NOTICE OF Council MEETING

PUBLIC AGENDA

 

An Ordinary Meeting of City of Parramatta Council will be held in the Cloister Function Rooms, St Patricks Cathedral 1 Marist Place, Parramatta on Monday, 16 December 2019 at 6.30pm.

 

 

 

 

Brett Newman

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Council                                                                                                      16 December 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


COUNCIL CHAMBERS

 

 

 

Group Manager Governance & Risk

Lord Mayor

Clr Bob Dwyer

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

Minute Clerk

 

Minute Clerk

 

 

 

Clr Phil Bradley

 

 

 

Clr Lorraine Wearne

 

 

 

 

 

Sound

 

Clr Sameer Pandey

 

 

 

Clr Andrew Wilson

 

 

Clr Paul Han

 

 

 

 

Clr Bill Tyrrell

 

 

 

Clr Dr

Patricia Prociv

 

 

 

Clr Andrew Jefferies

 

 

 

 

IT

 

Clr Pierre Esber

 

 

 

Clr Benjamin Barrak

 

 

Clr Donna Davis

 

 

 

Clr Martin Zaiter

 

 

 

Clr Michelle Garrard, Deputy Lord Mayor

 

 

Clr Steven Issa

 

 

 

Executive Director City Engagement & Experience

 

Executive Director Community Services

Executive Director City Strategy & Development

Executive Director City Assets & Operations

Executive Director Corporate Services

Director Property Development Group

 

 

    

    Press                  Press

 

 

 

 

                                                                    Public Gallery

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

ITEM                                                         SUBJECT                                               PAGE NO

 

1       OPENING MEETING

2       ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL LAND OWNERS

3       WEBCASTING ANNOUNCEMENT

4       OTHER RECORDING OF MEETING ANOUNCEMENT

5       CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Council - 9 December 2019

6       APOLOGIES AND APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

7       DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

8       MATTERS OF URGENCY (if any)

9       Minutes of the Lord Mayor

10     Public Forum

11     Petitions  

12     Rescission Motions   

13     Fair

13.1           FOR NOTATION: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting - 24 September 2019 and 10 October 2019 (Special Meeting)                                                                                                                      9

13.2           FOR APPROVAL: Provision of Joint Delegated Authority to the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer over the Christmas / New Year Period 23

13.3           FOR APPROVAL: Alternate Locations for Council Meetings during 2020                                                                                                                    26

13.4           FOR APPROVAL: Homelessness Policy............................................ 30

14     Accessible

14.1           FOR APPROVAL: Submission to Sydney Metro on Strategic Station Options for Sydney Metro West – Rydalmere.................................... 43

15     Green

15.1           FOR APPROVAL: Submission to the Parramatta Park Trust on "Your Parramatta Park 2030" Conservation Management Plan and Plan of Management............................................................................................ 57

15.2           FOR APPROVAL: North Granville Community Facilities Masterplan 68

16     Welcoming

16.1           FOR NOTATION: Minutes of the Riverside Advisory Board Meeting held on 10 October 2019................................................................................... 240

17     Thriving

 

18     Innovative

18.1           FOR APPROVAL: Amendment of 2019/2020 Fees & Charges... 262

18.2           FOR APPROVAL: Submission to the Greater Sydney Commission on the Place-based Infrastructure Compact Pilot for the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula area....................................................................... 311

18.3           FOR APPROVAL: Draft Melrose Park Southern Structure Plan.. 365

18.4           FOR APPROVAL: Pre-Gateway - Planning Proposal for land at 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta (St John's Anglican Church)...................................................................... 452

18.5           FOR APPROVAL: Post Exhibition - Planning Proposal and Draft Planning Agreement for land at 14 – 20 Parkes Street, Harris Park.......... 1162

18.6           FOR APPROVAL: Post Exhibition - Planning Proposal, draft Site Specific Development control Plan and Planning Agreement for 295 Church Street, Parramatta........................................................................................... 1249 

19     Notices of Motion  

20     QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

21     Closed Session

21.1           FOR APPROVAL: Tender 27/2019 Escarpment Boardwalk & Stewart Street Link - Construction of a River Level Link along the Northern Bank of the Parramatta Weir between Charles Street Weir and Rangihou Reserve, Parramatta

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

21.2           FOR APPROVAL: Tender 02/2019 Service Desk: Managed Service for Procurement of ICT Hardware

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret (Tender pricing).

21.3           FOR APPROVAL: Tender 28/2019 Park Road at Calder Road Rydalmere - Traffic Control Signal Upgrade and Associated Civil Work

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

 

 

21.4           FOR APPROVAL: Tender 11/2019 Research and Insights Software - Evaluation Report and Recommended Supplier

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret (Commerical in confidence submissions from vendors).

21.5           FOR APPROVAL: 10 Footbridge Boulevard, Wentworth Point - EOI Submission Review

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

21.6           PLACEHOLDER REPORT: Receipt and Temporary Reserve of Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences (MAAS) Site Fixed Price Component of Proceeds of Sale

This report is confidential in accordance with section 10A (2) (d) (e) of the Local Government Act 1993 as the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret; AND the report contains information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law.

22     PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN CLOSED SESSION

23     CONCLUSION OF MEETING

   


Council                                                                                                      16 December 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Fair

 

16 December 2019

 

13.1           FOR NOTATION: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting - 24 September 2019 and 10 October 2019 (Special Meeting).. 9

 

13.2           FOR APPROVAL: Provision of Joint Delegated Authority to the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer over the Christmas / New Year Period............... 23

 

13.3           FOR APPROVAL: Alternate Locations for Council Meetings during 2020 26

 

13.4           FOR APPROVAL: Homelessness Policy..................................................... 30


Council 16 December 2019                                                                                               Item 13.1

FAIR

ITEM NUMBER         13.1

SUBJECT                  FOR NOTATION: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting - 24 September 2019 and 10 October 2019 (Special Meeting)

REFERENCE            F2017/00358 - D07106702

REPORT OF              Community Capacity Building Officer        

 

PURPOSE:

 

To provide a precis of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meetings held on 24 September 2019 and 10 October 2019 (special meeting).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That the minutes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meetings of 24 September 2019 and 10 October 2019 (special meeting) be received and noted.

 

(b)     That Council note the Committee’s endorsement of the ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Infrastructure in Parramatta – Community Needs and Aspirations’ report and recommendations.

 

(c)     Further, that the ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Infrastructure in Parramatta – Community Needs and Aspirations’ report be presented to Councillors at a Councillor Workshop in February 2020.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      Council’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee meets monthly (except December and January) and comprises 12 members.

2.      The Committee met on 24 September 2019 and 10 October 2019 (special meeting). The minutes of these meetings can be found at Attachments 1 and 2.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

3.      The below section summarises some of the main issues discussed at these meetings.

 

Department of Communities and Justice – Aboriginal Services Unit   

4.      The Director for the Aboriginal Services Unit addressed the meeting on 24 September 2019, outlining the Department’s role and current initiatives. The Department now incorporates two components, Corrective Services and Youth Justice. It was stated that the Departments’ aims were to reduce the disproportionate rate of incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and improve community safety under the Better Pathways to Justice Program.

 

 

 

Recommended Replacement Member to fill Vacancy on Committee

5.      Community Capacity Building Officer advised that Judith Joyce previously submitted an Expression of Interest to join the Committee, and was endorsed as an eligible candidate by Council at the time. It is confirmed that Judith remains interested in joining the Committee and had been invited to attend induction.

Local Government Aboriginal Network (LGAN) Conference

6.      The Local Government Aboriginal Network (LGAN) will hold its annual conference in Sydney on the 9 -11 October 2019. It was agreed that two members attend on behalf of the Committee.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Infrastructure in Parramatta Report – Community Needs and Aspirations (Background, Methodology and Recommendations) 10 October 2019 (Special meeting)

7.      Council’s Community Capacity Building Officer (First Peoples Engagement and Strategy) presented the ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Infrastructure in Parramatta’ Report for feedback and discussion of its recommendations.

8.      The Committee unanimously resolved:

a.      That the Committee supports the process, the report on ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Infrastructure in Parramatta – Community Needs and Aspirations’, the eight Recommendations contained within the Report (on pages 33 & 34) and the two proposed models in Recommendation 2.

b.      That moving forward, the Committee seeks Council’s endorsement in proceeding with the next step in exploring through a feasibility study and business case process, the two main First Peoples Cultural Infrastructure models.

c.       The Committee thank Council for its ongoing support.

 

9.      This report will be presented to Councillors at a forthcoming Councillor Workshop to be scheduled in February 2020, prior to a Council report seeking endorsement of the next steps.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

10.    There are no financial implications from this report

 

Ellen Ross

Community Capacity Building Officer

 

Phillip Scott

Community Capacity Building Manager

 

David Moutou

Group Manager Social & Community Services

 

 

 

Jon Greig

Executive Director Community Services

 

 

Attachments:

1

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 24 September 2019

6 Pages

 

2

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee (special) Meeting Minutes 10 October 2019

5 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Item 13.1 - Attachment 1

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 24 September 2019

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 13.1 - Attachment 2

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee (special) Meeting Minutes 10 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council 16 December 2019                                                                                               Item 13.2

FAIR

ITEM NUMBER         13.2

SUBJECT                  FOR APPROVAL: Provision of Joint Delegated Authority to the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer over the Christmas / New Year Period

REFERENCE            F2004/07400 - D07114826

REPORT OF              Governance Manager        

 

PURPOSE:

 

To provide joint delegated authority to the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to exercise the powers, duties and functions of the governing body of the Council between the Christmas and New Year period.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That, in accordance with Section 226(d) and Section 377(1) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council delegate joint authority to the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to exercise the powers, duties and functions of the Council during the Recess Period, being Tuesday, 17 December 2019 to Monday, 10 February 2020.

 

(b)     Further, that in the event that the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer are required to deal with important or urgent business of the Council during the Recess Period:

(1)     notice of the important or urgent business of the Council be provided to all Councillors at least three (3) days prior to a Delegated Authority Meeting;

(2)     any referral, signed or emailed by two (2) Councillors, be permitted to refer such item to a full Council Meeting for consideration;

(3)     the minutes for all important or urgent business dealt with under this delegation during the Recess Period be submitted to the first available Council Meeting of the New Year.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      Clause 3.1 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice states that ordinary meetings of the Council will be held on the second and fourth Monday of each month (except for January where no meetings are held).

 

2.      Council will hold its final Council Meeting of 2019 on 16 December 2019 and the first Council Meeting of 2020 is proposed to be held on Monday, 10 February 2020.  The period between the last 2019 Council Meeting and the first 2020 Council Meeting is known as the Recess Period.

 

3.      Section 226(d) of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) states the role of the Lord Mayor as:

 

“(d)    to exercise, in cases of necessity, the policy-making functions of the governing body of the council between meetings of the council,”

 

4.      In addition, Section 377 of the Act provides Council with the general power of the Council to delegate … to the general manager [Chief Executive Officer] or any other body (not including another employee of the council) any of the functions of the council under this or any other Act….

 

5.      To ensure the smooth operation of the governing body during the Recess Period, it is proposed that Council delegate joint authority to the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer all powers, duties and functions of the Council which cannot reasonably be deferred to the first ordinary Council Meeting following the Recess Period.

 

6.      As a matter of process, it is proposed that all matters to be dealt with under joint delegation will be itemised on an agenda for consideration at a Delegated Authority Meeting to be held between the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer.

 

7.      Notice of any Delegated Authority Meeting will be provided to all Councillors at least three (3) days prior to a meeting being held.  Councillors will also have the opportunity to refer any item listed for a Delegated Authority Meeting to Council for consideration.  Referral of any item must be referred by two (2) or more Councillors.

 

8.      Items of business determined at a Delegated Authority Meeting by the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer, will be minuted and included in the agenda for the first Council Meeting of 2020.  Decisions made by the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer under joint delegated authority are provided to the Council and the public for transparency and accountability.

 

9.      The above provisions do not preclude the calling of an Extraordinary Council Meeting in accordance with Council’s adopted Code of Meeting Practice and the Act.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

10.    Council’s internal legal team has been consulted and support the process to provide joint delegated authority to the Lord Mayor and Chief Executive Officer during the Recess Period.

 

11.    All Councillors will be provided notice of items to be considered at any Delegated Authority Meeting during the Recess Period, at least three (3) days period to any meeting being held.

 

12.    The joint delegation will take effect on 17 December 2019 and conclude prior to the Council Meeting of 10 February 2020. 

 

 

Patricia Krzeminski

Governance Manager, Corporate Strategy & Governance

 

Lisa Oldridge

Group Manager, Corporate Strategy & Governance

 

 

 

Michael Tzimoulas

Executive Director, Corporate Services

 

Brett Newman

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Council 16 December 2019                                                                                               Item 13.3

FAIR

ITEM NUMBER         13.3

SUBJECT                  FOR APPROVAL: Alternate Locations for Council Meetings during 2020

REFERENCE            F2019/00279 - D07147926

REPORT OF              Governance Manager        

 

PURPOSE:

 

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with options to hold Council Meetings in alternate venues during May to August 2020.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That the Ordinary Council Meetings between May and August 2020 be held in the following community locations:

 

11-May

Dundas Community Centre

Dundas Ward

25-May

Dundas Community Centre

9-Jun

Wentworth Point Library

Rosehill Ward

22-Jun

Wentworth Point Library

13-Jul

Don Moore Community Centre

North Rocks Ward

27-Jul

Don Moore Community Centre

10-Aug

Epping Community Centre

Epping Ward

24-Aug

Epping Community Centre

 

(b)     That Council confirm the location of the Ordinary Council Meetings between October and December 2020 to be held in the Cloister Function Rooms at St Patrick’s Cathedral, 1 Marist Place, Parramatta.

 

(c)     That any Extraordinary Council Meeting, unless otherwise resolved, be held in the Council Administration building, Level 12 Boardroom, 126 Church Street, Parramatta.

 

(d)     Further, that notice be provided to the public of all Council Meetings, including Extraordinary Meetings, in accordance with Part B, Section 3.5 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      Council, at its meeting of 25 November 2019, confirmed its Council meeting dates for 2020.  Additionally, Council resolved:

(c)    That a report come back to Council on the suitability to hold the Ordinary Council Meetings from 11 May 2020 to 24 August 2020 inclusive, in community locations within each Ward in the Parramatta Local Government Area.”

2.      This report provides options to hold Council Meetings during May to August 2020 at alternate community locations within the Parramatta Local Government Area.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

3.      A review of the various community facilities within the Parramatta Local Government Area was undertaken to determine the suitability to hold Council Meetings.  Venue requirements were identified in order to accommodate Council Meetings, including:

a.   Size suitable for a Council Meeting, and public gallery area;

b.   Separate area available for dining;

c.   Heating / cooling facilities;

d.   Hearing loop facilities

e.   Off-street parking;

f.    Public transport opportunities;

g.   Disability access.

4.      A tour was undertaken of suitable locations which had initially met the above criteria and availability for the venue was investigated.  A table outlining venue suitability and availability is included as an attachment to this report.

5.      Having regard to the above factors, Council may wish to consider the following venues for Council Meetings during May and August 2020:

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

6.      Council’s Governance and Community Services Directorate have consulted to find suitable community venues to hold Council Meetings in 2020.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

7.      There will be no costs to hire the community facility.  All other costs associated with holding Council Meetings, including the provision of catering (excluding serving ware), security, audio/visual will be consistent with holding Council Meetings at St Patrick’s Cathedral.

8.      Should Council resolve to proceed with Council Meetings held in community facilities, additional costs associated with parking (at Wentworth Point Library and Epping Community Centre), catering costs of hiring crockery, glassware, etc and privacy partitions for use at the Dundas Community Centre will need to be funded from within the existing Council Meeting budget.

 

Patricia Krzeminski

Governance Manager

 

Lisa Oldridge

Group Manager, Corporate Services & Governance

 

Michael Tzimoulas

Executive Director, Corporate Services

 

 

Attachments:

1

Alternate Council Meeting: Venue Availability and Suitability

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 13.3 - Attachment 1

Alternate Council Meeting: Venue Availability and Suitability

 

PDF Creator


Council 16 December 2019                                                                                               Item 13.4

FAIR

ITEM NUMBER         13.4

SUBJECT                  FOR APPROVAL: Homelessness Policy

REFERENCE            F2018/02701 - D07124211

REPORT OF              Community Capacity Building Officer        

 

PURPOSE:

 

To present to Council the Homelessness Policy for endorsement.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council endorse the Homelessness Policy as provided at Attachment 1.

 

(b)     Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to review and approve a submission to the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into the Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places, with the concurrence of the Lord Mayor.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      Council’s Delivery Plan and Operational plan 2018-2021 commits to building the capacity of Council and local services to reduce the incidence and impact of homelessness (Principal Activity 1.2.3).

2.      Council’s Homelessness Policy was developed in 2011, reviewed, and re-endorsed in 2017. The aim of the Homelessness Policy is to minimise homelessness in the Parramatta LGA, and in doing so:

a.   Improve the wellbeing of those at risk and those who are homeless, and;

b.   Support the continued prosperity of the City for the benefit of the wider business and residential community.

3.      The Homelessness Policy was due to be reviewed in 2019 as part of its regular review timetable.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

4.      Commonwealth and State governments hold the statutory responsibility, funding and policy levers for the provision of services to people experiencing homelessness. As custodian of the local area, there exists a community expectation that Council actively responds to the issue of homelessness with the dual goals of reducing impact/harm and maintaining public amenity.

5.      Council’s Homelessness Policy underpins Council’s ability to respond and assist people experiencing homelessness and associated issues within the general community across the LGA. Through this policy, Council commits to working in partnership with the sector of government, non-government and voluntary organisations seeking to address homelessness.

6.      The Policy has been reviewed and, with some updates to the associated documents section and a change of timeframe for review from 2 years to 4 years, the reviewed policy is recommended for endorsement (Attachment 1).

 

7.      One of the nine principles on which the policy stands is the shared use of public space and, specifically, Council’s recognition and adherence to the NSW State Government Protocol for Homeless People in Public Spaces. The Protocol was created to help ensure that homeless people are treated respectfully and appropriately and are not discriminated against on the basis of their homeless status. All State departments with an operational presence in public places or who provide a service to assist homeless people have endorsed the Protocol.

8.      In recognising and adhering to the Protocol, Council is making a commitment that homeless persons in the public domain will not be approached unless certain criteria is met as detailed in Attachment 2. The protocol does not prevent Council from taking appropriate action where health or safety is at risk or a breach of the peace or unlawful behaviour has occurred.

9.      Currently the Legislative Assembly Committee on Community Services of the NSW Parliament is conducting an inquiry into the Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places. The Terms of Reference for this inquiry can be found at Attachment 3. The closing date for submissions is Friday 28 February 2020. Given Council’s experience in the operational implementation of the Protocol, it is proposed that Council make a submission to this inquiry.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

10.    Council officers conducted a stakeholder engagement process in 2018-2019. This engagement process sought to provide input into Council’s Homelessness Policy review and the creation of a Homelessness Action Plan to guide operational implementation of the Policy. This process began with a Councillor workshop on 26 July 2018 and proceeded onto interviews and workshops with key internal and external stakeholders.

11.    Key feedback from the consultation related to the provision of outreach services and support services for those experiencing homelessness. The NSW Department of Communities and Justice have recently announced increased outreach services in Parramatta. Council’s Homelessness Action Plan also contains actions for improved outreach and coordination of operation responses to people sleeping in the public domain, including the piloting of a Public Space Liaison Officer position modelled on the position employed by City of Sydney and Byron Shire Councils.

12.    City of Parramatta Council’s Leadership Team endorsed the Homelessness Policy review and Homelessness Action Plan 2018-2023 on 27 September 2019.

13.    A Council submission to the inquiry into the Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places will contain a summary of the consultation process undertaken in 2018-2019 and detail Council’s experience of applying the Protocol. The submission will cover the importance of accessible, assertive and available support services to the success of the Protocol’s aims.

14.    Given that submissions close on 28 February 2020, it is proposed that Council Chief Executive Officer be delegated to approve Council’s submission to the inquiry, with the concurrence of the Lord Mayor.

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

15.    There are no further financial implications to implement the policy beyond Council’s current Delivery Program and Operation Plan.

 

Ellen Ross

Community Capacity Building Officer

 

Phillip Scott

Community Capacity Building Manager

 

David Moutou

Group Manager Social and Community Services

 

Jon Greig

Executive Director Community Services

 

 

Attachments:

1

Homelessness Policy - Reviewed 2019

5 Pages

 

2

Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places - NSW Government

3 Pages

 

3

Terms of Reference - Inquiry into the Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places

1 Page

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 13.4 - Attachment 1

Homelessness Policy - Reviewed 2019

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 13.4 - Attachment 2

Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places - NSW Government

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 13.4 - Attachment 3

Terms of Reference - Inquiry into the Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places

 

PDF Creator 


Council                                                                                                      16 December 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accessible

 

16 December 2019

 

14.1           FOR APPROVAL: Submission to Sydney Metro on Strategic Station Options for Sydney Metro West – Rydalmere.................................................................. 43


Council 16 December 2019                                                                                               Item 14.1

ACCESSIBLE

ITEM NUMBER         14.1

SUBJECT                  FOR APPROVAL: Submission to Sydney Metro on Strategic Station Options for Sydney Metro West – Rydalmere

REFERENCE            F2018/00684 - D07138426

REPORT OF              Transport Planning Manager       

 

PURPOSE:

 

The purpose of this report is to allow Council to consider a draft Submission to Sydney Metro in response to the public consultation of a strategic station option at Rydalmere for Sydney Metro West.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse and forward the submission at Attachment 1 to Sydney Metro on the Strategic Station Options for Sydney Metro West.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      The State Government announced Sydney Metro West on 21 October 2019.  The approximately 24 kilometre long underground metro rail line will connect Westmead and Parramatta to Sydney Olympic Park and Sydney CBD (refer to Figure 1).

Sydney Metro West Map
Figure 1: Metro West alignment                  Source: Sydney Metro

2.      The State Government has announced that Sydney Metro West will more than double rail capacity between Parramatta and Sydney CBD and will cut travel times to approximately 20 minutes. 

3.      Sydney Metro has announced 8 confirmed station locations including:

·        Westmead, which is located just outside City of Parramatta’s boundary but will serve the Westmead Health Innovation Precinct

·        Parramatta CBD, at Horwood Place

·        Sydney Olympic Park, off Olympic Boulevard between Herb Elliot Avenue and Figtree Drive 

4.      Strategic station options are being investigated at Rydalmere and Pyrmont, and the exact location of the Sydney CBD station is still being considered by Sydney Metro. Sydney Metro is the NSW Government agency tasked with delivering the Metro network across Greater Sydney and is placed within the Transport Cluster.

