Item 9.4 - Attachment 1

Attachment 1 - Detailed report on Planning Proposal, Draft DCP and Draft VPA for 2 Morton Street, Parramatta


Attachment 1 - Detailed report

Planning Proposal, Draft DCP and Draft VPA for 2 Morton Street, Parramatta



Background to the Planning Proposal


On 1 October 2009, the landowner of 2 Morton Street, Parramatta lodged a Planning Proposal seeking the rezoning of this land from “Employment 4” (industrial use) to High Density Residential, Mixed Use, Public Open Space and Waterways.


Council, on 19 October 2009, adopted the Planning Proposal for referral to the Department of Planning (DoP) for Gateway determination to allow the proposal to proceed to public exhibition, together with a draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) and draft Development Control Plan (DCP). In December 2009, the NSW Department of Planning (DoP) authorised the public exhibition and issued a Gateway determination. The authorisation was revised in February 2010 to clarify matters regarding mapping.


On 14 April 2010, Council endorsed a draft Voluntary Planning Agreement, provided certain conditions were part of that agreement. Once these conditions were negotiated, the draft VPA was placed on public exhibition, together with the Planning Proposal, draft site specific DCP and the traffic study submitted by the land owner. The public exhibition was held from 7 August 2010 to 10 September 2010.


Planning proposal and its relationship to draft Parramatta LEP 2010


The proposed rezoning of the land at 2 Morton Street has been under consideration by Council for a number of years and has previously been part of public consultations as part of Council’s Residential Development Strategy.  It is also reflected in draft Parramatta LEP 2010, with the land proposed to be zoned part RE1 Public Recreation, part W2 Waterways, part R4 High Density Residential and B4 Mixed Use. The draft LEP, including these planning controls, was publicly exhibited from 1 March 2010 until 7 May 2010. Council also exhibited draft DCP controls for 2 Morton Street as part of the Draft Parramatta DCP 2010.


By submitting a Planning Proposal, the landowner is seeking to have the rezoning proceed at a faster pace than Council’s new principal LEP. The Planning Proposal will proceed independently of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. However, ultimately, the outcomes of the planning controls for 2 Morton Street, as determined by the Planning Proposal, will need to be reflected in the draft Parramatta LEP when it is finally made.


Results of the public exhibition


The exhibition involved a mail out 338 landowners within a 400-metre radius of 2 Morton Street, Parramatta, exhibition of material at the Parramatta City Library and Council’s Administration Centre. The information was displayed on Council’s website and an advertisement placed in the local newspaper advising of the exhibition. The exhibited Planning Proposal, draft DCP and draft VPA can be seen in Attachment 2.


At the conclusion of the public exhibition, Council received 51 submissions. One of the submissions contained a petition with 117 signatures objecting to the proposal. The signatures on the petition are from residents within the immediate area of 2 Morton Street and on the southern side of the Parramatta River. Also included are 2 submissions received during the exhibition of the draft Parramatta LEP 2010 relating to 2 Morton Street, Parramatta. Those submissions have been considered as part of this report. The landowner of 2 Morton Street also made a submission with respect to the planning controls contained in the Planning Proposal.


Council as part of the NSW Department of Planning Gateway determination was required to consult with particular State Government Authorities; they were the Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW Transport and Infrastructure, Sydney Metro, Department of Conservation, Environment and Climate Change and the Catchment Management Authority. Council received three submissions from these agencies. None of these agencies objected in principle to the proposal. A summary of agency submissions is included in Attachment 3. The RTA’s submission requests that Council consult with them with respect to the draft VPA. Council during the public exhibition wrote to the RTA about this issue but no response was received.



Key issues raised in public submissions


The key issues raised in submissions are discussed below. Attachment 3 summarises all the submissions received.


1.         Traffic, road network and on street parking (34 submissions)


Issues and concerns raised


§  Concerned by the increased levels of traffic the proposed development will cause when the area already experiences traffic congestion during peak periods.

§  There are limited road access points in and out of the site. This restricts the ability for traffic to flow through the area.

§  The traffic study does not fully represent the traffic issues that affect the area.

§  A broader analysis of the long-term traffic conditions should be considered taking into account the up zoning of land surrounding 2 Morton Street, as proposed in draft Parramatta LEP 2010.

