HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
CIVIC CENTRE, MACMAHON STREET, HURSTVILLE.
__________________________________

SUMMARY OF ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED AT
THE POLICY PLANNING ENVIRONMENT AND MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION MEETING
TO BE HELD ON 15TH NOVEMBER, 2006


Summary:


Item No: PPE032 - 06 MATTERS SUBMITTED FOR THE INFORMATION OF MEMBERS - LEGAL MATTERS INVOLVING COURT ACTION AND LIMITED CONSENTSItem No: PPE033A - 06 HURSTVILLE SNAPSHOT: STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT UPDATE 2005-2006
(Report by Acting Sustainability Coordinator, Mr R Burns) 04/1726


Item No: PPE034A - 06 DRAFT POLICY ON PLANNING AGREEMENTS
(Report by Strategic Planner, Mr D Smith) 06/1163


Item No: PPE035A - 06 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 4 CITY CENTRE DCP FOR 105 FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE
(Manager Strategic Planning, Ms N Stores, Senior Strategic Planner, Mr S Lincoln & Strategic Planner, Mr D Smith)
06/278


Item No: PPE036A - 06 13-17 WOODVILLE STREET, HURSTVILLE (ILLAWARRA CATHOLIC CLUB) -
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 4 HURSTVILLE CITY CENTRE

(Manager Strategic Planning, Ms N Stores, Senior Strategic Planner, Mr S Lincoln & Strategic Planner, Mr D Smith)
05/1814






___________________________________________________________________________
Meeting No. 10 to be held on 15/11/2006





8th November, 2006

His Worship the Mayor and the Councillors

Dear Member,

I have by direction to inform you that a meeting of the POLICY, PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND MASTERPLAN IMPLEMENTATION Committee of the Council will be held at the Civic Centre, Hurstville, on WEDNESDAY 15TH NOVEMBER, 2006, at 7.00 P.M for consideration of the business mentioned hereunder.

Yours faithfully,






ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

B U S I N E S S:

6.00 p.m. Dinner

7.00 p.m. Policy, Planning, Environment and Masterplan Implementation Committee Meeting

1. Apologies

2. Disclosure of Interest

3. Consideration of reports submitted to the:

Policy, Planning, Environment and Masterplan Committee

8.00 p.m. Councillor Workshop

Consideration of Report on Sole Catering Rights for Hurstville Entertainment Centre





Meeting Date: 15/11/2006

PPE032 - 06MATTERS SUBMITTED FOR THE INFORMATION OF MEMBERS - LEGAL MATTERS INVOLVING COURT ACTION AND LIMITED CONSENTS

REPORT AUTHOR/S

Manager - Development Control, Mr G Young

FILE REFERENCE

C/00122

REASON FOR REPORT

For the information of members

DOES AN EXISTING POLICY COVER THIS MATTER?

No

IF "NO" - SHOULD A POLICY BE DEVELOPED?

No

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

DOES THIS REPORT REFERENCE AN EARLIER REPORT? (If so, then indicate full report reference details)

No


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To update reports on Legal Matters Involving Court Action and Limited Consents that are actioned by Development Control.

RECOMMENDATION
THAT the information be received and noted.

REPORT DETAIL
The attached reports are updated for the information of Councillors.

Legal Matters Involving Court Action

Legal report 2006-11.DOC


Limited Consents

Limited consents report November 2006.DOC



APPENDIX


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
THAT the information be received and noted.
(Moved Clr C Hindi /Seconded Clr C Lee )
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
RESOLVED THAT the information be received and noted.
(Moved Clr P Sansom/Seconded Clr C Hindi)


Meeting Date: 15/11/2006

ADDENDUM
PPE033A - 06HURSTVILLE SNAPSHOT: STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT UPDATE 2005-2006

REPORT AUTHOR/S

Acting Sustainability Coordinator, Mr R Burns

FILE REFERENCE

04/1726

REASON FOR REPORT

To inform Councillors about completion of Hurstville Snapshot – State of Environment Report update 2005-2006

DOES AN EXISTING POLICY COVER THIS MATTER?

No

IF "NO" - SHOULD A POLICY BE DEVELOPED?

No

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

DOES THIS REPORT REFERENCE AN EARLIER REPORT? (If so, then indicate full report reference details)

No


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Hurstville Snapshot- State of Environment Report 2005-2006 report has been completed to meet Council’s legislative requirements and reporting responsibilities under the Local Government Act 1993 for State of the Environment reporting.

RECOMMENDATION
THAT the report be received and noted.

REPORT DETAIL

The report provides a summary of the initiatives and projects, which have been implemented by Council in relation to the environment. With input from relevant officers across Council the update addresses the following areas of Council activity:

§ Council’s own operations
§ Land
§ Water
§ Air
§ Noise
§ Biodiversity
§ Waste
§ Heritage

Some of the achievements for the year included:

§ Completion of the Water Savings Action Plan
§ Energy efficient lighting retrofits of the Central and Branch Libraries
§ Rain water tanks installed at the Depot
§ Eco-living Workshops for residents held jointly with Rockdale and Kogarah Councils
§ Bushcare and waste information and education stalls held at local festivals
§ Over 2,900 trees distributed during a Tree Giveaway
§ Significant reduction in contamination of recycling and green waste bins

It is proposed to forward a copy of the report to the Department of Local Government and publish it on the Council’s website.


APPENDIX
Hurstville Snapshot - State of the Environment Report 2005-2006pdf.pdf

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
THAT the report be received and noted.
(Moved Clr C Hindi /Seconded Clr C Lee )
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
RESOLVED THAT the report be received and noted.
(Moved Clr P Sansom/Seconded Clr C Hindi)


Meeting Date: 15/11/2006

ADDENDUM
PPE034A - 06DRAFT POLICY ON PLANNING AGREEMENTS

REPORT AUTHOR/S

Strategic Planner, Mr D Smith

FILE REFERENCE

06/1163

REASON FOR REPORT

To report on the exhibition of the Draft Hurstville City Council Policy on Planning Agreements, which provides guidance for Council and developers on using and negotiating Planning Agreements. This report recommends adoption of the Draft Policy as exhibited.

DOES AN EXISTING POLICY COVER THIS MATTER?

No

IF "NO" - SHOULD A POLICY BE DEVELOPED?

Yes

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Will enable Council to negotiate planning agreements for development contributions (being monetary contribution, dedication of land or provision of material public benefits).

DOES THIS REPORT REFERENCE AN EARLIER REPORT? (If so, then indicate full report reference details)

Yes, Items PPE026A-06, 16 August and Item CCL 136-06, 23 August 2006


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report outlines the exhibition process for the Draft Hurstville City Council Policy on Planning Agreements. This Policy will provide Council and developers with a framework relating to use, negotiation, exhibition and documentation of Planning Agreements. A Planning Agreement is a voluntary agreement that can be entered into between Council and a developer under which the developer agrees to make “development contributions’ towards a “public purpose”.

The draft policy was exhibited with no submissions received during the exhibition period. This report recommends adoption of the draft policy as exhibited. Attached is a copy of the Policy on Planning Agreements.

RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council adopt the proposed Draft Hurstville City Council Policy on Planning Agreements as outlined in this report.

FURTHER THAT Council give public notice of this decision in the local paper.

REPORT DETAIL

BACKGROUND

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 under Subdivision 2 of Division 4 of Part 6 provides for Council to be able to enter into Planning Agreements with developers. A Planning Agreement is a voluntary agreement that can be entered into between Council and a developer under which the developer agrees to make “development contributions” towards a “public purpose”.

“Development contributions” under a planning agreement can be a monetary contribution, the dedication of land free of cost, any other material public benefit or any combination of them, to be used for or applied towards a public purpose. A “public purpose” includes the provision of (or the recoupment of the cost of providing) public amenities or public services, affordable housing, transport or other infrastructure, the funding of resulting recurrent expenditure, the monitoring of the impacts of development and the conservation of enhancement of the natural environment. Under the relevant legislation and the NSW Department of Planning’s Practice Note there are strict controls over the implementation of voluntary Planning Agreements.

Council’s draft policy provides a facility for Council and developers to negotiate flexible outcomes in respect of development contributions and establishes a framework governing the use of planning agreements. It also establishes an efficient, fair and transparent and accountable framework governing the use of Planning Agreements.

The draft policy will supplement Council’s existing Section 94 Contributions Plans and will provide an alternative option for development contributions. A Planning Agreement may wholly or partly exclude the application of s94 or s94A to development that is subject of the agreement.

PREVIOUS REPORT DETAILS

Council at its Meeting on 23 August 2006 resolved to develop a policy and procedures on Planing Agreements, and that a draft Policy be reported back to Council.

At Councils Meeting on 20 September 2006 Council resolved to endorse the draft Policy on Planning Agreements and to publicly exhibit the draft Policy for a period of 28 days.

EXHIBITION PERIOD

The Draft Policy on Planning Agreements was placed on public exhibition from Tuesday 10 October 2006 to Tuesday 07 November 2006.

No submissions were received during the exhibition period. No changes are proposed to the draft Policy.

CONCLUSION

The Draft Hurstville City Council Policy on Planning Agreements has been publicly exhibited with no submissions received by Council. It is therefore recommended that the Draft Policy be adopted by Council.


APPENDIX
Planning Agreements Policy as rept to Council 22 Nov 06.pdf

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council adopt the proposed Draft Hurstville City Council Policy on Planning Agreements as outlined in this report.

FURTHER THAT Council give public notice of this decision in the local paper.
(Moved Clr C Hindi /Seconded Clr C Lee )
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
RESOLVED THAT Council adopt the proposed Draft Hurstville City Council Policy on Planning Agreements as outlined in this report.

FURTHER, THAT Council give public notice of this decision in the local paper.
(Moved Clr P Sansom/Seconded Clr C Hindi)


Meeting Date: 15/11/2006

ADDENDUM
PPE035A - 06PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 4 CITY CENTRE DCP FOR 105 FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE

REPORT AUTHOR/S

Manager Strategic Planning, Ms N Stores, Senior Strategic Planner, Mr S Lincoln & Strategic Planner, Mr D Smith

FILE REFERENCE

06/278

REASON FOR REPORT

To report on a submission to amend the planning controls in DCP 4 for 105 Forest Road, Hurstville and the review of the planning controls undertaken by Council staff and consultants. To recommend that Council in principle endorse amendments to the planning controls for DCP 4 for the purpose of public exhibition.

DOES AN EXISTING POLICY COVER THIS MATTER?

Yes, Development Control Plan No. 4 – Hurstville City Centre

IF "NO" - SHOULD A POLICY BE DEVELOPED?

No

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

No

DOES THIS REPORT REFERENCE AN EARLIER REPORT? (If so, then indicate full report reference details)

Yes, Items PPE009-06, 15 March 2006, PPE049-05, 19 October, 2005


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council has received a submission to amend the planning controls in Development Control Plan No. 4 - Hurstville City Centre (DCP 4) for 105 Forest Road, Hurstville. The submission is to permit a development proposal for a mixed retail and commercial podium of 4 storeys and 2 residential tower elements of 8 storeys adjacent to the AMCOR site, with a part 13 storey tower on the corner of Hill Street and Forest Road and part 11 storey building adjoining the Hill Street Tavern. The proposed FSR is 5.19:1. There are 3 basement parking levels.

