AGENDA


Environment and Planning Committee

 

Monday, 11 November 2019

7.00pm

 

Level 1, Georges River Civic Centre

Hurstville

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Georges River Council –    Environment and Planning -  Monday, 11 November 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 - 14 October 2019 (17/1831)

8.      Committee Reports

ENV039-19       Update on the Review of Georges River Plans of Management

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

ENV040-19       Draft Olds Park Masterplan 2019 - Stage 2 Community Consultation

(Report by Manager Strategic Planning)................................................................. 11

ENV041-19       Draft Amendment to Part C2 - Medium Density Housing in Kogarah DCP 2013

(Report by Senior Strategic Planner)....................................................................... 25

ENV042-19       Georges River Development Contributions Plan - Structure of Plans

(Report by Strategic Planner / Information Management).................................... 79

ENV043-19       Planning Proposal - Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020

(Report by Strategic Planner/Urban Designer)....................................................... 85

ENV044-19       Working Towards Net Zero Emissions in Georges River Council

(Report by Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services)................... 159  

 

 


Georges River Council –    Environment and Planning -  Monday, 11 November 2019                                                  Page 1

Committee Reports

Item:                   ENV039-19        Update on the Review of Georges River Plans of Management 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a)       That Council endorse the updated Plans of Management program for Georges River parks and reserves to be completed in the next two years as outlined in the report.

(b)       That Council note the financial implications to meet the requirements of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 by July 2021.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report provides an update on the Plans of Management (PoM) Review that is underway to meet the requirements of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 and Council’s commitments to grant funding etc.

2.      In 2018/2019 two reviews commenced with Olds Park Masterplan and Hurstville Oval/Timothy Reserve PoM and Masterplan.

3.      In 2019/2020 the Plan of Management review program continues with a new PoM and Masterplan for Moore Reserve, the review of the Council’s current six Generic PoM, a new PoM and Masterplan for Carss Bush Park/Todd Park, and new PoM and Masterplan for the Former Oatley Bowling Club Site.

4.      The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the review.

 

Background

Crown Land Management Act 2016

5.      The Crown Land Management Act 2016 (‘CLM Act)’ commenced on 1 July 2018 which introduced significant changes to the management of Crown Land by councils.

6.      Councils will now manage their dedicated or reserved land as if it were public land under the Local Government Act 1993 (‘LG Act’).

7.      Crown Land within Georges River is classified as ‘community land’ under the LG Act, meaning that Council will be required to have Plans of Management in place for the land by July 2021.

8.      The CLM Act provides a transition period of 3 years from commencement, for Councils to have these plans in place.

9.      All councils received a grant of only $30,000 from OLG to address the new requirements for Crown Land Management. This grant has now been fully expended.

 

 

 

Developing and adopting a Plan of Management for Crown Reserves

10.    There are two approaches which councils may choose when adopting Plans of Management (PoM) for Crown Reserves, and each has its own requirements and potential outcomes.

i.        Approach 1: the draft PoM will not alter categorisation (initial or otherwise) of the reserve.

ii.       Approach 2: the draft PoM will alter the initial assigned category or adds a category (or categories) to the reserve.

 

Native Title Advice

11.    PoMs for Crown Reserves need to be compliant with the statutory requirements prescribed by both the CLM Act and LG Act. This includes a requirement for Council Crown Land managers to obtain written advice from a qualified native title manager that any POM covers Crown Land that is not ‘excluded land’ as defined in the CLM Act.

12.    Excluded land is land subject to native title determination, where any native title rights and interests have been registered or compulsorily acquired or a native title certificate is in effect.

13.    The written Native Title Manager advice will have to comply with any applicable provision of the Commonwealth Native Title legislation.

 

Land affected by the Crown Land Management Act 2016

14.    Table 1 provides an update on where the PoM Review is at for the Crown Land Reserves. Council has received 31 Crown Reserves and work has commenced with four PoMs underway covering 19 of the Crown Reserves.

15.    Attachment 1 provides a detailed summary of the 31 Crown Reserve parcels, if there is a current plan of management and if that PoM is currently under review.

 

Table 1 – Update on PoM Review

Crown Reserves handed to Council

PoMs in development under program

No. of Reserves with no PoM

31 Crown Reserves

4 PoMs in development covering 19 crown reserves

2 – being Narwee Pre-School Kindergarten (No. 79156) & Kogarah Park/(Jubilee Oval (No.500479)

 

Carss Bush Reserve/Todd Park

16.    Council meeting held on 27 November 2017 resolved to commence preparation of a scoping brief for the development of a Precinct Masterplan and comprehensive Plan of Management for the Carss Park Sport and Recreation Precinct comprising Todd Park.  However, following consideration of the draft 2018/19 budget, Council did not allocate funding to this POM due to other priorities.

 

Former Oatley Bowling Club Site

17.    Council at its Meeting on 17 December 2018 resolved to commence the preparation of a new Masterplan for the former Oatley Bowling Club site and a site specific Plan of Management, and remove the site from the Hurstville Generic Plan of Management Natural Areas, adopted February 2008.

 

 

Council resolution dated 25 February 2019 - community garden

18.       Council on 25 February 2019 resolved that community garden(s) at the former Oatley Bowling Club site be investigated as part of the future community consultation for the Masterplan. This should be undertaken having regard to the known contamination of the site.

 

Council resolution dated 25 March 2019

19.    Council at its meeting held 25 March 2019 resolved:

i.    That Council note the new legislative obligations regarding the preparation of Plans of Management for the Georges River Local Government Area.

ii.   That Council endorse the indicative program to be completed in the next three years as generally outlined in the report.

iii.  That having regard to Council’s legislative obligations, Council allocate $250,000 in the 2019/20 budget for the review and preparation of the required Plans of Management and note the future funding requirements of approximately $250,000 per annum for the 2020/21 and 2021/22 budgets.

20.    Council at its meeting held 25 March 2019 was provided with the following indicative program for the delivery of the required PoMs is generally as follows:

i.    First year:

i.      4 new generic PoMs (includes 11 reserves)

ii.     Penshurst Park

iii.    Sans Souci Park

ii.   Second year:

i.      Oatley Park

ii.     Oatley Point

iii.    Dover Park

iv.    Tom Uglys Point Reserve

iii.  Third year:

i.      Shipwrights Bay Reserve

ii.     Jubilee Park

iii.    Parkside Drive and Harold Fraser Reserve

iv.    Merriman Reserve

21.    Council was advised that the order/timing of undertaking and completing the PoMs may be subject to change due to grant funding being available.

 

New indicative program

22.    A revised indicative program covering the next three years to address the Crown Land Reserves is now presented to the Committee. The changes to the previous program are for the following reasons:

i.     Carss Bush Reserve/Todd Park had an earlier resolution dated 27 November 2017 but no work had commenced. This is now been reallocated to the 2019/20 work schedule.

ii.    Penshurst Park will not be in the 2019/20 Workplan but relocated to the 2020/21. It has a current Plan of Management which was completed in July 2015.

iii.   Sans Souci Park has a title issue that is required to be addressed prior to a new PoM being prepared. Reserve No. R88909 for Public Recreation for which the Georges River Council is the Crown Land Manager does not exist as real property - there is no lot/DP created for the reserve. Therefore a survey plan is required to define the land and a title to be created.  Crown Lands Office has advised that it does not have any immediate intention to do any of this. Council is preparing the documentation to commence the preparation of the survey. The PoM will be prepared by July 2021.

iv.   A new PoM and Masterplan for the former Oatley Bowling Club site was not listed in the March 2019 report to Council. Given that the contamination work is underway the Pom for this site has been allocated to the 2019/20 work plan.

 

23.    The revised program is set out in Table 2 below:

 

Table 2 – Revised Program of PoM and Masterplan Review

 

FY

Park

Comment

18/19

Olds Park

Masterplan commenced.

Subject to a separate report to Committee seeking a resolution to exhibit the draft Masterplan.

Anticipated completion – June 2020

 

 

Hurstville Oval/Timothy Reserve

Hurstville Oval currently has no adopted Plan of Management. The draft plan was deferred by Council on 25 May 2011.

Draft Hurstville Oval/Timothy Reserve Plan of Management and Masterplan have been prepared. All of Hurstville Oval is a Crown land reserve.

Waiting on landowner’s consent from Crown lands to exhibit the draft PoM. After consent is received the POM and Masterplan will be placed on community consultation.

Anticipated completion – June 2020

 

Kogarah Park (Jubilee Oval)

A new Masterplan is already underway for Kogarah Park (Jubilee Oval) by Assets and Infrastructure. Kogarah park/Jubilee Oval includes Crown land Reserve No. 500479.

At Plan of Management will also need to be prepared.

 

19/20

Carss Bush Park

Council meeting held on 27 November 2017 resolved to commence preparation of a scoping brief for the development of a Precinct Masterplan and comprehensive Plan of Management for the Carss Park Sport and Recreation Precinct comprising Todd Park. However, following consideration of the draft 2018/19 budget, Council did not allocate funding to this POM due to other priorities

The PoM and Master planning work has now commenced following allocation of funding in the 2019/20 budget.

Anticipated completion – August 2020

 

 

Moore Reserve

The need to review some of the older plans.  Moore Reserve includes a Crown Land reserve.

The PoM and Master planning work has commenced.

Anticipated completion – August 2020

 

 

Generic Plans of Management are as follows:

·    Generic Plan of Management – General Use Areas 2007 (former Hurstville Council)

·    Generic Plan of Management – Natural Areas 2008  (former Hurstville Council)

·    Generic Plan of Management – Parks 2007 (former Hurstville Council)

·    Generic Plan of Management  - Sportsground 2006 (former Hurstville Council)

·    Generic Plan of Management – Local Parks and Reserves 2010 (former Kogarah Council)

·    Generic Plan of Management – Local Bushland Reserves 2011 (former Kogarah Council

 

6 generic plans of management covering 11 crown reserves, and 608 separate allotments.

The PoM and Master planning work has commenced with the inception meeting and an internal workshop held.

 

Anticipated completion – June 2020

 

 

Former Oatley Bowling Club Site

 

Council resolution dated 17 December 2018 to prepare a Masterplan and PoM. Work has commenced.

Anticipated completion – August 2020

 

2020/21

·    Oatley Park

·    Oatley Point

·    Dover Park

·    Tom Uglys Point Reserve

·    Donnelly Park

·    Hurstville Golf Course & Beverley Park Golf Links

·    Shipwrights Bay Reserve

·    Jubilee Park Reserve

·    Merriman Reserve

·    Penshurst Park

·    Sans Souci Park

 

To comply with requirements of the Crown Land Management Act 2016

No work has commenced.

 

Financial Implications

24.    Council had been given a grant of $30,000 to address the new requirements for Crown Land Management. This grant has been fully utilised.

25.    In the 2018/19 Budget, $100,000 was allocated for the update of Plans of Management on Cost Centre 2500.

26.    As at 30 June 2019, 55% had been expended on the review. The balance will need to be carried over to the 2019/20 FY to complete the Olds Park and Hurstville Oval Reviews. The Masterplan preparation for the Kogarah Park/Netstrata Jubilee Oval is under a separate cost centre.

27.    By Council resolution dated 25 March 2019, $250,000 was allocated in the 2019/20 budget for the review and preparation of the required Plans of Management. Council also noted the future funding requirements of approximately $250,000 per annum for the 2020/21 and 2021/22 budgets. However Council is required to have Plans of Management in place for the land by July 2021.

28.    The program for the Plan of Management review for the next Financial Year is set out in Table 2 above but is repeated for information. Additional funds over $250,000 will be required to complete the Crown land work by July 2021.

 

Table 3 – Program for 2020/21

 

FY

Park

Reasons

2020/21

·    Oatley Park

·    Oatley Point

·    Dover Park

·    Tom Uglys Point Reserve

·    Donnelly Park

·    Hurstville Golf Course & Beverley Park Golf Links

·    Shipwrights Bay Reserve

·    Jubilee Park

·    Reserve

·    Merriman Reserve

·    Penshurst Park

·    Sans Souci Park

 

To comply with requirements of the Crown Land Management Act 2016

 

 

Risk Implications

29.    Operational risk/s identified and this report has been prepared the Council’s consideration.

30.    Under the Crown Land Management Act 2016 Council is required to have Plans of Management in place for the Crown Reserves managed by Council by July 2021.

 

Community Engagement

31.    Plans of Management are required to be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

32.    A public hearing will need to be conducted for Plans of Management that alter the existing categorisation.

 

File Reference

18/605

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Crown Land Reserves Update for Environment & Planning Committee 11 November 2019

 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 11 November 2019

ENV039-19             Update on the Review of Georges River Plans of Management

[Appendix 1]          Crown Land Reserves Update for Environment & Planning Committee 11 November 2019

 

 

Page 10

 


 


 


Georges River Council –    Environment and Planning -  Monday, 11 November 2019                                                  Page 22

Item:                   ENV040-19        Draft Olds Park Masterplan 2019 - Stage 2 Community Consultation 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council place the draft Olds Park Master Plan 2019 on public exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days from 20 January 2020.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      A draft Master Plan has been prepared for Olds Park and is now ready for community consultation.

2.      The draft Master Plan has been subject to a Stage 1 Community Consultation program and was briefed to Councillors on 8 October 2019. The draft Master Plan has been updated as a result.

3.      This report recommends that the draft Master Plan be placed on Stage 2 - Community Consultation for a period of 28 days. As part of Stage 2 - Community Consultation the following will be undertaken:

a.   Three onsite drop-in sessions manned by Gondwana;

b.   Inclusion on Council’s Have Your Say web page;

c.   Letters to adjoining landowners; and,

d.   Notification to key stakeholder groups and key users of the park.

4.      Olds Park is contained within the former Hurstville Council Generic Plan of Management - Sportsgrounds adopted 13/12/2006.

 

Background

5.      Located in the Mortdale Ward, Olds Park – which is 9.5ha in area - is substantially landlocked by adjacent residential areas, with a major frontage to Forest Rd and minor frontages to both Holley Rd and Queensbury Rd. Refer to Figure 1 for location.

6.      The park consists of the following allotments:

 

Table 1 – Olds park allotments

Owners

Legal Description

Property Address

Georges River Council

Lot 83 DP 16723

Olds Park 65 Queensbury Road PENSHURST NSW 2222

Georges River Council

Lot B DP 379145

Olds Park 624 Forest Road PENSHURST NSW 2222

Penshurst Library

Lot 2 DP 433674

Olds Park 630 Forest Road PENSHURST NSW 2222

Georges River Council

Lot 78 DP 16723

Olds Park 7 Holley Road BEVERLY HILLS NSW 2209

Georges River Council

Lot B DP 377658

Olds Park 7 Holley Road BEVERLY HILLS NSW 2209

Georges River Council

Lot 82 DP 16723

Olds Park 65 Queensbury Road PENSHURST NSW 2222

Georges River Council

Lot 84 DP 16723

Olds Park 65 Queensbury Road PENSHURST NSW 2222

 

7.      Olds Park is one of Georges River larger sportsgrounds. It is a sporting hub used for regional competitions, sports played at the park include:

a.      Australian Rules Football (AFL)

b.      Athletics

c.       Baseball

d.      Cycling

e.      Cricket

f.       Netball

g.      Soccer

 

Figure 1 – Olds Park

 

8.      The open space design of the park allows the community to enjoy watching and participating in football, cycling, netball and AFL amongst other sporting activities.  The Olds Park AFL Oval and soccer fields were recently resurfaced and several of the netball courts will also be resurfaced this financial year.

9.      The park also contains an aging skate facility which was built in 1986 and comprises one shallow concrete bowl and 2 steel ramps.

10.    Olds Park was chosen to be part of the Smart Cities – Smart Social Spaces Project, a joint initiative by the University of NSW and Georges River Council. The project purpose was to research and investigate how technology can be used to activate public spaces and better connect them with the community. The project installed sensors on street furniture and use behaviour and social media mapping to record real time use of urban furnishings in public spaces. This will benefit the Council by allowing evidence based management of public space and infrastructure.

11.    There is currently a lease for Olds Park Bowling Club and a General Community Use within the park for Penshurst Library.

12.    Ongoing care and maintenance is provided for the Turpentine tree canopy remnants in Olds Park.

 

Process to date

13.    In November 2018 Council engaged Gondwana Consulting to prepare a Master Plan for Olds Park with the primary objective to:

a.         Provide guidance and direction for future Park upgrades;

b.         Enhance the recreation opportunities on offer for a range of Park users;

c.         Improve the area’s landscape and presentation; and,

d.         Ensure the Park is accessible and appealing to all members of the community.

14.    Since appointment the following has been undertaken by Gondwana:

a.         Background review;

b.         Information gathering and assessment;

c.         Stage 1 - Community Consultation which took the form of an onsite kiosk held on Saturday 9 March 2019 along with opportunities for submission to Council’s Have Your Say web page and direct feedback to Gondwana and Council staff.  Sporting groups and schools were engaged through direct contact and an external stakeholders meeting held at the Olds Sports Club on 20 March 2019. Discussions with a broad cross section of Council staff were held with Gondwana on 26 March 2019;

d.         Concept Plans were prepared for review; and

e.         Draft Master Plan – was briefed to councillors on 8 October 2019.

15.    The next step is for the draft Master Plan to be the subject of Stage 2 - community consultation.

 

Stage 1 - Community and external stakeholder involvement

16.    Stage 1 Community Consultation involved:

a.         Adjacent residents (150) were notified of the preparation of the Master Plan for Olds Park;

b.         26 participants attended the onsite kiosk held 9 March 2019;

c.         5 emailed responses received,

d.         13 responded to the Have Your Say page, and

e.      10 representatives from Cricket, Little Athletics, Netball and AFL attended the external stakeholders meeting. 

Note: All hirers of Olds Park including sports clubs, schools and church groups were contacted and invited to attend the external stakeholders meeting held 20 March 2019.

17.    The main feedback themes from Stage 1 Community Consultation were:

Theme

Feedback

Valued elements:

·    circuit path and fitness equipment;

·    skate park;

·    canteen; grandstand / pavilion;

·    little Athletics facilities;

·    main oval; multipurpose field; netball courts; soccer field;

·    library;

·    grounds maintenance of main oval; little vandalism; and

·    park perfect as is; sports groups are happy with current layout

 

Issues:

·    lack of onsite parking on busy days;

·    poor path lighting / path in poor condition;

·    skate park / conflicts with netball / old style and small;

·    soccer canteen is small / no soccer club room; no women’s change rooms;

·    poor condition of multipurpose field,

·    netball courts and soccer field grass surfaces / need for lighting; poor condition of hard netball courts / at end of life;

·    limited storage facilities;

·    little connection between the Olds Sports Club and the park; and

·    limited accessible facilities.

 

Solutions:

·    upgrade parking areas;

·    provide for dogs (off leash area etc);

·    upgrade path / add more lighting; more fitness equipment; more shaded picnic facilities;

·    upgraded shaded play equipment;

·    upgrade skate park;

·    remove baseball net and golf cage; new rebound wall;

·    spectator seating at each sports area;

·    improve grounds maintenance to all fields / grassed courts;

·    replace hard courts (multiuse netball / basketball);

·    women’s change rooms in amenities building; no new buildings; and

·    lighting and cover for boot camps.

Note: AFL have funding for women’s change rooms; Little Athletics have funding to upgrade lighting / throw cages / jump pits / and for turfing.

 

 

18.    Following review of the community, external and internal stakeholder feedback, directions were established as follows:

a.      Provide women’s change rooms at cricket pavilion and amenities building / provide small storage shed at Main Oval;

b.      Long term, acquire at least the eastern rink at the bowling club for the Community Multipurpose Centre;

c.       Retain the library in the short term / make the toilet accessible / increase passive surveillance form Forest Rd;

d.      Replace the Liberty Swing with an accessible public toilet / upgrade the existing in the short term;

e.      Upgrade parking areas / lighting / line marking / pedestrian access / shade / electric charge points;

f.       Plant more trees / protect existing trees / reduce areas to be slashed by planting;

g.      Provide terraced spectator seating on southern bank at the main oval / retain hill training area / path from pavilion to oval;

h.      Provide more fitness equipment / provide cover and lighting / provide dedicated area west of pavilion;

i.        Upgrade playgrounds (shade, soft fall & inclusive equipment) / long term replace toilet block with accessible playground;

j.        Upgrade paths to shared path standard / add links from Queensbury Rd, Holley Rd and the northern car park;

k.       Upgrade picnic areas / shade / tables / BBQs / drinking water;

l.        Replace hard netball courts (multiuse) and provide new skate park in new configuration in SW corner;

m.     Remove baseball net & golf cage / upgrade multipurpose field / recontour / relay wicket / irrigate / light / drain / turf;

n.      Upgrade lighting at soccer field / add spectator seating / relocate and extend the loose ball fence;

o.      Upgrade lighting to LED to paths and sports fields for training and competition and improve night use of park;

p.      Harvest stormwater / collect in holding tank / retrofit concrete swale as rain garden / provide drainage to boggy areas; and

q.      Extend Smart Cities program / sensors for data collection / provide IoT connections.

 

Councillor briefing held 8 October 2019

19.    The draft Master Plan was briefed to Council on 8 October 2019.

20.    Issues raised were:

a.      Provision of additional carparking for users

b.      Location and demand for a skate park;

c.       The removal of the liberty swing and

d.      Flexibility if the netball courts are relocated in future to another site that other uses such as car parking, playing fields can be investigated.

21.    The draft Master Plan has been amended to address these issues with the following notes:

a.      Eastern bowling rink (following expiration of the current leases 20 years hence), a potential site for future Council Community Multipurpose Centre (2000m²) with community rooms / library pop-up space / public toilets / cafe plus expansion of parking.

b.      If, in the future, netball courts are relocated to another site, other uses such as car parking and playing fields can be investigated.

c.       The final location of skate park and netball courts will be determine based on earthwork investigations and detailed design development.

d.      Retain the Library building in the short term / upgrade public toilet /pending Library Service review and future community centre. Long term, extend the car park and create a formal park entry following removal of the existing library building (pending Library Service review and future Community Centre).

22.    Research has shown the liberty swings can be isolating because they are usually located separately from the main playground equipment and can only be used by children in wheelchairs. The Everyone Can Play guidelines aim to bring the children together and have all park users interacting and using the same play-space.

23.    Liberty swings are a relatively old concept in playground equipment and there are many more modern examples of play equipment that accommodate wheelchairs, such as the wheelchair carousel that was recently installed at Meade Reserve, which can be incorporated into the type of inclusive playground which is proposed for Olds Park.

24.    However, given the issues raised at the Council briefing it is recommended that the Olds Park liberty swing be inspected by a playground assessor to determine whether, given its age and condition, it is feasible to relocate it to another park. This will be actioned by the Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Division.

 

Draft Master Plan for Olds Park

25.    Attachment 1 contains a copy of the draft Master Plan and Attachment 2 contains the draft finishes.

26.    Main components of the draft Master Plan are as follows:

North-west section

a.      Eastern bowling rink (following expiration of the current leases 20 years hence), a potential site for future Council Community Multipurpose Centre (2000m²) with community rooms / library pop-up space / public toilets / cafe plus expansion of parking.

b.      Consider co-location of hard & grassed netball courts in the future as part of bowling club redevelopment. If, in the future, netball courts are relocated to another site, other uses such as car parking and playing fields can be investigated.

c.       Maximise parking spaces / upgrade car park with line marking, pedestrian pathways, security lighting, shade tree planting or built shelter for shade / provide electric vehicle parking and chargers / promote ridesharing.

d.      Provide new link path from Holley Rd to the circuit path with exercise stations and lighting.

e.      Manage the Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest with low under-plantings to allow casual surveillance.

f.       Extend permeably paved service vehicle / pedestrian access to playground, storage building and multipurpose oval.

g.      Upgrade to an accessible playground with items for older age groups, shade and softfall/with accessible access from the car park/upgrade picnic area with shaded facilities/protect existing mature trees (most are Turpentines) in mulched/planted zones.

Figure 2 – Extract from Masterplan – North-West Section

 

South-West Section

h.      Existing storage/amenities building/provide women's change rooms/provide paved access.

i.        Upgrade surrounds to existing storage/amenities building/turf exposed soil.

j.        Existing storage/canteen building and cricket nets retained in current position.

k.       Existing jump pits to be replaced in current position to IAAF standard (subject to grants funding). Provide additional shaded spectator seating along each sideline/upgrade lighting for game use.

l.        Relocate loose ball fence to base of slope, extend in height and extend angled returns along soccer field (short distance only) to assist in containing loose balls. Tree plant bank between the park boundary and field.

m.     Replace existing hardstand netball courts (5x) with new permeable paved courts (#s 1 to 5) built to Netball Australia standard (court @ 30.5m x 15.25m separated side by side by 3.65m) / multipurposed for netball, basketball and Futsal (nets to be provided by players)/include lighting to facility for training and competition use. Also provide a contemporary neighbourhood skate park to accommodate a range of users using skateboards, scooters and bikes (area approx 1300m² ) / including shaded seating and timed lighting / with paved access from circuit path. Consider including parkour elements. The final location of skatepark and netball courts will be determine based on earthwork investigations and detailed design development.

n.      Provide a planted and physical separation between the skate park and hardstand netball courts to avoid conflicts of use/stabilise or plant eroded banks.

 

Figure 3 – Extract from Masterplan - South-West Section

South-East Section

o.      Provide an associated facilities zone/include drinking water, shaded seating and picnic tables/enhance with smart components/provide drainage along with permeable paving as required to stabilise ground against erosion/provide shade tree planting.

p.      Forest Rd boundary - remove the existing fence and replace with low height planted zones around existing trees with multiple permeable paved access points/include bollards or boulders to prohibit vehicle access as required.

q.      Retain the Library building in the short term/upgrade public toilet/pending Library Service review and future community centre.

r.       Long term, extend the car park and create a formal park entry following removal of the existing library building (pending Library Service review and future Community Centre).

s.       All Forest Rd boundary shrub planting to be removed to open views to allow for passive surveillance to improve park and library user safety. Trees retained.

t.        Existing grassed netball courts (7x #s 6 to 12) shown to Netball Australia standard set out on plan/slight alteration to existing alignment to accommodate standard buffers between courts and to avoid goal posts.

u.   Remove the existing boundary fence and replace with bollards to allow multiple pedestrian entry points.

v.   Existing grassed netball courts (2x #s 13 and 14) shown to Netball Australia standard set out on plan/upgrade and irrigate grass surface to maintain an acceptable playing surface throughout the season.

w.  Returf the existing worn track. Provide paved shared path along the adjacent boundary.

 

Figure 4 – Extract from Masterplan - South-East Section

 

North-East Section

x.       Provide a tree root friendly and permeable paved shared path from the circuit path to Queensbury Rd.

y.       Using WSUD guidelines provide planted raingardens along the existing swale to slow flow of stormwater and promote onsite filtration. Provide holding tank in bank.

z.       Upgrade the multipurpose field to a high grade grassed surface and maintain as such / provide irrigation, lighting (for training and competition) and drainage / include relaying the cricket pitch and re-contouring the field to avoid tripping hazards and ponding. Rebuild throwing cages (2x) and shot put rings (3x) in the locations shown on plan / with lighting (subject to grants funding).

aa.    Supplementary tree plant at the eastern edge of the field and within the embankment/provide spectator seating as a single alignment of backed benches.

bb.    Remove existing baseball net and golf cage. Relocate the existing storage cage. Provide shaded playground (for younger ages accompanying sport participants) and exercise equipment hub for adults.

cc.     Provide a new storage building for maintenance equipment between the main oval and the multipurpose oval/provide an unbroken wall on east and west ends of the building to allow dual use as rebound walls.

dd.    As possible, realign the circuit path to provide interest, to deviate away from the rear of adjacent properties, to accommodate service vehicle access to all areas of the park and to provide for all accessible access where possible / repair and upgrade to shared path standard/align to maximise areas available for selected activities/signpost as a shared path/link to external path networks/provide permeable pavement.

 

Figure 5 – Extract from Masterplan - North-East Section

 

ee.         Main oval unchanged/all gates unlocked at all times/provide spectator seating on steep bank consisting of stepped retaining walls at seating height to create a series of more gently sloping terraces/include paved stepped access from the pavilion and accommodate access to training hill.

ff.           Develop a 'cool' zone with shaded facilities to accommodate an outdoor events area and a picnic/spectator/boot camp/exercise station zone with shade, seating, informal stage, lighting, tree planting and exercise equipment.

gg.         Existing sports pavilion - provide step off lower edge of grandstand/provide storage under step for goal posts/upgrade to accommodate women's change facilities/provide stepped path from the pavilion to the main oval/provide movement sensor lighting at grandstand for wet weather boot camp activities.

hh.         Existing picnic/play zone - upgrade under Smart Cities/provide shade, BBQs and seating/upgrade existing playground with high quality items and appropriate softfall.

ii.            Existing public toilet/upgrade in the short term/remove following provision of new all accessible public toilets/replace with new all accessible playground (link to existing picnic/play zone).

jj.            Remove the existing liberty swing and provide an all accessible public toilet.

kk.          Maximise parking spaces/upgrade car park with line marking, pedestrian pathways, security lighting, shade tree planting or built shelter for.

 

Hurstville Council Generic Plan of Management - Sportsgrounds

27.    Olds Park is contained within the former Hurstville Council Generic Plan of Management - Sportsgrounds adopted 13/12/2006.

