point Rd Precinct.

(h)     That Council not proceed with further investigation of the Olds Park Precinct for rezoning under LEP2020 due to traffic issues, its location outside a centre and distance from a train station.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report outlines the amendments made to the draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) as a result of community, stakeholder and organisational engagement during its recent public exhibition. A final draft LSPS is presented for review and adoption. The report has a series of attachments detailing comments and submissions received as well as a copy of the draft LSPS with all amendments highlighted.

2.      This report also deals with the consultation that was conducted on the Precincts identified for rezoning under LEP 2020 in the Draft LSPS and inclusion in the Council’s Housing Strategy.

3.      The Precincts subject to the consultation were:

a.   Peakhurst (North and West of Peakhurst Park) Precinct

b.   South Hurstville – Culwulla Street Precinct

c.   South Hurstville Hillcrest Avenue Precinct

d.   Penshurst Apsley Estate Precinct and

e.   Olds Park Precinct for

4.      This report recommends that Council not proceed with the Olds Park Precinct for up zoning under LEP2020 due to traffic issues, its location outside a centre and 2km from a train station and endorse the addition of a new Precinct - Connell’s Point Rd Precinct.

 

Background

5.      In March 2018, the State Government introduced legislation requiring councils to prepare a LSPS which set out:

a.   the 20 year vision for land use in the local area;

b.   the special characteristics which contribute to local identity;

c.   shared community values to be maintained and enhanced; and

d.   how growth and change will be managed into the future.

6.      Georges River Council is a ‘priority’ council under the State Government’s LEP Accelerated Review Program. Accordingly the Final LSPS is required to be submitted by 30th October 2019 for the purpose of final Assurance and the LEP Planning Proposal for Gateway is to be submitted to State Government by 25 December 2019.

7.      At its meeting on 26 February 2018, Council considered a report on the new Georges River Local Environmental Plan. Council resolved: 

a.   The report on the Georges River Principal Local Environmental Plan be received and noted.

b.   Council endorse the preparation of a Housing Strategy, Community Participation Plan and Local Strategic Planning Statement for the Georges River local government area.

c.   Council endorse the preparation of a principal Local Environmental Plan for the Georges River local government area.

8.      In accordance with this resolution, a draft LSPS has been prepared. The LSPS is a ‘linking’ document between the Greater Sydney Commission’s South District Plan and new LEP(s).

9.      Implementation of the LSPS will be staged over a 20 year period via different mechanisms which include:

a.   LEPs (the first from 2020);

b.   Comprehensive Georges River DCP;

c.   A Community Participation Plan;

d.   Contributions Plans;

e.   A land acquisition program;

f.    Council works programs; and

g.   Council advocacy.

10.    Workshops with Councillors on the development of the LSPS were delivered by Council staff in December 2018, February 2019, March 2019 and April 2019.

11.    At its meeting on 25 February 2019, Council considered a report on the preparation of the draft LSPS. Council resolved: 

a.   That Council endorse the principles and approach for community engagement as outlined in the report, including the draft vision, draft Local Planning Priority Outcomes and criteria for determining future land use.

b.   That Council endorse the community engagement program as outlined in the report.

12.    The draft LSPS and its key themes were presented to the Greater Sydney Commission and other agencies as part of the State Government’s ‘Assurance’ check on 29 March 2019. The intent of the Assurance check was to check on progress and to identify any key impediments to delivery. Georges River Council was given a ‘green light’ to proceed (the highest rating available.) Council was also congratulated on the volume of work undertaken and for the clarity and specificity for the content within the draft LSPS. The extent of consultation and engagement both within Council and across the community was also acknowledged.

 

Stage 1 community engagement - March 2019

13.    The initial (Stage 1) community engagement activities in March 2019 were the first in a two-staged consultation program for the LSPS, extending beyond the consultation requirements of the State Government. Further consultation (Stage 2) occurred on the complete draft LSPS as part of the public exhibition (26th June to 7th August 2019).

14.    Stage 1 Community Engagement reached its target of 1% of the community being engaged. Over 400 community members took part in the workshops, with a clear majority of participants being satisfied. Additional to the workshops engagement occurred via ‘pop-ups’, targeted consultation with community and business groups and website engagement on the draft LSPS.

15.    The community were generally supportive of the LSPS framework as presented but the words in the LSPS vision and themes were refined and re-expressed to better reflect the key messages coming from the community. The report Council at its meeting held 23 April 2019 outlined the proposed changes to the LSPS framework in coloured text and yellow highlight.

16.    Council was also briefed on the initial outcomes of Stage 1 Community Engagement on 18th March. Changes to the framework resulting from Stage 1 Community Engagement were presented to Council Briefing on 1st April and 15th April.

17.    Further feedback from the community was also sought via two surveys. A Housing Survey and Commercial Centres Survey were also undertaken to better understand housing and centres preferences. 429 people completed the Housing Survey and 314 people completed the Commercial Centres Survey. The results of these surveys generally reinforced the community’s messaging from the workshops. The data collected will be a significant resource to assist Council in the drafting of the LGA’s Housing Strategy and Commercial Centres Strategy.

 

Council resolution dated 23 April 2019

18.    Council at its meeting held 23 April 2019 considered a report on the draft LSPS. The Council was advised that the LSPS 2040 framework comprising the Vision, Local Planning Priorities and criteria for determining future land use were revised as a result of the Stage 1 community engagement.

19.    The Council resolved:

a.   That Council note outcomes of the LSPS Stage 1 Community Engagement.

b.   That Council note the revised draft LSPS 2040 framework comprising the Vision, Local Planning Priorities and criteria for determining future land use.

c.   That Council note the requirement for the draft LSPS be submitted to State Government by 30th April for ‘sign-off’ prior to exhibition.

d.   That Council endorse the draft LSPS 2040 to proceed to public exhibition.

e.   That Council grant delegation to the Director Environment and Planning to approve any minor and/or insignificant changes to the LSPS coming out of State Government feedback.

f.    That Council endorse the following staged approach to a new Georges River LEP:

i. LEP 2020 to focus on Harmonisation and Housing,

ii.  LEP 2022 to focus on Jobs and Activation,

iii. LEP 2025 to focus on land use changes beyond the next 5 years.

g.   That Council prepare a comprehensive Development Control Plan for the Georges River Local Government Area.

20.    Council received signoff from the Greater Sydney Commission on 30 May 2019 and the draft LSPS along with the supporting documents listed below were placed on public exhibition from 26 June 2019 to 7 August 2019:

a.   Draft Commercial Centres Strategy Part 1 – Centres Analysis supported by Economic Study

b.   Local Housing Strategy Evidence Base Report

c.   Inclusive Housing Strategy Stage 1 – Assessment of Housing Needs

d.   Consolidated Stage 1 LSPS Engagement Report

 

Stage 2 Community Engagement – June to August

21.    The draft LSPS was placed on community consultation from 26 June 2019 to 7 August 2019.  An overview of the participation from the community is summarised as follows:

a.   400 residents, community groups and businesses participate in 12 workshops and 5 drop in events across the LGA.

b.   137 written submissions.

c.   6,300 visits to Council’s Your Say website about the draft LSPS.

d.   3,500 people were aware of the LSPS through the Your Say website and 2,100 were informed, while 599 unique individuals engaged, participated and contributed.

22.    The following Table 1 provides a summary of issues raised in the submissions received. Table 1 provides a summary of the submissions made requesting increase in development potential (and includes five submissions relating to planning proposals currently lodged with Council for assessment). Attachment 1 to this report details all submissions received and the response to the submission.

23.    Council was briefed on the submissions received on 2 September 2019.

24.    A full report on the Stage 2 Engagement Program is attached at Attachment 2.

 

 

 

 

Table 1 – Summary of Issues raised in the Submissions

 

Feedback/Issue raised

No of Times Raised

Aquatic facilities, sporting hub locations &/or concern re privatization of these facilities

68

Suggest minor changes/additions

26

Site specific interest ()

12

Precinct/group of sites interest ()

6

Planning Proposals

5

Broadly support LSPS

11

Oppose increased density

11

Opposition to ‘big house conversions’

7

Other

7

Utilise golf courses for public open space

6

Halstead Street – remove industrial area due to impacts

6

 

25.    Table 2 provides a summary of the submissions made requesting increase in development potential (and includes five submissions relating to planning proposals currently lodged with Council for assessment). The recommendations in the Table are based on the outcomes of the Councillor Briefing held on 2 September 2019.

 

Table 2 – summary of the submissions made requesting increase in development potential

 

Request

Site Locality

Recommendation

 

Connells Point Rd, Greenacre Rd and Rowe St, South Hurstville

Amend LSPS Structure Plan to request potential new housing LEP 2020 as

·      Adjoining R3 zone and townhouses

·      Bus route to Hurstville Station

·      300m from South Hurstville Centre 

·      300m from Poulton Park

·      Near South Hurstville Library

·      780m from Connells Point Public School

 

Amend LSPS to include site in investigation area for LEP 2020.

Investigation will be incorporated into the Housing Strategy under preparation.

 

Lily Street, Cronulla St and Botany Street, Hurstville

Landowner’s Rationale:

•     Near Allawah Station, bus stops, Kempt Field and shopping centres

•     R3 zone (LEP 2020 to rezone to R4) opposite side of railway line

 

Amend LSPS to identify the site as an investigation area for LEP 2025 and beyond.

