Agenda of Council Meeting

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 April 2017 Page 2

Environment and Planning

Item: CCL035-17 Panel of Pre-Qualified Planning, Landscape, Engineering and Urban Design - Appointment

Author: Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate: Environment and Planning

Matter Type: Environment and Planning

Recommendation

(a) That council accept the tender submissions from 49 consultancies for a term of three (3) years subject to satisfactory performance as determined by Council, with an option to extend the agreement for a further two (2) years.

(b) That the General Manager, be delegated to execute any related documents.

Executive Summary

1. Georges River Council invited suitably qualified organisations to respond to an open tender for a Panel of Pre-Qualified Planning, Landscape, Engineering and Urban Design Consultants.

2. The consultants will be appointed to assist Council in processing development applications and planning proposals; providing independent assessment of applications and proposals, Review of Determinations and Section 96 Applications where a potential conflict of interest has been identified; providing advice on complex planning and development matters; peer review and urban design advice/analysis; preparation of Strategic Planning Studies, Strategies and Policies, Development Feasibility Analysis and Economic Impact Assessments; and, preparing draft submissions/presentations to the Joint Regional Planning Panel and/or Council, as required.

3. The initial term of the proposed contract is for three (3) years with an option to extend the contract for a further two (2) years (1+1 years).

4. Tenders closed at 11am Thursday 10 November 2016.

5. This report recommends that Council appoint all the tenders received.

Background

6. The purpose of the Tender was to:

· Seek competitive responses in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 for Council’s requirements for planning and urban design services.

· Obtain planning, transport, urban design and landscape expertise, advice and support services which will enable Council to effectively respond to the full range of its planning and any associated responsibilities and any challenges it may face within the context of its operations.

· Provide efficient and reliable consultancy services for Council.

· Adopt best practice approaches to management of planning matters consistent with appropriate, efficient and cost effective planning representation for the interests of the Georges River community.

· Obtain value for money.

· Put in place agreed performance indicators to assure effective levels of service.

7. The services required to be provided from time to time will include one or more of the following:

· Processing development applications to enable Council to meet statutory timeframes in peak periods.

· Processing Planning Proposals to enable Council to meet statutory timeframes in peak periods.

· Providing independent assessment of Planning Proposals, Development Applications, Review of Determinations and Section 96 Applications where a potential conflict of interest has been identified.

· Assisting with advice, discussions and assessments regarding complex development applications.

· Providing peer review and urban design advice/analysis on Planning Proposals and Development Applications.

· Preparation of Strategic Planning Studies, Strategies and Policies.

· Preparation of Development Feasibility Analysis and Economic Impact Assessments.

· Reviewing and/or preparation of planning controls/development standards.

· Preparing draft submissions/presentations to the Joint Regional Planning Panel and/or Council, as required.

8. The tenderers were required to demonstrate that they have a thorough understanding of the requirements and are able to undertake the tasks as listed above; including:

· Technical skills, experience and qualifications in each of the disciplines nominated

· Professional experience in nominated field.

· Past experience and performance in nominated field.

· Demonstrated willingness to work with Local Government in nominated field.

· Total cost to Council/submitted rates (daily & weekly).

9. It is envisaged that suitably qualified Specialist Consultants will be contacted on an ad-hoc basis or as required, dependant on project scope and suitability.

10. The Consultants will be responsible if required to undertake all or part of the project management and contract administration works for a particular project. This will be detailed in an individual engagement brief.

11. It is expected that different Consultants would likely be used for different projects

Tender Submissions

12. Tenders were invited from 18th October 2016 with acceptance of tenders closing on 10 November 2016. A total of four (49) tenders were received, in alphabetical order, from the following:

No:	Tenderers in Alphabetical Order:	Main Discipline	Method of Submission:
1	AEC Group Pty Limited	Economics	Tenderlink
2	Annand Associates Urban Design Pty Ltd	Urban Planning Urban designer Architecture	Tenderlink
3	Architectus Group Pty Ltd	Urban Design Urban planning Architecture Building modelling	Tenderlink
4	Australian Wetlands Consulting Pty Ltd	Ecology Water quality WSUD	Tenderlink
5	Blueprint Planning Consultants	DA Assessment	Tenderlink
6	Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd	DA assessment Planning Proposals Urban Design Landscape Economics Engineering	Tenderlink
7	City Plan Strategy and Development Pty Ltd	DA assessment Planning Proposals Urban Design Economics	Tenderlink
8	Clouston Associates (Australia) Pty Ltd	Urban Design Landscape	Tenderlink
9	Conrad Gargett Ancher Mortlock Woolley	Landscape	Tenderlink
10	Conybeare Morrison International Pty Ltd	Urban Design	Tenderlink
11	Corkery Consulting Pty Ltd	Landscape architecture	Tenderlink
12	Cox Architecture Pty Ltd	Urban Design Urban planning Architecture	Tenderlink
13	David Lock Associates Pty Ltd	Urban Design Urban planning Economics	Tenderlink
14	Distinctive Living Design	Urban Design Landscape	Tenderlink
15	Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd	Ecology Heritage Bushfire GIS	Tenderlink
16	Elton Consulting	DA assessment Planning Proposals Urban planning	Tenderlink
17	Gallagher Studio Pty Ltd	Urban Design Landscape	Tenderlink
18	Gondwana Consulting Pty Ltd	Open space/recreation Aboriginal heritage Environment	Tenderlink
19	Group GSA Pty Ltd	Urban Design Landscape	Tenderlink
20	Hill PDA Consulting Pty Limited	Economics Urban planning	Tenderlink
21	Indesco Pty Ltd	Urban Design Landscape Civil design	Tenderlink
22	James Mather Delaney Design Pty Ltd	Urban Design Landscape	Tenderlink
23	JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd	Urban planning Economics Urban design	Tenderlink
24	John M Daly & Associates Pty Ltd	Engineering	Tenderlink
25	Julia Kaul Planning & Policy	Urban planning DA assessment	Tenderlink
26	Kennedy Associates Architects	Urban Design Architecture	Tenderlink
27	Kerry Longford	Urban planning	Tenderlink
28	MacroPlan Holdings Pty Ltd	Urban Planning Economics	Tenderlink
29	Mecone Pty Ltd	Urban Planning	Tenderlink
30	Meinhardt Infrastructure & Environment Australia Pty Ltd	Urban Planning Engineering Environment	Tenderlink
31	Niche Environment and Heritage Pty Ltd	Environment Heritage	Tenderlink
32	Olsson & Associates Architects Pty Ltd	Urban Design Architecture	Tenderlink
33	Planning Ingenuity Pty Ltd	DA assessment Urban Planning	Tenderlink
34	Planzone Pty Ltd	Urban Planning Urban Design DA assessment	Tenderlink
35	PTW Architects	Urban Planning Urban Design	Tenderlink
36	SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd	Urban Planning Economics	Tenderlink
37	SJB Architects	Urban Planning Urban Design Architecture	Tenderlink
38	SJB Planning (NSW) Pty Ltd	Urban Planning DA Assessment	Tenderlink
39	SMEC Australia Pty Ltd	Planning Urban design Engineering	Tenderlink
40	Soto Group Pty Ltd	Engineering	Tenderlink
41	Spackman Mossop Michaels Pty Ltd	Urban design Landscape	Tenderlink
42	Square Link Pty Ltd	Urban planning	Tenderlink
43	Strategy Hunter	Urban Planning Urban design	Tenderlink
44	Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects Pty Ltd	Landscape architecture	Tenderlink
45	The Planning Group (NSW) Pty Ltd	Urban Planning Urban design	Tenderlink
46	Tract Consultants Pty Ltd	Urban Planning Urban design	Tenderlink
47	Turf Design Studio Pty Ltd	Landscape architecture	Tenderlink
48	Veronica Young	Urban planning DA Assessment	Tenderlink
49	WMA Water Pty Ltd	Hydrologic/Hydraulic	Tenderlink

13. As indicated in the table above a range of areas will be covered by the Panel, including urban design, urban planning, DA assessment, architecture, engineering, environment, heritage and economics.

14. There were two late tenders that were not accepted from:

· JMD Design; and

· Smith & Tzannes Architecture & Urban Planning.

15. The above two tenders were not accepted to ensure continual compliance with the Council’s procedure procedures and processes.

Assessment

16. Council's evaluation committee comprised of the Manager Development & Building, Manager Strategic Planning and the Council’s Coordinator Procurement.

17. The following evaluation criteria and weightings applied to the assessment:

	Selection Criteria	Weighting
Essential	Public Liability Insurance $20 Million
Essential	Professional Indemnity Insurance $5Million
Essential	Workers Compensation including a WHS Plan
1	Capacity – including quality and availability of workforce	25%
2	Quality and depth of performance and experience	10%
3	Price	30%
4	Value added services	10%
5	Technical Expertise	10%
6	Referees	10%
7	WHS & Environmental Schedules component	5%

18. The evaluation committee had resolved at the beginning of the evaluation process that should the proposals obtain a score of 60% or more then it would be accepted into the final panel.

19. In order to Benchmark price fairly, the senior consultant rate was taken and applied against Scoring Price (lowest price – higher scores). Scores for price are based on the following method: (Note that the lower the price, the higher the score.)
Normalised price score = lowest tender price x 10 divided by the tender price

20. All 49 proposals were evaluated and met this criterion (score of higher than 60%). Furthermore, the 49 proposals allow for a range of experts for Council to choose from depending on the type of work. The Panel will contain urban designers’ landscape architects, engineers’, heritage planners, planners, contamination consultants, and so on. The Panel also includes large firms and small firms.

21. A copy of the committee’s confidential assessment report is contained in Attachment 1.

Next Steps

22. Once resolved at Council the intention would be to write to all the panel members to advise of their successful submission. In return to confirm acceptance the panellist will need to provide up to date insurance detail via Council’s nominated system - BNG Conserve. They will also need to provide a one page summary of their services so this can be put into a excel document that can be utilised with ease by council staff. The panel members represent a huge variety of services that the council can utilise under a request for quote process within the panel arrangement.

Existing Panels

23. The new Planning Panel will provide Council with a range of consultancy resources to tackle the issues within the LGA.

24. Council currently has a Valuation Panel, Legal Panel and an Engineering Panel. A Real Estate Services Panel will also be confirmed by Council this year.

25. None of the consultants on the new Planning Panel are currently sitting on the Valuation, Legal and Engineering Panels.

Financial Implications

26. No budget impact for this report.

File Reference

T16/020

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Planning Tender Evaluation Matrix - published in separate document (Confidential)

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 April 2017 Page 31

Item: CCL038-17 Draft Georges River Employment Lands Study - Overview of the draft Study and proposed Consultation Process

Author: Coordinator Strategic Planning

Directorate: Environment and Planning

Matter Type: Environment and Planning

Recommendation

(a) That the report be received and noted.

(b) That the draft Georges River Employment Lands Study – Stage 1 – Background Report and Stage 2 – Industrial and Commercial Lands Strategy be publicly exhibited in accordance with the Engagement Strategy outlined in the body of the report.

(c) That during the exhibition phase of the draft Georges River Employment Lands Study, Council Officers continue to investigate the zoning, height and FSR, as well as any appropriate design and development controls for each of the employment lands precincts (IN2, B1 and B2 lands), taking into account issues raised by landowners, economic feasibility and other relevant matters.

(d) That a further report be presented to Council following the consultation process summarising the submissions and presenting the further detailed work on the zoning, height and FSR, including the development of criteria for each Precinct.

Executive Summary

1. The draft Georges River Employment Lands Study (ELS) provides Council with a strategic direction for employment lands across the Georges River Local Government Area (LGA) to ensure that sufficient land is zoned to accommodate future employment growth.

2. The original draft ELS was prepared for the former Hurstville City Council LGA and this was reported to the then Hurstville City Council on 9 December 2015. On 19 May 2016, Georges River Council was proclaimed and amalgamated the former Kogarah City Council and Hurstville City Council LGAs.

3. As the ELS had not been finalised by the former Hurstville City Council, there was an opportunity to expand the study to land within the former Kogarah City Council LGA and have a comprehensive ELS that applied across the whole Georges River LGA.

4. The draft ELS has been prepared by consultants Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL), in conjunction with SJB and Cox Architecture and has been presented to Council in two stages:

§ Stage 1 – Background Report: provides background information and the strategic context of Georges River’s employment lands, including industrial zoned land and business zoned land.

§ Stage 2 – Industrial and Commercial Land Strategy: provides an assessment of the existing IN2 – Light Industrial lands across the Georges River LGA and makes recommendations on the future of these lands; provides an assessment of land zoned B1 – Neighbourhood Centre and B2 – Local Centres in the Peakhurst, Mortdale and Hurstville Wards (former Hurstville Council LGA) and makes recommendations on the future of these lands.^{^[1]}

5. Key findings of the Study include:

§ Georges River LGA has a reasonable self-containment level for employment (BTS JTW, 2011). Around 39,000 people come to work in the Georges River LGA from all around Sydney every day; 37% of these workers live in the LGA.

§ The Georges River LGA is becoming increasingly more attractive as a location to live and work as Sydney’s centre of population shifts westwards (Western Sydney Airport and the Broader Western Sydney Employment Area).

§ There is an opportunity to increase housing densities within walking distance of its eleven railway stations and attract young, knowledge based workforce, around the local centres.

§ That the Georges River LGA, which is situated between the South West and the Central Subregions has the opportunity to be recognised as major player in future metropolitan plans given its strategic location and should be included within the Global Economic Corridor (GEC)

§ A need to improve the retail facilities in the Hurstville centre and local centres along the railway corridor in order to make railway related centres more attractive for multi-unit housing.

§ Opportunities to locate a university campus in the Georges River LGA.

§ The Georges River LGA would benefit from the development opportunity of a business park at Kingsgrove. This needs to be promoted as the primary opportunity for the South Sydney market to have a highly functioning and desirable business park, close to major transport connections and with direct access to the South West and Sydney Airport.

6. The key general recommendations of the study include:

§ Protect employment generating and urban services land (IN2 – Light Industrial) across the LGA.

§ Review the height requirements for B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zoned land to allow realisation of the maximum FSR.

§ Review the height and FSR requirements for land within the B2 – Local Centre zoned land, so as to encourage redevelopment.

§ Review land uses in the IN2, B1 and B2 Zones to broaden the extent of permitted uses.

§ Review the current on-site parking requirements for the B1 and B2 Zones to ensure that they are not an impediment to the viability of development.

§ Review the requirement for non-residential floor space in the B1 and B2 Zones to assist in the feasibility of development, while at the same time ensuring that commercial centres retain some employment generating opportunities.

7. Community consultation is now proposed to be undertaken on the draft Study. It is important that the affected land owners and the Economic Development Advisory Committee and other relevant stakeholders are engaged and have the opportunity to respond to the recommendations presented in the draft Study.

8. A draft engagement strategy is outlined in the body of the report and is also presented to Council for endorsement.

9. It is also recommended that during the engagement phase Council Officers continue to investigate the issues identified in the draft Study, including the zoning, height and FSR, as well as the review of land uses and any appropriate design controls for each of the employment lands precincts (IN2, B1 & B2 lands).

10. Once the consultation phase has concluded, a further report will be presented to Council for consideration.

11. Once endorsed, the Study will be forwarded to the NSW Department of Planning & Environment to be endorsed as a Strategic Study. This will then inform the preparation and assessment of the Planning Proposal for Employment Lands and will assist in the assessment of any proponent led Planning Proposal for employment lands across the LGA.

Report Format

12. This report provides an overview of the background to the Employment Lands across the Georges River Council LGA and provides a summary of the content of the draft Employment Lands Study. The report is set out as follows:

Background

- Draft Hurstville Employment Lands Study

- Kogarah Employment Lands & Economic Development Strategy

Regional Context

- Draft South District Plan

- The South District Economy

Draft Employment Lands Study (ELS) for Georges River Council

- Summary of outcomes

- Key findings

- Overview of the Industrial Precincts

- Overview of the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

- Overview of the B2 – Local Centre Zone

Community Consultation

Background

13. The nature of employment and urban services land is changing as technologies and new industries emerge. Employment and urban services lands play a critical role in the efficient and effective function of the South District and the Georges River LGA.

14. There has been increasing pressure over the past few years to rezone and review the planning controls for some of the industrial and commercial precincts in the LGA. A number of submissions were made to both the former Kogarah City and Hurstville City Councils as part of the exhibition of their respective comprehensive LEPs. Council is also in receipt of a number of Planning Proposals seeking consideration of the rezoning of employment based land to generally residential.

Draft Hurstville Employment Lands Study

15. The former Hurstville City Council, on 12 April 2012, as part of the preparation of the Comprehensive LEP, resolved to undertake a review of the commercial centres zoning, height and floor space ratios.

16. The former Hurstville City Council, at its meeting on 27 November 2013 resolved to prepare an Employment Lands Strategy for all industrial zoned lands to provide a clear strategic direction for the employment lands.

17. Council engaged a consultant team (Jones Lang LaSalle, Cox Architecture and SJB) to undertake the employment lands study which included an Industrial Lands Strategy and Commercial Lands Strategy.