§  Proposed road extensions to New Zealand and Harvey Street are not feasible without land acquisition and proper consultation with affected landowners.

§  The increasing cost of parking in the CBD has resulted in local streets becoming dominated by parked cars.




Council’s Traffic and Transport Unit has reviewed the proponent’s traffic study and provide the following comments:


The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) “Guide to Traffic Generating Developments” (TGD) suggests a traffic generation rate of 0.29 vehicle trips per unit for high density development during peak time. Accordingly, the proposed traffic generation associated with the proposed redevelopment of 2 Morton Street would equate to an additional 169 – 195 vehicle trip per hour during peak times.


The Traffic study also analysed the future operation of Thomas Street at the intersections of Macarthur Street, Morton Street & Pemberton Street. The modelling assumes a growth factor of 1.5% per annum on all movements at the intersection over a 10-year period plus the additional traffic generated by the proposed development.


Based on this information, Council’s Traffic and Transport Unit have indicated that the traffic volumes across the road network are within acceptable limits to support the rezoning of this land. However, traffic information will be required at the development application stage addressing the following:


§  An assessment of the overall traffic impact and any improvements required at the Thomas Street/Morton Street & Thomas Street/Pemberton Street intersections.


§  Intersection improvements at Thomas Street/Morton Street & Thomas Street/Pemberton Street are considered in order to enhance traffic safety and provide traffic calming in the section of Thomas Street between James Ruse Drive & Macarthur Street.


§  Determine the feasibility of restricting traffic at the intersections of Harvey Street/Macarthur Street & New Zealand Street/Macarthur Street into left-in/left-out only thereby extending the right-turn bay at Macarthur Street into Thomas Street based on the analysis as per submitted Traffic Report. 


§  On-site parking provision to be addressed in any further traffic study associated with a development application.


§  That the provisions for a car sharing scheme as documented in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 be considered as part of any future development application.


There was a level of concern raised in submissions that the traffic study prepared for the proponent references a potential future pedestrian and road connection between Harvey Street, New Zealand Street and Morton Street, beyond the site. This was identified in the structure plan for the wider Morton Street precinct that preceded the Planning Proposal, as an option to improve circulation and connectivity within the precinct. This is not part of the Planning Proposal, nor relied on in the traffic assessment for the rezoning. The Planning Proposal will not result in the construction of new roads extending Harvey/New Zealand Street to Morton Street.   Any proposal to explore future road connections within the precinct would require the opportunity to arise with the land owners and consultation with the community.


2.   Scale of development is out of character with the locality (32 submissions)


Issues and concerns raised


§  Concerned by the proposed height of buildings and relationship to the low scale development which surrounds.

§  Development is out of character with the predominant low density/medium density housing surrounding.

§  The development will dominate the skyline and affect existing views.

§  Building heights will reduce privacy of nearby residents.

§  Medium density development would be more suitable than high density.




Council’s Residential Development Strategy (RDS) identifies 2 Morton Street and the precinct bounded by the bridges at James Ruse Drive and Macarthur Street, Thomas Street and the river, for increased residential housing. This recognises the area’s proximity to the Parramatta CBD and the University of Western Sydney, its desirable location along the Parramatta River and the preference for residential development over industrial.


In determining the extent of residential development suitable for this site and the immediate area, Council required that the land owner investigate suitable built form outcomes and residential densities for a wider precinct, which resulted in the preparation of the ‘Elizabeth Street Structure Plan’. This plan then underwent an independent urban design review.


Given the policy direction of the RDS, in the longer term, the character of this area will change to take advantage of its location on the fringe of the Parramatta CBD. The structure plan and urban design analysis undertaken for the Morton Street precinct informed the proposed residential density increases included in the draft Parramatta LEP and the Planning Proposal for 2 Morton Street.  


Whilst the proposed building heights for this site are significantly taller than the current buildings that surround the site, within the precinct, increased development potential is proposed to accommodate residential flat buildings and mixed use development at a range of increased heights under draft Parramatta LEP 2010. The future character of the precinct will therefore change over time to one of higher density. The proposal to include mixed-use development will help activate Morton Street and encourage use of the foreshore and to provide some uses to complement the needs of existing and future residents. While mixed-use development is encouraged, the extent that it can be achieved may be limited by site constraints in some locations, such as along the foreshore to the open space adjacent to the river.