Rationale:

•     Near a R3 zone (to be upzoned to R4 to create a hierarchy of residential zones)

•     Near Allawah Station

•     Near Allawah and Hurstville Centres

•     Near open space (Kempt Field)

•     Near Hurstville Public School and Georges River College

 

32-50 Wright St, 3-25 Orange St and 1 Orange Ln, Hurstville. Owners requests that the site be looked at prior to what is proposed in the LSPS - future housing investigation LEP 2025 and beyond.

Landowners rationale:

•     10 min walk from Hurstville Centre

•     12,632 sqm amalgamation opportunity

•     Opposite R3 zone (to be rezoned to R4) and 4 storey apartment building

 

Retain the site in the LSPS as an investigation area for LEP 2025 and beyond.

Investigation will be included in a Housing Strategy.

11 Northcott Ave, Kingsgrove.

The LSPS identifies Kingsgrove for centre expansion and new housing opportunities for LEP 2025 and beyond. The landowner has requested that the rezoning of the land be investigated earlier as:

•     Near Kingsgrove Centre

•     Adjacent to Smith Park

•     300m from Kingsgrove Station

•     Walking distance to Kingsgrove Public School

•     Access to Kingsgrove Road

•     Ageing building

•     No major environmental constraints

 

Retain the site in the LSPS as an investigation area for LEP 2025 and beyond. The LSPS identifies Kingsgrove as a future housing investigation area LEP 2025 and beyond

147 Rocky Point Rd, Beverley Park

The landowner has requested an upzoning under LEP2020 as the site is:

•     Opposite Darrell Lea development – 12 storey residential apartments (Bayside Council)

•     Opposite R3 zone (Weeney St) – whilst No. 2 Weeney Street is a new 2 storey dwelling.

•     South of the site is aged care facility

 

The site is not included in the LSPS nor the Housing Strategy.

No change to LSPS or LEP as the site is:

·      An isolated site.

·      Not located adjacent to the Ramsgate Centre.

·      Infrequent bus services and traffic issues along Rocky Point Road

Princes Highway, Torrens St and Beach Rd, Blakehurst. The landowner has requested an upzoning as the site is:

·      On a bus route along Princes Hwy

·      South of Blakehurst Centre

·      Adjoins R3 zone (rezoned to R4)

·      Create a buffer between Princes Hwy and R2 zone

·      Consistent with existing built form

 

 

The site is not included in the LSPS nor the Housing Strategy.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP.

Rationale:

·      Isolated site.

·      Rezoning would result in the isolation of sites.

·      Predominantly surrounded by R2.

·      Not located adjacent to a centre.

·      Not located near a train station.

·      Infrequent bus services and traffic issues.

73 Vista St, Sans Souci

The landowner has requested an upzoning to R3

Landowner’s Rationale:

·      Note: Amend Foreshore Building Line (red line on map opposite) to reflect current alignment to Kogarah Bay.

·      Bus routes along Wellington and Nelson Streets with bus stops within 365m and 340m respectively.

 

 

The site is not included in the LSPS nor the Housing Strategy.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP.

Rationale:

•     Isolated site.

•     No other R3 zoned land in the vicinity of the site.

•     Not located adjacent to a centre.

•     Not located near a train station.

•     Infrequent bus services and traffic issues.

•     Site is affected by Sea level rise and Coastal Zone under Coastal Management SEPP.

 

192-194 Penshurst St, Penshurst

Requests a R3/B4 zoning - Comparable to Hurstville Centre or economically viable

Landowner’s Rationale:

·      LSPS identifies Beverly Hills for expansion (LEP 2022)

·      400m from Beverly Hills Centre & 600m from Beverly Hills Station

·      400m from Gifford Park and Beverly Hills Public School

·      Access to Stoney Creek Road

·      Large site with ageing building

The site is not included in the LSPS nor the Housing Strategy.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP.

Rationale:

·      Isolated site.

·      Surrounded by R2.

·      Not located adjacent to a centre (outside of the Beverly Hills Masterplan area).

·      Not located adjacent to a train station (1.1km walk to Beverly Hills Station).

2 Tanner Ave, Carlton

Landowner has requested that the land be rezoned to R3.

Landowner’s Rationale:

·      Opposite B1 Neighbourhood Centre

·      600m from Carlton Station and Centre

·      R3 zone north of the site (to be rezoned R4 in LEP 2020)

·      Rezoning will provide housing choice and support the viability of the B1 Centre

·      Ageing building

·      No major environmental constraints

 

The site is not included in the LSPS nor the Housing Strategy.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP.

Rationale:

•     Isolated site.

•     Predominantly surrounded by R2.

•     Not located adjacent to a centre.

•     Not located adjacent to a train station (850m walk to Carlton Station).

 

41 Woids Ave, Allawah

Landowner has requested an upzoning to R3/R4

Landowner’s Rationale:

·      800m from Hurstville Centre

·      400m from Allawah Station

·      Walking distance of Kempt Field and St George Christian School

·      R3 zone north and east of the site (to be rezoned R4 in LEP 2020)

·      Ageing building

·      No major environmental constraints

The site is not included in the LSPS nor the Housing Strategy.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP.

Rationale:

•     Isolated site.

•     Located in a pocket of R2.

•     Not located adjacent to a centre.

 

60 Patrick St, Hurstville

 

Landowner’s Rationale:

·      LSPS identifies Hurstville as a main strategic centre

·      Adjacent to Hurstville Centre

·      800m from Hurstville Station and Centre

·      Adjacent to Hurstville Oval

·      Walking distance of Danebank Anglican School

·      In an area of medium density development

·      Access to Forest Road/Queens Road

·      Ageing building

·      No major environmental constraints

 

The site is not included in the LSPS nor the Housing Strategy.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP.

Rationale:

•     Isolated site.

•     Not located adjacent to a centre.

•     Not located adjacent to a train station (750m walk to Hurstville Station).

•     Not in additional capacity area in HCCUDS.

1-17 William Road and 1-3 Bennett Road,  Riverwood

Request to rezone to R3.

Landowner’s Rationale:

·      Near Riverwood Station and Centre

·      Near Riverwood Estate – State Significant Precinct

·      Within the proposed Riverwood Planned Precinct

The site is not included in the LSPS nor the Housing Strategy.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP.

Consider as part of the Riverwood Planned Precinct.

 

53 Halstead St, South Hurstville

Request to rezone to R2

 

Landowner’s Rationale:

·      Single dwelling on industrial zoned site

·      Continuous residential use for min. 90yrs (existing use rights)

·      Former Kogarah Council resolution to rezone to R2 (June 2016) (under New City Plan - KLEP 2012 – Amendment No. 2

 

The site is not included in the LSPS nor the Housing Strategy.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP as IN2 land is to be retained and managed.

80 Penshurst St, Penshurst

Request to rezone to B4

Landowner’s Rationale:

·      Penshurst Centre

·      250m from Penshurst Station

·      550m from Hurstville Centre

·      Proximity to Penshurst Park

·      Access to King Georges Rd & Forest Rd

·      No major environmental constraints

Penshurst Centres – and all centres - will be investigated as part LEP2022.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP.

 

St Joseph’s Primary School & Church, Riverwood

Request to expand uses via rezoning or additional permitted uses (child care, retail, affordable housing, seniors housing and health care facilities)

Landowner’s Rationale:

·      200m from Riverwood Station

·      Expand and activate Riverwood Centre

·      Increase support and outreach programs

 

It was recommended at the Councillor briefing that the sites should be consolidated. However this is difficult to enforce unless supported by the owner. Therefore the zoning of the sites will follow the LEP methodology of zoning SP2 sites.

 

The following is recommended:

•     Retain St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School (Lot 102 DP 786150 and Lot 13 DP 21785) as SP2 Educational Establishment

•     Rezone 34 Thurlow Street Riverwood (Lot 13 DP21785) from R2 to SP2 Educational Establishment

•     Rezone St Joseph’s Catholic Church (Lot 105 DP 1939) and Parish Presbytery (Lot 104 DP 1939) – to R2

•     R2 Zone permits boarding houses, child care facilities, secondary dwellings and seniors housing.

 

9 Bowns Rd, Kogarah

To remove the heritage listing as:

•     Heritage listing has devalued property

•     Density of surrounding development

•     Traffic

•     Reduction in open space

•     Too many boarding houses

 

The site is not included in the LSPS nor the Housing Strategy.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP as 9 Bowns Road, Kogarah is a significant Local Heritage Item. Interface controls to be included in the new DCP.

4-16 Montgomery St, Kogarah

Landowner’s Rationale:

·      150m from Kogarah Station

·      Near Kogarah Centre, St George Hospital, schools and open space

·      Large consolidated landholding

·      Capacity for mixed use including residential, offices, health, education, retail and services

 

The site is not included in the LSPS nor the Housing Strategy.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP as this area will be investigated as part of the Kogarah Collaboration Area.

23 Dalcassia St, Hurstville

Landowner’s Rationale:

•     LSPS identifies Hurstville as a major centre

•     600m from Hurstville Station

•     200m from Hurstville Oval and Waratah Private Hospital

•     Access to Forest Rd/Queens Rd

•     Large site with ageing building & located in medium density residential area.

•     No major environmental constraints

 

The site is identified in HLEP 2012 as SP2 Church and Community Purposes. The surrounding area will be rezoned from R3 to R4 to develop a hierarchy of residential zones. Therefore under LEP2020 this site will be zoned R4.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP.

 

Centres Strategy Submissions

 

 

4 Wright Street, Hurstville - Located in the Hurstville East – Forest Road village. Seeks to rezone centre from B2 to B4 and be included in the Hurstville City Centre.