18. The draft Employment Lands Study applied to all lands zoned IN2 Light Industrial, B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre under the Hurstville LEP 2012 (but did not include the B3 Commercial Core and B4 Mixed Use Zone in the City Centre).

19. The purpose of the draft Study was to provide:

§ A strategic direction for the employment lands to ensure sufficient land is zoned to accommodate future employment and population growth; and

§ A draft Industrial Lands Strategy and Commercial Lands Strategy with recommended zoning and broad planning controls for the industrial and commercial areas.

20. The draft ELS comprised two parts:

Background Information Report

This report provided the background information and research on all the industrial and commercial employment lands in the Hurstville City Council LGA. This included:

§ A review of existing background information and economic studies;

§ A Land Use Survey of all businesses providing information on current employment numbers, floorspace, vacancy and land uses;

§ A SWOT analysis (i.e. an analysis of the strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats) for each of the commercial centres and industrial areas);

§ A market assessment of the office and retail market – looking at significant structural and market trends, sectors, supply & demand dynamics, shifts in user demand and requirements, etc.

§ Key drivers and demand trends;

§ The future location and operational requirements for office, retail and industrial.

21. This information informed the preparation of the industrial and commercial lands strategy.

Draft Industrial and Commercial Lands Strategy

22. The draft Industrial and Commercial Lands Strategy for the Hurstville City Council LGA included the following:

§ A review of the current planning controls for industrial and commercial lands and their effectiveness;

§ A review of the employment targets for the industrial areas and whether these targets are achievable under the existing planning controls;

§ A broad feasibility analysis and scenarios for development in the industrial areas to identify whether the existing controls are capable of accommodating growth;

§ Advice on opportunities for regenerating underutilised industrial lands and approaches to regenerate employment lands that encourage new employment activities and realise potential impacts of such development (e.g. capacity to manage additional traffic in a locality).

§ Draft planning control recommendations for industrial zoned lands (i.e. zoning, height, FSR, etc).

§ A review of existing and previous Planning Proposals and submissions relating to the industrial lands.

23. A report on the draft ELS for the Hurstville City Council LGA was considered by the former Hurstville City Council on 9 December 2015, where they resolved the following [CCL1057-15]:

“That the matter be deferred for further consideration.”

24. A copy of the report is included at Appendix 1.

Kogarah Employment Lands and Economic Development Strategy

25. In 2013, SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd provided the final version of the Kogarah Employment Lands and Economic Development Strategy to the former Kogarah City Council. The Strategy was adopted by Council on 22 April 2013. A copy of the report presented to the Planning & Environment Working Party is included at Appendix 2.

26. The Strategy is a detailed document which includes:

§ A demographic overview and economic profile of the former Kogarah City Council LGA;

§ Trends and drivers influencing industry and changing employment;

§ Employment land supply analysis of commercial centres in the former Kogarah City Council LGA;

§ Demand analysis which assesses the capacity of employment zoned land to accommodate projected jobs and floorspace;

§ Gap analysis by precinct – identifying shortfalls in floorspace capacity by precinct;

§ Competitor assessment, with a main focus on the Kogarah Town Centre and its potential competitors;

§ Viability of the current planning controls for employment lands across the former Kogarah City Council LGA; and

§ Key strategies and recommendations.

27. A number of the key recommendations identified in the SGS Study have been incorporated in Council’s New City Plan (Amendment No 2 to Kogarah LEP), which is currently with the NSW Department of Planning & Environment for finalisation.

Regional Context

Draft South District Plan

28. The draft South District Plan was placed on exhibition in November 2016. The draft District Plan proposes a 20 year vision for the South District, which includes the LGAs of Canterbury-Bankstown, Georges River and the Sutherland Shire.

29. The draft District Plan translates the metropolitan planning priorities for each District by giving effect to the four goals of A Plan for Growing Sydney:

Goal 1: A competitive economy with world class services and transport.

Goal 2: A city of housing choice, with homes that meet our needs and lifestyles.

Goal 3: A great place to live with communities that are strong, healthy and well connected.

Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city that protects the natural environment and has a balanced approach to the use of land and resources.

30. To do this the District Plan identifies priorities and actions for the District in terms of:

§ A productive city (Goal 1)

§ A liveable city (Goal 2 and 3)

§ A sustainable city (Goal 4)

31. The draft Plan aims for a growing city and looks to generate 817,000 additional jobs and accommodate 1.74 million extra people in 725,000 new homes. Economic activity is to increase by 75% to $655 billion.

32. It aims to create smart jobs with a focus on knowledge intensive employment, increased productivity per worker, providing more services to an international market, and with a greater focus on tourism.

33. Underpinning this is the concept of a 30-minute city so that an increased proportion of people have good access to jobs. Priority will be given to socially disadvantaged areas. There is a greater focus on having local services and amenities within walking distance of housing.

The South District’s Economy

34. The South District is home to 16% of Greater Sydney’s population and approximately 10% of Greater Sydney’s jobs. The District generates an estimated 5% of Greater Sydney’s economic activity in terms of Gross Value Added (GVA).^{^[2]}

35. Key priorities for the South District:

§ Kogarah is the South District’s only Strategic Centre, building on the investment of $227 million in the hospital.

§ By 2036, the goal for the Kogarah Centre is to grow from 11,800 jobs to 16,000 – 20,500 jobs.

§ Hurstville is designated as a District Centre. By 2036, the goal for Hurstville is to grow from 11,600 jobs to 15,000-20,000 jobs.

§ The main focus of residential growth is along the Metro line to Bankstown.

§ The Plan acknowledges that the South offers easy access to jobs outside the District and therefore people commute to jobs beyond its borders and its employment focus is on population serving jobs.

§ Protecting employment and urban services land and its employment generating capacity is a challenge to be addressed.

§ The need to identify opportunities for centres to grow and new centres to emerge.

36. The South District’s jobs are largely concentrated in centres such as Kogarah and Hurstville as well as ANSTO at Lucas Heights. Smaller centres also play an important role in providing local jobs and services.

37. Job targets have been identified for the District’s strategic and district centres. The lower end (Baseline Target) range of these job targets reflects the baseline of projected job growth that is anticipated in the centre, while the upper end (Higher Target) is an aspirational higher growth scenario to reflect further investment opportunities and future land use planning in centres:

Centre

Centre Type

2016 Estimate

2036

Baseline Target

2036

Higher Target

Kogarah

Strategic

11,800

16,000

20,500

Hurstville

District

11,600

15,000

20,000

38. The nature of employment and urban services land precincts in the South District is changing as technologies and new industries emerge. The industrial precincts are evolving into complex “employment” lands distinct from “industrial” land. This trend is consistent with many other parts of the Greater Sydney Region, particularly east of Parramatta.

39. Action 1.9.2 of A Plan for Growing Sydney emphasises the importance of employment and urban services lands to the productivity of the South District and Greater Sydney. The draft South District Plan has reaffirmed the value of these lands, and the importance of the economic contribution they make, not only within the District but across Greater Sydney.

40. Within the South District, industrial based land is scattered across 40 separate precincts and represents 12% of Greater Sydney’s total stock of employment and urban services land. Larger precincts of employment and urban service based land are situated within Canterbury Bankstown, Georges River and the Sutherland Shire, and these lands are important in that they contribute $5.6million to the State’s GDP.

41. As pressure increases for the conversion of these lands to residential and in some cases large format retailing, the importance of protecting these lands for industrial and urban services becomes important. The demand on these lands is also increased with the rezoning of employment lands in Alexandria and Mascot (Central District) and has forced businesses to relocate to industrial lands to the south, as well as to areas within western Sydney.

Draft Employment Lands Study for Georges River Council (ELS)

Summary of Outcomes

42. In September 2016, JLL were appointed by Georges River Council to expand the application of the draft Hurstville Employment Lands Study to include land within the former Kogarah City Council LGA (now known as Blakehurst and Kogarah Bay Wards of the Georges River LGA).

43. The key objectives of the ELS are to:

§ Set a clear strategic direction for all employment lands within the Georges River LGA.

§ Review all recent employment and economic studies for the Region.

§ Undertake an analysis of the supply and demand for commercial, retail and residential floor space in the B1 - Neighbourhood Centres and B2 - Local Centres for the former Hurstville LGA and industrial floor space in industrial areas for the IN2 – Light Industrial precincts in the Georges River LGA.

§ Ensure sufficient land is zoned to accommodate existing and potential growth across a range of employment types.

§ Provide recommendations for the B1 - Neighbourhood Centres and B2 - Local Centres for the former Hurstville LGA and IN2 – Light Industrial Precincts in the Georges River LGA.

44. The Study provides an assessment of all employment lands (excluding the Hurstville City Centre) within the former Hurstville City Council LGA and the IN2 – Light Industrial zoned land in the former Kogarah City Council LGA. Due to the size of the draft study, a copy has been circulated under separate cover.

45. A limitation of this Study is the exclusion of the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre and B2 – Mixed Use zoned land within the former Kogarah City Council LGA.

46. As outlined above, the former Kogarah City Council had commissioned an Employment Lands and Economic Development Study (SGS Economic and Planning: 2013), and this informed the changes proposed in the recent amendments to Kogarah LEP 2012 (New City Plan), which is currently awaiting finalisation and gazettal by the Department of Planning.

Key Findings

47. Important considerations that influence the LGA employment land uses include:

§ Being bounded by two rail lines with eleven stations in the LGA.

§ Around 39,000 people come to work in the Georges River LGA from all around Sydney every day; 37% of these workers live in the LGA, which is a reasonable self-containment level for employment (BTS JTW, 2011).

§ The Georges River LGA is becoming increasingly more attractive as a location to live and work as Sydney’s centre of population shifts westwards, with the fastest growing subregion being the South-West, particularly with the committed Badgerys Creek airport and the Broader Western Sydney Employment Area.

§ The opportunity for Georges River is to raise the housing density within walking distance of its eleven railway stations and attract young, knowledge based workforce, around the local centres.

§ The entire Georges River LGA could be included within the Global Economic Corridor (GEC), especially given the growth of the South West subregion, the fastest in Sydney, and the commitment to a second airport in Liverpool LGA.

§ The Georges River LGA, being between the South West and the Central subregions has the opportunity to be recognised as major player in future metropolitan plans given its strategic location.

§ There is a need to improve the retail facilities in the Hurstville centre and local centres along the railway corridor in order to make railway related centres more attractive for multi-unit housing.

§ There may be opportunities to locate a university campus in the Georges River LGA.

§ Georges River LGA would benefit from the development opportunity of a business park at Kingsgrove. This needs to be promoted as the primary opportunity for the South Sydney market to have a highly functioning and desirable business park.

48. The draft Study will inform the preparation of other studies and will be used to inform and support the preparation of a future Planning Proposal for employment lands. Further work will be undertaken by staff to identify the key issues and considerations for each of the Precincts and this will be reported to Council as part of the post exhibition report.

Overview of the Industrial Precincts

49. Industrial zoned land comprises approximately 2.6% of all land in the Georges River LGA and provides opportunities for local employment and a range of light industries to service the local community including car and boat repair, panel beaters, council depots, and household trades, as well as providing opportunities for other economic facilitating development.

50. The Georges River LGA contains nine (9) industrial precincts (zoned IN2 - Light Industrial zone) ranging from the largest, being the Peakhurst Industrial Precinct (56.1 hectares) to the Penshurst Industrial Precinct – Penshurst Lane (0.4 hectares).

51. In total, the Georges River LGA has approximately 100ha of industrial zoned land, which equates to approximately 2.6% of zoned land across the LGA.

52. The protection of employment generating and urban services land is a key outcome of the draft Study and is consistent with the recommendations of the draft South District Plan.

53. The draft ELS recommends changes to the land use zoning of a number of the Precincts as well as changes to development standards (subdivision, building height, floor space ratios) and the importance of protecting the interface with residential areas.

54. Provided in Table 1 in Appendix 3 is a snapshot of the IN2 – Light Industrial zoned lands across the LGA as well as the recommended changes proposed by JLL. A detailed summary of each of the Industrial Precincts is included in the draft Employment Lands Study, which has been circulated under separate cover.

55. The key recommendations for the majority of the IN2 – Light Industrial Precincts is to retain the existing IN2 – Light Industrial zoning and review the height from 10m to 13m to ensure that the 1:1 FSR can be achieved. For those Precincts adjacent to the residential zoned land, it is also recommended that a provision is incorporated into the DCP to address the residential interface.

56. The following provides a summary of those Precincts where zoning changes have been recommended by the consultant:

Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct

57. The Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct is the second largest industrial precinct in the Georges River LGA, covering approximately 25.7 hectares in the LGA. The Area provides employment for approximately 1,276 people within the approximate 280,951sqm of gross floor area. The Kingsgrove Industrial Area is separated from residential land to the west, south and north by parkland reserves, the East Hills Railway line, and the M5 South West Motorway.

58. The Kingsgrove Industrial Area is characterised by a number of larger land holdings that could be readily converted to and redeveloped as a business park location that can provide the scale and type of accommodation that supports the non-traditional light industrial uses and provides a transitional office and warehouse style of accommodation. There are also opportunities within this Precinct for freight and logistics activities, due to the Precinct’s location adjacent to the M5 East Motorway. The built form of the area reflects the current and historic ‘industrial’ zoning and the height maximum of 10m and FSR of 1:1.

59. The Study identifies demand for larger ‘high technology industry” type land uses which utilise larger floor areas and require warehouse style loading facilities. This type of industry was identified as being particularly suited due to the excellent road transport links which provide access to the Sydney CBD, Sydney Airport, Port Botany and south western Sydney.

60. The retention of employment land capacity in this well served and positioned area is consistent with the key strategic directions in A Plan for Growing Sydney and the desire to locate employment in well serviced and accessible areas.

61. The strengths of the Area include:

§ Location next to the M5 Motorway and Kingsgrove Road, with direct access to the M5 eastward and access to the M5 westward via King Georges Road.

§ Multiple public transport options (buses and Kingsgrove train station).

§ Large lot sizes, particularly central and western end of precinct.

§ Minimal interface with residential – separated by open space, rail line and major roads.

62. The Opportunities of the Area include:

§ Large sites provide potential for more intensive, modern business park development, with significant office component, attracting high profile corporate businesses.

§ Marketing the site’s locational advantages in relation to rail and M5 Motorway.

63. Industrial land uses were also identified as medium demand and the potential exists for intensification of industrial uses in the Area. As identified above the opportunity is for a business park focus with higher levels of office accompanying the industrial uses. The Study notes that while it is likely that regional level industrial and logistics users will continue to locate primarily in northwest and southwest Sydney, the Areas access to the M5 Motorway and the significant work to be undertaken on the Westconnex which will benefit Kingsgrove.

Recommendation

64. The Study recommends retaining the Kingsgrove Industrial Precinct as prime employment land to serve the needs of Georges River LGA and surrounding LGAs and recommends a change in zoning from IN2 Light Industrial to B7 Business Park zone that would facilitate long term redevelopment for employment generating uses that could take advantage of the strategic location relative to major road connections, major centres such as Sydney Airport, Sydney CBD and Port Botany and rail transport services.

65. The consideration of the land as a business park opportunity retains the employment contribution of the land, while prohibiting retail premises (such as bulky goods premises) and residential land uses which conflict with the desirable operational characteristics of a business park and would undermine the natural separation between the employment lands and residential currently afforded by the road and open space network.

66. The Study recommends the following:

§ Zoning change from IN2 Light Industrial to B7 Business Park (based on the Standard Instrument LEP).

§ Prohibition of residential and retail premises (bulky goods premise).

§ Review the building height and FSR to invigorate the area and assist the feasibility of redevelopment.

Beverly Hills - Penshurst Street Precinct

67. The Beverly Hills – Penshurst Street Industrial Precinct comprises approximately 1.5 hectares and the Area provides employment for approximately 61 people within the 6,817m² of gross floor area.

68. The Area is a relatively small industrial area made up of lots fronting Penshurst Street (to the north of Stoney Creek Road) that is surrounded and divided by residential housing. The area is in close proximity to rail infrastructure (800 metres from Beverly Hills Railway Station).

69. The land has limited scope for intensive light industrial land uses due to potential amenity conflicts and relative isolation from similar land uses. This lack of demand is reflected in the large site of 169B Penshurst Street which is a vacant lot (of structures) and accounts for approximately 30% of the land area.

70. The strengths of the Area include:

§ Close to railway station.

§ Proximity to Stoney Creek Road.

71. The opportunities of the Area include:

§ Improve employment land efficiency.

72. The draft Study identified a low demand for office and retail uses, noting that the redevelopment for office uses or retail uses is considered unlikely. A low-medium demand was identified for the Precinct for industrial uses. Significant additional investment in industrial is considered unlikely based on it being surrounded by residential uses and not being a recognised industrial precinct. The consultant notes the uses currently located on site are not localised services and could therefore relocate.

73. A medium-high demand for residential uses was identified, particularly as the Precinct is in close proximity to the Beverly Hills Railway Station (i.e. less than 800 metres).

