Item 10.1 - Attachment 1 |
Detailed Report
Deferred Areas November 2008 |
Attachment 1
DETAILED REPORT ON DRAFT PLANNING CONTROLS
FOR MERRYLANDS
BACKGROUND
Council previously considered draft planning controls for Merrylands,
known as Option 1 (Attachment 2) and
Option 2 (Attachment 3) at its
meeting of
Option 1 seeks to focus increased
residential density in the northern portion of the precinct, whilst retaining
the southern portion as a low density residential area, underpinning the area’s
potential to accommodate further residential development in the longer term.
Option 2 seeks to retain existing densities,
with the exception of land bounded by Mombri Street, Loftus Street and
Merrylands Road that would be down zoned to low density residential. This
option was prepared in response to discussions at a Councillor workshop
regarding the advice provided by the Department of Planning in relation to down
zoning of the land described above. The Department’s justification behind this
possible down zoning was to retain capacity for future higher density development
in the longer term. The Department’s advice was in the context of the remainder
of the existing Residential 2(b) and Residential 2(c) zonings in the precinct being
retained. Additional detail on
both Option 1 and Option 2 is provided in the previous detailed report at Attachment 4.
The decision of Council at the 23 June 2008 meeting was the subject of
a rescission motion at the Council meeting of the 28 July 2008. At this meeting three petitions and one
individual submission were tabled and one resident addressed the public forum
on behalf of residents of Smythe Street. Council resolved:-
(a) That Council adopt
the draft planning controls for the RDS Centres of Carlingford and East
Rydalmere, as shown at Attachment 2 of Manager Land Use & Transport
Planning Report, and that these be incorporated into the draft Parramatta Local
Environmental Plan 2008 prior to its exhibition.
(b) That
the draft planning controls for Merrylands be deferred and council officers
undertake further analysis of the petitions tabled tonight, particularly in
relation to the width of Smythe Street and in this regard, an audit of Smythe
Street width be undertaken.
(c) That an analysis be undertaken of new areas per
zone in each of the scenarios.
(d) Further, that the
petition from residents of
PETITIONS,
SUBMISSIONS & PUBLIC FORUM
Three (3) petitions and one (1) submission were
made to Council in respect of the draft planning controls that were initially
presented to Council on 23 June 2008. A signatory of one of the petitions also
addressed Council at it meeting of
Table
1:
Summary of petitions and submissions received
PETITION/SUBMISSION AUTHOR |
SUMMARY |
COMMENT |
Petition
from residents of Railway Terrace, Mombri Street and Merrylands Road,
Merrylands. |
Petition of 20 signatories (represents 19 properties) in support of
Option 1, which allows for mixed use development up to six storeys in height
between Railway Terrace, Mombri Street and Merrylands Road. |
This petition supports Option 1 in its current form and does not seek
any amendments. |
Petition
& Public Forum Address from residents of Smythe Street, Merrylands |
Petition of 30 signatories (represents 9 properties) in support of
Option 2, to have the area remain at its present densities.
A representative of this petition also addressed Council at its meeting of · Lack of public
consultation; · Current parking congestion in Smythe Street; · Narrow width of
Smythe Street; and · Amenity impacts
of higher density developments. |
The issues raised during the public forum address were responded to at
the Council meeting of 28 July 2008. The public forum address and subsequent
reply accompanies this report at Attachment
5. Further consideration of these matters is also provided below. It should be noted that Option 2 proposes that land in |
Petition
from residents of Albion Street, Merrylands |
Petition of 33 signatories (representing 32 properties) of which 10
signatories stated an address outside of Albion Street). This petition seeking
that |
Further consideration of this matter is provided below. |
Submission
from resident of |
Submission in support of Option 1 for higher density development. |
This submission supports Option 1 in its current form and does not
seek any amendments. |
Concern was raised by some Councillors and
residents about the width of Smythe Street in relation to possible higher
density residential development. In this respect, Council resolved that an audit of the width of
A detailed plan of Smythe Street accompanies this report at Attachment 6. The plan provides widths
of the roadway, location of trees, and services. Council’s Civil Design staff
have also undertaken a number of on-site measurements and advised that the road
has a total length of 311 metres, and of this, 238 metres (76.5%) of the length
has a road width of 9.6 and 9.8 metres (measured from kerb face to kerb face). 4.6
metres of the road length (1.5%) has a width of between 9.4 and 9.6 metres, and
68.5 metres of the road length (22%) has a width of less than 9.4 metres (typically
8.5 metres), occurring at a pinch point designed in the road way, and at the
eastern end approaching Loftus Street, which limits vehicles to left in/left
out movements only. In addition, the
eastern end approaching
Council’s Transport & Traffic Service Manager and Civil Design staff have previously advised that a minimum road width of 9.4 metres is sufficient to enable 2 metres for vehicle car parking on either side, whilst allowing 2.7 metres per vehicle travelling lane in each direction. This is achieved over 78% of Smythe Street. Of the remaining 22% of the road length, the narrower widths have been designed to slow traffic and to restrict vehicle movements at the Loftus Street intersection. This restricts parking, but also allows a travelling lane in each direction.