The current planning controls under DCP 4 for the site include building heights of 4 storeys on the corner, 3 stories in the middle, with 2 stories adjoining the Amcor and Tavern sites, with uses being either fully retail and commercial or for retail on ground level and residential uses above. The current FSR for the site is 2:1. It is noted that these controls were established for the site when the adjoining Amcor site was operating as an aerosol factory and the air quality impacts of the factory needed to be taken into consideration. Under the Hurstville City Centre Masterplan the site is located outside the commercial core to be investigated for increased commercial development. Council resolution to not support the proponent's DCP amendment as it was considered as an overdevelopment of the site and for Council officers to review the existing controls and report to
Council.


The development proposal and planning controls in DCP 4 have been reviewed by Council staff and consultant urban designers. The applicant’s submission is considered an overdevelopment of the site and is therefore required to be amended in accordance with comments received from the Design Review panel, and independent urban design consultants, Dickson Rothschild.

In summary this report recommends that Council in principle endorse amendments to the planning controls in DCP 4 for the subject site to enable a development comprising employment generating uses as well as residential uses above. The built form is to be limited to a 4 storey podium on the street alignment and a taller (maximum of 12 storeys) slender tower component on the corner with a 12m setback from the adjoining tavern site.

The applicant has lodged a deemed refusal appeal to the Land & Environment Court for DA 2005/450 for a mixed use development on the site. In order to present Council’s preferred outcome for the site, it is therefore recommended that Council make a determination on the DCP amendment.

RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council, in principle endorse the proposed amendments to the planning controls for 105 Forest Road, Hurstville, Block 27, Site 27A in Development Control Plan No. 4 – Hurstville City Centre as outlined in this report.

THAT, should Council support the amendments to DCP 4, that the amendments to Development Control Plan No. 4 be publicly exhibited in accordance with relevant clauses of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

THAT during the public exhibition of the amendments to DCP 4 the following information and work be undertaken:

FURTHER THAT Council reaffirms its commitment to the Hurstville to Strathfield rail corridor and requests SSROC and WSROC to lobby the Minister for Planning to seek support for the identification and protection of an underground corridor.

REPORT DETAIL
BACKGROUND

History to DCP 4 Controls

The subject site (which was previously occupied as a Shell Service Station), together with the adjoining Hill St Tavern site was deferred in the original DCP 4 preparation. At its meeting of 29 September 1999, Council resolved to prepare building envelope controls for the site. Following the public exhibition of Draft DCP controls for the site, Council officers prepared a report to Council recommending that the subject Site 27A be set at a maximum FSR of 3:1 and building heights of 7 stories on the corner, 6 stories in the centre, 3 stories adjoining the AMCOR site and 2 stories adjoining the Hill St tavern site. The report also recommended an FSR of 2.8:1 for Site 27C (The Hill Street Tavern site) and building heights of 6 storeys and 2 stories adjoining site 27A. Following consideration of the advice from Council’s solicitor in regard to the incompatibility and emissions from the adjoining AMCOR site and in considering the issue of an appropriate building envelope, Council at its meeting of 31 July, 2000 resolved that the building heights be reduced from 7, 6 and 3 stories to 4, 3 and 2 stories respectively with an FSR of 2:1 and that the Hill Street Tavern height be reduced from 6 storeys to 3 stories. These are the height controls that currently apply under DCP 4.

Previous Development Consent

On 7 December 2001 Council granted development consent number 930/2001 for a mixed residential/commercial development on the site including 41 residential units. The development comprised 7 storeys on the corner, 6 storeys along Hill St, and 3 storeys along the eastern and northern boundaries with an FSR of 2.5:1. Basement parking for 64 spaces was provided in 2 basement levels. This development consent subsequently lapsed.

Pre DA Lodgement Proposals

At its meeting held 2 December 2004, the Design Review Panel commented on Pre DA lodgement plans submitted by the current project architects which proposed a number of diagrammatic options for development of the site including an amalgamation with the adjoining Hill St Tavern site. These options proposed building heights up to 16 storeys and an FSR of 4.68:1. A summary of the relevant panel comments follows:

Amended pre DA lodgement plans were submitted by the applicant proposing building heights up to 13 storeys and an FSR of 4.89:1. These were considered by the Design Review Panel at its meeting of 3 March, 2005. The Panel advised as follows:

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR 105 FOREST RD (SITE 27A)

The request for an amendment to DCP 4 was submitted by JBA Urban Planning on behalf of Leduva Pty Ltd in conjunction with development application 2005/450 submitted on 17 August, 2005 which proposes a significant variation to the existing DCP 4 controls. In accordance with Council’s significant variations policy, the proposal is required to amend the DCP 4 controls.

The proposal amends the DCP 4 controls so that they are consistent with those proposed under DA 2005/450 including the following:
· an overall FSR of 5.19:1 and building heights ranging from 7 to 13 storeys.
· 19 retail and commercial tenancies comprising 2,286m2 on the ground and first floor levels,
· 83 dwellings, 147 car spaces over 3 basement levels with access via Hill Street,

At its meeting of 19 October, 2005 Council considered a report on the requested DCP amendment and resolved to support a review of the DCP 4 controls and resolved as follows:

The Design Review Panel comments from its meeting of 6th October were subsequently received and recommended that the application not be supported, in particular because of excessive height and density, but also in relation to aspects of amenity. The Panel considered that the proposal had in fact got worse than the original proposal. A copy of the panel comments (see report Attachment 1) were forwarded to the applicant who was advised that the application in its current form was likely to be refused together with a request for additional information.

On March, 2006 Council considered the proposal and adopted a procedure to process the subject amendment along with other requests for significant variations within the Hurstville City Centre as part of stage 1 of the Urban Form study of the City Centre.

Amended plans

On 1st August 2006 the applicant submitted a revised DCP 4 amendment for consideration incorporating the following changes:

· Increase in eastern tower height from 7 to 8 stories and side setback to the Amcor site from 2.5m to 3m
· Increase in the southern setback of the 13 storey tower to the Tavern site from 6m to 15m

On 10 August amended DA plans were received with the following changes (these were reflected in the above DCP 4 amendments):

· Reduction in GFA by 22m2 and in FSR from 5.19:1 to 5.06:1
· Reduction in the number of residential units from 83 to 81
· Removal of 2 storey roof feature to Hill St
· Reduction in the number of ground and first level retail tenancies from 19 to 15 and a reduction in GFA from 9,121 to 8,899
· Reduction in corner tower element front setbacks from 2-4m to 0-2m

At the rear of the proposed development (to the south eastern corner of the site) is the main vehicle entry point to the underground parking and area for loading and servicing the site. The vehicles will access the site along the boundary closest to the Hill Street Tavern.

Court Appeal

The applicant for development application 2005/450 Leduva Pty Ltd, has lodged a deemed refusal appeal with a hearing date set down for18 and 19 January, 2006. In order to present Council’s preferred outcome for the site, it is therefore recommended that Council make a determination on the DCP amendment.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The site which previously contained a service station is currently vacant. The site has an area of 1,758square metres, with a Forest Road frontage of approximately 50 metres and a frontage of just over 40 metres to Hill Street. The site is zoned 3 (b) City Centre zone under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994.

To the east of the site is the existing Amcor industrial building, but there is an approved Development Application on the site known as the East Quarter, for seven buildings ranging in height up to sixteen storeys.

The single storey Hill Street Tavern adjoins to the south. To the west, at 107 Hill Street is a 12 storey residential/retail building, including a two (2) level above ground parking area. Retail uses are provided at ground level.

The St George Anglican Church, listed as a local heritage item under Hurstville LEP 1994, is located north west of the site.

EXISTING CONTROLS (DCP No.4)

The subject site is identified in DCP 4 – Volume 2 as Block 27, Site 27A. The existing planning controls in DCP 4 are as follows:

Hurstville City Centre Masterplan

The subject site is located in the ‘Eastern Bookend Precinct’ and is on the boundary outside the area identified for increased commercial development potential under the Masterplan. In this regard, the Masterplan states:

Council Officer’s Comment:

The majority of the floorspace in the development proposal is residential (7,000m2 or 79%) with 1,899m2 (21%) being for retail/commercial floorspace. This is mix of commercial and residential development considered appropriate for a site located on the periphery of the city centre in the Eastern Bookend Precinct, so commercial opportunities are available in the city centre core area.

The recommended planning controls for the subject site have been prepared following an assessment by Council’s urban design consultants Dickson Rothschild and comments received from the Design Review Panel. They take into account the existing and likely future context of surrounding development and the desired future character of the area. The immediate site context is one of a 12 storey building located opposite and the approved Eastquarter development adjoining.

The existing building envelope controls under DCP 4 were developed under the assumption of the previous industrial use of the Amcor industrial site being retained and as such it is considered unreasonable to maintain the current building controls which would lead to a building that is out of context with the adjoining development. In commenting on the existing 2, 3 and 4 storey height controls under DCP 4 in reference to pre lodgement plans for the subject site at its meeting of 2 December, 2005 the Design Review Panel stated: ”Given the approved Amcor development these limits are considered to be unduly restrictive. Heights should be assessed on a merits basis, and apart from the sixteen-storey component are not unreasonable as proposed.”

The Masterplan identifies Forest Rd as the traditional shopping street lined with 2-3 storey buildings with shops on street level, awnings and buildings creating a well-defined spatial character for the City Centre's main street. The subject site at 105 Forest Road forms the western boundary of the “Eastern Bookend” precinct which extends to Lily Street and forms the eastern gateway to the city. This precinct is currently dominated by the Amcor building but has the potential to form a significant gateway because of its prominent position on the axis of Forest Road. A key Design Principle of the Masterplan is that Forest Road will become an attractive central spine for shopping, celebrations, markets and outdoor eating.

The proposed building form controls require retail/commercial uses on the ground level to activate street activity. A 4 storey podium level with a zero street setback and increased setbacks for a slender corner tower element serves to reinforce the desired future character and scale of Forest Road as identified under the Masterplan. Further discussion is provided below.

Comments on the development proposal

Council forwarded the DCP amendment and accompanying development proposal to various stakeholders, both internal and external for comments to ascertain any potential issues or concerns over the proposal. The following are comments Council received:

Traffic and Parking

A total of 147 car parking spaces have been proposed by the applicant with access from Hill Street via a ramp system to a three level basement car park. A loading dock has been provided near the entrance to the site. The applicant has provided a Traffic Report prepared by Traffic Impact Services Pty Ltd in support of the DA submission. The report states that the development complies with the 147 spaces required under DCP 4, and will generate a total of 65 vehicle trips per hour during the evening peak hour. The report concludes that “even under the traffic flows from the redevelopment of the Amcor development that the proposed site will have minimal impact on the road system.”