5.      Sydney Metro has also announced ancillary facilities to support operation of Metro West, including a stabling and maintenance facility at Clyde, and service facilities, for emergency access and ventilation, are proposed at the Clyde stabling yard and at Silverwater.  More information about Sydney Metro West can be found in the Sydney Metro West Project Overview Booklet available at:  https://www.sydneymetro.info/sites/default/files/document-library/Sydney_Metro_West_Project_Overview_Booklet_October_2019.pdf.

6.      Sydney Metro submitted an application with the Department of Planning Industry and Environment for approval of Concept and Stage 1 of Sydney Metro West as State Significant Infrastructure under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979).  The State Government expects an Environmental Impact Statement will be placed on exhibition in 2020.

7.      Sydney Metro West is expected to be operational by 2030.

8.      On 6 November 2019, Sydney Metro opened public consultation to inform strategic investigations of station options at Rydalmere and Pyrmont.  The public information used to announce the consultation can be found in the Sydney Metro Rydalmere: Have your say document, available online at: https://www.sydneymetro.info/sites/default/files/Rydalmere_Have_your_say_November_2019__4.pdf.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

9.      In its submission to the Project Overview for Sydney Metro West in May 2018, Council advocated for an intermediate station at Camellia (in preference to Rydalmere) to facilitate the expected growth associated with the draft Camellia Town Centre Master Plan. 

10.    In the submission provided at Attachment 1, Council continues to advocate for an intermediate station on Sydney Metro West to serve growth in employment and dwellings between Parramatta and Olympic Park.  The submission restates a preference that this station be located in Camellia rather than Rydalmere, and requests Council be invited to participate in an evaluation of these, and any other Metro or Council identified station locations.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

11.    The Transport Planning Team undertook an internal consultation process as part of preparation of the submission provided at Attachment 1.

12.    Public consultation of a strategic station option at Rydalmere commenced on 6 November 2019 and closes on 16 December 2019.

13.    Sydney Metro has granted Council an extension of this deadline until 31 December 2019.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

14.    There are no direct financial implications for Council as a result of making this submission.

 

Michael Jollon

Transport Planning Manager

Geoff King

Group Manager City Strategy

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy and Development

 

 

Attachments:

1

Submission - Strategic Station Options for Sydney Metro - Rydalmere

10 Pages

 

 

 

 


Item 14.1 - Attachment 1

Submission - Strategic Station Options for Sydney Metro - Rydalmere

 

Submission

To Transport for New South Wales

 

In response to Strategic station options                                             for Sydney Metro - Rydalmere

Resolved by Council                                                                        XX XX XXXX

 


Contents

Contents

1.        INTRODUCTION.. 1

2.       NEED FOR AN INTERMEDIATE STATION.. 2

2.1.       City-Shaping Benefits. 2

2.2.       Transport Benefits. 2

2.3.       Travel Time. 3

3.       CAMELLIA.. 4

4.       RYDALMERE. 6

5.       OTHER LOCATIONS. 7

6.       NEXT STEPS. 8

 

 


1.  INTRODUCTION

Council wishes to thank Transport for NSW for the opportunity to provide a submission to this public consultation on strategic station options for Sydney Metro West, and looks forward to continuing to work closely and proactively with Sydney Metro as the project is further refined and considered by the NSW Government.

In its submission to the Project Overview for Sydney Metro West in May 2018, Council considered that there is significant value in providing an intermediate Sydney Metro West stop at either Rydalmere or Camellia. Council noted that both precincts are important employment precincts, with part of Camellia being considered for residential growth.  While acknowledging that future Metro stops within either of these precincts would have the effect of significantly improving access to and from these precincts and facilitate redevelopment opportunities.  Council advocated for an intermediate station at Camellia (in preference to Rydalmere) to facilitate the expected growth associated with the draft Camellia Town Centre Master Plan.  Council urged attention to the following considerations:

•          effects of Sydney Metro West as a catalyst for urban renewal and to support future growth;

•          relationship with strategic planning for these centres (i.e. draft Camellia Town Centre Master Plan, Parramatta Employment Lands Strategy);

•          integration with Parramatta Light Rail (Stages 1 and 2) and the broader public and active transport network;

•          Supporting existing and future employment opportunities and educational facilities.

In this submission to the current consultation regarding strategic station options for Sydney Metro West, Council’s position is consistent with the previous submission. Council continues to advocate for an intermediate station on Sydney Metro West to serve additional employment and dwellings between Parramatta and Olympic Park.  Council prefers that this station be located in Camellia rather than Rydalmere.  Council acknowledges that benefits may accrue from the alternate locations identified by Sydney Metro West such as Rydalmere, Rosehill, Silverwater East and Silverwater West, or identified by Council at Newington, and requests to work with Sydney Metro to re-evaluate these alternatives and to ensure preservation and increased utilisation of employment lands.

2. NEED FOR AN INTERMEDIATE STATION

There are significant local and metropolitan benefits in city-shaping and transport accessibility which will accrue from locating an intermediate station between Parramatta and Sydney Olympic Park as part of Sydney Metro West, and these are outlined below.  Specific impacts of each location are detailed separately in the sections following.

2.1.       City-Shaping Benefits

The vision of the State Government is outlined in the Greater Sydney Regional Plan and Future Transport through the Three Cities is shared, and strongly supported by Council.  This significant investment in Sydney Metro West is welcomed as critical to enabling this vision, however establishing a “Parramatta Intermediate” station between the CBD and Olympic Park would deliver greater benefits of this investment to the wider Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula (GPOP) area and Central River City.

Sydney Metro West is a metropolitan scale investment that will establish the spatial framework for GPOP and the Central City District for future generations.  While the impacts to any precinct can be clearly quantified, Council holds that there is a benefit to the Parramatta CBD and GPOP in more intensive land use within a short distance from the Parramatta CBD, while Parramatta itself is rapidly growing.  Council sees the location of an intermediate station as an opportunity to establish a supporting suburb of Parramatta CBD of a scale to complement the Parramatta CBD and Westmead Innovation District, and catalyse significant employment opportunities that build on the opportunities and established character of existing employment lands.

Council considers that a Metro Station could catalyse opportunities for diverse businesses such as technology, smart manufacturing, back office services, events and recreation, which are not able to be located in the Parramatta CBD, but are enabled and activated through high quality connectivity.  Attracting these business to a revitalised precinct in proximity and well-connected to Parramatta CBD would deliver agglomeration benefits that would benefit not just the new precinct, but also GPOP and on a District scale.

In short, Council considers that this is an opportunity to move toward the reality of a Metropolitan scale Central City as per the shared vision of Council and the State Government.

2.2.      Transport Benefits

Locating an intermediate station will result in tangible transport benefits for residents, workers and visitors in the chosen precinct and regionally within GPOP and the District.  A station will generate network benefits which will affect users of adjacent services, reduce the number of customers transferring in Parramatta, and improve the operation and resilience of the broader transport network.  The current Metro West proposal identifies new Metro Stations only is close proximity to existing heavy rail stations, and merely amplifies existing public transport catchments.  An intermediate station would be transformative in establishing new accessible areas within the Central City.

A station in Rydalmere or Camellia would clearly magnify the benefits of Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1 and the proposed Stage 2.  Workers, visitors, students and residents along the current Carlingford line heading east toward Sydney Olympic Park or the Eastern Harbour City would benefit greatly from being able to transfer directly to Metro West. 

This proposal would also provide distributed interchange benefits.  Rather than requiring all customers to transfer at one large interchange that is already under pressure, multiple nodes are established to encourage efficient use of the network.  The Eastern Harbour City, with multiple train lines and stations benefits from distributed interchange.  Parramatta CBD will benefit similarly to its west, as the Westmead Metro Station will provide easy transfer to the adjacent to the Westmead Train Station and the Northwest T-way.  Providing an interchange point with Parramatta Light Rail (PLR) or future bus services at a Parramatta Intermediate station will improve access to Metro for all suburbs in GPOP’s eastern precincts, and reduce congestion at Parramatta train and Metro stations, and help facilitate the vision outlined in Future Transport.

2.3.      Travel Time

Council supports the objective of Sydney Metro West to provide a fast connection between Parramatta and Sydney CBDs, and it is understood that additional stations may compromise the travel time between the two.  However, the benefits of an intermediate station for the Central City and GPOP need to be carefully weighed in relation to slightly increased travel times, if any. 

Council notes that the Sydney Metro West Scoping Report reports that an alignment including “about 9 to ten stations from Greater Parramatta to the Sydney CBD” was the preferred strategic alignment due to its ability to deliver a balance between travel times and servicing precincts along the line.  Given that eight short listed stations have been announced for Sydney Metro West, and two, Rydalmere and Pyrmont are subject to further analysis; Council considers that travel time should not be a disqualifying consideration to an intermediate station between Parramatta and Sydney Olympic Park.  If an optional station is pursued, Council contends a Parramatta Intermediate station would better address the regional jobs imbalance over one at Pyrmont.

Council has reviewed the shortlisted stations for Sydney Metro West announced by the State Government, and notes station spacing is very wide in the western section of the line, very close in the middle, and fairly close in the east.  Given the close station spacing between Sydney Olympic Park and Five Dock (four stations in less than 7 km,) Council queries whether trains can be expected to travel at top speed in the 7km section between Parramatta and Sydney Olympic Park.  This in turn may affect whether trains travelling along the line will need to adjust their speed to maintain consistent headways and not “catch-up” to the preceding train.  Council would welcome the opportunity to work with the Sydney Metro West to understand how a Parramatta Intermediate station would impact overall travel time objectives.

3. CAMELLIA

In its submission to the Project Overview for Sydney Metro West in May 2018, Council advocated for a station at Camellia, in preference to Rydalmere, to facilitate expected growth associated with the draft Camellia Town Centre Master Plan (draft Master Plan). 

Council noted that the draft Master Plan sought to provide for up to 10,000 dwellings across the Town Centre with 25,000m2 of retail/commercial space located in proximity to one light rail stop. Council referred to its previous submission to the draft Master Plan, in which it also called for a Metro station, and reiterated that a Metro station will be needed to meet the transport needs of future population and land uses.

Council now reiterates its position that an intermediate stop should be located in Camellia.

Council considers that without a Metro station, Camellia has little to no chance of developing into a town centre with good connectivity. Should the DPIE proceed with Camellia as a Town Centre of 10,000 dwellings plus supporting commercial and retail uses, PLR will be inadequate to meet the public transport demand generated in the precinct. Furthermore, the introduction of a Metro station at Camellia may be the catalyst to significantly impact mode shift towards public transport within the new Camellia Town Centre. Depending on the thresholds, a commitment to a metro station at Camellia would not only address the key transport constraints relating to the development of the Camellia Town Centre but may also reduce the need for other significant road upgrades previously required under the draft Masterplan to facilitate redevelopment and remove some of the precinct’s dependence on James Ruse Drive.

Both the City of Parramatta’s Economic Development Plan (2017) and Destination Management Plan (2018) identify the Camellia/Rosehill area as an important precinct for the economic, social and recreational social services they currently provide and their future potential to provide expanded opportunities. Both plans identify the Rydalmere-Rosehill-Silverwater area as priority economic precincts.  They note that the Rosehill Gardens Racecourse and Events Centre and the Valvoline Speedway should be “promoted and leveraged as national and international leisure and business events destinations”.   Council sees Rosehill Gardens and the raceway as key visitor assets and destination partners in helping to realise the overall vision and objectives for the City’s visitor economy.

Additionally, Council resolved on 28 October 2019, to write to the Premier and her Ministers to advise Council’s complete support for Valvoline Raceway, Parramatta to remain in its historic and present location due to the land being recreational land.

Council considers that location of a Metro station in Camellia is vital for the continued success and future redevelopment of the precinct as employment lands, and looks forward to the precinct realising its potential to contribute new employment, events and recreational opportunities for the Central River City.  

Council is aware of the constraints on the Camellia Precinct, including transport access, flooding and contaminated land. It is also acknowledged that the recently released draft Place-based Infrastructure Compact by the Greater Sydney Commission emphasises these constraints in its recommendation that Camellia not proceed as a development precinct at this time.  Nevertheless, Council notes that location of a Metro stop within easy access of re-development sites would be a stimulus to address the constraints in the precinct.

The Scoping Report for Sydney Metro, exhibited by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) to support the State Significant Infrastructure application for the project discusses the evaluation of potential intermediate stations.  A summary of the assessment was provided (see Figure 1).  Other than the scores and outcomes, very little detail is provided.  There are no definitions of criteria, nor indication of how they were scored, nor explanation of how the various criteria were weighted against each other.

Figure 1: Excerpt Table 3-7 from Sydney Metro West Scoping Report (Nov. 2019) Source: Sydney Metro

Council is interested in better understanding this analysis.  It is not clear, for example, why Camellia scored poorly in ‘Strategic alignment’ compared to Rydalmere, as Camellia is the subject of a State-led master planning process.  Likewise, it is not clear why Rydalmere scores higher for ‘Productivity & jobs,’ ‘Housing supply’ and ‘Urban renewal and placemaking’ than Camellia, as Table 1 outlines below.

Location

Additional dwellings

Additional commercial and retail employment space

Camellia

10,000

200,000m2

Planning Proposal at 266 Victoria Road, Rydalmere

2,544

18,807m2

Planning Proposal at WSU North Campus, Rydalmere

1,110

6,160m2

Table 1: Additional dwelling and employment numbers, Camellia and Rydalmere

Camellia currently has proposals for residential intensification, and greater opportunity for commercial redevelopment and urban renewal than Rydalmere.  Regarding the scoring for ‘Transport integration’ Council notes that options in Rydalmere, Camellia and Rosehill that would connect to Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1, should have higher scores than locations in Silverwater that would connect only to buses.  Council would welcome the opportunity to work with State agencies to understand and provide local knowledge into this assessment.

A station in Camellia would have similar benefits for residents along the current T-6 Carlingford train line as detailed in the previous sections; additionally it would improve transport access for residents of Rosehill, and if properly connected with active travel facilities, could provide additional public transport options for residents of North Granville and Clyde. A Metro station in Camellia would also greatly improve accessibility for visitors and racegoers attending Rosehill Gardens.

Council also notes that a station at Camellia rather than Rydalmere reduces the amount of diversion for Metro West, thereby reducing track and tunnel length, eliminating introduced curves, and reduces assumed risks associated with tunnelling under the Parramatta River.

4. RYDALMERE

In its submission to the Project Overview for Sydney Metro West in May 2018, Council recommended that planning for a station in Rydalmere should include consideration of the context of the existing land use form and the capacity for the precinct to remain a Key Employment Precinct supporting primarily light industrial development uses.

The Rydalmere precinct is vitally important to the City of Parramatta, contributing significantly to the local, regional and the state economies, supporting a large and diverse workforce of over 10,000 in the education and manufacturing sectors. As detailed in Parramatta Employment Lands Strategy (2016), Council is committed to the retention of the area’s industrial lands, and the expansion of key industries to support local jobs growth. Transformative transport infrastructure, such as Sydney Metro West would enable Rydalmere to further develop its capacity to accommodate an expanded and transformed workforce, and better connect Western Sydney University’s campus to the broader region.  It would also support the identified role of the WSU North Campus and site at 266 Victoria Road, Rydalmere in providing growth in dwellings and employment.

However, a Metro station in Rydalmere may increase residential development pressure in the areas of the precinct that are currently zoned industrial, which would compete with the goals of the Employment Lands Strategy. 

A station in Rydalmere would magnify the benefits of Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1 for residents along the current T-6 Carlingford train line as detailed in the previous section.  A Metro stop in Rydalmere would be beneficial for the T6 corridor, could help drive high quality development and urban design outcomes in the corridor.

Rydalmere is about 1.5 km north of a straight alignment between Parramatta and Sydney Olympic Park, a station in Rydalmere would represent a significant diversion for travellers moving between Parramatta and the Eastern Harbour City.  In addition to a time penalty, diverting the route to Rydalmere would add curves to the track, decreasing passenger comfort for all trips. Council also notes that locating a station in Rydalmere may increase costs and risks for the project associated with additional tunnelling and excavation near the Parramatta River. 

Council notes that known constraints in the precinct include protection and encouragement of employment lands, detailed above, existing constraints on surface roads and potential flooding in the precinct. 

In response to Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1, Council is currently preparing a corridor Structure Plan from Harris Park to Carlingford that will be released in the new year.  Should a station be confirmed in Rydalmere, a Structure Plan for the entire precinct should be prepared that aligns with current Council planning, and with a focus on the issues outlined below:

•      guide development to support a range of employment uses with a focus on increasing employment densities as detailed in the Employment Lands Strategy,

•      manage residential development,

•      consider the interface of the station and any new development with the Western Sydney University campus,

•      mitigate existing deficiencies and constraints, and

•      constraints on the road network.

 

5. OTHER LOCATIONS

Council notes that in the event that both Camellia and Rydalmere are not selected for stations, there are other precincts between Parramatta and Sydney Olympic Park where inclusion of a Metro station would yield obvious benefits.  Council considers that alternative station locations may be preferential to no station at all in the long distance between Parramatta and Sydney Olympic Park. 

In its submission to the Project Overview for Sydney Metro West in May 2018, Council advocated for a station and/or comprehensive and significant increases to public transport to be considered within the Newington/Silverwater/North Lidcombe Precinct in order to provide a direct connection of these precincts with Westmead, Parramatta CBD and Sydney CBD.

Locations such as Rosehill and Silverwater present real opportunities to catalyse redevelopment of employment lands and to increase public transport connectivity for new and existing land uses.

 

 

6. NEXT STEPS

Council invites Sydney Metro to work with Council and relevant State agencies to reconsider the location of an intermediate station between Parramatta CBD and Sydney Olympic Park.  Council asks to participate in a transparent and rigorous evaluation of both the constraints and opportunities in Rydalmere, Camellia and any other precincts.

To summarise and suggest next steps,

•      Council continues to advocate for a Parramatta Intermediate as part of Sydney Metro West to serve growth in employment and dwellings between Parramatta and Olympic Park.

•      Council prefers that this station be located in Camellia rather than Rydalmere and notes that a conclusive rationale for not locating in Camellia has not been established by Sydney Metro.

•      In the event that neither Camellia nor Rydalmere are selected for a station, Council acknowledges that benefits may accrue from alternate locations such as Rosehill, Silverwater and Newington, and requests to work with Sydney Metro to evaluate these alternatives

Council calls on Sydney Metro and relevant agencies of the State Government to work with Council and the community in an open and transparent process to evaluate the need for a possible location of a Parramatta Intermediate station as part of Sydney Metro West.

Council looks forward to continuing to work closely and proactively with Sydney Metro as the project is further refined and considered by the NSW Government.

 

 

 


Council                                                                                                      16 December 2019

 

 

Green

 

16 December 2019

 

15.1           FOR APPROVAL: Submission to the Parramatta Park Trust on "Your Parramatta Park 2030" Conservation Management Plan and Plan of Management 57

 

15.2           FOR APPROVAL: North Granville Community Facilities Masterplan..... 68


Council 16 December 2019                                                                                               Item 15.1

GREEN

ITEM NUMBER         15.1

SUBJECT                  FOR APPROVAL: Submission to the Parramatta Park Trust on "Your Parramatta Park 2030" Conservation Management Plan and Plan of Management

REFERENCE            F2004/10255 - D07149390

REPORT OF              Senior Project Officer – Parramatta Ways Program Manager

 

PURPOSE:

 

To seek Council’s endorsement of a submission to the Parramatta Park Trust on the draft Your Parramatta Park 2030 Conservation Management Plan and Plan of Management.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse and forward the submission at Attachment 1 to the Parramatta Park Trust on the draft Your Parramatta Park 2030 Conservation Management Plan and Plan of Management.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      The Parramatta Park Trust (The Trust) has prepared a draft Conservation Management Plan (CM) and Plan of Management (POM) for Parramatta Park to 2030 - Your Parramatta Park 2030, https://www.parrapark.com.au/assets/Park-Projects/POM-2030/PP-2030-Management-Plan-Draft-.pdf , in accordance with the Parramatta Park Trust Act 2011, and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999.

 

2.      The objective of the draft Your Parramatta Park 2030 (draft Plan) is to set the vision, objectives, heritage policies and management priorities for the Park over the next 10 years.

 

3.      The Trust’s aim is to make sure the draft Plan ensures all aspects of the Park’s heritage and environmental values are considered in the Park’s on-going management, operations and activation.

 

4.      The draft Plan was publicly released by the Trust on 6 November with a 3-week public consultation period. Submissions were requested by 27 November.

 

5.      Due to the short timeframe a draft Council officer submission was prepared and submitted to the Trust, noting the submission would be subject to Council review and endorsement at its meeting on 16 December. The submission is provided at Attachment 1.

 

STRATEGIC VALUE

 

6.      The City of Parramatta has had a strong and valuable partnership with the Trust through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) since 2016. The park plays a pivotal role in the strategic planning of the city and through our partnership continues to foster cultural, heritage and leisure opportunities that encourage visitors to Parramatta.

 

SUBMISSION SUMMARY

 

7.      The submission (at Attachment 1) recognises the value of having a framework in place to help guide Parramatta Park in reaching its full potential. The vision and structure of the draft Plan clearly demonstrates the Trust’s intent to manage cultural heritage in the context of significant use and change.

 

8.      The submission recommends the following key areas for consideration:

 

a.      Partnership Principles - the principles for maintaining and building a strong partnership between City of Parramatta and the Trust are further embedded in the Plan. This should acknowledge the contribution of events and partnership projects to the public nature of the park.

 

Key points include:

i.        The need to go further in the Plan to discuss frameworks or principles for future partnership, including groups such as the Parramatta River Catchment Group, or Darug and other Aboriginal organisations, communities and groups; and

ii.       Council looks forward to working with the Trust to resolve current event cost issues associated with the newly introduced heritage framework to the satisfaction of all and the benefit of the City.

 

b.      Recognising the past the present and the future - better encompass present day heritage values through the inclusion of “Intangible Cultural Heritage” values, for example; living traditions, practices and knowledge that are not represented through monuments and objects;

Key points include:

i.        Some sections of the document when reference Darug and Aboriginal communities is written in the past tense. The document should refer to these communities as contemporary and having an ongoing connection to Country.