28.    Council has just commenced a review of all of its 6 Generic Plans of Management. The review will be the separate of separate briefings and reports to the Council.

 

Financial Implications

29.    Within budget allocation.

 

Risk Implications

30.    No risks identified.

 

Community Engagement

31.    Stage 1 Community engagement was conducted which involved:

a.      Adjacent residents (150) were notified of the preparation of the Master Plan for Olds Park;

b.      26 participants attended the onsite kiosk held 9 March 2019;

c.       5 emailed responses received,

d.      13 responded to the Have Your Say page, and

e.      10 representatives from Cricket, Little Athletics, Netball and AFL attended the external stakeholders meeting.

32.    This report recommends that the draft Master Plan be placed on community consultation (being Stage 2) for a period of 28 days. As part of the community consultation and stakeholder consultation the following will be undertaken:

a.      Three onsite drop-in sessions to contact the key users of the park. The popups will be manned by Gondwana;

b.      Inclusion on Council’s Have Your Say web page;

c.       Letters to adjoining landowners; and,

d.      Notification to key stakeholder groups and key users.

 

Next Steps

33.    If adopted by Council on 25 November 2019 the draft Master Plan will be placed on Stage 2 Community Consultation for a minimum of 28 days from 20 January 2020.

34.    Stage 2 Community Consultation will include:

a.      Three onsite drop-in sessions manned by Gondwana;

b.      Inclusion on Council’s Have Your Say web page;

c.       Letters to adjoining landowners; and,

d.      Notification to key stakeholder groups.

35.    Gondwana will collate all engagement feedback and provide a draft to Council of the feedback and the Master Plan.

36.    The final draft Master Plan will be presented to Council.

 

File Reference

18/2679

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Draft Olds Park Masterplan

Attachment 2

Draft Olds Park Masterplan Finishes

 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 11 November 2019

ENV040-19             Draft Olds Park Masterplan 2019 - Stage 2 Community Consultation

[Appendix 1]          Draft Olds Park Masterplan

 

 

Page 23

 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 11 November 2019

ENV040-19             Draft Olds Park Masterplan 2019 - Stage 2 Community Consultation

[Appendix 2]          Draft Olds Park Masterplan Finishes

 

 

Page 24

 


Georges River Council –    Environment and Planning -  Monday, 11 November 2019                                                  Page 40

Item:                   ENV041-19        Draft Amendment to Part C2 - Medium Density Housing in Kogarah DCP 2013 

Author:              Senior Strategic Planner

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council endorse the draft amendment to Part C2 - Medium Density Housing of the Kogarah DCP 2013 for public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days and to commence after 20 January 2020.

(b)     That Council publicly exhibit the draft amendment to Part C2 - Medium Density Housing of the Kogarah DCP 2013 in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

(c)     That Council authorise the General Manager to make minor modifications to any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors, if required, in preparation for the public exhibition of the draft amendment to Section C2 - Medium Density Housing of the Kogarah DCP 2013.

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

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      At its meeting of 23 April 2019, Council resolved to prepare a comprehensive Development Control Plan (DCP) for the Georges River Local Government Area to support the Georges River LEP 2020. The DCP is being prepared in five stages:

a.      Stage 1 – The Community Participation Plan

b.      Stage 2 – Introduction, general planning considerations, general land uses and land zoned IN2-Light Industry

c.       Stage 3 - Residential controls and Precincts

d.      Stage 4 - Business Precincts

e.      Stage 5 – Specific Sites and Localities

 

2.      As part of the preparation of Stage 3 – Residential of the Georges River Development Control Plan 2020, a draft amendment to Part C2 - Medium Density Housing of the Kogarah DCP 2013 has been prepared as the first task to address inconsistencies between Kogarah LEP 2012 and Kogarah DCP 2013 and resident concerns.

 

3.      This report recommends that Council endorse the draft amendment to Part C2 - Medium Density Housing of the Kogarah DCP 2013 for public exhibition in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

4.      This amendment will be subsequently incorporated into the Georges River Development Control Plan 2020.

 

Background

5.      As a result of the 2016 Council amalgamation, a number of Development Control Plans (DCPs) apply across the Local Government Area for similar development types, which contain inconsistent controls (for example: lot width and site area provisions for Dual Occupancy Developments and inconsistent storey (height) limits to overall Local Environmental Plan (LEP) Building Height Controls resulting in resident concerns.

 

6.      Kogarah LEP 2012 – Amendment No 2 (New City Plan) was gazetted in May 2017 before the Kogarah DCP 2013 could be updated, resulting in planning control inconsistencies between the two documents (specifically Part C2 Medium Density Housing) causing confusion in the building industry.

 

Council resolutions

7.      At its meeting of 23 April 2019, Council resolved to prepare a comprehensive Development Control Plan for the Georges River Local Government Area to ensure that it supports the Georges River LEP 2020.

 

8.      At the 23 April meeting, Council also resolved that arising from the significant increase in development activity as a result of the New City Plan (Amendment No. 2) to the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan gazetted in May 2017 which permitted greater density (2:5 and 2:1) and height (21m), Council immediately proceed to prepare an amendment to Part C of the Kogarah Development Control Plan for the area generally bounded by the Princes Highway, Stubbs Street/Poulton Avenue and Wyuna Street, Beverley Park, and Park Road and John Street, Kogarah Bay as a first priority, and as a second priority, the west side of the Princes Highway from Jubilee Avenue to Park Road which is in part High Density B6 zone and in part High Density B2 zone. The report is to address, but is not limited to the following matters:

1.   Site isolation and amalgamation

2.   Vehicular access, parking and circulation

3.   Traffic impact

4.   Landscape character

5.   Proposed building envelopes that provide a transition/interface to the land zoned R2 at the rear of these high density zones, which allow for a stepping down to a 9m height limit to the rear of developments that back onto R2 residential zones.

6.   Impact on Heritage Item I3 “Sunnyside” at 186-188 Princes Highway

 

9.            At its meeting on 11 June 2020, Council endorsed the Georges River Interim Policy DCP for assessing development applications until such time as the Georges River Development Control Plan 2020 (DCP 2020) is adopted by Council.

 

DCP 2020 Stages

10.    The DCP 2020 has been envisaged to be prepared in stages:

a.           Stage 1 – The Community Participation Plan, which is a statutory document required under Section 2.23 of the EP&A Act 1979. It will detail how and when the community will be involved in planning matters. This stage is being managed by the City Strategy and Innovation section of Council and was adopted by Council on 28 October 2019.

b.           Stage 2 – Will cover:

i.        Introduction,

ii.       general planning considerations,

iii.      general land uses and

iv.      land zoned IN2-Light Industry

Council engaged consultants to prepare Stage 2 in May 2019.

c.            Stage 3 - Residential controls and Precincts – Will cover six tasks as provided in the table in paragraph 12 below.

d.           Stage 4 - Business Precincts – Will cover all 48 business-zoned centres in the LGA.

e.           Stage 5 – Specific Sites and Localities

 

Consultant engagement

11.    Council prepared a brief and engaged SJB Consultants to undertake Stage 3 (July 2019) of the DCP 2020. This report deals with Stage 3 of DCP 2020 that involves the review of the residential sections of the four DCPs applying to our LGA currently. These DCPs are listed below:

·    Hurstville Development Control Plan 1 - Applies to land within the Peakhurst, Mortdale and Hurstville Wards;

 

·    Hurstville Development Control Plan Number 2 - Amendment No. 8 - Applies to sites within the Hurstville City Centre excluding the 'deferred matters' on the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 Land Application Map;

·    Hurstville Development Control Plan Number 2 - Amendment No. 5 - Applies to sites within the Hurstville City Centre identified as 'deferred matters' on the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 Land Application Map; and

 

·    Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 - Applies to land within the Blakehurst and Kogarah Bay Wards.

 

12.    Stage 3 of DCP 2020 includes six tasks. A more detailed explanation of Stage 3 Tasks is tabulated below:

 

Task

Scope

Task 1 – R3 Medium Density Residential Precincts in the KLEP 2012.

 

 

To prepare an amendment to Sections C2 of Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013.

Task 1 is the subject of this Report.

 

Task 2 –Dwelling Houses, Narrow Lot Housing, Dual Occupancies (attached and detached), and Secondary Dwelling

 

To review Sections 4 and 6 of Hurstville DCP No. 1 and Sections C1 and Appendix 1 of the Kogarah DCP and prepare new section(s) for dwelling houses, dual occupancies and secondary dwellings. This includes the controls on narrow lot dwellings within both DCPs.

 

Task 3 – Multi-dwelling housing, Multi-dwelling housing (terraces) and Manor Houses

 

 

To review Sections 4 and 6 of Hurstville DCP No. 1 and Sections C2 and Appendices 2, 3 & 4 of the Kogarah DCP and prepare new section(s) for Multi-dwelling housing, Multi-dwelling housing (terraces) and Manor Houses.

New controls will be required for:

·    Manor Houses that require a DA (i.e. is not complying development under the SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008) as Council’s current DCPs do not contain controls relating to manor housing.

·    Mix of dwelling types and apartment sizes

 

Task 4 – Residential Flat Buildings

 

To review Sections 4 and 6 of Hurstville DCP No. 1 and Sections C2 and Appendices 2, 3 & 4 of the Kogarah DCP and prepare new section(s) for residential flat buildings.

New controls will be required for a mix of dwelling types and apartment sizes

 

Task 5 – Big House Conversions

Council’s Draft LSPS has identified as an action the investigation of adaptive reuse of large homes to smaller dwellings in the southern part of the LGA - to occur without altering the character or visual appearance of the area.

New controls to be prepared for Big House Conversions.

 

Task 6 – Ancillary Structures

 

To review the relevant sections of Hurstville DCP No. 1 and Kogarah DCP and prepare new section(s) on ancillary structures and outbuildings, including but not limited to:

·    Site facilities

·    Outbuildings

·    Air conditioning

·    Tennis courts

·    Swimming pools, spas and enclosures

·    Fencing and walls

·    Satellite dishes

·    Garages

 

 

13.    The draft amendment to Part C2 - Medium Density Housing of the Kogarah DCP 2013 has now been prepared in consultation with relevant Council officers from the Development Assessment, Traffic, Strategic Planning and Environmental Health and Regulatory sections to address Task 1 of DCP 2020 (Refer to Amendment 1).

 

Councillor Briefing

14.    A Council Briefing was held on 16 September 2019 on Task 1 – draft Amendment to Section C2 of Kogarah DCP 2013. Key issues raised at the Councillor Briefing and how they have been addressed are tabulated below:

 

Councillor Issues

How they have been addressed

Relationship between landscape area and the private open space and the extent of its occurrence.

A minimum 10% of the site with a minimum dimension of 2m is proposed as landscaped area in the RFB section. This matches with the % of landscaped area in the proposed Georges River LEP 2020.

 

Confirmation to delete the inconsistent planning control table and envelope controls in the current Part C2 - Medium Density Housing of the Kogarah DCP 2013.

 

The inconsistent planning control table and envelope controls have been removed from the draft Amendment.

Consultants asked to refer to the minimum landscaped area in the proposed Georges River LEP 2020.

 

See comment in the first row above.

Question raised on how to ensure that the owners have received a good offer in relation to the matter of site isolation.

The draft Amendment includes controls to encourage site consolidation.

It also provides controls in case the amalgamation of the isolated site is not able to occur including requiring Council to get an independent valuation done.

 

15.    The key aims of the draft amendment are:

a.      to make the planning controls in Kogarah LEP 2012 and Kogarah DCP 2013 consistent and remove duplicity and redundancy

b.      to be compliant with the ADG provisions and not duplicate the ADG provisions.

c.       to provide better design outcomes, interface controls, reduces impacts of the new development.

 

16.    Implementation of Task 1 requires an amendment to Part C2 Medium Density controls of the Kogarah DCP 2013. Outlined below is a summary of the draft amendments to this DCP.

 

Draft Amendment to Part C2 Medium Density Housing of Kogarah DCP 2013

17.    The draft amendment includes controls for:

a.   residential flat buildings (RFBs),

b.   multi-dwelling housing and attached dwellings.

 

18.    The RFB section of the draft amendment to C2 Medium Density controls of the Kogarah DCP 2013 includes the following controls (see Attachment 1 for the draft amendment):

1.         Minimum site requirements

The objective of this control is to specify minimum site requirements and have been achieved by providing minimum site requirements of lot size and lot width:

(1)   Minimum lot size is 1000sqm.

(2)   Minimum lot width is 24m.

                            

2.         Site isolation and amalgamation

The objective of this control is to encourage site consolidation and encourage the development of existing isolated sites in a manner that responds to the site’s context and characteristics and that maintains a satisfactory level of amenity. This is achieved by providing controls that discourage site isolation and providing controls where amalgamation of the isolated site is not able to occur, including requiring an independent valuation to be undertaken.

 

3.         Building setbacks

The objective of this control is to establish the minimum separation distances between buildings and site boundaries. The setbacks provide opportunities for the provision of private and common areas of open space, landscaping, view sharing and opportunities to manage visual and acoustic privacy.

 

This is achieved by providing setbacks as listed below and shown in figures 1, 2, 3a and 3b:

(1)   Front setbacks: up to a building height of four storeys

(i)      Street setback: a minimum of 5m.

(ii)     Corner sites: a minimum setback of 5m to both street frontages.

(iii)    Above four storeys, the front setback is to be increased to a minimum of 8m to the street. The minimum 8m setback also applies to balconies, terraces and balustrades and must be accommodated behind the setback.

(iv)    On a corner site, both frontages are to provide the increased setback above four storeys.

(v)     A greater setback above four storeys may be required depending on the width of the street.

 

(2)   Side boundary setbacks:

(i)      Minimum setback of 6m from side boundary between ground floor level and up to four storeys.

(ii)     Upper level setbacks are 9m above four storeys.

 

(3)   Rear boundary setbacks:

(i)      Minimum 6m setback from a rear boundary between ground floor level and up to four storeys.

(ii)     Upper level setbacks are 9m above four storeys.

 

(4)  Side and rear boundary setbacks to adjacent lower density residential zone for the purposes of visual separation, privacy and transition:

(i)      Minimum setback of 9m from the boundary between ground level and up to four storeys.

(ii)     Upper level setbacks are 12m above four storeys.

 

(5)   Encroachments into boundary setbacks:

•        Ground floor private open space may encroach up to 2m into the 5m front setback leaving a minimum 3m of landscaped area to the street.

•        Ground floor private open space may encroach up to 3m into the side and rear setbacks leaving a minimum 3m of landscaped buffer.

Figure 1: Application of the setbacks required for a residential flat building.

 

Figure 2: Application of the setbacks required for a residential flat building - with lower density interface (rear).

 

Figure 3a: Application of the setbacks required for the residential flat building and basement –
Lower density interface

 

 

Figure 3b: Application of the setbacks required for the residential flat building and basement – Street

 

4.         Basement setbacks

The objective of this control is to limit the extent of site excavation, to provide opportunities for deep soil landscape planting around and between buildings and to provide a buffer to adjoining existing and future development. This is achieved by providing setbacks as shown in figures 4 and 5:

Figure 4: Application of the setbacks required for basements - with medium-high density interface

 

Figure 5: Application of the setbacks required for basements - with lower density interface

 

5.         Façade Treatment and Street Corners

The aim of this control is to ensure that new developments are designed to contribute positively to the amenity of the street through good facade treatment and street corner design. This is achieved by providing controls that warrant appropriate modulation and articulation to provide visual interest from the public domain, minimise the appearance of building bulk and define street corners.

 

6.         Landscaped area and Private Open Space

The aim of this control is to provide high quality private open space that can benefit all residents by meeting recreational requirements, softening new development, providing adequate landscaping for privacy and improving local habitat for plants and animals. This is achieved by the providing:

 

1.    A minimum of 10% of the site is to be landscaped area that is not impeded by buildings or structures above or below ground level.

2.    The landscaped area must have minimum dimension of 2m on two axes to be calculated as part of the required 10% landscaped area.

 

7.         Common Open Space

The aim of this control is to provide high quality common open space that can provide benefits to all residents by meeting recreational requirements. This is achieved by providing:

 

1.    Common open space to a minimum area of 25% of the site area and with a minimum dimension of 5m is to be provided.

2.    A maximum of 50% of common open space may be provided above ground level where:

a.       a location at ground level is not possible due to site constraints;

b.      the proposed elevated common open space will provide a similar level of amenity as a common open space at ground level of the site; and

c.       there will be no significant impact on surrounding properties in respect to the loss of privacy.

 

8.         Solar Access

The aim of this control is to provide Solar Access for environmental comfort and amenity for occupants. This is achieved by requiring shadow diagrams from the applicants and ensuring that at least 50% of the neighbouring existing primary private open space and windows to main living areas must receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 9am–3pm on the winter solstice (21 June).

 

Note: Achieving compliance with this control may be difficult on steeply sloping sites, east west facing allotments, irregular allotments or sites with open space to the south of the built form. In this instance, compliance with the control will be considered on its merits.

 

9.         Vehicular access, parking and circulation

The aim of this control is to provide safe, accessible and convenient car parking to support a development. This is achieved by providing controls that are mostly translated from the existing section C2 of Kogarah DCP 2013.

 

10.       Views and view sharing

The aim of this control is to strike a balance between facilitating new development, while preserving, as far as practical, access to views from surrounding properties. This is achieved by providing controls to minimise view loss from adjoining or nearby properties, whilst still recognising the development potential of a site.

 

11.       Dwelling Mix

The aim of this control is to ensure development contains a suitable mix of dwellings that encourages social diversity and addresses the needs for future residents and households. This is achieved by providing a percentage of dwelling mix for developments of more than 20 dwellings.

 

12.       Adaptable and Accessible housing

The aim of this control is to ensure a wide range of the community is provided with housing designed using accessible and adaptable design principles. This is achieved by providing controls in accordance with the relevant Australian standards.

 

19.    The multi-dwelling housing (3 or more dwellings) and attached dwellings section of the draft amendment to C2 Medium Density controls of the Kogarah DCP 2013 includes the following controls (see Attachment 1 for the draft amendment):

 

1.     Minimum Site requirements

The objective of this control is to specify minimum site requirements and have been achieved by providing minimum site requirements of lot size and lot width:

1.       Minimum lot size is 800sqm.

2.       Minimum lot width is 18m.

 

Note: The minimum lot width of 18m is from Clause 4.1B of the Georges River LEP 2020.

 

2.     Building setbacks

The objective of this control is to establish the minimum separation distances between buildings and site boundaries. The controls are same as in the current Section C2 and have been simplified in case of rear setbacks:

 

·    Building Setbacks (Front – Primary street) is 4.5m.

·    Building Setbacks (Secondary frontage) is 4.5m.

·    Building Setbacks (side boundary) is 3m.

·    Building Setbacks (rear) is 6m. A nil setback to a rear boundary is permitted where parking access from a rear lane is provided.

·    Car parking

(1)  Any basement car parking is to comply with the setbacks above and is to be located within the building footprint.

(2)  No car parking space or access driveway is to be setback less than 1.5m from a side boundary.

(3)  Car parking is not to be provided within the required setbacks to a street other than a tandem space located on a driveway to a single garage.

 

3.     Façade Treatment and Street Corners

The aim of this control is to ensure that new developments are designed to contribute positively to the amenity of the street through good facade treatment and street corner design. This is achieved by providing controls that warrant appropriate modulation and articulation to provide visual interest from the public domain, minimise the appearance of building bulk and define street corners.

 

4.     Orientation and Public Domain

The aim of this control is to provide multi dwelling housing that establishes a positive streetscape and residential environment. This is achieved by providing a correct orientation and public access.

Note: This is a non-numeric new control.

 

5.     Wall heights

The aim of this control is to minimise building bulk and scale and assists in protecting solar access to adjoining properties. This is achieved by specifying a maximum wall height of 7.5m.

 

Note: This is a new control specifying 7.5m wall height to match with the LEP height control of 9m so that solar compliance can be achieved for multi units.

 

6.     Landscaped area and Private Open Space

The aim of this control is to provide amenity for residents and contributes to the landscaped character of the locality. This is achieved by generally translating controls from the current section C2. For example:

 

(1)     Each dwelling is provided with at least 40sqm of private open space with a minimum dimension of 4m.

(2)     The private open space is to include a minimum of 20sqm of unpaved landscaped area.

(3)     The maximum impervious area of a site is 55%, which includes the building footprint, parking areas and driveways and paved private open space areas.

 

7.         Solar Access

The aim of this control is to provide solar access for environmental comfort and amenity for occupants. The controls are translated from the current section C2.

 

8.         Vehicular access, parking and circulation

The aim of this control is to provide safe, accessible and convenient car parking to support a development. This is achieved by providing controls that are mostly translated from the existing section C2 of Kogarah DCP 2013.

 

9.         Waste and recycling storage

The aim of this control is to require developments to accommodate storage for general waste, recycling and green waste bins in a location that allows easy access to the presentation area for collection. This is achieved by providing relevant controls.

 

Note: This is a non-numeric new control.

 

10.       Dwelling Mix

The objective if this control is to ensure development contains a suitable mix of dwellings that encourages social diversity and addresses the needs for future residents and households. This is achieved by planning dwelling configurations that support diverse household types and stages of life

 

Note: This is a non-numeric new control.

 

Next Steps

20.    The next steps for this project include:

 

Date

Step

November 2019 to April 2020

Continue progress on tasks 2, 3, 4 and 6 of Stage 3 DCP.

25 November 2019

Council endorses draft amendment to Part C2 Medium Density Housing to Kogarah DCP 2013 for public exhibition

From 20 January 2020

Exhibit draft Amendment for a minimum period of 28 days

March 2020

Council report on submissions received and adoption of amendment to Part C2

End March 2020

Amendment to Part C2 Medium Density Housing to Kogarah DCP 2013 becomes effective

Post June 2020

Amendment to C2 Medium Density Housing to Kogarah DCP 2013 incorporated into Georges River DCP 2020

 

Financial Implications

21.    Within budget allocation.

 

Risk Implications

22.    No risks identified.

 

Community Engagement

23.    Community engagement will be conducted with community members in the affected precincts in Kogarah and the Kogarah Bay Progress Association for a minimum 28 days to commence after 20 January 2020; subject to Council’s endorsement of the draft amendment to Part C2.

 

24.    The draft amendment Section C2 will be uploaded to Council’s Your Say webpage and will be publicly available at Council’s libraries and Customer Service Centre.

 

File Reference

19/999

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Draft Amendment to Section C2 -  Medium Density Development of Kogarah DCP 2013

 


Georges River Council -         Environment and Planning - Monday, 11 November 2019

ENV041-19             Draft Amendment to Part C2 - Medium Density Housing in Kogarah DCP 2013

[Appendix 1]          Draft Amendment to Section C2 -  Medium Density Development of Kogarah DCP 2013

 

 

Page 78

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council –    Environment and Planning -  Monday, 11 November 2019                                                  Page 84

Item:                   ENV042-19        Georges River Development Contributions Plan - Structure of Plans  

Author:              Strategic Planner / Information Management

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council endorse the preparation of a Georges River Development Contributions Plan in accordance with the principles of Option 4a outlined in this report.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      SGS Economics and Planning has been engaged to review Georges River Council’s seven development contributions plans, recommend a proposed structure for new development contributions plans and prepare a new plan for the whole Georges River Council area.

2.      At its meeting on 26 August 2019, Council resolved “That Council defer consideration of the options to guide the preparation of the Georges River Development Contributions Plan to a workshop that considers Option 4a outlined in this report in relation to matters such as the type of developments that would be levied under each of the options and examples providing an analysis of the options in relation to development types in a number of locations/zones across the local government area.”

3.      The consultants presented Option 4a at a Councillor Briefing on 8 October 2019.

4.      This report seeks the endorsement of the broader structure of Option 4a to progress with the drafting of the new contributions plans. As part of the drafting the consultants will present further detail on the development types that will be levied, exempt, or provided a discount. This will be presented to Council in early 2020.

5.      The structure of Option 4a is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Summary of Option 4a

Development Type

S7.11 (capped at $20k per dwelling)

S7.12 (at max 1% of the development value)

Residential subdivision

ü

Dual occupancies, attached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, multi dwelling housing

ü

Residential flat buildings

ü

Shop top housing

ü
(Hurst./Kog TC or

only res. component elsewhere)

New retail premises, business premises, office premises

ü (Hurst./Kog TC – B3 and B4 zoned land)

ü (elsewhere)

Industrial/business parks

ü (Hurst./Kog TC – B3 and B4 zoned land)

ü (elsewhere)

Miscellaneous development types (e.g. educational facilities, shop fit-outs, boarding houses etc.)

Further investigation during the preparation of Option 4a

Further investigation during the preparation of Option 4a

 

Background

6.      SGS Economics and Planning has been engaged to review Georges River Council’s seven development contributions plans, recommend a proposed structure for new development contributions plans and prepare a new plan for the whole Georges River Council area.

7.      The consultants completed its review of the Georges River Council’s seven development contributions plans and presented five options to the Councillor Briefing on 17 June 2019 (being Options 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b and 3 in Table 2 of this report).

8.      At the briefing held on 17 June 2019 Option 2b was received as the preferred option, though with some noted concerns regarding the application of section 7.12 to commercial development. Option 2b is a mixed contributions plan with section 7.11 (formerly section 94) contributions applying to residential development that increases population and section 7.12 (formerly section 94A) levies are collected for other developments.

9.      Following the Councillor Briefing, the consultants also modelled two additional options for Council’s consideration, being Options 4a and 4b in Table 2 below. Option 4a levies commercial development in the Kogarah and Hurstville strategic centres in the s7.11 component of the plan, and Option 4b is an LGA wide 7.11 and 7.12 plan, which is the maximum contributions possible. The detailed analysis of these options is contained in Environment and Planning Committee report ENV027-19 dated 12 August 2019 but a summary is provided in Tables 2 and 3 below, including the assessment and viability of each option.

Table 2 – Summary of Options for Structure of Contributions Plan

Plan

Type of Plan

Development Levied

Area Applied

Option 1a

·      s7.12 plan

·      All development

·      Applies to all land in Georges River LGA

Option 1b

·      s7.12 plan

·      All development

·      Applies to all land in Georges River LGA.

·      Seek permission from DPIE to levy 3% in Kogarah Town Centre and Hurstville City Centre

Option 2a

·      Mixed s7.11 and s7.12 plan

·      All development

·      7.11 in Kogarah Town Centre and Hurstville City Centre

·      7.12 for the remainder of the LGA

Option 2b (preferred)

·      Mixed s7.11 and s7.12 plan

·      s7.11 for residential development

·      s7.12 for other developments (mainly non-residential)

·      Applies to all land in Georges River LGA

Option 3

·      s7.11 plan

·      All development

·      Applies to all land in Georges River LGA

Option 4a

·      Mixed s7.11 and s7.12 plan

·      s7.11 for all development in Kogarah Town Centre and Hurstville City Centre

·      s7.11 for residential in the remainder of the LGA

·      s7.12 for other developments in the LGA (mainly non-residential)

·      s7.11 in Kogarah Town Centre and Hurstville City Centre

·      Mixed s7.11 and s7.12 by development type outside strategic centres

Option 4b

·      Mixed s7.11 and s7.12 plan

·      s7.11 across the whole LGA for increased population and workers

·      s7.12 for other developments

·      Applies to whole Georges River LGA

 

10.    Table 3 shows the results of the financial modelling for each of the 7 options considered by Council previously. The modelling is based on the following assumptions:

a.   Council’s population and employment forecasts are as detailed in the Georges River Council Evidence Base for Local Housing Strategy and the Georges River Economic Study.

b.   A $150 million capital works program over the next ten years, and

c.   The cost of all new infrastructure in the capital works program is allocated to new development.

 

Table 3 – Comparison of financial performance of different contribution plan structures

 

Option

Description

Total collections

over 10 years

Option 1a

s7.12 across the whole LGA

$22,061,000

Option 1b

s7.12 across whole LGA (seek 3% levy in Kogarah and Hurstville)

$41,254,000

Option 2a

s7.11 in Kogarah and Hurstville, 7.12 elsewhere

$79,288,000

Option 2b

s7.11 for residential development, s7.12 for other developments (mainly non-residential)

$136,110,000

Option 3

s7.11 across the whole LGA

$137,846,000

Option 4a (preferred)

s7.11 in Kogarah and Hurstville, elsewhere s.7.11 for residential and s.7.12 for other developments (mainly non-residential)

$137,692,000

Option 4b

s7.11 across the whole LGA for increased population and workers and s7.12 for other developments.

$147,706,000

 

11.    At its meeting on 26 August 2019, Council deferred the consideration of the options for the new contributions plan to a Councillor workshop focussing on Option 4a.

 

Councillor Briefing - 8 October 2019

12.    SGS presented a briefing to Councillors on Option 4a on 8 October 2019. The key issues raised were the level of discount to be provided to certain development types, for example those that are providing affordable housing, and whether or not any exemptions should be applied other than those required by ministerial direction or legislation.

13.    Following the presentation, the consultants are examining the detail of the development types that will be levied, exempt, or provided a discount, which will be presented to Council with the draft plans in early 2020. Discounts on development contributions were discussed in relation to both boarding houses and secondary dwellings.

14.    Boarding houses and secondary dwellings provide for variety in housing choice, and can provide affordable housing. For both of these development types, the value of a s7.11 (s94) contribution has been modelled to be high compared to the value of development, which may be prohibitive. However, the population living in these developments will still create additional demand on Council infrastructure.