RTA comments

In response to Council’s referral of the development application proposed for the site, the RTA provided the following comments:

Traffic Committee comments

Council at its Traffic Committee Meeting on 06 July 2006 discussed the above proposal and at its meeting of 19th July 2006 Council resolved as follows:

Council Officer comments

The matters relating to traffic and parking do not impact on the proposed DCP amendment and are most appropriately dealt with at the development application stage.

Sydney Water

Sydney Water has granted a Notice of requirements for the adjustment of the water main through the property. This notice states that the applicant may deviate the watermain at the subject location by an authorised person subject to lodgement of a bond and other requirements. (Note: The applicants Surveyor, Brian O’Mara and Associates, has advised that an original request to concrete encase the main and build over it was rejected by Sydney Water, hence the deviation is required). Sydney Water has advised that it has received a preliminary design for the works, however approval has not been given as yet to commence construction. Sydney Water has also advised that it has no in-principal objection to the development proposal, subject to a number of matters being addressed including issues relating to: Section 73 certificate; building over/adjacent to Sydney Water’s Pipes and Structures; water services; wastewater services; trade waste and landscaping works.

Airport Controls

The Obstacle Limitations Surface Map produced by Sydney Airports Corporation Limited (SACL) identifies a maximum height of approximately RL 130 AHD for the subject site. The proposal has a maximum building RL of approximately 100.5 AHD and complies with this requirement.

The site also falls under the Building Control Regulations (BCR) map produced by SACL which requires all buildings 15.24m or greater in height above ground level to be referred to SACL. The development application is required to be referred to SACL who will provide comments relevant to the development application.

Energy Australia

Energy Australia has advised that standard DA conditions would apply to this development. These include conferring with Energy Australia as to the need to establish substations, the provision of footway conduits and arrangements should the overhead mains require modification or relocation as a result of the close proximity of the proposed development. These requirements would be at the developers expense.

Energy Australia has also advised that as the development is within the Hurstville CBD, the requirement of Hurstville Coty Council that the low voltage and street lighting mains fronting the property be undergrounded at the developer’s expense, would also apply to this development.

Internal referrals

Council’s Manager Development advice has advised that standard conditions will be applied to the development application relating to stormwater, on site detention, vehicular crossing and relocation of the Bus Shelter in Forest Road.

Council’s Environmental Services Manager has proposed standard conditions to apply to the development application including the amendment of the Waste Management Plan to allow Council to service the residential portion of the building.

Other matters

In accordance with clause 33 of Hurstville LEP 1994, due consideration has been given to The St George Anglican Church, listed as a local heritage item under Hurstville LEP 1994. This site is located north west of the site. Due to the location and adjoining building context, it is considered that the proposed DCP 4 amendments will not result in any unacceptable impacts on the adjoining heritage item.

The site which was previously used as a service station has been remediated. A non-statutory site audit submitted as part of the Development Application recommends that the site is suitable for residential development. Contamination issues are required to be addressed in accordance with SEPP 55 as part of any development application on the site.


Urban Design

Council’s Urban Design Consultants Comments

Dickson Rothschild consultants have been engaged by Council to undertake an Urban Form Study of the City Centre. Stage 1 of this study has been to assess the four development proposals submitted to Council, with Stage 2 being the full urban form study which will inform the review of DCP 4. Dickson Rothschild have undertaken a detailed evaluation of the site. Their detailed qualitative comments on the proposal are provided as an attachment to this report. In summary, Dickson Rothschild have advised that the applicant’s proposal is an overdevelopment of the site. They have recommended that increased street setbacks, deletion of the 7 storey Forest Road tower element for provision of a break in the Forest Rd elevation allowing solar access to the communal courtyard area, and amendments to the proposed 13 storey tower element.

Dickson Rothschild have developed and refined a number of options with Council Officers for DCP controls for the site. All options propose a 4 storey podium level with a corner tower element as follows:

Option 1: part 11, part 13 storey diamond shaped corner tower element (resulting FSR of 4.72:1)

Option 2: 12 storey rectangular tower element along the Hill St frontage (resulting FSR of 4.72:1)

Option 3: same as option 2 with staggered side setbacks of 6m (levels 8 to 10) and 12m (levels 11 & 12) and a resulting FSR of 4.42:1

Option 4: 12 storey diamond shaped corner tower with a 12m setback from the Hill St Tavern Site (resulting FSR of 4.3:1).A copy of this option is to be presented under separate cover to Councillors prior to the PPE meeting.

Following consideration of the above options, option 4 is preferred. The 12 storey height of the corner tower element matches the height of the adjoining building located at 107 Forest Road and is considered most appropriate in its context. The restriction of the tower element to corner will ensure that the building presents an acceptable bulk and scale to Hill Street.and best addresses the Design Review Panel comments (see below).


Design Review Panel

The Southern Sydney Council’s Design Review Panel has commented on the proposal on 4 separate occasions. The Design Review Panel reviewed the current amended development and DCP application submitted in August 2006 at its meeting held on 7 September 2006. Below is a summary of the major issues raised and relevant planning comments:
Council officer’s comment: The site is located within the Eastern Bookend precinct under the Masterplan. The opposite northern side of Forest Rd is located within the precinct which is identified for increased commercial development under the Masterplan. The likely future development potential for this adjoining precinct is yet to be determined by the urban form study currently being conducted as part of the DCP 4 review. The immediate built form within this is characterised by the adjoining 12 storey retail/residential building located opposite at 107 Forest Rd and the East Quarter development adjoining to the east.

The adjoining site known as the “Hill Street Tavern” would be immediately affected by development on the subject site and must be considered concurrently with this proposal.”

Council officer’s comment: The panel has requested that the Hill Street Tavern be considered concurrently. It is considered that amalgamations with the adjoining site to allow a coordinated development are desirable. Earlier plans presented to the Design Review Panel incorporated an option showing the Tavern if it were able to be amalgamated as a consolidated site. The applicant has verbally indicated that he has had discussions with the owner of the Hill Street Tavern Site at 1A Hill Street and that they have not been able to reach agreement on an amalgamated site development. The applicant has submitted a site specific DCP amendment and as such the adjoining site is not able to be incorporated as part of the same application.

Council’s independent urban designers, Dickson Rothschild have also stated that the proposal will have a significant impact on the future development form of the adjoining site and as a result future building envelope controls for the tavern site must be considered in conjunction with the proposed amendments. This is especially the case given the irregular shaped boundary which will require building designs to be complimentary and avoid adverse amenity impacts.

It is therefore recommended that the proposed controls for the Hill Street Tavern site at 1A Hill Street be incorporated into Stage 2 of the Urban Form Analysis currently being conducted. The adjoining property owners will be advised of the proposed controls for 105 Forest Road as part of the public exhibition of the proposed DCP 4 amendment.

2. Scale
Council officer’s comment: The preferred Dickson Rothschild Option 4 incorporates a 3m setback for the corner tower element at the 4 storey podium level. This is a significant setback which matches that of the adjoining East Quarter development and it is considered that this results in a more acceptable scale when viewed from Hill St.

The Dickson Rothschild Option 4 which is for a 12 storey corner tower building type will match the 12 storied development to the west at 107 Forest Road. The 12m setback to the Hill Street tavern site together with the 3m podium setback will ensure a an acceptable building scale to Hill Street and will avoid an excessive wall surface to Hill Street.

Council officer’s comment: The proposed DCP 4 amendment as recommended by Dickson Rothschild addresses the design review panel comments by increasing the entire corner 12 storey element to a 3m podium level setback, and in order to preserve the Forest Rd streetscape and remove unacceptable overshadowing impacts deletes the 7 storey block altogether.

Comment: The proposed amendments to DCP 4 (Dickson Rothschild Option 4) incorporate a 3m podium level setback and reduced FSR and 12m setback to the tavern site, and therefore addresses the design review panel comments.

Comment: The proposed DCP 4 amendment provides for significant 3m podium setbacks of the tower component on the corner of Forest Rd and Hill St and therefore addresses the Design Review Panel comments.

Comment: The proposed DCP 4 amendments delete the 7 storey component in Forest Road requiring an overall reduction in the FSR for the site and an amended built form on the corner ‘slab’ building element. This satisfactorily addresses the Design Review Panel comments.

Comment: The proposed building envelope including the deletion of the 7 storey component on Forest Road which was located directly to the north of the central courtyard will ensure an acceptable level of solar access is maintained to the courtyard area and Hill Street and adjoining properties. This satisfactorily addresses the concerns raised by the Design Review Panel.

Comment: A building height much lower than that of the adjoining building would appear out of context. The height of the habitable floor levels is most appropriate when viewing building heights from the street level, with lift over runs also highly visible on the skyline from a distance. The residential flat building at 107 Hill Street (located opposite the subject site) is approximately RL 95.23 (to the highest point of the habitable level) and RL 100 (to the top of the lift overrun). The footprint of the applicant’s tower narrows at the upper 2 storeys (levels 11 & 12). The applicants 13 storey building height (amended plans submitted, August 2006) is approximately RL 100.4 to the top level of the habitable building (no lift overrun is proposed) which is approximately 5.17m above that stipulated by the design review panel.

The DCP 4 amendments proposed by Dickson Rothschild assume floor to ceiling heights of 4.2m for the ground and 3.6m for the first floor commercial / retail levels and 3m for upper residential levels. Option 1 has a building height of 13 storeys with an approximate height of RL99.8 and options 2, 3 & 4 with a building height of 12 storeys has an approximate height of RL 96.8.

The proposed Dickson Rothschild Option 4 is within approximately 1.5m of the highest habitable floor level of 107 Forest Rd and addresses the comments of the Design Review Panel regarding building height.

Comment: The proposed building envelope controls amend the proposal as suggested by the Design Review Panel by limiting the development to a four-storey podium, with only a taller slender component on the corner. The proposed 3m podium level setback and corner tower element with a 12m setback to the tavern site avoid the appearance of an excessive Hill St wall” as originally proposed by the applicant. The height of the corner tower is 12 storeys, which is considered appropriate (see above comments under height).


3. Density
Comment: The Design Review Panel has previously acknowledged that the site controls were drafted prior to the redevelopment of the Amcor site, and considers that they are unreasonably restrictive and that there is scope for an increase in the FSR for the site. In determining a new FSR control, it is important to look at the objectives behind the FSR control as well as the numerical standard. The objectives for the FSR control include resulting in an acceptable visual bulk and scale and restricting the intensity of development including traffic impacts. The bulk and scale of development is set out under DCP 4 in accordance with the building envelope height and setback controls. The proposed feature corner tower element and building setbacks are appropriate from an urban design perspective and result in an acceptable visual appearance to the streetscape and adjoining properties.
Comment:

Direct comparisons of site FSR are not appropriate given that each site differs in terms of its size, location and context. For example, the subject site is significantly smaller than the Amcor site, and is located on a corner site.