Smythe Street is a slow vehicle
movement area, is of a reasonably short distance, and is not a major road
within the local road network. The existing road configuration is designed to
allow sufficient vehicle movements but to control the speed of vehicles
travelling along the road at certain intervals. Additionally, the close
proximity to public transport provides opportunities for reduced car movements
in the longer term.
Given the characteristics of the
road and its function, it is recommended that the current configuration of
However, there are various ways
Council could improve traffic flow in
(1) Council could widen the
Smythe Street carriageway. This could be achieved within the existing road
reservation, without the need to acquire private property.
The costs
associated with road widening would include realignment of kerb and guttering,
extension of road pavement, removal and replacement of existing trees,
potential realignment of the footpath/s and potential relocation of services. Initial
investigations of existing services reveal that the northern side of the road
reserve contains Telstra lines and gas pipes, while the southern side contains
Telstra lines, water pipes, underground and overhead power lines and Optus
cables.
Without a detailed working design/scope of works of any such road widening it is difficult to accurately determine the costs associated with undertaking the project. However an approximate cost of civil works associated with widening the road by approximately 0.5 metre along one side, including kerb and gutter realignment and extension of the roadway, has been estimated at approximately $100,000. This does not include the relocation of services, tree removal and replacement, or any other contingencies. While the cost associated with relocating services is generally determined on a case by case basis, it is reasonable to expect a significant increase to the total cost, taking into account what is likely to be involved.
(2) Council’s Traffic and
Transport Services Manager has advised that traffic calming devices including
line marking and speed humps could be provided to contain vehicle speeds and to
help guide motorists. Such works are estimated to cost approximately $10,000.
(3) Monitoring of traffic conditions over the longer term could also allow Council to consider other alternatives, including restricting parking to one side of the roadway only or altering vehicle movements to ‘one way’.
Funding options to undertake road works would need to be explored including through the use of Section 94A funds. However, this would require the amendment of the S94A plan to identify the road improvements to be undertaken in the schedule of works.
A number of residents of Albion Street
petitioned Council seeking that Albion Street be zoned R4 for higher density
development, and that this be included in Option 1.
Albion Street and adjoining streets to the
south are suitably located to accommodate increased residential or mixed use
development given their proximity to Merrylands train station and Merrylands
town centre, regular shaped allotments, generous street widths and relatively
flat topography.
Under Option 1, land south of
Sutherland Lane is proposed to be zoned low density residential, allowing it to
be revisited in the future for higher density residential development. Option 1
is preferred because it makes better provision for consolidated increase in
residential density in the short term as well as preserving land for longer
term growth.
Rezoning greater volumes of the
RDS study area, including
· Recent
redevelopment uptake has predominantly occurred along Railway Terrace, Mombri
Street and William Street. Option 1 seeks to encourage a consolidation of
medium and high density development and mixed use development in this northern
portion of the precinct as the first stage of redevelopment.
· Holroyd Council has provided
opportunities for substantial redevelopment on the opposite side of the train
line which will cater for a large proportion of housing demand in the short to
medium term.
· Providing a mix of residential zoning and
densities, allows for a mix of dwelling types to be provided within the
community.
· Previous discussions with Councillors
demonstrate that many local residents believed that the area had local heritage
significance but were reluctant to have formal heritage listing. This and the
contents of the petition received would suggest that a more measured, long term
approach needs to be adopted for the planning controls for this area.