15.    Further, these developments can be provided as private, for-profit developments or by not-for-profit organisations. It may be appropriate to incentivise not-for-profit delivery of these housing types by reducing contributions levied on the development.

16.    Given these competing interests, further investigation into the appropriate rate of s7.11 to be applied to secondary dwellings and boarding houses is being undertaken. This will include an assessment of the impact of different levels of discount for development contributions on Council’s ability to deliver infrastructure, which will be presented to Council in early 2020.

Exemptions

17.    At the briefing held on 8 October 2019 Councillors were advised of the exemptions that apply to development contributions.

18.    Ministerial Directions can be issued at any time to exempt certain types of development from paying contributions.

19.    Currently, the only exemption for s7.11 (s94) and s7.12 (s94A) contributions via Ministerial Direction is for seniors housing, where the development is being undertaken by a social or affordable housing provider.

20.    The EP&A Regulation 2000 also excludes a number of items when calculating the cost of a development to determine s7.12 (s94A) contributions. These costs are removed from the total development cost when calculating s7.12 contributions:

a.   Affordable housing

b.   Adaptive reuse of heritage items

c.   Energy and water efficiency measures

d.   Enabling disabled access to a development

21.    Developments of $100,000 or less are also exempted from s7.12 (s94A) contributions. The above exclusions do not apply to section 7.11(s94) contributions.

22.    In addition to the statutory exemptions, there are several other common exemptions adopted by other Councils. Further, for certain development types it may be appropriate to levy either s7.11 (s94) or s7.12 (s94a). A summary of the discussions at the briefing on 8 October 2019 is shown in tables 4 and 5 below. Where a discounted rate is listed, the consultants are further investigating what that rate should be, and this information will be presented to Council with the draft plans in early 2020.

 

 

 

Table 4 – Summary of discussions on contributions for various development types.

Development Type

S7.11

S7.12

Single dwellings (knockdown-rebuild/alterations and additions)

ü

Commercial alterations and additions

ü

Secondary dwellings

ü

(discounted rate to be investigated)

Seniors living (self-contained units)

ü

(exempt where provided by social housing provider)

Seniors living (residential care)

ü

(exempt where provided by social housing provider)

Educational facilities (when not built by a public authority)

ü

Boarding houses

ü

(discounted rate to be investigated)

 

Table 5 – Summary of discussions on exemptions for certain developments

Development Type

S7.11

S7.12

Exemptions

Seniors housing undertaken by a social or affordable housing provider

ü

(by ministerial direction

Social or affordable housing (undertaken by a community housing provider)

ü

(E P & A Regulations exempts s7.12)

Public infrastructure undertaken by a public authority (including Council)

ü

Adaptive reuse of heritage items

ü

(only for component of development that involves adaptive re-use; E P & A Regulations exempts s7.12)

Specific works related to:

•     Energy and water efficiency measures

•     Enabling disabled access to a development

ü

(E P & A Regulations exempts s7.12)

Places of public worship

ü

Works undertaken by registered charities or not-for-profit organisations

ü

(dependent on development proposed)

ü

(dependent on development proposed)

 

Next Steps

23.    As discussed above, the consultants are further investigating an appropriate rate of discounting for the development types identified in Table 4.

24.    The consultants are also progressing with the drafting of works schedules, based on Council’s strategic documents and in consultation with Council Officers. These will be presented to Council in early 2020.

25.    Following endorsement of Option 4a for the preferred structure, the consultants will commence drafting the contributions plans, also to be presented to Council in early 2020.

 

Financial Implications

26.    Within budget allocation.

 

Risk Implications

27.    Council’s existing plans carry a level of administrative risk due to their number, complexity, and the age of the plans themselves. These issues were previously reported to the Finance Committee on the 13 May 2019, and are also included in the s7.11 and s.12 Income Audit Recommendations dated 18 March 2019.

 

Community Engagement

28.    The draft development contributions plans will be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulations.

 

File Reference

18/2872

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council –    Environment and Planning -  Monday, 11 November 2019                                                  Page 158

Item:                   ENV043-19        Planning Proposal - Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020 

Author:              Strategic Planner/Urban Designer

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a)       That Council endorse the Planning Proposal (PP2019/0004) for the Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020 to be forwarded to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces for a Gateway Determination under Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(b)       That Council provide delegation to the Director Environment and Planning to approve any minor modifications to correct any numerical, typographical, mapping, interpretation and formatting errors, if required, to improve clarity and readability.

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

 

 

Executive Summary

1.           On 7 September 2018, Council received funding from the NSW Government for an accelerated review of Council’s existing Local Environmental Plans (“LEPs”) and preparation of a new LEP that aligns with the priorities outlined in the South District Plan.

2.           Accordingly, the NSW Government funding requires Council to submit this Planning Proposal for the Georges River LEP to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (“DPIE”) for Gateway Determination by 20 December 2019 and the LEP needs to be submitted for final legal drafting by 30 June 2020.

3.           A consequence of not meeting these mandated timeframes may include not receiving State Government funding of up to $1,125,000 and as such Council needing to meet the cost of relevant LEP related expenses.

4.           Council currently has three LEPs in effect:

 

·    Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“KLEP 2012”);

·    Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”); and

·    Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 (“HLEP 1994”).

5.           KLEP 2012 and HLEP 2012 are in the standard form as prescribed in the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006. HLEP 1994 is not in the standard form as it was made prior to the standardisation of LEPs and applies only to the land deferred from HLEP 2012 (Deferred Matter).

 

6.           At its meeting dated 26 February 2018, Council resolved to prepare a principal LEP for the Georges River LGA which gives effect to the South District Plan. At this meeting, Council also resolved to prepare a local strategic planning statement (“LSPS”) to inform the preparation of the principal Georges River LEP.

7.           Council’s LSPS commits to a range of actions which will deliver the longer term land use vision for the LGA through a staged approach via the preparation of a number of LEPs due to the detailed investigations required to support the full suite of changes proposed.

8.           Some of the Actions of the LSPS result in changes as outlined in this Planning Proposal. Others require studies and investigations to be carried out to inform future LEP amendments or further action.

9.           The staged approach to the principal Georges River LEP endorsed by Council at its meeting dated 23 April 2019 and 28 October 2019 is as follows:

 

·    Stage 1: Housing and Harmonisation (this Planning Proposal)

o Harmonise the existing LEPs

o Seek to achieve housing targets through up-zoning certain areas

 

·    Stage 2: Housing Choice (scheduled for 2021)

o Seek to promote inclusive and affordable housing

o Investigate big house conversions and build to rent

 

·    Stage 3: Jobs and Activation (scheduled for 2022)

o Review development standards in centres

o Infrastructure delivery mechanisms

o Hurstville City Centre and Beverly Hills Local Centre masterplanning

 

·    Stage 4: Housing and Future Growth (scheduled for 2025 and beyond)

o Focus on land use changes beyond the next 5 years

10.         The purpose of this Planning Proposal is to harmonise the existing Hurstville and Kogarah LEPs into a principal Georges River LEP so that a single consistent approach is applied to planning and development across the LGA, and new controls are introduced to ensure consistency with the South District Plan and the LSPS.

11.         The objectives of this Planning Proposal are to:

 

·    Give effect to the South District Plan by addressing its Planning Priorities and Actions;

·    Implement the LSPS vision for the LGA by addressing its Local Planning Priorities and Actions;

·    Meet the South District Plan housing targets;

·    Identify additional housing opportunities through the harmonisation of existing LEPs;

·    Retain and manage industrial and urban services land;

·    Provide a regulatory environment that enables economic opportunities;

·    Protect future transport and infrastructure corridors;

·    Facilitate opportunities for creative and artistic industries; and

·    Identify, conserve and enhance environmental heritage.

12.         This Planning Proposal has been prepared in accordance with a number of overarching principles as outlined below:

 

·    Achieve equity across the LGA through the harmonisation process, particularly in respect to development potential and the management of environmental hazards and risks;

·    Retain existing controls where the status quo can be maintained;

·    Develop a hierarchy of residential zones to ensure development typologies reflect the objectives of the respective zone, including a ‘true’ medium density residential zone;

·    Protect the amenity and local character of low density residential areas;

·    Provide high density residential areas with opportunities for greater activation;

·    Facilitate employment growth in centres, particularly in mixed used zones;

·    Protect industrial zoned land whilst allowing greater land use and development flexibility;

·    Promote good design and environmentally sustainable practices in larger developments;

·    Enhance and protect the natural environment, especially in the foreshore localities along the Georges River;

·    Formalise key infrastructure uses such as schools and hospitals; and

·    Adopt the model provisions for Standard Instrument LEPs as provided by the DPIE where applicable.

13.         This report provides a summary of the provisions proposed by the Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020 (“GRLEP 2020”). A copy of the draft GRLEP 2020 is provided in Attachment 2.

14.         The detailed rationale and justification for the proposed provisions are provided in the Planning Proposal Report (refer Attachment 1) and its supporting Appendices (refer Attachments 3 – 6).

15.         In accordance with the Ministerial Direction for planning proposals, this Planning Proposal was referred to the Georges River Local Planning Panel (“LPP”) on 17 October 2019. The LPP recommended that this Planning Proposal for the GRLEP 2020 be forwarded to the DPIE for a Gateway Determination.

16.         This report recommends that Council endorse the Planning Proposal to be forwarded to the DPIE for a Gateway Determination in accordance with the LPP’s recommendation.

 

The Locality

17.         On 12 May 2016, the Minister for Local Government announced the newly formed Georges River Council (“Council”), which was formed out of the amalgamation of the former Kogarah City Council and the former Hurstville City Council.

18.         The Georges River local government area (“LGA”) includes the suburbs of Allawah, Beverley Park, Beverly Hills (part), Blakehurst, Carlton (part), Carss Park, Connells Point, Hurstville, Hurstville Grove, Kingsgrove (part), Kogarah (part), Kogarah Bay, Kyle Bay, Lugarno, Mortdale, Narwee (part), Oatley, Peakhurst, Peakhurst Heights, Penshurst, Ramsgate (part), Riverwood, Sans Souci (part) and South Hurstville.

19.         The LGA is 38 square kilometres with approximately 153,450 people (as per 2016 Census) residing in the area.

20.         The LGA is bounded by Sutherland Shire Council, Canterbury-Bankstown Council and Bayside Council.

21.         Georges River Council (“GRC”) is part of the South District (refer to Figure 1) as identified by the Greater Sydney Commission (“GSC”) in its Greater Sydney Region Plan – A Metropolis of Three Cities. The South District is comprised of Canterbury-Bankstown Council, Sutherland Shire Council and GRC.

 

Figure 1 – Location of GRC in the context of Greater Sydney

22.         Bayside Council is located in the Eastern District, despite sharing a boundary with GRC, Sutherland Shire Council and Canterbury-Bankstown Council.

 

Strategic Context

23.         The future vision for Greater Sydney to 2056 is clearly established in the Greater Sydney Region Plan – A Metropolis of Three Cities (“Region Plan”) and the supporting district plans released in March 2018. These plans are framed around 10 Directions relating to the four themes of infrastructure and collaboration, liveability, productivity and sustainability.

24.         Councils are required to update their LEPs to give effect to the objectives and priorities identified in the relevant district plan. The South District Plan is the applicable district plan for the Georges River LGA.

25.         To provide an alignment between the district and local levels of strategic planning, the State Government introduced legislation in early 2018 requiring councils to prepare a local strategic planning statement for the LGA which will set out:

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

b)    the special characteristics which contribute to the local identity;

c)    the shared community values that are to be maintained and enhanced; and

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

26.         In response to the legislative requirement, Council at its meeting dated 26 February 2018 resolved to prepare a local strategic planning statement for the Georges River LGA. In accordance with this resolution, the Local Strategic Planning Statement 2040 (“LSPS”) has been prepared to provide the ‘line of sight’ between the South District Plan and strategic planning and delivery at the local level through the Georges River LEP.

27.         The LSPS sets out the land use vision for the next 20 years to strengthen the character of the LGA’s suburbs and builds upon the social, environmental and economic values of the Georges River community. It is also a key resource in highlighting the changes which will shape the LGA’s future and the actions that both Council and the State Government will take to create a future City which is desirable to its community, visitors and investors.

28.         The LSPS builds on the community’s aspirations and expectations expressed in Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2018-2028 (“CSP”) and the six pillars of:

a)   A protected environment and green open spaces

b)   Quality, well planned development

c)   Active and accessible places and spaces

d)   A diverse and productive economy

e)   A harmonious and proud community with strong social services and infrastructure

f)    Leadership and transparency

29.         To further refine the community’s aspiration for the LGA in addition to those expressed in the CSP, extensive community consultation (Stage 1) was undertaken in March 2019 as part of the two-staged consultation program for the LSPS to gather community input on the draft vision, local planning priority outcomes and the criteria for strategic planning.

30.         Informed by the community feedback gathered in Stage 1 of the consultation process and an extensive evidence base as summarised later in this report, the 2040 land use vision is explored through five interrelated themes in the LSPS:

a)    Access and movement;

b)    Infrastructure and community;

c)    Housing and neighbourhoods;

d)    Economy and centres; and

e)    Environment and open space.

 

31.         The LSPS has been prepared comprising of these five themes, each with supporting Local Planning Priorities and Actions. It is identified that a number of LEP amendments are required to be prepared incrementally so that further detailed investigations can be conducted to support the full scope of land use changes proposed. The staged approach to preparing the principal Georges River LEP is discussed later in this report.

32.         Stage 2 of the LSPS consultation program occurred from 26 June to 7 August 2019 when the completed draft LSPS was publicly exhibited. With consideration of the submissions received from the community and government agencies, the LSPS was revised and reported to Council on 28 October 2019.

33.         At its meeting on 28 October 2019, Council resolved to endorse the revised LSPS for submission to the GSC for their approval to formally adopt the LSPS 2040 for the Georges River LGA.

34.         Council’s LSPS and its Implementation Plan are provided in Attachments 9 and 10.

 

Principal LEP for Georges River Council

35.         Council currently has three LEPs in effect:

 

·    Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“KLEP 2012”);

·    Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”); and

·    Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 (“HLEP 1994”).

36.         KLEP 2012 and HLEP 2012 are in the standard form as prescribed in the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006. HLEP 1994 is not in the standard form as it was made prior to the standardisation of LEPs and applies only to the land deferred from HLEP 2012 (Deferred Matter).

37.         Whilst KLEP 2012 and HLEP 2012 are in the standard form, both instruments have different objectives, zoning patterns, local provisions and development controls. Harmonisation of the existing LEPs is required to provide a consistent planning approach.

38.         At its meeting dated 26 February 2018, Council resolved to prepare a principal LEP for the Georges River LGA which gives effect to the South District Plan. At this meeting, Council also resolved to prepare a housing strategy and a local strategic planning statement to inform the preparation of the principal Georges River LEP.

39.         As noted earlier in this report, Council’s LSPS proposes a staged approach to preparing the principal Georges River LEP due to the detailed investigations required to support the full suite of changes proposed. This approach was endorsed by Council at its meetings dated 23 April 2019 and 28 October 2019.

40.         The staged approach to preparing the Georges River LEP is outlined as follows:

 

·    Stage 1: Housing and Harmonisation (this Planning Proposal)

o Harmonise the existing LEPs

o Seek to achieve housing targets through up-zoning certain areas

 

·    Stage 2: Housing Choice (scheduled for 2021)

o Seek to promote inclusive and affordable housing

o Investigate big house conversions and build to rent

 

·    Stage 3: Jobs and Activation (scheduled for 2022)

o Review development standards in centres

o Infrastructure delivery mechanisms

o Hurstville City Centre and Beverly Hills Local Centre masterplanning

 

·    Stage 4: Housing and Future Growth (scheduled for 2025 and beyond)

o Focus on land use changes beyond the next 5 years

41.         The main purpose of this Planning Proposal is to harmonise the existing LEPs into a principal Georges River LEP so that a single, consistent approach is applied to planning and development across the LGA, and new controls are introduced to give effect to the Planning Priorities and Actions of the South District Plan and the LSPS. These proposed provisions are informed by an extensive evidence base drawn from Council’s strategies and studies.

 

Key Council Strategies and Studies

42.         The LSPS and this Planning Proposal have been informed by an extensive evidence base comprising of specialist reports that have been prepared in response to the knowledge gaps identified through Council’s LEP review process.

43.         These strategies and studies respond to the four themes of infrastructure and collaboration, liveability, productivity, and sustainability that underpin the Region Plan and South District Plan.

44.         This report provides a summary of the key strategies and studies that have informed the preparation of this LEP and resulted in notable changes. The full suite of relevant strategies and studies are listed in the LSPS.

 

Draft Local Housing Strategy

45.         Council’s Local Housing Strategy intends to set a clear plan for the provision of housing in the Georges River LGA over the next 10 and 20 years. The Strategy provides the link between GRC’s visions for housing and the Actions of the South District Plan by presenting Council’s response to how the housing target will be delivered locally.

46.         The South District Plan sets a five-year (2016 to 2021) housing target of 4,800 additional dwellings for the Georges River LGA. However, the Plan provides Council with the opportunity to develop its own 6-10 year housing targets by demonstrating capacity for steady housing supply into the medium term.

47.         The South District Plan also emphasises the need to plan for the 20-year strategic housing target. An additional 13,400 dwellings is prescribed by the State Government as the 2036 housing target for the Georges River LGA.

48.         The Local Housing Strategy Evidence Base (“Evidence Base”), has been completed (refer Attachment 11) as the first stage in the preparation of the Local Housing Strategy. The Evidence Base conducts a review of the current and future population and housing trends for the LGA for the purpose of reviewing the 2036 housing target.

49.         The Evidence Base was endorsed by Council at its meeting dated 24 June 2019 for public exhibition, and was publicly exhibited with the draft LSPS from 26 June to 7 August 2019.

 

50.         Through its review process, the Evidence Base identifies a revised 20-year housing target of an additional 14,000 new dwellings. It also identifies that under existing planning controls, the LGA will be able to provide over 12,000 new dwellings which means that the planning framework will need to be adjusted to address the shortfall of approx. 2,000 dwellings in housing the future 2036 population.

51.         The Evidence Base also highlights the significant shifts in housing consumption patterns in recent years and reveals the housing preferences that are occurring due to demographic and social change in GRC’s population.

52.         Over the next 20 years, the most significant growth will occur in the ‘couples with children’ household whilst the ‘couples without children’ and ‘lone person’ household types are also forecasted to increase, driven by migration and an ageing population.

53.         Informed by the Evidence Base, the Local Housing Strategy is being prepared based on the following key findings and policy implications:

 

·    Meet the South District Plan housing targets;

·    Respond to the LSPS 2040 Planning Priorities and Actions;

·    Identify additional housing opportunities through the harmonisation of the existing Hurstville and Kogarah LEPs;

·    Support ageing in place;

·    Encourage housing choices;

·    Facilitate the delivery of a diverse range of housing;

·    Consider mechanisms that deliver affordable and inclusive housing; and

·    Continue to encourage housing growth along transport corridors.

54.         In accordance with the above findings, the draft Local Housing Strategy identifies a number of residential areas to be investigated for their suitability in delivering additional housing capacity.

55.         A preliminary assessment of these Housing Investigation Areas (identified in Table 1 below) has been conducted based on their access to existing infrastructure and social services, such as schools, community facilities, open space and public transport to promote the efficient use of land and infrastructure. The preliminary assessment is also supported by a preliminary traffic study.

 

Table 1 – Proposed areas of housing growth

Housing Investigation Area

Explanation

1. Hurstville  – Hillcrest Avenue

Existing zone: R2 Low Density

Proposed zone: R4 High Density (12m height and 1:1 FSR)

 

Potential number of additional dwellings resulting from rezoning: approx. +29 dwellings

 

Justification:

In close proximity to Hurstville Station and Hurstville City Centre. Supported by a number of community facilities and open space nearby, all within walking distance (400m or less). Will provide bulk and scale transition between adjacent low density and high density development typologies.

2. Penshurst – Apsley Estate

Existing zone: R2 Low Density

Proposed zone: R3 Medium Density (9m height and 0.7:1 FSR)

 

Potential number of additional dwellings resulting from rezoning: approx. +183 dwellings

 

Justification:

In close proximity to both Hurstville and Penshurst Stations, and the Hurstville City Centre and Penshurst Local Centre. Supported by a number of community facilities and open space nearby, all within walking distance (400m or less).

3. Peakhurst – north and west of Peakhurst Park

Existing zone: R2 Low Density

Proposed zone: R3 Medium Density (9m height and 0.7:1 FSR)

 

Potential number of additional dwellings resulting from rezoning: approx. +335 dwellings

 

Justification:

In close proximity to Riverwood Station and Riverwood Local Centre. Supported by open space nearby (Peakhurst Park). Will provide bulk and scale transition between adjacent low density and high density development typologies.

4. South Hurstville – Culwulla Street

Existing zone: R2 Low Density

Proposed zone: R3 Medium Density (9m height and 0.7:1 FSR)

 

Potential number of additional dwellings resulting from rezoning: approx. +57 dwellings

 

Justification:

In close proximity to bus stops on King Georges Road that offer frequent bus services to Hurstville Station. Supported by South Hurstville Local Centre, South Hurstville Library and a number of open spaces nearby, which are all within walking distance (400m or less). Will provide bulk and scale transition between adjacent low density and high density development typologies, and rationalise an existing zoning anomaly.

5. South Hurstville – Greenacre Road

Existing zone: R2 Low Density

Proposed zone: R3 Medium Density (9m height and 0.7:1 FSR)

 

Potential number of additional dwellings resulting from rezoning: approx. +48 dwellings

 

Justification:

In close proximity to frequent bus services to Hurstville Station. Supported by South Hurstville Local Centre, South Hurstville Library and a number of open spaces nearby, which are all within walking distance (400m or less). Rationalises an existing zoning anomaly.

 

56.         Targeted engagement was conducted with the property owners within and adjacent to Housing Investigation Areas No.1, No.2, No.3 and No.4 between 3 September and 7 September 2019. They were invited to provide feedback on the proposed zoning and associated built form controls for the purpose of informing the LSPS. These Areas have been incorporated into the LSPS 2040 as “Potential New Housing in LEP 2020 – Housing & Harmonisation”.

57.         Targeted engagement was not conducted for Housing Investigation Area No.5 as this area was identified as an appropriate Housing Investigation Area by the community during Stage 2 of the LSPS community consultation process.

58.         Through the development of the Local Housing Strategy, an additional Housing Investigation Area was proposed around Olds Park in Penshurst (refer Table 2 below) which was also subject to the targeted engagement process. However, further investigation indicates that this area is not suitable for housing growth because of its existing traffic issues as highlighted by the preliminary traffic study and the lack of accessibility to train stations and commercial centres. Accordingly, Council resolved to not proceed with the proposed up-zoning of this area at its meeting on 28 October 2019.

 

Table 2 – Olds Park Housing Investigation Area

Olds Park Housing Investigation Area

Explanation

Existing zone: R2 Low Density

Proposed zone: R3 Medium Density (9m height and 0.7:1 FSR)

 

Potential number of additional dwellings resulting from rezoning: approx. +219 dwellings

 

Justification:

Supported by open space (Olds Park) and Penshurst Library.

 

59.         The feedback and comments received from the targeted engagement sessions are currently being considered by Council and will be incorporated into the Local Housing Strategy. The traffic study will also be finalised where the impacts of the proposed dwelling increase within each Housing Investigation Area will be assessed in relation to the road network.

60.         Once the draft Local Housing Strategy is completed, endorsement will be sought from Council to exhibit the Strategy as a supporting document with this Planning Proposal.

 

Draft Inclusive Housing Strategy

61.         Council in December 2018 commenced the preparation of the Inclusive Housing Strategy and the supporting Delivery Plan for the Georges River LGA as part of a staged approach.

 

62.         The key aims of the Inclusive Housing Strategy are:

·    To facilitate the provision of housing options to meet the needs of a wide range of users, including seniors, people with a disability, students, key workers, health visitors in the Kogarah Health and Education Precinct and the very low, low and moderate income households within the residential market;

·    To develop planning controls and mechanisms that prevent the loss of existing and the delivery of new supplies of affordable housing;

·    To advocate for, and build partnerships to increase affordable and liveable housing; and

·    To explore options for managing affordable housing.

63.         The Inclusive Housing Strategy - Stage 1 Report - Assessment of housing needs was completed and endorsed by Council for public exhibition at its meeting dated 24 June 2019. The Stage 1 Report (refer Attachment 12) highlights issues relating to housing cost, housing stress and the LGA’s demography. It was publicly exhibited as a supporting document with the draft LSPS from 26 June to 7 August 2019.

64.         In early 2019, the application of State Environmental Planning Policy No 70 - Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) (“SEPP 70”) was expanded to include all NSW councils with the intent of encouraging all NSW councils to investigate and develop an Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme (“AHCS”) to promote the delivery and maintenance of affordable housing.

65.         The preparation of the final stage of the Inclusive Housing Strategy and the supporting Delivery Plan is underway. The Delivery Plan includes the preparation of the AHCS, which will set out how, where, and at what rate development contributions can be collected by Council for affordable housing.

66.         The draft Delivery Plan is based on the following goals:

·    Facilitate housing choice;

·    Establish a policy position that supports the delivery of inclusive housing; and

·    Facilitate the provision of affordable housing based on the following targets:

 

o 2020 to 2025: deliver 14 affordable dwellings per year (equating to approx. 70 dwellings over 5 years)

o 2025 to 2030: deliver 24 affordable dwellings per year (equating to approx. 120 dwellings over 5 years)

o 2030 to 2040: deliver 34 affordable dwellings per year (equating to approx. 340 dwellings over 10 years)

67.         The Inclusive Housing Strategy and the supporting Delivery Plan will inform the Stage 2 (Housing Choice) LEP in the staged LEP process. This Planning Proposal does not propose the implementation of delivery mechanisms for affordable housing. However, the Strategy will establish a policy position that affordable housing will be provided through planning proposals and the associated voluntary planning agreement process in the short term with exploration of provisions for affordable housing through infill development in future LEPs.

68.         Once the draft Inclusive Housing Strategy is completed, endorsement will be sought from Council to exhibit the strategy as a supporting document with this Planning Proposal.

 

 

Draft Commercial Centres Strategy

69.         The Georges River Commercial Centres Strategy is currently being prepared in two parts (Part 1 and Part 2) to support the staged approach to drafting the principal Georges River LEP.

70.         The draft Part 1 Centres Analysis (refer Attachment 13) was endorsed by Council at its meeting dated 24 June 2019 for public exhibition, and was publicly exhibited with the draft LSPS from 26 June to 7 August 2019. Part 1 Centres Analysis is currently being finalised with consideration of the submissions received.

71.         The primary purpose of this Part is to inform the preparation of GRLEP 2020 and its accompanying development control plan. This Part conducts a stocktake of all 48 commercial centres in the LGA through a holistic approach with the intention of harmonising the existing planning frameworks that govern the future development of these centres.

72.         Part 1 of the Strategy undertook a detailed economic analysis which projects the long term employment floor space demand of all centres based on the future population growth, through the preparation of the Commercial Centres Economic Study (provided in Attachment 13). This evidence base has informed the development of a centres hierarchy based on the existing provision of retail floor space within each centre. The hierarchy is comprised of 6 classifications with the following breakdown:

 

·    2 Strategic centres

·    7 Local centres

·    5 Villages

·    10 Small villages

·    24 Neighbourhood centres

·    1 B6 Enterprise Corridor

 

73.         Part 1 also looks at the inconsistencies and deficiencies of the current planning framework with recommendations to harmonise the permissible land uses, to introduce land uses that will promote employment in response to the emerging economic trends and drivers, and to investigate the appropriate mix required between employment and residential floor space in mixed use developments.

74.         Part 2 of the Strategy is currently being prepared to inform Stage 2 of the LEP process. Through a place-based planning approach, this Part will consider the roles and functions of the commercial centres and provide centre-specific objectives, built form controls and guidelines and investigate the potential expansion of appropriate centres.

 

Industrial Land Review

75.         The Industrial Land Review (refer Attachment 14) was endorsed by Council at its meeting dated 17 December 2018. It provides a detailed analysis of industrial precincts in the LGA, including a detailed demand and supply analysis of industrial lands and assessment of the suitability of each industrial precinct for local and/or strategic industrial uses.

76.         The findings highlight the need for industrial land to be retained and managed across the Georges River LGA in line with the policy direction of the South District Plan.

77.         It also provides Council and landowners with a clear strategic direction for the development of employment lands across the LGA to ensure that sufficient land is zoned to accommodate future employment growth, particularly in light of pressure from landowners to rezone industrial land.

 

Foreshore Study

78.         The Foreshore Study is comprised of two studies that review the existing planning controls in the foreshore localities of the Georges River through the lenses of environmental hazards and local character. The key drivers for this Study are broadly summarised as follows:

 

·    Land use conflicts caused by the attraction of foreshore living and the loss of scenic and environmental values through increased development and subdivision;

·    Climate change and coastal inundation impacts such as sea level rise and the risk to life and damage to property; and

·    Lack of coordinated directions for foreshore management within Council due to the introduction of new State legislations which require local policy responses to climate change and sea level rise.

79.         The Foreshore Study will be exhibited with this Planning Proposal as a supporting document.

 

Tidal Inundation Study

80.         This Study (refer Attachment 15) determines the tidal inundation level in the Georges River foreshore at present and for future timeframes through hydraulic modelling to map the extent of sea level rise. Sea level rise is recognised as a significant coastal hazard with associated social, financial and environmental risks.