The urban form rationale of DCP 4 is to determine what is an appropriate land use and building envelope for each site within the Hurstville City Centre which is then used to determine an appropriate FSR for the site. This is determined by building heights and setbacks and includes an analysis of solar access to the subject site and adjoining premises, street façade, and the context of adjoining development.
Comment: Council officers support this assessment of the applicants proposal which represents an over development of the site. It is considered that the recommended planning controls put forward by Dickson Rothschild (Option 4) address the specific issues raised by the Design Review Panel. This includes a significant reduction in the bulk and scale of development as it relates to Forest Road and Hill Street frontages and views from adjoining properties. As a result the proposed FSR for the site is 4.3:1 representing a reduction of 0.76:1 from the applicant’s amended submission.

Dickson Rothschild Options 1 to 3 were presented to the Design Review Panel meeting held 2 November 2006. In their verbal comments to Council officers, the Panel members reiterated their previous comments made on the DA at the September Panel meeting. In particular, an acceptable building form should be limited to a four-storey podium on the street alignment and a taller slender component on the corner of the site only. In addition, public benefits should be presented to enable a significant increase in the planning controls for the site. Given that the site is the subject of a court appeal, Council has requested that a copy of the written DRP comments be presented to Council as soon as possible.

In accordance with clause 21A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Regulations, it is recommended that any proposed amending planning controls adopted by Council be referred to the Design Review Panel for comment.

Potential New Rail Corridor through Hurstville East

The NSW Government announced in the Action for Transport 2010 plan that there would be a rail line extension from Hurstville to Strathfield. In 2000, ARUP P/L was commissioned by the Government to carry out a pre-feasibility study on the proposed Hurstville/Strathfield Railway. Subsequent enquiries by Council’s Transportation Analyst with Transport NSW revealed that this document would not be made public.

The study identified two options for the railway corridor, which is proposed to be an underground railway tunnel approximately 20 metres in width.

The first option is Hurstville/Strathfield via Kingsgrove, Campsie and Burwood. The route would travel from the existing Hurstville railway station and extend either east under the Tracey Street underpass, the western portion of the Amcor site and then under the Hurstville Boys High School; or west under Gloucester Road or Carrington Avenue to Kingsgrove and beyond.

The second option is Hurstville/Strathfield via Beverly Hills, Campsie and Burwood. The railway would travel from the existing Hurstville railway station and extend under King Georges Road or Gloucester Road to Beverly Hills and beyond. This second option has been Council’s preferred option for some time.

The first option has the potential to impact on the subject development at 105 Forest Road. Railcorp has also confirmed that the subject site is located on the proposed rail extension.

As a result, in May 2003 Council resolved to prepare a Draft DCP for the Hurstville to Strathfield Railway corridor. In addition, Clause 3.11 of the Hurstville City Centre Masterplan also proposes the establishment of a 20m wide Rail Corridor to accommodate the proposed Hurstville-Strathfield Railway. However, persistent attempts by Council over a number of years to secure one option and one preferred route for the railway from the State Government agencies have failed to provide a definite answer. As a result the proposed corridor preservation and DCP have not been progressed to date.

Recent correspondence received from Rail Corp has now indicated that they no longer wish to pursue this corridor, nor do they want to protect the corridor in relation to subsurface work
(see attached letter). Council is therefore not in a position to require the developer at 105 Forest Road to take into account the proposed rail corridor.

It is recommended that Council reaffirm its commitment to the corridor by contacting SSROC and WSROC and continuing to lobby the Minister for Planning to seek support for the identification and protection of an underground corridor for the long term option for a Hurstville to Strathfield Railway.

Railcorp has also advised that in the assessment of the development application for the site the issue of compliance with the Railcorp Interim Guidelines for Applicants in the consideration of rail noise and vibration from the adjacent rail corridor will need to be addressed.

Table of Amendments:

For Site 27A

DCP No. 4
EXISTING CONTROLS
APPLICANT’S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
COUNCIL OFFICERS RECOMMENDATIONS
Use: As per LEP
Retail/Commercial or
Retail Ground Floor and in sections adjoining neighbouring sites and residential above.
Retail on ground level
Commercial first level
Residential above (9 storeys)
Retail/commercial ground level and first floor level
Residential above
Height: 4 storeys on corner
3 storeys in the middle
2 storeys adjoining Amcor Aerosols Site: 2 storeys adjoining Tavern
Total 13 storeys (4 storeys podium and 9 storeys tower)12 storeys total (4 storey podium with 8 storey corner tower)
Floor Space Ratio: 2:15.06:14.3:1
Street Set Backs: NilNil
Awnings:Cantilevered awning to Forest Road & Hill Street.N/ACantilevered awning to Forest Road & Hill Street.
Balconies:· Minimum 1 per unit at 8sqm
· 2 metres minimum dimension
· can extend 450mm beyond the envelope
N/A· Minimum 1 per unit at 8sqm
· 2 metres minimum dimension
can extend 450mm beyond the envelope
Vehicle Access: Hill StreetHill StreetHill Street
Car parking: Basement
Min.% on site Use Rate sqm
70 Commercial 55
70 Retail 27.5
100 Residential 100
Visitors 1 per 4 units
Basement
Min.% on site Use Rate sqm
70 Commercial 55
70 Retail 27.5
100 Residential 100
Visitors 1 per 4 units
Other:Note: This building envelope is base primarily on urban design considerations. It may be subject to change and review depending on findings from all required studies.

Windows to end walls (to adjoining sites) must be fixed, non-openable windows to bathrooms or ‘non-essential’ bedroom windows that do not need to be opened. They are essential to provide articulation to end walls.

Balconies should be oriented towards Forest Road and Hill Street, away from adjoining sites.

APPENDIX

1. Proposed Plans and Draft DCP Amendments
Proposed DCP01C-ISOMETRIC.pdfProposed DCP02C-PLAN.pdf Proposed DCP03C-ELEVATIONS.pdfProposed Draft DCP No.4.pdf

2.Design Review Panel Comments
Design Review Panel Comments.pdf

3. Dickson Rothschild's Report & Options
Dickson Rothschild Report 105 Forest Rd v1.pdfDickson Rothschild Site Option 1 &2.pdfDickson Rothschild Site Option 3.pdf

4 . Correspondence from Rail Corp regarding the Hurstville - Strathfield Rail Corridor
Letter from RailCorp.pdf

5. Adjoining Building Heights
Adjoining Building Heights.pdf

6. Proposed DCP 4 Amendment Site 27A
Proposed DCP 4 Amendment.pdf

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
THAT the matter be referred to full Council for further consideration.
(Moved Clr C Lee /Seconded Clr C Hindi )
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
RESOLVED THAT Council, in principle, endorse the proposed amendments to the planning controls for 105 Forest Road, Hurstville, Block 27, Site 27A in Development Control Plan No. 4 – Hurstville City Centre as outlined in this report.

THAT, should Council support the amendments to DCP 4, that the amendments to Development Control Plan No. 4 be publicly exhibited in accordance with relevant clauses of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

THAT during the public exhibition of the amendments to DCP 4 the following information and work be undertaken:
THAT Council reaffirms its commitment to the Hurstville to Strathfield rail corridor and requests SSROC and WSROC to lobby the Minister for Planning to seek support for the identification and protection of an underground corridor.

THAT the proposed slender tower component on the corner have a maximum height of ten stories.

FURTHER, THAT Council include an additional paragraph in the Design Principles for 105 Forest Road as follows:

"These controls are provided on the basis that some form of material public benefit will be provided in accordance with the City Centre Master Plan."
(Moved Clr P Sansom/Seconded Clr S McMahon)


Meeting Date: 15/11/2006

ADDENDUM
PPE036A - 0613-17 WOODVILLE STREET, HURSTVILLE (ILLAWARRA CATHOLIC CLUB) -
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 4 HURSTVILLE CITY CENTRE

REPORT AUTHOR/S

Manager Strategic Planning, Ms N Stores, Senior Strategic Planner, Mr S Lincoln & Strategic Planner, Mr D Smith

FILE REFERENCE

05/1814

REASON FOR REPORT

To report on a submission to amend the planning controls in DCP 4 for 13-17 Woodville Street, Hurstville and to outline the review of this development proposal and DCP 4. This report recommends amendments to DCP 4 and that these amendments be publicly exhibited.

DOES AN EXISTING POLICY COVER THIS MATTER?

Yes, Development Control Plan No. 4 – Hurstville City Centre.

IF "NO" - SHOULD A POLICY BE DEVELOPED?

No

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

No

DOES THIS REPORT REFERENCE AN EARLIER REPORT? (If so, then indicate full report reference details)

Yes, Items PPE009-06, 15 March 2006, Item PPE026A-06, 16 August 2006, Item CCL136-06 23 August 2006.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the Council Meeting on 23 August 2006 Council considered a report relating to a submission Council received to amend the planning controls in Development Control Plan (DCP) No. 4 - Hurstville City Centre for 13-17 Woodville Street (Illawarra Catholic Club site). This original submission related to an 18 storey building comprising a retail /commercial podium of 3 storeys and a 15 storey commercial tower with an FSR of 10.9:1 and 275 car spaces in a multi-level underground car park.

The report to Council outlined that additional information was required from the applicant and that further discussion be held with the applicant in relation to the proposal and potential material public benefits. At this meeting Council resolved “that consideration of the other issues be deferred until the September Council Meeting to allow Council staff to continue discussions with the applicants architects”.

Following this meeting the applicant lodged a revised submission to Council for a 16 storey building comprising a retail /commercial podium of 3 storeys and a 13 storey commercial tower with a FSR of 8.43:1 and 275 car spaces in a multi-level underground car park. Site level information was submitted to Council in order to enable Council to assess the height limits for the site set by the airport Obstacle Height Limits.

Under DCP 4, the current planning controls enable a building to a maximum height of 8 storeys with a 2 to 3 storey podium plus either a maximum of 4 storeys commercial or 5 storeys residential. The current FSR is 4:1. There are no setbacks required under the DCP for the street setback, and there is a setback required from the west boundary to form light well with adjacent heritage building, Victory House Heritage building).

Under the City Centre Masterplan this site is located within the red area to be investigated for increased commercial development. Within this area an upper limit of 16 storeys has been set by Council subject to the developments being commercial and employment generating uses and providing material public benefits.

The development proposal and planning controls in DCP 4 have been reviewed by Council staff, consultant urban designers, heritage consultants, the RTA, traffic engineers and economic planners. An independent peer review (similar to the Design Review Panel) of the development proposal and proposed controls was also undertaken.

In summary this report recommends that Council endorse an amendment to DCP 4 for 13-17 Woodville Street for commercial and retail uses only (i.e. not residential). It is recommended that the existing controls for the site be retained for residential development. For commercial developments a maximum development height of AHD 122metres be established (this height is set by the Sydney Airport Obstacle Height Limitation Surface) which will allow approximately 13 to 14 storeys and an FSR of 7.1:1. Details of the setbacks and design principles for the site are detailed below.

RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council endorse the proposed amendments to the planning controls for 13-17 Woodville Street, Hurstville (the Illawarra Catholic Club site) Block 15, Site 15B in DCP No. 4 Hurstville City Centre as recommended in this report

THAT the proposed amendments to Development Control Plan No. 4 be publicly exhibited in accordance with relevant clauses of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

FURTHER THAT following public exhibition that a report be presented back to Council.