 

c.       Promoting Accessibility - universal accessibility and inclusion be more explicitly integrated as part of the objectives of the park;

Key points include:

i.        A key strategy of the POM should be to support the principles of universal accessibility; and

ii.       There is significant opportunity to increase accessibility by making the Park safe and inviting at night-time.

 

d.      Interface and partnership opportunities - important interface and partnership project opportunities be explicitly identified to better guide future partnership priorities.

 

 

 

 

Important priority project areas include:

i.        Wisteria Gardens and the Cumberland hospital sites;

ii.       Parramatta Pool as a partnership project;

iii.      The connection between the City River Strategy and the Parramatta Park River precinct; and

iv.      Small scale activation and events for the night-time economy.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

9.      A series of workshops have been held with Council staff and other stakeholders on the Plan vision and principles since 11 June 2019.

 

10.    On the 5 November 2019, the Trust contacted the Lord Mayor with a notification regarding the 3 week public exhibition period ending 27 November 2019.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

11.    There are no direct financial implications for Council as a result of making this submission.

 

 

Luke Wolstencroft

Senior Project Officer

 

Helen Papathanasiou

Environmental Outcomes Manager

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy & Development

 

 

Attachments:

1

Council Submission on Your Parramatta Park 2030

8 Pages

 

 

 

 


Item 15.1 - Attachment 1

Council Submission on Your Parramatta Park 2030

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council 16 December 2019                                                                                               Item 15.2

GREEN

ITEM NUMBER         15.2

SUBJECT                  FOR APPROVAL: North Granville Community Facilities Masterplan

REFERENCE            F2019/03719 - D07108104

REPORT OF              Place Manager       

 

PURPOSE:

 

To seek Council’s endorsement to adopt Stage 1 of the North Granville Community Facilities Master Plan following public exhibition.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council note the feedback provided by the community during public exhibition and adopt the amended Stage 1 of the North Granville Community Facilities Masterplan as provided in Attachment 1.

 

(b)     That all those who made submissions be advised of Council’s decision and thanked for their contribution to the development of the Master Plan.

 

(c)     That Council conduct further analysis and community consultation to inform Stage 2 of the Master Plan, including review of alternative locations for the community building and its use.

 

(d)     Further, that a report be submitted to Council upon completion of the Stage 2 analysis and community consultation.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      A Master Plan that identifies future community facilities has been prepared for the North Granville Precinct (Attachment 1).

 

2.      The Master Plan includes improvements to F.S. Garside Park and the Alfred Street streetscape at Granville, as specified by the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Amenity Improvement Program (PRUAIP) (Reference 1, pg. 14-17).

 

3.      FS Garside Park, at 1.5Ha, is the only open space in North Granville able to accommodate a variety of recreational and community amenities.

 

4.      Alfred Street, Granville provides an alternative route to the Parramatta CBD. The Consultation Outcomes Report - Draft Parramatta Urban Transformation Strategy May 2016 identified an active transport link from the end of Albert Street (corner of Parramatta Road) to the regional cycleway M4 (Reference 2, pg. 22).

 

5.      The scope and key deliverables of these projects are identified by the Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Amenity Improvement Plan - implementation tool kit November 2016 (Reference 1, pg. 14-17).

 

6.      The funding and timeframe requirements that accompany the PRUAIP are non-negotiable and carry the statutory weight of the Section 117 Ministerial Direction Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Attachment 2).

 

7.      Reference 2, pg. 18-27, identifies the key issues and opportunities for the Granville Precinct collected during the 2015 consultation. This consultation was considered sufficient to commence the works associated with the PRUAIP at F.S. Garside Park and Alfred Street.

 

8.      The development of a Master Plan to inform recreational and community amenity planning for North Granville was considered necessary to plan and identify funding requirements beyond the scope of the PRUAIP.

 

9.      The North Granville Community Facilities Master Plan aligns with City of Parramatta’s Community Infrastructure Strategy, Parramatta Ways Walking Strategy, and Parramatta Bike Plan.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

10.    The majority of the community feedback was supportive of the Master PlanAttachment 1, pg. 88-93 provides overview of engagement results.

 

11.    Attachment 3 summarises Council’s amendments to the Master Plan in response to key issues raised during public exhibition.

 

MASTER PLAN OBJECTIVES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS

 

12.    North Granville’s predicted population growth for 2041 is 24,799, a 346% increase from 2019 figures of 5,555 (Reference: https://profile.id.com.au/parramatta/about?WebID=190).

 

13.    The Master Plan aligns with Council’s draft Community Infrastructure Strategy (CIS) which identifies future requirements for high growth areas including Granville. (Reference 3 pg. 51-62).

 

14.    Stage 1 of the Master Plan provides an additional 2220m2 of consolidated open space as a result of removing the car parking on the southern end of Onslow Street.

 

15.    The Master Plan will also enable public access to the playing field area (outside of formal game times), effectively providing a further 14,600m2 of public open space for daily use that is not currently available.

 

16.    The revised Stage 1 implementation of the Master Plan recommended for adoption includes:

a.   Provision of play spaces and facilities for different ages and abilities.

b.   Southern half of Onslow Street converted to open space.

c.   Improving access and functionality to the playing field via retractable gates

d.   New synthetic turf for playing field to provide year round usage and withstand high endurance activities.

e.   Provision of a range of outdoor gathering spaces including picnic shelters BBQs, tables and seating.

f.    Reduction in concrete play surfaces and planting of mature trees to reduce urban heat and provide nature-based play.

g.   Reduction of car spaces with new 90o parking arrangement for Gray Street and northern section of Onslow Street.

h.   Creating a separated cycle way along Alfred St to connect to the regional cycle way beneath the M4 viaduct.

 

17.    The three issues of most concern raised by residents regarding the draft Master Plan during public exhibition were:

a.   The scale and location of the new community building

b.   The additional parking configuration

c.   The request to extend community consultation

These issues are addressed in Attachment 3, specifically, these elements will form part of an extended Stage 2 Master Plan site analysis and consultation.

 

18.    The PRUAIP funding and Section 117 Ministerial Direction EP&A Act 1979  does not apply to the new community building and extending the timeframe for Stage 2  to enable additional analysis and community consultation will not affect PRUAIP project obligations and timeframes.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

Remediation requirements

19.    F.S. Garside was officially deemed James Hardie legacy site number 49 by the EPA following soil investigative works in May 2019. As a precautionary safety measure, the dog park, reserve at Duck Creek and sections of the soccer field were fenced and closed to public access. These areas will remain closed until the Stage 1-Master Plan is adopted and construction begins in 2020, or until a feasible interim treatment measure is identified and implemented

20.    Council has an obligation to remediate F.S. Garside Park regardless of Master Plan adoption. Developing a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) that complements the Master Plan will ensure that the remediation is based on the future needs of the park.

21.    Further site investigations, flood modelling and community consultation for each component of the Master Plan is required to inform detailed design and development of a relevant RAP to limit public exposure to potential contaminants before construction can progress.

1-3 Onslow Street Building

22.    Council resolved to demolish the 1-3 Onslow Street Building at its meeting of 13 August 2018, prior to commencement of the Master Plan. Demolition of this vacant building is congruent with the Master Plan objectives to increase the open space footprint of FS Garside Park and reduce anti-social behavior. (Reference 4)

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

23.    The PRUAIP has allocated ($13 million) funding for infrastructure works relating to:

a.   the upgrade of FS Garside Park and surrounding reserve at Duck Creek

b.   design and construction of the Alfred Street cycleway

c.   upgrade to Good and Bridge Street, Granville Town Centre

 

24.    At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 23 July 2018, Council resolved to commit to the PRUAIP infrastructure projects (Reference 5).

 

25.    In February 2019, City of Parramatta entered a deed of arrangement with DPIE to implement the PRUAIP projects in Granville. This funding arrangement stipulates that all projects must be completed by 30 June 2021.

 

26.    Existing PRUAIP funding did not include site remediation. James Hardie legacy site designation by the NSW EPA was a result of investigations after the PRUIAP was initiated.

 

27.    City of Parramatta will submit a variation to DPIE to seek additional funds for remediation of FS Garside Park and adjoining reserve following endorsement of the Master Plan.

 

28.    Additionally, a remediation fund has been set aside for works relating to rehabilitation of James Hardie legacy sites in the Parramatta LGA.

 

29.    The site constraints, flood modelling, remediation requirements, community consultation and resulting capital works may lengthen construction timeframes. City of Parramatta will also seek a variation from DPIE to extend the grant funding timeframe.

 

NEXT STEPS

 

30.    Subject to Council endorsement of the Stage 1 Master Plan (Attachment 1), the following actions are proposed as next steps:

 

a.   Preparation of a delivery plan for Master Plan items based on requirements relating to Section 117 Ministerial Direction EP&A Act 1979  and PRUAIP funding commitment including:

 

i.  Scoping the cost and recommended delivery timeframes of any additional project/upgrade requirements identified under the Master Plan during the detailed design process

ii.      Preparation of a REF, RAP and management plan.

 

b.   Council to continue to work with the local community, DPIE, EPA and Sydney Water on the detailed design development of the North Granville Community Facilities Master Plan.

 

c.   Council to negotiate a variation with DPIE to seek additional funds for remediation and extension in project delivery timeframes to provide the best outcome for the community. 

 

31.    A further report will be provided to Council for consideration relating to Stage 2 of Master Plan following completion of the additional investigative and community consultation. This will include:

 

a.   Identifying an alternative location for the new 1500m2 community building, future parking requirements, and building design that provides the best outcome for the community.

b.   Incorporating crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) to mitigate anti-social behaviour and sustainable design elements to reduce its environmental footprint

c.   Amendments to address urban heat concerns include the reduction of hard surfaces.

 

Myly Truong

Place Manager

 

Bruce Mills

Group Manager Place Services

 

Wayne Carter

Executive Director City Assets and Operations

 

 

Attachments:

1

North Granville Masterplan Report

123 Pages

 

2

Parramatta Road - Section 117 Directions

38 Pages

 

3

Masterplan Public Exhibition and Community Consultation Overview

4 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 

The below documents are publicly available at the provided links:

 

1.   Reference 1 - Parramatta Road Corridor Urban Transformation Urban Amenity Improvement Plan (https://www.landcom.com.au/assets/Uploads/5ae1d8536a/parramatta-road-implementation-tool-kit-planning-and-design-guidelines-november-2016.pdf.).

 

2.   Reference 2 - Consultation Outcome Report- Draft Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Strategy (https://www.landcom.com.au/assets/Uploads/9d3d989b93/parramatta-road-outcomes-report-050516.pdf )

 

3.   Reference 3 - Draft Community Infrastructure Strategy-section three-high growth areas

https://oursay-files.s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/production/fm/osp-ug-73/cis/14._draft_cis_-_section_three_-_high_growth_areas.pdf

 

4.   Reference 4 -Resolution 1537 Minutes of Council-13 August 2018 pg. 27 https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2018/OC_13082018_MIN_468.PDF

 

5.   Reference 5 - Resolution 1498 Minutes of Council 23 July 2018 pg. 17

https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2018/OC_23072018_MIN_467.PDF

 

6.   Reference 6 - Draft Community Infrastructure Strategy- community space network pg.134

https://oursay-files.s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/production/fm/osp-ug-73/cis/3._draft_cis_-_community_space_network.pdf


Item 15.2 - Attachment 1

North Granville Masterplan Report

 






























































PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 15.2 - Attachment 2

Parramatta Road - Section 117 Directions

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 15.2 - Attachment 3

Masterplan Public Exhibition and Community Consultation Overview

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator

 


Council                                                                                                      16 December 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Welcoming

 

16 December 2019

 

16.1           FOR NOTATION: Minutes of the Riverside Advisory Board Meeting held on 10 October 2019.................................................................................................. 240


Council 16 December 2019                                                                                               Item 16.1

WELCOMING

ITEM NUMBER         16.1

SUBJECT                  FOR NOTATION: Minutes of the Riverside Advisory Board Meeting held on 10 October 2019

REFERENCE            F2007/00388 - D07142731

REPORT OF              Director Riverside Theatres        

 

pPURPOSE:

 

This report provides information on the meeting of the Riverside Theatres Advisory Board held on 10 October 2019.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes the minutes of the Riverside Theatres Advisory Board held on 10 October 2019. (Attachment 1)

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      At its meeting of 9 July 2018 Council adopted a new Terms of Reference for the Riverside Theatres Advisory Board.

2.      At its meeting of 24 September 2018 Council amended the Terms of Reference to increase the number of community members from eight to ten.

3.      At its meeting of 24 September 2018 Council appointed the following ten persons as members of the Seventh Riverside Advisory Board commencing 1 October 2018 for a term concurrent with that of the current elected Council concluding September 2020.

Ms Genevieve Blanchett    (Appointment)
Ms Imogen Corlette            (Appointment)
Ms Arani Duggan                (Appointment)
Ms Rhonda Hawkins          (Reappointment)
Mr Luke Mackey                  (Reappointment)
Mr Alan Manly                     (Appointment)
Ms Keiasha Naidoo            (Reappointment)
Mr Vaughan Roles             (Appointment)
Mr Carl Sciberras                (Appointment)
Dr Jim Taggart OAM                (Appointment)

4.      Councillors Davis, Dwyer, Garrard and Jefferies continued as members of the Advisory Board for a term concurrent with that of the current elected Council concluding September 2020.

5.      Councillor Garrard stood down from the Advisory Board in February 2019.

6.      Ms Rebecca Grasso (Director City Identity, Experience and Engagement) continued as a member of the Advisory Board representing the CEO to 28 February 2019 when she vacated her position as Director.  The Acting CEO, Mr Rik Hart, nominated Mr Jon Greig (Executive Director Community Services) as her replacement from 1 April 2019.

7.      Imogen Corlette resigned from the Board effective the Advisory Board meeting of 11 April 2019.

8.      The Riverside Theatres Advisory Board met on 8 August 2019 and endorsed Councillors Davis, Dwyer and Jefferies forming a committee to select a person to fill a casual vacancy resulting from the resignation of Ms Imogen Corlette and to make a recommendation to Council to appoint a suitable candidate.

9.      At its meeting of 9 September Council adopted the recommendation of the committee and appointed Ms Vyvienne Abla a member of the Seventh Riverside Advisory Board commencing 1 October 2019 for a term concurrent with that of the current elected Council concluding September 2020.

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

10.    The Riverside Theatres Advisory Board met on 10 October 2019. This report provides a summary of the meeting and any subsequent outcomes. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is included as Attachment 1.

Council Matters and Riverside Redevelopment

11.    The Executive Director Community Services informed the Board that Council had elected Councillor Dwyer as Lord Mayor.  The Advisory Board extended its congratulations to Councillor Dwyer.  The recent appointment of Council’s Chief Executive Officer, Brett Newman, brings the leadership team to its full complement. 

12.    Cultural Strategy, headed by Group Manager Mark Crees, continues to work on developing a cultural infrastructure plan as well as formulating a framework to implement the current Cultural Plan 2017-2022.  Along with others in the community, the Advisory Board will be consulted as these plans and strategies are further developed before being formally considered by Council.

13.    The current round of Community Grants Program launched in October closes on 9 December and includes cultural and sporting grants. . Also a new round of application for residencies for the Parramatta Artists Studio is current.

14.    Parramatta Night City Framework:  Council’s City Economy Unit sought responses to a draft Parramatta Night City Framework. Riverside is an important contributor to Parramatta’s night time economy and its economic impact and benefits extend beyond Riverside itself. The Advisory Board noted Riverside was not mentioned in the Summary Framework document and had limited mentions in the Full Framework document. The Board agreed that it should make a submission through the consultation process. A draft was developed by the Director and Marketing and Communications Manager along with an Advisory Board working group. A submission was made on 18th November.

15.    Riverside Redevelopment: The Executive Director Community Services reported that Create NSW has moved to the Department of Premier and Cabinet. The NSW Government’s commitment to continue developing the Riverside Final Business Case has been restated.

Director’s Report (Attachment 2)

 



16.    The Director’s Report included information on:

Program activity in August, September and early October
Accessibility – AIRA technology, new projects, end of year Beyond the Square performance 
Rehearsal studios replacement
Staffing changes
National Theatre of Parramatta - activity including White Pearl opening Operations - fire rectification

17.    General Discussion  - Sydney Festival, Parramatta Lanes, student discounted access, the Lysicrates Prize, Sydney Coliseum at Rooty Hill

Finance and KPI Report (Attachment 2)

18.    The five key KPI’s to August YTD were distributed prior to the meeting.

19.    Advisory Board member Alan Manly commented that Riverside is largely a retail business. As such further interrogation of Riverside ticket sales and patron data would provide greater understanding of the Riverside business with a view to increasing revenue and reducing reliance on Council.

20.    The ENTA ticketing system can provide more detailed marketing data analytics for a better understanding as to what drives sales, when and how.

21.    Other research resources within Council may be able to provide more insight and future Riverside staff dedicated to research and data analysis will also provide for improved analytics.

 

Relationship with Sporting and Community Clubs

22.    Deputy Chair Jim Taggart further outlined a potential membership marketing initiative to build relationships with local community and sporting clubs to grow Riverside’s patron base. It was agreed to investigate further the benefits with a pilot program to be introduced for a six months’ trial in 2020.

 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

 

23.    The Riverside Advisory Board continues to be consulted and kept informed of all matters contained within this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

24.    There are no immediate financial implications directly resulting from this report.

 

Robert Love

Riverside Theatre Director

 

Jon Greig

Executive Director Community Services

 

Attachments:

1

Minutes of the Riverside Advisory Board 10 October 2019

5 Pages

 

2

Director's Report 10 October 2019 and Financial and KPI Report

13 Pages

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Item 16.1 - Attachment 1

Minutes of the Riverside Advisory Board 10 October 2019

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 16.1 - Attachment 2

Director's Report 10 October 2019 and Financial and KPI Report

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator

 


Council                                                                                                      16 December 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

Innovative

 

16 December 2019

 

18.1           FOR APPROVAL: Amendment of 2019/2020 Fees & Charges............ 262

 

18.2           FOR APPROVAL: Submission to the Greater Sydney Commission on the Place-based Infrastructure Compact Pilot for the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula area............................................................................................... 311

 

18.3           FOR APPROVAL: Draft Melrose Park Southern Structure Plan........... 365

 

18.4           FOR APPROVAL: Pre-Gateway - Planning Proposal for land at 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta (St John's Anglican Church)............................................................................................................ 452

 

18.5           FOR APPROVAL: Post Exhibition - Planning Proposal and Draft Planning Agreement for land at 14 – 20 Parkes Street, Harris Park................... 1162

 

18.6           FOR APPROVAL: Post Exhibition - Planning Proposal, draft Site Specific Development control Plan and Planning Agreement for 295 Church Street, Parramatta.................................................................................................... 1249


Council 16 December 2019                                                                                               Item 18.1

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER         18.1

SUBJECT                  FOR APPROVAL: Amendment of 2019/2020 Fees & Charges

REFERENCE            F2018/02069 - D07146477

REPORT OF              Commercial Manager        

 

PURPOSE:

 

To adopt the amended version of the 2019/20 Fees and Charges.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council adopt the amended version of the 2019/20 Fees and Charges.

 

(b)     That Council adopt the four (4) new fees that were not publically exhibited as detailed below:

·        Under heading 4.8
Council Property – Rock Anchor Placement
Rock Anchor Administration Fee ($808.00 including GST)

·        Under heading 4.8
Council Property – Rock Anchor Placement
Disbursements (As incurred)

·        Under heading 4.85
Road Naming
Administrative Fee (per road) – Precinct and Non Precinct ($808.00 including GST)

·        Under heading 4.9
Divestment of Property Interests – Council Land
Disbursements (As incurred)

 

(c)     Further, that Council note the three (3) fees that have been reclassified as detailed below:

•        Under heading 4.8

          Council Property – Rock Anchor Placement

          Placement Fee – per anchor ($731.20 including GST)

 

•        Under heading 4.85

          Road Naming, Precinct – Public consultation/exhibition, advertising and gazettal ($8,755.00 including GST)

 

•        Under heading 4.85

          Road Naming, Non-precinct – Public consultation/exhibition, advertising and gazettal ($1,030.00 including GST).

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1. On 24 June 2019, Council adopted the Delivery Program, Operational Plan and Budget for 2019/20.

 

2.      Part of adopting the Delivery Program and Operational Plan included adopting 2019/20 Fees and Charges.

3.      It is noted that four (4) fees were not originally exhibited and not included in the adopted 2019/20 Fees and Charges. These fees were:

·        Under heading 4.8
Council Property – Rock Anchor Placement
, Rock Anchor Administration Fee ($808.00 including GST)

·        Under heading 4.8
Council Property – Rock Anchor Placement
, Disbursements (As incurred)

·        Under heading 4.85
Road Naming
, Administrative Fee (per road) – Precinct and Non Precinct ($808.00 including GST)

·        Under heading 4.9
Divestment of Property Interests – Council Land
, Disbursements (As incurred)

4.      In addition, three (3) fees were included in the adopted 2019/20 Fees and Charges but not aligned to the correct heading. These fees were:

·        Under heading 4.8
Council Property – Rock Anchor Placement
, Placement Fee – per anchor ($731.20 including GST)

·        Under heading 4.85
Road Naming
, Precinct – Public consultation/exhibition, advertising and gazettal ($8,755.00 including GST)

·        Under heading 4.85
Road Naming
, Non-precinct – Public consultation/exhibition, advertising and gazettal ($1,030.00 including GST).

5.      Council needs to realign these fees under the correct headings and include the missing fees.

6.      Council is also required to adopt an amended version of the 2019/20 Fees and Charges.

7.      Attachment 1 provides an explanation of the seven (7) fees that are being amended.  These fees include road naming, rock anchor placement and divestment of property interests on Council land.

8.      Attachment 2 is the amended Fees and Charges for 2019/20 which will be uploaded to the City of Parramatta website.

 

ISSUES/OPTIONS/CONSEQUENCES

 

9.      The headings of the Fees and Charges have been corrected to reduce community confusion to find the correct fees under wrong headings associated with for example road naming, rock anchor placement and divestment of property interests on Council land.

 

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

10.    Should Council not adopt the fees and charges outlined above, it will be unable to charge these fees for services to the community.