The maximum height proposed for 2 Morton Street is mapped at 40 metres (equivalent to 12 storeys) to comply with the mapping guidelines. However, this height relates to only one of the proposed building locations within the site. The draft Development Control Plan contains more detailed controls for building heights over the site and indicates that the predominant building height will be 6 to 8 storeys with two taller buildings equivalent to 10 and 12 storeys being strategically located closer to the foreshore to enable a strong visual relationship between the precinct and the CBD.  Because the site slopes towards the river, the height of these buildings will not have the same visual effects as if the site was flat.


Other planning controls contained in the draft DCP have been introduced to minimise the impact of the height.  Upper levels of all buildings (the upper 2 storeys) are required to be setback. Section 4.1 of the draft DCP provides an indicative arrangement for how buildings may be located on the site. The indicative building layout provides for the taller buildings (8 storeys) to be orientated in a north/south direction to reduce visual bulk, encourage more modulation, reduce overshadowing and encourage dual aspect apartments for enhanced access to sunlight and breezes. The lower 6 storey buildings orientated east/west, will optimise solar access to private and public open space and the separation of these buildings will provide some view corridors through to the river. It is also proposed that new buildings be slender with their depth being between 15 and 18 metres.  All these controls are designed to reduce the bulk of buildings, enable view lines through the development site and provide a spatial variation in the height of buildings. Proposed developments will also be required to comply with SEPP 65 design requirements for residential flat buildings.


3.     Foreshore protection and heritage values (7 submissions)


Issues and concerns raised


§  The proposed development will encroach on the foreshore and damage the historic and environmental quality of the foreshore, including existing wetlands.

§  Proposed development is not compatible with the natural landscape of the foreshore.

§  Development does not respect the indigenous and European heritage along the foreshore

§  Improvements to the wetlands/pedestrian links along the foreshore are worthy of consideration.




Part of the Parramatta River foreshore between Macarthur Street and James Ruse is not currently publicly accessible. The foreshore land of 2 Morton Street (approximately 240 metre frontage) is private land. The Planning Proposal represents (through a negotiated voluntary planning agreement) an opportunity for at least 12, 600sqm of foreshore land to be transferred into Council’s ownership to secure this as public land. The proponent would undertake the embellishment of the foreshore, including a pedestrian/cycle pathway to link the foreshore with the CBD.


Some concerns have been raised that the environmental qualities of the foreshore are threatened because the development will be located adjacent to the river. However, the dedication of the foreshore land in conjunction with the redevelopment of the site will provide a substantial setback of approximately 30 – 40 metres. This will ensure that the development minimises impacts on the natural foreshore environment. These setbacks also help to protect the strong historical and heritage values of the foreshore and enable these heritage elements to be accessible to the public. The mangroves that align the foreshore are heritage listed. This listing provides further protection of the foreshore, particularly as the mangroves are important environmentally and as a significant natural landscape of the river. 


There are other heritage items in the vicinity of the site at 2 Morton Street. These items are primarily structures such as Queens Wharf, a stone wall located within the foreshore and buildings located within the broader precinct. Any future development application for the site will require assessment as to the potential affects on heritage items.    


4.   Flooding (5 submissions)


Issues and concerns raised


§  A significant part of the site is flood prone and therefore should be protected from development.

§  The development will reduce the floodplain and increase flooding risks




The Planning Proposal acknowledges that there are limitations on the development of some parts of the site related to flooding potential and that any future development will need to mitigate these flood impacts. Council, when considering a development application, will need to assess whether the development proposed increases the potential flood affectation on other development or property, or risk to human life and does not adversely affects the environment of the floodplain by causing avoidable erosion, saltation or unnecessary destruction of river bank. Detailed plans and a flood study will be required as part of any development application.


It is probable that some buildings closest to the foreshore reserve will need to be located and designed in relation to flood levels. It is recommended that an additional section be included in the draft DCP in relation to the architectural quality of the development and design outcomes in these instances. The basis of these controls will be:


§  to ensure the foreshore is a safe and secure environment that Council seek passive surveillance of foreshore area through buildings addressing and connecting to the foreshore.