The site will be investigated in Part 2 of the Commercial Centres Strategy and as part of for LEP 2022 Jobs and Activation.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP.

 

Transport for NSW - Strategy should also consider industrial zoned land.

N/A

The Council has completed its Industrial Land Review which recommends that Council retain and manage its industrial land. The LSP and LEP2020 reflect this position.

Kaufland Australia (full-line supermarket seeking to establish in GRC)

N/A

The matters raised in the submission will be investigated in Part 2 of the Commercial Centres Strategy and as part of for LEP 2022 Jobs and Activation.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP.

Woolworths Group (12 investments in GRC)

Supports minimum non-residential FSR requirement. Out-of-centre retailing should not be prohibited. Rezoning criteria should not be restricted to sites adjacent to centres. Need local distribution centres to be provided with supermarkets in both mixed use and industrial zones to adapt to increasing online shopping.

N/A

The matters raised in the submission will be investigated in Part 2 of the Commercial Centres Strategy and as part of for LEP 2022 Jobs and Activation.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP. It should be noted that shops are proposed to be permitted in all B-zones. The out-of-centre retailing will be considered on a case-by-case basis subject to demonstrated merit.

 

Hurstville Central (unsolicited proposal above Hurstville Station)

Additional development capacity should be provided to strive to attain the higher job target of +8,400 jobs. The subject sites are ideally suited to support additional employment capacity beyond current LEP controls.

 

The matters raised in the submission will be investigated in Part 2 of the Commercial Centres Strategy and as part of for LEP 2022 Jobs and Activation.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP.

Frank Knight Planning (Planning Proposal at cnr Forest / Boundary Roads, Peakhurst)

Lodged 1 August 2019 at 143-147 Boundary Road and 689 Forest Road. Submission reiterates the rezoning sought by the Planning Proposal:

a)   Rezone from R2 to B1

b)   Increase height from 9m to 18m

c)   Increase FSR from 0.6:1 to 2:1

 

Assessment of the PP is currently underway.

The matters raised in the submission will be investigated in Part 2 of the Commercial Centres Strategy and as part of for LEP 2022 Jobs and Activation.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP.

Planning Proposals

 

 

53A-59A Gloucester Rd, Hurstville

Landowners rationale:

·      Aged care facility on site that requires upgrading

·      1km from Hurstville Station

·      Bus stop in front of the site provides services to Hurstville and Strathfield

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP. Council will continue with the assessment of the PP

193-219 Rocky Point Rd, 66-68 Ramsgate Rd and 2-6 Targo Rd, Ramsgate

Ramsgate should be identified as a housing investigation area in the LSPS because:

•     Located on future strategic transport corridor

•     Activate Ramsgate Centre

•     Provide housing choice

•     Large consolidated land holding

 

This Planning Proposal was subject to a Council Briefing held on 11/6/2019. The recommendations from that briefing were:

•     No support for the change in the zoning boundary between the R3 and B2 zone.

•     Support for a supermarket but within the boundaries of the existing B2 zone.

•     No support for the heights proposed as heights and FSRs

•     Ramsgate is not a strategic centre like Hurstville and Kogarah.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP.

143-149 Boundary Rd and 689 -691 Forest Rd, Peakhurst

Landowners rationale:

•     Rezone to B1 Neighbourhood Centre

•     Location and size suitable for increased density

 

A Planning Proposal has been lodged for this site but does not include 691 Forest Road.

Centre work not completed.

No change is recommended to the LSPS or LEP. The site will be considered as part of Centres Strategy - Part 2 work.

 

Landmark Square Precinct

Landowner rationale: Requests that the non-residential provision of 1:1 not apply to this site.

 

No change is recommended to the LSPS. A change is recommended to the LEP2020 to include a special provision for the hotel bonus and 0.5:1 non-residential approved on the site.

Background: Council in July 2019 endorsed the PP for gazettal which:

•     Rezones the site from IN2 Light Industrial and part R2 Low Density Residential to B4 Mixed Use;

•     Increases 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);

•     Increases 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;

•     Applies 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.

 

Westfield – request to Mixed Use

Landowners rationale

·      Higher density in centres along transport corridors

·      Proximity to existing transport, infrastructure and services

·      Permit student and tourist and visitor accommodation 

·      Maintain primary economic and employment role of the centre

 

No change is recommended to the LSPS.  A B3 zone has been recommended for the site in LEP 2020 with existing HLEP 1994 height (19m) and FSR (2:1).

Background: Hurstville is a strategic centre

Hurstville has a 2036 target of 15,000 to 20,000 jobs

The South District Plan has the follows actions relating to this centre:

•     encourage and support shopping centre improvements to better integrate with the surrounding public spaces

•     create a strong sense of place by celebrating Hurstville’s cultural diversity

•     support the expansion of the hospitals in the centre and the growth of allied health services

•     encourage new lifestyle and entertainment uses to activate streets and grow the night-time economy

•     build on the centre’s administrative and civic role

•     retain and manage existing commercial lands for future employment opportunities

•     facilitate the attraction of office and commercial floor space and provide opportunities

•     to allow commercial and retail activities to innovate

 

Submissions – Objections to Big House Conversions in LEP2020

N/A

It is recommended that the LSPS be amended to investigate Big House Conversions in LEP No. 2 (2021).

 

 

Key messages from LSPS specific engagement

26.    The following key messages and issues were received as part of the engagement process. The issues are grouped by Theme. Whilst not all messages have resulted in amendments, there have been changes throughout the document – marked up in Attachment 3 – to strengthen the text.

a.   Access and Movement

·    Identifying and protecting key internal and external freight routes is important to supporting local, district and regional economies

·    The provision of express train services to Riverwood to accommodate both current demand and future precinct growth.

·    Improved support transport options including better bus interchange facilities needed across the LGA and car parking

·    A focus on active transport and the provision of connected and appropriate infrastructure which is sheltered from the elements.

·    The provision of 24 hour train services for shift workers was regarded as essential to facilitating access to jobs

·    Provision needs to be made for emergency and service vehicles in medium and high density developments.

b.   Infrastructure and community

·    It is essential to plan for and respond to change, including the required infrastructure to support change ideally delivered ahead of growth

·    The community values the LSPS engagement and genuine engagement processes. People want to see more of this and they want to see the results of any engagement and how Council responds

·    Collaboration is required between Council, the Federal Government and private sector service providers to deliver telecommunications infrastructure across the LGA

·    Council should develop a Smart Street Policy, to align with Transport 2056.

c.   Housing and neighbourhoods

·    Maintaining the character of the existing suburbs, particularly trees and green open space and walkability is important

·    There were mixed views on additional residential development with some seeking the realisation of development potential and others seeking a halt to development.

·    A mix of housing, especially housing that is suitable for older members of the community, such as single-level housing is desirable

·    The provision of affordable housing is considered a more universal concept and more appropriate than targeted key worker housing.  Rather, housing should be provided to cater for a range of incomes from very low to moderate

·    The provision of additional housing and jobs along new State Government transport links needs to be considered

·    A bigger focus on Heritage and culture, including Aboriginal.

d.   Economy and Centres

·    Local jobs are highly valued

·    Young people are interested in gaining local work experience and part-time jobs

·    Land should be protected for local services, businesses and light industry rather than new housing

·    Diversity of businesses in clearly designated commercial and industrial zones which are not encroached by housing need to be encouraged

·    More public plazas are sought after and the provision of social spaces in neighbourhoods and centres

·    Noise and pollution levels around major centres needs to be addressed and managed appropriately through development

·    Local tourism infrastructure needs to be identified and provided in a strategic manner.

e.   Environment and Open Space

·    Green and open spaces are highly valued and should be protected and enhanced, with no loss of existing infrastructure. 

·    Expanded open space and green space are important factors to mitigate climate change and are particularly important for people in high  rise developments

·    Maintaining and increasing the tree canopy is overwhelmingly important and removed trees need to be replaced with appropriate native species and additional trees on public land

·    The Georges River needs to be accessible and the foreshore area is a priority for additional open space with connected green walking and bike tracks

·    There is support for a community recycling Centre, together with education about its use

f.    Implementation

·    Review of LSPS should align better with the 5 year LEP review period rather than in the first year of each Council term.

 

Housing Investigation Areas - Targeted Engagement 

27.    The draft LSPS identified five Precincts for rezoning under LEP 2020 and inclusion in the Council’s Housing Strategy.

28.    The Precincts subject to the consultation were:

a.   Peakhurst (North and West of Peakhurst Park) Precinct

b.   South Hurstville – Culwulla Street Precinct

c.   South Hurstville Hillcrest Avenue Precinct

d.   Penshurst Apsley Estate Precinct and

e.   Olds Park Precinct

29.    Consultation occurred in early September 2019 and 830 property owners were notified of the five Housing Investigation Areas across the LGA and invited to attend one of four Information Sessions. Overall 72 property owners participated in the drop in sessions, 56 completed surveys and 44 completed feedback forms. 

30.    Council was briefed on community feedback from the targeted engagement on 2nd September 2019. A detailed report on the results of this engagement will be provided as part of Council’s consideration of the draft Housing Strategy. An overview is provided in Table 3 below:

 

Table 3 – Results of Targeted Engagement on Housing Precincts

 

Housing Precinct & proposed Controls

Details of consultation

Recommendation

Hillcrest Avenue Hurstville

Proposed controls

R2 to R4

Height – 12m

FSR – 1:1

 

Potential additional dwellings – 29

 

 

Property Owners Notified - 95

Attended Drop In Session – 12

Feedback/Survey Response - 4

Agree with proceeding with rezoning area – 2

Disagree with proceeding with rezoning area  – 2

 

Reasons for objection:

·      Overshadowing

·      Overdevelopment

·      Traffic

·      Parking

·      Very fewer open spaces and green spaces

 

Reasons for support

·      accessibility

·      Close to shops, transport and open space

 

Rezone in LEP2020 to R4

Rationale:

·      Hurstville Train Station within 200m.