 

 

Chris Sleiman

Commercial Manager

 

Alistair Cochrane

Acting Chief Financial Officer

 

Michael Tzimoulas
Executive Director Corporate Services

 

 

Attachments:

1

Amended Fees and Charges

1 Page

 

2

2019/2020 Fees and Charges

45 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 18.1 - Attachment 1

Amended Fees and Charges

 

PDF Creator


Item 18.1 - Attachment 2

2019/2020 Fees and Charges

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council 16 December 2019                                                                                               Item 18.2

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER         18.2

SUBJECT                  FOR APPROVAL: Submission to the Greater Sydney Commission on the Place-based Infrastructure Compact Pilot for the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula area

REFERENCE            F2019/04083 - D07124390

REPORT OF              Project Officer Land Use       

 

PURPOSE:

 

The purpose of this report is to allow Council to consider a submission on the draft Place-based Infrastructure Compact Pilot for the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula area produced by the Greater Sydney Commission.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse and forward the submission at Attachment 1 to the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) on the draft Place-based Infrastructure Compact Pilot (PIC) for the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula area which raises the following key matters:

 

·    Support for the integration of land use and infrastructure planning to manage growth in a coordinated way.

 

·    The assumptions, data, and evidence base used to inform the draft PIC were not provided. Therefore, the detail needed for Council to provide a thorough assessment of the accuracy, practicality and application of the draft PIC on a local scale was not available.

 

·    The draft PIC was prepared with no ongoing collaboration with Council. Equal partnership is needed to ensure place-based outcomes are delivered for GPOP.

 

·    The draft PIC needs to demonstrate alignment with Council’s existing evidence-based infrastructure strategies and priorities to demonstrate holistic planning across State and Local government. 

 

·    The extent of the precinct boundaries need to be realigned to reflect the location of growth for each precinct (in particular, in Carlingford, Telopea, Wentworth Point and Carter Street) as identified in Council’s draft Local Strategic Planning Statement and draft Local Housing Strategy.

 

·    The GPOP boundary be amended to include Epping to ensure its status as a Strategic Centre with a focus on job creation is supported by the necessary infrastructure needed to address the current infrastructure deficit (including light rail between Carlingford and Epping) and to ‘future proof’ the precinct for residents and workers.     

 

·    The draft PIC’s recommendation to retain the existing land uses in Camellia is not supported. Council cannot adequately assess its exclusion from Phase 1 or Phase 2 of the draft sequencing plan because the details of the model and evidence-base has not been provided. In addition, further consideration of the future land use is needed to:

o support the investment in light rail;

o the precinct’s strategic positioning close to the Parramatta CBD;

o recognise the extensive strategic and master planning done in collaboration with Council and State government; and

o address the precinct’s current underutilisation.

 

 

BACKGROUND

1.      In March 2018, the GSC issued the Greater Sydney Region Plan (Region Plan) – A Metropolis of Three Cities and the Central City District Plan (District Plan). Feedback from the community during the preparation of these plans was the need to coordinate housing and employment growth with the delivery of the necessary infrastructure to support communities and achieve the key themes of liveability, productivity and sustainability embedded in the Region Plan.

2.      Objective 2 of the Region Plan responded to this feedback and the need to deliver infrastructure that aligns with forecasted growth.

3.      On 7 November 2019, the GSC released the draft Place-based Infrastructure Compact (PIC) for the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula (GPOP) area. The draft PIC can be viewed on the GSC’s website here: https://gsc-public-1.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/gpop_pic_-_a_city_supported_by_infrastructure_web.pdf.          

4.      The draft PIC, originally called the Growth Infrastructure Compact (GIC), is an integrative planning model being piloted by the GSC to assist the public and private sector to better align the growth of housing and employment with the provision of infrastructure and services.

5.      The community consultation and feedback period on the draft PIC is from Thursday 7 November 2019 to Wednesday 18 December 2019. Council officers have prepared a submission on the draft PIC (see Attachment 1). The purpose of this report is to allow Council to consider this submission.

GREATER PARRAMATTA AND OLYMPIC PENINSULA (GPOP)

6.      GPOP is located at the centre of the Central River City; itself being the geographic centre of Greater Sydney. The Region Plan and District Plan provide the overarching strategic direction for GPOP. The plans emphasise the importance of the transformation of GPOP in rebalancing housing, employment and recreation opportunities across the Greater Sydney region. Figure 1 shows the central location of GPOP in the context of Greater Sydney’s metropolis of three cities.  

Figure 1 – GPOP’s location in Greater Sydney

7.      The GSC is piloting the draft PIC in the GPOP area as it is one of the fastest growing areas in Greater Sydney. The 6,000 hectare urban renewal area is experiencing high levels of growth in housing and employment and investment in city-shaping infrastructure. This growth and investment, coupled with the fact it is a ‘stand-alone’ precinct in Greater Sydney, presents the unique opportunity to deliver best-practice in integrating land use and infrastructure planning.

8.      GPOP accommodated around 24,000 new dwellings between 2008 and 2018. More than half of this growth occurred in the past three years, accommodating more than 50,000 new residents and bringing GPOP’s population to over 190,000 residents. In terms of employment, more than 28,000 new jobs were created in GPOP between 2006 and 2016. This represents almost six per cent of Greater Sydney’s jobs growth in the same period, although it represents only three per cent of Greater Sydney’s urban footprint. 

9.      The GSC anticipates further growth within GPOP to deliver its share of the Central City District’s housing target of 207,500 dwellings and its share of Greater Sydney’s job target of 817,000 jobs by 2036. This is due to its location in the geographic centre of Greater Sydney, accessibility to the metropolitan centres, and city-shaping transport corridors, including Parramatta Light Rail and Sydney Metro West (see Figure 1).

10.    The existing and anticipated growth for GPOP emphasises the importance of integrating land use planning and infrastructure delivery. The draft PIC aims to ensure growth is supported by the appropriate local, regional and state infrastructure to enable orderly and coordinated development that creates great places for the community to live and work.

PREPARATION OF THE PIC

11.    As explained above in the ‘Background’ section, the preparation of the draft PIC originated from Objective 2 of the Region Plan to focus on the coordination of infrastructure delivery and forecasted growth.

What is the PIC?

12.    The PIC is a model that looks holistically at an area to identify at a high level the most cost-effective sequencing for growth aligned with the provision of primarily state (with some local) infrastructure over a 10, 20 and 40 year timeframe.

13.    The aims of the PIC are to:

a.      Model the growth potential of an area and explore scenarios for its long-term future.

b.      Encourage openness about the range of infrastructure and services needed to grow an area, the costs involved and how this could be feasibly funded.

c.       Stage growth by being selective about where, when and what to invest in to deliver successful areas.

d.      Make the roll-out of new areas more certain, cost-effective and easier to understand for investors, developers and the local community.

14.    The PIC model developed in the Pilot has three interrelated components, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – PIC Model

15.    Council officers’ feedback on the model (and its key components shown in Figure 2) is included in Attachment 1.

How was it prepared?

16.    Table 1 below outlines the key milestones contributing to the preparation of the PIC.

Date

Milestone

Description

2016

·   Release of vision:

GPOP – Our true centre: the connected, unifying heart

Issued by the Greater Parramatta Technical Coordination Group, this strategic framework identifies the city-shaping potential of land use and infrastructure decisions in GPOP. 

2017

·   Selection of the Growth Infrastructure Compact (GIC) ‘game changer’.

GSC’s Infrastructure Delivery Committee investigates infrastructure and land use planning ‘game changers’ in response to the Minister’s Priorities 2016–2018 and drafting of the Region Plan. GSC recommends the GIC and for it to be piloted in GPOP.

2018

·   Preparation of the GIC Pilot for GPOP.

·   The GIC evolves into the Place-based Infrastructure Compact (PIC).

The Greater Sydney Region Plan, State Infrastructure Strategy and Future Transport 2056 were released by the GSC and NSW State Government. 

In response, the GSC leads the preparation of the GIC Pilot for GPOP with over 20 state agencies and utility providers, looking at various growth scenarios over a 10, 20 and 40 year forecast.

The GIC evolved into the Place-based Infrastructure Compact (PIC) to better reflect the need to focus on quality place-based outcome, with growth.

2019

·   Draft Strategic Business Case prepared for GPOP.

·   Draft PIC launched for public consultation.

Infrastructure NSW uses the findings of the PIC and prepared a draft Strategic Business Case for GPOP on behalf of eight service and infrastructure delivery agencies. This focused on the 10-year service and infrastructure priorities for potential funding.

The findings and proposed actions from the PIC Pilot and draft Strategic Business Case are released for feedback.

Next steps

2020

·   Recommendation made by GSC to NSW Government.

Feedback considered and GSC will make a recommendation to the NSW Government.

Table 1 – Milestones in the preparation of the PIC

APPLYING THE PIC

17.    In the GPOP pilot, the PIC model was used to explore the cost of growth in GPOP across four scenarios using a 10, 20 and 40 year forecast for population, dwellings and jobs. Table 2 outlines the scenarios and the forecasted dwelling and job numbers used to investigate the feasibility of their realisation in terms of delivering the necessary infrastructure to support the growth. 

Scenario

Description

New dwellings

New jobs

Scenario 1 - Existing

GPOP continues to evolve on a more suburban trajectory beyond Parramatta CBD and Sydney Olympic Park

41,000

66,000

Scenario 2 – ‘Incremental’

GPOP transitions to better connectivity and places.

64,000

86,000

Scenario 3 –‘Transformative’

GPOP undergoes a step change in connectivity and becomes a 30-minute city.

84,000

105,000

Scenario 4 – ‘Visionary’

The Central City experiences a step change in great places and becomes a 30-minute city.

95,000

122,000

Note: These forecasts are additional to the 70,000 dwellings and 150,000 jobs in GPOP in 2016.

          Table 2 – Modelled scenarios in GPOP for 20 year forecast

18.    More detail on each scenario tested can be found in the draft PIC.

Progressed scenario in the draft PIC pilot - ‘Transformative’

19.    The PIC model showed that the ‘Transformative’ Scenario 3 and ‘Visionary’ Scenario 4 delivered the greatest liveability, productivity and sustainability benefits, and these outweighed the costs of delivering the infrastructure needed to support their achievement. These scenarios delivered around double the net benefits of the ‘Incremental’ Scenario 2.

20.    The ‘Transformative’ Scenario 3 is in line with the NSW Government’s already-committed infrastructure schedule for GPOP over the next decade, including Sydney Metro West and Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1.

21.    As a result, the ‘Transformative’ Scenario 3 was used in the draft PIC model, and the findings and actions of the pilot are based on this scenario.

22.    It is noted that the NSW Government has yet to decide on the affordability of the total capital cost of infrastructure estimated to be around $40 to $50 billion over 20 years to deliver on the ‘Transformative’ growth Scenario 3.

PROPOSED ACTIONS OF THE PIC

 

23.    Five proposed actions came from applying the ‘Transformative’ Scenario 3 through the PIC model and from the draft Strategic Business Case. These are summarised in Table 3.

24.    Proposed Actions 1, 2 and 3 relate to when growth and development should happen through a draft sequencing plan for the 26 precincts that make up GPOP (see Figure 3). Proposed Actions 4 and 5 relate to proposed infrastructure priorities to support GPOP and growth in these precincts. These priorities are intended to inform the capital investment plans and budget processes of NSW Government agencies.

Action

Description

1

Sequencing Plan – Phase 1: Focus on precincts where growth can be aligned with already committed infrastructure to support job creation and new development.

 

The suggested priority areas in Phase 1 are:

·    Parramatta (CBD, North and South)

·    Westmead (Health and South) and Wentworthville Precincts

·    Rydalmere to Carlingford Precincts

·    Wentworth Point and Carter Street Precincts.

2

Sequencing Plan – Phase 2: Focus on aligning growth with future city-shaping infrastructure.

 

The suggested priority areas in Phase 2 are:

·    Sydney Olympic Park Precinct

·    Homebush-North Strathfield Precinct

·    Melrose Park and Ermington Precincts

·    Granville, Auburn, Lidcombe and Flemington Precincts.

3

Support existing uses in the remaining precincts across GPOP and review their potential over time.

 

These precincts include:

·    Harris Park, Dundas Valley and the Shorts Corner Precincts

·    Rydalmere, Camellia Industrial, Auburn, Lidcombe and Silverwater Precincts

·    Camellia-Rosehill Precinct.

4

Deliver short-term infrastructure priorities for GPOP to support demand across all 26 precincts over the next five years plus.

5

Deliver short-to-medium-term infrastructure priorities for the precincts included in Phase 1 of the Sequencing Plan (see Action 1) over the next five to ten years plus.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3 – Summary of five proposed actions.

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION

25.    The objective of the consultation, as outlined in the exhibition material, is for the GSC to collect feedback to improve the PIC pilot and identify other areas in Greater Sydney where the model could help the NSW Government in its decision-making processes. 

26.    The submission responds to the key questions asked by the GSC on Page 19 of the PIC under the heading ‘Tell us what you think’; and is structured the following way:

a.   Introduction: This section provides a brief high-level overview responding to the intention of the PIC.

b.   Part 1: This section provides a response to the key questions asked by the GSC on the PIC.  

c.   Part 2: This section provides other matters for the GSC’s consideration.

27.    Council officers are supportive of the overall intention of the draft PIC which seeks to integrate land use and infrastructure planning to manage growth in a coordinated way. This will help achieve orderly development, manage developer expectations, and importantly help deliver places that achieve the key themes of the Region Plan of liveability, productivity, and sustainability.

28.    The submission on the draft PIC is included in Attachment 1, with the key matters for the GSC’s consideration summarised below.

ASSUMPTIONS AND EVIDENCE BASE

29.    The information included in the draft PIC consists of the overall findings and conclusions generated from the PIC model. It also at a high-level covers the process undertaken to quantify and test various growth scenarios and the associated infrastructure needs. However, Council officers consider the material placed on public exhibition to exclude the detail needed to provide a thorough assessment of the accuracy, practicality and application of the PIC in GPOP on a local scale.

30.    Council officers note that the draft PIC explains that some inputs to the method and modelling are commercially sensitive and need to remain confidential to the partners involved, and the NSW Government. Council understands that not all information can be made available to the wider public, however, Council considers itself to be an important stakeholder in this PIC pilot and should be provided with this detail to provide a comprehensive assessment of the PIC.

31.    Council welcomes the opportunity to provide further comment on the draft PIC if presented with the following additional detail:

a.      assumptions used to calculate the forecasted dwelling and job targets for the four growth scenarios for the 10, 20 and 40 year time periods in the model (see Table 2 for 20 year forecast);

b.      quantitative data used in the model to calculate the cost of growth per precinct;

c.       method and data used to calculate the net benefits of each growth scenario in relation to the cost of infrastructure vs place-based benefits of liveability, productivity, and sustainability;

d.      the estimated cost of the infrastructure priorities listed in Actions 4 and 5;

e.      process undertaken to calculate the total infrastructure costs; 

f.       more detail around the apportionment of infrastructure costs; and

g.      detail around how funding sources were determined and allocated to different infrastructure priorities.

 

COLLABORATION WITH COUNCIL

32.    Council officers have concern that no ongoing collaboration occurred with Council during the preparation of the model. The model could be improved by ensuring its preparation is done in equal partnership and ongoing collaboration between the NSW Government and local councils. Given the intention of the model is to deliver place-based outcomes, it is imperative that councils are closely involved in identifying the priorities and needs of their local communities.

33.    Council strongly believes that local councils need to be collaborated early in the preparation of the models to contribute to the assumptions around spatial planning, land use changes, precinct sequencing, and growth targets.

34.    The approach to not have ongoing collaboration with Council is at odds with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s (DPIE) recent announcement to ‘supercharge’ Sydney’s priority precincts which acknowledges the need to work collaboratively with councils and get on with the job of delivering good growth for the future of our city and State.    

35.    Furthermore, councils need to be empowered through this model to advocate for the state, regional and local infrastructure priorities identified through council-driven investigations and planning strategies. This will ensure the model is genuinely collaborative, place-based, and originates from the needs of the local communities. The success of any tool pivots around the ownership of stakeholders directly impacted by its application.  

ALIGNMENT WITH COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIES 

36.    Early partnership with Council will also ensure the model aligns with the priorities of Council’s existing infrastructure strategies and is reflective of the ‘grass roots’ needs of local communities. Councils have dedicated teams who focus on place-making, community and social infrastructure planning, and asset delivery. The close collaboration of the NSW Government and these teams across councils will help in the preparation and successful application of these models in the future.

37.    Council’s archive of infrastructure research papers, strategies, plans and priorities is constantly evolving and needs to be considered as part of the PIC process. This will enable informed and evidence-based decision-making on housing growth, local cultural and social infrastructure provision in GPOP.

38.    The validity of the model would be strengthened by reference to local planning and infrastructure strategies prepared by Council. This would demonstrate to all stakeholders and the community that a holistic and cohesive planning process has been undertaken. It would also provide confidence that the model, which has been prepared at a state government level (which primarily only considers state infrastructure), has adequately considered, incorporated and adopted local planning initiatives and infrastructure needs.

39.    Commentary on the priorities listed within the draft PIC are provided in Attachment 1. It also includes recommendations from Council to ensure we deliver placed-based outcomes for GPOP in line with growth, for example, the prioritisation of regional open space as part of Phase 1 of the sequencing plan.     

 

PROPOSED SEQUENCING PLAN

40.    Figure 3 shows the draft PIC’s proposed high-level sequencing plan for the 26 precincts within GPOP.

Figure 3 - High-level sequencing plan for the delivery of growth and infrastructure.

 

41.    Council officers broadly support the sequencing of growth in line with already committed infrastructure (i.e. through Phase 1 precincts) followed by the coordinated and timely growth in Phase 2 precincts, which focus around future city-shaping infrastructure. However, Council officers note that the inclusion of Camellia in ‘Remaining Precincts’ is not supported and inconsistent with the strategic planning framework for this area (this is discussed below under the heading ‘Future of Camellia’). 

42.    There is concern around the extent of the precinct boundaries shown in the draft PIC and the expectations this will set for landowners and developers. A number of the precincts in Phase 1 (such as Carlingford and Telopea) have been, or are currently, subject to master planning processes being led either by the State government or Council. This was / is to review the planning controls around the Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1 corridor and to assess the scale of growth each precinct can accommodate.

43.    This is reflective of transit orientated development; and will help connect future communities to the Parramatta CBD, and through to other parts of Greater Sydney via a connection with heavy rail and the future Sydney Metro West.

44.    Similarly, the Wentworth Point and Carter Street precincts have undergone master planning and rezoning processes to accommodate for growth.          

45.    The specific location of the anticipated growth and land use change within these precincts is reflected in Council’s draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) as shown below in Figure 4.

Figure 4 – Structure Plan towards 2036 in Council’s draft LSPS

 

46.    The areas planned for land use change and additional housing in each precinct is shown in orange. This is to indicate that the growth in dwellings is not to be spread across the entire precinct; but rather to be concentrated in specific localities around city-shaping infrastructure. This has been done intentionally by Council to manage the expectations of landowners and developers, and provide a strategic rationale to not support the lodgement of planning proposals seeking growth in other areas outside of the precinct. The extent of the orange areas was determined using an evidence-based approach as part of the preparation of the draft LSPS.

47.    Council officers recommend the precincts within the draft PIC (in particular Wentworth Point, Carter Street, Carlingford and Telopea) be updated to only show the areas to receive additional housing to align with the draft LSPS. This will ensure a coordinated approach to planning is delivered, and to provide the justification for refusing planning proposals seeking an uplift in areas outside of the precincts not flagged for additional housing. 

INCLUSION OF EPPING IN GPOP

48.    Council recommends that the GPOP boundary be amended to include Epping. Council’s draft LSPS identifies Epping as a Strategic Centre and forecasts an additional 4,300 jobs by 2036 (bringing the total from 5,100 in 2016 to 9,400 in 2036). Council is committed to supporting jobs in Epping with a key action from the draft LSPS requiring the preparation a planning proposal to mandate a minimum amount of commercial floor space on certain larger sites in Epping. The delivery of jobs aligns with the District Plan, and Council wants to ensure the right infrastructure is in place to support its growth.

49.    Council strongly recommends that Epping be included in GPOP (and subsequently in the draft PIC) to ensure its status as a Strategic Centre with a focus on job creation is supported by the necessary infrastructure needed to align with the Region Plan’s key themes of liveability, productivity, and sustainability. The draft PIC should be updated to allocate both state and local infrastructure priorities to address the current deficit in infrastructure and to ‘future proof’ the precinct for the growing community of both residents and workers.

50.    In addition, Council strongly recommends that the GSC work with the PIC partners to progress the investigation of light rail from Carlingford to Epping. The delivery of light rail from Carlingford to Epping would improve access to Epping for the residents of GPOP, and subsequently increase the catchment of workers to support the uptake of jobs in Epping. This also aligns with the ’30 minute city’ policy position of the Region Plan.

FUTURE OF CAMELLIA

51.    A key concern flagged by Council Officers in their review of the draft PIC is in relation to the future of Camellia.

52.    Camellia in the draft PIC is split into two precincts: Camellia-Rosehill and Camellia Industrial. Both precincts have been excluded from land use change due to the relatively high costs of accommodating a new resident or job in the precinct and local environmental constraints. Specifically the draft PIC recommends that the zoning remain unchanged to support the employment and industry cluster consisting of Rydalmere, Auburn, Lidcombe and Silverwater; and to avoid any land use conflicts from the introduction of residential uses. 

53.    This position is contrary to the draft Camellia Town Centre Master Plan 2018 prepared by DPIE, the broader strategic planning framework of the District Plan, Council’s draft Local Strategic Planning Statement, draft Local Housing Strategy, and the Planning Proposal for 181 James Ruse Drive (which is currently with the DPIE for finalisation). This strategic planning framework recommends a significant change of use within Camellia to accommodate residential and commercial uses in the precinct along the Parramatta River.

54.    Furthermore, on 2 November 2019, just prior to the launch of the draft PIC on 7 November 2019, the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces announced a new approach to ‘supercharge’ Sydney’s precinct planning process. Camellia was listed as a precinct where collaborative planning is supported between councils, state agencies and the community together to resolve complex issues and drive quality place outcomes. This further supports the evolution of the Camellia precinct, and questions the position of the draft PIC which was released only days later.

55.    Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1 is committed to delivering a station in Camellia-Rosehill, which will provide direct public transport to the Parramatta CBD. Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 is also considering an alternative alignment through Camellia which would further increase the precinct’s accessibility. Retaining the existing land uses in light of the investment of transport infrastructure within this area is contrary to the strategic rationale of the sequencing plan which recommends land use changes around significant infrastructure and city-shaping projects.