§  That any proposal to elevate buildings be no greater than 1.2 metres at the foreshore interface

§  That no more than 50% of buildings along the foreshore be elevated  


5.   Lack of consultation and information provided (6 submissions)


Issues and concerns raised


§  That Council consider holding a public hearing due to the significance of the proposal (two submissions).

§  The material provided as part of the exhibition did not help people understand the full magnitude of the proposed development and there is insufficient information to enable Council to make a proper assessment.




Section 57(5) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 states that if a person making a submission so requests, and Council considers that the issues raised in a submission are of such significance that they should be the subject of a hearing; the Council is to arrange a public hearing on the issues raised in the submission.


Two submissions have requested that Council hold a public hearing. The issues raised in each submission are summarised below:


a)     Adequacy of the traffic study prepared in association with the Planning Proposal.

b)     Concerns that there is a proposal to extend Harvey and New Zealand Street through to Morton Street.

c)      The current road network is already strained. Additional units. (approximately 600) will overload the network and cause grid lock.

d)     Proposal is out of character with the existing neighbourhood.

e)         The location of a pedestrian footbridge across the river will be problematic and will detract from the current amenity of Queens Wharf.

f)          There has been a lack of public consultation on this matter


The issues of concern are understood, are able to be fully addressed in this report and are of a type that Council generally receives in response to a proposal of this nature. The content of the submission is consistent with other submissions received and it is not recommended that a public hearing be held.


The purpose of a Planning Proposal is to explain the intended effect of a proposed LEP and provide justification for the making of that plan, in this case, to change the zoning of land to permit the types of land uses proposed. The exhibition material (Attachment 2) included information of this nature. It also provided, in the draft DCP the more detailed guidelines for the redevelopment of the site.


A separate process exists for assessing the merits of a development proposal (a development application). This involves much more precise details about the design of the development. Should the Planning Proposal be approved then the landowner is entitled to lodge a development application. If this occurs, then Council requires the lodgement of detailed architectural plans, and a statement of environmental effects demonstrating how the proposal is compliant and meets all Council guidelines. This process will also involve a public consultation phase.


6.   Lack of infrastructure and public transport (8 submissions)


Issues and concerns raised


§  The area has insufficient public transport

§  The site is not within adequate walking distance of the Parramatta Railway Station

§  This area is not part of the Parramatta CBD and should not be identified as a location of increased residential housing. There is already sufficient area for this type of housing to cope with a growing population.

§  Existing infrastructure cannot cope with current population demand. Further development will only make this worse.




This area has good public transport connections to Parramatta railway station in the form of bus services along Victoria Road (approx 700m from the site) and also pedestrian access to the CBD (approx 900 m from the site). It also has bus services linking to other regional areas including the Sydney CBD. While these can continue to be improved, the level of access in comparison to other locations in Parramatta is relatively high. 


While it is acknowledged that car travel is still the preferred travel option for most Sydney residents, it is becoming less sustainable. Traffic conditions will worsen over the next 25-30 years as population grows. Therefore, more residential housing in accessible locations to public transport to cope with this growing population will help limit the impacts on the road network and reduce the need for car travel in peak periods because of the alternative travel options available.


This strategy is more sustainable but for it to succeed will take time and commitment from all levels of government to ensure public transport options continue to improve. Parramatta is identified by the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy as Sydney’s second CBD. This will make Parramatta a more desirable place to live and work. Therefore it will be a position to effectively lobby for improvements to services.


7.   Other environmental Impacts (15 submissions)


Issues and concerns raised


§  Noise and air pollution will be a major problem during construction

§  Concerns of noise that will be generated by the additional number of units 




Any approval for development will include conditions to be complied with during construction. This will include protecting the site with adequate fencing to stop erosion and siltation and to ensure that construction is carried out at appropriate day time hours.


The proposal will increase the number of residents in this area. However, Council has design considerations to minimise noise. These may include the use of screens, landscaping or building setbacks. Furthermore, noise pollution occurring in residential locations is subject to the Noise Control Act, enforced by the NSW Police.