·      Hurstville City Centre within 200m.

·      Woniora Gardens and Denman Street Reserve are within 400m.

·      Transition from B4 to R4

·      Given that the precinct is relatively small, the traffic assessment has indicated that the proposed upzoning will have no significant impact on the local road capacities.

Culwulla Street - South Hurstville

Proposed Controls

R2 to R3

Height – 9m

FSR – 0.7:1

 

Potential additional dwellings – 57

 

Property Owners Notified - 139

Attended Drop In Session – 12

Feedback/Survey Response - 11

Agree with proceeding with rezoning area – 3

Disagree with proceeding with rezoning area – 8

 

Reasons for objection:

·      Traffic parking

·      Overdevelop

·      Lack of green spaces

·      Changing the character of the area

 

 

Rezone in LEP2020 to R3

Rationale:

·      Parts of the precinct fall within 800m radius of Hurstville Station. Bus services towards Hurstville Station every 2-10 minutes, towards Miranda and Cronulla every 10-30 minutes.

·      South Hurstville Local Centre within 400m. Hurstville City Centre within 900m.

·      Bell Park, Derwent Street and Maanshan Friendship Park within 400m.

·      South Hurstville Branch Library within 400m.

·      There are available spare capacity on Culwulla Street to accommodate higher order traffic movements.

·      Traffic assessment indicates that this precinct could accommodate the proposed upzoning with no undue difficulty.

 

North & West of Peakhurst Park – Peakhurst

Proposed controls:

R2 to R3

Height 9m

FSR 0.7:1

 

Potential additional dwellings – 335

 

Property Owners Notified - 304

Attended Drop In Session – 20

Feedback/Survey Response – 18

Agree with proceeding with rezoning area – 7

Disagree with proceeding with rezoning area – 9

Neither Agree or Disagree with proceeding with rezoning area – 2

 

Reasons for objection:

·      Traffic

·      parking

·      Privacy

·      Noise

·      Changing the character of the area

Reasons for support:

·      Accessibility

·      Close to shops, transport and open space

 

Rezone in LEP2020 to R3

 

Rationale:

·      Riverwood train station within 700m to 800m. Bus services towards Lugarno, Riverwood Station and Campsie every 15-30 minutes.

·      Riverwood Local Centre within 700m to 800m.

·      Penshurst Park located across the road, other parks including Harold Snodgrass Reserve (across the road), Keppel Avenue Reserve (within 100m) and Johnston Reserve within 500m

·      The traffic assessment indicates that this precinct could accommodate the proposed upzoning.

 

Olds Park – Penshurst

Proposed controls

R2 to R3

Height – 9m, FSR – 0.7:1

 

Potential addition  of 217 dwellings

Property Owners Notified - 335

Attended Drop In Session – 40

Feedback/Survey Response - 37

Agree with proceeding with rezoning area – 4

Disagree with proceeding with rezoning area –32

Neither Agree or Disagree with proceeding with rezoning area – 1

 

Reasons for objection:

·      Traffic

·      parking

·      Overdevelopment

·      loss of Privacy

·      Changing the character of the area

 

Reasons for support:

·      Less of an impact than unit blocks

·      Opportunities to develop

 

Not proceed to rezone the properties under LEP2020 – retain as R2

 

Rationale:

·      Penshurst train station 2km from the precinct. Bus services towards Hurstville City Centre stopping at Penshurst station every 15 minutes.

·      Not in the vicinity of a Centre - Penshurst Local Centre 2km from the precinct.

·      The traffic assessment has indicated that the redevelopment of this precinct may present planning difficulties due to intersection performance and width of roads.

Apsley Estate – Penshurst

Proposed Controls

R2 to R3

Height – 9m,

FSR – 0.7:1

 

Potential additional dwellings – 183

 

Property Owners Notified - 167

Attended Drop In Session – 20

Feedback/Survey Response - 15

Agree with proceeding with rezoning area – 8

Disagree with proceeding with rezoning area – 7

 

Reasons for objection:

·      Traffic

·      parking

·      Overdevelopment

 

Reasons for support:

·      Area needs to be revitalised

·      Close to station and shops

 

Rezone in LEP2020 to R3

 

Rationale:

·      Penshurst train station 200m away. Bus services towards Hurstville City Centre every 2-15 minutes.

·      Penshurst Local Centre 250m away.

·      Penshurst Park is 300m away, Arrowsmith Park within 150m walk, Sunnyhurst Reserve within 400m.

·      Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre within 200m

·      The traffic assessment has indicated that this precinct will be able to accommodate further upzoning with no undue impact subject to potential treatment of the right turn manoeuvre at the Forest Road/Apsley Street intersection

 

 

 

31.    For the purpose of the finalisation of the LSPS two amendments have been made to the Housing Investigation Areas as a consequence of the targeted engagement and initial precinct investigations. 

a.   Deletion of Olds Park Precinct: Old’s Park residents were concerned about the immediately surrounding local road network’s capacity to accommodate additional vehicular movements and parking. Initial advice coming out of a traffic assessment of all investigation areas, indicates that the concerns relating to the area around Old’s Park are valid.  Accordingly, the Old’s Park Investigation Area has been removed from the Housing and Neighbourhoods Structure Plan in the draft LSPS. The removal is supported for the following reasons:

i. Penshurst train station 2km from the precinct. Bus services towards Hurstville City Centre stopping at Penshurst station every 15 minutes.

ii.  Not in the vicinity of a Centre - Penshurst Local Centre 2km from the precinct.

iii. The intersection operations in this precinct are generally operate near capacity.  These are due to the right turn movements from minor street to the arterial corridor that are Stoney Creek Road and Forest Road.

iv. Vehicle access to/from the allotments fronting Stoney Creek Road may experience difficulty of access in the future.  Access to and from the carparking access may occur in a left in and left out format however as the road is under the care/control of RMS it is anticipated that gaining approval to multiple property access points along this frontage will be challenging.

v.  The right turn movement from George Street to Forest Road experience significant delays at present time.  This turning movement may be prohibited in the future should zoning uplift results in greater reliance/delays.

b.   Inclusion of Connells Point Precinct: Amend the Housing and Neighbourhoods Structure Plan in the draft LSPS to include this Precinct. As stated earlier in this report (refer to Table 2) the Precinct is suitable for rezoning from R2 to R3 as the site:

i. Adjoins a R3 zone and townhouse development

ii.  Is along a bus route to Hurstville Station

iii. Is 300m from South Hurstville Centre 

iv. Is 300m from Poulton Park

v.  Is near South Hurstville Library

vi. Is 780m from Connells Point Public School

 

Infrastructure

32.    One of the concerns raised by residents during the LSPS Stage 1 Community Consultation throughout February/March 2019 was that infrastructure should be delivered ahead of growth.

33.    In order to address infrastructure concerns Council appointed APP in May 2019 to prepare a gap analysis and roadmap for Council to have sufficient evidence and an infrastructure strategy to support projected and any proposed growth (short, medium & longer term).

34.    APP reviewed a number of relevant strategic context and background information and studies in the preparation of the GAP Analysis. The majority of documentation reviewed was commissioned by Council to inform the preparation of the LSPS. In addition, APP has reviewed the following:

a.   The existing transport network, including the active transport (pedestrian and cycle), public transport and road networks; and

b.   The future transport network, including the Green Grid Corridors identified in the Greater Sydney Commission’s South District Plan and the committed, under investigation and visionary initiatives identified in Future Transport 2056 (Transport for NSW 2018).

35.    The GAP Analysis and roadmap have been finalised and did identified a number of data gaps in relation to Economic, Social & Green Infrastructure within the draft LSPS. The gaps identified by APP’s work have resulted in either new or refined actions throughout the LSPS.  Other gaps will be reviewed and considered as part of future policy work and/or work programs.

36.    The following Table 4 is a summary of the gaps identified by APP:

 

Table 4 – Gaps Register

Infrastructure type & Sector

Data gap

APP recommendation

Economic

 

Transport

Hurstville City Centre TMAP (finalised in June 2019) study area did not include the land zoned SP2 and B2 along Forest Road East; which supports existing jobs and services in the Hurstville Strategic Centre.

A traffic analysis would be required on a site by site basis, if the areas along Forest Road East zoned SP2 (Infrastructure) and B2 (Local Centre) are up-zoned/redeveloped in future to assess the local road network demand and bus stop usage in this area.

Economic

 

Transport

Specific TMAP will be undertaken for Riverwood Planned Precinct by NSW Government. Extent of TMAP study area is undetermined at this point in time.

Advocate to NSW Government for the study area to consider the surrounding local road network and any impacts as a result of up-zoning within the Riverwood Precinct Investigation Area i.e. flow-on/cumulative impacts for local roads in Peakhurst.

Economic

 

Transport

Draft Car Parking Strategy does not account for Kogarah Collaboration Area and the increase from demand generators (hospitals, schools and commuters) that will compete for car spaces as a result. Noting that Kogarah is already operating at >85% peak occupancy as of 2018.

Planning for the Kogarah Collaboration Area (TMAP) needs to account for the already observed parking study for Kogarah.