56.    Whilst Council officers understand the high-cost of delivering infrastructure within this area to support residential uses, further consideration needs to be made on the future of this area to:

a.   support the investment in light rail,

b.   the precinct’s strategic positioning close to the Parramatta CBD,

c.   recognise the extensive strategic and master planning work which has occurred to date in collaboration between the State Government and Council.

d.   address the precincts current underutilisation.

 

57.    It is recommended that the GSC carry out further analysis of the infrastructure costs associated with growth under various land use scenarios that is required to determine the most suitable uses and density for the precinct.

 

Residential uses

 

58.    Under a residential or mixed use scenario, the draft PIC model could involve testing different dwelling numbers and the extent of the Camellia Town Centre footprint to determine what density is viable from an infrastructure cost perspective. A potential option may be to reduce the proposed dwelling numbers to a point at which the infrastructure spend may be more viable whilst still providing an incentive to facilitate remediation, urban renewal close to the Parramatta CBD, and transit oriented development due to the location of the new light rail stop.

Non-residential uses

 

59.    Whilst contrary to the masterplan for the precinct (and Council’s adopted position on the masterplan from April 2018), if the cost of redeveloping Camellia with residential uses is not viable as per the findings of the draft PIC model, non-residential scenarios of land use change could be explored in the testing by the GSC. Camellia as an employment precinct could be further tested which would look at amending the controls to facilitate higher value industries with a focus on increasing employment densities particularly around the new light rail stop.

60.    Council officers note that under either renewal scenario (residential or non-residential) infrastructure investment is required to improve the connectivity and accessibility of the precinct; remediate the land; and deliver public domain and amenity improvements. However, the land use will determine the quality and extent of the infrastructure required, and therefore the overall cost of renewal in the precinct.

61.    Part of any further testing looking at potential land use change (whether residential or non-residential) should include the role of the private sector. Further investigation into the delivery of infrastructure in partnership with the private sector needs to be explored to support land use change (regardless of the intensity of the change) as the landowner will be the beneficiary of any land use change and renewal at Camellia. This could also look at the option of requiring developers to make the full contribution to all relevant threshold infrastructure to make renewal of the precinct achievable.

Planning Proposals

 

62.    The Planning Proposal for the land at 181 James Ruse Drive, Camellia was endorsed by Council for finalisation in February 2018. The Planning Proposal seeks a B4 Mixed Use and RE1 Public Recreation zone; height of building control of 126m (40 storeys); and an FSR of 5.3:1. The revised planning controls are to deliver 3,250 dwellings and 15,000 sqm of retail and commercial floorspace.

63.    The Planning Proposal is currently awaiting finalisation by the DPIE. Should the State Government adopt the draft PIC in its current form, the Planning Proposal would be contrary to the PIC. A decision on the future land use of the site at 181 James Ruse Drive will sit with DPIE. 

64.    A Planning Proposal was lodged in December 2016 for the land at 1-9 Grand Avenue, Camellia to enable mixed use development (including residential uses). The Planning Proposal was amended in 2019 to respond to the DPIE’s draft Camellia Town Centre Masterplan 2018.

65.    As part of this Planning Proposal, the landowner is proposing to contribute towards enabling infrastructure (including the bridges over Parramatta River/Duck Creek) to facilitate renewal of the precinct as part of a future VPA. This further supports the need to explore and test the role of the private sector in contributing to infrastructure in Camellia, as discussed in paragraph 61 of this report.

66.    This Planning Proposal has not yet progressed through the Gateway determination process. This is because Council’s position is that the rezoning of this site is best managed as part of the broader Camellia master planning process, which is now in question by the recommendations of the draft PIC. Whilst Council in its submission (Attachment 1) requests clarity on where the PIC sits in the hierarchy of strategic planning documents, the future of the land at 1-9 Grand Avenue, Camellia will be influenced by the recommendations of the draft PIC. 

CONSULTATION & TIMING

67.    The Land Use Planning Team undertook an internal consultation process as part of preparation of the submission.

68.    Public consultation on the draft PIC commenced on 7 November 2019 and closes on 18 December 2019.

NEXT STEPS

 

69.    Should Council endorse the submission provided at Attachment 1, it will be forwarded to the GSC for their consideration.

70.    The draft PIC outlines that feedback received will be incorporated into the GSC’s recommendations to the NSW Government for its consideration and adoption. The GSC plans on presenting their final recommendations to the NSW Government in mid-2020.  

71.    Subject to the draft PIC’s adoption by the NSW Government, the GSC envisages that the PIC Pilot and draft Strategic Business Case for GPOP would be implemented through:

a.   amendments to the relevant strategic and statutory plans, with further community consultation.

b.   finalisation of business cases for State agencies capital investment plans and NSW Budget processes.

c.   ongoing monitoring of development, land use and infrastructure decisions to ensure the effectiveness of the PIC as a decision-making support tool.

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

72.    There are no direct financial implications for Council as a result of making this submission.

73.    Where appropriate, the attached submission discusses issues with potential broader financial implications, such as infrastructure provision and other policy matters.

 

Sonia Jacenko

Project Officer Land Use Planning

 

Roy Laria

Land Use Planning Manager

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy and Development

 

 

Attachments:

1

Submission to draft Placed-based Infrastructure Compact for GPOP

39 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL


Item 18.2 - Attachment 1

Submission to draft Placed-based Infrastructure Compact for GPOP

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council 16 December 2019                                                                                               Item 18.3

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER         18.3

SUBJECT                  FOR APPROVAL: Draft Melrose Park Southern Structure Plan

REFERENCE            RZ/9/2016 - D07113059

REPORT OF              Senior Project Officer Land Use Planning

PREVIOUS ITEMS             14.1 - Draft Melrose Park Southern Structure Plan - Council - 24 Jun 2019 6.30pm       

 

APPLICANT:             Holdmark Property Group and Goodman Limited

LANDOWNER:          Multiple

 

dEVELOPMENT aPPLICATIONS CONSIDERED BY SYDNEY CENTRAL CITY DISTRICT PLANNING PANEL: NIL

 

PURPOSE:

 

The purpose of this report is to detail submissions received during the public exhibition of the draft Southern Structure Plan for Melrose Park, respond to issues raised and provide a recommended process for managing planning proposals in the precinct. The report recommends that the draft Southern Structure Plan be adopted subject to the changes as detailed in this report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council adopt the draft Southern Structure Plan for Melrose Park provided at Attachment 3 subject to the following changes detailed in (i) to (vii), below and as illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4:

 

i.        Amend the Floor Space Distribution Table to retain the current building height limit of 12m and floor space ratio of 1:1 on the properties within the Investigation Area as per Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (PLEP) 2011 until further certainty on the implications of the proposed Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 alignment are known.

ii.       Amend the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) on the Holdmark East site (blocks S12, S13 and S14) in the Floor Space Distribution table to 1.66:1.

iii.      Insert a 20m landscape buffer along the Wharf Road frontage.

iv.      Show the extent of the Andrew Street view corridor through the site.

v.       Apply a 6 storey height limit to buildings on the outer edge of perimeter sites and an 8 storey height limit to the buildings on the inner part of perimeter sites along Wharf Road and Atkins Road (with the exception of the tower on the inner part of block S3 and S16).

vi.      General amendments to block form and building footprints to relate to the revised street layout and facilitate an improved built form outcome while maintaining the proposed FSRs.

vii.     Further minor inconsequential amendments as detailed in the report.

(b)     That Council endorse the approach of considering individual site-specific planning proposals within the southern precinct providing they adhere to the structure plan and are in accordance with the parameters detailed in this report and Attachment 1.

         

(c)     That Council advise all submission authors of Council’s decision regarding the draft Southern Structure Plan.

 

(d)     Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to correct any minor policy inconsistencies and any anomalies of an administrative nature relating to the structure plan that may arise during the finalisation process.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.      Council adopted the Parramatta Employment Lands Strategy (ELS) at its meeting of 11 July 2016, which identified the Melrose Park precinct as being a Structure Plan precinct suitable for redevelopment for non-industrial uses due to the decline in the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry within the precinct (refer to Figure 1).

 

2.      In late 2016, the two major landowners within the precinct, Holdmark and Goodman, collaborated to prepare a draft Structure Plan for the southern part of the precinct on behalf of all landowners within the precinct.

 

3.      A structure plan for the northern part of the Melrose Park precinct was adopted by Council at its meeting of 12 December 2016.

 

4.      At its meeting of 24 June 2019, Council considered a report on the draft Melrose Park Southern Structure Plan and resolved to adopt a revised scheme prepared by Council officers with a recommended FSR of 1.7:1 across the southern precinct and publicly exhibit the amended draft Structure Plan for a period of 28 Days.

 

5.      The draft Southern Structure Plan (as amended) was publicly exhibited from 14 August to 10 September 2019 (refer to Attachment 3). The results of the public exhibition are summarised in this report with more detailed analysis to the key issues provided at Attachment 1 to this report.

 

 

Figure 1. Melrose Park Structure Plan Precinct

OVERVIEW

6.      The draft Southern Structure Plan development scheme, as exhibited (refer to Figure 2), is a high-level document that is intended to act as a guide for future development and inform the preparation of a future rezoning proposal for the precinct. It is not intended to provide detailed planning controls and incorporates some flexibility to enable changes to be made at the planning proposal stage should this be required as a result of thorough urban design testing and technical analysis, including, but not limited to, flooding/stormwater and contamination, ecology, heritage and traffic.

CoP scheme MP South v2

Figure 2. Draft indicative development scheme, as exhibited

7.      The draft Southern Structure Plan (Attachment 3) provides an indicative development scheme for the precinct that achieves a floor space ratio (FSR) of approximately 1.7:1 across the southern precinct, which could potentially yield in the order of 3,700 dwellings. It seeks to identify indicative densities, locations of open space and new roads, which will be further refined through the planning proposal stage.

CONSULTATION

8.      The draft Southern Structure Plan (as amended) was publicly exhibited from 14 August to 10 September 2019. During this time, the community was invited to comment on the draft Plan including owners and occupiers from within both the City of Parramatta and City of Ryde Council areas within a radius of 1km from the southern precinct. A comprehensive notification process was undertaken and the exhibition material was available on Council’s website and at Council libraries.

9.      Government Agencies (including City of Ryde Council) were also notified in writing of the public exhibition in addition to relevant local State Members of Parliament.

10.    A total of 23 submissions were received during the exhibition period. Refer to Table 1 below for a breakdown of the submissions received.

 

Number

Breakdown

Government Agencies

3

City of Ryde Council (Council officer submission)

Transport for NSW/RMS (joint submission)

NSW Office of Sport

Owners / Occupiers / Others

20

City of Parramatta LGA – 7

City of Ryde LGA – 8

Not stated / other - 5

Total

23

      

Table 1. Breakdown of submissions received

 

KEY ISSUES

 

11.    The key issues raised by the community and public agencies are summarised below. Detailed responses to these issues are provided in Attachment 1 and a summary of the submissions received is provided at Attachment 2.

Density, Building Height and Amenity

12.    A number of submissions raised concern over the indicative building heights in the draft Plan, the number of dwellings proposed to be accommodated in the southern precinct and amenity impacts on existing low density residential development adjacent to the precinct, particularly to the east of Wharf Road.

 

13.    Council also received a submissions from land owners within the Precinct (Holdmark Property Group and multiple landowners subject to the Investigation Area). These submission raised concerns over the exhibited FSRs for their sites identified as Holdmark East (Lots S12, S13 and S14) and the Mixed Precinct. The submission relating to Holdmark East proposes that an increased FSR could be accommodated within the site whilst still maintaining consistency with the key objectives of the Southern Structure Plan. The submission relating to the Mixed Precinct, wished for the FSR to be reconsidered given the potential implications of PLR Stage 2. These matters are discussed1 din further detail within Attachment 1.

 

Traffic, Parking and Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP)

 

14.    Multiple submissions raised concerns regarding the potential impacts on traffic, and the ability of the road network to tolerate the increased demand for on-street car parking. Comment was also made on the accuracy of the assumptions and conclusions of the TMAP. Note that the TMAP was not subject to public exhibition.

 

Open Space

 

15.    Submissions commented on the provision of open space, stating that it is insufficient and lacks connectivity to existing areas of public open space outside the precinct.

Infrastructure

16.    Submissions raised concern relating to the inadequacy of funding for the required infrastructure to support the increased population and dependency on existing facilities within the Ryde LGA which are funded by City of Ryde Council.

 

Investigation Area / Parramatta Light Rail

 

17.    Landowners affected by the Investigation Area which applies to properties in the north-west corner of the southern precinct due to the future Parramatta Light Rail (PLR) Stage 2, raised concern regarding the impact that this would have on the development potential and value of these properties. Comment was made regarding the perceived inequities and why the Investigation Area was not applied to properties along the entire proposed PLR Stage 2 alignment within Melrose Park.

 

RECOMMENDED CHANGES

 

18.    Following consideration of all issues raised in submissions received during the public exhibition period and further design refinement, the changes detailed below are proposed to be made to the draft Southern Structure Plan (refer to Figure 3 and Figure 4). Both the Revised Structure Plan shown in Figure 3 and the Floor Space Distribution table in Figure 4 must be read in conjunction in order to understand the extent of amendments made post exhibition. It is not considered that the following proposed changes will require a re-exhibition of the draft Southern Structure Plan.

·        Insert the label ‘S16’ to the block below ‘S3’ on the development scheme.

 

·        Amend the Floor Space Distribution Table to retain the current building height limit of 12m and floor space ratio of 1:1 on the properties within the Investigation Area as per Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (PLEP) 2011 until further certainty on the implications of the proposed Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 alignment are known.

 

·        Include the proposed width of predominantly 20m for streets on the design scheme, except those subject to potential Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 implications.

 

·        Label existing streets.

 

·        Mark the proposed playing field as open space (coloured in green).

 

·        Mark the land underneath the high voltage power lines as open space (coloured green).

 

·        Amend the FSR on the Holdmark East site (blocks S12, S13 and S14) in the Floor Space Distribution table to 1.66:1.

 

·        Insert a 20m landscape buffer along the Wharf Road frontage.

 

·        Show the extent of the Andrew Street view corridor through the site

·        Apply a 6 storey height limit to buildings on the outer edge of perimeter sites and an 8 storey height limit to the buildings on the inner part of perimeter sites along Wharf Road and Atkins Road (with the exception of the tower on the inner part of blocks S3 and S16).

·        General amendments to block form and building footprints to relate to the revised street layout and facilitate an improved built form outcome while maintaining the proposed FSRs.

19.    It is considered that further changes to the Structure Plan based upon matters raised in submissions are not sufficiently justified or are not necessary at this stage of the planning process for the precinct.

20.    Detailed justification of this position is provided at Attachment 1.

 

 

Figure 3. Revised Structure Plan

Figure 4. Revised Floor Space Distribution Table

 

NEXT STEPS / WAY FORWARD

 

21.    Should the draft Southern Structure Plan be adopted by Council, planning proposals can then technically progress in the southern precinct.

22.    Council officers’ preferred approach is for one precinct-wide planning proposal to be prepared for the southern precinct, which will be coordinated and funded by landowners. This approach will prevent multiple planning proposals being lodged and will ensure that a coordinated approach continues to be taken in the precinct.

23.    Nonetheless, Council officers are aware of the practicalities in preparing one planning proposal for the precinct given the lengthy process involved in preparing the structure plan and the varying levels of redevelopment interests within the precinct. Therefore, the lodgement of individual planning proposals could be acceptable subject to the following requirements:

·   Site-specific planning proposals must adhere to the Southern Structure Plan as endorsed by Council. Variation can only be considered if there is a demonstrated improved public benefit such as the increased provision of infrastructure and will result in a better planning outcome.

·   Site-specific planning proposals must take into consideration the cumulative impacts of development proceeding across the entire precinct and not only on the site subject to the planning proposal. This includes the preparation of technical studies that will be required to encompass the whole precinct, such as infrastructure needs, flooding, traffic, social impact and open space.

·   Site-specific planning proposals must not rely on development proceeding on an adjoining/nearby site to achieve the applicant’s desired outcome. For example, the planning proposal must not include ‘half roads’ or non through-roads as an interim measure.

24.    Landowners within the ‘Mixed Precinct’ will be required to lodge one planning proposal applicable to all affected properties, smaller lot size of these properties, which will be difficult to redevelop on their own and still achieve the desired outcome. Further, there are also implications of PLR Stage 2 on these properties as the corridor has not yet been confirmed.

25.    All landowners will be required to contribute towards infrastructure provision in the southern precinct and Council officers will continue to refine the infrastructure needs list and associated funding mechanism that will apportion infrastructure costs in an equitable manner for all southern landowners. This may include the development of a new section 7.11 Development Contributions Plan for the precinct in addition to a planning agreement associated with each planning proposal.

26.    A site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) will also need to be prepared for the southern precinct to support any planning proposal in the southern precinct.

CONCLUSION

27.    The draft Southern Structure Plan was publicly exhibited from 14 August to 10 September 2019.Twenty-three (23) submissions were received including twenty (20) from community members / others and three (3) from Government Agencies.

28.    The submissions raise a number of concerns relating to the redevelopment of the southern precinct in general and the proposed scale of redevelopment. In response, the precinct was endorsed by Council for redevelopment for non-industrial uses upon adoption of the ELS in 2016 and therefore it is considered that there is planning merit in adopting the draft Southern Structure Plan to facilitate this redevelopment. It is considered that the majority of issues raised in submissions can be addressed during the planning proposal and development application stages, and in the site specific DCP that will be prepared to cover the southern precinct.

29.    Some amendments are recommended to be made to the draft Southern Structure Plan as a result of submissions received and are detailed in this report. Subject to those amendments being made, it is recommended that the draft Southern Structure Plan be adopted by Council.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

 

30.    The financial implication for Council associated with amending and implementing the Southern Structure Plan and progressing site-specific planning proposals within the precinct will not exceed normal resourcing operational costs within the Land Use Planning budget.

 

Amberley Moore

Senior Project Officer Land Use Planning

 

 

 

Michael Rogers

Land Use Planning Manager

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy and Development

 

 

Attachments:

1

Council Officer Responses to Key Issues Raised in Submissions

16 Pages

 

2

Summary of Council Officer Responses to Issues Raised in Submissions

13 Pages

 

3

Exhibited Draft Melrose Park Southern Structure Plan

56 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 18.3 - Attachment 1

Council Officer Responses to Key Issues Raised in Submissions

 

1. SITE CONTEXT

The site subject to the draft Southern Structure Plan (draft Plan) (refer to Attachment 3) is bound by Hope Street, Wharf Road, Parramatta River and Atkins Road (refer to Figure 1 below) and is zoned IN1 General Industrial and SP2 Educational Establishment under Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (PLEP) 2011. Current land uses include a variety of general industrial operations, open space and Melrose Park Public School. The primary school is not subject to change under the draft Plan.

 

Figure 1. Land subject to the draft Melrose Park Southern Structure Plan outlined in yellow

The southern precinct is surrounded by predominantly low density residential development to the east and west, industrial uses to the north, which are subject to the draft Melrose Park North Planning Proposal to redevelop the site also for non-industrial uses and Parramatta River to the south.

 

2. ROLE OF THE STRUCTURE PLAN AND KEY ELEMENTS

 

A Structure Plan is intended to act as a guiding document for future redevelopment of an area and provide high-level strategic principles to identify indicative locations for new infrastructure such as open space, roads and commercial areas. It also provides indicative locations of proposed density, however it does not directly amend any planning controls currently applicable to the site and final outcomes are subject to further urban design testing.

 

 

Key elements of the draft Plan include:

·    Creation of a connected and legible precinct with new 20m wide roads (except those subject to the proposed PLR Stage 2 alignment) to provide consistency with existing roads, accommodate on-street parking and provide for active transport.

·    Provide connected active and passive open space area including a playing field.

·    Provide non-residential floor space for retail/commercial uses and community facilities.

 

3. CONSULTATION

The draft Plan (as amended by Council resolution (a) on 24 June 2019) and supporting Council report and Minutes from 24 June 2019 were publicly exhibited from 14 August to 10 September 2019. During this time, the community was invited to comment on the draft Plan. Notification methods used in the exhibition included:

·    Letters to all owners and occupiers within a 1km radius of the southern precinct, including those within the Ryde LGA (approximately 5,000 letters).

·    Advertisements in the Parramatta Advertiser and Northern District Times.

·    Placement of the draft Plan on Council’s website.

·    Hard copies of the draft Plan made available at Council’s Customer Contact Centre, Parramatta Library and Ermington Branch Library.

Public Agencies were also notified in writing of the public exhibition, with the following agencies consulted:

·      City of Ryde Council

·      Transport for NSW

·      Sydney Water

·      Roads and Maritime Services

·      Parramatta Light Rail

·      Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

·      Endeavour Energy

·      Ausgrid

·      NSW Health

·      Western Sydney Local Health District

·      Department of Education

In addition, the State members of Parliament, Dr Geoff Lee, Member for Parramatta and Victor Dominello, Member for Ryde were notified of the exhibition in writing.

A total of twenty-three (23) submissions were received during the exhibition period, as detailed in Table 1 below.

 

Number

Breakdown

Government Agencies

3

City of Ryde Council (Council officer submission)

Transport for NSW/RMS (joint submission)

NSW Office of Sport

Owners / Occupiers / Others

20

City of Parramatta LGA – 7

City of Ryde LGA – 8

Not stated / other - 5

Total

23

        

Table 1. Breakdown of submissions received

A number of key issues were raised in the submissions and these are addressed below. Responses to other matters such as amenity, heritage, education needs and housing mix raised in submissions are provided at Attachment 2.

4. COUNCIL OFFICER RESPONSES TO KEY ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS

4.1. Density, Building Height and Amenity

A number of submissions raised concern over the indicative building heights in the draft Plan, the number of dwellings proposed to be accommodated in the southern precinct and amenity impacts on existing low density residential development adjacent to the precinct, particularly to the east of Wharf Road.