Proponent’s submission


During the exhibition, the proponent lodged a submission addressing some aspects of the Planning Proposal. The key points of the proponent’s submission are outlined below:


a)        That the proposed open space zone be consistent with the extent of land to be dedicated as part of the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA).


b)        That Council revise the extent of the Waterways zone applying to the site (also indicated in draft Parramatta LEP 2010). Council is able to apply an environmental protection clause to protect any riparian corridor or ecological communities.


c)        That the Floor Space Ratio is more accurately represented as 1.4:1 rather than 1.2:1.


d)        That a clause be introduced to enable the whole site area to be used to calculate FSR.


e)        That potential amendment to the draft DCP be considered. These relate to the use of the word storey, the location of tower elements, roof design, building depth, balconies and modulation of building adjoining the foreshore.


Responses to the matters raised by the proponent are detailed below:


a)   Open space zone


The Planning Proposal includes a set of land use maps as required by the DoP. Zoning maps for the site will be prepared at the stage when the Planning Proposal proceeds to the Department of Planning for legal drafting.  The draft VPA sets out the extent of land to be dedicated to Council as open space should the Planning Proposal be approved. The area to be dedicated for open space purposes should be used as the basis for the open space zoning.


b)   Removal of Waterway zone and other conditions


The proponent argues that the land which may be zoned as Waterway should be reduced and that the area subject to an environment protection clause should also be removed. The proponent has submitted further ecological information to support this argument. The response to this information, including comments from Council’s Open Space and Natural Resources Unit is as follows:


· The Baludarri Wetland (a Council reserve immediately east of the site) is an Ecological Endangered Community under the Threatened Species and Conservation Act 1995. It contains both an endangered Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest community of the Sydney Basin freshwater wetland as well as a continuous stretch of Endangered Coastal Saltmarsh in Sydney Basin saltmarsh. The site is an important fish nursery on the Parramatta River and is also used by many species of birds. The Draft Native Vegetation map prepared by the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority, shows evidence of saltmarsh communities on the eastern corner of the site (where one of the proposed tower buildings is indicatively shown to be located in the draft DCP), and near at the channel outlet. This map can be seen at Attachment 5. It is therefore important to retain an environmental protection clause in the LEP amendment to ensure proper consideration is given to these communities at DA stage. The area of the site proposed to be covered by an environmental protection clause is shown in Attachment 2.

· Water land as defined by the Fisheries Management Act 1994 is any land submerged by water, whether permanently or intermittently, or whether forming an artificial or natural body of water.

· Although a low berm (a level space, shelf, or raised barrier separating two areas) appears to exist between the edge of Councils Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) and the adjacent water land at 2 Morton Street, during high rain fall periods, water could still flow west across Council land into this water land.


· Irrespective of the provisions contained in the Planning Proposal, Council cannot give permission to allow any reclamation of water land according to the Fisheries Management Act 1994. Approval to reclaim land must be granted by the Minister. It is recommended that the Environmental Protection layer be retained over the south eastern corner to reinforce this requirement.

· To preserve the existing hydrologic flows within these EEC’s at Baludarri Wetland and 2 Morton Street it is recommend that all stormwater is drained to the existing outlet point at 2A Morton Street.

· To protect the existing EEC’s at 2 Morton Street, it is recommended that the W1 zone be applied to the outlet area as depicted in a map shown in the proponent submission and found in Attachment 4.


c)      Floor Space Ratio (FSR)


When Council first considered draft planning controls for this site it did not include a FSR because other controls like setbacks, heights and landscaping would control the design and set the maximum scale of development. However, Council is required by the DoP to include one and it is also relevant to the VPA.


A floor space ratio of 1.2:1 was extrapolated from the net floor space yields of building envelopes as proposed in the Morton Street Structure Plan 2006. The structure plan assumed that 75% of the total building envelope for residential development and 90% of the building envelope for commercial development would be calculated as floor space. The proponent argues that this FSR does not accurately reflect the yields achievable on the gross floor area (GFA) represented in the structure plan.


FSR is a crude measurement for determining the total floor area of a development relative to the site area. The standard LEP template determines FSR from gross floor area (GFA). However, the definition of GFA excludes those areas which are not usable floor space, i.e. – stair wells, lift cores. This in effect makes the GFA actually a measurement of net floor space because it relies on a total after some exclusions have been made.


Advice from Council’s Urban Design unit and industry standards support 80% of the total building envelope for residential development as a more appropriate assumption to use for calculating net floor space. Based on this revision a FSR of 1.3:1 would be more accurate for the site.


d)   Clause for calculating FSR

Under both the Parramatta LEP 2001 and draft Parramatta LEP 2010, floor space ratio means the ratio of the floor space area of the building to the area of the allotment on which the building is or is proposed to be erected. As part of the site at 2 Morton Street will be dedicated to Council, the proponent is seeking a clause to ensure that the FSR is calculated using the whole site area prior to dedication.