REPORT DETAIL
BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION OF ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

The application to amend DCP 4 for 13-17 Woodville Street, was lodged by GSA Planning on behalf of the landowners, the Illawarra Catholic Club. The application included basic concept hand drawn sketch plans, a planning report and initial traffic study. This submission was for an 18 storey building comprising a retail /commercial podium of 3 storeys and a 15 storey commercial tower with an FSR of 10:1 and 275 car spaces in a multi-level underground car park. The total gross floor area was 22,776sqm.

At Council’s Meeting on 15 March 2006 Council resolved to endorse a formal process to consider significant variations to DCP 4.

A report was presented to Council on 23 August 2006 which outlined the development proposal for the Catholic Club site and the initial review of the controls undertaken by Council staff and consultants. The report outlined potential controls for the site which included a maximum height of 16 storeys and an FSR of 7:1. However it was noted that additional information was required from the applicant to further develop these controls. The report to Council recommended that Council request additional information from the applicant to enable further analysis of the proposal and that further discussions be held with the applicant in relation to potential material public benefits. At this meeting Council resolved “that consideration of the other issues be deferred until the September Council Meeting to allow Council staff to continue discussions with the applicants architects”.

Following this meeting the applicant lodged a revised submission to Council for a 16 storey building with a FSR of 8.43:1. The applicant indicated that they did not support the initial controls proposed by Council for the site (specifically the setbacks and the resulting floor plate sizes). The applicant has also lodged a number of sketch plans illustrating various forms/designs the tower element of their development may take.

Council officers and Council’s consultants have undertaken a detailed review of the revised development proposal and the controls in DCP 4. As part of the review process the applicants have had the opportunity to present their proposal to Council’s Urban Design and Economic consultants. In addition a number of meetings have been held with the applicants and Council staff. This report outlines the work undertaken and recommends amendments to DCP 4.

DESCRIPTION OF REVISED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

The applicant’s current (revised) development proposal is to demolish the existing Illawarra Catholic Club, and to erect a modern elliptical shaped glass and concrete building on the site. The proposed development comprises a single building of 16 storeys, plus lift towers, with the main entrance to Woodville Street. The development has a 3 storey podium with total site coverage, and a 13 storey tower element above with setbacks ranging from 0.5 metres-4 metres on the side boundaries and 1.5metres-4 metres at the front. It is noted that the plans submitted to Council are only preliminary sketch plans.

The revised FSR is 8.43:1. The total gross floor area is approximately 17,655sqm which comprises retail uses of 3,901sqm across the three podium levels, 13,754sqm of commercial uses across the thirteen tower levels (with approximately 1,058sqm per floor). A total of 275 underground car spaces are proposed with a loading dock area to the south western portion of the site and access driveways off the western end of Woodville Street.

Attachment 1 provides a copy of the applicants revised concept plans.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The site is currently occupied by the Illawarra Catholic Club, which consists of a single storey brick and concrete building over one floor of car parking. The site has a total area of 2,091.9sqm with a frontage onto Woodville Street of approximately 54metres. The site is zoned 3(b) City Centre Business Zone under Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. The site also falls within the area that Council has resolved to prepare a Draft LEP to prohibit residential development within the commercial core. The site is within close proximity to Hurstville Railway Station, the proposed bus interchange and the retail shops.

Woodville Street has a mixed land use and built form character, with the balance in favour of residential, in the form of large apartment buildings. Street setbacks vary and the streetscape has a somewhat fragmented appearance. The highest building on Woodville Street is currently a 12 storey flat building set back from the Street.

The building adjoining the site to the south west, 8 Crofts Avenue/corner Woodville Street (‘Victory House’), is listed as a Heritage Item under LEP 1994 and is identified in the Hurstville Town Centre Heritage Study 1997. It is a commercial building erected in the period of 1919 to 1968 and described as an early example of high-rise office building with shops on ground level. The building is noted for its historic and architectural significance to the area.

The building adjoining to the site to the north west is the NRMA building which is a two storey commercial building. To the rear of the site is an existing commercial building and car park. Council has recently given development consent for the redevelopment of this site for a club and commercial building with a height of 7 storeys and an FSR 4.3:1.

On the north eastern corner of the block, on the corner of Cross Street and Park Road, there is an existing 17 storey residential flat building. This site is significantly below the level 13-17 Woodville Street.

Photos of the site and surrounding building are shown in previous reports to Council.

DCP No. 4 - EXISTING CONTROLS FOR THE SITE

The subject site is identified in DCP 4 - Volume 2 as Block 15, Site 15B. The existing planning controls in DCP 4 are as follows:

Design Principles for Future Development

· Build to the western boundary with a party wall and partly from a light well where windows occur. Build to boundary where adjacent building is located on the boundary. Orient windows across the courtyard space and to Woodville Street.
· Step the building up toward the corner of Crofts Avenue and Woodville Street.
· Create a distinctive base to the building with a possible Club premises, visually separated from the development above.

Planning Controls

Use: Ground floors - Commercial/ Residential
Upper floors – Commercial or Residential

Height: 2/3 storeys – podium over whole site plus
3 Commercial storeys to Woodville Street OR one storey + 4 storey Residential.
4 Commercial storeys at right angles to Woodville Street parallel to Crofts Avenue OR 5 storeys Residential

Floor Space Ratio: 4:1 – Commercial/Residential - including podium levels of 2.5 times the area of the site.
OR 4:1 – Commercial only

Setbacks: No.

Side Setbacks: From west boundary to form light well with adjacent building

Awnings: Cantilevered to Woodville Street.

Balconies: minimum 1 per unit 8sqm
2.0m minimum dimension
can extend 450mm beyond the envelope

Vehicle Access: Woodville Street.

Car parking: Basement
Min.% on site Use Rate sqm
70 Commercial 55
70 Retail 27.5
100 Residential 100
Visitors 1 per 4 units


CITY CENTRE MASTERPLAN

Under the City Centre Masterplan the subject site is located within the area to be investigated for increased commercial development. The Masterplan states “that the review of this area should be undertaken to:

- examine the viability of increased commercial development in this area;
- attract commercial development to this area;
- ensure employment opportunities are maximised; and
- ensure commercial development compliments the new public infrastructure and facilities.”

The Masterplan also states that:

The site is within the “City Centre North” precinct under the Masterplan, which has the largest concentration of community activities and high-rise residential and commercial developments in the City.

COMMENTS AND REFERRALS ON THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

The development proposal and DCP 4 controls have been assessed by Council staff, Council’s urban design consultants (Dickson Rothschild), economic consultants (SGS Consulting), heritage consultants (K-Design), Local Traffic Committee and the RTA. A final independent ‘peer review’ of the plans was also undertaken by HBO + EMTB Consulting (this peer review was undertaken as the Design Review Panel do not review commercial development proposals and it was considered in this instance important to obtain an independent review).

Provided below are the comments on the proposal and the amendments to DCP 4.

Heritage Consultants Comments

Applicants Submission
The applicant did not submit a Heritage Assessment as part of their proposal. A letter from EJE Architecture was submitted providing a review of the recommendations from Council’s Heritage consultants and the proposed amendments to DCP 4. In summary, the heritage consultant does not support the comments and recommendations made by Council’s heritage consultant and consider the “height (16 storeys)” as proposed by the applicant “is acceptable in heritage terms”. The letter states that:

Council’s Heritage Consultant (K-Design)
Councils Heritage Consultant reviewed the development proposal in relationship to the adjoining heritage building. The following comments and recommendations were made:

“The proposed amendment to DCP 4 for the building envelope for Block 15B is acceptable with respect to the impact on the Heritage Item in the vicinity of the development, provided the following are taken into consideration:

· A 3 metre side setback is to be provided at 6 metres above natural ground level (R.L. to Woodville Street) along the west boundary of the site, from southern most extremity of the blank wall of the Heritage Item, being approximately 9 metres from Woodville Street, to be confirmed by survey, to the rear boundary of the site. The setback is to coincide with the light-well of the Heritage Item.
· An increased height building envelope for a tower is acceptable, provided the scale and detailing of the tower take into consideration the impact of the tower on the significance of the Heritage Item. It is recommended that the building envelope for Block 15B be amended to suit a specific agreed design that will reflect the final development.
· The final design of the development take into consideration the protection of the Heritage Item during construction, including the stabilisation of the Heritage Item during excavation works for any basement parking.”

Staff Comment
These comments and recommendations have been noted and taken on board in the development of the draft controls for the site.

Traffic and Parking Issues

Applicants Submission
The development proposal was supported by a traffic study prepared by GSA Planning, which stated that the development will contain 275 car parking spaces over 5 levels of basement parking below the retail and commercial building. The report addressed expected patronage of the building, a description the surrounding road network, proposed ingress and egress, included traffic counts and generation rates.

Council’s Local Traffic Committee Comments
Council at its Traffic Committee Meeting on 06 July 2006 discussed the above proposal and made the following points in the recommendations:

· Inadequate off-street car parking proposed
· Applicant to commission Traffic and Parking Assessment for the proposal. (This study was submitted by the applicant following this recommendation).

Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA)
Council referred the development proposal to the RTA for comments on 14 July 2006. The RTA referred the development proposal to the Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee (SRDAC) in accordance with SEPP 11, Traffic Generating Developments, for their assessment at their meeting on 16 August 2006.

The following were the comments provided:

· Given the high traffic generation of the proposed development, the need for any road or intersections improvements in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development should be investigated and any identified improvements included as part of the developer contributions plan.
· It is noted that the proposed number of parking spaces for the proposed development falls well short of Council’s parking code requirements. An adequate number of parking spaces should be provided to prevent parking spilling over on to the local road network. The number of parking spaces is to be determined by Council’s Local Traffic Committee.
· It is noted that the loading dock and basement car park share a common driveway off Woodville Street. Ideally, a loading dock should have a separate driveway to the car park. However, if this is not possible adequate signposting and line marking should be provided to reduce the likelihood of motorists accidentally entering the loading dock.
· The swept path of the largest vehicle entering and exiting the subject site, as well as manoeuvrability through the site, should be in accordance with AUSTROADS.
· All vehicles should be able to enter and exit the subject site in a forward direction.
· Off-street parking associated with the proposed development (such as driveway, ramp grades, aisle widths, aisle lengths, parking bay dimensions, sight distances and loading bays) should be designed in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004 and AS 2890.2-2002.
· All associated with the proposed development shall be at no cost to the RTA.

Council’s Response and Comments:
Councils Traffic Engineer reviewed the development proposal and traffic information submitted and noted that there was no detailed proposed location of vehicle crossings, car park layout or service vehicles or loading facilities. Due to the level of detail submitted in the plans to Council, this information was not able to be assessed. This information can however be assessed further at the development application stage.

The comments from the RTA and the Traffic Committee are noted and should be addressed as a part of any development application for the site.