81.         The extent of tidal inundation level identified by this Study has informed the areas affected by future sea level rise shown on the proposed Coastal Hazard and Risk Line Map. Further explanation is provided under the “Additional local provisions” heading of this report.

 

Foreshore Strategic Directions Paper

82.         This Paper (refer Attachment 16) evaluates the current policy framework to identify key issues, emerging directions and key principles that will form the foundation for the preparation of new foreshore planning controls.

83.         As part of this Paper, a visual character assessment was undertaken of the foreshore localities to the ridgelines (as viewed from the water) and waterways along the land and water interface. As a result, the study area is categorised into distinct character areas (refer Figure 2 below) to allow for the designation of a rating system in terms of the overall character value and the area’s sensitivity to change such as tree clearing, larger scale development, altered geology through cut and fill, and the replacement of incongruous development with contemporary styles.

 

Figure 2 – Foreshore character typologies

 

84.         The common characteristics and attributes of the character areas that are considered as having a High or Very High sensitivity rating are high levels of tree coverage, steep or undulating terrain with distinctive ridgelines, all with minimal visible built form.

85.         These character typologies with High or Very High sensitivity ratings  listed below generally have an interface with the Georges River and are predominantly located along the waterfront and towards the west of the study area:

·    Bush Suburban

·    Garden Suburban (larger lots)

·    Reserve Edge

·    Park Edge

·    Naturalistic Edge

·    Semi-Natural Edge

·    Naturalistic Headland

86.         Character areas to the east of Georges River are largely assessed as having a lower sensitivity rating. This is due to the flatter topography, lower vegetation coverage as a result of contemporary developments and the dominant built form character.

87.         The detailed character analysis conducted by this Paper has informed the preparation of the proposed foreshore scenic protection area extent shown on the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Map. Further explanation is provided under the “Additional local provisions” heading of this report.

 

Infrastructure Integration Advice Roadmap

88.         Preparation of advice to Council for infrastructure integration has been completed to inform Council’s LSPS and the principal Georges River LEP.

89.         The Infrastructure Integration Advice Roadmap conducts a gap analysis which identifies data gaps in relation to economic, social and green infrastructure outcomes.

90.         The Roadmap will assist Council in understanding the critical infrastructure that is required to support housing and employment growth over the short, medium and long term in alignment with the LSPS Actions. The data gaps that have not been able to be addressed in LSPS 2040 will be reviewed and considered as part of future policy work and/or work programs in accordance with the commitment given at Council’s meeting on 28 October 2019.

 

Draft Hurstville Heritage Review

91.         Council is currently preparing a review of the heritage items listed in Schedule 5 Environmental Heritage of the HLEP 2012.

92.         The review comprises of three stages:

 

·    Stage 1 - Review of heritage items in the Hurstville CBD (approx. 47 items)

·    Stage 2 - Review of remaining heritage items (approx. 105 items)

·    Stage 3 - Revise statement of significance for all heritage items recommended for re-listing

93.         A summary of recommended amendments that have been incorporated into the GRLEP 2020 is provided in Attachment 18. The Hurstville Heritage Review will be exhibited as a supporting document to this Planning Proposal.

94.         No review was conducted for heritage items under the KLEP 2012 due to the recent review that was undertaken as part of the preparation of Amendment No.2 to the KLEP 2012, known as the New City Plan, which was gazetted on 26 May 2017.

 

Background – Councillor Workshops

95.         A number of workshops were held with Councillors to inform the preparation of the GRLEP 2020. The proposed LEP clauses (refer Attachment 2) are a result of the discussions at these workshops.

96.         A total of 5 workshops were held with each session focusing on a different section of the LEP. Table 3 below outlines the content of each workshop.

 

Table 3 – Councillor workshops for the GRLEP 2020

Workshop No.  and Date

Workshop Content

Workshop No.1

15 July 2019

·    The staged approach to preparing the principal Georges River LEP

·    The overall aims of this LEP

·    The objectives of each land use zone

·    The permissible and prohibited land uses within each zone (Land Use Table)

Workshop No.2

27 July 2019

·    Development standards for residential zones, including lot size, lot width, height and floor space ratio

·    The proposed zone and development standards for the Local Housing Strategy’s Housing Investigation Areas

·    Development standards for industrial zones, including lot size, height and floor space ratio

·    The extent of zoning and development standards for other zones, including RE1, RE2, SP2 and W2 zoned land

·    The gross floor area allocated to miscellaneous permissible uses

·    The number of days permitted for temporary use of land

Workshop No.3

5 August 2019

·    The proposed local provisions including the objectives and application of each local provision

·    The content of the Schedules, including Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses, Schedule 2 Exempt development, Schedule 3 Complying development, and Schedule 5 Environmental heritage

Workshop No.4

2 September 2019

·    Confirmed the intent and approach of all proposed local provisions

Workshop No.5

16 September 2019

·    The properties to be retained for open space acquisition

·    The properties to be added to the land reservation acquisition map for additional open space in this LEP and future LEPs

·    Proposed local road widening

·    The insertion of entertainment facilities as an additional permissible use at Jubilee Stadium

 

Background – Local Planning Panel Meeting

97.         In accordance with the Ministerial Direction for planning proposals, this Planning Proposal was referred to the Georges River Local Planning Panel (“LPP”) on 17 October 2019.

98.         At this meeting, the LPP recommended that this Planning Proposal for the GRLEP 2020 be forwarded to the DPIE for a Gateway Determination. Refer to Attachment 19 for the minutes of the LPP meeting dated 17 October 2019.

99.         The LPP also suggested a number of amendments to the draft GRLEP 2020 planning instrument to encourage better development outcomes in the LGA. Council’s response to the LPP’s suggestions is tabulated in Table 4 below.

 

Table 4 – Amendments suggested by the LPP

LPP Suggestion

Council Response

Delete the overarching principle “Ensure harmonised controls do not result in the net loss of development potential” as this principle does not respond to the Planning Priorities or Actions of the South District Plan. Accordingly, this principle should not be utilised as the justification for proposed controls.

LPP suggestion is adopted – “Ensure harmonised controls do not result in the net loss of development potential” has been removed as an overarching principle and the Planning Proposal has been amended so that the proposed controls are justified against the relevant South District Plan Planning Priorities and Actions.

Consideration should be given to prescribing front setback distances for residential zones in the LEP.

LPP suggestion is noted. However, the front setback controls will be prescribed in the accompanying DCP 2020 which will be informed by streetscape assessments to determine the prevalent front setback distance.

Consider the insertion of flood controls to apply to development located on land affected by the Probable Maximum Flood (“PMF”).

LPP suggestion is adopted – the proposed Flood Planning local provision has been amended to apply to development consisting of sensitive land uses (such as hospitals and schools) on land identified as “Flood prone area” on a new PMF map.

 

The PMF is the largest flood that could conceivably occur at a particular location and is calculated by combining a range of extreme conditions and probabilities. It is extremely rare but the associated risks must be addressed by sensitive land use developments. Further explanation is provided under the “Additional local provisions” heading of this report.

The Flood Planning Map should also identify the riverine flood levels along the Georges River and Salt Pan Creek.

LPP suggestion is noted. However, Council currently does not have a comprehensive riverine flood study and cannot include flood mapping of the foreshore areas along the Georges River and Salt Pan Creek due to the absence of riverine flooding information.

 

It should be noted that Council is represented on the Georges Riverkeeper Floodplain Risk Management Subcommittee (“the Subcommittee”). The Subcommittee is currently seeking to develop a regional flood risk management plan across the entire Georges River Catchment, though the scope of the flood mapping is still yet to be determined.

In addition to the significant Georges River and Salt Pan Creek watercourses, Council should also identify the location of other natural watercourses such as freshwater creeks and streams so the appropriate riparian corridor can be established on the Riparian Lands and Watercourses Map to protect and maintain the ecological processes within these watercourses and riparian areas.

LPP suggestion is noted. However, Council currently does not have any information to identify the location of water banks for other natural watercourses in the LGA. The DPIE’s Controlled activities on waterfront land - Guidelines for riparian corridors on waterfront land specifies that the width of the vegetated riparian zone (“VRZ”), which makes up the riparian corridor, must be measured from the top of the highest bank on both sides of the watercourse. As such, Council at this time cannot include riparian corridor mapping of the other natural watercourses on the Riparian Lands and Watercourses Map.

Consider the insertion of a stormwater management local provision that minimises the impacts of urban stormwater runoff to protect and improve the environmental health of the Georges River and Salt Pan Creek.

LPP suggestion is adopted – the insertion of a Stormwater Management local provision is consistent with the following Planning Priorities and Actions of the South District Plan:

·    Planning Priority S13. Protecting and improving the health and enjoyment of the District’s waterways

·    Action 62. Improve the health of catchments and waterways through a risk-based approach to managing the cumulative impacts of development including coordinated monitoring of outcomes.

 

It should be noted that this LEP clause will be supported by Council’s Stormwater Management Policy which is currently being reviewed. This Policy provides detailed information in relation to on-site stormwater management, design requirements for developments on both public and private land and measures to improve the water quality of natural watercourses.

In addition to the matters outlined in subclause (4)(d) of the proposed Design Excellence local provision, the following matters should also be considered so the highest standard of sustainable architecture and urban design can be delivered:

·    Implementing better design of waste management facilities

·    Incorporating water sensitive urban design

·    Reducing the urban heat island effect

LPP suggestion is partially adopted – the inclusion of provisions relating to waste management facilities and water sensitive urban design in the Design Excellence local provision is consistent with the objectives of the proposed clause and the following Planning Priorities and Actions of the South District Plan:

·    Planning Priority S17. Reducing carbon emissions and managing energy, water and waste efficiently.

·    Action 78. Support initiatives that respond to the impacts of climate change.

 

The suggestion regarding urban heat island effect is not incorporated in the Design Excellence local provision as this consideration is proposed in the Environmental Sustainability local provision.

The application of the Design Excellence local provision should be expanded to apply to new developments and substantial alterations and additions in the foreshore scenic protection area (“FSPA”) due to the significant environmental, social and character values of the foreshore.

LPP suggestion is adopted – the expansion of the Design Excellence local provision to apply to the FSPA is supported. It is proposed that all development on land in the FSPA will be subject to this clause, including dwelling houses, dual occupancies, health services facilities and marinas. This clause will enable greater protection of the Georges River scenic landscape, which is consistent with the following Planning Priorities and Actions of the South District Plan:

·    Planning Priority S14. Protecting and enhancing bushland, biodiversity and scenic and cultural landscapes and better managing rural areas.

·    Action 65. Identify and protect scenic and cultural landscapes.

·    Action 66. Enhance and protect views of scenic and cultural landscapes from the public realm.

A new local provision should be inserted to address and prosecute the illegal removal of trees to preserve the significance of the urban tree canopy.

 

LPP suggestion is noted. However, under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“EP&A Act”), a number of mechanisms are available to local councils to address and penalise the illegal removal of trees, including:

·    Issuing a stop work order for works that do not comply with the EP&A Act;

·    Issuing a compliance order to require compliance with a planning approval; and

·    Issuing a penalty infringement notice.

 

In light of the above, the inclusion of an additional local provision for the purpose of prosecuting the illegal removal of trees is not considered to be necessary in the Georges River LEP.

 

100.       The attached Planning Proposal (refer Attachment 1) and draft GRLEP 2020 (refer Attachment 2) have been amended to respond to the suggested amendments from the LPP. Further justification for each of the proposed local provision is provided in Attachment 5.

101.       It should be noted that at the LPP meeting, a planning consultant publicly addressed the Panel on behalf of Scentre Group (co-owners and operators of Westfield Hurstville) regarding the proposed B3 Commercial Core zoning for the Westfield site (refer Figure 6 below).

102.       The proponent objected to the proposed zoning, height and FSR on the site and sought a B4 Mixed Use zone with increased development standards for the following reasons:

 

·    The Planning Proposal does not adhere to the overarching principle of “ensure harmonised controls do not result in the net loss of development potential” as the proposed zoning of B3 Commercial Core prohibits residential development and is  a downzoning given the site is currently zoned City Centre 3(b) under the HLEP 1994;

·    The proposed development standards do not align with the current approved built form; and

·    An increased set of height and FSR controls are sought to ensure that Westfield Hurstville can continue its evolution to provide employment uses and remain relevant, such as the expansion of the rooftop terrace for additional dining.

 

103.       The objection was noted by the Panel, but was not endorsed as a recommendation in the LPP meeting minutes. The Panel supported the proposed B3 Commercial Core zoning as it is consistent with the intent of the South District Plan through the facilitation of growth in investment, business opportunities and jobs in the Hurstville strategic centre. The Panel also recognised that the proposed B3 zone would not inhibit the proposed growth of Westfield Hurstville, such as the expansion of the rooftop terrace for additional dining.

104.       Further discussion regarding the strategic merit of the proposed B3 Commercial Core zoning is provided later in this report.

 

Purpose of this LEP

105.       On 7 September 2018, Council received funding from the NSW Government for an accelerated review of Council’s existing Local Environmental Plans (“LEPs”) and preparation of a new LEP that aligns with the priorities outlined in the South District Plan.

106.       Accordingly, the NSW Government funding requires Council to submit this Planning Proposal for the Georges River LEP to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (“DPIE”) for Gateway Determination by 20 December 2019 and the LEP needs to be submitted for final legal drafting by 30 June 2020.

107.       A consequence of not meeting these mandated timeframes may include not receiving State Government funding of up to $1,125,000 and as such Council needing to meet the cost of relevant LEP related expenses.

108.       The purpose of this Planning Proposal is prepare a principal Georges River LEP by harmonising the existing LEPs:

 

·    Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“KLEP 2012”);

·    Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”); and

·    Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 (“HLEP 1994”).

109.       The outcome of this Planning Proposal is a consolidated Georges River LEP which implements the first stage of the staged LEP approach. With a focus on housing and harmonisation, this LEP will ensure that a single consistent approach is applied to planning and development across the LGA.

110.       In addition, the objectives of this Planning Proposal are to:

 

·    Give effect to the South District Plan by addressing its Planning Priorities and Actions;

·    Implement the LSPS 2040 vision for the LGA addressing its Planning Priorities and Actions;

·    Meet the South District Plan housing targets;

·    Identify additional housing opportunities through the harmonisation of existing LEPs;

·    Retain and manage industrial and urban services land;

·    Provide a regulatory environment that enables economic opportunities;

·    Protect future transport and infrastructure corridors;

·    Facilitate opportunities for creative and artistic industries; and

·    Identify, conserve and enhance environmental heritage.

 

Overarching Principles of this LEP

111.       This Planning Proposal has been prepared in accordance with a number of overarching principles as outlined below:

 

·    Achieve equity across the LGA through the harmonisation process, particularly in respect to development potential and the management of environmental hazards and risks;

·    Retain existing controls where the status quo can be maintained;

·    Develop a hierarchy of residential zones to ensure development typologies reflect the objectives of the respective zone, including a ‘true’ medium density residential zone;

·    Protect the amenity and local character of low density residential areas;

·    Provide high density residential areas with opportunities for greater activation;

·    Facilitate employment growth in centres, particularly in mixed use zones;

·    Protect industrial zoned land whilst allowing greater land use and development flexibility;

·    Promote good design and environmentally sustainable practices in larger developments;

·    Enhance and protect the natural environment, especially in the foreshore localities along the Georges River;

·    Formalise key infrastructure uses such as schools and hospitals; and

·    Adopt the model provisions for Standard Instrument LEPs as provided by the DPIE where applicable.

 

Summary of Key Proposed Provisions

112.       The provisions in this Planning Proposal are in accordance with the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 and are intended to harmonise and consolidate the planning controls within existing LEPs.

113.       Where there is a fundamental difference between the LEPs, particularly in the case of the land use tables and principal development standards, the Standard Instrument LEP approach prevails and/or the provision has been adjusted so that a ‘best fit’ approach applies.

114.       The draft GRLEP 2020 environmental planning instrument is provided in Attachment 2.

115.       Legal review of the draft GRLEP 2020 has been completed and the attached draft instrument encompasses the amendments made in response to the advice provided.

116.       A summary of the notable provisions within the draft GRLEP 2020 is provided below in the following structure:

 

·    Aims of the Plan

·    Land use zones

·    Zone objectives

·    Land use tables

·    Temporary use of land

·    Exempt and complying development

·    Development standards

·    Land acquisition

·    Miscellaneous provisions

·    Miscellaneous permissible uses

·    Additional local provisions

·    Schedules:

o Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses

o Schedule 2 Exempt development

o Schedule 3 Complying development

o Schedule 4 Classification and reclassification of public land

o Schedule 5 Environmental heritage

 

Aims of the Plan

117.       The aims of the Plan are a consolidation of the existing aims of the HLEP 2012 and KLEP 2012 and new aims. The new aims ensure that the desired future direction for the LGA as identified by the LSPS vision is directly captured in the GRLEP 2020.

118.       Considerations such as housing choice, the viability and vibrancy of centres, a well-designed and vegetated urban environment, the protection of the natural environment, the provision of social infrastructure and an emphasis on transit-oriented development are all captured within the proposed aims of the Plan.

 

Land use zones

 

119.       This Planning Proposal does not seek to introduce any new zones or remove any existing zones as applicable to the Georges River LGA. This clause will include a list of all zones to be used in the GRLEP 2020.

120.       A comparison of the land use zones included within the existing LEPs and proposed in the GRLEP 2020 is provided in Table 5 below:

 

Table 5 – Existing LEPs vs proposed GRLEP 2020 land use zones

GRLEP 2020 Land Use Zone

HLEP 2012

KLEP 2012

Residential zones

R2 Low Density Residential

Yes

Yes

R3 Medium Density Residential

Yes

Yes

R4 High Density Residential

No

Yes

Business zones

B1 Neighbourhood Centre

Yes

Yes

B2 Local Centre

Yes

Yes

B3 Commercial Core

Yes

No

B4 Mixed Use

Yes

Yes

B6 Enterprise Corridor

No

Yes

Industrial zones

IN2 Light Industrial

Yes

Yes

Infrastructure zones

SP2 Infrastructure

Yes

Yes

Recreational zones

RE1 Public Recreation

Yes

Yes

RE2 Private Recreation

Yes

No

Environmental zones

E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves

Yes

No

E2 Environmental Conservation

No

Yes

Waterway zones

W2 Recreational Waterways

Yes

Yes

 

121.       The proposed Land Zoning Map is provided in Attachment 8.

122.       Whilst this Planning Proposal does not seek to introduce any new zones or remove any existing zones, it does propose to update the existing residential zones so an appropriate residential hierarchy is developed to ensure development typologies reflect the objectives of the respective zone. The proposed hierarchy of residential density is outlined as follows:

·    Low density: dwelling houses and dual occupancies

·    Medium density: attached dwellings, multi dwelling housing, terraces and manor houses

·    High density: residential flat buildings

123.       Residential flat buildings are currently permitted as the prevailing typology in the R3 Medium Density Residential zones under the existing LEPs due to the building height and floor space ratio applied.

124.       The proposed hierarchy creates a ‘true’ medium density residential zone. The GRLEP 2020 proposes to achieve this hierarchy through the translation of all existing R3 Medium Density Residential zoned land with a height of 12m or greater in both the HLEP 2012 and KLEP 2012 to the R4 High Density Residential zone. These areas are shown in Figure 3 below. No changes are proposed to the existing heights and FSRs of these areas.

 

Figure 3 – Location of proposed up-zonings from zone R3 to R4

 

125.       It should be noted that the existing LEPs contain some ‘true’ medium density areas in the R3 Medium Density Residential zones as characterised by a maximum building height of 9m. These areas will be retained as R3 Medium Density Residential zones under the GRLEP 2020.

126.       This Planning Proposal also incorporates the proposed zoning of the Housing Investigation Areas (refer Table 1 above) as identified by the draft Local Housing Strategy. The Housing Investigation Areas will contribute to the provision of R3 Medium Density Residential zoned land in the Georges River LGA.

127.       This Planning Proposal also seeks to harmonise and rezone some of the existing SP2 Infrastructure zones as follows:

·    Rezone land that is currently identified as SP2 “Church” under the HLEP 2012 to the adjoining zone to ensure a consistent approach across the LGA. If the adjoining zone does not permit places of public worship as a land use then the property has been added to Schedule 1 of the LEP to enable place of public worship as an additional permitted use;

·    Rezone land that is currently identified as SP2 “Aged Care” under the HLEP 2012 to the adjoining zone as seniors housing is permissible under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004;

·    Rezone land that is currently identified as SP2 “Community Purposes” under the HLEP 2012 to the adjoining zone to ensure a consistent approach across the LGA;

·    Review land that is currently identified as SP2 “Health Services Facilities” under the KLEP 2012 and only retain SP2 “Hospitals” as per the HLEP 2012 to protect hospitals as significant infrastructure in the LGA;

·    Rezone land that is currently identified as SP2 “Public Administration” under the HLEP 2012 to the adjoining zone to ensure a consistent approach across the LGA; and

·    Identify land across the LGA that is currently not zoned as SP2 but is owned by education providers and operating as a school and rezone these properties to SP2 “Educational establishments” to formalise the use of these lands as schools and retain their use.

128.       With respect to the three Deferred Matter sites under the HLEP 2012, this Planning Proposal seeks to translate the HLEP 1994 provisions into the Standard Instrument LEP form. It should be noted that the development standards such as height of buildings and floor space ratio for all of the above deferred matter sites will be translated from the Hurstville Development Control Plan Number 2 - Amendment No. 5.

129.       The proposed Standard Instrument LEP zones for these Deferred Matter sites are as follows:

·    Civic Precinct – proposed B4 Mixed Use

130.       The Civic Precinct site (refer Figure 4 below) is the subject of a current Planning Proposal. It is proposed to translate the existing 3(b) – City Centre zoning to B4 Mixed Use under the GRLEP 2020 in accordance with the zoning sought by the existing Planning Proposal.

 

Figure 4 – Location of the Civic Precinct

 

131.       The Planning Proposal was referred to the Local Planning Panel (“LPP”) on 4 April 2019 where it was determined that it could proceed to the next stage of seeking a Gateway determination subject to the fulfilment of a number of conditions, including:

·    The delivery of community facilities and benefits;

·    Design excellence, including a requirement for a design competition in relation to development on the site; and

·    Defining the size of the civic space and the provision of solar access to that space.

132.       In light of the general support given to the B4 Mixed Use zoning sought by the Planning Proposal, this GRLEP 2020 seeks to rezone the Civic Precinct deferred matter site and remove the deferred status.

·    Treacy Street Car Park – proposed B4 Mixed Use

 

133.       The Treacy Street Car Park site (refer Figure 5 below) was the subject of a Planning Proposal that received a Gateway determination from the Department of Planning and Environment on 8 August 2017. However, it was deferred by Council at its meeting dated 26 March 2018 due to an unresolved request to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement with the Minister for Planning for the provision of public benefits on the site.

 

Figure 5 – Location of the Treacy Street Car Park

 

 

134.       At the meeting, Council also resolved to not proceed with the Planning Proposal for this site as it will be incorporated into a future planning proposal prepared for the Hurstville City Centre.

135.       Accordingly, it is proposed to translate the existing 3(b) – City Centre zoning of the site to B4 Mixed Use under the GRLEP 2020 in accordance with the zoning that was approved by the Department of Planning and Environment in its Gateway determination.

·    Westfield – proposed B3 Commercial Core

136.       The Westfield site (refer Figure 6 below) is the subject of a Planning Proposal which was withdrawn by the proponent prior to the completion of the assessment process.

 

Figure 6 – Location of Westfields

 

137.       In the absence of an active or Council endorsed planning proposal on the site, this Planning Proposal applies a B3 Commercial Core zone on the site in accordance with the existing commercial use.

138.       The proposed B3 Commercial Core zoning is considered appropriate due to its consistency with the intent of the South District Plan. As a strategic centre in the Greater Sydney region, the Hurstville City Centre will benefit from the proposed B3 Commercial Core zoning of this site as expanding the boundary of the commercial core will facilitate the attraction of additional office and commercial floor space to the centre.

139.       The South District Plan identifies employment growth as the principal underlying economic goal for strategic centres, and outlines that the designation of a commercial core within a strategic centre for economic and employment uses may be necessary to manage the impact of residential developments on commercial activity.

140.       Given the existing economic and employment uses on the site, the GRLEP 2020 proposes a B3 Commercial Core zoning to retain the Westfield site as a key economic and employment generator in the Hurstville strategic centre.

 

Zone objectives

141.       The proposed objectives for each land use zone are a combination of the core zone objectives as mandated by the Standard Instrument LEP, an update of the consolidated objectives from the existing LEPs, and new local zone objectives that reflect the LSPS vision. In accordance with the LEP Practice Note PN 09-005, no more than two to three local zone objectives can be proposed. The local zone objectives are shown in black in Attachment 2.

142.       In summary, the local zone objectives seek to:

 

·    Promote a high standard of urban design and built form within a landscaped setting in residential zones;

·    Encourage development that maximises public transport patronage and promotes walking and cycling in the high density residential zone;

·    Ensure developments contribute to the vibrancy and economic viability of commercial centres in business zones;

·    Encourage the provision of community facilities and public infrastructure in business zones; and

·    Ensure land is protected and provided for community purposes in the infrastructure zone.

 

Land use tables

143.       This Planning Proposal seeks to merge the Land Use Table provisions in the existing LEPs to form a combined and consistent suite of land use zones.

144.       A combination of ‘open’ and ‘closed’ zones has been adopted in drafting the Land Use Table. Table 6 below demonstrates the open and closed zones proposed for GRLEP 2020.

145.       An open zone is one where a broad variety of land uses can be considered, allowing greater flexibility of activities in the zone. A closed zone is one where the diversity of land uses is more restrictive to protect the amenity of the zone and manage environmental impact.

 

Table 6 – Open and closed zones

Zone

Approach

Residential Zones

R2 Low Density Residential

Closed

R3 Medium Density Residential

Closed

R4 High Density Residential

Closed

Business Zones

B1 Neighbourhood Centre

Open

B2 Local Centre

Open

B3 Commercial Core

Open

B4 Mixed Use

Open

B6 Enterprise Corridor

Open

Industrial Zones

IN2 Light Industrial

Open

Infrastructure Zones

SP2 Infrastructure

Closed

Recreational Zones

RE1 Public Recreation

Closed

RE2 Private Recreation

Closed

Environmental Zones

E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves

Closed

E2 Environmental Conservation

Closed

Waterway Zones

W2 Recreational Waterways

Closed

 

146.       In preparing the Land Use Table, a general rule of permissibility retention has been used. This means that the permissible land uses in most zones proposed for the GRLEP 2020 are a combination of the permissible land uses of the existing LEPs. The proposed Land Use Table is not inconsistent with the existing LEPs.

147.       There are a number of notable changes to the Land Use Table proposed in response to community feedback during the public exhibition of the LSPS and to align with the LSPS vision as summarised below.

148.       In the R2 Low Density Residential zone:

·    Permit boat sheds due to the significant number of R2 zoned properties located on the waterfront;

·    Prohibit medium density dwellings such as attached dwellings and multi dwelling housing in accordance with the principle of developing a hierarchy of residential zones where medium density development is  removed from the low density zone to protect its character and amenity;

·    Prohibit places of public worship due to the adverse amenity impacts considered to be generated by these uses. However, the existing places of public worship will retain their use through the inclusion of these sites in Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses.

149.       The R3 Medium Density Residential zone prohibits residential flat buildings in accordance with the principle of developing a hierarchy of residential zones where high density development is removed from the medium density zone to protect the character and amenity of the area.

150.       The R4 High Density Residential zone permits hostels, hotel and motel accommodation, restaurants or cafes, serviced apartments, shops, and small bars to facilitate the creation of active places in areas with high residential density to improve the liveability of apartment living and promote social interactions. These areas are located in accessible locations that encourage walking and have the potential to become destinations for shopping, dining and meeting people.

 

151.       Permit artisan food and drink industries in all business zones to create lively centres by expanding the types of retail and food offered.

152.       The B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone permits service stations to remove these uses from Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses under the HLEP 2012 and to recognise these as an integral land use in servicing the local community.

153.       The B3 Commercial Core zone permits tourist and visitor accommodation to accommodate the significant presence of international students and visitors staying within the Hurstville City Centre.

154.       The B4 Mixed Use zone permits helipads to support the existing medical presence in the Kogarah Town Centre and Hurstville City Centre by enabling helicopters as a form of emergency transportation.

155.       The B6 Enterprise Corridor zone permits function centres, neighbourhood supermarkets, restaurants or cafes, and small bars to facilitate the activation within this zone.

156.       The IN2 Light Industrial zone prohibits business premises to ensure industrial uses remain as the primary land use in this zone. However,  funeral homes are excluded from this prohibition as they are considered to be an appropriate land use due to the absence of sensitive land uses in this zone.

 

Temporary use of land

157.       This clause allows development consent to be granted for a temporary use provided it does not compromise future development of the land, or cause any detrimental economic, social, amenity or environmental effects.

158.       Within a period of 12 months, both existing LEPs permit the temporary use of land in any zone for a maximum of 28 days.

159.       This Planning Proposal seeks to increase the number of days permitted to 52 days within each year to encourage temporary events like farmers markets at local schools on a weekly basis.