This is the basis for the quantum of floor space reflected in the Morton St Structure Plan 2006 for the site and the subsequent urban design work. It is therefore appropriate that a clause be included in the LEP amendment following the Planning Proposal.


e)   Proponent submission about the site specific draft DCP


The proponent’s submission relating to the draft DCP includes the following suggested changes. A response to each suggestion is outlined immediately below each suggestion:


a)           That as some parts of the proposed development may protrude above natural ground level, they may be considered a storey. Therefore reference in the draft DCP should only relate to habitable storeys.


Response: Current controls state that any wall protruding more than 1.2 metres above existing ground level constitutes a storey. The purpose of this control is to manage bulk and to prevent a building appearing to be higher than the controls allow. This is a standard control and is important in this case because any development fronting the foreshore should seek to provide passive surveillance and a relationship with passive open space. Therefore, the control of 1.2 metres storey control is appropriate to maintain those principles. This control should be incorporated into the site specific DCP.


b)           That clause 3.2 be more flexible by saying that the tower elements will generally be located closer to the foreshore.


Response: While it is a preference from a urban design perspective that the taller elements of the building be down the slope closer to the area to be dedicated as foreshore, it is acknowledged that there maybe justifiable merits for an alternative design. Therefore, it is agreed that clause 3.1 be amended to say that it is Council preference for taller buildings to be located closer to the interface with the foreshore.


c)            The building typologies generally require upper level setbacks. Therefore, the additional requirement of setbacks which have a common boundary with a lower height limit is already suitably covered.


Response: Setbacks with common boundaries of a lower height have been compensated for by the requirement of upper level setbacks and variation to the articulation of buildings. Therefore it is agreed that clause 5.1 be deleted.


d)           That building depth for typologies A, D,E be defined as glass line to glass line.


Response: A building depth control in general terms is a reference to the internal layout of buildings whereby that internal depth will determine the extent of solar access and natural ventilation. Given the importance of this outcome and its relationship to the internal layout, it is appropriate that a reference be made that it is measured glass line to glass line.


e)           That clause 5.4(d) be re-worded to take into account that not all buildings will front the public domain.


Response: It is considered that a merit assessment of this issue is more appropriate. It is a desirable outcome that new development front the public domain to improve passive surveillance and for buildings to provide a visual and physical connection to the public domain. 


Clause 5.4(e) requires all balconies to be a combination of projected and enclosed forms whereas this is not a requirement of SEPP 65.


Response: Part 3 of SEPP 65 provides great detail on the design and incorporation of balconies with apartments. It is therefore reasonable to delete this provision and rely on SEPP 65 controls.


f)  Clause 5.5 be deleted as this is a provision for which DCPs should not mandate uses. Furthermore, the ability to achieve mixed use on parts of the site is affected by flood levels.


Response: Clause 5.5 of the draft DCP does not mandate Mixed Use development. It provides controls for which are matters for consideration where mixed use is zoned for and provided for in a development application. The consideration in the DCP is to ensure that where mixed use can occur, that it be done with active street frontages, provide adequate access for residents of apartments and is designed with intention to facilitate pedestrian movement and access.


g)           That the landscape requirement for the mixed use zone be reconsidered as a 40% area may not be achieved given the area is narrow.


Response: The key control which is of most importance relates to deep soil zones to ensure some substantial plantings and growth. The draft DCP for Morton Street provides controls for deep soil planting. As such, the minimum landscape requirement can be amended to be a merit assessment.


h)            That visitor or limited street parking be provided at grade in recognition that the land slopes.

Response: Council’s draft Parramatta DCP does not mandate basement car parking although in development like this, it is preferable. The site specific DCP for Morton Street should be consistent with the way car parking controls are applied to the rest of the LGA.


i)  Delete reference to the requirement that as part of this development, Morton Street will be widened to be consistent with Broughton Street.


Response: This road widening requirement is an error. Any widening of the road is dependent only on the Council depot site being redeveloped. Any redevelopment of 2 Morton Street does not require any road widening.


j)  Clause 5.7 implies that all entrances to development need to front the foreshore road. Planning for flooding may affect this.