Recommendation

74. The Study considered the potential for the area to be repurposed for alternative employment opportunities, however various issues make it unrealistic and unviable employment option. The Study recommends that the Area be rezoned to R2 - Low Density Residential and that further analysis be undertaken regarding the height and FSR maximums for the site in the context of adjoining development.

Hurstville Industrial - Hurstville East Precinct

75. Hurstville East Industrial Area comprises approximately 1.3 hectares and provides employment for approximately 43 people within the 10,127sqm of gross floor area.

76. The Area is located along Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane and is on the boundary of the Hurstville City Centre. Key land uses in the zone are car sales and auto related services, dry cleaners, funeral home, scout hall, storage facility, furniture and home improvements and a number of residential properties.

77. Surrounding land uses include low and medium density residential, large open space area of Kempt Field and retail and office uses along Forest Road within the Hurstville City Centre.

78. The area is well serviced by transport, walking distance from both Allawah and Hurstville Railway Stations (350 and 900 metres respectively).

79. The strengths of the Area include:

§ Relatively high employment land efficiency (0.83:1).

§ Proximity to Hurstville and Allawah Railway Stations.

§ Proximity to Hurstville CBD.

§ Accessibility via Forest Road.

80. The opportunities of the Area include:

§ Potential redevelopment for more employment intensive uses, benefiting from proximity to the CBD.

81. The draft Study identified low-medium demand for office uses, noting that the potential exists for a small amount of office space to support the industrial uses. Retail demand was also identified as medium in that the site offers good exposure from Forest Road.

82. Industrial uses were also identified as low-medium in the Study, noting that the potential exists for intensification of the industrial uses however demand is most likely to come from services that satisfy the local community. The Study considers it is likely that regional level industrial and logistics users will continue to locate primarily in northwest and southwest Sydney. Also considering its proximity to the CBD it would likely be costly for continued use as industrial opposed to an alternate use.

83. The draft Study identified residential use as medium-high, noting that the Precinct shares characteristics with Hurstville East Forest Road including proximity to the railway station and the CBD. However, the Precinct also has greater potential due to larger landholdings, which would prove more viable. It is noted that there has already been significant supply of residential in the immediate vicinity which may lessen demand to a degree.

Recommendation

84. The draft Study recommends that the Precinct be rezoned to B4 Mixed Use (including the small portion of R2 Low Density Residential zoned land at the northern end). This alternate zoning will assist in better leveraging off the railway infrastructure and proximity to the City Centre.

85. The rezoning should also be implemented with a minimum non-residential floor space requirement of 0.5:1, being the current requirement for B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones, ensuring that non-residential uses are provided at the street levels to provide minimum street activation and a vibrant centre as well as continued employment potential in the centre.

86. It should be noted that a Planning Proposal for this Precinct is currently with Council with respect to this Precinct.

Penshurst Industrial - Penshurst Lane Precinct

87. Penshurst Lane Industrial Precinct comprises approximately 0.4 hectares and provides employment for approximately 9 people within the 1,950sqm of gross floor area. Access to the Precinct is highly constrained.

88. This small industrial Precinct includes 3 lots which are bounded by the Penshurst Local Centre, Illawarra rail line and the R3 - Medium Density Residential development fronting Victoria Avenue. The Precinct provides for automotive and other service uses for the local community.

89. The Precinct essentially provides a small opportunity for service industry uses within the local centre and is conveniently located near the railway station. A large proportion of the strata units in the precinct are currently vacant and total employment numbers are very low. There is no apparent residential within the Precinct.

90. This site is highly constrained for redevelopment due to the access. The consultant has considered other employment uses however these are believed to be unviable with the centre hidden away from the main retail and services provided by the adjoining B2 - Local Centre.

91. Alternate land uses could be considered for this land via a Planning Proposal subject to the access arrangements being satisfactorily dealt with.

92. The strengths of the Area include:

§ Good location near public transport and Penshurst Local Centre.

93. The opportunities of the Area include:

§ Limited industrial opportunities due to the size of the Precinct.

§ Precinct is well placed for multi-storey residential development given its proximity to the railway station.

94. The draft Study identifies a low demand for retail or office use and a low-medium demand for industrial use. Significant additional investment in industrial is considered unlikely based on the ownership and small landholdings. The access to this site also limits the demand that might be attracted to the Precinct.

95. A medium-high demand for residential use was identified in the Study and it was noted that while incompatible with industrial uses, the sites proximity to the Penshurst train station merits consideration of a residential use. Also benefits from proximity to the station and large sites on the west side. While other employment uses have been considered, these are believed to be unviable with the centre hidden away from the main retail and services provided by the B2 Local Centre.

Recommendation

96. The draft Study recommends that the Precinct be rezoned to R3 - Medium Density Residential. This zone will provide the best possible financial incentive to improve accessibility of the centre and properly leverage off the rail infrastructure.

97. The FSR and heights should be subject to urban design testing, and in the context of the adjoining development, as part of any future planning proposal.

Overview of the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone and B2 – Local Centre Zone (former Hurstville City Council LGA)

98. As outlined above, the Study provides an assessment of the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre and B2 – Local Centre zoned land in the former Hurstville City Council LGA.

99. As outlined above the draft Study excludes the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre and B2 – Mixed Use zoned land within the former Kogarah City Council LGA.

100. The former Kogarah City Council had commissioned an Employment Lands and Economic Development Strategy (SGS Economic and Planning: 2013) as part of the Background Work to the preparation of the amendments to Kogarah LEP 2012 (New City Plan).

101. The Employment Lands and Economic Development Strategy was endorsed by the former Kogarah City Council in April 2013, and the recommendations included in the Strategy were incorporated into the recent amendments to Kogarah LEP 2012 (New City Plan), which is currently awaiting finalisation and gazettal by the Department of Planning.

102. The draft Study identifies a number of key issues which are summarised below:

§ High vacancy rates in some centres.

§ Significant residential activity in some B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zones is limiting the achievement of the key objective of the zone, which is to provide a range of small scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

§ The low intensity of development in a number of the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Precincts.

§ Fragmented land ownership in the B1 and B2 Zones make it difficult to secure appropriate sized development sites.

§ Limited availability of on-site parking within developments.

§ Difficulty to attract key retail stores, and particularly supermarkets, within the B2 – Local Centre Zones across the former Hurstville City Council LGA (it should be noted that this was a key issue identified in the Strategy prepared by SGS for the former Kogarah City Council LGA.

General Recommendations for the B1 and B2 Zones

103. The draft Study identifies 2 key barriers across all of the commercial centres (B1 and B2 Zoned Centres in the former Hurstville City Council LGA):

§ The restrictive car parking requirements – currently high and are place constraints on the viability of development.

§ Minimum non-residential floor space allocation – should be retained however consideration should be given to reducing the requirement (currently 0.5:1) so as to assist in the feasibility of development, while at the same time ensuring that commercial centres retain some employment generating opportunities.

104. In addition, the draft Study also makes the following general recommendations for consideration by Council:

Expand the permissibility of shops in the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

105. Currently retail uses in the B1 – Neighbourhood Zones are limited to neighbourhood shops with an area no greater than 100sqm.

106. The definition of a neighbourhood shop is:

“neighbourhood shop means premises used for the purposes of selling general merchandise such as foodstuffs, personal care products, newspapers and the like to provide for the day-to-day needs of people who live or work in the local area, and may include ancillary services such as a post office, bank or dry cleaning, but does not include restricted premises.”

107. The restrictive nature of the definition could preclude appropriate additional uses. To assist and support the viability of these Centres, the draft Study recommends a review of the land uses in the B1 Zone to include “shops”.

Reduce the requirement for non-residential FSR

108. The draft Study gives consideration to the minimum requirement of non-residential floor space in the B1 Neighbourhood and B2 Local Centre Zones, currently at 0.5:1 FSR.

109. Although the requirement of a minimum non-residential FSR is beneficial to ensure a successful employment outcome, the draft Study identifies that the current rate (0.5:1) is difficult to achieve and can prove to be an issue in the feasibility of projects.

110. The draft Study recommends reconsideration of the minimum non-residential FSR (reduction) from 0.5:1 to 0.3:1. This recommendation will be the subject of a separate report that will be presented to a future Council meeting.

Review the current on-site parking requirements for the B1 and B2 Zones so that they are less restrictive

111. The draft Study identifies the current car parking provisions for commercial development within the B1 and B2 Zoned lands as being overly restrictive (too high).

112. Table 2 below provides an overview of the parking requirements under Hurstville DCP No 1 – LGA Wide DCP:

Table 2: Car Parking Requirements – Hurstville DCP No 1

Development (Use)	Parking Spaces Required (on-site)
Business Premises	1 space per 50m2 GLFA
Office Premises	1 space per 40m2 GLFA
Retail/Shop	Spaces per 100m2 GLFA § 6 spaces per 100m2 where GLFA is 0-10,000m2 § 5 spaces per 100m2 where GLFA is 10,000m2 – 20,000m2 § 4 spaces per 100m2 where GLFA is >20,000m2

113. The feasibility testing on a number of scenarios indicates that the current car parking requirements significantly reduces the viability of the redevelopment of sites.

114. The provision of on-site parking in a development is costly and the current provisions in DCP No 1 do not take into account the location and amenity of employment lands (eg where a development site is situated in close proximity to a railway station).

115. The current controls applying to the former Hurstville City Council LGA are considered restrictive compared to controls for the former Kogarah City Council and Rockdale City Council LGAs. Table 3 below provides a comparison of the requirements for retail/shops:

Table 3: Comparison of Parking Requirements for Retail/Shops (by former LGA)

Former LGA	Rate	Additional Comments
Hurstville	Spaces per 100m2 GLFA § 6 spaces per 100m2 where GLFA is 0-10,000m2 § 5 spaces per 100m2 where GLFA is 10,000m2 – 20,000m2 § 4 spaces per 100m2 where GLFA is >20,000m2
Kogarah	1 space per 25m2 of GLA (shops) 1 space per 20m2 of GLA (Supermarket)
Rockdale	1 space per 40m2 GFA	Applies to a number of retail and commercial premises including shops, retail premises, restaurants and office premises

116. As indicated by the Table above, the rates in Hurstville DCP No 1 are considered restrictive compared to the controls for the former Kogarah City Council and Rockdale City Council LGAs. The draft Study has recommended that a review of the parking requirements for development in the B1 and B2 Centres be undertaken.

B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Precincts (Former Hurstville LGA)

117. The former Hurstville City Council LGA contains sixteen (16) centres that are zoned B1 – Neighbourhood Centre. As outlined above, it should be noted that the draft Study does not consider the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zoned land in the former Kogarah City Council LGA.

118. The draft ELS recommends changes to the land use zoning of a number of the Precincts as well as changes to development standards (subdivision, building height, floor space ratios).

119. While these centres are effective in servicing the local area, their accessibility through, either or both rail infrastructure and major road networks should be better leveraged.

120. The draft Study concludes that the current development standards (height and FSR), coupled with fragmented ownership and ageing development in the B2 – Local Centre zoned precincts are providing an impediment to redevelopment.

121. The draft Study identifies that there is a general opportunity across all of the B2 – Local Centres zoned land for consideration of an increase in the permitted height and FSR within these centres.

122. Provided in Table 4 in Appendix 4 is an overview of the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zoned land in the area identified as the former Hurstville City Council LGA as well as the recommended changes proposed by the consultant. A detailed summary of each of the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zoned precincts is contained in the draft Study which is circulated under separate cover.

123. A summary of the recommendations for the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zoned land is included in Table 5 below:

Table 5: B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zoned Precincts Summary

Precinct	Current Controls	Recommendation
Beverly Hills – Stoney Creek Road	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
Hurstville – Gloucester Road	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
Hurstville – Kimberley Road	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
Lugarno – Chivers Hill	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
Lugarno – Lime Kiln Road	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
Oatley – Lansdowne Parade	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
Oatley West – Mulga Road	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Rezone from B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone to B2 – Local Centre Zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
Peakhurst – Baumans Road	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
Peakhurst – Boundary Road	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
Peakhurst – Forest Road	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone § Extend the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone to include No 705 Forest Road § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
Peakhurst – Isaac Road	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
Peakhurst – Lorraine Street	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
Peakhurst – Ogilvy Street	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
Peakhurst – Park Street	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
Riverwood – Broadarrow Road	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses

Precinct

Current Controls

Recommendation

Beverly Hills – Stoney Creek Road

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

§ Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1

§ Review land uses to allow additional land uses

Hurstville – Gloucester Road

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

§ Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1

§ Review land uses to allow additional land uses

Hurstville – Kimberley Road

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

§ Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1

§ Review land uses to allow additional land uses

Lugarno – Chivers Hill

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

§ Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1

§ Review land uses to allow additional land uses

Lugarno – Lime Kiln Road

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

§ Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1

§ Review land uses to allow additional land uses

Oatley – Lansdowne Parade

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

§ Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1

§ Review land uses to allow additional land uses

Oatley West – Mulga Road

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Rezone from B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone to B2 – Local Centre Zone

§ Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1

§ Review land uses to allow additional land uses

Peakhurst – Baumans Road

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

§ Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1

§ Review land uses to allow additional land uses

Peakhurst – Boundary Road

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

§ Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1

§ Review land uses to allow additional land uses

Peakhurst – Forest Road

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

§ Extend the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone to include No 705 Forest Road

§ Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1

§ Review land uses to allow additional land uses

Peakhurst – Isaac Road

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

§ Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1

§ Review land uses to allow additional land uses

Peakhurst – Lorraine Street

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

§ Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1

§ Review land uses to allow additional land uses

Peakhurst – Ogilvy Street

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

§ Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1

§ Review land uses to allow additional land uses

Peakhurst – Park Street

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

§ Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1

§ Review land uses to allow additional land uses

Peakhurst Heights – Pindari Road

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

§ Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1

§ Review land uses to allow additional land uses

Riverwood – Broadarrow Road

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre Zone

§ Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR of 1.5:1

§ Review land uses to allow additional land uses

B2 – Local Centre Precincts (Former Hurstville City Council LGA)

124. Provided in Table 5 in Appendix 5 is an overview of the B2 – Local Centre zoned land in the area identified as the former Hurstville City Council LGA as well as the recommended changes proposed by the consultant. As outlined above, it should be noted that the draft Study does not consider the B2 – Local Centre zoned land in the former Kogarah City Council LGA.

125. A detailed summary of each of the B2 – Local Centre zoned precincts is contained in the draft Study which is circulated under separate cover.

126. A summary of the recommendations for the B2 – Local Centre zoned land is included in Table 6 below:

Table 6 – B2 – Local Centre zoned land (former Hurstville City Council LGA)

Precinct	Current Controls	Draft Study Recommendations
Beverly Hills – King Georges Road	FSR – 1.5:1 – 2:1 Height – 9m – 15m	§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre Zone § Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate § Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition § Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre
Beverly Hills – The Kingsway	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre Zone § Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate § Interface issues are easier to manage in this centre as the Precinct is separated from residential zones by roads
Hurstville – East Forest Road	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ The southern portion of the Centre should be rezoned from B2 – Local Centre to B4 – Mixed Use to leverage off the railway infrastructure and proximity to the City Centre (effectively and extension to the Hurstville Centre) § Implement a minimum non-residential floor space ratio requirement of 0.5:1 for the B4 – Mixed Use zoned land § Provide requirements for minimum street activation for the B4 – Mixed Use Lands § Retain the B2 – Local Centre for the remainder of the Precinct § Increase in height and FSR for the B2 – Local Centre and B4 - Mixed Use subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate. Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition § Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre
Kingsgrove – Kingsgrove Road	FSR – 1.5:1 (Pottery Site – 2:1 FSR) Height – No controls relating to height other than on the Pottery Site – 15m	§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre Zone § Increase FSR and include height controls subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate § Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition § Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre
Mortdale – Morts Road	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – No controls relating to height	§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre Zone § Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate § Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition § Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre
Narwee – Broadarrow Road	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – No controls relating to height	§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre Zone § Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate § Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition § Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre
Penshurst – Penshurst Street	FSR – 2:1 – 2.5:1 Height – 15m – 19m	§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre Zone § Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate § Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition § Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre
Penshurst – Forest Road	FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre Zone § Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate § Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition § Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre
Riverwood – Belmore Road	FSR – 2:1 – 3:1 Height – 18m – 28m	§ No changes recommended to controls in the Centre § This Precinct is currently part of a Land Use Infrastructure Strategy (LUIS) which is being prepared by the Department of Planning & Environment, in conjunction with Canterbury- Bankstown Council and Georges River Council. A report will be presented to Council at a future date on this work

Precinct

Current Controls

Draft Study Recommendations

Beverly Hills – King Georges Road

FSR – 1.5:1 – 2:1

Height – 9m – 15m

§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre Zone

§ Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate

§ Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition

§ Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre

Beverly Hills – The Kingsway

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre Zone

§ Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate

§ Interface issues are easier to manage in this centre as the Precinct is separated from residential zones by roads

Hurstville – East Forest Road

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ The southern portion of the Centre should be rezoned from B2 – Local Centre to B4 – Mixed Use to leverage off the railway infrastructure and proximity to the City Centre (effectively and extension to the Hurstville Centre)

§ Implement a minimum non-residential floor space ratio requirement of 0.5:1 for the B4 – Mixed Use zoned land

§ Provide requirements for minimum street activation for the B4 – Mixed Use Lands

§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre for the remainder of the Precinct

§ Increase in height and FSR for the B2 – Local Centre and B4 - Mixed Use subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate. Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition

§ Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre

Kingsgrove – Kingsgrove Road

FSR – 1.5:1

(Pottery Site – 2:1 FSR)

Height – No controls relating to height other than on the Pottery Site – 15m

§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre Zone

§ Increase FSR and include height controls subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate

§ Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition

§ Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre

Mortdale – Morts Road

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – No controls relating to height

§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre Zone

§ Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate

§ Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition

§ Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre

Narwee – Broadarrow Road

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – No controls relating to height

§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre Zone

§ Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate

§ Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition

§ Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre

Penshurst – Penshurst Street

FSR – 2:1 – 2.5:1

Height – 15m – 19m

§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre Zone

§ Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate

§ Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition

§ Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre

Penshurst – Forest Road

FSR – 1.5:1

Height – 9m

§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre Zone

§ Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate

§ Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition

§ Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre

Riverwood – Belmore Road

FSR – 2:1 – 3:1

Height – 18m – 28m

§ No changes recommended to controls in the Centre

§ This Precinct is currently part of a Land Use Infrastructure Strategy (LUIS) which is being prepared by the Department of Planning & Environment, in conjunction with Canterbury- Bankstown Council and Georges River Council. A report will be presented to Council at a future date on this work

Further Analysis of Employment Lands

127. Although a draft Employment Lands Study has been prepared, Council’s Officers have not yet undertaken a detailed analysis of each Precinct. As a result, the recommendations presented by the consultants in the draft Study are draft recommendations and may be subject to change.