Council Officer Response

Density

A Structure Plan is a high-level planning document that does not seek to finalise planning controls on the site. Instead, it provides indicative built forms that have only been tested at a high level to demonstrate that the proposed density can be achieved on the site. The densities proposed in the draft Plan have been informed by the Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP) that was prepared for the entire Melrose Park precinct and high-level urban design testing. The TMAP identifies that up to 11,000 can be accommodated across the precinct (north and south) from a traffic and transport perspective on condition that Sydney Metro West, light rail (or bus equivalent) and a bridge to Wentworth Point and are provided.  Without Sydney Metro West, a bridge to Wentworth Point and light rail (or equivalent bus service), the TMAP concludes that the overall dwelling yield for the precinct will need to be reduced to 6,700 dwellings across the northern and southern parts, providing the identified road infrastructure works are undertaken. Should no commitment be made by the State Government for the delivery of the required infrastructure then the overall dwelling yield will be restricted to 6,700 dwellings across the precinct and result in a 40% reduction in the overall density being applied to both the northern and southern precincts until such time that the transport commitment of Sydney Metro West, the bridge to Wentworth Point and light rail (or bus equivalent) is made. It is noted that the State Government has announced a commitment to the Sydney Metro West, however in order for the full dwelling yield to be realised in Melrose Park, the bridge and light rail (or bus equivalent) are also required. An FSR of 1.7:1 cross the southern precinct could potentially accommodate up to 3,700 dwellings. Should a 40% reduction in the dwelling yield need to be applied to the southern precinct, a lower yield of approximately 2,200 dwellings could potentially be delivered.

The final density for the southern precinct is subject to further urban design testing that will be undertaken as part of the planning proposal process, which could result in variation to the structure plan being undertaken, depending on individual site contexts and commitment by the State Government to transport infrastructure provision.

Building Height

The draft Plan locates the tallest buildings away from the perimeter of the precinct to help reduce the perception of density and visual impact on surrounding residents. The proposed maximum building height in the precinct is 68m (approximately 20 storeys), which is located on the central block ‘S10’ adjacent to the proposed playing field (refer to Figure 2). The building heights on the perimeter of the precinct which have an interface with existing low density residential development within the Parramatta and Ryde LGAs are proposed to range from 6-8 storeys. Additional landscape areas on the development sites will also be required for these interfaces to increase the separation, and the existing road separation of 20m will also assist in reducing the impacts of the development. The site specific Development Control Plan (DCP) is proposed to be prepared for the precinct and will contain development controls relating to setbacks and built form.

Comment was made in relation to lots ‘S13’ and ‘S14’ (refer to Figure 2) as they appeared to have no identified building heights in the Floor Space Distribution Table on page 22 of the draft Plan and concern was raised that these lots had no upper height limit. This omission was rectified early in the exhibition period, with an amended Floor Space Distribution Table made available to the public labelling each lot (refer to Figure 3). It was also noted in some submissions that no lot identification number was applied to the block below ‘S3’ on the draft Plan and concern was raised over the building heights proposed on this lot. This lot is included in the Floor Space Distribution Table and identified as ‘S16’, with a proposed FSR of 3.9:1 and maximum building height limit of 58m (approximately 18 storeys) for the tower building located in the inner part of the lot with 6-8 storeys for the buildings that interface with the existing low density development on the western side of Atkins Road.

Concern was raised regarding the proposed height limit on block S15 (refer to Figure 2) on the corner of Hope Street and Wharf Road north of the existing Melrose Park Public School and the potential overshadowing impacts on the school and existing playing field that may result from having tall buildings on the northern side of the school. The height limit that has been applied to this lot is a maximum of 26m (approximately 8 storeys), which his slightly higher than the height for buildings along Wharf Road and Atkins Road. This is due to the location of this block being primarily along Hope Street and therefore it does not have a direct interface with existing low density residential development to the east. Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that some overshadowing impacts may occur on the school and the full extent of this will be addressed in detail as part of any future planning proposal for this site.

Building configuration and heights are subject to refinement as a result of further urban design testing that will be undertaken as part of the planning proposal process.

Figure 2. Draft indicative development scheme, as exhibited

 

                  Site Area

                         GFA

                   FSR

        Max Height (m)

Figure 3. Amended Floor Space Distribution Table, as exhibited

Amenity

As part of any redevelopment of a precinct of this nature, there will likely be some impact on adjoining residential areas given the proposed land use changes. Potential impacts on the amenity of existing residents adjacent to the precinct will be addressed in further detail during the planning proposal and development assessment stages, and as part of the site-specific DCP that will be prepared for the southern precinct, with particular attention paid to the interface between the proposed high density and existing low density development. The site-specific DCP will be subject to further community consultation. All development will be required to meet relevant Australian Standards and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) provisions to ensure any potential negative impacts are minimised.

Recommended Action

Update the draft Plan to include a label on lot ‘S16’. Continue to refine building heights, built form and building setbacks, to be addressed as part of the future planning proposal and site-specific DCP for the precinct.

4.2 Traffic, Parking and Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP)

Multiple submissions raised concerns regarding the increase in traffic and potential impacts on the road network, the ability of the road network to tolerate the increased demand for on-street car parking, and the accuracy of the assumptions and conclusions of the TMAP.

Council Officer Response

It is acknowledged that any redevelopment within the Melrose Park precinct will have some impact on the local road network. Therefore, it is important that any such impacts are managed to ensure these road networks can still function as intended. The TMAP was prepared in response to a Gateway Determination condition in relation to the Melrose Park North Planning Proposal and was the subject of extensive review and consultation by the TMAP reference group which included stakeholders from Council, State Agencies and applicants from the northern and southern precincts. The TMAP has been provisionally endorsed by Transport for NSW (TfNSW) and Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

The TMAP is an informing document to the draft Plan and provides a comprehensive analysis of the potential traffic and parking impacts and mitigation requirements as a result of future redevelopment of the Melrose Park precinct. It also provides a Staging Plan for the delivery of required road upgrades and public transport infrastructure to service the precinct as well as recommended parking rates to minimise the impacts on nearby local roads, which are considered appropriate to Council officers in these circumstances. However, the TMAP document was not subject to public exhibition as part of the draft Plan. An opportunity to provide further comment on the validity of the TMAP will be provided as part of the future exhibition of the draft Melrose Park North Planning Proposal and a detailed response to all issues will be provided at this time. As a result, detailed responses are not provided in this report. Nonetheless, from a traffic perspective, although the TMAP identifies that there will be impacts on the road network as a result of the proposed redevelopment, it concludes that these are manageable and that the density proposed in the southern precinct can be supported providing the identified infrastructure upgrades are undertaken at the relevant stages of redevelopment.

In addition, any redevelopment will be required to provide adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors in accordance with the recommended rates in the TMAP which will be complemented by on-street parking within the precinct.

Recommended Action

No action from a traffic and transport perspective is required at this stage. An opportunity to comment on the TMAP will be provided when the document is formally publicly exhibited in conjunction with the revised Melrose Park North Planning Proposal, at which time detailed responses will be provided.

4.3 Open Space Provision

Submissions commented on the provision of open space, stating it is insufficient for the projected population and lacks connectivity to existing areas of public open space outside the precinct.  It was suggested that the land to the north of Melrose Park Primary School (S15) be provided as open space.

Council Officer Response

The proposed provision of public open space in the southern precinct is identified as 20% of the developable area of the site which is consistent with the requirements of Council’s draft Community Infrastructure Strategy. The developable site excludes existing areas of public open space, such as the land along the river foreshore, and existing roads or any land that is otherwise constrained and not considered to be developable, such as land underneath the high voltage power lines unless it can be demonstrated that it is usable. The proposed public open space intends to provide for new active and passive recreation uses adjacent to the river foreshore, a new park in the western part of the precinct and a new playing field in the centre of the precinct. This public open space will be provided in addition to communal/private open space that will be delivered on individual developments sites for the use of residents as per the requirements of the Apartment Design Guide. The precinct is also located within relatively close proximity to George Kendall Riverside Park to the west which will provide for a variety of recreation uses. 

It is proposed that connections to existing active transport facilities such as the Parramatta Valley Cycleway will be provided throughout the precinct to encourage its usage. Connections to existing active transport links outside the Parramatta LGA such as the Ryde River Walk will require consultation with and agreement from City of Ryde Council, which can be undertaken as part of the planning proposal process.

Should the land north of Melrose Park Public School be provided as open space, this would eliminate any potential amenity impacts on the school site as a result of high density redevelopment such as overshadowing. This land is under multiple ownership and in order for it to be provided as open space, it would need to be acquired by Council. At this stage, Council is not in a position to acquire this land, however there is the possibility for it to be explored in greater detail as part of the preparation of a future Section 7.11 Contributions Plan or Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) between the landowners and Council as part of a future planning proposal seeking a contribution for the provision of open space in the precinct. This will need to be assessed against the provision of other required infrastructure as part of this process. Alternatively, this land could provide for an expansion of the school grounds should the Department of Education determine this necessary. This would require a separate agreement between the landowners and the State Government. 

Recommended Action

No further action is required in relation to open space provision as part of the finalisation of the draft structure plan.

4.4 Infrastructure

A number of submissions raised concern regarding the funding of the required infrastructure to support the increased population as a result of the redevelopment of Melrose Park and dependency on existing facilities within the Ryde LGA which are funded by City of Ryde Council ratepayers. Some submissions also noted the importance of ensuring that appropriate consideration had been given to the provision of school facilities to service the needs of the incoming population.

Council Officer Response

Council officers acknowledge that significant infrastructure is required to support the anticipated population and in developing the draft Plan, a strong emphasis was placed on the requirement for this part of the precinct to be as self-sufficient as practicable in regards to providing facilities for new residents. As a result, landowners/developers will be required to contribute towards the cost of this infrastructure, with the amount dependent on the level of density they are seeking on their respective sites. The overall infrastructure needs of the precinct will be determined as part of the Infrastructure Needs List that is being prepared by Council to help inform future VPAs associated with planning proposals or new development contributions plan in the Melrose Park precinct to ensure the necessary facilities are provided to new residents.

In relation to addressing the potential impacts on facilities within the Ryde LGA, it is difficult to measure the extent of anticipated use. The nearest recreation facilities to the Melrose Park precinct that are located within the Ryde LGA include the privately operated Ryde-Parramatta Golf Club on Victoria Road, Melrose Park Playground off Lancaster Avenue and Meadowbank Park at the end of Adelaide Street which is one of Ryde’s major sporting and recreation areas, containing a netball and tennis courts as well as a number of playing fields, a skate park and passive recreation areas. The nature of this facility would mean that users would originate from a larger regional catchment in addition to casual use by local Ryde residents. Although the redevelopment of Melrose Park precinct may result in an increase in casual usage, it is not anticipated that a significant impact would be experienced in relation to use from organised sports as participants in the activities utilising these facilities also reside in areas outside the Parramatta and Ryde LGA and usage cannot necessarily be attributed to the new residents of the Melrose Park precinct.

Melrose Park Playground may experience an increase in use by new residents living on the eastern side of the precinct, however it is not expected to be significant given the new open spaces areas within the Melrose Park redevelopment itself will provide similar facilities.

In relation to education facilities, Council has consulted with the Department of Education regarding the future education needs of the precinct throughout this process and it is acknowledged that the increase in population will result in additional demand being placed on existing education facilities. Any upgrades to existing school facilities and/or new school infrastructure will be undertaken and delivered in accordance with the State Government's requirements and delivered at the agreed stages using the forecasting information provided by the Department of Education to inform the size and type of schools that are required. A new 2ha school site has been identified in the northern precinct to help address the additional demand that will incorporate a new playing field and other facilities that could potentially benefit from a shared-use arrangement with the community. Any proposed upgrades to the existing primary school will be addressed as part of the planning proposal process in the southern precinct.

Ensuring that the educational needs of the incoming population are met through the provision of appropriate school infrastructure is a key planning consideration and Council officers will work closely with the Department of Education to help ensure this infrastructure is provided.

Recommended Action

No action is required at this stage; however, the provision of infrastructure in the precinct is a key consideration for future development and will be linked to the density potential in the precinct as part of the future planning proposal. This will ensure that the proposed development can be supported in this area.

4.5 Investigation Area / Parramatta Light Rail

Landowners within the Investigation Area located in the north-west corner of the southern precinct raised concerns regarding the impact that this would have on the development potential and value of these properties especially when the draft Plan nominates an FSR of 1.2:1 and maximum building height of 20m (approximately 6 storeys) which the landowners consider too low. Comment was also made regarding the Investigation Area and why it was not applied to all properties along the proposed PLR Stage 2 alignment within Melrose Park and why these specific landowners were not consulted prior to the draft Plan being reported to Council.

Council Officer Response

The Investigation Area identified within the draft Plan applies to 61-65 Atkins Road, 2B and 2C Hope Street and 64 and 78 Hughes Avenue (refer to Figure 2). The Investigation Area was applied to respond to current uncertainty regarding the proposed PLR Stage 2 alignment, which is still under investigation by Transport for NSW (TfNSW). As a result, it is difficult to determine the impacts, if any, that the proposed light rail will have on the future developability of these properties. On this basis Council officers made an assumption that developability of these properties could be restricted for these properties, and for the purposes of the draft Plan applied lower FSR and building height controls.

The application of the Investigation Area to these properties only along the proposed PLR Stage 2 corridor within Melrose Park was restricted to the north-west due to the fragmented ownership pattern in this part of the precinct and the relatively small size of the land parcels. These factors restrict the ability of the FSR that is “lost” from these properties as a result of PLR Stage 2 purposes to be easily redistributed upon land under the same ownership compared to other larger sites along the proposed alignment which can absorb the FSR within the same site.

Discussions with affected landowners were conducted post-exhibition, where they suggested the retention of the existing building height and FSR controls on these properties as per the Parramatta LEP 2011, which prescribes a 12m height limit and FSR of 1:1 so as to not make an assumption about the future developability of these properties until there is more certainty regarding the impacts of PLR Stage 2. The future development of the site would be reviewed to determine future density following the State Government’s decision on PLR Stage 2.

 

Recommended Action

Amend the Floor Space Distribution Table from a 20m maximum building height to 12m and FSR from 1.2:1 to 1:1 for these properties as per the current building height and FSR controls contained within Parramatta LEP 2011 and note that the final building height and FSR controls will be determined once there is certainty regarding PLR Stage 2.

4.6 Lots S12, S13 and S14 and Adjoining ‘Green’ Lot

A submission was received from the landowner (Holdmark) of properties identified as lots S12, S13 and S14 on the draft Plan on the eastern side of the precinct. Holdmark also own a site to the immediate west of Waratah Street opposite lot S12 which is identified as ‘Green’ on the exhibited map. It is considered by the landowner that the FSR that has been applied to this group of lots of 1.54:1 is inequitable compared to other sites within the precinct and will not enable the site to achieve its development potential. The landowner’s justification for this position is that the site is surrounded by existing public roads and is therefore able to redevelop without the need for adjacent properties to contribute towards the delivery of new roads, that it is a relatively large landholding under one ownership and that the landowner is one of the key facilitators in the preparation of the draft Plan. The landowner is seeking an increase to the indicative FSR across all of these lots to 1.8:1 and considers that an appropriate built form outcome can be achieved with the increased FSR.

Council Officer Response

Supplementary to this submission, the landowner provided an indicative design scheme to demonstrate that the additional density could be achieved on these lots. The applicant submitted a revised scheme that included an overall FSR of 1.8:1 on the site. It is noted that the scheme is consistent with Council’s structure plan objectives relating to the 20m setback to Wharf Road and the 6-8 storey built form within the transitional perimeter zone whilst also maintaining a single tower element (20 storeys). However, the built form outcome at this density is not supported for the following reasons:

·    The length of the buildings. The scheme includes a building in excess of 130m in length on the western edge of the developable site which will result in a built form outcome that will impact on the perceived density within the site. Building lengths of no more than 100m are considered optimal from a design perspective.

·    The building separations will further exacerbate the perception of density within the site. Although it is acknowledged that the applicant’s revised scheme provides for the minimum Apartment Design Guide (ADG) requirements for building separation, these do not provide for high amenity courtyard spaces. The width of the courtyard should be not less than the height of the surrounding buildings for perimeter block built forms. This is consistent with the approach that has been applied within the northern structure plan area. Having all buildings just meeting the minimum ADG building separation requirements would impact on the ability of the scheme to meet the other ADG requirements such as solar access.

·    The built form along Wharf Road consists of a building edge with no courtyard opening. Having the ends of buildings facing Wharf Road as articulated in Figure 4 reduces the perception of density to the lower density areas on the eastern side of Wharf Road. This principle is also applied to the built form fronting Wharf Road to the north.

·    Obstruction of the view line from Andrew Street. This density would compromise the view corridor from Andrew Street in the east.

A key consideration of the redevelopment of the precinct (including the northern precinct) is to ensure that an appropriate interface with the existing low density residential development on the eastern side of Wharf Road and western side of Atkins Road is provided. This is achieved by locating 6-8 storey buildings on the lots along perimeter of the precinct, with 6 storeys on the outer edge and 8 storeys buildings behind. An increase in density that results in these perimeter buildings increasing in height is not considered to be an acceptable outcome. Additional density that will overshadow the ecologically sensitive mangrove vegetation along the river foreshore and affect views is also not considered to be an acceptable outcome.

Subsequent urban design testing for this site has revealed that a small increase in the FSR can be achieved on this site above that identified in the draft Plan. It is considered that an increase from the 1.54:1 FSR as identified in the draft Plan to 1.66:1 can still achieve an appropriate built form outcome and provide consistency with the design principles that have been applied to the Melrose Park precinct (refer to Figure 4). This scheme provides the following benefits:

·    maintains the desired 6-8 storey perimeter building heights

·    provides a single 20 storey tower located in the inner part of the site

·    maintains the desired view corridor from Andrew Street (on the eastern side of Wharf Road) through to the foreshore area

·    provides more appropriate building lengths consistent with Council’s requirements

·    includes a greater built form separation along the southern edge of the developable site that increases views to the foreshore

Based on the above, it is recommended that the structure plan be amended to reflect the revised density for the Holdmark East site.

An exception to the perimeter site building heights is being applied to block S16 on the western side of the precinct (also owned by Holdmark) which shows a tower on the inner part of the site. This is due to the requirement of this site to provide for open space which impacts on the ability to redistribute the allocated GFA on this site.  This results in the need for a tower building to be located in the 8 storey height zone that is being applied to other perimeter sites.  

In relation to the matter of the equal distribution of density across the precinct, it is considered by Council officers that the density distribution as indicated in the draft Plan is proportional. Holdmark’s combined landholding is approximately 49% of the precinct and the density able to be achieved with the exhibited FSRs across the combined landholdings facilitates a GFA and dwelling yield that equates to approximately 49% of the overall density within the precinct on Holdmark-owned land. Notwithstanding the above, the increase in density on the Holdmark East site is still proportional to the density distribution across the precinct. It may appear that some other landowners within the precinct have been allocated a higher FSR despite not dedicating land for public benefit, however these landowners will still be required to contribute towards the delivery of infrastructure to service the needs of the precinct as identified in the new contributions plan that will be prepared for the precinct, or if appropriate, a planning agreement.

 

Figure 4. Indicative scheme demonstrating consistency with the structure plan principles and broader Melrose Park precinct (Holdmark site outlined in dashed red).

Recommended Action

Amend the FSR on the Holdmark East site (blocks S12, S13 and S14) in the Floor Space Distribution table to 1.66:1 (refer to Figure 6).

5. ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE PLAN POST-EXHIBITION

Following the exhibition, further urban design refinements have been undertaken by Council officers to respond to the continuing work on the Melrose Park North Planning Proposal to ensure that both precincts maintain a cohesive street network. Further, additional built form amendments have been made to better facilitate the densities proposed in the southern precinct. These refinements do not impact on the FSRs applied to individual sites. The extent of these changes are detailed below:

·    Adjustments to the new north south roads within the southern precinct to align with those proposed in the northern precinct

·    Additional tower located within block S3 to facilitate a new east west street continuing from Massie Street and ensure proposed development has a  street frontage

·    Reduction to the size of open space provided at S10 due to the amended road alignment of north south road to the west.

·    The east west street between Hughes Avenue and the northern road to the west of S10 has become a minor access street.

·    The north south street between S2, and S4; S3 and S5 has been amended to become a minor access street.

·    The east west street between Hughes Avenue and Atkins Road has been amended to become a minor access street.

·    Block forms and building footprints have been amended to relate to the revised street layout.

·    Building footprint in S16 has been amended to accommodate the existing creek line through the south west corner of the site.

 

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES

In summary, the following changes are proposed to the draft Plan for Council endorsement which are illustrated in Figure 5. Both the Revised Structure Plan shown in Figure 5 and the Floor Space Distribution table in Figure 6 must be read in conjunction in order to understand the extent of amendments made post exhibition. They include:

i.          Insert the label ‘S16’ to the block below ‘S3’ on the development scheme.

ii.         Amend the Floor Space Distribution Table to retain the current building height limit of 12m and floor space ratio of 1:1 on the properties within the Investigation Area as per Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (PLEP) 2011 until further certainty on the implications of the proposed Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 alignment are known.

iii.        Include the proposed width of predominantly 20m for streets on the design scheme, except those subject to potential Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 implications.

iv.        Label existing streets.

v.         Mark the proposed playing field as open space (coloured in green).

vi.        Mark the land underneath the high voltage power lines as open space (coloured green).

vii.       Amend the FSR on the Holdmark East site (blocks S12, S13 and S14) in the Floor Space Distribution table to 1.66:1.

viii.      Insert a 20m landscape buffer along the Wharf Road frontage.

ix.        Show the extent of the Andrew Street view corridor through the site

x.         Apply a 6 storey height limit to buildings on the outer edge of perimeter sites and an 8 storey height limit to the buildings on the inner part of perimeter sites along Wharf Road and Atkins Road (with the exception of the tower on the inner part of block S3 and S16).

xi.        General amendments to block form and building footprints to relate to the revised street layout and facilitate an improved built form outcome while maintaining the proposed FSRs.

The recommended changes are intended to improve legibility and provide clarification for users of the structure plan.

Figure 5. Revised Structure Plan

Figure 6. Revised Floor Space Distribution Table

6. PLANNING PROPOSAL APPROACH

The southern precinct of Melrose Park comprises 21 properties and over 22 landowners including strata-owned properties. The major landowner in the precinct is Holdmark, owning approximately 49% of the land area in two separate sites. Refer to Figure 7 for a map showing land ownership in the southern precinct. In order to ensure that the precinct redevelops in a coordinated and efficient manner, consideration has been given to the management of the planning proposal process upon finalisation of the structure plan. The ‘Hope Street’ and ‘Mixed Precinct’ areas are strata properties under multiple ownership.

There are currently two planning proposals that have been formally lodged with Council, being for 112 Wharf Road, 1 Mary Street and 30 Waratah Street, owned by Holdmark, and 6 Hope Street, owned by Goodman, which were both submitted in 2016 (refer to Figure 7). These planning proposals have not been progressed due to Council’s position that planning proposals would not be progressed in Melrose Park until the structure plans for the respective parts of the precinct i.e. north and south had been finalised. The structure plan for the northern precinct was finalised in December 2016 and therefore the Melrose Park North Planning Proposal has been able to progress.