 

Exempt and complying development

160.       Under Part 3 of the Standard Instrument LEP, councils can nominate to permit exempt and complying development in addition to those specified in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (“Codes SEPP”). The list of additional exempt development is listed in Schedule 2 whilst the list of additional complying development is listed in Schedule 3.

161.       This Planning Proposal seeks to delete the exempt developments nominated in Schedule 2 of the HLEP 2012 and KLEP 2012 because these uses are already contained within the Codes SEPP, and to rely on the provisions of the Codes SEPP.

162.       No changes are proposed to the list of additional complying development in Schedule 3 as both existing LEPs solely rely on the provisions of the Codes SEPP.

 

Development standards

163.       Part 4 of the Standard Instrument LEP provides development standards relating to the use of land. Many of the provisions are optional, but if adopted contain standard content that can be tailored to local conditions. Development standards in the LEP may include controls relating to:

 

·    Minimum lot size

·    Minimum subdivision lot size

·    Minimum lot width

·    Maximum height of buildings

·    Maximum floor space ratio (“FSR”)

 

164.       This Planning Proposal seeks to include a range of principal development standards in the new LEP 2020 based on the Overarching Principles as outlined above in this report.

165.       The proposed development standards are a combination of existing controls as result of the harmonisation process and new controls to address gaps or discrepancies between the existing LEPs.

166.       This section of the report provides an overview of the proposed development standards. It should be noted that the summary of proposed controls below is arranged by development typology for ease of reference and is not structured in accordance with the format of the Standard Instrument LEP:

 

·    Residential development standards:

o Dwelling houses in the R2 Low Density Residential zone

o Dual occupancies in all residential zones

o Attached dwellings, manor houses, multi dwelling housing and multi dwelling housing (terraces) in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone

o R4 High Density Residential zone

 

·    Non-residential development standards:

o Business zones (B1 Neighbourhood Centre, B2 Local Centre, B3 Commercial Core, B4 Mixed Use and B6 Enterprise Corridor)

o IN2 Light Industrial zone

 

167.       Refer to Attachment 4 for a detailed justification of the proposed development standards supported by diagrams and 3D model testing.

 

Residential Development Standards – Dwelling Houses

168.       Dwelling houses are proposed to be permitted in all residential zones. However, the focus of the proposed development standards outlined in Table 7 below is specifically applicable to the R2 Low Density Residential zone where dwelling houses are the predominant residential development typology.

 

Table 7 – Existing and proposed controls for dwelling houses

Development Standard

HLEP 2012

KLEP 2012

GRLEP 2020

Minimum subdivision lot size (non-FSPA)

450sqm

550sqm

450sqm

Minimum subdivision lot size (FSPA)

550sqm

(FSPA)

700sqm (foreshore localities)

700sqm

Height of buildings

9m

9m

9m

Floor space ratio

0.55:1 for lots with a site area of ≤630sqm

0.55:1 for lots with a site area of <650sqm

0.55:1 for lots with a site area of ≤650sqm

Sliding scale formula for lots with a site area of >630sqm

Sliding scale formula for lots with a site area of ≥650sqm

Sliding scale formula for lots with a site area of >650sqm

 

169.       The minimum subdivision lot size of 450sqm is adopted for R2 zones outside of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (“FSPA”) to ensure a consistent control is applied across the LGA and facilitate the delivery of the 2036 housing target. This will result in approximately 600 lots in the Blakehurst and Kogarah Wards gaining the potential to subdivide, thereby creating an additional housing supply of 600 dwellings.

170.       The FSPA is an additional local provision which seeks to protect the scenic and landscape amenity of the foreshore area by ensuring landscaping and vegetation have visual dominance over buildings. Further explanation regarding the FSPA is provided under the “Additional local provisions” section of this report.

171.       Both existing LEPs present a correlation between foreshore localities and increased lot size requirements. Properties in these areas generally require larger lot sizes because of factors such as the requirement for more landscaping to be provided, more generous traditional subdivision patterns due to topography constraints, and buildings needing increased setbacks to encourage sharing of views to the water. The increase in lot size for foreshore localities enables developments in these areas to meet these requirements.

172.       The minimum subdivision lot size of 700sqm is adopted for R2 zones within the FSPA in accordance with the principle of applying a consistent set of controls across the two former LGAs. This means that the minimum subdivision lot size of properties within the existing FSPA in the Hurstville, Mortdale and Peakhurst Wards is increased from 550sqm under the HLEP 2012 to 700sqm under the proposed GRLEP 2020.

173.       Despite the increase in minimum subdivision lot size, the development potential of these properties remains unchanged. This is due to the proposed retention of the existing 1,000sqm minimum dual occupancy lot size requirement in these areas, where dual occupancies remain permissible despite the potential loss of development capacity for two dwelling houses. Further explanation is provided below under the “dual occupancies” subheading of this report.

174.       The existing maximum building height of 9m and the maximum FSR of 0.55:1 for lots with site areas of 650sqm or less is being retained as these are common across both existing LEPs.

175.       The sliding scale FSR formula for larger lots is retained as it has been effective in both LEPs in regulating the bulk and scale of dwelling houses on larger lots. In both existing LEPs, the minimum lot size of dual occupancies is used as the trigger for this development standard – 630sqm under HLEP 2012 and 650sqm under KLEP 2012.

 

176.       The proposed formula has been adapted from the HLEP 2012 gross floor area (“GFA”) formula as this will ensure that no lot, irrespective of lot size will lose GFA due to harmonisation of the LEPs. The proposed sliding scale GFA formula begins at the threshold lot size of 650sqm to reflect the proposed minimum dual occupancy lot size of 650sqm.

 

Residential Development Standards – Dual Occupancies

177.       Dual occupancies are proposed to be permitted in all residential zones. However, the R2 Low Density Residential zone is the preferred location for this development typology. Accordingly, the proposed standards as outlined in Table 8 below are applied to dual occupancies in all residential zones.

 

Table 8 – Existing and proposed controls for dual occupancies

Development Standard

HLEP 2012

KLEP 2012

GRLEP 2020

Minimum lot size (non-FSPA)

630sqm

(proposed 650sqm)

650sqm

650sqm

Minimum lot size (FSPA)

1,000sqm (FSPA)

1,000sqm (foreshore localities)

1,000sqm

Minimum subdivision lot size (non-FSPA)

N/A

300sqm

300sqm

Minimum subdivision lot size (FSPA)

N/A

300sqm

430sqm

Minimum lot width (attached, side by side)

15m (Interim DCP)

15m

Minimum lot width (attached / detached, front and back)

18m (Interim DCP)

18m

Minimum lot width (detached, side by side)

22m (Interim DCP)

22m

Height of buildings

9m

9m

9m

Floor space ratio

0.6:1

0.55:1 for lots with a site area of <650sqm

0.6:1 for lots with a site area of ≤1,000sqm

Sliding scale formula for lots with a site area of ≥650sqm

Sliding scale formula for lots with a site area of >1,000sqm

 

178.       In response to the temporary deferral to the commencement of the Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code (“LRMDHC”), Council has prepared a Planning Proposal which seeks to apply a minimum lot size of 650sqm for dual occupancies consistently across all of the residential zoned land outside of the FSPA. Council endorsed the Planning Proposal at its meeting on 22 July 2019 and the Planning Proposal is currently with DPIE for finalisation.

 

179.       It is anticipated that the 650sqm minimum lot size for dual occupancies will come into effect under HLEP 2012 before the gazettal of the GRLEP 2020. For this reason, 650sqm is adopted as the proposed minimum lot size for dual occupancies in this Planning Proposal.

180.       The existing minimum dual occupancy lot size of 1,000sqm is retained for residential zoned land within the FSPA as this is consistent with both existing LEPs.

181.       It should be noted that the GRLEP 2020 proposes a reduction in the extent of the existing FSPA under the HLEP 2012 which will result in the removal of a number of properties from the existing FSPA. This means that the minimum 650sqm dual occupancy lot size will apply to these properties. In summary, the reduction in the FSPA enables approx. 740 lots to gain the potential to develop dual occupancies.

182.       To accompany the minimum lot size requirements, this Planning Proposal includes minimum subdivision lot sizes for dual occupancies to ensure the proposed development will be located on reasonably sized lots that allow adequate amenity, including open space, setbacks, privacy and solar access.

183.       The existing 300sqm minimum subdivision lot size is carried over from KLEP 2012 for areas outside of the FSPA whilst an increased subdivision lot size of 430sqm is proposed for areas within the FSPA to enable developments to respect the topography, landscaping and amenity of the foreshore area by providing increased setbacks and landscaping without compromising the size of dwellings.

184.       Since Council’s amalgamation, it has been acknowledged that the assessment of low density residential development throughout the LGA has appeared inconsistent due to the difference of controls located within the existing Hurstville and Kogarah DCPs.

185.       An Interim Policy Development Control Plan (“Interim DCP”) was adopted by Council on 11 June 2019 which harmonises a number of controls for the purpose of maintaining and enhancing the LGA’s local character through a consistent approach, including the harmonisation of lot width controls for the various types of dual occupancies. The Interim DCP came into effect on 22 July 2019.

186.       This Planning Proposal seeks to adopt the existing lot width controls within the Interim DCP in the LEP to ensure that local character is maintained and achieved in future dual occupancy developments whilst also giving the frontage requirement greater legal weight and ensuring variations are comprehensively considered through the merit-based assessment process.

187.       The existing maximum building height of 9m is retained as this is common across both existing LEPs.

188.       The maximum FSR of 0.6:1 is adopted for dual occupancies proposed on lots with site areas of 1,000sqm or less to promote greater housing choice by supporting the delivery of dual occupancies. These lots are predominately located outside of the FSPA.

189.       During the harmonisation process, it was identified that whilst the KLEP 2012 retains the sliding scale FSR for dual occupancies on larger lots, the HLEP 2012 applies a FSR of 0.6:1 for all dual occupancy developments irrespective of lot size. As a result, larger lots, which are located predominately along the Georges River foreshore, are able to accommodate very large dual occupancies of a bulk and scale inconsistent with a low density residential area.

190.       A sliding scale approach is therefore required to regulate the density, bulk and scale of dual occupancies in foreshore localities where the minimum lot size requirement is 1,000sqm. The proposed sliding scale FSR is applied to all dual occupancies on lots with site areas of more than 1,000sqm.

 

Residential Development Standards – Medium Density Development

191.       In accordance with the principle of developing a hierarchy of residential zones, the R3 Medium Density Residential zone accommodates ‘true’ medium density developments by permitting the following land uses:

·    Attached dwellings

·    Manor house – new land use term introduced by the LRMDHC

·    Multi dwelling housing

·    Multi dwelling house (terraces) – new land use term introduced by the LRMDHC

 

192.       The following controls outlined in Table 9 below are only applied to the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

Table 9 – Existing and proposed controls for medium density residential developments

Development Standard

HLEP 2012

KLEP 2012

GRLEP 2020

Minimum lot size

945sqm

(multi dwelling housing) (Hurstville DCP No.1)

800sqm

(multi dwelling housing)

800sqm

Minimum lot width -attached dwellings

15m

(Hurstville DCP No.1)

20m

(Kogarah DCP)

21m

Minimum lot width - manor houses

N/A

N/A

18m

Minimum lot width - multi dwelling housing

15m

(Hurstville DCP No.1)

20m

(Kogarah DCP)

18m

Minimum lot width - multi dwelling housing (terraces)

N/A

N/A

21m

Height of buildings

9m

9m

9m

Floor space ratio

0.6:1

0.7:1

0.7:1

 

193.       This Planning Proposal seeks to adopt the 800sqm minimum lot size for all medium density developments as there has been no recorded Clause 4.6 variation to this development standard under KLEP 2012 since the implementation of this control in 2017 which demonstrates the viability and feasibility of this requirement. It is anticipated that the implementation of this control, as opposed to adopting the 945sqm requirement under the Hurstville DCP No.1, will facilitate the delivery of more medium density housing across the LGA which will in turn assist in providing more housing choice and diversity.

194.       A minimum lot width requirement for multi dwelling housing is currently within the existing Hurstville and Kogarah DCPs. Inclusion of this development standard within the LEP reinforces the desired future character of the LGA’s medium density zones whilst also giving the frontage requirement greater legal weight and ensuring variations are comprehensively considered through the merit-based assessment process.

 

195.       Based on the assessment of development applications and design analysis (refer Attachment 4), it is considered that a 15m wide lot is too narrow to accommodate a driveway along one side boundary and private open space for the multi dwelling units along the opposite side boundary. Therefore, an 18m lot width requirement is proposed to provide a desirable development outcome.

196.       An 18m minimum lot width is also proposed to apply to manor houses to ensure consistency with multi dwelling housing so that flexibility is provided for the development industry to deliver various medium density residential typologies based on market demand.

197.       A greater minimum lot width of 21m is proposed for attached dwellings and multi dwelling housing (terraces) due to the requirement for these typologies to have all dwellings facing the street. A 21m lot width provides for 3 dwellings of 6m wide each as well as 1.5m side setbacks along both side boundaries.

198.       The existing maximum building height of 9m is retained as this is common across both existing LEPs. This height will be consistently applied to all development in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

199.       It should be noted that an additional control is proposed to complement the objectives of this clause in ensuring appropriate transition is provided between medium and low density residential zones. The proposed additional control specifies that in a multi dwelling housing development, the dwelling that is located immediately adjacent to the rear boundary is to have a maximum height of 5m.

200.       A maximum FSR of 0.7:1 is adopted as per the existing KLEP 2012. This FSR will be consistently applied to all development in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

Residential Development Standards – R4 High Density Residential zone

201.       In accordance with the principle of developing a hierarchy of residential zones, this Planning Proposal translates areas zoned R3 Medium Density Residential with a height of 12m or greater under the existing LEPs to be zoned R4 High Density Residential under the GRLEP 2020. However, no changes are proposed to the existing height of buildings and FSRs.

202.       The following controls outlined in Table 10 below are only applied to the R4 High Density Residential zone.

 

Table 10 – Existing and proposed controls for the R4 High Density Residential zone

Development Standard

HLEP 2012

KLEP 2012

GRLEP 2020

Minimum subdivision lot size

N/A

N/A

1,000sqm

Minimum lot size (residential flat buildings)

Nil

1,000sqm

Nil

Height of buildings and floor space ratio

Type A

·    12m height of buildings

·    1:1 FSR

 

Type B

·    15m height of buildings

·    1.5:1 FSR

 

Type C

·    21m height of buildings

·    2:1 FSR

 

Type D

·    33m height of buildings

·    4:1 FSR

Retain existing

 

 

203.       A minimum subdivision lot size of 1,000sqm is proposed to prevent fragmentation of land within the R4 High Density Residential zone so that large parcels of land are available for high density development outcomes that are compatible with the objectives of this zone.

204.       The existing minimum lot size requirement for residential flat buildings under the KLEP 2012 is not proposed to be translated into the GRLEP 2020 due to the limited number of lots available for development in the proposed R4 High Density Residential zone, many of which are isolated and have various height and FSR requirements.

205.       For example, the bulk and scale resulting from Type A controls is distinctly different to the development outcomes resulting from Type D controls and considerations such as minimum lot size and minimum lot width for residential flat buildings require site-specific and place-based analysis.

206.       Accordingly, minimum lot size and minimum lot width controls for residential flat buildings will be investigated in the development of the Georges River DCP 2020.

 

Non-residential Development Standards – Business Zones

207.       In accordance with the staged approach of preparing the principal Georges River LEP, it should be noted that this Planning Proposal does not review the maximum height of buildings and FSRs of any business zoned land. A comprehensive review of these controls will be conducted in Part 2 of the Commercial Centres Strategy to inform the preparation of Stage 3 of the LEP process.

208.       Currently, only the KLEP 2012 applies a minimum subdivision lot size for business zoned land. For the purpose of harmonisation, the minimum subdivision lot size control has been removed from all business zones to apply a consistent approach across the LGA. This is based on the absence of subdivision applications for business zoned land in recent years. The removal of this control is aligned with the overarching principles of ensuring that controls are equitable across the LGA. Imposing a 500sqm minimum subdivision lot size is considered to be unjustified and onerous at this stage in the absence of a comprehensive review of the heights and FSRs in the business zones.

209.       This Planning Proposal proposes to introduce a minimum non-residential FSR requirement for all business zones that permit residential development as outlined below in Table 11:

 

Table 11 – Proposed minimum non-residential FSR

Centres Strategy Classification

Centre Name

Proposed

Strategic centre

Hurstville City Centre (B4 zone only)

1:1

Strategic centre

Kogarah Town Centre (B4 zone)

1:1

Local centre

B2 – Beverly Hills (King Georges Road)

0.5:1

Local centre

B2 – Kingsgrove (Kingsgrove Road)

0.5:1

Local centre

B2 – Mortdale (Morts Road)

0.5:1

Local centre

B1 – Oatley West (Mulga Road)

0.5:1

Local centre

B2 – Penshurst (Penshurst Street)

0.5:1

Local centre

B2 – Riverwood (Belmore Road)

0.5:1

Local centre

B2 – South Hurstville (King Georges Road)

0.5:1

Enterprise corridor

B6 – Carlton Enterprise Corridor

Retain as 0.7:1

All other 38 centres (villages, small villages and neighbourhood centres)

Retain as 0.3:1

 

210.       A minimum non-residential FSR of 0.3:1 is currently required for development in B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones under the HLEP 2012. A minimum non-residential FSR requirement of 0.7:1 is required for development in the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone under the KLEP 2012.

211.       Council’s draft Commercial Centres Strategy – Part 1 identifies that the existing minimum non-residential FSR requirement is insufficient to support the growing population or to meet South District Plan job targets by 2036. To ensure the ongoing viability of centres, this Planning Proposal proposes an interim solution to reduce the loss of employment floor space through infill development.

212.       A minimum non-residential FSR requirement is proposed in accordance with the centres hierarchy developed in Part 1 of the Commercial Centres Strategy, rather than the zoning of the centre. The proposed centres hierarchy is based on the existing provision of retail floor space within each centre. Further detail regarding the Commercial Centres Strategy is provided above under the “Key Council Strategies and Studies” heading of this report.

213.       Further increases to the non-residential FSR requirement will be investigated in Stage 3 of the LEP process as part of the comprehensive review of the development standards of all business zones across the LGA.

Non-residential Development Standards – IN2 Light Industrial zone

214.       This Planning Proposal seeks to review the existing development standards applied to the IN2 Light Industrial zone in light of the South District Plan Action to retain and manage all industrial land in the Georges River LGA. The proposed controls are outlined in Table 12 below:

 

Table 12 – Existing and proposed controls for IN2 Light Industrial zone

Development Standard

HLEP 2012

KLEP 2012

GRLEP 2020

Minimum subdivision lot size

N/A

750sqm

1,000sqm and 2,500sqm

Height of buildings

10m

10m

12m and 16m

Floor space ratio

1:1

1:1

1:1 (as existing)

 

215.       Increased minimum subdivision lot sizes are proposed for the IN2 Light Industrial zone to prevent the fragmentation of larger lots so the LGA’s industrial and urban services land is retained for employment and the operation of a diverse range of industrial uses, such as warehousing which requires large floor plates.

216.       A larger lot size of 2,500sqm will apply to the entire Kingsgrove Industrial Estate (refer Figure 7 below) and parts of the Peakhurst Industrial Estate within the area outlined in black (refer Figure 8 below).

 

Figure 7 – Kingsgrove Industrial Estate

 

Figure 8 – Peakhurst Industrial Estate

 

 

217.       It is also proposed to amend the height controls of the IN2 zone to 12m except for the Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct and part of Peakhurst Industrial Precinct where the height control will be increased to 16m. The increase in heights enables industrial lots to achieve an FSR of 1:1, provide flexibility in built form for different land uses, improve development viability within the IN2 zone, as well as reduce the pressure for rezoning to residential which is often sought at the detriment of the LGA’s employment lands.

218.       The increase to 16m is appropriate at Kingsgrove as it has a limited interface with residential zones. The 16m height and increased minimum subdivision lot size is also applied to the areas within the centre of the Peakhurst Industrial Precinct (as outlined in black above in Figure 8).

219.       Due to the residential interface of the Peakhurst Industrial Precinct, this Planning Proposal seeks to apply the lower height control of 12m to the perimeter of the Precinct where the minimum subdivision lot size of 1,000sqm is proposed. This is applied to the properties located outside of the black outlined in Figure 8 above.

 

Land acquisition

220.       The HLEP 2012 and KLEP 2012 include land acquisitions for RE1 Local open space, RE1 Regional open space and SP2 Classified road. These land acquisitions have been translated into the GRLEP 2020 with the exception of sites that have already been acquired by the relevant authority which have been removed from the Land Reservation Acquisition Map (refer Attachment 8).   

221.       In response to the LSPS vision to deliver additional open space across the LGA, especially in areas of housing growth, this Planning Proposal includes three new areas for RE1 Local open space acquisition by Council.

222.       The funding sources for the current acquisitions as specified by the existing LEPs and additional acquisitions proposed by the GRLEP 2020 will be considered as part of the preparation of the Georges River Development Contributions Plan. The new development contributions plan is currently being prepared in parallel with the LSPS 2040 and GRLEP 2020 and is anticipated to be finalised in June 2020. 

 

223.       Area 1: 26-30 Culwulla Street, South Hurstville (refer Figure 9 below) which is situated in Housing Investigation Area No. 4. Acquisition of the proposed properties will enable the creation of a larger park in an area identified for housing growth and enable through site access between Culwulla Street and Joffre Street.

 

Figure 9 – Location of 26 – 30 Culwulla Street, South Hurstville

 

224.       The proposed land acquisitions are in addition to the existing acquisitions at No. 25 and 29 Joffre Street which are identified on the Land Reservation Acquisition Map under the KLEP 2012 (refer Figure 10 below). No. 27 Joffre Street has already been acquired by Council.

Figure 10 – Extract of the existing Land Reservation Acquisition Map identifying No. 25 and 29 Joffre Street (KLEP 2012)

 

225.       Area 2: 11-21 Monaro Avenue, Kingsgrove (refer Figure 11 below) which comprises half of the eastern street block surrounding Peter Lowe Reserve. Acquisition of the proposed properties will enable the expansion of the existing reserve and facilitate improved access to the park, safety and public surveillance.

 

226.       These properties have been identified as the most appropriate for acquisition due to their location being at the end of McGregor Street. McGregor Street offers on-street car parking which makes it a suitable entrance to the Reserve. The acquisition of these properties will also provide direct visual sight lines to the largest portion of the park to ensure a sufficient level of public surveillance into the Reserve.

 

Figure 11 – Location of 11-21 Monaro Avenue, Kingsgrove

 

227.       Area 3: 7 Hedley Street, Riverwood and 13 and 15 Keith Street, Peakhurst (refer Figure 12 below) which are located at the north eastern end of Peakhurst Park. Acquisition of the proposed properties will enable the expansion of the park in an area identified for housing growth (Housing Investigation Area No. 3) and facilitate improved access to the park.

Figure 12 – Location of 7 Hedley Street, Riverwood and 13 and 15 Keith Street, Peakhurst

 

228.       This Planning Proposal also seeks to include a 3m wide local road widening along Roberts Lane, Hurstville, to support the future redevelopment of the Landmark Square Precinct, an area subject to a separate Planning Proposal for increased densities at the eastern bookend of the Hurstville City Centre. It should be noted that the Landmark Square Precinct Planning Proposal is currently with DPIE for gazettal.

 

229.       The proposed local road widening is intended to enable continuous two-way vehicle access, access for service vehicles such as delivery and waste collection trucks, and the provision of a continuous pedestrian footpath with street planting on Roberts Lane.

230.       Land reservation acquisition is only applied to 53 Forest Road, 9 Roberts Lane and 108 Durham Street, and excludes the portion located at 61-65 Forest Road as this portion is proposed to be dedicated to Council as part of the Voluntary Planning Agreement associated with the Landmark Square Precinct Planning Proposal (refer Figure 13 below).

 

Figure 13 – Local road widening along Roberts Lane

 

Miscellaneous provisions

231.       Part 5 of the Standard Instrument LEP provides a series of miscellaneous provisions, of which some are compulsory and some are optional.

232.       This Planning Proposal seeks to retain the miscellaneous provisions identified in the existing LEPs with the exception of the following optional Standard Instrument LEP clauses which do not currently add any value to the merit-based development assessment process:

 

·    Clause 5.3 Development near zone boundaries

 

233.       Clause 5.3 currently only applies to the SP2 Infrastructure zone in both existing LEPs and enables land uses which are permissible within an adjoining zone to be permissible within a SP2 zone. The permissibility of non-infrastructure land uses in the SP2 zone may compromise the provision of infrastructure to service the community. Accordingly, the retention of this clause within the GRLEP 2020 is considered to be inconsistent with the intent of the LSPS which seeks to deliver infrastructure, services and facilities.

 

·    Clause 5.6 Architectural roof features

 

234.       Clause 5.6 is in both existing LEPs to permit roof features that exceed the maximum building height if they display architectural design excellence.

235.       This clause is proposed to be removed in the GRLEP 2020 as architectural design excellence considerations in general will be subject to the provisions of a new design excellence local provision. The proposed local provision provides a more comprehensive assessment of the merits of a development, including those that seek to exceed the maximum building height. Further detail regarding the proposed design excellence local provision is provided later in this report.

 

Miscellaneous permissible uses

236.       This Planning Proposal also seeks to harmonise the gross floor area (“GFA”) requirements for miscellaneous permissible uses, which is a mandated clause under the Standard Instrument LEP. Existing controls are retained where they are consistent in both the HLEP 2012 and KLEP 2012.

237.       The controls prescribed for the following miscellaneous permissible uses under the existing LEPs are inconsistent and require harmonisation under the GRLEP 2020.

·    Industrial retail outlets

·    Kiosks

·    Neighbourhood shops

·    Artisan food and drink industry exclusion

·    Secondary dwellings

 

238.       The proposed controls for the abovementioned miscellaneous permissible uses are summarised in Table 13 below:

 

Table 13 – Existing and proposed GFA for misc. permissible uses

Misc. permissible use

HLEP 2012

KLEP 2012

GRLEP 2020

Industrial retail outlets

20% of the industry’s GFA or 400sqm whichever is the lesser

20% of the industry’s GFA or 100sqm whichever is the lesser

20% of the industry’s GFA or 400sqm whichever is the lesser

Kiosks

Maximum 10sqm

Maximum 15sqm

Maximum 15sqm

Neighbourhood shops

Maximum 100sqm

Maximum 80sqm

Maximum 100sqm

Artisan food and drink industry exclusion

20% of the industry’s GFA or 400sqm whichever is the lesser

10% of the industry’s GFA or 100sqm whichever is the lesser

20% of the industry’s GFA or 400sqm whichever is the lesser

Secondary dwellings

60sqm or 10% of the principal dwelling’s GFA whichever is the greater

60sqm or 13% of the principal dwelling’s GFA whichever is the greater

60sqm or 10% of the principal dwelling’s GFA whichever is the greater

 

239.       The more generous of the two existing controls for industrial retail outlets, kiosks, neighbourhood shops, and artisan food and drink industries has been adopted to support employment generating land uses.

240.       However, a maximum 10% of total floor area as specified by the HLEP 2012 is retained in the GRLEP 2020 for secondary dwellings. This is intended to achieve consistency with the requirement specified by the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 by ensuring that the total floor area of the secondary dwelling does not exceed 60sqm.

 

Additional local provisions

241.       Part 6 of the Standard Instrument LEP provides the opportunity for additional specialised provisions to be inserted to address local issues.

242.       This Planning Proposal seeks to include a range of local provisions in the GRLEP 2020 based on the Overarching Principles as outlined above in this report.

243.       In preparing the proposed local provisions, a number of clauses are able to be harmonised through the utilisation of model local provisions released by the DPIE where applicable and the retention of local provisions in the existing LEPs.

244.       At the same time, this Planning Proposal proposes significant amendments to some existing local provisions and proposes a number of new specialised provisions to give effect to the South District Plan and to meet the LSPS vision for the LGA.

245.       Several amendments have also been made to the proposed local provisions in response to the recommendations made by the LPP at its meeting dated 17 October 2019. Further information is provided in Table 4 above.

246.       All proposed local provisions have been prepared with the understanding that Clause 4.6 may be utilised to address non-compliance with a development standard, including those specified in Part 6 of the LEP. In this context, the term “development standards” is defined by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as follows:

 

development standards means provisions of an environmental planning instrument or the regulations in relation to the carrying out of development, being provisions by or under which requirements are specified or standards are fixed in respect of any aspect of that development, including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, requirements or standards in respect of:

(a) the area, shape or frontage of any land, the dimensions of any land, buildings or works, or the distance of any land, building or work from any specified point,

(b) the proportion or percentage of the area of a site which a building or work may occupy,

(c)  the character, location, siting, bulk, scale, shape, size, height, density, design or external appearance of a building or work,

(d) the cubic content or floor space of a building,

(e) the intensity or density of the use of any land, building or work,

(f)   the provision of public access, open space, landscaped space, tree planting or other treatment for the conservation, protection or enhancement of the environment,

(g) the provision of facilities for the standing, movement, parking, servicing, manoeuvring, loading or unloading of vehicles,

(h) the volume, nature and type of traffic generated by the development,

(i)   road patterns,

(j)   drainage,

(k)  the carrying out of earthworks,

(l)   the effects of development on patterns of wind, sunlight, daylight or shadows,

(m)        the provision of services, facilities and amenities demanded by development,

(n) the emission of pollution and means for its prevention or control or mitigation, and

(o) such other matters as may be prescribed.