128. It is proposed that during the consultation phase, further analysis be undertaken by Council’s Strategic Planning staff for each of the Precincts identified in the draft Study. This work will include the development of existing and future character statements and draft criteria for the assessment of the viability of the employment lands and there future employment generation potential.

129. This work, along with the feedback received from property owners will inform the preparation of future recommendations for each of the Precincts, which may include recommendations for the rezoning of land, expansion of land uses, review of development standards and consideration of other appropriate development controls.

130. This additional work will be presented to Council and will form part of the post exhibition report.

Community Consultation

131. Prior to finalising the draft Employment Lands Strategy, it is recommended that consultation be undertaken with the owners of affected properties and the broader community.

132. The draft Study provides a detailed analysis of the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of employments lands across the LGA, however it is considered that further detailed work is required to be undertaken to develop detailed criteria, development controls and recommendations for each of the Precincts.

133. It is recommended that this work be undertaken during the consultation phase, in order to provide owners/stakeholder with the opportunity to provide comment and feedback, and in some cases a more detailed response to the recommendations provided in the draft Study.

134. It is recommended that the draft study be made available for public comment for a period of no less than 28 days and that the following Engagement Strategy be endorsed for the purposes of the exhibition of the draft Employment Lands Study:

Stakeholders	Proposed Action
General Consultation	§ Information to be included on Council’s website § Information to be placed at Council’s Customer Services Centres and in local libraries § 2 x advertisements to be placed in the local newspaper (1^st week of the exhibition and 3^rd week of the exhibition) § Council’s Strategic Planning staff will be available during office hours to answer telephone and face to face enquiries
Affected Landowners	§ A letter will be sent to all affected property owners advising them of the exhibition of the draft Study. The letter will advise of the proposed recommendation relating to the affected property as recommended by the consultant § The letter will also advise of Drop-In Sessions which will be available at selected dates and times during the exhibition period
Drop-in Sessions	§ Council Strategic Planning officers will be available during selected dates and times for owners/stakeholders to make appointments to discuss issues related to the draft Study and employment lands § The details of these sessions will be included in the information sent to affected landowners and will be included in advertised material on Council’s website and in the advertisements included in the local newspaper
St George Business Chamber	§ Letter sent to the Chamber advising them of the exhibition and making an offer for Council staff to present an overview of the draft ELS to a Chamber meeting
Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC)	§ Presentation made to the EDAC during the exhibition of the draft Study § Summary document prepared and distributed to members of the EDAC prior to presentation
Media	§ Media Release to be sent to the local paper prior to the commencement of the exhibition advising of the exhibition of the draft ELS
Internal Council Departments	§ Email to relevant stakeholders within Council advising them of the exhibition of the draft ELS

135. It should also be noted that additional community consultation will be undertaken as part of any future Planning Proposal for the Employment Lands.

Conclusion

136. The draft ELS addresses all the IN2 – Light Industrial zoned land across the Georges River LGA and the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre and B2 – Local Centre zoned land in the former Hurstville City Council LGA.

137. Further work will need to be undertaken to ensure the future development standards and controls for the employment lands encourage the orderly and economic development of land, consistent with the actions and recommendations in the draft South District Plan.

138. It is recommended that the draft ELS be placed on public exhibition to allow landowners and other stakeholders to have an opportunity to provide comment and feedback.

139. During the exhibition phase, it is also recommended that Council Officers undertake further detailed investigations of the Precincts within the IN2, B1 and B2 zoned lands. This work will also take into account any discussions held with landowners and affected stakeholders during the exhibition of the draft study and recommendations will be presented in the post-exhibition report to Council.

Financial Implications

140. Within budget allocation.

File Reference

14/784

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1	Appendix 1 - Report to the former Hurstville City Council on the draft ELS_091215
Attachment View2	Appendix 2 - Kogarah Employment Lands and Economic Development Strategy - Report to Working Party
Attachment View3	Appendix 3 - Overview of IN2 - Light Industrial Zoned Land
Attachment View4	Appendix 4 - Overview of the B1 - Neighbourhood Centre Zoned Land
Attachment View5	Appendix 5 - Overview of the B2 - Local Centre Zoned Land

CURRENT CONTROLS	LAND AREA (% of all land) & ESTIMATED EMPLOYEES	DRAFT STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. PEAKHURST INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT
Zone: IN2 - Light Industrial Height: 10m FSR: 1:1	56.19ha (1.65%) 2.553	Retain IN2 - Light Industrial Height: 13m FSR: 1:1 Increase minimum subdivision from 650m2 to 1000m2 Incorporate a DCP provision to address development and the residential interface
2. KINGSGROVE INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT
Zone: IN2 - Light Industrial Height: 10m FSR: 1:1	26.13 ha (0.81%) 1,276	Rezone from IN2 – Light Industrial to B7 – Business Park Review height and FSR to allow for greater height and FSR Further work should be undertaken to ensure that the height and FSR assist in feasible development
3. CARLTON INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT
Zone: IN2 - Light Industrial Height: 10m FSR: 1:1	9.83 ha (0.32%) 515	Retain IN2 - Light Industrial Height: 13m FSR: 1:1 Increase minimum subdivision 1000m2 Incorporate a DCP provision to address development and the residential interface
4. SOUTH HURSTVILLE –HALSTEAD STREET INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT
Zone: IN2 - Light Industrial Height: 10m FSR: 1:1	1.71 ha (0.05%) 119	Retain IN2 - Light Industrial Height: 13m FSR: 1:1 Increase minimum subdivision 1000m2 Incorporate a DCP provision to address development and the residential interface
5. BLAKESHURST INDUSTRIAL PRECINCT
Zone: IN2 - Light Industrial Height: 10m FSR: 1:1	1.59 ha (0.04%) 127	Retain IN2 - Light Industrial Height: 13m FSR: 1:1 Increase minimum subdivision 1000m2 Incorporate a DCP provision to address development and the residential interface
6. BEVERLY HILLS – PENSHURST STREET PRECINCT
Zone: IN2 - Light Industrial Height: 10m FSR: 1:1	1.48 ha (0.04%) 62	Rezone from IN2 – Light Industrial to R2 – Low Density Residential Height and FSR to be reviewed in the context of the surrounding development
7. HURSTVILLE INDUSTRIAL – HURSTVILLE EAST PRECINCT
Zone: IN2 - Light Industrial Height: 10m FSR: 1:1	1.34 ha (0.04%) 43	Rezone from IN2 – Light Industrial to B4 – Mixed Use zone Height and FSR to be reviewed in the context of the surrounding development Incorporate a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.5:1 to protect employment uses on the site.
8. PENSHURST INDUSTRIAL – FOREST ROAD PRECINCT
Zone: IN2 - Light Industrial Height: 10m FSR: 1:1	1.14ha (0.03%) 64	Retain IN2 - Light Industrial Height: 13m FSR: 1:1 Increase minimum subdivision 1000m2 Incorporate a DCP provision to address development and the residential interface.
9 PENSHURST INDUSTRIAL – PENSHURST LANE PRECINCT
Zone: IN2 - Light Industrial Height: 10m FSR: 1:1	0.42ha (0.1%) 9	Rezone from IN2 – Light Industrial to R3 – Medium Density Residential zone Height and FSR to be reviewed in the context of the surrounding development

CURRENT CONTROLS	LAND AREA (m²)	DRAFT STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. BEVERLY HILLS – STONEY CREEK ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	815m²	§ Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR on 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
2. HURSTVILLE – GLOUCESTER ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	1,231m²	§ Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR on 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
3. HURSTVILLE –KIMBERLEY ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	3,087m²	§ Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR on 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
4. LUGARNO – CHIVERS HILL
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	3,370m²	§ Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR on 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
5. LUGARNO – LIME KILN ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	1,966m²	§ Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR on 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
6. OATLEY – LANSDOWNE PARADE
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	1,537m²	§ Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR on 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
7. OATLEY WEST – MULGA ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	13,370m²	§ Rezone the Precinct from B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone to B2 – Local Centre zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR on 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
8. PEAKHURST – BAUMANS ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	873m²	§ Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR on 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
9. PEAKHURST – BOUNDARY ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	1,981m²	§ Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR on 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
10. PEAKHURST – FOREST ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	12,290m²	§ Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone § Extend the B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone to include No 705 Forest Road. § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR on 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
11. PEAKHURST – ISAAC ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	600m²	§ Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR on 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
12. PEAKHURST – LORRAINE STREET
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	1,395m²	§ Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR on 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
13. PEAKHURST – OGILVY STREET
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	2,059m²	§ Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR on 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
14. PEAKHURST – PARK STREET
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	2,365m²	§ Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR on 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
15. PEAKHURST HEIGHTS – PINDARI ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	1,946m²	§ Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR on 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses
16. RIVERWOOD – BORADARROW ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	997m²	§ Retain the existing B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone § Increase in the maximum permitted height of buildings from 9m to 12m so as to allow realisation of the maximum FSR on 1.5:1 § Review land uses to allow additional land uses

CURRENT CONTROLS	LAND AREA (m²)	DRAFT STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. BEVERLY HILLS – KING GEORGES ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 – 2:1 Height – 9m – 15m	47,069m²	§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre zone § Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate § Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition § Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre.
2. BEVERLY HILLS – THE KINGSWAY
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	12,674m²	§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre zone § Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate § Interface issues are easier to manage in this centre as the Precinct is separated from residential zones by roads.
3. HURSTVILLE – EAST FOREST ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	17,655m²	§ The southern portion of the Centre should be rezoned from B2 – Local Centre to B4 – Mixed Use to leverage off the railway infrastructure and proximity to the City Centre (effectively and extension to the Hurstville Centre) § Implement a minimum non-residential floor space ratio requirement of 0.5:1 for the B4 – Mixed Use zoned land. § Provide requirements for minimum street activation for the B4 – Mixed Use Lands. § Retain the B2 – Local Centre for the remainder of the Precinct § Increase in height and FSR for the B2 – Local Centre and B4 - Mixed Use subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate. Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition. § Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre
4. KINGSGROVE – KINGSGROVE ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 (Pottery Site – 2:1 FSR) Height – No controls relating to height other than on the Pottery Site – 15m	19,686m²	§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre zone § Increase FSR and include height controls subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate. § Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition § Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre
5. MORTDALE – MORTS ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – No controls relating to height	25,255m²	§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre zone § Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate. § Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition. § Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre.
6. NARWEE – BROADARROW ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – No controls relating to height	5,392m²	§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre zone § Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate. § Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition. § Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre.
7. PENSHURST – PENSHURST STREET
FSR – 2:1 – 2.5:1 Height – 15m – 19m	29,406m²	§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre zone. § Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate. § Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition. § Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre.
8. PENSHURST – FOREST ROAD
FSR – 1.5:1 Height – 9m	7,718m²	§ Retain the B2 – Local Centre zone § Increase in height and FSR subject to urban design testing to ensure that outcomes are appropriate. § Consideration should also be given to heights and FSR adjacent to residential zones to ensure appropriate transition. § Traffic Management should also be considered to identify any necessary improvements to the traffic circulation capacity of the centre.
9. RIVERWOOD – BELMORE ROAD
FSR – 2:1 – 3:1 Height – 18m – 28m	41,299m²	§ No changes recommended to controls in the Centre.

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 April 2017 Page 182

Item: CCL042-17 Planning Proposal - No 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville - Post Exhibition Report

Author: Coordinator Strategic Planning

Directorate: Environment and Planning

Matter Type: Environment and Planning

Recommendation

1. That Council note the outcomes of public exhibition of the Planning Proposal PP2014/0003 for 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville.

2. That the Planning Proposal for 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 not be supported for the following reasons:

(a) The additional height proposed is excessive having regard to the adjacent context. In that regard, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel considers that a height of no more than 46m, which equates to the height of the building to the south at 2 Barratt Street, is the upper limit. The Floor Space Ratio would need to be adjusted to reflect this height and appropriate built form.

(b) Allowing the current Planning Proposal would be likely to result in development that would have unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining development, unacceptable streetscape and curtilage impacts on adjacent heritage items.

(c) The Planning Proposal fails to adequately address impacts on traffic and vehicular access within Hurstville City Centre.

(d) Any future Planning Proposal should be accompanied by a site specific DCP to reflect a detailed urban design study including a proposed building envelope for the site that demonstrates the key principles of SEPP 65 are achievable.

3. That the applicant and those persons who made a written submission on the Planning Proposal for Nos 29- 31 MacMahon Street be notified of Council’s decision.

Executive Summary

1. The Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP), at its meeting on 23 March 2017 considered a report on the outcomes of the community consultation undertaken for the Planning Proposal for 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville, as identified in Figure 1 below. A copy of this report is included at Appendix 1.

Figure 1: Site subject of the Planning Proposal

2. The report proposed the following amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012 for Nos 29 – 31 MacMahon Street:

§ Amend the Height of Building Map to increase the maximum building height from 40m to 50m;

§ Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to increase the maximum floor space ratio from 4.5:1 to 5.5:1; and

§ Require a minimum “non-residential” floor space ratio of 0.5:1 through an amendment to clause 4.4A (Exceptions to floor space ratios for buildings on land in certain zones).

3. In considering the council officer’s report on the Planning Proposal, the IHAP were of the opinion that the requested height of 50m was excessive and was out of context with the adjoining development in the Precinct.

4. The IHAP were also of the opinion that allowing a building envelope, as proposed by the Planning Proposal would result in a future development that would have unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining development, unacceptable streetscape and curtilage impacts on adjacent heritage items.

5. Subsequently, IHAP in its consideration of Item 3.3 resolved the following:

(1) That the Planning Proposal for 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 not be supported for the following reasons:

(i) The additional height proposed is excessive having regard to the adjacent context. In that regard, the Panel considers that a height of no more than 46m, which equates to the height of the building to the south at 2 Barratt Street, is the upper limit. The Floor Space Ratio would need to be adjusted to reflect this height and appropriate built form.

(ii) Allowing the current Planning Proposal would be likely to result in development that would have unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining development, unacceptable streetscape and curtilage impacts on adjacent heritage items.

(iii) The Planning Proposal fails to adequately address impacts on traffic and vehicular access within Hurstville City Centre.

(iv) Any future Planning Proposal should be accompanied by a site specific DCP to reflect a detailed urban design study including a proposed building envelope for the site that demonstrates the key principles of SEPP 65 are achievable.

Background

6. The Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP), at its meeting on 23 March 2017 considered a report on the outcomes of the community consultation undertaken for the Planning Proposal for 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville. As outlined above, a copy of the report to the IHAP and the associated annexures are included at Appendix 1.

7. The report proposed the following amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012 for Nos 29 – 31 MacMahon Street:

§ Amend the Height of Building Map to increase the maximum building height from 40m to 50m;

§ Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to increase the maximum floor space ratio from 4.5:1 to 5.5:1; and

§ Require a minimum “non-residential” floor space ratio of 0.5:1 through an amendment to clause 4.4A (Exceptions to floor space ratios for buildings on land in certain zones).

8. The report presented to IHAP provided an overview of the community consultation process which was undertaken in accordance with the Gateway Determination. During the exhibition period, eleven (11) community submissions (all in support) and ten (10) public authority submissions were received.

9. In undertaking an assessment of the Planning Proposal, it was considered that a number of issues raised by Transport for NSW, RMS and the Heritage Office had not been adequately addressed by the applicant.