Economic

 

Transport

Car Parking Strategy does not account for the Riverwood Planned Precinct uplift and increased demand on parking spaces in the future.

Planning for the Riverwood Planned Precinct (TMAP) should be made in line with the already observed parking study for Riverwood. Resulting changes to estimated car parking peak occupancy timeframes should be noted before any decisions are made regarding opportunities to “consolidate off-street parking in areas such as Riverwood and Beverly Hills freeing up land for sale, redevelopment or repurposing for public use”.

Economic

 

Transport

Draft Car Parking Strategy does not consider outcomes of TMAP (Hurstville) and LEP Traffic Assessment Base and Future (Kogarah).

Final Car Parking Strategy should consider and incorporate recommendations of the traffic studies when updating the report post community feedback. Further consideration by Council will need to be given to how the Strategy should be updated in the future, noting that further traffic studies are likely to be completed, including the Kogarah TMAP, Riverwood TMAP (potential) and LGA Wide Transport Study. This will likely impact the future parking demand and supply model.

Economic

 

Transport

Draft Car Parking Strategy estimates future demand increases in line with future population growth of the LGA. This does not consider projected future employment growth of commercial centres which will incur additional demand from commuters.

Additional car parking and traffic study is required to consider additional demand generated by future employment growth in the centres, particularly in stances of future uplifts in development potential.

Economic

 

Transport

Hurstville TMAP RN3 priority does not reflect need to consider options to upgrade Ormonde Parade.

RN3 Priority to be updated to include Ormonde Parade.

Economic

 

Transport

No prior investigation has considered whether or not the desirable road connections between the T4 and T8 train lines can accommodate a range of public or private transport links e.g. on-demand and/or shuttle bus services and active transport links.

Advocate to the NSW Government for the Riverwood Planned Precinct TMAP to investigate road connections and widths between the T4 and T8 rail lines in order to support increased public and active transport access.

Economic

 

Transport

No prior investigation has considered the appropriateness of road connections near the foreshore area for accommodating bus services as desired to increase public transport access to the foreshore.

Either the LGA Wide Transport Study or the Georges River Foreshore Access Improvement Plan should consider whether the road corridors around the foreshore area can accommodate bus services.

Economic

 

Transport

No prior investigation has considered the feasibility of local road widenings across the LGA inclusive of land acquisition costs.

Feasibilities to be undertaken where necessary for local road widenings identified as part of transport infrastructure studies (Hurstville TMAP, Kogarah LEP Traffic Assessment, LGA wide transport study)

Economic

 

Transport

No prior investigation has considered whether suggested road infrastructure upgrades (short, medium or long term) will impact stormwater networks.

Undertake an integrated analysis of local road widening and the need for augmentation of stormwater infrastructure. This analysis should take note of appropriate green infrastructure planning in upgrades where possible.

Economic

 

Transport

No evidence of Smart Streets Strategy within the LGA.

Council should develop a smart streets strategy as part of supporting the vision for vibrant streets (Transport 2056) when delivering new and upgraded public domain and road infrastructure to maximise their social and environmental benefits and support the mass movement of people in the future.

Economic

 

Transport

No prior investigation has assessed the future demand on the road networks within growing centres across the LGA.

LGA Wide Transport study should give particular focus to centres that are experiencing the largest proportionate growth in 2036 (dwellings and employment floorspace) that are not already the subject of a TMAP.

Economic

 

Transport

No prior investigation into the feasibility of cycleways, pedestrian links and kiss and ride zones across the LGA

Feasibilities to be undertaken where necessary for cycleway and pedestrian linkages and proposed kiss and ride zones identified as part of transport infrastructure studies (LGA wide Bike Plan, LGA wide PAMP, LGA wide Transport Study)

Economic

 

Transport

No evidence of Council possessing background information relating to the traffic/car parking study, specifically the impacts of the proposed new and extended clearways in the Beverly Hills Town Centre.

Request NSW Government to share the traffic/car parking studies undertaken for Beverly Hills Town Centre, particularly the net change to business customer parking options. Advocate for no net loss in spaces and for the delivery of appropriate way finding infrastructure to direct business customers to available off-street parking in the Town Centre. Beverly Hills Town Centre is forecast to increase its GFA 16% by 2036, therefore, it is important to continue to support the Town Centres growth.

Economic

 

Energy

No evidence of prior investigation into the existing electrical supply network across the LGA including current and future supply constraints.

Council to engage with Ausgrid to understand if there are any constraints within the LGA for delivering the forecasted housing and employment growth.

Economic

 

Energy

No investigation to date indicates whether separation distances from future electrical supply mains have been considered in land use and infrastructure planning.

Consult with Ausgrid as to any changes in separation distances from electrical supply mains and potential development impacts. Stakeholder engagement necessary to understand the capacity of the network in the LGA.

Economic

 

Energy

No evidence of an integrated energy infrastructure map for the LGA i.e. electricity, gas and renewables.

Council to engage with energy providers to complete integrated mapping of all energy infrastructure within the LGA to assist with future land use and infrastructure planning decisions.

Economic

 

Energy

No evidence of existing gas supply network across the LGA including current and future supply constraints.

Council to engage in discussion with gas suppliers to understand if there are any constraints within the LGA for delivering the forecasted housing and employment growth.

Economic

 

Energy

No evidence to indicate whether separation distances from future gas supply mains have been considered in land use and infrastructure planning.

Council to consult with gas suppliers as to any changes in separation distances from gas supply mains and potential development impacts. Stakeholder engagement necessary to understand the capacity of the network in the LGA.

Economic

 

Energy

Draft LSPS priorities note opportunities to promote the use of renewable energy supply and fixtures within new and existing developments to reduce emissions. No note of an overarching policy/strategy to ensure the security of local energy supply including renewable sources.

Council to develop a renewable energy/sustainability strategy which informs baseline and future targets, appropriate DCP controls, incentives and KPIs to measure progress in achieving targets.

Economic

 

Water

No evidence of prior investigation to date into the existing regional or local water supply infrastructure across the LGA including current and future supply constraints.

Council to engage in discussions with Sydney Water to understand if there are any constraints within the LGA for delivering the forecasted housing and employment growth.

Economic

 

Water

No evidence of prior investigation into the existing sewer infrastructure across the LGA including current and future supply constraints.

Council to engage in discussion with Sydney Water to understand if there are any constraints within the LGA for delivering the forecasted housing and employment growth.

Economic

 

Water

No evidence of an integrated water infrastructure map for the LGA i.e. water, sewer and stormwater.

Complete integrated mapping of all water infrastructure within the LGA to highlight assets which are under or over capacity in order to assist with future land use and infrastructure planning decisions.

Economic

 

Water

No integrated strategy for the planning of stormwater and green infrastructure across the LGA.

Future stormwater infrastructure planning should give reference to appropriate green infrastructure planning objectives (WSUD) in delivering proactive outcomes that look to alleviate flooding risks and take pressure off the existing stormwater network.

Economic

 

Water

Identified flood risk management study will not assess water cycle management holistically.

Expand the identified flood risk management study or commission a separate study to holistically look at water cycle management within the LGA including estuary or riparian assessments for water quality.

Economic

 

Water

No prior investigation into the feasibility of upgrading water assets at capacity i.e. stormwater across the LGA

Utilise asset management data and integrated mapping of water infrastructure to identify assets at capacity for project feasibility. Feasibilities to consider funding arrangements including S7.11/S7.12 Development Contributions Plan to upgrade or augment stormwater drainage with nexus to development.

Economic

 

Waste

Council does not have the technology and/or facilities to be able to recycle the products collected as part of the local kerbside collection.

Council to construct a Community Recycling Centre using the current funding and approved DA and leverage this facility to expand on the types of products that can be recycled from the community. Additionally, Council should advocate to the federal government to expand the items included in the National Packaging Covenant and work with the state government to develop markets to promote the Circular Economy Strategy.

Economic

 

Telecommunications

No evidence of prior investigation into the demand for telecommunications infrastructure within commercial centres and across the LGA.

Collaborate with private sector (service providers) to investigate the demand, opportunities and constraints of telecommunications infrastructure across the LGA.

Economic

 

Telecommunications

Not known if the digital infrastructure policy will consider public data capture as part of free Wi-Fi technology solutions in new and upgraded Council facilities

Digital infrastructure policy to consider options to utilise public data within Council facilities to improve those facilities.

Economic

 

Telecommunications

No note of a coordinated strategy between Council and the private sector for the planning and delivery of telecommunication infrastructure across the LGA.

Council to engage with private carriers to develop a strategy for telecommunication infrastructure planning and roll-out across the LGA, with a focus on the Smart Cities pilot sites. Carriers have specific powers and immunities relating to telecommunications infrastructure deployment and installation. These laws help carriers to rollout telecommunications infrastructure quickly in a nationally-uniform way, rather than having to follow state, territory and local government requirements. These laws have existed in their current form since 1997. Federal government considers that telecommunications providers should work with local communities to address concerns about their infrastructure plans and has encouraged industry to consider consultation requirements for future 5G networks. It is therefore in Council’s interest to engage in consultation with carriers to understand the delivery of telecommunication infrastructure (5G) across the LGA.

Economic

 

Telecommunications

Smart Cities Pilot noted but no evidence of overall strategy for their delivery including sites considered, key stakeholders and timing.

Opportunity (if not already considered) to deliver either the Kogarah Collaboration Area or Riverwood Planned Precinct as Smart City pilot sites due to the ability to leverage greater pools of resources and collaboration (State, Local and Private). In addition, consideration should be given to Hurstville City Centre due to its importance as a strategic centre within the LGA.