Overshadowing and Impacts on other Development and Future Open Space

The City Centre Masterplan states that:

The original proposed development (at 18 storeys) did result in some overshadowing of other developments, the proposed bus interchange and the proposed open space on Crofts Avenue / Diment Way. The original shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant showed that during the Winter Solstice in June between 9am and 12 noon the development creates a shadow over the future open space, bus interchange site, Cross Street and other adjoining developments. However this shadow moves around by the afternoon to overshadow the new Catholic Club site and Westfield. It is noted the new Catholic Club proposal on the corner of Cross and Crofts Streets also overshadows some of the future open space sites during the morning Winter Solstice. In December and September limited overshadowing occurs over the future open space, bus interchange and adjoining sites. Copies of these shadow diagrams are provided in the PPE report on 16 August 2006.

There is still some overshadowing resulting from the development at 14 storeys however this is not considered to be overly significant in context of the existing overshadowing caused by existing and approved developments and its location in the commercial core area where tower buildings would be expected to cause some overshadowing. This has been assessed using Councils 3D Model for the proposed 14 storey building envelop.

Development Assessment Team Comments

Councils Development Assessment Team carried out a preliminary assessment of the proposal, and the following comments were made:

· Careful consideration of the height in relation to the surrounding development should be undertaken and its overshadowing impacts.
· Careful consideration of the impact of the proposal on the adjoining heritage building, and the other heritage listed buildings at 2-6 Crofts Avenue needs to be undertaken.
· The proposal provides 275 car parking spaces which does not meet Council’s requirements under DCP 4. The applicant’s justification for the shortfall is not supported and the required number of spaces is required to be provided. The application should be supported by a traffic and parking study.

Manager of Development Comments

Council’s Manager of Development reviewed the plans and documents and made the following comments:

· The subject site falls to the rear and may require an easement to drain water to Cross Street unless the site is fully built up to the level of Woodville Street to allow all stormwater to drain by gravity to Woodville Street.
· Hydraulic Engineers design should be submitted with any DA including On Site Detention Requirements at 1% ARI.

The road outside the site falls steeply to the kerb and gutter and may need reconstruction to allow a smooth access to the basement. This will need to be detailed at DA stage and Council’s

Sydney Airport Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF)

An assessment of the Sydney Airport ANEF Forecasts has been undertaken by Council staff. The ANEF map, produced by Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd and Air Services Australia, is one measure used to determine the level of discomfort or impairment due to exposure to aircraft noise.

From an assessment of the ANEF map the subject site appears to be outside of the 20 ANEF. The site is therefore considered to be acceptable for the commercial/retail uses proposed. It is important that any future development proposals for the site check the ANEF Map to ensure that it is within the requirements.

Sydney Airport Obstacle Limitation Surfaces

The Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) are a series of surfaces in the airspace surrounding an airport. The OLS defines the airspace to be protected for aircraft operating during the initial and final stages of flight, or manoeuvring in the vicinity of the airport.

The original information submitted to Council did not provide site level details for the site in order to determine the height limits controlled by the airport. Without this information a proper assessment could not be made.

The OLS for the site is approximately RL122metres AHD. Any buildings or structures under this height do not require the concurrence and approval of the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) and Sydney Airports Authority (SACL). Anything that does exceed this level does require approval from DOTARS and SACL and requires detailed studies.

The maximum height limit for the site in DCP 4 therefore should not exceed the OLS level. As a result it is recommended in this report that the maximum height level for the site be RL122 metres. This will enable a building height of approximately 13 to 14 storeys, with lift towers and plant rooms to be under this height limit.

Floor Template Sizes

Applicants Submission
The applicant states in a letter to Council that they:


In a more recent letter to Council the applicant states that the recommended floor plate for the ICC site be established at approximately 1,200m2. Refer to Attachment 3 which outlines the applicant’s comments.

Council staff and Consultants comments
The information submitted by the applicant is noted. However in summary based on the size of the site and its relationship to adjoining sites it is not considered that a large floor plate as submitted by the applicant can be supported. Provided below is more detailed discussion of this point by Council’s consultants. The recommended controls for the site will enable a floor template of approximately 1,050m2 Gross Floor Area which will provide a net leasable area of approximately 900-1,00m2 depending on the location of lift cores, etc.



COUNCIL’S URBAN DESIGN CONSULTANTS (DICKSON ROTHSCHILD)

Dickson Rothschild consultants have been engaged by Council to undertake the City Centre Urban Form Study. Stage 1 of this study has been to assess the four major development proposals submitted to Council, with Stage 2 being the full urban study which will inform the review of DCP 4.

Dickson Rothschild’s have undertaken a qualitative assessment of development proposal. They have noted that their assessment would be subject to further refinement upon commencement of the full Urban Form Study.

Dickson Rothschild initial assessment of the site identified that the site could potentially support a 16 storey tower. This was based on their assessment of the site and the principles of the Masterplan. This height limit was established prior to the applicant submitting the site level information and checking this against the Airport height limits and also prior to commencing their work on the Urban Form Study for the City Centre.

As outlined above the maximum height limit recommended for the DCP, based on the Airport height limits, is AHD of 122metres. Dickson Rothschild have recommended that the height limit for the site be AHD of 122metres.

In response to the applicant’s comments that they require a minimum of 1,000sqm of floor space to be commercially viable, Dickson Rothschild undertook further detailed investigations and feasibility considerations of the site and potential controls. They recommended two potential design options for the site, one a Tower Building and the other a Slab Form Building. These two options differ in terms of height, bulk and floor plate areas. It is noted that the preferred option from an urban form perspective is the tower building.

Design Option 1 (14 Storey Tower Form):

This option proposes a 14 storey tower to a maximum of AHD 122 metres. It creates a 3 storied street wall on Woodville Street with a tower element setback from the street edge to allow the applicant’s sky lit atrium at the ground floor. This building form acknowledges the adjacencies of the heritage Victory House, the new Catholic Club development to the south and the existing NRMA building to the east of the site as well as the existing towers within close proximity of the site.

It proposes a no front setback for the first 3 storeys and 9 metres above that for the tower; side setbacks of 7.5metres (above the 3 storey podium) to allow for impacts on adjoining sites and solar access (the applicant was advised that a minor variation to these setbacks could be considered where articulation of the walls were proposed). A minimum setback of 3 metres (above the 3 storey podium) to the rear is proposed. The proposed FSR is 7:1. This option results in a floor plate of approximately 950sqm gross floor area with a total Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 14,759sqm (including commercial GFA of 13,323sqm
and retail GFA 1,436sqm). Figure 1 below shows this building form.

Figure 1: Option 1 Indicative Section of 14 storey development


Design Option 2 (10 storey slab form building):

This option proposes a commercial ‘slab’ and podium building type up to 10 storeys. It creates a three storey street wall/ podium along Woodville Street. It allows a larger floor plate (1280sqm) with a total GFA of13,284sqm (including a commercial GFA of 11,848sqm and retail GFA of 1,436sqm). It has an FSR of 6.3:1 and proposes lesser front setbacks (6metres above the 2 storied podium) and minimal side setbacks - 3 metres above the podium to the west (to allow a light well between Victory House and the site) and 0m to the east to allow a similar future pattern of development in the adjacent site. Figure 2 illustrates this building form.

Figure 2: Option 2 - 10 storey slab form building





ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (SGS CONSULTING)

Council engaged SGS Consulting to undertake Market Forecast Study for the City Centre and to review the development proposal. The Market Forecast study is to inform the Urban Form Study and has provided information for the review of the four development proposals submitted to Council. Provided below is an outline of the Economic Analysis of the site.

Economic Analysis for 13-17 Woodville Street

“Market and Policy Considerations

The feasibility analysis relies on inputs that are to a certain extent ‘notional’. There are other factors at work beyond the pure ‘numbers’ that impact on viability and the prospects for the development. The commercial office market has some particular characteristics which need to be considered. In addition there are relevant policy settings to consider, including those in the Metropolitan Strategy. These dimensions are outlined below.

Market Issues

Our extensive consultation with industry representatives and tenant brokers reveals the following relevant ‘headline’ considerations.

· Developers of large scale office development typically rely on ‘pre-commitments’ to invest. This means ‘signing up’ a tenant before capital and development finance is secured. The organisations that ‘pre-commit’ to large amounts of office space are typically larger corporates or government tenants.

· Major private firms or corporates looking for significant office space, and willing to pre-commit are focussing on the Sydney CBD or its fringe locations (Ultimo/Pyrmont, King Street Wharf) and major suburban office markets such as North Sydney, Macquarie Park, Sydney Olympic Park and Parramatta. Smaller suburban centres such as Hurstville are not currently ‘on the radar’.

· Large office tenants in the ‘metropolitan’ market typically look for floor plates of 2,000 square metres or more, and never less than 1,000 square metres.

· Government office tenants are similar, typically looking for floor plates of 1,200sqm to a maximum of 2,000sqm. As an example, the Work Cover building in Gosford has floor plates of around 2000 square metres.

· Large office tenants will typically look for ‘incentives’ which have the effect of reducing the effective or ‘face’ rent. Investors and developers in the smaller metropolitan and suburban markets are not typically in a position to offer incentives given the differences in their investment horizons and financial models compared to the large institutional investors.

· Hurstville’s ‘The Avenue’ commercial development with around 25,000 sqm GFA will provide a significant amount of office development for ‘strata’ and smaller firms.

· Commercial operations looking for office space in Hurstville will typically be small to mid-range professional services including business banking, legal, insurance and some semi-government agencies seeking 200 to 500 sqm. The prospect of attracting smaller call centres and back office operations – looking for perhaps 3-4,000 square metres - is remote at the moment but not out of the question in the medium term.

· Hurstville needs to offer diversity, a mix of uses, urban amenities and ‘fine grain’ feel to attract the small to medium sized advanced business services sector. Careful attention to urban design and quality built form outcomes is important. Large office buildings need to be well designed in this context and appropriately articulated at lower levels.

The Metropolitan Strategy and the Government Office Market


The Metropolitan Strategy distinction between Regional Cities and Major Centres is a material one. Regional cities are intended to be the dominant hub for large subregions, with a range of higher order commercial, government, retail, recreation and entertainment options, as well as a focus for transport services. In the Sydney region Liverpool, Penrith and Parramatta have been elevated because of their high amenity settings near rivers, their parks assets and importantly their distance from other large centres and their large (and growing) catchment areas – typically over 350,000 people.

Major centres are intended to have a more localised role as key centres with civic, commercial and retail development. Hurstville has a very important role as the major service centre in Southern Sydney, and while it benefits from its proximity to the Sydney CBD this proximity means that it doesn’t ‘stand alone’ in terms of its regional catchment.

Because of their designation in the Metropolitan Strategy the regional cities are intended to be the main focus for state government office relocations and services. It is not intended that centres already with government offices, such as Hurstville with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, lose these offices but that new relocations be directed to or focussed on regional cities. The Government’s Asset Management Committee will reinforce this approach in its principles for government office locations.

Notwithstanding this principle favouring regional cities, at the moment agencies and departments retain some freedom regarding their location. Hurstville could be the recipient of an agency relocating its office but this would be contrary to the policy intention of the Metropolitan Strategy.