10. These outstanding issues included the following:

§ Ensuring that travel demand management measures (such as appropriate parking restraints) are investigated and incorporated into a site specific DCP or future DA to encourage the use of public and active transport.

§ Satisfaction by Council that an appropriate funding mechanisms is in place to ensure implementation of demand management strategy measures can be provided.

§ Consideration of an appropriate funding mechanism to allow for regional transport infrastructure improvements; required as a result of the cumulative impacts of future development in the Hurstville City Centre.

§ The Heritage Office has required that consideration be given to any adverse impact that a proposed development would have on the heritage significance of the ‘Fire Station’, ‘Friendly Societies Dispensary Building’ and other items of local heritage significance in the vicinity of the subject site. With respect to the NSW Heritage Office’s comment on the possible impacts of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the ‘Fire Station’, ‘Friendly Societies Dispensary Building’ and other items of local heritage significance in the vicinity of the subject site – this can be dealt with at DA stage with a heritage impact statement that would need to accompany a DA.

11. As a result of the assessment undertaken by council staff, a report was submitted to IHAP with the following recommendation:

(a) That the Georges River IHAP note the outcomes of public exhibition of the Planning Proposal PP2014/0003 for 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville.

(b) That in respect of the Planning Proposal for Nos. 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville to amend Hurstville LEP 2012 the following two options be forwarded to the Department of Planning & Environment:

Option 1:

Resubmit the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning & Environment requesting an amended Gateway Determination to require the proponent to address the impacts on traffic and access within the Hurstville City Centre raised by TfNSW/RMS through a voluntary planning agreement.

Option 2:

Resubmit the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning & Environment requesting that the Department insert into the Hurstville LEP 2012 a site specific clause that requires the consent authority to be satisfied that the development will provide for road and traffic upgrades in the local road network and contribute to measures that encourage the use of public transport.

(c) That in respect to the NSW Heritage Office’s comment on the possible impacts of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the ‘Fire Station’, ‘Friendly Societies Dispensary Building’ and other items of local heritage significance in the vicinity of the subject site, that the Department be advised that this matter will be dealt with at DA stage.

(d) That a Report to Council be prepared to advise of the IHAP recommendations

(e) That those persons who made a written submission on the Planning Proposal for Nos 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville be notified of the IHAP’s decision.

12. This recommendation was made on the basis of the following:

§ Although the residential uplift under the Planning Proposal is 555m2, which on its own is not a significant uplift, when assessing the cumulative impact over the Hurstville Precinct with all the uplifts proposed there is an additional impact which needs to be addressed.

§ The Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 does not levy for these roads and traffic facilities. Therefore VPA’s provide a mechanism for Council to assist in funding the delivery of this critical infrastructure within the City Centre where the proposed development has an impact on this infrastructure. The Council has consistently applied the VPA Policy to Planning Proposals in the Hurstville City Centre, in order to provide public benefits that bear a relationship to the development and that are for a proper legitimate planning purpose. The key focus has been the provision of and contributions towards road and traffic infrastructure in the City Centre.

§ The proposed development under the Planning Proposal will result in an increase in traffic in the Hurstville City Centre and should therefore be contributing to the provision of this infrastructure as outlined in the TMAP. This is also consistent with the public authority submissions received from RMS and TfNSW during the consultation period for the Planning Proposal.

13. In considering the council officer’s report on the Planning Proposal, the IHAP were of the opinion that the requested height of 50m was excessive and out of context with the adjoining development in the Precinct.

14. The IHAP were also of the opinion that allowing a building envelope, as proposed by the Planning Proposal would result in a future development that would have unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining development, unacceptable streetscape and curtilage impacts on adjacent heritage items.

15. Subsequently, IHAP resolved the following:

That the Planning Proposal for 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 not be supported for the following reasons:

(v) The additional height proposed is excessive having regard to the adjacent context. In that regard, the Panel considers that a height of no more than 46m, which equates to the height of the building to the south at 2 Barratt Street, is the upper limit. The Floor Space Ratio would need to be adjusted to reflect this height and appropriate built form.

(vi) Allowing the current Planning Proposal would be likely to result in development that would have unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining development, unacceptable streetscape and curtilage impacts on adjacent heritage items.

(vii) The Planning Proposal fails to adequately address impacts on traffic and vehicular access within Hurstville City Centre.

(viii) Any future Planning Proposal should be accompanied by a site specific DCP to reflect a detailed urban design study including a proposed building envelope for the site that demonstrates the key principles of SEPP 65 are achievable.

Comments from the IHAP

Height and FSR

16. In considering the Planning Proposal, the IHAP identified a number of issues with respect to the Planning Proposal. The existing height and FSR for the site is 40m and 4.5:1 and the IHAP were of the opinion that the proposed height and FSR of 50m and 5.5:1 was excessive and out of context with the surrounding development.

17. The IHAP considered that a future development on the site at a height and FSR as proposed would result in a development that would have unacceptable amenity impacts on the adjoining development and unacceptable impacts on the adjacent heritage items.

18. As such, the IHAP were of the opinion that the maximum height should be reduced to 46m, and the FSR adjusted to fit within the height envelope.

19. It was also recommended that any future Planning Proposal be accompanied by a site specific DCP to reflect a detailed urban design study, which would include a proposed building envelope for the site that demonstrates the key principles of SEPP 65 are achievable.

Traffic and Vehicular Access

20. The IHAP, as part of their recommendation also identified that the Planning Proposal fails to adequately address impacts on traffic and vehicular access within the Hurstville City Centre.

21. With respect to the impacts on traffic and access within the Hurstville Precinct identified by TfNSW and RMS, discussions have been held with the applicant in relation to the negotiation of a Planning Agreement, in accordance with the Georges River Policy of Planning Agreements 2016. To date the developer has not made an offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement in accordance with the Policy.

22. In this case the residential uplift under the Planning Proposal is 555m2, which on its own is not a significant uplift. However, when assessing the cumulative impact over the Hurstville Precinct with all the uplifts proposed there is an impact which needs to be addressed.

23. The Hurstville City Centre TMAP 2013 identifies the key road and traffic infrastructure works required to service the future development of the City Centre. The Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 does not levy for these roads and traffic facilities. Therefore, VPAs provide a mechanism for Council to assist in funding the delivery of this critical infrastructure within the City Centre where the proposed development has an impact on this infrastructure.

24. The Council has consistently applied the VPA Policy to Planning Proposal in the Hurstville City Centre, in order to provide public benefits that bear a relationship to the development and that are for a proper legitimate planning purpose. The key focus has been the provision of and contributions towards road and traffic infrastructure in the City Centre

25. The proposed development under the Planning Proposal will result in an increase in traffic in the Hurstville City Centre and should therefore be contributing to the provision of this infrastructure as outlined in the TMAP.

26. This is consistent with the public authority submissions received from RMS and TfNSW during the consultation period for the Planning Proposal. In this regard, RMS state that “Council should be satisfied that an appropriate funding mechanism is in place to ensure that regional transport infrastructure improvements required as a result of the cumulative impacts of future development in the Hurstville City Centre can be provided”.

27. Therefore, a contribution under a VPA towards public benefits such as road and traffic facilities identified in the Hurstville City Centre TMAP is considered reasonable on the basis that the Planning Proposal will result in increased development in the City Centre.

28. As stated in the IHAP report the consistent approach followed in considering development activity in the centre is that each development contributes to the improvement of the road and traffic facilities in order to cater for increased traffic capacity.

Proposed Uplift and Issues Raised by RMS and Transport for NSW

29. As outlined above, the Planning Proposal results in an up-lift of development potential for the site (in this case the residential uplift is 555m²).

30. The developer has not made an offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) in conjunction with the Planning Proposal. Discussions have been held with the Applicant, in accordance with the Georges River Policy on Planning Agreements 2016 (VPA Policy).

31. The VPA Policy was adopted on 1 August 2016 and sets out Council’s objectives in relation to the use of planning agreements including:

- to provide an enhanced and more flexible development contributions system;

- to supplement or replace, as appropriate the application of s94 or s94A..;

- to ensure that the framework for planning agreements is consistent, efficient, fair and accountable;

- facilitate the provision of public facilities and services..”

32. The Policy has been consistently applied to planning proposals and development applications alike since its adoption.

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

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

35. In the case of this Planning Proposal, the estimated uplift in the residual land value has been calculated to be approximately $2.5 million, which 50% is $1.25 million. As such, in accordance with Council’s VPA Policy the Developer should be offering approximately $1.25 million in public benefits to Council via either public works, dedication of land or monetary contributions.

36. The Policy provides that where the developer disputes the values in the Policy, the developer can provide the Council will sufficient details, costs and valuations to determine the realistic figure for the residual land value. This has not occurred in this case.

37. The Council has consistently applied the VPA Policy to Planning Proposals in the Hurstville City Centre, in order to provide public benefits that bear a relationship to the development and that are for a proper legitimate planning purpose.

38. The key focus has been the provision of and contributions towards road and traffic infrastructure in the City Centre.

39. The Hurstville City Centre TMAP 2013 identifies the key road and traffic infrastructure works required to service the future development of the City Centre. The Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 does not levy for these roads and traffic facilities. Therefore VPA’s provide a mechanism for Council to assist in funding the delivery of this critical infrastructure within the City Centre where the proposed development has an impact on this infrastructure.

40. The proposed development under the Planning Proposal will result in an increase in traffic in the Hurstville City Centre and should therefore be contributing to the provision of this infrastructure as outlined in the TMAP.

41. This is consistent with the public authority submissions received from RMS and TfNSW during the consultation period for the Planning Proposal. In this regard, RMS state that “Council should be satisfied that an appropriate funding mechanism is in place to ensure that regional transport infrastructure improvements required as a result of the cumulative impacts of future development in the Hurstville City Centre can be provided”.

42. A contribution under a VPA towards public benefits such as road and traffic facilities identified in the Hurstville City Centre TMAP is considered reasonable on the basis that the Planning Proposal will result in increased development in the City Centre.

43. The consistent approach followed in considering development activity in the centre is that each development contributes to the improvement of the road and traffic facilities in order to cater for increased traffic capacity.

Conclusion

44. The Planning Proposal has been exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Act, the Regulation and Gateway Determination, and submissions received during the exhibition period have been considered.

45. The IHAP considers for the reasons outlined in the body of the report to not support the Planning Proposal.

46. Should Council resolve to support the recommendation of the IHAP, it is recommended that applicant be advised in writing of Council’s decision.

Financial Implications

47. Within budget allocation.

File Reference

48. Trim File: PP2014/0003

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Report to IHAP Meeting held 23 March 2017

Site Plan

Executive Summary

1. This report considers the outcomes of a community consultation undertaken for the Planning Proposal for 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville.

2. The Planning Proposal proposes the following:

§ Amend the Height of Building Map to increase the maximum building height from 40m to 50m;

§ Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to increase the maximum floor space ratio from 4.5:1 to 5.5:1; and

§ Require a minimum “non-residential” floor space ratio of 0.5:1 through an amendment to clause 4.4A (Exceptions to floor space ratios for buildings on land in certain zones).

3. The community consultation has been undertaken in accordance with the Gateway Determination issued by the Department of Planning and Environment on 28 September 2016 (with a finalisation date no later than 5 July 2017).

4. The Planning Proposal was placed on community consultation from 23 November to 21 December 2016. During the exhibition period, eleven (11) community submissions (all in support) and ten (10) public authority submissions were received.

5. The key issues raised in the public authority submissions have been considered in the review of the Planning Proposal.

6. The Planning Proposal has not addressed a number of issues raised by Transport for NSW, RMS and the Heritage Office. These include:

§ Satisfaction by Council that an appropriate funding mechanisms is in place to ensure implementation of demand management strategy measures can be provided;

7. As the Planning Proposal was not supported by the former Hurstville City Council (resolution dated 1 April 2015) a Pre-Gateway review was lodged by the applicant and an assessment of the Planning Proposal was undertaken by the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel.

8. The Planning Proposal received a Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning and Environment on 28 September 2016.

9. Discussions have also been held with the Applicant in relation to the negotiation of a Planning Agreement, in accordance with the Georges River Policy on Planning Agreements 2016. Specifically, the Planning Proposal results in an up-lift of development potential for the site and as a consequence any future development on the site there will be impacts on traffic and access within the Hurstville City Centre. To date the Developer has not made an offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement in accordance with the Policy.

10. In this case the residential uplift under the Planning Proposal is 555m2, which on its own is not a significant uplift. However when assessing the cumulative impact over the Hurstville Precinct with all the uplifts proposed there is an impact which needs to be addressed.

11. The Hurstville City Centre TMAP 2013 identifies the key road and traffic infrastructure works required to service the future development of the City Centre. The Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 does not levy for these roads and traffic facilities.

12. Therefore, two options are proposed for IHAP to consider regarding this Planning Proposal to address the road, traffic and transport issues within the centre:

Option 1:

Option 2:

Resubmit the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning & Environment requesting that the Department insert into the Hurstville LEP 2012 a site specific clause that requires the consent authority to be satisfied that the development will provide for road and traffic upgrades in the local road network and contribute to measures that encourage the use of public transport.

13. With respect to the NSW Heritage Office’s comment on the possible impacts of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the ‘Fire Station’, ‘Friendly Societies Dispensary Building’ and other items of local heritage significance in the vicinity of the subject site – this can be dealt with at DA stage with a heritage impact statement that would need to accompany a DA.

Report Details

Applicant’s Original Planning Proposal Request

14. The original Planning Proposal request was lodged by KPoint Investments Pty Ltd, on behalf of the Churches of Christ Trust, on 7 November 2014 requesting that Hurstville City Council amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 (“HLEP 2012”) in relation to 29-31 MacMahon Street as follows:

§ increase the maximum building height from 40m to 55m (approx. 17 storeys),

§ increase the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) from 4.5:1 to 7:1, and

§ include a bonus 1:1 FSR for a community facility within the proposed FSR of 7:1.

15. The former Hurstville City Council considered the Planning Proposal on 1 April 2015 and resolved not to support the Planning Proposal request due to a number of reasons including:

§ the exceedance of development standards,

§ inconsistency with the Hurstville City Centre Transport Management and Accessibility Plan, 2013 (the “TMAP”) recommendations,

§ inconsistency with S117 Direction 3.4: Integrating Land Use and Transport and

§ the setting of a precedent.

Planning Proposal – Gateway Determination

16. Subsequent to Council’s refusal of the Planning Proposal, the Applicant lodged a Pre-Gateway Review Application (PGR_2015_HURST_001_00) with the Department of Planning and Environment (the “Department”) on 22 May 2015.

17. The application was considered by the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel (“JRPP”) at its meetings of 20 April 2016 and 1 June 2016. The JRPP recommended that “the proposed instrument should be submitted for a Gateway determination” subject to a number of amendments. Attachment 1 contains the Panel’s decision on the application.

18. On 30 June 2016, the Department requested that the Planning Proposal be updated to reflect the JRPP recommendations by:

§ Reducing the proposed maximum building height from 55m to 50m (approximately 15 storeys)

§ Reducing the proposed FSR from 7:1 to 5.5:1; and

§ Removing the site specific 1:1 FSR bonus for development involving a community facility.

19. Georges River Council advised the Department that it would agree to act as the Relevant Planning Authority on 15 July 2016 and prepared a Planning Proposal for the Site in accordance with Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) and the Department's guidelines titled, “A guide to preparing local environmental plans” and “A guide to preparing planning proposals”

20. The Planning Proposal reflected the JRPP recommendations, as outlined above and included the requirement for a minimum “non-residential” FSR of 0.5:1 on the site.

21. The Planning Proposal was submitted to the Department for a Gateway Determination on 10 August 2016. Council received the Gateway Determination on 28 September 2016. The conditions of the Gateway determination required for Council to consult with a number of public authorities, including RMS and TfNSW.

22. An update report on the Planning Proposal and detailed background information was provided to Council, at its meeting on 7 November 2016, advising of the Gateway Determination and community consultation requirements. A copy of this report is included at Attachment 2. Attachment 3 contains a copy of the Gateway Determination dated 28 September 2016.

Community Consultation

23. The Planning Proposal was placed on community consultation from 23 November to 21 December 2016 in accordance with the Gateway Approval (which required community consultation for a minimum of 28 days).

24. Exhibition material (including a plain English explanation, land to which the Planning Proposal applies, description of objectives and intended outcomes, copy of the Planning Proposal and relevant maps) was provide during the exhibition period on the Georges River Council website and printed copies were available at:

§ Hurstville Service Centre and Kogarah Service Centre

§ Hurstville City Library and Penshurst Branch Library.

25. Notification of the community consultation was provided through:

§ Newspaper advertisement in The St George and Sutherland Shire Leader

§ Exhibition notice and material on Council’s website

§ Notices in Council offices (Hurstville and Kogarah Service Centres) and Hurstville and Penshurst Libraries

§ Letter to the public authorities as specified in the Gateway Determination (refer below)

§ Letter to adjoining landowners (in accordance with Council’s Notification Procedures).