Figure 7. Land ownership in the southern precinct, with sites subject to lodged planning proposals outlined in red.

Council officers have considered two approaches that can be utilised to progress the planning proposal process in the southern precinct, both of which require the proposal/s to be prepared in accordance with the guiding principles of the structure plan. The options include:

Option 1 – One Precinct-Wide Planning Proposal

The Council report of 24 June 2019 outlined an approach for the management of planning proposals in the southern precinct which includes the preparation of one precinct-wide planning proposal based on the guiding principles of the structure plan. In this approach, landowners in the southern precinct would be responsible for coordinating and preparing the necessary technical studies to accompany the planning proposal, which will enable a holistic approach in the assessment and include of a single assessment, reporting and exhibition phase.

Option 2 – Individual Site-Specific Planning Proposals

This option involves individual land owners preparing and submitting a site-specific planning proposal for their respective properties, consistent with the structure plan’s guiding principles. Each applicant would need to undertake the relevant technical assessments to support their planning proposal. This approach would involve separate assessment, reporting and exhibition phases for each planning proposal and require individual site-specific DCP amendments. Based on the indicative scheme included in the draft Plan, this could result in approximately 7 separate planning proposals and site-specific DCPs being submitted to Council.

Both options present challenges for both Council and landowners and the preparation of one precinct-wide planning proposal is the preferred approach of Council officers.

Nonetheless, Council officers are aware of the practicalities in preparing one planning proposal for the precinct given the lengthy process involved in preparing the structure plan and the varying levels of redevelopment interests within the precinct. Therefore, the lodgement of individual planning proposals could be acceptable subject to the following requirements:

·     Site-specific planning proposals must adhere to the Southern Structure Plan as endorsed by Council. Variation can only be considered if there is a demonstrated improved public benefit such as the increased provision of infrastructure and will result in a better planning outcome.

·     Site-specific planning proposals must take into consideration the cumulative impacts of development proceeding across the entire precinct and not only on the site subject to the planning proposal. This includes the preparation of technical studies that will be required to encompass the whole precinct, such as infrastructure needs, flooding, traffic, social impact and open space.

·     Site-specific planning proposals must not rely on development proceeding on an adjoining/nearby site to achieve the applicant’s desired outcome. For example, the planning proposal must not include ‘half roads’ or non through-roads as an interim measure.

An exception to this is applies to properties within the ‘Mixed Precinct’ (refer to Figure 7), which will be required to take a collaborative approach and lodge one planning proposal applicable to these properties. This is due to the smaller lot size of these properties, which will be difficult to redevelop on their own and still achieve the desired outcome. Further, there are also implications of PLR Stage 2 on these properties as the corridor has not yet been confirmed. 

All landowners will be required to contribute towards infrastructure provision in the southern precinct and Council officers will continue to refine the infrastructure needs list and associated funding mechanism that will apportion infrastructure costs in an equitable manner for all southern landowners. This may include the development of a new section 7.11 Development Contributions Plan for the precinct in addition to a planning agreement associated with each planning proposal.

Each planning proposal will need to be accompanied by a set of site-specific development controls which will form a new site specific DCP for the Melrose Park South Precinct. It is at this stage that further refinement can be undertaken with regard to the built form for each site in order to achieve the best outcome.


Item 18.3 - Attachment 2

Summary of Council Officer Responses to Issues Raised in Submissions

 

 

Responses to Issues Raised in Submissions on the Draft Melrose Park Southern Structure Plan

Issue

Council Officer Response

Building Heights

 

A number of submissions raised concern over the proposed building heights identified in the draft Plan and how the interface with existing low density development and the school is addressed, missing building height detail for lots S13 and S14 in the Floor Space Distribution Table, and the distribution of height across the precinct.

 

The building heights identified in the draft Plan are indicative and are based on high level urban design modelling that will be subject to further refinement as part of the planning proposal process. Generally, building heights on each block will be lower on the perimeter of the site (6-8 storeys) with the tallest buildings (18-20 storeys) located on the inner part of each block. This is to help ensure a reasonable transition to the existing surrounding low density residential development can achieved and the bulkiness of the development is away from existing low density areas. In addition to building setbacks from the boundary of the properties, a 20m wide landscape strip along Wharf Road will also be provided as an additional buffer between the new and existing development.

 

Some overshadowing of the school grounds may result from the proposed development as indicated in the draft Plan. The true extent of this will be refined as part of any future planning proposal for this site, however will be minimised as much as practicable to ensure appropriate solar access is provided to the school grounds.

 

The omission of a building height limit for lots S13 and S14 was rectified during the public exhibition. The Floor Space Distribution Table was amended to show an indicative 26m height limit (approx. 8 storeys) on these lots and made publicly available for the majority of the exhibition period. The FSR shown on the original table is correct and has been retained.

 

The distribution of height within the precinct has been applied based on the need to achieve a built form outcome that responds to the constraints of the precinct, regardless of whether the properties interface with the low density residential area within the Ryde LGA or Parramatta LGA.

Density / Context

 

Submissions commented on and raised concerns relating to the scale of development, distribution of density, impacts on character and the proposed dwelling yield.

 

The dwelling yield for this precinct is subject to further refinement of the built form that will be undertaken as part of the future planning proposal process. The indicative dwelling yield for the southern precinct based on a floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.7:1 is approximately 3,770 units. This figure, although referenced in the Council report of 24 June 2019 is not detailed in the draft Plan due to subsequent changes made to the document prior to exhibition.

 

Multiple submissions raised concerns regarding the proposed density and that is considered to be an overdevelopment of the precinct and will affect the character if the area. It is acknowledged that the density proposed under the draft Plan will result in a significant increase in dwellings in this area and should it be realised, will create a change in the character of the precinct. However, it is considered that it can be supported provided the necessary infrastructure is provided for new residents. This includes upgrades to the road network, improved public transport services and new open space. Council officers will continue to consult with landowners throughout the planning proposal process to ensure the best outcome possible is achieved for the precinct and further opportunities to comment on the proposed redevelopment will be provided as part of any upcoming formal community consultation period. Should development proceed as indicated in the draft Plan then the character of the precinct will change. Nonetheless, there will be benefits to the redevelopment for new and existing residents, such as increased open space and community facilities in addition to the new town centre proposed in the northern precinct.

 

The density within the precinct has been informed by the TMAP, which identifies that up to 11,000 dwellings can be accommodated across the north and south precinct on condition that Sydney Metro West, light rail (or bus equivalent) and a bridge to Wentworth Point and are provided. Without Sydney Metro West, a bridge to Wentworth Point and light rail (or equivalent bus service), the TMAP concludes that the overall dwelling yield for the precinct will be reduced to 6,700 dwellings across the north and south parts, providing the identified road infrastructure works are undertaken. Should no commitment be made by the State Government for the delivery of the required infrastructure then the overall dwelling yield will be restricted to 6,700 dwellings across the precinct and result in approximately a 40% reduction in the overall density being applied to both the north and south precincts until such time that the transport commitment of Sydney Metro West, the bridge to Wentworth Point and light rail (or bus equivalent) is made. It is noted that the State Government recently announced a commitment to Sydney Metro West, however, the commitment to all three transport infrastructure items must be made in order for the full dwelling yield to be realised.

 

The distribution of height within the precinct has been undertaken based on the need to achieve a built form outcome that responds to the constraints of the precinct regardless of whether the properties interface with development within the Ryde LGA or Parramatta LGA.

 

Concern was raised regarding the impact that the proposed redevelopment will have on the existing character of the area. It is acknowledged that the character of the Melrose Park area will change as a result of redevelopment given the recommendation of the Employment Lands Strategy (ELS) (2016) identifies this precinct as a structure plan precinct where non-industrial land uses can potentially be accommodated. Council's ELS identifies this precinct as being suitable for redevelopment for non-industrial uses due to the changing nature of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, which formerly had a strong presence in this precinct. Council officers acknowledge that there are many long-term residents within the vicinity of the precinct and are continuing to work with the applicants to ensure the best possible outcome is achieved within this context.

Overshadowing

 

Concern was raised regarding potential overshadowing of the mangroves and the existing school site.

 

The mangrove vegetation along the river foreshore has high ecological significance and therefore the built form of future redevelopment will need to respond to this environmental consideration in an appropriate manner. The foreshore area is subject to a riparian buffer zone that reflects best practice under the Office of Water guidelines The potential impacts of development, including overshadowing, near this sensitive vegetation have been considered as part of the draft structure plan and will be refined as part of the planning proposal process and site specific Development Control Plan (DCP) for the precinct.

 

It is acknowledged that some overshadowing of the school grounds may result from the proposed development as identified in the draft Plan. The true extent of this will be refined as part of the future planning proposal, however will be minimised as much as practicable to ensure appropriate solar access is provided to the school grounds.

Traffic / Transport / TMAP

 

A number of submissions raised concerns in relation to traffic management and adverse impacts on the road network within the precinct and Ryde LGA. Questions were also raised regarding the integrity and accuracy of the Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP) that was prepared for the Melrose Park precinct.

 

A TMAP was prepared to test the traffic and transport capacity of the entire Melrose Park precinct, which was overseen by a reference group that included stakeholders from Council, State Agencies (RMS, TfNSW and Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Environment) and applicants from the northern and southern precincts. The TMAP has been provisionally approved by the RMS and TfNSW. The TMAP identifies the necessary infrastructure upgrades, including active transport links that will be required to help manage the increased traffic and at which stage in the redevelopment these works need to occur. The TMAP concludes that there will be impacts on the surrounding network, however these were considered manageable. In addition to the requirements of the TMAP, further traffic and transport investigations will need to be undertaken as part of the planning proposal process when more detail is known regarding the density proposed on each site. This will also give consideration to and be in accordance with the necessary traffic safety measures that will need to be implemented near the existing primary school. The TMAP recommends parking rates which will be further refined as part of the planning proposal and site specific DCP processes. The TMAP was not part of the exhibition material for the draft Plan and therefore detailed responses have not been provided. The opportunity to comment on the TMAP will be available during the exhibition of the revised Melrose Park North Planning Proposal.

 

It is proposed that connections to existing active transport facilities such as the Parramatta Valley Cycleway will be provided throughout the precinct to encourage active transport usage. Connections to existing active transport links outside the Parramatta LGA such as the Ryde River Walk will require consultation with and agreement from City of Ryde Council, which can be undertaken as part of the planning proposal process.

Open Space

 

A number of submissions raised concerns regarding the provision of open space within the precinct, suggesting that there is an undersupply of open space provided in the draft Plan. A question was also asked regarding the provision of open space within the precinct for use as a regional sporting facility.

 

The draft Plan provides 20% of the developable area for use as public open space, which excludes existing areas of open space, existing roads and land that is constrained and not considered to be developable, such as land underneath the high voltage power lines unless it can be demonstrated that it is usable space. The new areas of open space are intended to provide for active and passive uses to serve the needs of the local residents and includes a playing field in the central part of the precinct. These areas are not intended to provide for formal organised sports or be considered as a regional sporting facility as these needs cannot be completely addressed within the precinct due to space constraints and the requirement for ancillary facilities in association with these spaces, including amenities buildings and parking. It is considered that these needs can be addressed in part by the nearby George Kendall Riverside Park to the west which will provide for a variety of recreational uses.

 

This public open space will be in addition to communal/private open space that will be provided on individual developments sites for the use of residents as per the requirements of the Apartment Design Guide. Opportunities for additional public open space will also be investigated as part of the planning proposal process for the precinct as well as on individual sites. In addition, a 20m landscape zone has been introduced along the Wharf Road frontage which is a continuation from the northern precinct. This area will provide a buffer between the proposed high density development and existing low density residential development on the eastern side of Wharf Road. A similar landscape zone could potentially be introduced on the western side of the precinct and will be explored further as part of the planning proposal process.

 

 

Education Needs

 

Concern was raised regarding the ability of existing school facilities to meet the future education needs of the residents and how this is being addressed in planning for the area. The statistical data that was used to inform the projected student places required to meet the demand of the anticipated growth was also questioned. It was suggested that Lot S15 be incorporated into the existing Melrose Park Public School site. A submission also expressed an objection to the announcement by the State Government regarding the closure of Marsden High School.

 

The figures included in the draft Plan are a result of independent analysis undertaken by HillPDA by the applicant for the purposes of the structure plan. Throughout the course of developing the structure plan, Council officers have consulted with the NSW Department of Education regarding the future education needs of the precinct as a result of the proposed redevelopment. The increase in population will result in additional demand being placed on existing education facilities and as a result, improvements to the current level of education facilities within the precinct have been identified as being required. However, any identified upgrades to existing school facilities and/or new school infrastructure will be undertaken and delivered in accordance with the State Government's requirements and delivered at the agreed stages using the forecasting information provided by the Department of Education to inform the size and type of schools that are required.

 

A new 2ha school site has been identified in the northern precinct to help address the additional demand that will incorporate a new playing field and other facilities that could potentially benefit from a shared-use arrangement with the community. Any proposed upgrades to the existing primary school will be addressed as part of the planning proposal process in the southern precinct.

 

In relation to Lot S15 to the immediate north of the Melrose Park Public School site, while it would likely be beneficial for this site to be incorporated into the existing school site, this would require acquisition by the State Government and is beyond the scope of the structure plan. Council officers have raised the matter of the closure of nearby Marsden High School with the State Government on multiple occasions, however this is beyond the control of Council and the scope of the structure plan. Council officers will continue to liaise with the Department of Education to ensure the educational needs of the incoming population will be catered for into the future.

 

Heritage

 

There are three items of local heritage significance within the Melrose Park south precinct as identified in Schedule 5 of the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011. These are item I1 - Ermington Bay Wetlands, I64 - an inter-war bungalow at 64 Hughes Avenue and I82 - Ermington Bay Wharf (refer to Image 1). Concern was raised regarding a Well that is located near one of the high voltage power line stanchions at the southern end of Wharf Road and that there appeared to be a lack of consideration given to its significance as part of the draft Plan. Council is aware of the Well, however at present there is little information available regarding its history and has not been identified as an item of heritage significance. Due to its location near the stanchion, protection from vegetation and location within a proposed open space area, it is considered to be at relatively low risk of disturbance by any future redevelopment. However, further investigations may be undertaken regarding its potential heritage significance as part of a future heritage study as part of the planning proposal process.

 

Concern was raised by the owners of the heritage item at 64 Hughes Avenue in relation to the application of the Investigation Area on this site and resultant reduced redevelopment potential. Refer to Attachment 1 for a detailed response on this matter.

Strategic Context

 

Comment was made on the strategic merit of the proposed redevelopment suggesting that there is inconsistency with the Actions and Objectives of the State Government's Central City District Plan which adopts a 'retain and manage' approach for industrial/employment lands. Concern was raised regarding the loss of employment lands and subsequent pressure this will place on remaining industrial areas and that insufficient regard has been given to the job targets set in Council's Employment Lands Strategy (ELS).

 

The Melrose Park Precinct is identified in Council's ELS (adopted 2016) as an area that is suitable for redevelopment for non-industrial uses. This is due to the precinct as a whole at this time being predominantly occupied by a number of large pharmaceutical manufacturers which operate in purpose built facilities that are not easily able to be adaptively re-used for other industrial uses. Due to the size of the precinct and current land use practice of not locating residential land uses adjacent to industrial land uses, the suitability of the Melrose Park precinct for redevelopment was assessed as a whole, rather than in parts or individual sites. It is acknowledged that subsequent to the ELS being adopted by Council the State Government released the Central City District Plan which adopts a 'retain and manage' approach for industrial/employment lands. However, the District Plan is a high-level strategic planning document that applies a broad approach for the management of employment lands within the district.

 

Conversely, the preparation of the ELS involved individual detailed analysis of the performance of each employment lands precinct within the Parramatta LGA which has enabled individual recommendations and actions to be provided for each precinct as a result of this analysis. In the case of Melrose Park, it is considered to be a declining industrial area due to multiple influencing factors and was therefore identified as being suitable for redevelopment for non-industrial uses. In addition, the planning process for the redevelopment of this precinct commenced prior to the District Plan's release and to the point where a Gateway determination has been issued for the Melrose Park North Planning Proposal. It is therefore is considered that the precinct retains sufficient strategic merit for the purposes of developing a structure plan. Further, Council has not received formal advice from the State Government recommending that further strategic planning work relating to the redevelopment of the southern precinct not proceed. Should the State Government consider any future planning proposals in the precinct to be inconsistent with the District Plan, this will be addressed at the Gateway determination stage.  Nonetheless, should the structure plan be adopted, full consideration to this matter will be addressed during the planning proposal process. At this stage it is not considered necessary to amend the ELS to reflect the Actions and Objectives of the District Plan, however it could be investigated as part of any future review of the ELS.

Housing Mix

 

The matter of providing an appropriate housing mix in the precinct was raised during the public exhibition, with comment made that there is no genuine mix of housing types and residential zones and that there is an oversupply of apartment within a 5 km radius of the precinct.

 

The draft Plan indicates that only residential flat buildings are proposed within the precinct and that there are existing areas of high density residential development in nearby suburbs. The proposed density of the precinct has been informed by the TMAP and urban design testing, however to achieve this Council officers have emphasised the need for appropriate infrastructure to support the increased population and for the precinct to be ‘self-sufficient’. As a result, it is considered that in order for additional open space, transport services and other community benefits to be delivered in the precinct, residential flat buildings are required to achieve the proposed densities. Housing mix is addressed in Council’s draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) and Local Housing Strategy (LHS), both of which will need to be considered as part of the assessment of future planning proposals within the Parramatta LGA.

Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2

 

A number of submissions raised the matter of the proposed Parramatta Light Rail (PLR) Stage 2, including concerns regarding its integration with the existing road network, uncertainties about the impacts it may have developable land requirements and concerns over using this service as a justification for the increased density.

 

The alignment of PLR Stage 2 corridor through Melrose Park is still under investigation and any potential impacts on private properties are not confirmed at this time. As a result, the draft Plan incorporates a level of flexibility to enable the light rail corridor to be accommodated should it proceed. The TMAP identifies that up to 11,000 dwellings in total can be supported across the entire precinct providing light rail (or an equivalent bus service), a bridge to Wentworth Point and Sydney Metro West are delivered. However, the TMAP also concludes that redevelopment of this precinct is not entirely predicated on the delivery of PLR Stage 2 (or an equivalent bus service) a bridge to Wentworth Point and Sydney Metro West. It considers that increased density can be supported within Melrose Park up to 6,700 dwellings without this infrastructure providing the identified improvement/upgrades to the local road network are undertaken at the required stages.

Investigation Area

 

Objection was raised by landowners within the proposed Investigation Area in the north-west corner of the precinct in relation to the impact that this would have on the development potential and value of these properties due the relatively low FSR of 1.2:1 and building height (20m) that had been applied to these properties, and perceived inequality. Please Refer to Attachment 1 for a detailed response on this matter.

Economic Benefits

 

The matter of economic impacts / benefits from the proposed redevelopment was raised in relation to the provision of jobs within the precinct.

 

The ELS states that the entire precinct (north and south) has the capacity to provide for 2,546 under the existing IN1 General Industrial zone at the time it was prepared and requires an equivalent number to be provided across the precinct as part of any future redevelopment. The revised Melrose Park North Planning Proposal proposes to provide 30,000m2 of non-residential floor space (15,000m2 of retail space and 15,000m2 of commercial space) which equates to approximately 2,500 jobs in the northern precinct. The southern precinct also identifies a component of non-residential floor space of 3,000m2 which equates to approximately 250 jobs. In total, there is the potential ability for the precinct to provide approximately 2,750 jobs as part of the proposed redevelopment which is an additional 204 jobs than what is currently able to be provided in the precinct. As the proposed overall job number is in excess of the identified job target in the ELS it is therefore considered to satisfy the employment number requirement for the precinct. The final non-residential floor space provision in the southern precinct will be determined as part of the planning proposal process. Nonetheless, regardless of job numbers, a key criteria for the precinct is for its ability to provide for the needs of the precinct through the provision of retail and commercial facilities and it is considered that this is being appropriately addressed.

 

 

 

Social Impacts

 

Concern was raised regarding the potential impacts on existing residents and facilities within the Ryde LGA as a result of the increased number of new residents, and who will be responsible for funding the maintenance of facilities within Ryde that are being used by residents from the Parramatta LGA.

 

As previously noted, a key criteria for the redevelopment for Melrose Park is for the precinct to be self-sufficient in addressing the infrastructure needs of the community. This includes open space and retail / commercial uses. Given the precinct is on the boundary with the Ryde LGA, new Melrose Park residents may utilise certain facilities within Ryde, however, it is not anticipated that this will be a significant as similar facilities and services are proposed to be provided within the City of Parramatta LGA. Notwithstanding, it is also considered possible that residents within the Ryde LGA will utilise the new facilities within the Parramatta LGA. Further, the redevelopment of Melrose Park incorporates significant upgrades to road infrastructure along Victoria Road and many users who live outside the Parramatta LGA will benefit from these improvements. In this regard, it is not considered reasonable for the City of Parramatta to contribute towards the cost of maintenance and upgrades of facilities within the Ryde LGA.

Notification / Consultation

 

The future of the notification for the public exhibition was raised in some submissions, stating that not all landowners were advised of the exhibition.

 

An extensive notification of the public exhibition was undertaken, with approximately 5,000 letters sent to owners and occupiers within a 1km radius of the southern precinct including those within the Ryde LGA. In addition, notices were placed in the Parramatta Advertiser and Northern District Times, content was placed on Council's website and hard copies were made available at Council's Customer Contact Centre, Parramatta Library and Ermington Branch Library during the exhibition period. Council's property database was used as the source of address details within the City of Parramatta LGA and address details for owners and occupiers within the Ryde LGA were provided by City of Ryde Council. Council continually updates its property database to reflect changes in ownership and will continue to do so into the future. The level of notification undertaken as part of this public exhibition is consistent with, and in many instances more extensive, than what would normally be undertaken for a planning proposal and is considered to be appropriate in this instance.

Environmental Impacts / Contamination / Environmentally Sensitive Design

 

Concern was raised regarding the suitability of the precinct for residential development given the existing industrial uses on the site, impacts on the nearby mangrove system and incorporation of environmentally sensitive design into the new development.