It is recommended that the area
south of
AREAS
PER ZONE
As required by Council’s resolution of 28
July 2008, an analysis of the quantum of land areas zoned for high, medium and
low density residential, mixed use and commercial under each option is provided
in Table 2. Land areas provided relate to the area generally within the RDS precinct
bounded by Randle Street to the north, Bertha Street to the south, Woodville
Road to the east and Railway Terrace to the west.
As detailed in the table below, Option 1
would result in 56% of the land area being zoned for low density residential
(R2), 14.1% for medium density residential (R3), 25.5% for high density
residential (R4) and 2.7% for mixed use development (B4). The remaining 1.7%
would constitute Neighbourhood Centre or Enterprise Corridor zones.
In comparison, Option 2 would provide less
land area zoned for low density residential (49%) and high density residential
(14.1%), but substantially increases the land area zoned for medium density
housing (35.1%). No mixed use zoning would be provided under Option 2, and the
area zoned Neighbourhood Centre and Enterprise Corridor would remain consistent
with Option 1.
The gross floor area figures provided in
Table 2 take into consideration proposed floor space ratio. Option 1 would
generate a greater amount of residential and commercial gross floor space while
retaining a larger area of low density land to be retained for future long term
growth.
Table
2:
Land area and potential gross floor area (GFA) for Option 1 and Option 2
ZONE |
OPTION 1 (Land area m²)* |
OPTION 1 (Gross GFA)** |
OPTION 1 ( |
OPTION 2 (Land area m²)* |
OPTION 2 (Gross GFA)** |
OPTION 2 ( |
R2 Low Density Residential |
275,279 |
137,640 |
56% |
241,355 |
120,768 |
49% |
R3 Medium Density Residential |
69,632 |
41,779 |
14.1% |
172,285 |
103,371 |
35.1% |
R4 High Density Residential |
125,571 |
120,793 |
25.5% |
69,563 |
55,650 |
14.1% |
B1 Neighbourhood Centre |
3,805 |
5,708 |
0.8% |
4,317 |
6,476 |
0.9% |
B4 Mixed Use |
13,233 |
26,466 |
2.7% |
N/A |
N/A |
0 |
B6 |
4,165 |
6,248 |
0.9% |
4,165 |
6,248 |
0.9% |
TOTAL |
491,685 m² |
338,634 m² |
100% |
491,685 m² |
292,513 m² |
100% |
*
These figures are approximate only.
*
These gross floor areas are indicative only and represent land area x floor
space ratio for each option. No allowance is made for existing GFA nor possible
impediments to redevelopment including recent redevelopment, strata subdivision,
heritage etc.
PUBLIC
CONSULTATION
The community will have the
opportunity to provide comment to Council on the draft planning controls during
the exhibition of the Draft LEP. This exhibition is likely to be conducted over
a 2 month period to enable all stakeholders opportunities for comment. Council
will consider all submissions before any final decision is made.
PREFERRED OPTION
The recommended planning controls, being
Option 1, will focus increased residential density in the northern portion of
the precinct, whilst retaining the southern portion as a low density
residential area, underpinning the area’s potential to accommodate further
residential development in the longer term.
Option 2 would result in the fragmentation of high and medium density
areas over the Merrylands RDS precinct limit the long term growth potential of
Merrylands and may also result in a more inconsistent built form throughout the
precinct.
NEXT STEPS
This report details the preferred zoning, height and density options for Council to consider. Once the draft planning controls have been adopted by Council they will be included as part of draft Parramatta LEP 2008.
The draft LEP must undergo a review by the Department of Planning to confirm its consistency with the State Government’s standardised LEP format and State policies. This review is underway and when completed, the draft LEP will be reported back to Council (with advice about the outcome of the review) so that Council can formally lodge the draft plan with the Department of Planning and request approval (under Section 65 of the Act) to publicly exhibit the draft plan. Subject to this process, it is anticipated the draft LEP could be placed on public exhibition in early to mid 2009.
Draft DCP controls will also be
formulated, to provide more detailed planning guidance on built form outcomes,
desired streetscape, building setbacks, future character, desired future
pedestrian connections etc and will be reported for Council’s consideration.
These controls will form part of the draft Parramatta Development Control Plan
2008 to guide future development in each precinct, and will be reported to
Council.