Economic

 

Telecommunications

Confirm the innovation strategy aligns or will align with the outcomes of the investigation into the demands, opportunities and constraints for telecommunications infrastructure across the LGA.

Innovation strategy to address future employment trends, anticipated demand and telecommunications infrastructure requirements to enable and support growth of jobs in professional, technical and innovation service roles. Further it should detail recommendations which aim to fast track private sector investment in digital connectivity.

Social

 

Health

Council owns and leases properties to NSW Health as a tenant (Child & Family Health Centres) across the LGA. No understanding as to the current or future strategy for the planning and delivery of assets to support the population.

Council to undertake a review of community health facilities within the LGA and liaise with state government to confirm the requirements for future upgrades or new facilities.

Social

 

Health

No evidence around the demand for Community Health Facilities within the LGA, noting there are 5 facilities across the LGA.

Council to confirm whether the current supply of local community health facilities meets the current demand and how future demand will be addressed.

Social

 

Health

No evidence to allow understanding of Council’s role, responsibilities and actions in supporting the growth and redevelopment of Kogarah Hospital and associated health services facilities. The Collaboration Area outlines objectives and priorities for the growth and improvement of this infrastructure type, however Council’s position remains vague, albeit the infrastructure is the main responsibility of the State Government.

Council should develop its position around roles, responsibilities and actions to support the redevelopment of Kogarah Hospital and associated health services facilities. This position should also consider roles and responsibilities for broader land use planning to enable future growth beyond the confines of the existing facilities.

Social

 

Education

Draft LSPS notes the provision of child care centres. No information on the current intent of Council in delivering new Council owned childcare centres or around managing existing assets. What is the state of the existing provision? Is it adequate or is there a shortfall? What provision is required to support future population growth?

Council to arrive at a clear position on developing and managing any new Council owned child care centres. Typically, this infrastructure is delivered by the private sector, however, opportunities still exist for these to be dedicated to, and managed by Council as part of Voluntary Planning Agreements with rezonings and large development proposals. Council also to review any existing audits and financial information around the operations and management of centres that it owns or controls to determine required actions for upgrades and/or changes to operational models.

Social

 

Education

No information on preschools and kindergarten centres (i.e. South Hurstville) in the LGA. Is the current provision adequate and what provision is required to support future growth? If there’s a shortfall what actions are to be undertaken to address this?

Council to review these assets in line with a targeted investigation into demand for preschools and kindergartens. These assets are typically delivered by the private sector; however, Council may need to do more to incentivise fast-tracked delivery of educational infrastructure in the event there is a current or short-term shortage.

Social

 

Education

Lack of information available around actions to support new or improved / expanded schools infrastructure to accommodate growing demand for both primary and secondary school facilities.

Council to advocate for transparency around site identification for the delivery of new or improved/expanded schools infrastructure within Georges River LGA. This will allow Council to better plan future land use and infrastructure around each site in order to support the schools and the broader community including opportunities for Joint Use Planning Agreements.

Social

 

Education

Details around the requirements for new or improved tertiary educational facilities remain at a high-level. Ideal locations, site parameters, operational details, and the like need to be more thoroughly understood in order to draw investment from Universities and TAFE.

Council to continue liaising with Universities and TAFE to understand their operational and spatial requirements. Council should develop a position as part of their Investment Attraction Strategy to confirm what tertiary education facilities are considered desirable, particularly in the Kogarah Health and Education Precinct.

Social

 

Culture, Sports & Tourism

No understanding of state government’s intent for the delivery of future cemetery infrastructure, noting that Georges River has no active cemeteries and the South District has one of the lowest rates of remaining burial sites.

Council to discuss with state government the intent for future delivery of cemetery infrastructure and how this might affect Georges River.

Social

 

Culture, Sports & Tourism

No local tourism infrastructure strategy to identify the local tourism attractors both present and future based on intended land use planning and infrastructure upgrades e.g. stadium and entertainment centres, museums, galleries, educational facilities, coastal, natural and recreation assets.

Develop a Local Tourism Infrastructure Strategy and align with the State Tourism Infrastructure Strategy in order to capitalise on the objectives and investment opportunities for tourism infrastructure to boost the local economy.

Social

 

Social & Affordable Housing

Inclusive Housing Strategy notes the locations of social housing within the LGA but does not provide specifics as to the current or future supply and demand for social housing within the LGA outside of approximate wait times.

Engage with the State Government (LAHC, FACS) to understand the actual supply and demand as well as priorities for the future planning and delivery of Social Housing in the LGA.

Social

 

Social & Affordable Housing

Council has established affordable housing targets for the LGA but there is no clear indication of what proportion of these would be dedicated to Key Worker Housing (KWH).

Council to identify the proportion of affordable housing to be dedicated to KWH across the LGA, in particular to support the Kogarah Collaboration Area Health and Education Precinct.

Green

 

Green Infrastructure

No overarching green infrastructure policy for the LGA which encompasses green and blue infrastructure in line with Greener Places 2018 objectives.

Develop and implement an overarching green infrastructure policy for Georges River to ensure that green infrastructure is considered holistically in future land use and infrastructure planning decisions. The green infrastructure policy should reference principles for environmentally sustainable design which are to be captured in the revised LEP 2020 and DCP 2020.

Green

 

Green Infrastructure

No LEP controls for the planning and delivery of green infrastructure e.g. parks, open spaces and trees.

LEP controls (as determined by the overarching green infrastructure policy) should be used to strengthen the commitment of developers in utilising green infrastructure to deliver improved development outcomes.

Green

 

Green Infrastructure

No identified consultation or collaboration with National Parks and Wildlife Services (NPWS) to identify whether there are any future plans to provide amenity in parts of Georges River National Park within the LGA e.g. Lugarno

Consult with NPWS about the future vision for Georges River National Park and advocate for potential amenity in Lugarno.

Green

 

Green Infrastructure

No evidence of vegetation management plans to support threatened or endangered green infrastructure e.g. trees and vegetation.

Consider vegetation management plans aimed at the reconstruction and regeneration of threatened or endangered ecological vegetation communities as part of increasing biodiversity and achieving the 40% tree canopy target. Explore opportunities to establish biobanking sites within the LGA.

Green

 

Green Infrastructure

No evidence of opportunities and constraints mapping related specifically to green infrastructure such as the identified green grid priorities and parks and open spaces.

Conduct opportunities and constraints mapping as part of the ongoing open space expansion plan.

Green

 

Blue Infrastructure

No evidence to date of a strategy to improve overall water quality of the Georges River.

Marine Estate Management Strategy and Georges River Estuary Coastal Management Program to detail (if appropriate) what is required in order to improve overall water quality from ‘fair’ rating.

Green

 

Blue Infrastructure

No LEP controls for the planning and delivery of blue infrastructure e.g. WSUD

LEP controls (as determined by the overarching green infrastructure policy) should be used to strengthen the commitment of developers in utilising blue infrastructure to deliver improved development outcomes.

 

37.    The Roadmap is a strategic plan to identify the infrastructure sectors and assets within Georges River. Its intent is to provide an overall assessment of each asset and determine the priorities required to ensure infrastructure is sufficient to support the needs of the community to support the projected housing and employment growth.

38.    One of the main recommendations of the Roadmap is “Collaboration with Others”.

 

Changes to LSPS

LEP Implications – Proposed Change to Staged LEP

39.    Council resolved at its meeting held 23 April 2019 to endorse the following staged approach to a new Georges River LEP:

a.   LEP 2020 to focus on Harmonisation and Housing,

b.   LEP 2022 to focus on Jobs and Activation,

c.   LEP 2025 to focus on land use changes beyond the next 5 years.

40.    As a result of Stage 2 Community Consultation the following staging is now proposed:

a.   Stage 1 - LEP No. 1 (2020) - Housing & Harmonisation   

i. Harmonise existing LEPs

ii.  Housing targets through some upzonings

iii. Includes targeted resident consultation on Housing Strategy for areas proposed to be upzoned in September 2019

b.   Stage 2 LEP No. 2 (2021) - Housing Choice

i. Infill and inclusive / affordable housing

ii.  Investigate big house conversions, build to rent etc

c.   Stage 3 - LEP No. 3 (2022) - Jobs & Activation

i. Review development standards in centres

ii.  Infrastructure delivery mechanisms

iii. Hurstville & Beverly Hills masterplanning

d.   Stage 4 - LEP No. 4 (2025 & beyond) – Housing

i. Future Housing Strategy

41.    The amended 4 staged LEP process is now referred to in the LSPS.

Housing Investigation Areas

42.    As stated above and for the purpose of the finalisation of the LSPS only one key amendment has been made to the Housing Investigation Areas as a consequence of the targeted engagement and initial precinct investigations.  The Old’s Park Investigation Area has been removed from the Housing and Neighbourhoods Structure Plan in the draft LSPS and a new Precinct for investigation - Connells Point Rd, Greenacre Rd and Rowe St, South Hurstville has been added.

Minor Amendments

43.    The following minor amendments were made to the planning priorities in response to the key messages. These are highlighted for Council’s information as the planning priorities are an integral part of the draft LSPS’s vision framework. Amendments were also made to the actions which include both their refinement and enhancement or the creation of new actions. Actions which have had only minor changes and do not change the intent have not been identified below.

44.    Minor grammatical changes or enhancements to the text have also been made that serve to enhance the original content. These have also not been identified below. All amendments to the exhibited draft document are highlighted in red text in the draft LSPS contained in Attachment 3 and in the Tables 5 to 10 below.