247.       With consideration to the above, a number of local provisions (as identified below) are proposed to be excluded from the application of Clause 4.6 due to the similarity in their application to Clause 5.4 Controls relating to miscellaneous permissible uses, which cannot be varied through Clause 4.6 as mandated by the Standard Instrument LEP. Further explanation is provided for each clause later in this report:

·    Clause 6.13 Development for the purposes of dual key dwellings in Zones R2 and R3

·    Clause 6.15 Office premises in Zone IN2

·    Clause 6.16 Take away food and drink premises and restaurants or cafes in Zone IN2

248.       The intent of the proposed local provisions are summarised below.

 

Clause 6.1 Acid sulfate soils

 

249.       This clause seeks to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain acid sulfate soils and cause environmental damage.

250.       The proposed clause is based on the model local clause provided by the DPIE and is generally consistent across the existing LEPs except that the KLEP 2012 adopts a smaller distance (100m rather than the standard 500m) for works on Class 5 Land.

251.       This Planning Proposal seeks to adopt the 500m distance control for Class 5 land works in the GRLEP 2020, as specified in the model clause to provide a consistent approach across the whole LGA.

 

Clause 6.2 Earthworks

 

252.       This clause seeks to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses and amenity, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land. It also allows earthworks of a minor nature without requiring separate development consent.

253.       This clause currently only applies to the Blakehurst and Kogarah Bay Wards under the KLEP 2012. This Planning Proposal proposes to extend its application to the entire Georges River LGA to ensure consistency in the assessment of earthworks and the impact of works on the integrity of adjoining properties.

254.       Any development application affected by this clause will need to consider the impact of proposed excavation on matters, such as soil stability, soil erosion, the amenity and structural integrity of adjoining properties, and the health and vitality of existing trees. Developments will also need to be designed to complement the slope of the land to minimise the need for cut and fill and their potential height and bulk.

 

 

 

Clause 6.3 Flood planning

 

255.       This clause is currently only adopted in the KLEP 2012. The existing “flood planning areas” identified on the Flood Planning Map of the KLEP 2012 (refer Figure 14 below) are proposed to be retained.

 

Figure 14 – Existing flood planning areas

 

256.       This Planning Proposal seeks to expand the application of this clause to the whole LGA to ensure that all developments incorporate appropriate measures to manage flood hazards consistently across the LGA where there are known potential risks of flooding through the inclusion of two additional layers – a new “flood planning zone” on the existing Flood Planning Map and a new Probable Maximum Flood Map that shows the following information:

·    Probable Maximum Flood Extent;

·    Flood Prone Land; and

·    Flood Prone Zone.

257.       The proposed Flood Planning Map and Probable Maximum Flood Map are provided in Attachment 8.

258.       The flood planning zone applies to properties that are identified as affected by the 1 in 100 year flood extent in Council’s overland flow flood studies.

259.       Council has endorsed the following overland flow flood studies:

·    Overland Flow Flood Study for Hurstville, Mortdale and Peakhurst Wards – this covers all areas within the former Hurstville LGA; and

·    Moore Reserve Catchment Overland Flow Study – this covers the Moore Reserve study area in the former Kogarah LGA.

 

260.       A flood study is the first step in developing a floodplain risk management plan and involves a comprehensive technical investigation of flood behaviour within an area.

261.       Flood planning areas, such as the areas identified in the KLEP 2012 Flood Planning Map, are properties that have been formally identified as affected by the 1 in 100 year flood extent and have had the flood risk confirmed by the preparation of an endorsed floodplain risk management study and plan.

262.       The flood planning zone applies to properties that are affected by the 1 in 100 year flood extent as identified by the abovementioned overland flow flood studies, but are yet to have the flood risk confirmed by an endorsed floodplain risk management study and plan.

263.       Council is currently preparing a Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan (“the Plan”) for the Hurstville, Mortdale and Peakhurst Wards. The Plan will include a flood risk assessment of properties identified by the overland flow flood studies. The Plan will also identify strategies to reduce flood risk through both structural and non-structural measures.

264.       The outcomes of the Plan will inform whether a property located within the proposed flood planning zone will need to be formalised within the flood planning area, or whether the property may be removed from the Flood Planning Map due to the assessment deeming the site not flood prone in a 1 in 100 year flood.

265.       Flood prone lands are properties susceptible to flooding by a probable maximum flood (“PMF”) event. The PMF is the largest flood that could conceivably occur at a particular location and is calculated by combining a range of extreme conditions and probabilities. It is extremely rare but the associated risks must be addressed by developments comprising of a sensitive land use such as hospitals, schools and child care centres.

266.       The difference between the flood prone land and flood prone zone is that the risk of flooding on the flood prone land has been confirmed through the completion of a flood risk assessment whilst the flood risk assessment is yet to be completed for the flood prone zone.

267.       Similar to the process undertaken for properties located in the proposed flood planning zone, properties that are located within the proposed flood prone zone may be removed from the Probable Maximum Flood Map if the flood risk assessment deems the site not flood prone in a PMF event.

268.       If a property is identified on the proposed Flood Planning Map, or on the Probable Maximum Flood Map and is for a sensitive land use development, then the development must be appropriately designed in response to the flood risk through measures such as elevating the ground floor level. Consideration will also have to be given to whether the development is appropriate for that site given the potential flood hazard and demonstrate that it will not adversely affect flood behaviour.

 

Clause 6.4 Stormwater management

 

269.       This Planning Proposal seeks to introduce a clause relating to stormwater management to ensure the impacts of urban stormwater runoff is minimised to protect and improve the environmental health of the LGA’s waterways, namely the Georges River and Salt Pan Creek.

270.       This clause is not present in either HLEP 2012 or KLEP 2012 but a stormwater management clause adapted from the clause within the Sutherland Local Environmental Plan 2015 is proposed to apply to all new developments and substantial redevelopments in the LGA.

 

271.       If a development is proposed on land to which this clause applies, consideration must be given to the impacts of stormwater runoff on adjoining properties, native bushland, receiving waters and the downstream stormwater system and incorporate design measures to maximise on-site infiltration of water and on-site stormwater detention or retention to reduce the development’s reliance on mains supplied water if practicable.

 

Clause 6.5 Foreshore area and coastal hazards and risks

 

272.       This Planning Proposal seeks to amalgamate the existing local provisions that relate to development in the foreshore area, riparian lands and waterways as listed below due to the common objective of regulating development to minimise conflicts with natural foreshore processes and the foreshore environment:

·    Clause 6.2 Riparian land and watercourses (HLEP 2012)

·    Clause 6.3 Limited development on foreshore area (HLEP 2012)

·    Clause 6.3 Limited development on foreshore area (KLEP 2012)

273.       The intent of this clause is to enhance the protection of the natural environment along the LGA’s foreshore in line with the overarching principles of this LEP. The inclusion of the coastal hazard area based on the findings of the Tidal Inundation Study will ensure that there is a focus on addressing coastal hazards and risk through the development assessment process as the local provisions of the existing LEPs do not provide a clear link to policy on coastal hazard and risks.

274.       This clause applies to the following areas:

·    Foreshore areas – shown as the pink area between the foreshore building line and the mean high water mark on the Foreshore Building Line Map (consolidation of existing maps);

·    Sensitive lands along the water’s edge – shown as a 40m buffer zone from the mean high water mark on the Riparian Lands and Watercourses Map; and

·    Areas affected by future sea level rise – shown as year 2050 and year 2100 extents on the Coastal Hazard and Risk Line Map.

275.       The proposed maps are provided in Attachment 8.

276.       If a proposed development falls within land to which this clause applies, consideration must be given towards the impacts of sea level rise and tidal inundation as a result of climate change, impacts on the water quality of the Georges River and Salt Pan Creek, and other coastal hazards.

 

Clause 6.6 Foreshore scenic protection area

 

277.       Whilst this is an existing clause under the HLEP 2012, additional considerations regarding the protection and maintenance of the biodiversity within the foreshore scenic protection area (“FSPA”) are proposed to be included in the GRLEP 2020.

278.       This Planning Proposal also seeks to extend the existing FSPA under the HLEP 2012 to the whole LGA to consistently in accordance with the principle of achieving equity across the LGA to consistently regulate built form outcomes, reduce impacts of development on biodiversity and reinforce the dominance of vegetation and landscape over hard surfaces in the foreshore localities.

 

279.       The extent of the existing FSPA in the former Hurstville LGA has been reduced in accordance with the principles of equity and consistency. The extent of the proposed FSPA is based on the character typologies, covering areas with higher sensitivities to change, as identified by the Foreshore Strategic Directions Paper (refer Figure 2 above).

280.       However, it should be noted that whilst the character area of “Garden Suburban (Large Lots)” is identified as having higher sensitivity to change by the Paper, this area has been excluded from the proposed FSPA as most of the residential properties located in this character area are not included within the existing FSPA under the HLEP 2012.

281.       The inclusion of these properties within the FSPA would impose more stringent development controls such as an increased lot size for dual occupancy developments, thereby significantly reducing the development potential of this area which will reduce the LGA’s capacity to meet the projected housing targets.

282.       The proposed extent of the FSPA in the former Kogarah LGA has primarily been informed by the location of the foreshore localities identified within the existing Kogarah DCP and supplemented by the character typologies with higher sensitivities to change as identified by the Paper. This is due to the correlation between the existing larger lot size requirements in the foreshore localities and the FSPA.

283.       It should also be noted that whilst the character area of “Jetty’s and Marina Edge” is identified as having lower sensitivity to change in the Paper, these areas are included in the proposed FSPA for the purpose of consistently applying the FSPA to all waterfront localities across the Georges River foreshore, in accordance with the principle of achieving equity through harmonisation.

284.       The proposed extent of the FSPA is shown on the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Map as provided in Attachment 8.

285.       Under this clause, developments within the proposed FSPA will have to respond to the existing environmental, social and character values of the foreshore by ensuring development is compatible with the desired future neighbourhood character and minimise potential impacts on views to and from the Georges River, Salt Pan Creek, foreshore reserves, residential areas and public places.

 

Clause 6.7 Airspace operations

 

286.       This clause seeks to ensure that development does not interfere with aircraft operations and the community is protected from undue risk from airport operations.

287.       This clause is present within both existing LEPs so it is proposed to harmonise this provision through the utilisation of model local provisions released by the DPIE to ensure a consistent approach is adopted for the LGA.

288.       This Planning Proposal does not seek to change the intent or operation of the clause as it currently applies to land identified on the Obstacle Limitation Surface Map or the Procedures for Air Navigation Systems Operations Surface for all airports.

 

Clause 6.8 Development in areas subject to aircraft noise

 

289.       This clause seeks to ensure that development does not interfere with aircraft operations and that noise sensitive development is prevented from being located near Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport and its flight paths.

290.       It is intended that this clause will be based on the model local clause provided by DPIE which is similar to the clause adopted in the KLEP 2012.

291.       This Planning Proposal does not seek to change the intent or operation of the clause as it currently applies to land near Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport or land identified within the ANEF contour.

 

Clause 6.9 Essential services

 

292.       This clause requires that development consent must not be granted to development unless the consent authority is satisfied that services essential for the proposed development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required.

293.       This Planning Proposal seeks to include a similar clause in the GRLEP 2020 to the one currently in the HLEP 2012. It does not seek to change the intent or operation of the clause.

 

Clause 6.10 Design excellence

 

294.       In response to the LSPS vision for well-designed development, this clause has been introduced to deliver highest standards of architecture and design across the LGA.

295.       This clause applies to new developments and substantial redevelopments of 12m or taller in the business, industrial and high density residential zones.

296.       This clause also applies to developments in the FSPA such as dwelling houses, dual occupancies, bed and breakfast accommodation, health services facilities and marinas.

297.       No design competition is required by this clause. Instead, the subject development will need to be peer-reviewed by an urban designer or a registered architect appointed from Council’s panel of design experts against the heads of consideration listed in this clause, which include the suitability of the land for development, the relationship of the development with other development (existing or proposed) on the same site or on neighbouring sites in terms of separation, setbacks, amenity and urban form, bulk, massing and modulation of buildings.

 

Clause 6.11 Environmental sustainability in certain business, industrial and residential zones

 

298.       The intent of this clause is to ensure that all development with a GFA of 1,500sqm or greater in business, industrial and high density residential zones embrace the best practice principles of environmentally sustainable development.

299.       The clause requires a statement of verification to be submitted with the development application by an Australian Building Sustainability Association accredited assessor demonstrating that the development satisfies environmentally sustainable principles such as water efficiency, reducing the urban heat island effect and reducing energy demands.

 

Clause 6.12 Landscaped areas in certain residential and environmental protection zones

 

300.       The natural environment is an asset highly valued by the Georges River community. To ensure development, especially in the private domain, is accompanied by an appropriate level of landscaping, this clause has been introduced to specify minimum landscaping requirements in the residential and E2 zones.

301.       This clause seeks to ensure landscaping is a significant part of the local character by requiring the retention and provision of vegetation that contributes to biodiversity and enhances the tree canopy of the LGA, whilst minimising urban run-off, the visual impact of development and the urban heat island effect.

302.       The proposed minimum landscaped area requirements have been derived from a comparison of the landscaping requirements within the existing Hurstville and Kogarah DCPs against the requirements of the Codes SEPP (refer Table 14 below).

 

Table 14 – Comparison of landscaped area requirements

Development Type

Hurstville DCP

Kogarah DCP

Codes SEPP

Explanatory note

Applies to “landscaped open space” with minimum 2m dimensions

Applies to “deep soil” only with no minimum dimensions

Applies to “landscaped area” with minimum 1.5m dimensions

Dwelling house (non-FSPA)

20%

15%

20%

Dwelling house (FSPA)

25%

15%

30%

Dual occupancy (non-FSPA)

20%

15%

35%

Dual occupancy (FSPA)

25%

15%

40%

Medium density development (e.g. multi dwelling housing)

20%

Maximum 55% impervious area

20% for terraces

37.5% for manor houses

R4 zones (excludes SEPP 65 development)

N/A

N/A

N/A

E2 zone (only one site in the LGA)

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

303.       The proposed minimum landscaped area requirements within this clause are shown in Table 15 below. The proposed requirements are shown as a percentage of the site area.

 

Table 15 – Proposed minimum landscaped area requirement

Development

Proposed requirement

Example

Dwelling house (non-FSPA)

20%

90sqm is required on a 450sqm site

Dwelling house (FSPA)

25%

175sqm is required on a 700sqm site

Dual occupancy (non-FSPA)

20%

65sqm per lot is required on a 650sqm site

Dual occupancy (FSPA)

25%

125sqm per lot is required on a 1,000sqm site

Medium density development (e.g. multi dwelling housing)

20%

160sqm is required on a 800sqm site

R4 zones (excludes SEPP 65 development)

10%

100sqm is required on a 1,000sqm site

E2 zone (only one site in the LGA)

70%

16,520sqm is required on the 23,600sqm site

 

304.       A customised definition has also been adopted for the term “landscaped area” which expands on the existing Standard Instrument LEP definition to prescribe further details as follows:

·    Minimum 2m in width and 2m in length;

·    Minimum 75% of the total landscaped area is deep soil (area of soil unimpeded by buildings or structures above and below ground); and

·    Maximum 25% of the total landscaped area can be hard paved areas (including both semi-permeable and permeable surfaces).

 

Clause 6.13 Development for the purposes of dual key dwellings in Zones R2 and R3

 

305.       As a local response to facilitating the delivery of housing choice across the LGA, this clause seeks to enable the development of an ‘internal secondary dwelling’ up to a maximum of 75sqm GFA that is wholly contained within the building envelope of an existing principal dwelling.

306.       This clause has been developed in response to the findings of the Evidence Base for the Local Housing Strategy which identifies that the LGA needs to provide a greater diversity of dwellings to accommodate both the ageing population who are looking to downsize in their local area and the younger working age group who are looking for affordable accommodation.

307.       To incentivise the conversion of under-utilised spaces within existing dwellings, such as an empty-nester’s larger family home, an ‘internal secondary dwelling’ may be proposed with up to 75sqm GFA. An example of a dual key dwelling development would be the conversion of a ‘rumpus room’ into a separate dwelling.

308.       As dual key dwellings would be wholly contained with the existing building envelope, they would have no impact on the streetscape character of low and medium density neighbourhoods.

309.       It should be noted that since secondary dwellings are a permissible land use within the proposed R2 Low Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential zones under the GRLEP 2020, an alternative term is required to identify this form of ‘internal secondary dwelling’ to ensure the two development typologies can be differentiated.

310.       The term “dual key dwelling” is proposed, referencing the dual key apartment product where there is a self-contained studio accessed by a shared hallway inside the main apartment. Alternative references such as “studios” were considered but not adopted due to the similarities between the term and “studio apartments”.

311.       It is proposed that this provision be excluded from the application of Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards to ensure the density of the development is appropriate in low and medium density residential areas.

 

 

Clause 6.14 Development in certain business zones

 

312.       This clause is intended to replace the existing Active Street Frontage local provision in the HLEP 2012 and be applied to all business zones across the LGA where shop top housing is permitted.

313.       The aims of this clause are to promote uses that attract pedestrian traffic at street level and provide active, commercial uses at the street frontage as any development within the B1, B2, B4 and B6 Zones must not include a residential land use or tourist and visitor accommodation on the ground floor of a building that is facing a street.

314.       This clause also implements the requirement for a minimum of 500sqm of non-residential floor space to be provided at the ground floor of developments in the B6 Enterprise Corridor zone to facilitate the development of large floor plates that are capable of accommodating a range of employment uses, including specialised retail premises and light industrial uses.

315.       It should be noted that this clause is intended to complement the minimum non-residential FSR requirement in its application so that opportunities are maintained for business and retail development in commercial centres.

 

Clause 6.15 Office premises in Zone IN2

 

316.       To facilitate greater economic viability of developments in industrial zones and to facilitate the contemporary adaptation and development of industrial and warehouse buildings, this clause seeks to permit additional office floor space.

317.       The intent of this local provision is aligned with the South District Plan and LSPS priority to support industrial land development.

318.       In addition to an office floor space associated with the primary industrial use, it is proposed that additional office premises equating to a maximum of 10% of the GFA of the industrial activity and its office premise located on the same land may be permitted.

319.       It is proposed that this provision be excluded from the application of Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards to ensure industrial uses remain the core land use in the IN2 Light Industrial zone.

 

Clause 6.16 Take away food and drink premises and restaurants or café in Zone IN2

 

320.       This clause seeks to meet the needs of those who work within or visit the industrial precincts while ensuring that the town centres retain the focus for business and retail activity by limiting the size of food and drink retailing in the industrial zone.

321.       It is proposed that a maximum of 20% of the GFA of the industrial activity located on the same land or 200sqm, whichever is the lesser, may be permitted for food and drink retailing in the IN2 zone.

322.       It is proposed that this provision be excluded from the application of Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards to ensure industrial uses remain the core land use in the IN2 Light Industrial zone.

 

 

Clause 6.17 Creative industries in Zone IN2

 

323.       This local provision is intended to encourage a diverse range of industries (including creative and innovative industries) that do not compete with commercial centres and do not compromise industrial and urban services within the IN2 Light Industrial zone.

324.       The proposed provision will apply to two areas: the Penshurst Lane, Penshurst (refer Figure 15 below) and Halstead Street, South Hurstville (refer Figure 16 below) industrial precincts.

 

Figure 15 – Penshurst Lane, Penshurst industrial precinct

 

Figure 16 – Halstead Street, South Hurstville industrial precinct

 

325.       Council’s Industrial Land Review has identified that these areas are compromised by their location in terms of attracting industrial uses and investment. The types of industrial activities that can be located in these precincts are constrained due to the amenity impacts of traditional industrial land uses on the surrounding low density residential land.

326.       This clause seeks to foster a diverse range of industries within the above precincts, including creative and innovative industries such as media, advertising, fine arts and craft, design, film and television, music, publishing, performing arts, cultural heritage institutions or other related purposes.

 

327.       It is proposed that development comprising of offices and spaces for creative and innovative industries within these precincts will be exempt from the office floor area restriction prescribed by Clause 6.15 (Office Premises in Zone IN2) above.

 

Clause 6.18 Location of sex services premises

 

328.       This is an existing provision under both existing LEPs. This clause seeks to minimise land use conflicts and adverse amenity impacts by providing a reasonable level of separation between sex services premises, specified land uses and places regularly frequented by children.

329.       The proposed clause in GRLEP 2020 does not seek to change the intent or operation of the existing clauses.

 

Schedules

330.       The proposed changes to the Schedules of the existing LEPs are summarised below.

 

Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses

 

331.       This Schedule identifies additional land uses that are permitted on a site that are not identified in the Land Use Table or other planning instruments, such as a State Environmental Planning Policy.

332.       This Planning Proposal seeks to continue the range of additional permitted uses for identified sites and locations in the existing LEPs by consolidating the schedules of additional permitted uses under the HLEP 2012 and KLEP 2012.

333.       The Planning Proposal also proposes a number of key amendments to Schedule 1 as follows:

 

·    In accordance with the Council resolution dated 8 July 2019 regarding the Planning Proposal for the LRMDHC:

o Delete Items 17 and 18 (Use of certain land for multi dwelling housing) from Schedule 1 of KLEP 2012  to prevent manor houses, multi dwelling housing (terraces), villas and townhouses from being built through a development application;

·    In accordance with the recommendations of the Commercial Centres Strategy – Part 1:

o Delete Item 16(ja) (Use of certain land for limited commercial and residential purposes - 129 Laycock Road, Hurstville Grove) from Schedule 1 of KLEP 2012  and incorporate the site into the adjacent business zone; and

o Delete Item 16(la) (Use of certain land for limited commercial and residential purposes - 29–31 Rocky Point Road, Kogarah) from Schedule 1 of KLEP 2012  and incorporate the site into the adjacent business zone;

·    In accordance with the legal advice received from Counsel:

o Insert all sites in the R2 Low Density Residential zone where there is an existing place of public worship to ensure its permissibility following the prohibition of places of public worship in the R2 Low Density Residential zone of the GRLEP 2020; and

·    In accordance with the LSPS vision for Jubilee Stadium to be a regionally significant sporting and entertainment hub:

o Insert ‘entertainment facility’ as an additional permitted use at Jubilee Stadium due to the prohibition of entertainment facilities across the RE1 Public Recreation zone.

 

Schedule 2 Exempt development

 

334.       Schedule 2 allows Council to nominate additional exempt development to those specified in SEPPs, such as the Codes SEPP. This Planning Proposal seeks to delete the existing exempt development provisions and rely on the provisions of the Codes SEPP.

 

Schedule 3 Complying development

 

335.       Similar to Schedule 2, Schedule 3 allows Council to nominate additional complying development to those specified in SEPPs, such as the Codes SEPP. No complying development is specified within the existing LEPs.

336.       This Planning Proposal seeks to rely on the provisions of the Codes SEPP and does not include complying development.

 

Schedule 4 Classification and reclassification of public land

 

337.       Schedule 4 provides a location for Council to capture information on the classification and reclassification of public land as either community or operational land in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993. This Schedule will appear blank for the GRLEP 2020 but may be used during the life of the LEP should changes to public land classification be adopted by Council.

338.       The details of land classification and reclassifications are recorded in Council’s register of land under section 53(2) of the Local Government Act. As no new land classifications are proposed, Schedule 4 will not be populated.

 

Schedule 5 Environmental heritage

 

339.       This Planning Proposal seeks to merge the Schedule 5 planning provisions under the existing LEPs to form Schedule 5 under the GRLEP 2020.

340.       Under the GRLEP 2020 it is proposed to delete the following 3 heritage items following review of the current HLEP 2012 heritage items as part of the Hurstville Heritage Review (refer Attachment 18):

·     78 Bonds Road, Peakhurst as the existing fabric is almost all new and the item includes substantial additions.

 

·     127-137 Forest Road, Hurstville due to the adverse impact of recent redevelopment, the significant of the item has been impacted causing loss of the physical, spatial and aesthetic context of the original building.

 

·     237 Forest Road, Hurstville as the original building has either been demolished and re-built or heavily altered.

341.       Additionally, 19 heritage items are to have their description amended to reflect their significance in relation to their built form and setting in accordance with the recommendations of the Hurstville Heritage Review.

342.       This amendment proposes the removal of the façade only description of the heritage items under HLEP 2012 by amending their descriptions to include the whole of the heritage building in GRLEP 2020. Examples are provided in Table 16 below:

 

Table 16 – Examples of heritage description amendment

Existing Description

Address

Proposed Description

I130 – Front facade of building

184 Forest Road, Hurstville

I130 – Retail building

I138 – Rendered facade of building

232–242 Forest Road, Hurstville

I138 – Group of shops

 

343.       Whilst the façade is a visually prominent feature of a heritage item, the proposed description intends to clarify the item’s significance in a holistic manner by incorporating the fabric of the item including its façade, built form and setting.

344.       This amendment is incorporated with the intent of ensuring any future development is designed to sympathetically respond to the heritage character through appropriate design solutions, adaptive re-use and interpretation.

345.       This Planning Proposal does not seek to amend any of the heritage items currently located within the former Kogarah LGA which was subject to a heritage review in 2012.

 

Schedule 6 Pond-based and tank-based aquaculture

 

346.       This Schedule provides further information on aquaculture activities, including site location and operational requirements. All items in this Schedule are compulsory and must be included in the GRLEP 2020.

 

Consistency with strategic context

347.       An assessment of the Planning Proposal against the relevant Objectives, Planning Priorities and Actions of the Greater Sydney Region Plan, South District Plan and Council’s LSPS is detailed in Attachment 3.

348.       The assessment demonstrates that the Planning Proposal assists in achieving the Planning Priorities and Actions of the LSPS and South District Plan, thereby giving effect to the District Plan. The Planning Proposal is also consistent with the directions of the Greater Sydney Region Plan.

349.       A summary of the alignment between this Planning Proposal and the relevant South District Plan and LSPS Planning Priorities is categorised by the four themes of infrastructure and collaboration, liveability, productivity and sustainability in Table 17 below:

 

 

 

Table 17 – Summary of Alignment with Planning Priorities

South District Plan Planning Priority

LSPS Planning Priority

Comment

Infrastructure and collaboration

S1. Planning for a city supported by infrastructure

 

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

P1. We have a range of frequent, efficient transport options to connect people, goods, services, businesses and educational facilities

 

P4. Collaboration supports innovation and delivers infrastructure, services and facilities

 

P6. Everyone has access to efficient digital connectivity

 

P10. Homes are supported by safe, accessible, green, clean, creative and diverse facilities, services and spaces

The proposed uplifts are limited to the up-zoning of 5 areas to accommodate new housing and encourage housing diversity. These areas are located within walking distance to transport infrastructure, such as train stations and frequent bus services, and existing commercial centres.

 

A local provision, Clause 6.9 “Essential services”, is proposed to ensure any future development applications demonstrate that there is sufficient essential services and infrastructure in place to service new development. When and as required, infrastructure may need to be augmented and upgraded by individual developers.

 

This Planning Proposal proposes to zone hospitals and educational establishments SP2 Infrastructure to retain land for the continued provision of these important infrastructure.

 

This Planning Proposal also proposes ‘entertainment facility’ at Jubilee Stadium as an additional permitted use through Schedule 1. The Stadium is recognised in the LSPS as one of Council’s key infrastructure and permitting entertainment facilities will enable the Stadium to be consolidated as a regional sporting and entertainment hub.

Liveability

S4. Fostering healthy, creative, culturally rich and socially connected communities

 

S5. Providing housing supply, choice and affordability with access to jobs, services and public transport

 

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

P4. Collaboration supports innovation and delivers infrastructure, services and facilities

P8. Place-based development, quality building design and public art deliver liveable places

 

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

 

P10. Homes are supported by safe, accessible, green, clean, creative and diverse facilities, services and spaces

 

P11. Aboriginal and other heritage is protected and promoted

 

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

 

P19. Everyone has access to quality, clean, useable, passive and active, open and green spaces and recreation places

This Planning Proposal provides additional housing through the up-zoning of existing low density residential areas in highly accessible areas located within walking distance to transport infrastructure.

 

This Planning Proposal also incorporates a new local provision – Clause 6.13 “Development for the purposes of dual key dwellings in Zones R2 and R3” to assist in providing housing choice through the provision of rental housing. As dual key dwellings would be wholly contained with the existing building envelope, they would have no impact on the streetscape character of low and medium density neighbourhoods.

To foster a diverse range of industries within the IN2 Zone, a new local provision is proposed through the Clause 6.17 “Creative industries in Zone IN2” to creative and innovative industries in the Penshurst and Halstead Industrial Precincts.

 

Part 1 of the Commercial Centres Strategy develops a centres hierarchy and seeks to harmonise the permissible land uses and encourage other key uses such as enabling markets and artisan food and drink industries in business zones.

 

The Planning Proposal also incorporates the amendments recommended in the Hurstville Heritage Review in Schedule 5 to reinforce the heritage significance of existing items by amending their descriptions to clarify that both the built form and setting elements are part of the item’s significance.