26. The following public authorities were consulted in accordance with the Gateway Determination:

§ Transport for NSW

§ Roads and Maritime Services

§ Department of Education and Communities

§ NSW Ministry of Health

§ NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

§ Sydney Airport Authority

§ Civil Aviation Safety Authority

§ Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

27. During the exhibition period twenty-one (21) submissions were received including eleven (11) from the local community and ten (10) from public authorities as detailed below and in the summary Tables in Attachment 4 and 5.

Community Submissions

28. Eleven (11) submissions were received from the community. All of these submissions were in support of the Planning Proposal. The submissions are summarised in Attachment 5.

Government Authority Submissions

29. The comments raised in the submissions received from public authorities are summarised in the Table in Attachment 4.

30. A number of submissions have raised issues/concerns which are still outstanding and have not been addressed by the Applicant. A detailed summary of these issues is included in the Table below:

Roads & Maritime Services & Transport for NSW

The RMS raised “no objection to the planning proposal as the planning proposal is (in itself) unlikely to have a significant impact on the classified road network”.

The RMS recommends that Council ensures that travel demand management measures (such as appropriate parking restraints) are investigated and incorporated into a site specific DCP or future DA to encourage the use of public and active transport.

The RMS goes on to state that:

“Council should be satisfied that an appropriate funding mechanism is in place to ensure that regional transport infrastructure improvements required as a result of the cumulative impacts of future development in the Hurstville City Centre can be provided”.

Transport for NSW “supports the comments submitted by the Roads and Maritime Services”

Transport for NSW also identifies the need for “an appropriate funding mechanism to ensure implementation of demand management strategy measures”.

Council Comments

It is noted that the issue of traffic and transport impacts and the proposal’s inconsistency with the Hurstville City Centre TMAP was raised by Council in its initial refusal of the Planning Proposal request, and both traffic and transport impacts were raised in subsequent correspondence to the Department of Planning and Environment in relation to the Pre-Gateway review process (undertaken by the Sydney East JRPP).

The issues of the adequacy of traffic and transport assessment provided in the Planning Proposal were also raised in Council’s Gateway request to the Department (10 August 2016) – Council requested that these issues be included as conditions on the Gateway Determination.

The Department’s own internal advice (Information Assessment and Recommendation Report (11 February 2016)) recommended that the Sydney East JRPP consider the following matters in preparing its advice on whether the proposal should proceed to Gateway for determination:

Requiring a traffic study to determine the cumulative impact of development on this and nearby sites that exceed the existing development controls and justify and inconsistency with the Hurstville City Centre TMAP, including consultation with TfNSW and RMS prior to exhibition.

The applicant has not addressed or responded to the issues raised by RMS and Transport for NSW.

The Hurstville City Centre TMAP 2013 identifies the key road and traffic infrastructure works required to service the future development of the City Centre. Council cannot levy a Section 94 Contribution at DA stage for road and traffic infrastructure works as the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 does not levy for such works.

To date Council has been addressing the road and traffic infrastructure works funding by the voluntary planning agreement process. To date the Developer has not made an offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement in accordance with the Council’s VPA Policy.

The Planning Proposal results in an up-lift of the residential development potential by 555m2. This is not a significant uplift – however when assessing the cumulative impact over the Hurstville Precinct with all the uplifts proposed there is an impact which needs to be addressed.

Therefore two options are being proposed to address the road and traffic infrastructure works required by the potential development as follows:

Option 1:

Option 2:

Resubmit the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning & Environment requesting that the Department insert into the Hurstville LEP 2012 a site specific clause that requires the consent authority to be satisfied that the development will provide for road and traffic upgrades in the local road network and contribute to measures that encourage the use of public transport.

Both options are recommended to be forwarded to the Department for consideration. This will ensure that the road and traffic infrastructure works are either funded through a VPA or are included as conditions of consent for any DA approved on the site.

NSW Office of Environment & Heritage

The Office of Environment & Heritage noted that a Statement of Heritage Impact was not submitted with the Planning Proposal.

The OEH recommends that Council give consideration to any adverse impact the proposed development would have on the heritage significance of the ‘Fire Station’, ‘Friendly Societies Dispensary Building’ and other items of local heritage significance in the vicinity of the subject site, prior to the planning proposal being finalised.

Council Comments

The adequacy of the heritage assessments provided in the Planning Proposal were also raised in Council’s Gateway request to the Department (10 August 2016); asking that these issues be included as conditions on the Gateway Determination.

The correspondence from the Department (28 September 2016) in relation to the Gateway Determination stated that:

“While the Department notes Council’s recommendation for studies in urban design, traffic, heritage and additional demand for facilities, it has determined the existing information provided is sufficient for the purpose of the planning proposal”.

In this respect Council’s DRP identified that the relationship of the proposed development to the existing heritage building and street edge is critical and that the proposed building’s interface with the existing heritage building needs further resolution and should be considered in relation to the entire street.

This aspect of the development can be considered at the design stage of a development – and be resolved through the DA process.

Comments of the St George Design Review Panel

31. In accordance with the provisions of Clause 27 of SEPP65, the Planning Proposal was referred to the St George Design Review Panel (DRP) on 9 February 2017.

32. In summary, the Panel makes the following recommendation (in part):

The Panel…… does not support the exceedance of floor space ratio or height above the JRPP recommendation. If the FSR is reduced….the area removed could approximately equate to the top three levels of the tallest part of the proposed building form. With this reduction the building height would then be similar to that of the neighbouring tall buildings, resulting in a more equitable and urbane outcome. Further design resolution as part of the DA process is required and the proposal should be referred to the Panel for consideration at that time.

33. A copy of the Minutes of the St George DRP is included as Attachment 6.

34. The following provides a summary of the comments raised by the St George DRP and Council Officers recommendations in response to the comments:

SEPP 65 Consideration	DRP Comments and Council Officers Recommendation
Context and Neighbourhood Character	Height The DRP does not support the additional height along the western boundary and has not been adequately justified, particularly in relationship to views for neighbouring properties. The proposed height of approximately 55m is not supported by the DRP and is 5m higher than the recommendation of the JRPP. The proposed height of any development on the site should be consistent with the adjoining development. *Council Recommendation:* The proposed FSR should not exceed 50m as recommended by the JRPP and this should be reflected in the Planning Proposal. FSR Increased FSR (5.75:1) is not supported and is above the recommended FSR of 5.5:1 (as recommended by the JRPP). The DRP has recommended that the distribution of floor space, number of storeys and view loss issues be reviewed as part of any future DA design. This may be an opportunity to reduce the building envelope/height. *Council Recommendation:* The proposed FSR should not exceed 5.5:1 as recommended by the JRPP and this should be reflected in the Planning Proposal Heritage The DRP has identified that the relationship of the proposed development to the existing heritage building and street edge is critical. There needs to be further consideration. The proposed building’s interface with the existing heritage building needs further resolution and should be considered in relation to the entire street. The identification of a forecourt should be reviewed to ensure that there is legibility and connectivity to a through site link. *Council Recommendation:* Further consideration at the design stage is to be given to the: § Interface between the existing heritage building and the proposed building; and § The forecourt design to ensure legibility and connectivity throughout the development Scale and massing The DRP supports the proposed massing as it improves solar access to surrounding properties and provides a view corridor across and from within the courtyard to MacMahon Street. The proposed two storey datum and scale to MacMahon Street is also supported by the DRP, any it is suggested that a “podium” building of this height be considered along the full frontage – in sympathy with the scale of the heritage building – rather than having a small courtyard adjoining it and exposing its blank side wall. *Council Recommendation:* No objection to the proposed massing and scale, subject to compliance with the maximum building height of 50m and FSR of 5.5:1.
Built Form and Context	No specific comments were provided by the DRP
Density	As outlined above the FSR should comply with the maximum of 5.5:1. *Council Recommendation:* The proposed FSR should not exceed 5.5:1 as recommended by the JRPP and this should be reflected in the Planning Proposal
Sustainability	It is considered that the proposed design demonstrates solar access to adjacent buildings and that the proposed envelopes can facilitate solar access and cross ventilation as per the ADG. This will be considered in more detail as part of any future DA. *Council Recommendation:* That this be reviewed as part of any future DA for the subject site
Landscape	The streetscape along MacMahon Street and opportunities for future street trees should be addressed as a component of any future DA Any proposed communal open space should address the following: · Interface with adjoining podiums levels. · Adequate soil depth to support tree planting to contribute to outlook and privacy between properties. *Council Recommendation:* Further consideration at the design stage is to be given to the: § Streetscape along MacMahon Street § Communal open space areas and the adequacy for deep soil planting and interface between podium levels
Amenity	The DRP has identified that this will be subject to future detailed design. *Council Recommendation:* Further consideration at the design stage is to be given to the amenity provisions of SEPP 65
Safety	The DRP has identified that this will be subject to future detailed design, however the configuration/depth and activation of any forecourt will be an important consideration. *Council Recommendation:* Further consideration at the design stage is to be given to the safety provisions of SEPP 65, particularly with respect to the design of any forecourt area.
Housing Diversity and Social Interaction	The DRP has identified that this will be subject to future detailed design. *Council Recommendation:* Further consideration at the design stage is to be given to the housing diversity and social interaction provisions of SEPP 65
Aesthetics	The DRP has identified that this will be subject to future detailed design, however consideration should be given to views to the existing fire station *Council Recommendation:* Further consideration at the design stage is to be given to the aesthetic provisions of SEPP 65, and specifically views along the street and to the existing fire station.

Voluntary Planning Agreement

35. The developer has not made an offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) in conjunction with the Planning Proposal. Discussions have been held with the Applicant, in accordance with the Georges River Policy on Planning Agreements 2016 (VPA Policy).

36. The VPA Policy was adopted on 1 August 2016 and sets out Council’s objectives in relation to the use of planning agreements including:

- to provide an enhanced and more flexible development contributions system;

- to supplement or replace, as appropriate the application of s94 or s94A..;

- to ensure that the framework for planning agreements is consistent, efficient, fair and accountable;

- facilitate the provision of public facilities and services..”

The Policy has been consistently applied to planning proposals and development applications alike since its adoption.

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

38. Clause 5.13 of the Policy states through a formula, that Council capture fifty percent (50%) of the increase in the residual land value resulting from the planning uplift sought for a site via the Planning Proposal. In the case of this Planning Proposal, the estimated uplift in the residual land value has been calculated to be approximately $2.5 million, which 50% is $1.25 million. As such, in accordance with Council’s VPA Policy the Developer should be offering approximately $1.25 million in public benefits to Council via either public works, dedication of land or monetary contributions.

39. The Policy provides that where the developer disputes the values in the Policy, the developer can provide the Council will sufficient details, costs and valuations to determine the realistic figure for the residual land value. This has not occurred in this case.

Public Benefits

40. The Council has consistently applied the VPA Policy to Planning Proposals in the Hurstville City Centre, in order to provide public benefits that bear a relationship to the development and that are for a proper legitimate planning purpose. The key focus has been the provision of and contributions towards road and traffic infrastructure in the City Centre.

41. The Hurstville City Centre TMAP 2013 identifies the key road and traffic infrastructure works required to service the future development of the City Centre. The Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 does not levy for these roads and traffic facilities. Therefore VPA’s provide a mechanism for Council to assist in funding the delivery of this critical infrastructure within the City Centre where the proposed development has an impact on this infrastructure.

42. The proposed development under the Planning Proposal will result in an increase in traffic in the Hurstville City Centre and should therefore be contributing to the provision of this infrastructure as outlined in the TMAP. This is consistent with the public authority submissions received from RMS and TfNSW during the consultation period for the Planning Proposal. RMS state that “Council should be satisfied that an appropriate funding mechanism is in place to ensure that regional transport infrastructure improvements required as a result of the cumulative impacts of future development in the Hurstville City Centre can be provided”.

43. Therefore, a contribution under a VPA towards public benefits such as road and traffic facilities identified in the Hurstville City Centre TMAP is considered reasonable on the basis that the Planning Proposal will result in increased development in the City Centre.

44. The consistent approach followed in considering development activity in the centre is that each development contributes to the improvement of the road and traffic facilities in order to cater for increased traffic capacity. To ensure this development addresses these impacts a suggested option is that a specific clause is included into the Hurstville LEP 2012 that indicates that a consent authority is to be satisfied that the development will provide for road and traffic upgrades on the local road network and contribute to measures that encourage the use of public transport.

Conclusion and Next Steps

The Planning Proposal has been exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Act, the Regulation and Gateway Determination, and submissions received during the exhibition period have been considered.

Council has previously advised the Department of Planning and Environment that it will not exercise it delegation for the finalisation of the Planning proposal.

If the IHAP supports this report’s recommendations, a separate report will be prepared for the next Georges River Council meeting to advise the outcomes and recommendations of this IHAP meeting and request that Council (as the ‘relevant planning authority’) resolve to support the Planning Proposal (with the two options) and the finalisation of the draft amendment to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 in accordance with section 59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

All submitters will be advised of the Council’s decision.

Executive Summary

1. This report provides an update on the receipt of the Gateway determination for the Planning Proposal (PP2014/0003) for Nos. 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville (the Site).

2. The Planning Proposal was lodged on 7 November 2014 by KPoint Investments Pty Ltd on behalf of the Churches of Christ Trust and requested the following amendments to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”):

· increasing the maximum building height from 40m to 55m

· increasing the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) from 4.5:1 to 7:1

· including a bonus 1:1 FSR for a community facility within the proposed FSR of 7:1.

3. The former Hurstville City Council considered the Planning Proposal on 1 April 2015 and resolved not to support the Planning Proposal request due to a number of reasons including:

· the exceedance of development standards,

· inconsistency with the Hurstville City Centre Transport Management and Accessibility Plan, 2013 (the “TMAP”) recommendations,

· inconsistency with S117 Direction 3.4: Integrating Land Use and Transport and

· the setting of a precedent.

4. The Applicant lodged a Pre-Gateway Review Application (PGR_2015_HURST_001_00) with the Department of Planning and Environment (the “Department”) on 22 May 2015. The application was considered by the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel (“JRPP”) at its meetings of 20 April 2016 and 1 June 2016. The JRPP recommended that “the proposed instrument should be submitted for a Gateway determination” subject to a number of amendments.

5. Georges River Council (“Council”) advised the Department that it would agree to act as the Relevant Planning Authority (“RPA”) on 15 July 2016 and prepared a Planning Proposal for the Site in accordance with Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) and the Department's guidelines titled, “A guide to preparing local environmental plans” and “A guide to preparing planning proposals” which reflected the JRPP recommendations and includes a minimum “non-residential” FSR of 0.5:1 on the site.

6. A Gateway determination request was submitted to the Department on 10 August 2016.

7. Council has received a Gateway determination dated 28 September 2016 to enable public exhibition of the planning proposal to amend the height and FSR controls for 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville which contains a number of conditions (refer Attachment 1). The Department expects Council to place the planning proposal on exhibition as soon as practicable as the time frame for completing the LEP is July 2017.

Background

The Site

8. The Site is located at Nos. 29 and 31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville. The site is rectangular in shape, has a total site area of 1,112.6m², a frontage of 30.18m and the depth is 47m.

Figure 1: Site Location

9. The Site is owned by The Churches of Christ Property Trust and contains an existing two storey residential apartment block (4 dwellings) and a single storey Church. Vehicular access is provided off MacMahon Street.

Applicant’s Planning Proposal Request, 7 November 2014 (PP2014/0003)

10. The Planning Proposal request was lodged by KPoint Investments Pty Ltd on 7 November 2014 and requested the following amendments to HLEP 2012 in relation to the Site:

· Amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the height from 40 metres (approx. 12 storeys) to 55 metres (approx. 17 storeys)

· Amend the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Map to increase the FSR from 4.5:1 to 7:1 (this included an FSR of 1:1 for a ‘community facility’).

Council’s consideration of Planning Proposal

11. Hurstville City Council considered the Planning Proposal request at its meeting of 1 April 2015 and resolved not to support the Planning Proposal due to the request exceeding the development standards in HLEP 2012 (Amendment No. 3) by a significant amount, inconsistencies with the Hurstville City Centre TMAP recommendations and S117 Direction 3.4: Integrating Land Use and Transport and the setting of a precedent of amendments to the development standards in an instrument recently finalised.

Pre Gateway Review Application (22 May 2015) and JRPP consideration

12. The Applicant lodged a Pre-Gateway Review application (PGR_2015_HURST_001 00) with the Department on 22 May 2015. The Application was considered by the JRPP on two (2) occasions; 19 April 2016 and 1 June 2016.

13. On 30 June 2016, the Department requested that the Planning Proposal be updated to reflect the JRPP recommendations by:

· reducing the proposed maximum height to 50m (approx. 15 storeys)

· reducing the proposed FSR to 5.5:1

· removing the site specific 1:1 FSR bonus for development involving a community facility

Applicant’s amended Planning Proposal - 3 August 2016

14. The Applicant submitted an amended Planning Proposal and a revised Urban Design Study on 3 August 2016 which reflected the recommendations of the JRPP.