 

45.    Table 5 - Planning Priorities

 

Planning priority

P9. A mix of well-designed housing for all life stages caters for a range of lifestyle needs and incomes

P13. Planning, collaboration and investment delivers employment growth and attractive, lively, accessible and productive centres.

P15. All local centres are supported to evolve for long-term viability

P18. An environmentally friendly approach is applied to all new development.

 

46.    Table 6 - Theme - Access and Movement

 

Amendment

Action

Refined/enhanced action

A1. Advocate to the NSW Government to:

•     Alleviate the current and future congestion on the T4 and T8 train lines

•     Provide express train services at Kogarah during peak hours

•     Investigate feasibility of 24 hour rail services between metropolitan and strategic centres to accommodate shift workers

•     Investigate a new on/off ramp to the M5 Motorway to improve access to Western Sydney at Kingsgrove

•     Prioritise the Parramatta to Kogarah mass transit/train link as a rail link between the T4 and T8 lines (10-20 years)

•     Extend the South East mass transit train link between Randwick and Miranda (20 years+)

•     Deliver a new train/mass transit link

Refined/

enhanced action

A2. Collaborate with the NSW Government to:

•     Work with other councils in the South District to identify and agree on the most strategic and beneficial Stage 2 F6 extension corridor for the District

•     Regularly monitor and improve the transport corridors from Kingsgrove and Kogarah to Sydney CBD, Sydney Airport and Port Botany

•     Protect the efficacy of current and future freight corridors

•     Regularly monitor and explore options to alleviate current and future congestion on the Princes Highway and King Georges Road

•     As part of the Riverwood Planned Precinct:

Prioritise and identify a preferred corridor for a public and active transport linkage between the T4 and T8 train lines as part of the Riverwood Planned Precinct process and/ or as part of the Parramatta to Bankstown to Hurstville/ Kogarah rapid bus link investigation

Consider cumulative impacts on the local road network surrounding Riverwood and incorporate observed and potential increased parking rates as part of the Riverwood Planned Precinct TMAP

Explore options for additional express train services at Riverwood during peak hours as part of the Planned Precinct process

•     Consider the LGA's planned growth precincts in determining the southern alignment of the Central City Strategic Road Corridor, North Connex to Southern Sydney (20 years+)

•     Once committed and funded, identify land to be reserved in future LEPs to deliver longer-term train/mass transit and/or road corridors

•     Explore options for 24 hour bus lanes and/or T3 transit lanes along key corridors.

Refined/

enhanced action

A3. Prepare a LGA-wide Transport Strategy for all modes of transport, including active transport with a focus on:

•     Connecting neighbourhoods and centres

•     Improving external connections

•     Access to proposed growth precincts

•     Managing local, district and regional freight routes

Refined/ enhanced action

A5. Collaborate with the NSW Government to deliver a cycleway along the T4 and T8 lines

Refined/ enhanced action

A6. Collaborate with the NSW Government for safe crossings over King Georges Road, especially at Beverly Hills

New Action

A7. Collaborate with the State Government in future investigations regarding the routes for the potential mass transit links to Parramatta and Macquarie Park

Refined/ enhanced action

A8. Prepare a PAMP for key centres that incorporates safe pedestrian movements

New action

A15. Require in Council's DCP 2020 travel plans for all major new development and businesses

 

New action

A16. Develop design standards in DCP 2020 to accommodate emergency and service vehicles access to medium and high density development

 

47.    Table 7 - Theme - Infrastructure and community

 

Amendment

Action

Refined/ enhanced action

A18. Investigate appropriate infrastructure funding options where there is an uplift in density

New Action

A23. Provide shade in new and upgraded outdoor Council community and recreation facilities

Refined/ enhanced action

A24. Collaborate with adjoining councils on potential infrastructure upgrades in places like Riverwood Planned Precinct and Kogarah Health and Education Precinct, Ramsgate, Narwee and Kingsgrove

Refined/ enhanced action

Collaborate with the NSW Government and State owned corporations to deliver adaptive and flexible enabling infrastructure (energy, gas and water), especially in areas of housing and employment growth

New action

A32. Investigate the use of recyclables in the provision of essential infrastructure such as roads, cycleways and public street furniture

New action

A33. Develop a smart streets strategy as part of delivering the vision for vibrant streets (Transport 2056) across the LGA

Refined/ enhanced action

A38. Investigate additional free Wi-Fi and technology solutions in new and upgraded Council facilities and in public places through place-making

New action

A41. Collaborate with the Federal Government and private sector service providers to investigate the demand, opportunities and constraints of telecommunications infrastructure provision across the LGA

 

48.    Table 8 - Theme - Housing and neighbourhoods

 

Amendment

Action/Figure

New action

A43. Investigate the provision of additional housing and jobs along new transport links as new infrastructure is committed/funded by the State Government

Refined/enhanced action

A48. Facilitate a broader range of housing types across the LGA through rezoning land, including controls for medium density development in Council's LEP and DCP.

New Action

A49. Investigate the adaptive re-use of large houses (big house conversion) in Council’s LEP

Refined/enhanced action

A50. Establish a planning framework to provide housing for people from very low to moderate income households including key workers

Refined/enhanced action

A51. Utilise the provisions for planning agreements in the EP&A Act for affordable housing without impacting feasibility drawing from the outcomes of the Inclusive Housing Strategy

Refined/enhanced action

A55. Prepare an Aboriginal Reconciliation Strategy in consultation with the local Aboriginal community and Land Council

New action

A57. Implement the Historical Markers Policy through development

Structure Plan

The Olds Park Housing Investigation Area has been removed from the Structure Plan

 

49.    Table 9 - Theme - Economy and Centres

 

Amendment

Action

New action

A61. Retain and manage industrial and urban services land by safeguarding industrial zoned land from residential development and/or mixed-use zones

Refined/enhanced action

A64. Ensure ongoing review of the zoning and development controls of all centres with the aim of providing sufficient employment floor space to meet future population and employment projections

New Action

A65. Introduce zoning and controls in Council’s LEP 2020 that enable tourist and visitor accommodation, medi-hotels and carer accommodation in and adjacent to medical precincts

Refined/enhanced action

A66. Investigate the role of and opportunities for the Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct

Refined/enhanced action

A69. Encourage new housing for professional and key workers in the Kogarah Health and Education Precinct and the Riverwood Planned Precinct

New action

A70. Commence a prioritised program of public domain improvements and place-making activities that improve liveability and enhance connectivity and vibrancy of centres.

New action

A71. Develop a Local Tourism Infrastructure Strategy that aligns with the State Tourism Infrastructure Strategy

New action

A80. Promote activation and ongoing viability by conducting place-based analysis of key centres including the investigation of development standards and centre expansion as part of Council's LEP 2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50.    Table 10 - Theme - Environment and Open Space

 

Amendment

Action

Refined/enhanced action

A83. Review development controls in the foreshore area to protect the Georges River from inappropriate development in Council’s Comprehensive LEP 2020 and DCP 2020

Refined/enhanced action

A85. Implement the Foreshore Access and Improvement Plan to provide infrastructure which improves access to the waterfront of the Georges River

New action

A86. Collaborate with National Parks and Wildlife Service to develop a vision for the Georges River National Park and advocate for improved potential amenity in Lugarno

New Action

A87. Appropriately plan for, fund and maintain stormwater infrastructure including opportunities for re-naturalisation

New Action

A91. Provide provisions in Council's LEP 2020 to ensure development in business, industrial and high density residential zones is consistent with principles of sustainable practice and environmentally sensitive design

Refined/enhanced Action

A92. Investigate environmentally sustainable design certification of developments on key public and private sites in the Kogarah Collaboration Area, strategic centres and hub precincts

New action

A94. Deliver a green infrastructure policy which encompasses green and blue infrastructure in line with Greener Places 2018 objectives and addresses flood risk requirements for feasibility studies

New Action

A95. Include waste and sustainability controls in Council's DCP 2020

New Action

A96. Develop a Georges River Coastal Management Plan in conjunction with the Georges Riverkeeper

Refined/enhanced Action

A99. Investigate appropriate locations for and construct a Community Recycling Centre

Refined/enhanced Action

A102. Review and prepare required new plans of Short term management for Council-managed parks and reserves that guide the development and embellishment of open space to support a variety of uses and changing needs

Refined/enhanced Action

A110. Develop an LGA wide flood risk management study that holistically looks at water cycle management within the LGA including estuary or riparian assessments for water quality

 

51.    A copy of the LSPS with changes highlighted in red text is attached in Attachment 3. Attachment 4 contains a copy of the LSPS with all changes made/updated. Attachment 5 is the LSPS Implementation Plan.

 

Process to finalise LSPS

52.    Other than Council endorsing the LSPS there are 2 additional State Government processes. The first is the final ‘health check’ to receive feedback from the South District Commissioner and key State Agencies. The second is Final Assurance.

53.    The final Health Check is scheduled for October. Council was required to lodge a draft LSPS for the final health check with the GSC on 25 September 2019. Council’s agreement is sought to grant the General Manager the delegation to make any inconsequential amendments to the LSPS following the Health Check meeting.

54.    Final Assurance is scheduled for 6th November with the Greater Sydney Commission with documentation needing to be submitted by 30 October 2019. The Commission requires the LSPS to be endorsed by Council prior to Final Assurance. Pending the Commission’s support, the LSPS can be made.

 

Financial Implications

55.    Within budget allocation. Georges River Council is a ‘priority’ council under the State Government’s LEP Accelerated Review Program.