Productivity

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

 

S9. Growing investment, business opportunities and jobs in  strategic centres

 

S11. Supporting growth of targeted industry sectors

P4. Collaboration supports innovation and delivers infrastructure, services and facilities

 

P8. Place-based development, quality building design and public art deliver liveable places

 

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

 

P12. Land is appropriately zoned for ongoing employment growth

 

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

 

P14. Hurstville, Beverly Hills and Kogarah are supported to grow safe night-time entertainment, dining and other recreational opportunities

 

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

This Planning Proposal seeks to formalise the significance of existing health and education uses by zoning all land owned by major health service providers and school organisations SP2 Hospital and SP2 Educational Establishment.

 

This Planning Proposal also seeks to include a non-residential FSR in the LGA’s centres to ensure that employment floor space is retained and enhanced to support local jobs for local people.

 

The activation of centres is further promoted through the new local provision – Clause 6.14 “Development in certain business zones”. This clause prohibits residential and tourism and visitor accommodation at the ground floor of any new development within the B1, B2, B4 and B6 zones. This clause will encourage non-residential land uses such as retail on the ground floor, providing opportunities for greater activation.

 

Furthermore, it is proposed to retain the B3 zone in the Hurstville Strategic Centre to ensure there is sufficient land zoned for ongoing employment growth. “Tourist and visitor accommodation” is proposed to be permitted in this zone to support the significant presence of international students and visitors.

 

The translation of Deferred Matter sites under the HLEP 1994 into the GRLEP 2020 will also facilitate the growth in investment, business opportunities and jobs in the Hurstville strategic centre.

 

This Planning Proposal also supports the LSPS vision to provide quality “medi-hotels” outside of hospitals for people receiving treatment and their families. In the absence of “medi-hotels” as a Standard Instrument LEP land use term, it is proposed to retain “tourist and visitor accommodation” as a permissible land use in the B4 zone to ensure the planning framework continues to support the provision of these types of accommodation.

S10. Retaining and managing industrial and urban services land

P12. Land is appropriately zoned for ongoing employment growth

This Planning Proposal seeks to increase the maximum building height for the IN2 zone to improve development viability and encourage industrial development.

 

“Office premises” is proposed to be introduced as a permissible land use in the IN2 Light Industrial zone. To manage the amount of office floor space to ensure sufficient industrial floor space is retained for industrial uses and industrial and urban services activities are not compromised by office development, restrictions are placed on the amount of office floor space permitted through Clause 6.15 “Office premises in Zone IN2”.

 

It is also proposed to permit creative and innovative industries, food and drink premises, and restaurants and cafes within the IN2 zone to provide flexibility in land uses within the zone, promote job creation and meet the needs of those who work within or visit the industrial precincts.

Sustainability

S13. Protecting and improving the health and enjoyment of the District’s waterways

 

S14. Protecting and enhancing bushland, biodiversity and scenic and cultural landscapes and better managing rural areas

 

S15. Increasing urban tree canopy cover and delivering Green Grid connections

 

S16. Delivering high quality open space

 

S17. Reducing carbon emissions and managing energy, water and waste efficiency

 

S18. Adapting to the impacts of urban and natural hazards and climate change

P10. Homes are supported by safe, accessible, green, clean, creative and diverse facilities, services and spaces

 

P16. Our waterways are healthy and publicly accessible

 

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

 

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

 

P19. Everyone has access to quality, clean, useable, passive and active open and green spaces and recreation places

 

P20. Development is managed to appropriately respond to hazards and risks

This Planning Proposal introduces the following local provisions to minimise the impacts of urban stormwater run-off, protect environmentally sensitive areas, mitigate the impacts of sea level rise and tidal inundation as a result of climate change, increase landscaping and the tree canopy, enhance biodiversity and promote urban design and best practice environmentally sustainable development principles:

·    Clause 6.4: “Stormwater management”

·    Clause 6.5: “Foreshore area and coastal hazards and risks”

·    Clause 6.6: “Foreshore scenic protection area”

·    Clause 6.11: “Environmental sustainability in certain business, industrial and residential zones”

·    Clause 6.12: “Landscaped areas in residential and environmental protection zones”

 

This Planning Proposal also identifies additional properties to be acquired for local open space to expand and improve access to existing open space, supporting existing and future residents of the LGA.

 

Consistency with SEPPs

350.       The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following relevant State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) as assessed below in Table 18:

 

Table 18 – Consistency of Planning Proposal with SEPPs

SEPP

Consistency

Comment

State Environmental Planning Policy No 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

Yes

The Planning Proposal introduces the following new local provisions that seek to protect and enhance the tree canopy and biodiversity within the LGA:

 

Clause 6.6: “Foreshore scenic protection area” – the objective of this clause is to protect, maintain and improve the scenic amenity, significant views, diversity and condition of native vegetation and habitats, and environmental, social and character values of the Georges River foreshore in line with the overarching principles of this LEP.

 

Clause 6.12: “Landscaped areas in residential and environmental protection zones” - the objective of this clause is to ensure that the landscaped character of residential suburbs is preserved, minimise urban run-off by maximising permeable areas, minimise the visual impact of development, and ensure that vegetation which contributes to biodiversity and tree canopy is retained. This clause aims to reduce the urban heat island effect by increasing urban vegetation and permeable surfaces.

 

Accordingly, the Planning Proposal is consistent with this SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

Yes

All of the land that is proposed to be rezoned under the Planning Proposal to allow increased residential density (i.e. the Housing Investigation Areas) is currently zoned residential and is urban land. Therefore, the sites proposed for rezoning are unlikely to be contaminated.

 

Based on the records available to Council, the proposed rezonings from SP2 Infrastructure to the adjoining zone, such as R2 Low Density Residential, do not include sites that contain existing activities that may cause contamination as identified by the EPA’s Planning Guidelines for Managing Land Contamination.

 

Accordingly, the Planning Proposal does not contain provisions that contradict or hinder the application of this SEPP.

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

Yes

The Planning Proposal introduces a new local provision for design excellence to deliver the highest standards of architecture and design across the LGA. The clause applies to new developments and substantial redevelopments of 12m or greater in the high density residential, industrial and business zones.

 

The subject development will need to be peer-reviewed by an urban designer or a registered architect appointed from Council’s panel of design experts against the heads of consideration listed in this clause, which include the suitability of the land for development, the relationship of the development with other development (existing or proposed) on the same site or on neighbouring sites in terms of separation, setbacks, amenity and urban form, bulk, massing and modulation of buildings. The proposed clause complements SEPP 65 in improving the design quality of residential apartment development. Development applications will need to comply with SEPP 65, the Apartment Design Guide and the design excellence clause.

 

Accordingly, the Planning Proposal does not contain provisions that contradict or hinder the application of this SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 70 – Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes)

Yes

Council is currently preparing an Inclusive Housing Strategy and a supporting Delivery Plan. The Delivery Plan will include an Affordable Housing Contribution Scheme which will set out how, where, and at what rate development contributions can be collected by Council for affordable housing.

 

The Inclusive Housing Strategy and the supporting Delivery Plan will inform the Stage 2 (Housing Choice) LEP in the staged LEP process. This Planning Proposal does not propose the implementation of delivery mechanisms for affordable housing.

 

Accordingly, the Planning Proposal does not contain provisions that contradict or hinder the application of this SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Yes

As stated above, this Planning Proposal does not propose the implementation of delivery mechanisms for affordable housing. These mechanisms will be investigated in Stage 2 of the LEP process.

 

Accordingly, the Planning Proposal does not contain provisions that contradict or hinder the application of this SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

Yes

The Planning Proposal introduces a new local provision for environmental sustainability in certain business, industrial and residential zones. The intent of this clause is to ensure that all development with a GFA of 1,500sqm or greater in business, industrial and high density residential zones embrace the best practice principles of environmentally sustainable development.

The clause requires a statement of verification to be submitted with a development application by an Australian Building Sustainability Association accredited assessor demonstrating that the development satisfies environmentally sustainable principles such as water efficiency, reducing the urban heat island effect and reducing energy demands.

 

The proposed clause complements BASIX in encouraging sustainable development. Development applications will need to comply with BASIX and the environmentally sustainable local provision.

 

Accordingly, the Planning Proposal does not contain provisions that contradict or hinder the application of this SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

Yes

The Planning Proposal introduces a new local provision, Clause 6.5 – Foreshore area and coastal hazards and risks. The intent of this clause is to enhance the protection of the natural environment along the LGA’s foreshore in line with the overarching principles of this LEP. The inclusion of the coastal hazard area based on the findings of the Tidal Inundation Study will ensure that there is a focus on addressing coastal hazards and risk through the development assessment process as the local provisions of the existing LEPs do not provide a clear link to policy on coastal hazard and risks.

If a proposed development falls within land to which this clause applies, consideration must be given towards the impacts of sea level rise and tidal inundation as a result of climate change, impacts on the water quality of the Georges River, and other coastal hazards.

 

The proposed clause complements the Coastal Management SEPP. Development applications will need to comply with the Coastal Management SEPP and the Foreshore area and coastal hazards and risks local provision.

 

Accordingly, the Planning Proposal does not contain provisions that contradict or hinder the application of this SEPP.

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

Yes

The Planning Proposal permits educational establishments and early education and care facilities in all residential and business zones to facilitate the delivery of these land uses, consistent with the aims of the SEPP.

 

The Planning Proposal also recognises the importance of retaining existing educational uses by rezoning land owned by education providers and operating as a school to SP2 “Educational establishments” to formalise the use of these lands as schools and retain their use.

 

Accordingly, the Planning Proposal is consistent with the SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

Yes

The Planning Proposal does not propose the inclusion of any exempt or complying development and instead relies on the provisions of the Codes SEPP.

 

Accordingly, the Planning Proposal does not contain provisions that contradict or hinder the application of this SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004

Yes

The Planning Proposal rezones land that is currently identified as SP2 “Aged Care” under the HLEP 2012 to the adjoining zone as seniors housing is permissible under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

 

Accordingly, the Planning Proposal does not contain provisions that contradict or hinder the application of this SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

Yes

The Planning Proposal seeks to harmonise the existing SP2 Infrastructure zones under the HLEP 2012 and KLEP 2012, consistent with the aim of the Infrastructure SEPP to improve regulatory certainty and efficiency through a consistent planning regime for infrastructure and the provision of services.

 

Accordingly, the Planning Proposal does not contain provisions that contradict or hinder the application of this SEPP.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017

Yes

As discussed above, the Planning Proposal introduces the new local provisions that seek to protect and enhance the tree canopy and biodiversity within the LGA. These local provisions are consistent with the aims of the SEPP to protect the biodiversity and preservation of trees and other vegetation. Accordingly, the Planning Proposal is consistent with this SEPP.

Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2—Georges River Catchment

 

The Planning Proposal introduces a new local provision, Clause 6.5 – Foreshore area and coastal hazards and risks. The intent of this clause is to enhance the protection of the natural environment along the LGA’s foreshore in line with the overarching principles of this LEP.

 

If a proposed development falls within land to which this clause applies, consideration must be given to a number of matters, including impacts on the water quality of the Georges River, consistent with the aims of the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2 – Georges River Catchment. Accordingly, the Planning Proposal is consistent with this deemed SEPP.

 

Consistency with S9.1 Ministerial Directions

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

 

352.       The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following relevant Ministerial Directions as assessed in Table 19 below:

 

Table 19 – Consistency with S9.1 Ministerial Directions

S9.1 Direction

Assessment

1.1 Business and Industrial Zones

Objectives:

(a) encourage employment growth in suitable locations,

(b) protect employment land in business and industrial zones, and

(c) support the viability of identified centres.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction as it protects industrial and commercial zoned land and encourages their growth and viability by introducing new controls.

 

The Planning Proposal seeks to increase the maximum building height for the IN2 Light Industrial zone to improve development viability and encourage industrial development. The proposed controls provide for a flexibility of uses to assist in attracting investment and redevelopment of industrial lands. In addition, the increase in height controls will promote increased industrial floor space as the current FSR of 1:1 cannot be fully achieved within the existing height limit of 10m

 

The Planning Proposal also seeks to increase minimum subdivision lot sizes to prevent the fragmentation of industrial land and retain large lot sizes to provide employment opportunities and allow the operation of a diverse range of industrial uses, such as warehousing which requires large floor plates.

 

It is also proposed to permit creative and innovative industries, food and drink premises, and restaurants and cafes within the IN2 zone to provide flexibility within the zone, promote job creation and to meet the needs of those who work within or visit the industrial precincts.

 

The Planning Proposal introduces a minimum non-residential FSR requirement for shop top housing developments to minimise the net loss of employment floor space across all centres through redevelopment. This will encourage and promote job creation, through the provision of additional commercial office space, which may attract new business to the centres. It is considered that additional retail will assist in transforming these centres, providing increased activation opportunities, which could also enhance the night-time economy.

 

The Planning Proposal also introduces Clause 6.14 “Development in certain business zones” which prohibits residential and tourism and visitor accommodation on the ground floor of any new development within the B1, B2, B4 and B6 zones. This clause will encourage non-residential land uses such as retail on the ground floor, providing opportunities for greater activation.

2.1  Environment Protection Zones

Objective:

To protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas.

This Planning Proposal seeks to extend the foreshore scenic protection area across the LGA, to protect environmentally sensitive areas, increase the tree canopy and enhance biodiversity within the LGA. In addition, this Planning Proposal seeks to include local provisions for the foreshore area and coastal hazards which will ensure the protection of ecological habitats, riparian lands and watercourses and ensure that development does not impact on the natural foreshore processes. These new local provisions will strengthen the environmental controls applicable to new development across the LGA and mitigate or prevent any adverse environmental impacts of development. Accordingly, this Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction.

2.2  Coastal Protection

Objective:

To protect and manage coastal areas of NSW.

The Planning Proposal proposes provisions relating to the foreshore area and coastal hazards that seek to mitigate the impacts of sea level rise and tidal inundation as a result of climate change. In addition, a local provision relating to the management of stormwater has been introduced to minimise the effects of urban stormwater runoff for the purpose of protecting and improving the environmental health of the LGA’s waterways.

 

These provisions will not contradict or hinder the application of State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018. Therefore, the Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction.

2.3  Heritage Conservation

Objective:

To conserve items, areas, objects and places of environmental heritage significance and indigenous heritage significance.

Council has undertaken a review of the heritage items under the Hurstville LEP. The Heritage Review recommends three heritage items be removed as they no longer have any heritage significance either due to redevelopment or demolition. The Review also seeks administrative amendments to the descriptions of 20 items to clarify that both the built and setting elements are part of the heritage item’s significance. All existing heritage items listed within the former Kogarah LGA are to be retained.

 

The Planning Proposal incorporates the amendments recommended in the Heritage Review in Schedule 5 (Environmental Heritage) of the GRLEP 2020.

 

Therefore, the Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction.

3.1  Residential Zones

Objectives:

(a)  To encourage a variety and choice of housing types to provide for existing and future housing needs

(b)  To make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services and ensure that new housing has appropriate access to infrastructure and services

(c)   To minimise the impact of residential development on environment and resource lands.

Through the harmonisation of development standards, the capacity for approx. 1,340 additional dwellings has been created as summarised below:

·    Capacity for approx. 600 additional dwellings through the reduction of the minimum subdivision lot size of the former Kogarah LGA from 550sqm to 450sqm; and

·    Capacity for approx. 740 additional dwellings (dual occupancies) through the reduction of the existing FSPA extent in the former Hurstville LGA which reduces the minimum dual occupancy lot size requirement for these properties from 1,000sqm to 650sqm.

 

In addition to the above additional dwellings, this Planning Proposal seeks to provide capacity for approx. 650 additional dwellings through the up-zoning of existing low density residential areas to medium density and high density in highly accessible areas which are serviced by shops, schools, open space and community facilities. The areas proposed to be up-zoned are located within walking distance to transport infrastructure, such as train stations and frequent bus services.

 

The Planning Proposal also incorporates a new local provision – Clause 6.13 “Development for the purposes of dual key dwellings in Zones R2 and R3”. The purpose of this clause is to enable dual key dwellings to provide housing choice and diversity, and affordable housing, such as within under occupied large dwellings.

 

Therefore, the Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction.

 

3.4  Integrating Land Use and Transport

Objective:

To ensure that urban structures, building forms, land use locations, development designs, subdivision and street layouts achieve the following planning objectives:

(a)  Improving access to housing, jobs and services by walking, cycling and public transport

(b)  Increasing the choice of available transport and reducing dependence on cars

(c)   Reducing travel demand including the number of trips generated by development and the distances travelled, especially by car

(d)  Supporting the efficient and viable operation of public transport services

(e)  Providing for the efficient movement of freight.

This Planning Proposal provides additional housing through the up-zoning of existing low density residential areas in highly accessible areas located within walking distance to commercial centres and transport infrastructure, such as train stations and frequent bus services. The locations of these up-zoned areas have been chosen to provide existing and future residents the opportunity to access jobs and services by walking, cycling and public transport, reducing travel demand and dependence on cars. Accordingly, the Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction.

 

3.5  Development Near Licensed Aerodromes

Objectives:

(a) to ensure the effective and safe operation of regulated airports and defence airfields;

(b) to ensure that their operation is not compromised by development that constitutes an obstruction, hazard or potential hazard to aircraft flying in the vicinity; and

(c) to ensure development, if situated on noise sensitive land, incorporates appropriate mitigation measures so that the development is not adversely affected by aircraft noise.

The Planning Proposal proposes two local provisions, namely Clause 6.7 (Airspace operations) and Clause 6.8 (Development in areas subject to aircraft noise), which will ensure development does not interfere with aircraft operations and that noise sensitive development is prevented from being located near Sydney Kingsford Smith and its flight paths. Accordingly, the Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction.

4.1  Acid Sulfate Soils

Objective:

To avoid significant adverse environmental impacts from the use of land that has a probability of containing acid sulfate soils.

The Planning Proposal seeks to adopt the model Acid Sulphate Soils clause within the GRLEP 2020. The objective of the clause is to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain acid sulphate soils and cause environmental damage. Accordingly, the Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction.

4.3  Flood Prone Land

Objectives

(1) The objectives of this direction are: (a) to ensure that development of flood prone land is consistent with the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005, and

(b) to ensure that the provisions of an LEP on flood prone land is commensurate with flood hazard and includes consideration of the potential flood impacts both on and off the subject land.

Currently, only the KLEP 2012 contains a flood planning clause. The Planning Proposal seeks to expand the application of this clause to the whole LGA (Clause 6.3 – Flood planning) to ensure that all developments incorporate appropriate measures to manage flood hazards consistently across the LGA where there are known potential risks of flooding through the inclusion of two additional layers – the “flood planning zone” to the Flood Planning Map, and a new Probable Maximum Flood Map.

 

The controls pertaining to PMF are only proposed to apply to sensitive uses such as hospitals and schools and do not include additional flood controls beyond the Flood Planning Level for residential development.

 

Accordingly, the Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction.

 

4.4  Planning for Bushfire Protection

Objectives

(1) The objectives of this direction are:

(a) to protect life, property and the environment from bush fire hazards, by discouraging the establishment of incompatible land uses in bush fire prone areas, and

(b) to encourage sound management of bush fire prone areas.

The proposed up-zonings that will result in residential intensification under this Planning Proposal are located in existing urban areas and are not located in areas known to be bushfire affected. Accordingly, the Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction.

 

6.2  Reserving Land for Public Purposes

Objective:

(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.

The Planning Proposal seeks to include four new land acquisitions by Council for the provision of open space and road widening as follows:

 

- 53 Forest Road, 9 Roberts Lane and 108 Durham Street to facilitate a 3m wide local road widening along Roberts Lane.

- 26-30 Culwulla Street, South Hurstville to enable the creation of a larger park and facilitate through site access.

- 11-21 Monaro Avenue, Kingsgrove (Peter Lowe Reserve) to facilitate improved access to the park, safety and public surveillance.

- 7 Hedley Street, Riverwood and 13-15 Keith Street, Peakhurst (Peakhurst Park) to enable expansion of the park and facilitate improved access.

 

Since the Planning Proposal facilitates the provision of public services and facilities by reserving land for public purposes, the Planning Proposal is consistent with this direction.

7.1  Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney

Objective:

To give legal effect to the planning principles, directions and priorities for subregions, strategic centres and transport gateways contained in A Plan for Growing Sydney.

A Plan for Growing Sydney has been replaced by the Greater Sydney Commission’s Greater Sydney Region Plan – A Metropolis of Three Cities. The Planning Proposal is consistent with the Objectives of A Metropolis of Three Cities, as detailed in Attachment 3.

 

Financial Implications

353.       This Planning Proposal has been prepared within budget allocation.

 

354.       It should be noted that the NSW Government funding requires Council to submit this Planning Proposal for the Georges River LEP to the DPIE for Gateway Determination by 20 December 2019 and the LEP needs to be submitted for final legal drafting by 30 June 2020.

 

355.       A consequence of not meeting these mandated timeframes may include not receiving State Government funding of up to $1,125,000 and as such Council needing to meet the cost of relevant LEP related expenses.

 

Risk Implications

356.       No risks identified.

 

Community Engagement

 

357.       Should the Planning Proposal be supported it will be forwarded to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces requesting a Gateway Determination.

 

358.       If a Gateway Determination (Approval) is issued, it is anticipated that the Planning Proposal will be exhibited in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and its Regulation 2000 and any requirements of the Gateway Determination. An exhibition period of 60 days is proposed.

 

359.       In accordance with the NSW Government’s Best Practice Guideline for LEPs and Council Land (dated January 1997), this Planning Proposal will be exhibited with a register of all council-owned land which outlines the following:

 

·    The nature of Council’s interest in the land (e.g. Council has a 30 year lease over the site);

·    When Council first acquired an interest in the land;

·    Why Council acquired an interest in the land (e.g. for an extension to the adjoining park);

·    How Council acquired its interest in the land (e.g. the land was purchased); and

·    For land previously owned or controlled by Council, whether any aspect of the LEP formed part of the agreement to dispose of the land, and the terms of any such agreement.

 

360.       The public exhibition of this Planning Proposal will also be supported by a number of key Council strategies and studies, including but not limited to:

 

·    Local Strategic Planning Statement 2040

·    Local Housing Strategy (including the Traffic Study)

·    Inclusive Housing Strategy

·    Commercial Centres Strategy – Part 1

·    Industrial Lands Review

·    Foreshore Study

·    Infrastructure Integration Advice Roadmap

·    Hurstville Heritage Review

 

361.       It should be noted that the community consultation program has not been finalised. The following information is provided as an indicative approach only.

 

362.       Exhibition material, including plain English explanatory information, fact sheets, 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.

 

363.       Notification of the public exhibition will be through:

 

·    Newspaper advertisement in The Leader;

·    Exhibition notice on Council’s website;

·    Community engagement project on Council’s YourSay website;

·    Notices in Council offices and libraries;

·    Letters to all landowners and residents in the LGA – this will include letters to landowners of properties affected by a proposed change in the planning controls; and

·    Letters to State and Commonwealth Government agencies identified in the Gateway Determination.

 

364.       Targeted consultation through mechanisms, including but not limited to targeted letters and drop-in information sessions, are proposed to be conducted with landowners and residents affected by precinct-specific changes to the existing planning controls. This may include:

 

·    Areas in the Peakhurst and Mortdale Wards that are proposed to be excluded from the FSPA;

·    Areas in the Blakehurst and Kogarah Wards that are proposed to be included in the FSPA; and

·    The Halstead and Penshurst Lane Industrial Precincts which are proposed to be identified as creative industry precincts.

 

Next Steps

365.       The anticipated project timeline for completion of the Planning Proposal is shown below in Table 20:

 

Table 20 – Anticipated project timeline

Task

Anticipated Timeframe

Report to Environment and Planning Committee on Planning Proposal

11 November 2019 (this report)

Report to Council on Planning Proposal

25 November 2019

Planning Proposal to be forwarded to the DPIE for a Gateway Determination

December 2019

Anticipated commencement date (date of Gateway Determination)

February 2020

Timeframe for public exhibition (including both government agency and community consultation as required by Gateway Determination)

March to May 2020

Dates for public hearing (if required)

N/A

Timeframe for consideration of submissions

May to June 2020

Reporting to Council on community consultation and finalisation

June 2020

Submission to the Department to finalise the LEP

June 2020

Anticipated date for notification

July 2020

 

366.       It is noted that the project timeline will be assessed by the DPIE and may be amended by the Gateway Determination and affected by the approvals issued by the DPIE.

 

Attachments

367.       Please refer to the Planning Proposal webpage on Council’s website for the attachments to this report as tabulated below in Table 21.

 

Table 21 – List of Attachments to this Report

Attachment No.

Document Title

Attachment 1

Planning Proposal Report for Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020

Attachment 2

Appendix 1 of the Planning Proposal Report – draft Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020

Attachment 3

Appendix 2 of the Planning Proposal Report – Region Plan / District Plan / LSPS Compliance Table

Attachment 4

Appendix 3 of the Planning Proposal Report – Justification: Development Standards

Attachment 5

Appendix 4 of the Planning Proposal Report – Justification: Additional Local Provisions

Attachment 6

Appendix 5 of the Planning Proposal Report – Consistency with State Environmental Planning Policies

Attachment 7

Appendix 6 of the Planning Proposal Report – Consistency with S9.1 Ministerial Directions

Attachment 8

Appendix 7 of the Planning Proposal Report – Mapping

Attachment 9

Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement 2040

Attachment 10

Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement Implementation Plan

Attachment 11

Local Housing Strategy Evidence Base

Attachment 12

Inclusive Housing Strategy – Stage 1 Assessment of Housing Needs

Attachment 13

Draft Commercial Centres Strategy – Part 1 (including Commercial Centres Economic Study)

Attachment 14

Industrial Lands Review

Attachment 15  

Tidal Inundation Study

Attachment 16  

Foreshore Strategic Directions Paper

Attachment 17

Infrastructure Integration Advice Roadmap

Attachment 18

Recommendations of the Hurstville Heritage Review

Attachment 19

Local Planning Panel meeting minutes dated 17 October 2019

 

 

 

File Reference

D19/245806

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council –    Environment and Planning -  Monday, 11 November 2019                                                  Page 181

Item:                   ENV044-19        Working Towards Net Zero Emissions in Georges River Council 

Author:              Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council endorse a 100% renewable energy target by 2025.

(b)     That Council endorse a net zero emissions target for Council operations by 2030 through establishing a framework to continue to reduce carbon emissions based on current identified mitigation initiatives and innovative technology.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The estimated carbon footprint for Council operations for FY 16/17 was approximately 13,000 tonnes of CO2e. Electricity is the highest source of Green House Gas (GHG) emission, followed by fleet (diesel, petrol) and natural gas. The remaining sources of emissions include: waste; business trips (taxi, business flights, shuttle, etc.); refrigerants and staff commuting.

2.      To obtain 100% of Council’s energy from renewable sources by 2025, Council would need to:

·    install additional solar panels;

·    increase the percentage of power purchased from renewable under the power purchase agreement from the current 20% to 100%;

·    Electrify Council’s fleet.

3.      Council can mitigate (reduce) GHG through mitigation actions that can be implemented to move towards net zero emissions including a combination of initiatives around energy efficiency; renewable energy, carbon stock/sequestration and changing staff’s behaviour through education. These initiatives also include cost savings by reducing energy consumption

4.      The report provides a breakdown figure of the cost of each initiative as shown in Table 3. The average payback period for the proposed energy efficiency projects is 6.74 years, which is the equivalent to investing money at the annualised rate of 14.9%. Renewable energy projects typically have a 4.5 years payback period.

5.      In order to achieve Net zero emissions by 2030 mitigation actions to reduce GHG emissions need to be implemented and any remaining emissions must be compensated each year through purchasing an equivalent number of eligible carbon offset units (tonnes of CO2e).

6.      Georges River Council has two options to achieve a Net Zero Emission target:

·    Option 1(preferred option): Council commit to a Net Zero Emissions target by 2030 by implementing mitigation actions to progressively reduce GHG emissions. By FY 30/31 purchase carbon offsets for only the remaining unavoidable emissions. This is a realistic approach by taking small steps towards carbon neutrality and at the same time, delivers a clear message of Council’s sustainability commitment.

·    Option 2: Council could be Net Zero Emissions in FY 19/20 by purchasing carbon offsets for all current GHG emissions and committing to progressively work towards reducing emissions using mitigation initiatives.

7.      Financial costs to achieve a Net Zero Emission target:

·     Option 1:   Within budget allocations, plus budget bids and potential external funding.

·    Option 2: Between $25,000 (purchasing international accredited carbon offsets) and $230,000 (purchasing national accredited carbon offsets) per annum.

8.      Option 1 is the recommended option as it is a realistic approach by taking small steps towards a Net Zero emissions target and at the same time, delivers a clear message of Council’s sustainability commitment.

 

Background

9.   Council at its meeting on 23 April 2019 resolved the following:

(a)    That the General Manager prepare a report which investigates the impact on Council should it adopt the following targets:

·    Obtaining 100% of its energy from renewable sources by 2025;

·    Achieve net zero emissions by 2030; and

·    Zero carbon emissions by 2050

(b)  That as part of the report, the General Manager investigate:

·    The method of quantifying Council’s current emissions

·    The proposed methods for reducing/offsetting emissions

·    An indicative timeframe with key performance indicators for the targets set out above

·    Relevant collaborative work being conducted by the 100 Resilient Cities network and SSROC

·    Any financial implications associated with achieving the targets set out above

·    The likely financial support and expert assistance Council may need to achieve the targets set out above.

10.    GHG emission can be quantified as either:

Council’s own operational GHG emissions or

Community emissions as a whole.