Response: It is considered that a merit assessment of this issue is more appropriate. It is a desirable outcome that new development front the public domain to improve passive surveillance and for buildings to provide a visual and physical connection to the public domain. 


k)            Clarify the specifications relating to the width of the verge for Morton Street.


Response: This provision should be clear by stating that a 3 metre footpath plus a 3 metre grass verge is required.



Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement


Issues raised by submissions


The majority of submissions received to the public exhibition relate to the Planning Proposal and draft DCP controls for 2 Morton Street. Three submissions have been received concerned with the proposal to construct a pedestrian bridge across the Parramatta River, which is part of the proposed VPA. The concerns raised are outlined below:


§            There is no need for a pedestrian bridge.

§            The proposed location of the pedestrian bridge is impractical.

§            The costs of the proposed pedestrian bridge are insufficient.




Under the draft VPA, the proponent proposes to make a financial contribution towards a pedestrian bridge across the Parramatta River as one component of the VPA. The pedestrian bridge has been identified by Council as an important piece of new infrastructure to further improve the access to and along the Parramatta River.


The detailed design and exact location of the pedestrian bridge will be determined at a future date corresponding to the staged development of the site. The construction of the bridge will require a separate approval. The purpose of the draft VPA sets out the commitment of both the proponent and Council to deliver it. The contribution from the proponent ($1.75 million) will not pay for the full construction cost of approximately $3 million and Council will need to fund part of the work itself. However, Council has determined that it is willing to enter into the VPA on this basis.



Other comments relating to the draft VPA


The draft VPA as exhibited reflects a negotiated outcome based on principles endorsed by Council and generally agreed by the proponent. However, there are several matters that need to addressed in the final drafting. These are indicated below:


§ The security from the proponent in respect of commitments.

§ The calculation formula used for indexation of cash payments.

§ Details of the transfer of a section of road in Morton Street.

§ Negotiating a Section 94A payment for floor space if achieved in excess of the maximum FSR.


These aspects will addressed by Council’s Legal Counsel and the proponents to finalise the VPA.


Summary and conclusion


Council has received a number of public submissions concerned about the proposal and the extent of development proposed. Most submissions are concerned that the proposal will change the character of the area and does not complement the existing character. Concerns about traffic management and design of buildings will require full assessment at development application stage, based on detailed plans and information provided by the applicant and with further community consultation.


It is recommended that Council adopt the proposal in support of its long-term strategy to increase residential housing on the edge of the Parramatta CBD to accommodate a growing population, to create a gateway at the river entrance to the CBD and enhance the river foreshore. In adopting the proposal, the following are recommended:


a)    The finalisation of the draft VPA as described in this report.

b)    That Council amend the Planning Proposal to allow a maximum FSR of 1.3:1 as discussed in this report.

c)    That the portion of land for Waterway purposes be reduced as shown in Attachment 4.

d)    That a clause be introduced into the LEP amendment(s) for the Planning Proposal that enables the whole of the site to be considered when calculating FSR.

e)    That the extent of area set aside for open space correlate to the area of land to be dedicated under the VPA.


f)     That a more detailed traffic study be prepared for any future development application as outlined by Council’s Traffic and Transport unit.

g)    That Council make a series of amendments to the draft DCP for 2 Morton Street as outlined below:

§ introduce a control in the draft DCP to address design requirements in relation flood prone areas as discussed in this report.

§ require car sharing schemes to apply to this development.

§ That the wording of clause 3.2 be amended to reiterate Council’s preference for tower elements to be located closer to the interface of the foreshore land.

§ Delete the reference to clause 5.1 which require requires a certain roof pitch where there are buildings with varying height limits.

§ That the depth of building be measured from glass line to glass line.

§ Delete clause 5.4 (e) relating to enclosed and projected balconies.

§ Remove the 40% landscape requirement and allow for landscaping controls to be a merit assessment with an emphasis on deep soil planting within the Mixed Use zone.

§ That car parking requirements be amended to be consistent with the draft Parramatta DCP 2010.

§ That reference to road widening requirement for Morton Street be deleted.

§ That the specifications for width of the road verge for Morton Street be a 3 metre footpath plus a 3 metre grassed verge.