From this perspective it can be seen that there is at the very least some uncertainty regarding whether a government agency would pre-commit to Hurstville.

The Metropolitan Strategy has a target of an additional 4,000 jobs for the Hurstville major centre. Some of these will be on the Kogarah side of the rail line but development potential here is constrained and we have assumed that the bulk – say 3,800 jobs – will be in the Hurstville LGA. SGS estimates indicate that almost 70,000 sqm of office floorspace will be required to accommodate the commercial sector jobs, with a further 25,000 sqm to accommodate other non-retail jobs, to 2031.

Conclusion

The above findings have the following implications for the Catholic Club development and proposal.

· It is unlikely that the development will attract a significant pre-commitment from the corporate sector. Their focus is on other office markets.

· The Government Asset Management Committee will favour the regional cities designated in the Metropolitan Strategy for new government office relocations. Agencies may choose other centres but the Metropolitan Strategy reduces the likelihood of this occurring. At the very least there is some uncertainty regarding whether a government agency would pre-commit to an office development at Hurstville.

· Larger tenants and those making pre-commitments will typically require floorplates in the order of 2,000 square metres, with 1,000 square metres an absolute minimum. Only Option 2 comes close to this requirement.

· Commercial operations looking for office space in Hurstville will typically be small to mid-range professional services, with smaller call centres and back office operations not out of the question in the medium term.

· A bulky office development may not be appropriate given the ‘fine grain’ feel that Council should be aspiring to for the city centre. This is a large and significant site in a pivotal location so it deserves a high quality design outcome.”

PEER REVIEW (OF THE ASSESSMENT BY HBO + EMTB)

HBO+EMTB Consultants were engaged by Council to undertake an independent peer review of the development proposal and the two design options and controls prepared by Council’s urban designers Dickson Rothschild. This peer review was undertaken as the Design Review Panel do not review commercial development proposals and it was considered in this instance important to obtain an independent review. Provided below are the comments from the peer review:

Council’s Urban Design Consultant Report
Dickson Rothschild have prepared a thorough and detailed assessment of the capacity of the site, based on its size and configuration, including identifying design controls and approaches to create appropriate contextual relationships with the existing and likely future built form of Hurstville City Centre.

The two envelopes Dickson Rothschild propose both differ from the draft concept submitted to Council by the land owner, although Option 1 shares more characteristics with the podium and free standing tower design prepared by Crawford Architects on behalf of the Illawarra Catholic Club.

Dickson Rothschild’s report is structured around design principles, setting out the existing DCP 4 controls, the discrepancies from those controls presented by the applicant’s proposal, and recommendations for a built form that can meet the design principles even where the built form departs from the DCP 4 controls.

The Dickson Rothschild approach is predicated on the forthcoming review of the controls for the whole of the Hurstville City Centre, and on an assumption that the controls and guidelines will be updated as a result of the CBD master plan process and new controls will be enshrined in the new consolidated LEP and associated DCP. It is a helpful approach for both generic urban design principles for the area and for site-specific recommendations.

Context issues
The site and study area were inspected and the following observations are made that have a bearing on the recommended built form outcome:

· Woodville Street has a mixed land use and built form character, with the balance in favour of residential, in the form of large apartment buildings. Street setbacks vary and the streetscape has a somewhat fragmented appearance.

· The highest building on Woodville Street is currently a 12 storey flat building set back from the Street

· Woodville Street is elevated and any taller buildings along the street are highly visible from within the town centre, particularly the entry from the south-east.

· Existing taller buildings in and around the town centre have a very ‘blocky’ profile and are not of “premier” design quality.

· An existing17 storey flat building at the south of the block, below the level of Woodville Street on the corner of Cross Street and Park Road, dominates the skyline. This building has floor to floor heights of maximum 3.0m. A new building on Woodville Street, with commercial floor to floor heights (3.6m), would achieve an equivalent height to the existing flat building with approximately11 storeys.

· Victory House, immediately adjacent to and west of the site, is a “heritage item”, which still contributes positively to the streetscape and creates a strong corner to Woodville Street and Crofts Avenue.

· The site is oriented to the north-west, with good sun access and the potential to capture district views across the City Centre and towards Kogarah and Botany Bay.

· The site is within an easy 5 minute walk from the Hurstville Railway Station and the traditional retail strip

Also important is the planning and policy context: the site is included in proposals for increased commercial development under the Hurstville City Centre Concept Master Plan. In the future, residential uses will be prohibited within the commercial core, where this site is located. Hurstville is a major centre under the Metro Strategy, where greater density and taller residential and commercial buildings are encouraged.

Hurstville City Centre is poised for a number of new developments, any of which could significantly change the urban morphology and the city skyline. This proposal, one of the first ‘cabs off the rank’ is therefore subject to a high level of scrutiny and will be expected to set an appropriate precedent for the future development of the urban core.

Discussion of options
The two options proposed by Dickson Rothschild respond to two separate distinct issues:

· Option 1 (tower) is expressly described as an appropriate urban form for the future character of the area. Characteristics of towers are their verticality and slenderness. They stand alone and are designed to be seen ‘in the round’. They create the potential for air and light to penetrate all sides, for environmentally responsive façade design, and allow ‘breathing space’ between neighbouring buildings. They can be designed with interesting rooflines that add interest to the skyline. Atop a podium, as here, the tower can be combined with a street wall type building at its base. The base should contain active uses at ground level to enliven the street.

· Option 2 (slab /street wall hybrid)) is a pragmatic response to the applicant’s desire for a larger floor plate (of minimum 1000m2). Its design is therefore primarily driven by its preferred use.

We note that in the absence of pre-commitments there is no certainty that this floor plate would be taken up in the near future by large tenants. This point is underlined in the Development Feasibility Report prepared by SGS. A slab building can also deliver good amenity for its occupants and contribute positively to the streetscape; a maximum building depth of 30 metres is suitable to allow daylight penetration and minimise the apparent building bulk although the issue of optimum building depth is discussed further below.

Dickson Rothschild, on the basis of urban form alone, express their preference for the tower over the slab form. We would concur to the extent that height – so long as a building is slender in proportion – can minimise building footprint and create more dynamism and interest than a series of lower, bulky buildings with small or no breaks between them.

Both of the proposed options present a three storey street wall height datum with a podium building.

We consider this to be an appropriate form to strengthen the street edge definition and retain a ‘human’ scale on the street.

Building use / buildability
There has been significant discussion and reliance by the parties acting on behalf of the Illawarra Catholic Club on the “commercial” imperative of 1000m2 floor plates, as one of the justifications for the departure from the adopted planning standards for the site.

The “commercial” value of the 1000m2 floor plates is in part influenced by ESD design principles which dictate an “optimum” floor plate width.

Recent examples of leading “green star” commercial office buildings have adopted a six to seven metre wide “built zone” (22 – 23 metre wide floor plate). The built zone allows for “back of house” activities and central meeting rooms to be located in the “built zone” allowing for the area to be included as useable net lettable area, yet providing for workplace activities that are not dependent on the natural light sources, which is available to the balance of the open plan floor plate (depth of 8metres from the glazing).

These two design imperatives of large floor plates and optimum floor plate widths result in thin and elegant structures, providing maximum flexibility in terms of interior layout for fit out purposes and large single or multiple level tenancies all with natural light.

Recent 4.5 star rated buildings that have adopted similar floor plate configurations include the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs – Belconnen ACT (22metres) and the National Australia Bank – Docklands Victoria (23metres).

One of the inherent design features of large floor plates is often the location of the core to the side therefore allowing free unencumbered floor plates. These features are normally adopted on sites larger than the subject site. Conversely “central cores” are more readily applied to buildings that are intended to subdivide the floor space into smaller tenancies or strata office suites.

Building height
An absolute constraint on the proposed height of the building in this location (including any lift overruns, services etc on the roof) is set by the Sydney Airport Authority at RL122m AHD.

We see no justification for exceeding this limit. The question is rather, should the height be constrained by any other factors including, for example, the height of existing buildings, the slope of the site, and the visual prominence of the ridgeline location.

Dickson Rothschild set the maximum height limit at 16 storeys for Option 1, giving a total overall height of 58.2 metres, not including any services etc on the roof. This was subsequently revised downwards, based on more detailed information about site topography, RLs and the Sydney Airport OLS, to 14 storeys, or an overall height of 51 metres not including roof elements.

We consider this to be a site-responsive and defensible control. We would also recommend that, in addition to retaining the height in storeys control at 14 metres, Council considers establishing an overall height in metres control, including 3 metres for the roof and roof elements.

This is to ensure that the overall impact of the development is controlled, and the likely built form outcome clearly understood by the community and the developer. Dickson Rothschild note, and we would strongly support this point, that any plant or lift overruns must be incorporated into the roof form, and that the roof should be an integral part of the building design. This is to avoid the typical appearance of many older buildings in Hurstville’s City Centre, which feature flat roofs surmounted by highly visible and detracting service-related structures.

Building setbacks
Of the two options, Option 1 (tower) provides 7.5m side setbacks, 3m rear setbacks, and a 9m setback from the street to accommodate a “possible” atrium in the podium. Option 2 (slab) provides a 3m setback to one side only, zero to the other side, rear setbacks varying from 3m to 9m, and a street setback of 6m. The podium is built to boundary in both cases.

We would recommend slight modifications to the setback controls as follows: NOTE THAT these recommendations must be taken as a group – that is, recommended reduction in front and side setbacks MUST be accompanied by an increase in the rear setback.

· On the basis that an atrium in the podium is unlikely to be able to be enforced and that 6 metres is an adequate step back from the street edge to create a distinction between the building base and the upper levels, the front setback to be 6 metres.

· On the basis that for residential flat buildings of similar proportions to the proposed commercial buildings, a building separation of minimum 12 metres is recommended for buildings 9 storeys and above (according to recent studies undertaken for the City of Sydney by ourselves and by Allen Jack + Cottier), the side setbacks could be reduced from 7.5m to 6m.

· On the basis that the 3m rear setback control results in a ‘step’ to the building that:-

· the rear setback line should be modified to that of Option 2, resulting in a simple more “rectangular” building.

Through the adoption of the revised setbacks, the foot print of the building would be as shown in the sketch below and provide for approximately 1050m2 Gross Floor Area floor plates.

The efficiency achieved will be dependent on the design and location of the core, which at the very minimum should result in floor plates with a net lettable area of greater than 900m2. Careful design and location of the lift/service core will result in a net lettable area approaching the 1000m2 sought by the proponent.

If the larger floor plate remains an imperative, consideration could be given by Council to the partial relaxation of the recommended six metre front boundary setback, in part, to allow for the building core to be located forward of the building setback. This relaxation should only be undertaken in the context of a fully developed design that allows for a complete evaluation of the building in an urban design context.

A schematic illustration of the floor plate arising from the recommended setbacks, is set out below.


In addition to the peer review above we have been specifically asked to provide advice to the following questions arising:-

Can the setbacks adopted in Dickson Rothschild Option 2 be adopted for the 14 storey – Option 1?