 

Risk Implications

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

57.    As stated above Georges River Council is a ‘priority’ council under the State Government’s LEP Accelerated Review Program. Accordingly the LSPS is required to be submitted to the GSC by 30 October 2019 and the LEP Planning Proposal for Gateway is to be submitted to State Government by 25 December 2019.

58.    If the above deadlines are not met Council is in risk of losing the funding.

 

File Reference

18/2196

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Table of Submissions with Responses

Attachment 2

Community Engagement Report Stage 2 - LSPS

Attachment 3

LSPS with marked up changes

Attachment 4

LSPS - Final

Attachment 5

LSPS Implementation Plan - Final

 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 14 October 2019

ENV035-19             Adoption of the Local Strategic Planning Statement and endorsement of the Housing Precincts for LEP 2020

[Appendix 1]          Table of Submissions with Responses

 

 

Page 249

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 14 October 2019

ENV035-19             Adoption of the Local Strategic Planning Statement and endorsement of the Housing Precincts for LEP 2020

[Appendix 2]          Community Engagement Report Stage 2 - LSPS

 

 

Page 271

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 14 October 2019

ENV035-19             Adoption of the Local Strategic Planning Statement and endorsement of the Housing Precincts for LEP 2020

[Appendix 3]          LSPS with marked up changes

 

 

Page 503

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 14 October 2019

ENV035-19             Adoption of the Local Strategic Planning Statement and endorsement of the Housing Precincts for LEP 2020

[Appendix 4]          LSPS - Final

 

 

Page 504

 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 14 October 2019

ENV035-19             Adoption of the Local Strategic Planning Statement and endorsement of the Housing Precincts for LEP 2020

[Appendix 5]          LSPS Implementation Plan - Final

 

 

Page 568

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council –      Environment and Planning -  Monday, 14 October 2019                                                    Page 580

Item:                   ENV036-19        Establishment of a Trial Program - Smoke Free Zone 

Author:              Coordinator – Parking and Rangers

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a) That Council endorse the Smoke Free Zones at the Kogarah Town Square, Hurstville Memorial Square and Hurstville Central Plaza.

(b) That improved signage be placed in the three locations to better notify the public that smoking, spitting and littering is prohibited in the areas.

(c)  That patrols continue to be undertaken in the three areas to assist with educating members of the community and promote voluntary-compliance with the signage.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

1.    This report provides the findings and recommendations from the 6 month trial of the Smoke Free Zones within the areas of Kogarah Town Square, Hurstville Memorial Park and Hurstville Central Plaza.

 

2.    Council’s Rangers team conducted 102 patrols of the locations between February 2019 and August 2019.

 

3.    Despite the frequent patrols by Rangers the number of people continuing to smoke in these locations remained relatively consistent.

 

4.    It appears that in Hurstville Central Plaza and Memorial Square, the signage was not providing an adequate deterrent as discarded cigarette butts were located in the garden beds and around the perimeter of each location as well as smokers smoking within the sign posted area.

 

5.    Stationary smokers mostly complied with directions from the Rangers to cease smoking in each location. 

 

6.    It is recommended that the Smoke Free Zones continue and improved signage is implemented to better notify the public of their responsibilities whilst using the area.

 

7.    To assist in enforcing the smoke free areas, the Rangers will continue to educate members of the community on their responsibilities and promote voluntary compliance with the signage whilst using the area, by incorporating this as part of their routine patrols.

 

Background

 

8.    Council at its meeting of 23 July 2018 resolved:

(a)     That the General Manager prepare a report to Council on conducting a trial program to introduce ‘Smoke Free Zones’ in key public open space areas and plazas in the Hurstville and Kogarah CBDs, such as Kogarah Town Square, Hurstville Memorial Square and Central Plaza.

 

(b)     That incorporated in the report is information that outlines the current NSW Legislation with regard to smoking in public places and further information on how Council will enforce compliance.

 

(c)     That included in the report is information on any enforcement actions, including fines that have been issued in regard to spitting and chewing gum litter in the CBD areas of the city.

 

9.    In early 2019, Notices in community languages were installed in each of the three locations under Section 632 of the Local Government Act 1993. A person who fails to comply with the terms of a notice erected in a public place is guilty of an offence for which the maximum penalty is 10 penalty units or $1,100 if prosecuted in Court. Alternatively a penalty notice (fine) of $110.00 can be issued.

 

10.  The signs were installed at the following locations highlighted in red.

 

Hurstville Central Plaza – 5 signs installed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Memorial Square – 4 signs installed

Kogarah Town Square – 4 signs installed

 

 

 

 

 

Trial Period Patrols

 

11.  Between February 2019 and August 2019, Council’s Rangers patrolled the three locations, during lunchtime periods and at random times during rostered shift times, to encourage compliance with the smoke free area signage and educated members of the community on their obligations.

 

12.  The patrols generally lasted between 15 and 30minutes, depending on the number of people at each location at the time. Officers walked through each location to identify smokers and spoke with anyone observed smoking.

 

13.  Over the six month trial period the Rangers team undertook the following activities at the three locations:

 

·    102 patrols (Central Plaza 48, Memorial Square 35, Kogarah Town Square 19);

·    160 people warned regarding smoking in the areas, this includes move-on requests;

·    Over 100 printed educational flyers were distributed. See attachment 1.

 

14.  When approached, stationery smokers mostly complied with directions from Rangers to cease smoking in each locationHowever transient smokers passing through these locations ignored the signs and continued to smoke as they walked through the area. Although these transient smokers were stopped by Rangers wherever possible, they quickly removed themselves from the location. 

 

15.  There was evidence that the signs were not providing an adequate deterrent, particularly in Hurstville Central Plaza and Memorial Square, as discarded cigarette butts were located in the garden beds and around the perimeter of each location. It is considered that the design and location of the signs did not make the prohibition obvious to anyone frequenting the area.

 

16.  During the trial period no penalty notices were issued to members of the public as the primary purpose was to encourage voluntary compliance through education and conversation. However due to the transient nature of the smokers and on occasions, language barriers, it meant that providing education was difficult.

 

17.  It should be noted that if enforcement action is considered to be necessary, these issues would be exacerbated as obtaining a person’s identification or address to issue a penalty notice may be hindered by language barriers. Additionally, the refusal to provide personal information would require police assistance.

 

Education

 

18.  During their patrol, Council’s Rangers were able to educate numerous people about their responsibilities through verbal discussions and handing out information flyers both in English and in Chinese. 

 

19.  Transient smokers were more difficult to educate. Some were stopped and provided with education material and quickly removed themselves from the area.  Other transient smokers avoided the Rangers.

 

20.  The current signage in all 3 areas, while visible, is inadequate due to the colour and size of the sign.  Amended signage in a more visible colour scheme may need to be considered to adequately notify people of their responsibilities whilst using these areas.  However, such signs may adversely affect the visual amenity of these areas.

Outcomes/Next Steps

 

21.  While the signs did provide some level of education and deterrent, the number of people continuing to smoke in these locations remained relatively consistent.

 

22.  It is recommended that the areas remain as smoke free.

 

23.  That visual improvement to signage be made in each location and that consideration be given to the installation of additional signs to more accurately designate each location.

 

24.  That Council’s Rangers incorporate the patrol of each location as part of their general inspection schedule.

 

25.  Due to the difficulty associated with enforcement action, which includes requiring the public to voluntarily provide their name and address, education should remain as the focus of patrols.

 

Risk Implications

26.  No risks identified.

 

File Reference

17/1831, D19/235450

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Smoke Free Trial - Education Flyers

Attachment 2

Smoke Free Trial - Photo of signs in each area

Attachment 3

Smoke Free Trial - Leader Newspaper article

 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 14 October 2019

ENV036-19             Establishment of a Trial Program - Smoke Free Zone

[Appendix 1]          Smoke Free Trial - Education Flyers

 

 

Page 585

 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 14 October 2019

ENV036-19             Establishment of a Trial Program - Smoke Free Zone

[Appendix 2]          Smoke Free Trial - Photo of signs in each area

 

 

Page 588

 


 


 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 14 October 2019

ENV036-19             Establishment of a Trial Program - Smoke Free Zone

[Appendix 3]          Smoke Free Trial - Leader Newspaper article

 

 

Page 589

 


Georges River Council –      Environment and Planning -  Monday, 14 October 2019                                                    Page 590

Item:                   ENV037-19        Legal Services Report - September 2019 

Author:              Director Legal Services and General Counsel

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation

That the report “Legal Services Report – September 2019” be received and noted.

 

 

To avoid breaches of legislation, the Code of Conduct, perceived conflicts of interest and Council’s policies, this report provides a high level summary of the current litigation matters where Council is a party.  The detailed report is contained on Council’s website. 

Current Matters

1.      The current Court Proceedings for the reporting period are broken down as follows:

Land and Environment Court

·        18 x Class 1 (Merit/DA)

·        2 x Class 4 proceedings (including 1 x Contempt of Court proceedings)

 

Local Court

·        5 x Council Prosecutions (including 1 x Police matter)

 

Supreme Court

·        1 x Summons

 

Costs

2.      The nett costs for this financial year 2019/2020 are $172,422.

Current Status of Court Actions and Legal Matters

3.      Detailed information regarding these matters is provided in the Councillors’ Information Bulletin and the quarterly Legal Services briefings to Council.

 

Financial Implications

4.      Within budget allocation.

 

Risk Implications

5.      No risks identified.

 

Community Engagement

6.      No Community engagement is required.

 

File Reference

17/1831