15. The amended Planning Proposal removed all references to “community use” and “place of public worship” on the Site and has included reference to “non-residential” uses on the ground floor level.

16. The Applicant has not made an Offer to enter into a Planning Agreement in relation to the Subject Site.

Council’s request for Gateway Determination

17. Council advised the Department that it will act as the RPA on 15 July 2016.

18. In line with the recommendations of the JRPP in its determination of PGR_HURST_001_00 and in accordance with Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) and the Department's guidelines, Council submitted a Planning Proposal for the Site to the Department for a Gateway determination on 10 August 2016.

19. A summary of the current planning controls, Applicant Proposal (original lodged in November 2014 and revised lodged in August 2016), JRPP Recommended and Final Recommended planning controls is provided in the Table below:

	Current Controls	Applicant Proposal (Original Nov 2014 and revised August 2016)	Recommended JRPP (June 2016)	Recommended
Site Area	1,112.6m²	--		--
Zone	B4 Mixed Use	B4 Mixed Use		B4 Mixed Use
FSR	4.5:1 (5,007m²)	Original: 7:1 (7,788m²) (approx. 70 apartments) Revised: 5.75:1 (6,398m²)* (approx. 60 apartments)	5.5:1 (6,119m²)	5.5:1 Including a minimum non-residential floorspace of 0.5:1
Height	40m (12 storeys)	Original: 55m (17 storeys) Revised: 50m (15 storeys)	50m (15 storeys)	50m (15 storeys)

* The total GFA of 6,398m² includes a non-residential floorspace of approx. 1,000m² (0.9:1) and a residential floorspace of 5398m² (4.8:1) as detailed in the Urban Design Study which results in an overall FSR of 5.75:1. The revised Planning Proposal request identifies an FSR of 5.5:1.

20. In summary, the proposed changes included in the Planning Proposal request to the Department for Gateway determination, in line with the recommendations of the JRPP included:

· reducing the requested height from 55m (approx. 17 storeys) to 50m (approx. 15 storeys)

· reducing the requested FSR from 7:1 (including bonus FSR) to 5.5:1

· consultation with the appropriate authorities about the height in relation to Obstacle Limitation Surface.

21. An additional proposed change was included in the Planning Proposal request in response to the current strategic planning studies being undertaken in relation to the business zones and reflecting the identified ground level “non-residential” land use in the Applicant’s revised Planning Proposal request:

· a minimum 0.5:1 “non-residential” FSR be required on the site for employment purposes.

22. Council noted that the following supporting studies may be required and that these issues were previously raised by both Council and the Department in its Information Assessment and Recommendation Report (February 2016):

· a Traffic Study to demonstrate consistency with the TMAP, traffic impacts of the proposed place of worship and community facilities and consultation with TfNSW and RMS,

· a Heritage Impact Assessment to address any potential impacts of the revised Planning Proposal on the two heritage items, and

· an analysis of demand for recreation and community facilities.

Gateway Determination

23. A Gateway Determination, dated 28 September 2016 (refer Attachment 1), has been received from the Department under section 56 of the Act in respect of the Planning Proposal to amend the height and FSR controls for the Site.

24. The Department notes Council’s recommendations for studies in urban design, traffic, heritage and additional demand for facilities; however, it has determined that the existing information provided is sufficient for the purpose of the Planning Proposal.

25. The Department acknowledges that Council does not wish to exercise its Plan-making delegation in relation to the Planning Proposal.

26. The Gateway includes the following conditions:

1. Community consultation is required under sections 56(2)(c) and 57 of the Act as follows:

i. Planning Proposal to be publicly exhibited for 28 days

ii. The RPA (Council) to comply with notice requirements identified in section 5.5.2 of the Department’s A Guide to Preparing LEPs (2013)

2. Consultation is required with the following public authorities under section 56(2)(d) of the Act and to comply with the requirements of relevant section 117 Directions:

i. Transport for NSW

ii. Roads and Maritime Services

iii. Department of Education and Communities

iv. NSW Ministry of Health

v. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

vi. Sydney Airport Authority

vii. Civil Aviation Safety Authority and

viii. Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

Each public authority is to be provided with a copy of the Planning Proposal and relevant supporting material and given at least 21 days to comment on the proposal.

3. A public hearing is not required under section 56(2) (e) of the Act.

4. The timeframe for completing the LEP is 9 months from the week following the date of the Gateway determination, i.e.; 5 July 2017

VPA Offer

27. It is noted that no Offer to enter into a Planning Agreement was submitted with the Planning Proposal.

28. On 1 August 2016, Council adopted a Policy on Planning Agreements that includes provisions when Council may consider entering into a planning agreement.

29. On 10 August 2016, Council requested the Applicant to advise if they have an intention to provide an Offer to enter into a Planning Agreement. Council did not receive a response from the Applicant to this correspondence and a further letter was sent on 25 October 2016.

30. On 31 October 2016, the Applicant responded to Council’s letters, however has not clarified its position as to whether an Offer is to be made to enter into a Planning Agreement.

Next Steps

A. The Planning Proposal proceed to public exhibition subject to an appropriate material public benefit being identified, negotiated and formalised in an agreement to the satisfaction of the General Manager.

B. That should this agreement on the material public benefit not be achieved within 21 days, the matter be referred back to Council for consideration.

Financial Implications

31. Within budget allocation.

File Reference

14/1818

Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 April 2017

CCL042-17 Planning Proposal - No 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville - Post Exhibition Report

[Appendix 1] Report to IHAP Meeting held 23 March 2017

Page 221

Attachment 5: Summary of Community Submissions to the Community Consultation (November/December 2016) of the Planning Proposal (PP2014/0003) for 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville (11 Submissions)

Name

Summary of Submission

Response

Andrew Ball

10/12/16

The submission acknowledges that Hurstville Church of Christ is seeking to develop its strategically placed property in order to continue to benefit and enhance the community of which it is a part.

As a Conference of over 100 Churches across NSW the submission endorses the Planning Proposal which will, if adopted, enable the Church's property to be redeveloped strategically and assist the Church to continue to be a community offering fresh hope in the City of Hurstville more significantly than ever before and in a greater variety of ways than ever before.

We consider the adoption of the Planning Proposal will add considerably to the amenity of the civic precinct of Hurstville and provide a significant platform by which the Hurstville Church of Christ will be well placed to continue to serve and benefit the community of Hurstville in an enhanced way.

Support noted

Lynne Toomey

16/12/16

I note the above Planning Proposal has been advertised by Council.

I am aware Hurstville Church of Christ, for over 100 years, has been serving, and contributing to, the people of Hurstville in many, many ways and countless people have benefited as a result.

Each week numerous people benefit by way of the English Classes held each Saturday and the weekly playgroup held on Wednesdays. Other community groups make use of the facilities the Church provides for their meetings.

I note the Planning Proposal is intended to facilitate amendments sought to the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville.

I wholeheartedly endorse the Planning Proposal. If adopted, this proposal will enable the Church’s property to be redeveloped in a sensible manner and assist the Church, more ably than ever, to continue its service to the community.

I consider the adoption of the Planning Proposal will add considerably to the amenity of the civic precinct of Hurstville and enhance the visual amendments of MacMahon Street and in turn benefit the reputation and stature of the Georges River Council area. The current unit block on the proposed site detracts immensely from the present area especially being directly opposite the Council offices.

As a resident and rate payer of the Georges River Council Local Government Area I commend the adoption of the Proposal.

Support noted.

John Dicker

19/12/16

I note the above Planning Proposal has been advertised by Council.

I am aware Hurstville Church of Christ, for over 100 years, has been serving, and contributing to, the people of Hurstville in many, many ways and countless people have benefited as a result.

I note the Planning Proposal is intended to facilitate amendments sought to the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville.

I endorse the Planning Proposal as I consider it will, if adopted, enable the Church’s property to be redeveloped in a sensible manner and assist the Church, more ably than ever, to continue its service to the community.

As a resident of the Georges River Council Local Government Area. I commend the adoption of the Proposal.

Support noted.

David A Bentley

20/12/16

I note the above Planning Proposal has been advertised by Council.

I am aware Hurstville Church of Christ, for over 100 years, has been serving, and contributing to, the people of Hurstville in many, many ways and countless people have benefited as a result. That serving work continues to increase to the present day.

I note the Planning Proposal is intended to facilitate amendments sought to the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville.

I strongly endorse the Planning Proposal as I consider it will, if adopted, enable the Church’s property to be redeveloped in a sensible manner and assist the Church, more ably and effectively than ever, to continue its service to the community.

I consider the adoption of the Planning Proposal will also add considerably to the amenity of the civic precinct of Hurstville and enhance the visual amendments of MacMahon Street and in turn benefit the reputation and stature of the Georges River Council area.

Support noted.

David A Bentley

20/12/16

I note the above Planning Proposal has been advertised by Council.

I am aware Hurstville Church of Christ, for over 100 years, has been serving, and contributing to, the people of Hurstville in many, many ways and countless people have benefited as a result.

I note the Planning Proposal is intended to facilitate amendments sought to the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville.

I endorse the Planning Proposal as I consider it will, if adopted, enable the Church’s property to be redeveloped in a sensible manner and assist the Church, more ably and effectively than ever, to continue its service to the community.

Support noted.

Nathan and Laura Murphy

19/12/16

The submission notes the Planning Proposal advertised by Council.

The submission acknowledges that Hurstville Church of Christ, for over 100 years, has been serving, and contributing to, the people of Hurstville in many, many ways and countless people have benefited as a result.

The submission notes the Planning Proposal is intended to facilitate amendments sought to the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville.

The submission considers that the Planning Proposal will, if adopted, enable the Church’s property to be redeveloped in a sensible manner and assist the Church, more ably than ever, to continue its service to the community.

The submission considers the adoption of the Planning Proposal will add considerably to the amenity of the civic precinct of Hurstville and enhance the visual amendments of MacMahon Street and in turn benefit the reputation and stature of the Georges River Council area and commends the adoption of the Proposal.

Support noted.

Shamus Toomey

21/12/16

Hurstville Church of Christ, for nearly 110 years, has been serving, and contributing to, the people of Hurstville in many, many ways and countless people have benefited as a result.

I note the Planning Proposal is intended to facilitate amendments sought to the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville.

The Church of Christ, Hurstville is one of the last remaining civic institutions in MacMahon Street, traditionally the major civic precinct in Hurstville. The Church is seeking to expand its role in the community and provide a modern multipurpose facility which will serve the needs of both the Church and the local community.

The desire of the Church is to increase its impact in the community and provide better facilities, programs and opportunities in a centrally located position within Hurstville which is suitable for, and readily accessible, to the community.

Support noted.

Shamus and Keren Toomey

21/12/16

We note the above Planning Proposal has been advertised by Council.

We are aware Hurstville Church of Christ, for nearly 110 years, has been serving, and contributing to, the people of Hurstville in many, many ways and countless people have benefited as a result.

We note the Planning Proposal is intended to facilitate amendments sought to the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville.

We endorse the Planning Proposal as we consider it will, if adopted, enable the Church’s property to be redeveloped in a sensible manner and assist the Church, more ably than ever, to continue its service to the community.

We consider the adoption of the Planning Proposal will add considerably to the amenity of the civic precinct of Hurstville and enhance the visual amendments of MacMahon Street and in turn benefit the reputation and stature of the Georges River Council area.

We commend the adoption of the Proposal.

Support noted.

Toomey Pegg

21/12/16

The Submission acknowledges Toomey Pegg act for Usjust Pty Limited a property owner at Penshurst within the Georges River Local Government Area. We are instructed:

a) the above Planning Proposal has been advertised by Council;

b) the Planning Proposal is intended to facilitate amendments sought to the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville;

c) our client considers the adoption of the Planning Proposal will add considerable to the amenity of the civic precinct of Hurstville, enhance the MacMahon Street streetscape in turn benefit the reputation and stature of the Georges River Council area. It is a proposal which is entirely consistent with the adjoining properties and the broader vision for the City that Council has demonstrated by the developments it has approved; and

d) our client supports the adoption of the Proposal.

Support noted.

Toomey Pegg

21/12/16

We note the above Planning Proposal has been advertised by Council.

We are aware Hurstville Church of Christ, for nearly 110 years, has been serving, and contributing to, the people of Hurstville in many, many ways and countless people have benefited as a result.

We note the Planning Proposal is intended to facilitate amendments sought to the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville.

I consider the adoption of the Planning Proposal will add considerable to the amenity of the civic precinct of Hurstville, enhance the MacMahon Street streetscape in turn benefit the reputation and stature of the Georges River Council area. It is a proposal which is entirely consistent with the adjoining properties and the broader vision for the City that Council has demonstrated by the developments it has approved.

We commend the adoption of the Proposal.

Support noted.

Stephen Toomey

21/12/16

I note the above Planning Proposal has been advertised by Council.

I am aware Hurstville Church of Christ, for nearly 110 years, has been serving, and contributing to, the people of Hurstville in many, many ways and countless people have benefited as a result.

I note the Planning Proposal is intended to facilitate amendments sought to the Hurstville LEP 2012 in relation to 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville.

I consider the adoption of the Planning Proposal will add considerably to the amenity of the civic precinct of Hurstville , enhance the MacMahon Street streetscape in turn benefit the reputation and stature of the Georges River Council area. It is a proposal which is entirely consistent with the adjoining properties and the broader vision for the City that Council has demonstrated by the developments it has approved.

As a resident of your local government area I commend the adoption of the Proposal.

Support noted.

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 3 April 2017 Page 231

Finance and Governance

Item: CCL043-17 Advice on Court Proceedings - March 2017

Author: General Counsel

Directorate: Office of the General Manager

Matter Type: Finance and Governance

Recommendation

(a) That the information be received and noted.

(b) That Council commence a public education program regarding its controls around preservation and protection of trees in its local government area, including highlighting the potential penalties for offences regarding removal or injury to protected trees.

Executive Summary

1. Advice on Council’s Court Proceedings for the period 28 February 2017 to 24 March 2017 is contained within this report.

Background

2. The current Court Proceedings for the reporting period are broken down as follows:

Land and Environment Court Appeals

· 9 x Class 1 (Merit/DA)

· 2 x Class 2 Appeal (Appeal against Order now S56A Appeal & Tree Dispute)

· 4 x Class 4 Proceedings

Local Court

· 14 x Prosecutions

District Court

· 1 x Defamation Proceedings

Supreme Court

· 1 x Administrative Law matter

Total Costs

· Total costs to date for the 2016/17 financial year are $422,052.00 [$263,011.00 (Hurstville) and $159,041.00 (Kogarah)].

· Total legal costs recovered to date for the 2016/17 financial year are $60,695.00 [$41,100.00 (Hurstville) and $19,595.00 (Kogarah)]. Therefore net legal costs for Court proceedings for the 2016/17 financial year are $361,357.00.

Historical Costs

· Total costs for 2015/16 financial year were $897,624.00 [$815,167.00 (Hurstville) and $82,457.00 (Kogarah)];

· Total costs for 2014/15 financial year were $1,468,351.00 [$1,401,608.00 (Hurstville) and $66,743.00 (Kogarah)].

New Matters

3. Five new matters were received during the reporting period: three Class 1/2 Appeals (Tanious, Combined Projects (Hurstville) Pty Ltd and Briglia & Cerra), one Local Court prosecution (Montgomery Homes) and one Supreme Court proceedings (Baptist Church).

Finalised Matters

4. Judgment was handed down in Montgomery Homes Pty Limited in Council’s favour with fines imposed of $8,000 plus $800 Prosecutor’s costs. One matter (Foxground) was resolved by way of s34 Agreement saving Council approximately $32,000 in Court costs.

5. It is noted that the Local Court is starting to give larger penalties for breaching conditions of development consent including for unauthorised destruction or damage to trees. The unauthorised removal/destruction/damage to significant trees within the local government area has been an on-going problem for a period of time. It is considered worthwhile to launch a community education campaign about the tree permit and approval process, whilst at the same time educating the public about the potential maximum penalties for the offences.

Current Table

6. The Court Proceedings current for the reporting period for Council are set out below. The external costs include both external legal and consultants’ fees.