In our review of the Dickson Rothschild work, preference was confirmed for the building typology represented by the Option 1 scheme, allowing an optimum combination of a maximised height limit with side setbacks that created separation between buildings.

Due to the transitional nature of the location, in particular the existing mixed development form of commercial and residential, as well as the site’s high visibility, the separation of buildings above a podium level is critical.

The ability to retain view corridors between buildings is considered imperative. This effectively rules out the suitability of a street wall type building – which is the form of development generated by the controls foreshadowed in Dickson Rothschild’s Option 2 – in this location. The adoption of zero setbacks to the common boundary with the NRMA building is therefore not supported.

Our preference is for controls and a building envelope that provides for a tower above the base podium, which in form is slender and tall. Hence our preference for the maximisation of permitted height to an adopted AHD rather than the nomination of the number of storeys.

The adoption of a 12 metre separation of adjoining buildings (six metres side boundary setback) which ensures maintenance of view corridors is fundamental to the design treatment of the subject site.

Comment on the Floor Space Ratio Controls?

The building controls established in our assessment have not given weight to the FSR of the building. The height and boundary setbacks above the podium are the essential planning standards that create the building envelope that is considered most appropriate for the site.

In other words, the urban design principle behind our recommendation is that determining an appropriate built form for a particular site in a particular location is the driver for the yield of the development.

The determinant of the resultant FSR of the development will either be the building envelope controls or the ability to meet car parking space requirements on the site.


RESPONSE FROM THE APPLICANT

The applicant has reviewed the information prepared by Council’s consultants and the Peer Review. A copy of the letter submitted to Council outlining their comments has been circulated to Councillors separately. In summary they are “generally supportive of the approach taken in the peer review, subject to a few modifications”. The applicant considers that the setbacks should be reviewed in order to enable a floor template of 1,200m2 and that the height limit for the site should enable 16 storeys subject to agreement from the relevant airport authorities.


RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO DCP 4

Following a review of the development proposal, information submitted by Council’s consultants and other agencies, the peer review and information from the applicant, the following controls are recommended for the subject site.

The recent submission from the applicant has been considered however it is not supported that further review of the controls be undertaken. A detailed and thorough analysis has been undertaken by Dickson Rothschild and reaffirmed by the Peer Review. Both consultants have advised that the proposed controls are the maximum that should be considered for the site in order to ensure a good urban design outcome. It is noted that the FSR recommended for the site is the highest in the City Centre and is high compared to other major centres (Wollongong CBD has an FSR 6:1 and Sydney CBD 8:1). The site has an elevated position and therefore the height limits for the site are controlled by the airport height limits.

Provided below is a summary of the existing controls in DCP4, the applicants proposal and the recommended controls. Attachment 2 provides the recommended controls and indicative plans for the site (for commercial/retail uses only).


DCP NO. 4
EXISTING CONTROLS
APPLICANTS PROPOSAL
COUNCIL’S RECOMMENDED CONTROLS
    Use
Ground floors - Commercial/ Residential
Upper floors – Commercial or Residential
Retail/Commercial at podium levels and for commercial aboveFor Residential developments: That the existing controls in DCP 4 be retained.

For retail/commercial development the following controls apply:
Retail/commercial at ground, 1st and 2nd levels and commercial above
    Height
2/3 storeys – podium over whole site plus
3 Commercial storeys to Woodville Street OR one storey + 4 storey Residential.
4 Commercial storeys at right angles to Woodville Street parallel to Crofts Avenue OR 5 storeys Residential
3 storeys podium – commercial/retail over whole site

15 storeys commercial @ 1,100sqm per storey
Maximum A.H.D. of 122m including a 3 storey podium for first 3 levels. Roof top lift shafts and plant is to be within the height limit.
    Floor Space
    Ratio
4:1 – Commercial/Residential - including podium levels of 2.5 times the area of the site.
OR 4:1 – Commercial only
10.9:17:1
    Street Setbacks
NoNo – Podium
Yes – from front boundary
- 0m for first 3 floors, 6m above 3 story podium, from Woodville Street
    Rear Setback
N/AYes- 0m for first 3 floors, 3m to 9m above 3 storey podium so as to provide a rectangular tower building form (as per indicative plan)
    Side Setback
From west boundary to form light well with adjacent buildingYes – from all other boundaries- 0m for first 3 floors, 6m above 3 storey podium
    Awnings
Cantilevered to Woodville Street.Cantilevered to Woodville Street.N/A
    Balconies
- Minimum 1 per unit
8sqm
- 2.0m minimum
dimension
- can extend 450mm
beyond the envelope
Nil – Commercial buildingN/A
    Vehicle Access
Woodville StreetWoodville StreetWoodville Street
    Car Parking
Basement.
Min % Use Rate m2
Onsite
70 Commercial 55
70 Retail 27.5
100 Residential 100
Visitors 1 per 4 units
Provision of 275 car spaces, requirement to be Basement.
Min %Onsite Use Rate m2
70 Commercial 55
70 Retail 27.5



In addition to the above recommended controls the following Design Principles are recommended:

· Build to the western boundary with a party wall (only for the podium) which partly forms a light well where windows occur.
· On the Woodville Street frontage, establish a podium which integrates with the existing heritage building to the east.
· Create a distinctive podium to the building with a possible sky-lit atrium, visually separated from the development above.
· Woodville Street frontage to consider the existing and proposed building envelops of adjacent sites to the east.
· Ensure an appropriate façade articulation in order to accentuate the vertical nature of the tower building type
· The building should be designed on ESD principles.
· The building envelop is provided to encourage articulation and is not to be fully utilized as this could exceed the FSR controls.
· These controls are provided on the basis that some form of material public benefit will be provided in accordance with the City Centre Master Plan.


POTENTIAL MATERIAL PUBLIC BENEFITS

Initial discussions have been held with the Illawarra Catholic Club in relation to potential material public benefits associated with the future redevelopment of the site. These discussions were positive, with the Club generally supporting looking at entering into a planning agreement to provide some public benefits. Any potential material public benefits would be negotiated under Council’s Policy on Planning Agreements prior to a development application being lodged.

It is noted that the proposed amendment to the DCP incorporates a note stating that the new “controls are provided on the basis that some form of material public benefit will be provided in accordance with the City Centre Master Plan”

It is recommended that Council hold further discussions with the Club in the future should the controls in the DCP be amended and in connection with a proposed development application.

CONCLUSION

Council’s staff and consultants have undertaken a thorough and detailed assessment of the development proposal for 13-17 Woodville Street, Hurstville (Illawarra Catholic Club Site), the existing planning controls in DCP 4 and the City Centre Masterplan. Based on this assessment it is considered that the controls for the site could be reviewed for commercial/retail developments (not residential). In summary it is recommended that the controls for the site be amended as outlined in this report and be placed on public exhibition and then reported back to Council.


APPENDIX
Attachment 1 - Applicants Plans for 16 storey building

Proposal submitted by Applicant.pdf05164ltr10 Attachment B.pdf

Attachment 2 - Letter from the applicant (GSA Planning) – Response to Peer Review (8 Nov06)

05164Ltr12.PDFBuilding Envelope Option A.pdf05164ltr10 Attachment B.pdf05164ltr10 Attachment C.pdf

Attachment 3 - Recommended Planning Controls for the Subject Site
061103- ICC site.pdf

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
THAT the matter be referred to full Council for further consideration.
(Moved Clr C Hindi /Seconded Clr C Lee )
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
RESOLVED THAT Council endorse proposed amendments to the planning controls for 13-17 Woodville Street, Hurstville (the Illawarra Catholic Club site) Block 15, Site 15B in DCP No. 4 Hurstville City Centre.

THAT the proposed amendments to Development Control Plan No. 4 be publicly exhibited in accordance with relevant clauses of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

THAT with regard to the setbacks the Woodville Street frontage be 6m, the NRMA side be 5m, the rear side 7.4m, the Victory House Car Parking side 3m and the Victory House Building side 5m.

THAT with regard to building height a maximum of sixteen storeys be established, which is consistent with the MasterPlan and would be subject to Airport Authorities approval and also the design be a quality design with a floor plate of 1200 square metres, which has an FSR of 8.4:1.

FURTHER, THAT following public exhibition that a report be presented back to Council.
(Moved Clr P Sansom/Seconded Clr C Wong)


Meeting Date: 15/11/2006

ADDENDUM
PPE037A - 06ADDENDUM TO REPORT PPE035A-06 - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 4 CITY CENTRE DCP FOR 105 FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE

REPORT AUTHOR/S

Manager Strategic Planning, Ms N Stores

FILE REFERENCE

06/278

REASON FOR REPORT

To provide an attachment to report PPE035A-06 regarding a submission to amend the planning controls in DCP 4 for 105 Forest Road, Hurstville. The attachment provides the recommended planning controls for DCP 4 (Option 4).

DOES AN EXISTING POLICY COVER THIS MATTER?

Yes, Development Control Plan No. 4 – Hurstville City Centre

IF "NO" - SHOULD A POLICY BE DEVELOPED?

No

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

No

DOES THIS REPORT REFERENCE AN EARLIER REPORT? (If so, then indicate full report reference details)

Yes, Items PPE035A-06, PPE009-06, 15 March 2006, PPE049-05, 19 October, 2005


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an attachment plan to report PPE035A-06 which relates to a submission to amend the planning controls in Development Control Plan No. 4 - Hurstville City Centre (DCP 4) for 105 Forest Road, Hurstville.

The attachment provides the recommended planning controls for DCP 4 (Option 4). As outlined in report PPE035A-06, Option 4 provides for a 12 storey diamond shaped corner tower with a 12m setback from the Hill St Tavern Site and a 4 storey podium to street alignment with a resulting FSR of 4.3:1. Refer to plan for planning control details and design principles and report PPE035A-06 for further information.

RECOMMENDATION
THAT the attachment to this report be considered by Council as part of report PPE035A-06 and form part of the exhibition material.

REPORT DETAIL


APPENDIX
Option 4

061110-105 Frst Road.pdf

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
THAT the matter be referred to full Council for further consideration.
(Moved Clr C Hindi /Seconded Clr C Lee)
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
RESOLVED THAT Council, in principle, endorse the proposed amendments to the planning controls for 105 Forest Road, Hurstville, Block 27, Site 27A in Development Control Plan No. 4 – Hurstville City Centre as outlined in this report.

THAT, should Council support the amendments to DCP 4, that the amendments to Development Control Plan No. 4 be publicly exhibited in accordance with relevant clauses of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

THAT during the public exhibition of the amendments to DCP 4 the following information and work be undertaken:
THAT Council reaffirms its commitment to the Hurstville to Strathfield rail corridor and requests SSROC and WSROC to lobby the Minister for Planning to seek support for the identification and protection of an underground corridor.

THAT the proposed slender tower component on the corner have a maximum height of ten stories.

FURTHER, THAT Council include an additional paragraph in the Design Principles for 105 Forest Road as follows:

"These controls are provided on the basis that some form of material public benefit will be provided in accordance with the City Centre Master Plan."
(Moved Clr P Sansom/Seconded Clr S McMahon)