11.    This Report focuses on Council’s operational GHG emissions (See Figure 3).

12.    This Report investigates the impact on Council’s operational GHG emission in relation to the following targets:

·    Target 1 – Obtaining 100% of its energy from renewable sources by 2025

·    Target 2 – net zero emissions by 2030

·    Target 3 – zero carbon emissions by 2050

13.    To assist in reading this report a glossary of terms related to GHG emissions is provided below:

·    Greenhouse gases (GHG): The atmospheric gases responsible for causing global warming and climate change. The Kyoto Protocol lists six greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) – with the addition of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) from the beginning of the protocol’s second commitment period. This can also be known as carbon emissions.

·    CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent): This is the common unit that Carbon footprint accountability standards use to account the total of the GHG.

·    Carbon footprint: A measure of the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions attributable to an activity. A carbon footprint can relate to the emissions of an individual, household, organisation, product, service, event, building or precinct. This can also be known as a carbon account or GHG emissions inventory or GHG footprint.

·    Net Zero emissions: A situation where the net CO2e emissions associated with an activity are equal to zero because emissions have been reduced and offset units cancelled to fully account for all emissions. Carbon neutral means reducing emissions where possible and compensating for the remainder by investing in carbon reduction projects (via offset units) to achieve net zero carbon emissions. This can also be known as Net Zero carbon or carbon neutral.

·    Zero carbon emissions: This is a case when no carbon was emitted from an activity, so no carbon needs to be captured or offset.

·    Sequestration: The removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide, either through biological processes (e.g. photosynthesis in plants and trees) or geological processes (e.g. storage of carbon dioxide in underground reservoirs).

 

1.      INTRODUCTION

Method of quantifying Council’s current emissions

14.    Council is finalising a carbon footprint inventory for FY 16/17 to set a baseline from which to manage future emissions. The carbon footprint inventory is based on the National Carbon Offset Standard and ISO 14064-1, which is best practice standard for carbon footprint accounting.

15.    The following sources of GHG emissions have been identified for Council operations: Electricity; Fuel for fleet (Diesel, petrol); Natural gas; Waste; Business trips (taxi, business flights, shuttle, etc.); Refrigerants and staff commuting.

16.    Council has recently commenced using Trellis, a carbon accounting system selected as part of an SSROC Tender finalised in August 2019. Council currently uses Trellis to capture electricity, water and gas bills for each facility. This new agreement once implemented will be expanded to include all identified GHG sources.

17.    Based on estimated data, the carbon footprint for Council operations is shown in Figure 1:

 

 

Figure 1: Percentage of GHG Emissions for Council operations

 

18.    Council Operational GHG emission includes emissions from all Council facilities including but not limited to libraries, civic centre, pools and community centres.

Council’s Existing Commitments

19.    Council signed in October 2018, an external commitment with City Power Partnership (CPP). This is Australia’s largest local government climate network, with over 100 councils. Council has commenced and is already well on its way to completing all of these signed pledges:

·    Provide Council resources to educate and support the uptake of renewable energy through Our Energy Future partnership.

·    Power Council operations by renewables, either directly (with solar PV or wind) or by purchasing Greenpower (from electricity retailers).

·    Ensure Council fleet purchases meet strict GHG emissions requirements and support the uptake of electric vehicles.

·    Install renewable energy on Council buildings, for example, childcare facilities, libraries, street lighting, recreation centres, sporting grounds and Council offices.

·    Create a revolving green energy fund to finance energy efficiency projects and receive savings.

20.    Pillar 1.1.1 of Council’s Community Strategic Plan states “Ensure the Georges River area is resilient in addressing energy, water and gas usage, sustainable buildings, waste diversion, green corridors, carbon emissions and urban design.”

21.    Council’s Operational Plan and Community Plan also states that Council should consider how to support actions to reduce carbon emissions and manage energy, water and waste efficiently. Council has also identified Climate Change as one of the top 10 strategic risks, within the following risk statement “Failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation.”

22.    The Operational Plan 2019/2020 states in the Goal 1.1.”Council’s environmentally sustainable practices inspire everyone to protect and nurture the natural environment”. Council has committed to develop and implement a Resilience Strategy commencing in 2019/2020.

23.    The mitigation initiatives to reduce emissions and targets are aligned with the following objectives of the Local Strategic Plan Statement:

·    Increased use of renewable energy by Council

·    Decrease in Council’s carbon footprint

·    Increase in Council buildings with PV installed

·    Increase in tree canopy cover (including mangroves) to 40% by 2038

·    Investigate opportunities to reduce emissions towards net zero.

24.    Georges River 2050 Vision under preparation is proposing that the LGA is accessible, green, diverse and an innovative place, community and economy. The vision is aiming for Council to lead sustainable energy supply and the reduction of emissions and will lead work towards the targets across their own operations as well as providing the policy settings, information and support to businesses and residents to reduce their own emissions and take up more sustainable energy choices.

25.    Council’s Fleet Policy strongly supports measures to reduce overall carbon emissions through the implementation and demonstration of emerging technologies. Furthermore, the Fleet Operational Guideline states that: “The selection or removal or various vehicle makes or models shall be based upon operational requirements and their subsequent evaluation result against some criteria, including environmental impact”.

26.    Council is currently Developing an Environmental Resilience Strategy for Council functions, which will have actions to address key areas of: Flora, Fauna and Biodiversity; Water; Population, transport and development, Energy, Climate Change, Waste and Resource recovery and Sustainability and emergency preparedness. The objective of Climate Change action is to reduce Council carbon emissions.

 

Relevant collaborative work being conducted by the 100 Resilient Cities network

27.    Council resolved on 23 July 2018: ‘That Council note the launch of the Resilient Sydney Strategy and incorporate the directions contained in the Strategy in the Georges River Community Strategic Plan and related documents, where appropriate’.

28.    Georges River Council is a member of Resilient Sydney -100 Resilient Cities. This initiative assists in developing the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses and systems within the Sydney metropolitan area to flourish no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks (natural, financial or otherwise) they may experience.

29.    There are five directions to build collaboration, adaptation, innovation and investment for resilience:

·    Direction 1: People Centred City –we include communities in decision making for growth and equity.

·    Direction 2: Live with our Climate –we adapt to sustain our quality of life and our environment

·    Direction 3: Connect for Strength –every Sydneysider will feel they belong in our community and city.

·    Direction 4: Get Ready –we know how to prepare, respond and recover.

·    Direction 5: One City –we are one city.

30.    Figure 2 describes how Direction 2 “Live with our Climate” is associated with actions around GHG emissions and the carbon footprint of our LGA.

31.    Figure 3 shows the different scopes of an organizational carbon footprint (subject of this Report) and a city carbon footprint, which is related with the work done as part of the Resilient Sydney initiative and Action 13 “ Measure metropolitan carbon emissions and report on progress”. Council is on its way to meet the Resilient Sydney directions.

 

Figure 2: Resilient Sydney – A strategy for city resilience 2018, Direction 2

 

 

Figure 3: Carbon footprint scope

 

Relevant collaborative work

Street lights:

32.    SSROC has commenced a Street Lighting Improvement Program called ‘Lighting the Way’ to install 17W LED Luminaires across participating Councils. While SSROC is leading the project, other Regional Organisation of Councils (ROC’s) and Road Maritime Services (RMS) are participating. There are currently 29 Councils signed up to this Program encompassing 230,000 street lights 90% of these lights are within the Ausgrid region. To date 90,000 lights have been changed from the older infrastructure to LED lights. The focus of the program has been to provide Council with best value securing better technology and lighting outcomes and improving overall lighting services for Councils.

33.    The other drivers for this project and the reason there are so many Councils participating is savings on energy and GHG; maintenance (lights will require replacement in the next 3 years as per the Minimata Convention); providing better more reliable lighting and elimination of mercury vapour lights.

34.    With the support of council, Ausgrid is proposing to replace all of these lights as part of a large ‘Lighting the Way’ program that will replace 3,861 LEDs on residential roads across the LGA replacing all fifteen remaining types of pre-2009 roadway luminaires (excludes decorative and main road lighting at this stage).

 

 

 

 

Carbon Management System:

35.    SSROC proposed to use a common platform to enable councils to aggregate and compare GHG emissions data, share learning from interventions and set achievable targets for the reduction of operational emissions. SSROC, acting as an agent on behalf of Participating Councils, sought tenders for a Carbon Accounting System. Council has recently commenced using Trellis, a carbon accounting system selected as part of this tender that finalised in August 2019.

 

Community GHG emissions

36.    Figure 3 graphically describes the scope difference between Council’s emissions and community emissions.

37.    Carbon footprint for the community (LGA scope) has also been undertaken as part of 100 Resilient Cities and lead by City of Sydney Council. The sources of emissions are shown in the following Figure 4.

 

 

Figure 4: Georges River Council LGA GHG emissions, Source: Kinesis Platform

 

38.    To achieve GHG emissions reduction for the LGA, Council is delivering “Our Energy Future” Program across our city, with the purpose of educating and promoting renewable energy initiatives such as the intake of solar panels, as well as energy efficiency initiatives such as LED replacements and other technologies to reduce their electricity consumption and therefore GHG emissions in the LGA.

39.    Target reductions for the LGA will be set up, based on the carbon footprint profile and the priorities areas and the strategy will be based on the following steps shown in Figure 5 as recommended by the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, Net Zero implementation Team.

 

 

Figure 5: Steps to creating a net zero emissions Strategy, Source: NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, Net Zero implementation Team.

40.    Council’s LEP, DCP and LSPS are aligned with a low carbon approach by introducing a range of requirements to ensure developments meet BASIX requirements.

2.      TARGETS

Relevant National Targets

41.    Net zero emissions by 2050 is essential to meeting the objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement to limit the increase in global temperature to below 2°C by the end of the century.

42.    The NSW Climate Change Policy Framework commits NSW to the aspirational objective of achieving Net Zero emissions by 2050. The policy framework defines the NSW Government’s role in reducing carbon emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change and sets out next steps for implementation.

43.    Table 1 below includes Commitments made by the Councils of Capital cities across Australia:

CAPITAL CITY

COMMITMENT

City of Adelaide

Zero net emissions from council operations by 2020

Brisbane City Council

Carbon neutral since 2017

Melbourne City Council

Carbon neutral by 2020

City of Perth

Reduce council emissions by 20% by 2020

City of Sydney

Has been Carbon neutral since 2007.

100% renewables for Council operations from 2020

ACT Goverment

100% renewables for Council operations from 1 Oct 2019

           Table 1: Capital cities’ climate change commitments, Source 100% Renewables

 

Australia approach and targets

44.    Australia ratified the Paris Agreement on 6 November 2016 committed to achieve 26-28% below 2005 GHG emissions by 2030.

45.    Additionally, Australia committed to achieve 20% renewable energy by 2020 (the actual target is 33,000 GWh, which will likely equate to 23.5% renewables).

46.    Australia’s emissions have been increasing since 2014. The latest quarterly emissions data inventory to December 2018 (published in June 2019) shows continuing increases. Emissions are projected to grow through 2030, instead of reducing in line with the 2030 target.

47.    All states and territories - except Western Australia - now have strong renewable energy targets and/or zero emissions targets in place.

48.    The state of South Australia is widely seen as a global leader: it has one of the highest shares of variable renewable energy, with 51% share of wind and solar total generation in 2018, the world’s largest lithium-ion battery, and innovative projects for renewable hydrogen and virtual power plants e.g. electricity from solar panels that is fed into the grid.

 

Relevant international commitments aligned with proposed targets

49.    While Australia is not one of the biggest contributors in terms of total percentage, per capita, it is the second highest emitter after United States as shown in Figure 6.

 

China

50.    China ratified the Paris Agreement and committed to the following targets:

·    CO2 emissions to peak by 2030

·    Non-fossil share: 20% by 2030

·    Forest stock: +4.5 billion m3 above 2005 by 2030.

·    Carbon intensity: 60% to 65% below 2005 by 2030

51.    China is implementing significant policies in multiple sectors to address climate change, and also aiming to restrict coal consumption. China’s 13th Five-Year Plan stipulates a maximum 58% share of coal in national energy consumption by 2020, among other energy related targets. China is implementing an emission trading system, with first trades expected in 2020, and has also announced a mandatory renewable energy certificate scheme that sets targets for renewable energy for each province individually.

52.    Over 1.1 million electric vehicles were sold in China in 2018—a market share of 4.2% achieving an aim of the transport section of the formerly called “Made in China 2025” policy initiative two years early.

 

United States

53.    United Sates ratified the Paris Agreement and committed to the following targets:

·    26% to 28% of GHG emissions below 2005 by 2025 including Land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF)

·    10-17% of GHG emissions below 1990 by 2025 excluding LULUCF

54.    Although the Trump Administration has indicated that it intends to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and stop implementing its commitments, the target legally remains in place until 4 November 2020.

 

55.    At the subnational level, some cities, states, businesses, and other organisations are taking action. In total, 22 states, 550 cities, and 900 companies with operations in the US have made climate commitments, and all 50 states have some type of policy that could bring about emissions reductions.

56.    Across the U.S. over 90 cities, more than ten counties and two states, have already adopted ambitious 100% clean energy goals. Furthermore, Six cities  have already achieved their goals of 100% renewable energy (Aspen, Burlington, Georgetown, Greensburg, Rock port, and Kodiak Island).

 

Sweden

57.    Sweden passed the new Climate Act in 2017 which legally binds the country to reach net-zero emissions by the year 2045, five years earlier than previously planned and more ambitious than what Sweden pledged under the Paris Climate Change Agreement.

58.    Often touted as a leader in renewable electricity generation – the Nordic country already generates more than half its electricity from renewable sources.

 

PROPOSED COUNCIL TARGETS

Target 1 - Obtain 100% of energy from renewable sources by 2025

What Council is currently doing to source electricity from renewable sources

59.    Council has solar panels with a combined capacity of 144.45 kW (See Table 2) which represents around 2% of Council overall energy use.  These panels provide power which is used to power the facility and is fed into the grid.

 

Current PV Sites

PV System power (kW)

Kogarah Civic Centre

60.70

Carlton Works Depot

37.80

Jack High Child Care

32.00

Norm O'Neill Cricket

10.30

South Hurstville Library

3.15

Carss Park

0.50

Total

144.45

 

60.    Council’s electricity contract has been delivering a fixed load of renewable energy each year that was equivalent to 20% of electricity from renewable sources. The renewable energy contract partner is the Moree Solar Farm project. This contract expires at the end of 2030. This Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) is part of a joint tender process with 20 other NSW councils. The renewable energy PPA provides Council with significant cost savings compared to the current market whilst reducing our carbon emission.

 

What Council could be doing – Potential mitigation activities and financial implications

61.    The actions the Council could explore with the aim of achieving the 100% target are as follows:

·    Install further solar panels in Council facilities such as Mortdale Community Centre; Kingsgrove Community Centre; Kogarah Library; Penshurst long day care centre and Cricket Centre.  The installation of the solar panels would have a potential capacity of 269 kW which represent 3.2% of the total electricity used. The approximate installation cost is $403,500 and payback for solar panels is usually 4.5 years (refer to Table 3)

·    Increase to 100% the percentage of renewable energy purchased at the renewal of the PPA contract in July 2021. The financial implication to increase this percentage is subject to current energy markets.

·    Investigate other electricity purchase models such a combination of greenpower and PPA or a different PPA pricing structure (spot market) including different sources of renewable energy (e.g. combination of solar and wind sources of electricity).

Suggested approach

62.    For Council to achieve 100% of its electricity from renewable sources, Council would need to install additional solar panels and increase the percentage of the renewable energy via the power purchase agreement. This is a realistic approach as demonstrated by several Councils that have already set this target and also proved that this is financially attractive. City of Sydney has indicated that the savings are estimated to $500,000 a year over the next 10 years.

Resources required and timeframe for delivery

63.    If Council aims to reach 100% renewable energy by 2025, it is considered that the financial impact of purchasing renewable energy would be minimal in relation to purchasing regular grid power. Industry trends indicate that, it is likely that by 2025 regular grid pricing will be the same as renewable energy pricing as renewables will likely be responsible for generating over half the energy grid requirements.

64.    In order to achieve this Target, Council would require technical expertise of external consultants, to structure in the most cost-effective way the purchase of renewable energy. The estimated cost for this consultancy service would be between $25,000-30,000.

65.    Figure 7 indicates the suggested timeframe for this target

 

Figure 7: Indicative timeframe for the 100% renewable source target set out

66.    The current electricity contract started in July 2019 and includes 20% of renewable energy as part of a Power Purchase Agreement. Increasing solar panels will reduce the electricity consumption from the national grid and by the FY 21/22 Council could increase the percentage of the PPA, to achieve the 100% of electricity from renewable sources target by 2025.

Target 2 – Achieve Net Zero Emissions by 2030

67.    Net Zero emissions is a situation where the net CO2e emissions associated with an activity are equal to zero because emissions have been reduced and offset units cancelled to fully account for all emissions.

What Council is currently doing – Mitigation initiatives

68.    The following methods have been identified to reduce Council operational GHG emissions now and into the future, with the aim of achieving net zero emissions by 2030.

69.    Emission reduction initiatives are classified into 4 main reduction areas as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8:Mitigation initiatives to reduce organizational carbon footprint

 

Energy Efficiency

Implement Energy and Water Management Plan

70.    As part of the Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Council is committed to reducing energy use at the top 10 Council energy-using sites through the Energy and Water Management Plan 2018 -2022. To realise this commitment, Council developed this Plan in July 2018. The Plan identifies actions, which are currently being implemented to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. It is also simultaneously improving the overall environmental and operational performance of the top energy-users’ sites.

71.    Some of the key facilities are: Hurstville Aquatic and Leisure Centre, Georges River Council Civic Centre, Hurstville Golf Course, Hurstville House, Hurstville City Library, Georges River Council Works Depot – Peakhurst, Jubilee Oval, Kogarah Town Square Library. The Assets and Infrastructure Directorate have or are currently implemented approximately 60% of the projects identified in the Energy and Water Management Plan.

72.    A Revolving Energy Fund (REF) has been established using funds from the Sustainability Reserve, to encourage and support ongoing energy efficiency projects across Council which will also reduce operational costs to Council through the introduction of energy related projects. A proportion of the financial savings from each project will be used to repay the REF to be reinvested in future projects. Eligible energy efficiency projects that can access funding through the REF include sustainability initiatives, energy efficiency, greenhouse gas reduction and renewable energy projects, etc. Current projects being considered are: Solar Panels on Kogarah Library and Switch to LED lights at Ken Rosewall Tennis Courts.  The potential savings through this program are not known at this stage as the fund was established in mid 2019.

Switch Street lights to LED

73.    SSROC has commenced a Street Lighting Improvement Program called ‘Lighting the Way’ to install 17W LED Luminaires in local roads across participating Councils. Council is currently formalising its participation in this program. Further information on this initiative is described later in this report.

Replace vehicle fleet with electric vehicles.

74.    Council’s Fleet currently has 12 hybrid vehicles. These vehicles produce 60% fewer emissions than conventional petrol or diesel powered vehicles as stated by government guidelines. The Environmental, Sustainability and Waste Team are working with Fleet and the Operational procurement team to purchase two electric vehicles as part of the Council pool fleet. The benefit of introducing two electric vehicles to Council’s fleet is to increase understanding on the use of these vehicles.

Renewable energy

75.    Current initiatives classified under this category are described in Target 1 as previously discussed.

Carbon Sequestration

76.    Carbon Sequestration is the removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide, either through biological processes (e.g. photosynthesis in plants and trees) or geological processes (e.g. storage of carbon dioxide in underground reservoirs). An example of increasing carbon sequestration is to plant more trees.

Increasing tree canopy

77.    The Canopy Enhancement Program was endorsed by Council on 7 August 2017 (CCL152-17) with the objective to establish the baseline vegetation coverage and develop a broader tree management framework via a Tree Management Policy. The recommendation of the 2018 Vegetation Mapping Report, included the goal of achieving 40% canopy cover by 2038. This recommendation was adopted by Council, (along with the overarching Tree Management Policy), at the Council’s meeting on 23 April, 2019. The 40% urban canopy goal is also referenced in Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS).

78.    Council has received funding under the Five Million Trees for Greater Sydney (5MT) Program to plant over 500 trees for two projects: Forest Roads, Canopy Corridor Project and Cool Spaces Urban Oasis Project.

Saltmarsh and mangrove reforestation/afforestation

79.    The Georges River Foreshore Access and Improvement Plan identified potential salt-marsh areas to be expanded; salt-marsh and mangroves are coastal ecosystems which are internationally recognized for their ability to sequester CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it in the ground.

 

Changing staff behaviour

Diverting waste from landfill

80.    When organic waste decomposes in landfill, it releases methane and carbon dioxide which are GHG. Therefore waste avoidance is the top priority on the waste hierarchy. Council has already implemented waste avoidance through the banning of single use plastic bags and plastic straws at Council run events.  Additionally, Council garbage is sent to an alternative waste treatment (AWT) for processing, where organic material is composted reducing methane.

81.    Another waste avoidance project that Council is implementing is the “Responsible Cafes Program” where staff who take a reusable cup to any of the participating cafes will receive a small discount on their coffee. The programme aims to deliver approximately 750 keep cups to staff. Based on an internal survey in June 2019, it is estimated that 708 kg of waste will be diverted from landfill in a single year by encouraging staff to avoid the use of single use coffee cups.

Promote use of public transport/bike/walk to commute to work

82.    Council currently provides a $50 Opal Card as an option for staff shine bright staff recognition awards. Additionally, all computers have the capability for skype meetings and conference calls to reduce overall transportation emissions.  Council has purchased opal cards for use by staff to attend meetings in Parramatta and the City.

What Council could be doing – Potential mitigation activities and financial implications

83.    The following waterfall graph model (Figure 9) compares the current business-as-usual emissions scenario FY 16/17 against a scenario where mitigation initiatives to reduce emissions are implemented towards net zero emissions by 2030.

 

Figure 9: Waterfall chart, reduction initiatives and offsets

84.    The x-axis indicates the classification for each initiative and how much percentage the GHG emissions will be reduced through implementation. The y-axis indicates the tonnes of CO2 achieved after implementing each initiative.

Energy Efficiency

85.    If all energy efficiency initiatives described in Figure 9 are implemented, the GHG reductions would total 41% compared with baseline FY 16/17.

86.    Electric vehicles are one of the initiatives identified in this category. As the types of electric vehicles available increases and the costs reduce over time, this will become a more cost effective approach for Council and fleet conversion. This would reduce GHG emissions by around 2,000t CO2 per annum when vehicles are charged by renewable energy.

 

Renewable energy

87.    Future initiatives classified under the renewable energy category are described in Target 1 previously discussed.

88.    An additional component of renewable energy is battery storage. Council has approved the commencement of a feasibility study to determine the viability and cost of battery storage for Council in both the short and long term. The outcomes of this Report will be reported to Council by the end of next financial year. Refer to Table 3 for current cost.

Diverting waste from landfill

89.    Implement education programs to maximise waste diversion and recycling within Council facilities.

Promote use of public transport/bike/walk to commute to work

90.    While Council can encourage staff to use alternatives to travel to work, Council can continue to promote and encourage more efficient transport modes through encouraging the use of public transport by providing opal cards. Additionally all computers have the capability for skype meetings and conference calls to reduce overall transportation omissions.

Offsetting Emissions

91.    Council will always have emissions that cannot be avoided to maintain service levels to the community. Offsetting occurs after the implementation of all the mitigation actions to reduce GHG emissions as described in Figure 10. In a mature carbon management system, the emission offsets are only those unavoidable emission remaining.

92.    Unavoidable emissions only account for less than 5% of the total emissions of the carbon footprint inventory, therefore, setting separated targets for unavoidable emissions will be negligible for a net zero carbon emission target.

Figure 10: Activities for Carbon Neutrality (Source: NCOS for Organizations, 2017)

 

93.    In order to achieve carbon neutrality, any remaining emissions must be compensated each year through cancelling (also known as purchasing) an equivalent number of eligible offset units. Examples of eligible offset units are Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) issued as per the rules of the Kyoto Protocol (international carbon credits) and Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) issued by the Clean Energy Regulator (national carbon credits).

94.    Costs involved to purchase international and national carbon credits are included in Table 3.

Suggested approach

95.    Climate change mitigation actions towards net zero emissions, include a combination of initiatives described in Figure 8.

96.    Council has two options to achieve Net Zero emissions:

·    Option 1 Council commit to Net Zero Emissions by 2030 by implementing mitigation actions to progressively reduce emissions. By FY 30/31 purchase carbon offsets for the remaining unavoidable emissions or;

·    Option 2 Council could achieve Net Zero Emissions in FY 19/20 by purchasing carbon offsets and committing to progressively work towards reducing total emissions using mitigation initiatives.  This will reduce overall emissions and over  time will reduce the number carbon offsets purchased yearly to 2030.

97.      Option 1 is the preferred option as it is a realistic approach by taking small steps towards carbon neutrality and at the same time, delivers a clear message of the Council’s sustainability commitment.

 

Figure 11: Indicative timeframe for 100% of electricity renewable source target set out

98.      Technology readily available and cost effective by the time the target is set, such as battery storage, will leverage new technology and explore innovative ideas to contribute to the net zero emissions target.

99.      To achieve this target Council would need to identify cost-effective opportunities models that would enable Council to project different future abatement scenarios and investigate and analyse the most effective areas for emissions reduction prior to commencing projects. A detailed assessment of key sites/opportunities is estimated at between $45,000 - $50,000.

 

Financial implications associated with achieving the targets set out above

100.    Figure 12 shows an example of the two future scenarios, where the blue line indicates the business as usual scenario and the green line shows the implementation of one the energy efficiency project (LED Street-lights). The initial investment is quickly paid back around year 5, where savings can be allocated to develop more projects. This is a great incentive and shows that Council is taking care of community money fulfilling the local governments’ obligation to manage their assets in the best interests of their constituents. A full breakdown figure of actions and costs is provided in Table 3.

 

Figure 12: Business as usual vs implementing energy efficiency projects (Street LED)

 

101.    A further example of the reduction in electricity consumption by implementing energy efficient initiatives described in the Energy and Water Management Plan is shown in Figure 13. The cost of this initiative was within the budget allocated to Assets and Infrastructure and clearly shows the cost reductions in electricity cost at Hurstville Library.

Figure 13: Energy consumption at Hurstville Library (FY 16/17 vs FY 18/19)

 

102.    These two examples show measurable reductions in Energy consumption.

103.    Financial estimations include the initial cost to implement the initiative. The average payback period for energy efficiency projects are 6.74 years, which is the equivalent to investing money at the annualized rate of 14.9%. The total cost of implementing these initiatives is currently not included in this Report as there are unknown costs of some initiatives such as 100% renewable electricity.

 

 


 

  Table 3: Financial implications for mitigation initiatives and offset towards net zero carbon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Target 3 – zero carbon emissions by 2050

104.    Zero carbon emissions means that no carbon is emitted from Council operations. Sources of GHG emissions for Council’s operations such as travel flights and refrigerants can be reduced, but not eliminated.

105.    Council has potential to reduce its GHG footprint in a number of ways and a number of initiatives are underway that are specifically targeting a reduction in energy consumption and therefore in GHG. However, Council will not be able to avoid emitting GHG entirely in the foreseeable future.

106.    If Council intends to be net zero emissions or carbon neutral, the organization would require offsetting and/or sequestering the unavoidable GHG emissions such as refrigerants and travel flights from Council activities.

107.    It is considered feasible for the Council to aim for net zero carbon emissions rather than zero carbon emissions.

 

Key Performance Indicators

108.    Changes in GHG emissions can be reported and benchmarked against intensity emission indicators such as:

·    The number of full time equivalent employees ( tCO2/FTE)

·    Number of rateable properties ( tCO2/ Number of rateable properties)

·    m2 of property floor space ( tCO2/ m2)

·    Council’s turnover (tCO2/$).

109.    A more concrete measure of emission reduction is an “absolute reduction” which is the reduction in the total emissions. To tackle climate change total emissions must go down so an absolute reduction is the most relevant measure in the net zero emission pathway. Using interim targets before the 2030 deadline can demonstrate early achievements and drive emissions reductions ahead of the deadline.

110.    Council will report their carbon footprint emissions on a yearly basis and will report reductions achieved annually.

 

Conclusion

111.    Council is currently working towards Net Zero Emissions and have identified further mitigation actions. By committing to 100% of energy from renewable sources by 2025, Council will be well on its way to achieving Net Zero Emissions by 2030. In addition Council can deliver a clear communication message of Council’s commitment to climate change.

112.    By selecting a Net Zero Carbon by 2030 (Option 1), Council will defer the upfront cost of becoming net zero emissions till 2030, while implementing mitigation initiatives. This will ensure a framework for budget bids and grants applications, to continue implementing mitigation initiatives towards achieving Net Zero emissions by 2030. The additional costs will be: budget allocations, budget bids and external funding.

113.    The cost for (Option 2) would be a minimum of $25,000 annually to retain the carbon neutrality certification where the highest percentage of cost is for the verification, technical assessment and certification.

 

Financial Implications

114.    The additional costs will be via future budget allocations, budget bids and external funding.

 

Risk Implications

115. Enterprise risks identified and management process applied.

 

Community Engagement

116. No community engagement will be conducted.

 

File Reference

17/1831, D19/258448