No.	Property Address / Applicant / Proceedings Number	Description of Matter	Status / Critical Dates	External Costs to Date Up to 2015/16 FY	External Costs to Date From 2016/17 FY
Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 1 Appeals
1	58 and 60 Blackshaw Avenue MORTDALE Applicant: Marion McDowell and Associates Proceedings No. 241879 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against Council Order for demolition of existing unauthorised structure.	Matter set down for hearing on 5 June 2017. Negotiations continuing regarding stormwater management.	$0	$9,950.80
2	66 Mulga Road OATLEY Applicant: Foxground Property Investments Pty Ltd Proceedings No. 290679 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA2015/0035 for demolition of existing structures and construction of new two storey childcare centre for 51 children with basement car parking.	Council experts considered amended plans following conciliation and resolved that the amendments addressed all the Contentions, subject to appropriate conditions. Matter resolved by S34 Agreement filed with the Court on 22 March 2017.	$0	$18,880.08
3	399-403 Princes Highway CARLTON Applicant : Michael Murr Proceedings No. 336689 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against refusal of DA 75/2016 for 5 storey residential flat building containing 22 units and strata subdivision.	S34 conference listed for 15 February 2017 terminated. Proceedings now fixed for contested hearing on 24 and 25 May 2017. Consultant planner and urban design expert briefed.	$0	$11,626.73
4	8-10 Princes Highway KOGARAH Applicant: Outdoor Systems P/L Proceedings No. 344564 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of Section 96 application DA30/1997 to delete conditions relating to a digital advertising sign.	Matter part heard and listed for a further hearing day on 24 April, 2017. RMS joined to proceedings. Council filed submitting appearance as it has no objection to application.	$0	$7,378.20
5	832-836 King Georges Road & 51 Connells Point Road, SOUTH HURSTVILLE Applicant: Cash Warwick Pty Limited Proceedings No. 380571 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 99/2016 for demolition of existing dwellings and construction of 1 x 7 and 1 x 5 storey residential flat buildings.	S34 Conference listed for 6 April 2017.	$0	$2,928.00
6	25 Old Forest Road, LUGARNO Applicant: George Antoniou Proceedings No. 2826 of 2017	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 2016/0314 for child care centre for 45 children.	Matter listed for S34 Conciliation on 4 May 2017. External traffic and acoustic consultants briefed.	$0	$3,500.00
7	12 – 22 Woniora Road, Hurstville Applicant: Combined Projects (Hurstville) Pty Limited Proceedings No. 64848 of 2017	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 154/2016 for construction of an additional two storeys to Building D of mixed use development	Matter listed for first directions hearing on 29 March 2017. External planner briefed.	$0	$0
8	365 – 377 Rocky Point Road, Sans Souci Applicant: Primus DMS Pty Limited Proceedings No. 71976 of 2017	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 283/16 for alterations and additions to mixed use development	Matter listed for first directions hearing on 5 April 2017.	$0	$0
9	35 – 39 Ocean Street, Kogarah Applicant: Mario Briglia, Enio Briglia & Maria Cerra Proceedings No. 77304 of 2017	Class 1 Appeal against refusal of DA 26/16 for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of multi-dwelling housing over basement car parking and strata subdivision	Matter listed for first directions hearing on 11 April 2017.	$0	$0
	Subtotal			$0.00	$54,263.81
Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 4 Proceedings
1	84D Roberts Avenue MORTDALE Parties: Romanous Developments Pty Ltd Proceedings No. 40883 of 2013	Court orders entered on 24 July 2015 for Class 4 proceedings requiring remediation works under supervision of independent site auditor.	Recent Council investigations have revealed non-compliance of site audit and respondents’ lawyers notified. DAs for wall and bridge assessed and approved. Site subject to continual monitoring.	$283,921.51	$2,405.50
2	37 Boronia Street KYLE BAY Parties: Mrs Megan McOnie Proceedings No. 40940 of 2015	Class 4 commenced in relation to failing to comply with Council Notices/Orders relating to a non-compliant swimming pool fence, overgrown vegetation and unhealthy swimming pool water.	Court Orders in support of Council’s Notices/Orders made. Application for substituted service on Respondent commenced. Pool secured by Council December 2016.	$20,658.60	$1,560.50
3	5 MacLaurin Street, PENSHURST Parties: Emanuel Mifsud & Crystina Mifsud Proceedings No. 377447 of 2016	Class 4 commenced in relation to clearing of articles and matter.	Respondents have failed to comply with Court orders. Contempt proceedings commenced against Mr Mifsud and next listed on 21 April 2017.	$0.00	$19,018.25
4	105 Forest Road & 1A Hill Street, Hurstville Parties: Australian Consulting Builders	Court orders entered on 5 August 2016 relating to cleaning up of property at 105 Forest Road. Related adjoining property also in disrepair.	Proceedings commenced. Consent orders agreed following clean-up of property. Respondent to pay Council’s costs. Subject to continual monitoring.	$11,806.33	$5,583.55
	Subtotal			$316,386.44	$28,567.80
Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 2 Appeals
1	1 Arnold Street PEAKHURST Parties: Mofeed Louis Tanious Proceedings No. 2017/32320	Class 2 commencing in relation to failing to comply with Council Notices/Orders concerning keeping of poultry at the premises. Orders upheld by Court with extension of time to comply to 25 April 2017.	Further S56A lodged by applicant and listed for hearing on 17 May 2017.	$0	$18,239.00
2	7B Tottenham Place, BLAKEHURST Applicant: Dr Eric Solo Proceedings No. 359122 of 2016	Class 2 Appeal – Tree Dispute Application.	Council has advised applicant it has no objection to removal of trees. Awaiting outcome from Court. Onsite hearing 20 April 2017 at 9.30am.	$0	$0
	Subtotal			$0	$18,239.00
Local Court Proceedings
1	13-17 Peake Parade PEAKHURST Parties: Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd	Appeal against PIN for breaches of development consent. Defendant pleaded not guilty.	Matter part heard on 20 May and 26 October 2016. Magistrate requires further submissions. Stood over to 10 May 2017.	$221.50	$5,959.50
2-6	13-17 Peake Parade PEAKHURST Parties: Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd	Appeals against five PINs for breaches of development consent and one water pollution offence under POEO Act.	Defendant pleaded guilty to 4 offences, 1 withdrawn. Magistrate has ordered written submission evidence on sentencing. Listed on 10 May 2017.	$190.00	$4,619.10
7-12	25 Koorabel, 25A Koorabel, 25B Koorabel Street LUGARNO Parties: Daoud & Daoud Developments Pty Ltd	Appeals against six PINs issued for carrying out development not in accordance with development consent.	Matter listed for hearing on 6 April 2017. Council to submit brief by 6 March 2017.	$0	$4,797.90
13	6 Freeman Avenue, Oatley Parties: Hout Chu	Appeals against 3 PINs issued for carrying out development without consent, causing damage to 3 significant trees.	Defendant pleaded guilty. Matter heard on 14 February 2017. Council obtained fines against Mr Chu of $6,000 and $500 Prosecutor’s costs.	$0	$0
14	25 Iraga Avenue, Peakhurst Parties: Montgomery Homes Pty Limited	PIN for unauthorised works	Defendant pleaded guilty with an excuse. Montgomery Homes Pty Limited fined $8,000 and $800 Prosecutor’s costs.	$0	$0
	Subtotal			$411.50	$15,376.50
District Court Proceedings
1	Con Hindi v Michael Watt No. 99504 of 2016	Proceedings commenced against former Council staff member for defamation by former Mayor Hindi.	Plaintiff has formally withdrawn defamation allegation. Proceedings dismissed and Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s costs. Sealed orders now received from the Court.	$9,608.17	$10,554.70
	Subtotal			$9,608.17	$10,554.70
Supreme Court Proceedings
1	The Baptist Church Union of NSW and The Baptist Churches of NSW Property Trust No. 83357 of 2017	Church has taken proceedings to prevent gazettal of the acquisition notice relating to 4 – 6 Dora Street, Hurstville	Church was unsuccessful in seeking interlocutory injunction. Final hearing listed 29 March 2017.	$0	$0
	Subtotal			$0	$0

7. The cost savings to date by virtue of S34 delegations are as follows:

Month	Savings
July	$34,000.00
August	$24,000.00
September	$0
October	$16,000.00
November	$32,000.00
December	$0.00
January	$48,000.00
February	$0.00
March	$32,000.00
Total	$186,000.00

Financial Implications

8. Within budget allocation.

File Reference

09/1077

Part 1 Land classified, or reclassified, as operational land—no interests changed
Column 1	Column 2
Locality	Description
Peakhurst	Part Lot 18 DP 31882 identified as operational land on the Land Reclassification Map.

Dates	Policy approved xx/xx/xxxx Policy takes effect xx/xx/xxxx Policy is due for review (up to 4 years) xx/xxxx
Approved by	Executive on 15/03/2017 Council Meeting xx/xx/xxxx Council Resolution xxx
Exhibition Period	Include date of exhibition to the public or consultative committee, if relevant
Policy Owner	Manager Environment, Health and Regulatory Services – Environment and Planning
Related Documents	Supporting documents, procedures & forms for this policy
References & Legislation	· Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (NSW) · Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997 (NSW) · Road Transport Act, 2013 (NSW) · Companion Animals Act, 1998 (NSW) · Noxious Weeds Act, 1993 (NSW) · Public Health Act, 2010 (NSW) · Swimming Pools Act, 1992 (NSW) · Food Act, 2003 (NSW) · Impounding Act, 1993 (NSW) · Roads Act 1993 (NSW) · Graffiti Control Act 2008 (NSW) · Local Government Act, 1993 (NSW) · Water Management Act 2000 (NSW)
Document Identifier	Policy #: Allocated by Governance once policy is approved (includes the version number) Doc #: Please enter Trim/Document identification number
Breaches of Policy	Breaches of any policy will be dealt with and responded to in accordance with adopted codes and/or relevant legislation.
Privacy	All documents and information obtained in relation to the implementation of this policy will be kept in accordance with the NSW State Records Act 1998, Georges River Council’s Corporate Records Policy and adopted internal procedures.

Term	Meaning
Authorised Officer	an employee of Council with delegated authority under relevant legislation.
Coercive	to compel by forcible action.
Procedural Fairness	the rules or principles developed to ensure that decision making is fair and reasonable.
Unlawful activity	includes both an act and/or an omission.

Version	Amendment Details	Owner	Period Active
HCC	Former Hurstville Council Enforcement Policy discontinued	Hurstville Governance	28/5/2008 – xx/xx/xxxx
KCC	Former Kogarah Council Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution Policy discontinued	Kogarah Governance	25/11/2013 – xx/xx/xxxx
1.0	Complete new Georges River Enforcement Policy	Manager Environment, Health and Regulatory Services	Xx/xx/xxxx

IHAP Report No	3.3	Application No	PP2014/0003
Site Address & Ward Locality	29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville Hurstville Ward
Proposal	Planning Proposal PP2014/0003 - Post Exhibition Report
Report Author/s	Senior Strategic Planner, Harkirat Singh and Coordinator Strategic Planning, Rita Vella
Owners	The Churches of Christ
Applicant	KPoint Investments Pty Ltd
Zoning	B4 Mixed Use, Hurstville LEP 2012
Date Of Lodgement	7/11/2014
Submissions	Twenty one (21)
Cost of Works	N/A
Reason for Referral to IHAP	In accordance with the IHAP Charter

Attachment View1	Report to Council Meeting held 5 September 2016
Attachment View2	Letter dated 15 February 2017 from the Department of Planning & Environment

Month	Applications Received	Applications Determined	Outstanding Applications	Apps – with Council over 40 days <= 100 days	Apps – with Council over 100 days
Dec	105	76	347	100	125
Jan	48	42	357	142	153
Feb	71	64	352	103	146

Attachment 1	Sydney East JRPP Decision on the application
Attachment 2	Report to Council held 7 November 2016
Attachment 3	Gateway Determination dated 28 September 2016
Attachment 4	Summary of Public Authority Submissions
Attachment 5	Summary of Community Submissions
Attachment 6	Minutes of the St George DRP

	Public Authority	Summary of Submission	Response	Planning Proposal Recommendation
1	Roads and Maritime Services (D16/158804) 21/12/16	Roads and Maritime raises no objection as the planning proposal is (in itself) unlikely to have a significant impact on the classified road network. However, it is recommended that Council gives consideration to ensuring that travel demand management measures (such as appropriate parking restraints) for the subject planning proposal site are investigated and incorporated into a site specific DCP or future DA to encourage the use of public and active transport. RMS advises that Council should ensure that an appropriate funding mechanism is in place for allowing regional transport infrastructure improvements; required as a result of the cumulative impacts of future development in the Hurstville City Centre.	Comments noted. Refer consideration in the body of the report.	Refer consideration in the body of the report.
2	Transport for NSW (TfNSW) (D17/11290) 31/01/17	TfNSW supports the comments submitted by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) in their letter to Council dated 21 December 2016. TfNSW notes as the planning proposal is within the Hurstville City Centre. TfNSW supports Council requiring travel demand management measures be investigated and incorporated into a site specific Development Control Plan and future Development Application. These include, but are not limited to: 1. Green Travel Plan, 2. Appropriate parking controls, 3. Bicycle facilities, and 4. An appropriate funding mechanism to ensure implementation of demand management strategy measures.	Comments noted. Refer consideration in the body of the report.	Refer consideration in the body of the report.
3	Heritage Division, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) (D17/13887) 03/02/17	OEH notes that the subject site does not contain items listed on the State Heritage Register (SHR) and there are no SHR items in the vicinity of the subject site. However, the site adjoins a local heritage item ‘Fire Station’ (I159) listed within ‘Schedule 5 - Environmental Heritage’ of HLEP 2012 as well as another local item, ‘Friendly Societies’ Dispensary Building’ (I159) is in the vicinity. OEH notes that a Statement of Heritage Impact has not been submitted as part of the planning proposal and recommends that Georges River Council give consideration to any adverse impact the proposed development would have on the heritage significance of the ‘Fire Station’, ‘Friendly Societies Dispensary Building’ and other items of local heritage significance in the vicinity of the subject site, prior to the planning proposal being finalised.	Comments noted. Refer consideration in the body of the report.	Refer consideration in the body of the report.
4	Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (D16/159149) 21/12/16	The Department notes that the proposal at a height of 50m above ground level would result in an approximate maximum height of 120.38m AHD. The Department understands that Council has consulted with Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) regarding this proposal, and note that SACL would be able to provide detailed information about the relevant Airspace above the site. If any subsequent buildings in the area penetrate Prescribed Airspace for Sydney Airport, they will require approval by the Department under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996. Any equipment, such as cranes would also require approval under the regulations; subject to advice from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia.	Comment noted. Any future DA will be referred to Sydney Airports to ensure that the future development does not penetrate the OLS and/or the prescribed airspace	It is considered that the proposed height should not exceed 50m as recommended by the JRPP.
5	Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd. (SACL) (D16/158805) 21/12/16	SACL notes that the site lies within an area defined in schedules of the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations, which limit the height of any temporary structure and/or equipment to 15.24 metres above existing ground height (AEGH) without prior approval of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). A new approval must be sought in accordance with the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations if the height of any temporary structure and/or equipment is greater than 15.24m AEGH. SACL notes that the height of the prescribed airspace at this location is 125.8 metres above AHD and the application seeks approval for the property development to a height of 125.2 metres Australian Height Datum (AHD). SACL advises that SACL does not have any objection to the erection of this development to a maximum height of 125.2 metres AHD. A new application must be submitted if it exceeds this height. SACL advises that approval to operate construction equipment (i.e. cranes) should be obtained under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations prior to any commitment to construct, in accordance with the information provided.	Noted that the Sydney Airport prescribed airspace at the location is 125.8m AHD. The changes to the development standards proposed a maximum building height on the site of 50m. With a contour height on the site of approx. 70m AHD, the proposed maximum would therefore be 120m AHD, well below the prescribed maximum of 125.8m AHD.	It is considered that the proposed height should not exceed 50m as recommended by the JRPP.
6	Sydney Metro Airports Bankstown & Camden (D16/151521) 07/07/16	The protection of airspace in the vicinity of Bankstown Airport is legislated via the Regulations that support the Airports Act 1996 and stipulates that the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) and procedure for air navigation services – aircraft operations (PANS/OPS) must be protected by having those surfaces Declared as of Prescribed Airspace for Bankstown Airport. Maps showing the OLS were attached to the submission.	The Prescribed Airspace Future OLS (2013) Critical Surface Map for Bankstown Airport identifies an Outer Horizontal Surface of 156m AHD; this applies to the Subject Site. The proposed development standard maximum building height of 50m (with a contour height of approx. 70m) falls well within the 156m AHD.	It is considered that the proposed height should not exceed 50m as recommended by the JRPP.
7	Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) (D16/159558) 22/12/16 and 10/02/17	CASA advises that the airspace above the site is affected by the Sydney and Bankstown Airports’ Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) and Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Airport Operations (PANS-OPS). SACL and Bankstown Airport Ltd (BAL) are responsible for the protection of the prescribed airspace (OLS and PANS-OPS) at their respective airports. CASA recommends that Council refers the planning proposal to SACL and BAL to assess any impact on the airports’ prescribed airspace and provide their assessments to CASA. CASA will then provide an obstacle hazard assessment and subsequent recommendations.	Refer above.	It is considered that the proposed height should not exceed 50m as recommended by the JRPP.
8	NSW Department of Education (D17/14525) 06/02/17	The Department of Education notes the Planning Proposal represents a potential for a minor increase in dwellings from what is currently permissible on the site and therefore the potential demand for additional education facilities in not significant. On this basis, the Department raises no concerns in relation to the Planning Proposal.	Comment noted.	No change.
9	NSW Health (D17/23106) 16/02/17	The relatively low number of new residents potentially entering the area and the impact on health services does not appear to be significant. Council is advised that SESLHD has no comment on the proposal.	Comment noted.	No change