 

There is a potential risk for some sites to be contaminated within the precinct as a result of the industrial/commercial uses currently and previously located on properties. An initial assessment of the precinct undertaken by consultants Senversa recommends that further site investigations be undertaken to determine the full extent of any contamination in accordance with and to satisfy the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 55 - Remediation of Land. It is anticipated that some remediation works will be required prior to redevelopment of the precinct, however these can be addressed during the planning proposal and subsequent development application stages. It is not considered that this matter should prevent the structure plan from being finalised.

 

With regard to Environmentally Sustainable Design, this is required to be incorporated into the redevelopment of the precinct and will be addressed as part of the planning proposal and site specific DCP processes.

 

Flexibility in the Plan

 

Comment was made regarding the ability for changes to be made to the structure plan once finalised.

The draft Structure Plan is intended to act as a guide for future development in the precinct and by nature has incorporated an element of flexibility to enable some changes to be made during the planning proposal process. This includes refinements to the density, open space allocations, road alignments and the interface with the proposed light rail, for example. These matters will be addressed as part of more detailed urban design testing that is undertaken as part of any planning proposal within the southern precinct, at which time more certainty can be provided as to the type and extent of development likely to be achieved on each site.

Land Ownership / Use in Surrounding Areas

 

Comment was made regarding the accuracy of the stated land uses in the surrounding area, including the presence of public housing in Ermington, and reference to the number of industrial sites that have been converted to churches in the suburb.

 

The adjacent suburb of Ermington has a notable proportion of social housing scattered throughout, which is primarily older, low density mid-20th century housing stock and accounts for approximately 15% of all housing in the suburb. This proportion of social housing is above the 5% average for the City of Parramatta LGA so it is reasonable to state that there is a significant presence of this type of housing in Ermington.

 

With regards to the conversion of industrial sites into churches in Melrose Park, a survey of existing uses has not been undertaken since the finalisation of the Employment Lands Strategy in 2016 and therefore the specific number of churches currently operating in the precinct cannot be confirmed. It is known, though, that there is significant redevelopment interest in the southern precinct and therefore it is reasonable to assume that a number of premises may be changing use in the short term, including for use as places of public worship.

 

The redevelopment of Melrose Park needs to be considered at a precinct-wide-level and as it not considered appropriate to enable redevelopment of part of the precinct for residential uses while retaining industrial uses in another part as this could create amenity impacts particularly at the interface of conflicting land uses in relation to operational and access requirements. As a result, for the purposes of enabling redevelopment of the precinct to occur, it is considered appropriate for a precinct-wide approach to be utilised.

Suburb Boundary

 

Comment was made regarding the suburb boundary of Melrose Park.

 

The suburb of Melrose Park is located within both the Ryde and City of Parramatta LGAs with the western boundary being Hughes Avenue within the City of Parramatta. A portion of the southern precinct is also located within the suburb of Ermington, however for the purposes of easy reference, this redevelopment precinct is being referred to as Melrose Park. It is not proposed that an alteration to the current suburb boundary of Melrose Park be undertaken in association with the redevelopment. In addition, adjusting a suburb boundary is not a planning consideration and is subject to a separate process unrelated to the structure plan.

Infrastructure Funding

 

A number of submissions raised concern about the funding of required infrastructure to support the increased population, both within and outside the precinct, particularly within the Ryde LGA. Concern was also made regarding the commitment to enabling density without certainty that the required infrastructure can be provided.

 

Council officers are in the process of finalising an infrastructure needs list for the precinct which will form the basis of any future Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPAs) and development contributions associated with the redevelopment of the precinct. A requirement for this precinct it is to be as self-sufficient as possible in the provision of infrastructure and this will ensure the necessary infrastructure is provided within the precinct or a contribution is made towards the provision of identified infrastructure outside the precinct. During the planning proposal process, a new section 7.11 Contributions Plan will be developed to ensure the infrastructure need is provided for and funded by development.

Construction Disturbance

 

Comment was made regarding the disruption to residents during the construction phase of the redevelopment.

 

Matters relating to the impacts of construction are beyond the scope of the structure plan and will be addressed as part of the development application process. Nevertheless, for any development of this nature, a construction management plan will be required to minimise any disruptions to surrounding residents during this phase.

High Voltage Power Lines / Services

 

Comment was made regarding the presence and undergrounding of the high voltage power lines within the precinct. A submission also made providing recommendations and comments on the provision of electrical services in the precinct.

 

The high voltage power lines are owned by Ausgrid and traverse both the north and south parts of the precinct in a north-south direction. They have a visual and physical impact and are considered a constraint to redevelopment, however do not supply electricity to the precinct. In the southern precinct, Lots S7 and S9 are affected, with the lines and associated easement running along the eastern boundary of these properties. Development within this easement is considerably restricted and consideration to the proximity of development near the power lines is required. It is Council officers' preference for these power lines to be undergrounded however this is a significant cost that cannot be easily attributed to landowners. Council officers will continue to consult with relevant stakeholders regarding the relocation of these lines, however at this stage, no agreed outcome has been reached. Nevertheless, the structure plan has been developed on the assumption that the high voltage power lines will remain aboveground and the proposed development does not encroach on an easement. In relation to general electricity supply, Endeavour Energy has advised that network upgrades will be required to support the proposed development as are a number of other standard considerations, which can be addressed at the development application stage to determine the full extent of works that will be required.

Affordable Rental Housing

 

Concern was raised in relation to the provision of affordable rental housing, with reference made to the number of units proposed to be provided by Payce in the northern precinct.

 

The provision of affordable rental housing in Melrose Park and the broader Parramatta area is a key consideration for Council. As part of the revised Melrose Park North Planning Proposal, 145 units are proposed to be provided by Payce with 20 of these units dedicated to Council in perpetuity, however this rate has not yet been finalised and will be subject to a further report on the proposed VPA within the northern precinct of Melrose Park. Given the nature of the structure plan, the proportion of affordable housing to be provided as part of redevelopment of the southern precinct has not been specified at this stage and will be refined as part of the planning proposal process, consistent with Council's Affordable Housing Policy (2019), which nominates that 10% of land value uplift in all areas outside the Parramatta CBD will be shared with Council for the purposes of providing affordable rental housing. This 10% land value will form part of the overall 50% value capture sought by Council under the Planning Agreements Policy. As noted, this will be addressed in more detail following the progression of any planning proposal in the precinct.

High Pressure Fuel Pipeline

 

Comment was made regarding the need for consideration and management of the high pressure fuel pipeline that runs through the precinct.

 

Council is aware of the pipeline, owned by Viva Energy Australia, which runs in an east-west direction through the city and distributes fuel to facilities to eastern Sydney. Consultation has been undertaken with Viva, the State Government and landowners regarding the potential implications on development occurring within proximity to this pipeline and the necessary management approaches. Consultation will continue throughout the planning process a detailed Hazard Assessment will be required as part of the planning proposal process. 

 

                                                  Figure 1. Heritage items within the southern precinct


Item 18.3 - Attachment 3

Exhibited Draft Melrose Park Southern Structure Plan

 



 








 










                                                                                                                                                                                















                                                                                                                                                          















                                                                                                     


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council 16 December 2019                                                                                               Item 18.4

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER         18.4

SUBJECT                  FOR APPROVAL: Pre-Gateway - Planning Proposal for land at 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta (St John's Anglican Church)

REFERENCE            RZ/5/2018 - D07149307

REPORT OF              Land Use Planning Manager        

 

APPLICANT               Jattca Pty Ltd

 

OWNER                      St Johns Parramatta Endowment Fund

 

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED BY SYDNEY CENTRAL CITY

PLANNING PANEL - Nil

 

PURPOSE:

 

This report seeks Council’s endorsement of a Planning Proposal for the land at 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 41-45 Hunter Street, Parramatta for the purposes of forwarding it to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for a Gateway determination.  The report also seeks:

 

·    endorsement to proceed with the preparation of a site-specific Development Control Plan;

·    authorisation for the Chief Executive Officer to progress negotiations on a Planning Agreement;

·    authorisation for further investigations and consultation with the applicant and adjoining owners on potential road closures and changes to the way sites are accessed by vehicles in the precinct.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)     That Council endorse the Planning Proposal at Attachment 2 for the purpose of public exhibition to amend Parramatta LEP 2011 for land at 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 41, 43 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta, to pursue the following amendments to Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011:

i.     The land be rezoned from part B4 - Mixed Use and SP1 – Special Activities (Place of Public Worship) to part B3 - Commercial Core, part B4 Mixed Use and part SP1 Special Activities (Place of Public Worship) as shown in Figure 7 (Recommended - Zoning) of this report.

ii.    The Floor Space Ratio (FSR) map be amended to apply a maximum incentive FSR of 10:1 in the location shown in Figure 7 (Recommended - FSR) of this report with no FSR being applied to the portion containing the Cathedral, also mapped in Figure 7 (Recommended - FSR) of this report.

iii.   An additional site-specific local provision be included, which allows unlimited FSR for office development on the portion of the site labelled 10:1* in Figure 7 of this report (Recommended - FSR) of this report.

iv.   The sliding-scale provisions contained within Parramatta LEP 2011 remain applied to the subject site.

v.    The Height of Building Map be amended to apply a maximum building height control of 211 metres Reduced Level (approximately 60 storeys) and 12 metres (approximately 3 storeys) in the locations shown in Figure 7 (Recommended - Building Height) of this report with no building height being applied to the portion containing the Cathedral, also mapped in Figure 7 (Recommended - Building Height) of this report.

vi.   The site is identified on the Special Provisions map to permit the application of Clause 7.6 Airspace operations.

vii.  The existing heritage item identified as St. John’s Parish Church Hall (Item 1713) be de-listed from Schedule 5 of the LEP. 

viii. The portion of land at 41, 43 and 45 Hunter Street, as shown in Figure 10 in Attachment 1, is identified on the Land Reservation Acquisition Map to facilitate the creation of a 6 metre wide laneway to provide future vehicle access to these three sites and 181 Church Street, Parramatta. Noting that 41 and 43 Hunter Street have only been included in the Planning Proposal for the purposes of identifying the 6 metre wide laneway land on the Land Reservation Acquisition Map and that no other changes will be made to the planning controls that apply to these two sites.

ix.   An additional site-specific provision to allow car-parking as a permissible use on a small portion of the land zoned SP1 – Special Activities (Place of Public Worship), shown in Figure 9 in Attachment 1, in conjunction with any redevelopment of the St John’s Church Site.

x.    Is consistent with Council’s policy position, endorsed 25 November 2019, in relation to Sun Access Plane – Parramatta Square where any new development on affected land must not result in any additional overshadowing between 12pm and 2pm of the nominated area on Parramatta Square during midwinter on 21 June.

xi.   Maximum parking rates be adopted as an additional local provision, consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal Strategic Transport Study rates endorsed by Council on 10 April 2017.

 

(b)     That the revised Planning Proposal be forwarded to the DPIE with a request for a Gateway Determination;

 

(c)     That a site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) be prepared and reported to Council prior to exhibition, in accordance with the following principles:

i.     Significant heritage interpretation of the Church Hall recommended above for delisting and potential future demolition;

ii.    A minimum 5 metre width for the new pedestrian through link (laneway) with no building overhangs and activation of the laneway;

iii.   Requirements for the new civic square including scale, treatment, tree planting and deep soil;

iv.   Controls consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal flood requirements, basement design (flood-proofing), requirement for an overland flow study, water sensitive urban design requirements, no habitable floor space to be provided below the ground level;

v.    Vehicular access and servicing arrangements for the site; and

vi.   Built form controls relating to the tower forms on the site including but not limited to tower setbacks from adjoining properties, and setbacks from retained heritage items.

 

(d)     That the CEO be authorised to negotiate a Planning Agreement with the landowner that takes into consideration:

i.        the public benefits offered by the landowner in submissions to Council to date;

ii.       Council’s Planning Agreements Policy and Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal Community Infrastructure Framework acknowledging that the public benefits offered by the landowner are proposed to offset the demolition of the Church Hall. The works proposed to offset the loss of the Church Hall should not be taken into consideration when determining whether any offer from the landowner is consistent with the abovementioned Council Policy and Framework.

iii.      that any planning agreement contribution is in addition to the development contributions required under Council’s CBD Development Contributions Plan.

 

(e)     That an assessment of whether the eastern portion of Hunter Street adjoining the subject site’s western boundary should be closed and sold to the Church for inclusion in the new civic space, be considered concurrently with Planning Agreement negotiations with the Applicant/ landowner.

 

(f)      That the outcome of negotiations on the Planning Agreement and the assessment of the closure of the eastern portion of Hunter Street be reported back to Council for endorsement prior to public exhibition of any Planning Agreement, at the same time the draft site-specific DCP is reported to Council for exhibition purposes.

 

(g)     That prior to any exhibition the Applicant be requested to provide urban design analysis and other supporting documents for the Planning Proposal that are consistent with the Council’s resolved position and any conditions of the Gateway Determination to ensure the exhibition material is consistent.

 

(h)     That upon the issue of a Gateway Determination the Planning Proposal, draft DCP, and Planning Agreement be exhibited concurrently and that the exhibition outcomes be reported back to Council.

 

(i)      That Council officers commence negotiations with the owners of 181 Church Street, Parramatta to seek agreement to the implementation of alternate vehicle access arrangements to this site from Hunter and/or Marsden Street. 

 

(j)      That Council authorise the CEO to amend the Planning Proposal to correct any minor anomalies of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during the plan-making process.

 

(k)     Further, that Council note the advice of the Local Planning Panel of 3 December 2019 is inconsistent with the Council officer’s recommendation in this report. The Panel’s advice is to:

i. Retain the listing of the Church Hall on the heritage schedule; and

ii. Consult with landowners of 41 and 43 Hunter Street, prior to requesting a Gateway determination.

 

 

PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE

BACKGROUND

 

1.     On 29 May 2018, Jattca Property Solutions (the Applicant) lodged a Planning Proposal to Council on behalf of the landowner (Anglican Church Property Trust Diocese of Sydney, as Trustee for the Parish of Parramatta and the St John’s Parramatta Endowment Fund) in relation to land at 195 Church Street and 68-79 Macquarie Street and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta. The subject site is commonly referred to as the St John’s Church site.

 

2.     The applicant’s Planning Proposal is based on a 100-year master plan envisaged for the subject site prepared by the Applicant and includes the following (Attachment 3 contains images of the proposed development preferred by the Applicant):

·        A new setting for the state heritage listed St John’s Anglican Cathedral through an enhanced public domain comprised of the provision of a new public square (proposed to remain under the ownership of the Church but accessible by the public), and a new pedestrian laneway accessed from Macquarie Street;

·        A new northern tower comprised of 45-storeys (approximately 192 metres) including a minimum of 4,000 square metres of Church uses ancillary to the Cathedral, ground floor active uses within a three-storey podium, and 44,000 square metres of A-Grade leasable office space within the tower element (providing approximately 4,000 jobs) which would require the demolition of the existing locally heritage listed Church Hall located immediately north west of the State listed Cathedral;

·        A new southern tower comprised of 43-storeys (approximately 152 metres) containing ground floor active uses and 15,000 square metres of residential accommodation; and

·        Shared basement car parking extending from the north of the site, to the south of the site with proposed vehicular access off Macquarie Street.

 

3.     The Applicant’s preferred redevelopment option involves the demolition of the Church Hall, which is a listed Heritage Item. The Applicant was asked to prepare three design options regarding the treatment of the Church Hall to allow a proper assessment of the proposal and the potential alternatives. The options put forward by the Applicant and assessed by Council officers were:

i.    The Church Hall is retained with any new building constructed beside the Hall;

ii.   The Church Hall is retained and the new A-grade office building cantilevers over the Hall; and

iii.  The Church Hall is demolished to allow for a larger civic space and better activation from a new A-grade office building.

 

4.     The Applicant’s original Planning Proposal did not propose to de-list the Church Hall from Schedule 5 of Parramatta LEP 2011, but instead to show its removal in the site-specific DCP and manage its removal as part of a future development application. Council officers advised the Applicant that if officers were to support the removal of the Church Hall, it would be on the basis that the Church Hall was formally de-listed. As such, the Applicant subsequently amended their proposal to now seek the de-listing of the Church Hall from Schedule 5 of Parramatta LEP 2011.

 

5.     Further detail on the application and the applicant’s justification is included in the Urban Design report lodged with the application (Refer to Attachment 3).

 

THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT

 

6.      The subject site contains 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta. These properties comprise of twelve (12) allotments currently owned by the Anglican Church Property Trust, Diocese of Sydney, as Trustee for the Parish of Parramatta and the St John’s Parramatta Endowment Fund (See Figure 1). The subject site is irregular in shape and has a total site area of 10,857 square metres.

 

7.      The combined site has frontages to Macquarie Street (north), Centenary Square (east), Hunter Street (west) and the railway corridor (south). The site is about 100 metres from Parramatta Railway Station and Parramatta Light Rail Stage 1 stop on Macquarie Street, and is adjacent to Parramatta Square.

 

8.     There are currently site-specific Planning Proposals being processed for three adjoining sites at 57 Macquarie Street, 20 Macquarie Street and one site with two frontages at 197- 207 Church Street and 89 Marsden Street. Details of what is proposed on these sites are provided in Attachment 1 but each of these sites have Planning Proposals before Council where buildings with heights between 90 metres (25-storeys) and 180 metres (50-storeys) are proposed.

 

 

Figure 1 – Subject site and listed heritage items in the locality (site shown in outlined in red)

 

9.     In the location shown in Figure 1, the subject site contains a State heritage item known as St John’s Anglican Cathedral (I011805) and several local listed items including:

·    St John’s Parish Church Hall (Local Listing I713);

·    Warden’s (Verger’s) Cottage (Local Listing I653); and

·    St John’s Building (façade included in local listing I651 for Centenary Square and adjoining buildings).

 

10.    These items as they relate to their respective allotments, contribute to the setting and curtilage of the St John’s Anglican Cathedral. There are also a number of heritage items on sites surrounding the subject site and the details of these are provided in the Local Planning Panel report included as Attachment 1. The subject site and its surrounds is a critical heritage precinct in the Parramatta CBD with a group of listed buildings on the site and surrounding it that represent an important part of the history of Parramatta. Heritage impacts are an important part of the assessment of this proposal.

 

 

COMPARISON OF EXISTING, PARRAMATTA CBD PLANNING PROPOSAL, APPLICANT’S AND RECOMMENDED CONTROLS

 

11.    A comparison of existing, Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, the Applicant’s and recommended controls is shown in Table 1 below.

 

Table 1 – Comparison of controls

 

Parramatta LEP 2011

Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, endorsed by Council on  25 November 2019

Applicant’s Planning Proposal

Council officer’s recommended controls

Zoning

Part B4 Mixed Use, part SP1 Special Activities

Part B4 Mixed Use, part SP1 Special Activities

Part B4 Mixed Use, part B3 Commercial Core, Part SP1 Special Activities

 

Part B4 Mixed Use, part B3 Commercial Core, part SP1 Special Activities

Maximum height of building

Part 24m, part 18m, part 36m and part no height control

Part 24m, part 18m, part 12m, part 36m, part 211RL and part no height control

 

Part 28m and part no height control

Part 12m part 211 RL and part no height control

Maximum FSR

Part 3:1, part 10:1 and part no FSR shown

Part 3:1, part 10:1 and part no FSR shown

Part 13.5:1 and part 9.4:1 and part no FSR shown

Part 10:1 and part no FSR shown (refer to special clauses)

Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal special clauses

Sliding-scale applies

Sliding-scale applies

 

Seeking exemption from sliding-scale

 

Sliding-scale applies

 

 

 

 

Aeronautical investigation clause

 

Aeronautical investigation clause

 

Aeronautical investigation clause

 

Unlimited FSR on Proposed B3 Commercial Core fronting Macquarie Street

Site-specific clauses

Nil

Nil

Nil

Additional permitted use to allow basement parking on part of SP1 Special Activities zoned land.

Heritage status Church Hall

Listed

Listed

De-list

De-list

Maximum gross floor area (GFA)

6,870 m2 fronting Macquarie Street

 

 

2,592 m2 fronting Hunter Street

 

6,870 m2 fronting Macquarie Street

 

 

5,184 m2 fronting Hunter Street (applying sliding-scale)

57,900 m2 office GFA fronting Macquarie Street

 

14,500 m2 fronting Hunter Street

Unlimited office GFA fronting Macquarie Street

 

5,184 m2 in B4 Mixed Use Zone (applying sliding-scale)

Maximum dwelling yield

= maximum GFA / 85 m2 for high density dwellings

Approximately 111 apartments (both Macquarie and Hunter Street sites)

Approximately 142 apartments (both Macqaurie and Hunter Street sites)

171 apartments (Hunter Street building)

61 apartments (Hunter Street building)

 

ASSESSMENT OF KEY ISSUES

 

Office building proposed at the northern side of the site (fronting Macquarie Street)

 

12.    Figure 2 shows the Applicant’s proposed development for the northern part of the site. There are three critical issues in the assessment of the office tower proposed at the northern end of the site:

a.      inconsistency with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal;

b.      de-listing and removal of the existing Church Hall; and

c.       potential for the new office tower to overshadow the portion of Parramatta Square where solar access is protected under Parramatta LEP 2011.

 

Figure 2 – Applicant’s preferred development option

 

 

Inconsistency with Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal

 

13.    As indicated in Table 2, the Applicant is proposing significant changes from the existing controls but the more relevant basis of assessment is to compare the proposal to the draft Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal controls. These controls represent Council’s current policy framework for sites in the CBD. The differences between the Applicant’s proposal and the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal controls are summarised in Table 2.

 

Table 2 - Comparison Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal controls and applicants proposed controls as originally submitted for northern side of site.

 

Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal

Application as originally submitted

Zoning

B4 Mixed-Use

B3 Commercial Core

Height of Building

Part 24m (6-7 Storeys), part 28m (7-8 storeys) part 12m (3-4 storeys)

Removal of all height controls

FSR

3:1

13.5:1

 

14.    The Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal controls are informed by a heritage study undertaken by Urbis. The Applicant has put forward a suite of studies to argue that additional density and height is appropriate for this site (Attachments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13). Council obtained an independent heritage review undertaken by Hector Abrahams and Associates (Attachment 8) that recommended the Church Hall be retained but that they had no objection to a taller building and more density in the area of the subject site north of the Hall.

 

De-listing and removal of the Church Hall

 

15.    The Applicant has provided a number of heritage and other studies to justify the proposed de-listing and future removal of the Church Hall. The Applicant’s justification for the removal of the Church Hall is summarised as follows:

a.      The Church Hall has continuously evolved over time to support the needs of the Church congregation and now needs to evolve again to meet modern day requirements. The design and configuration of the Church Hall does not meet the need of modern congregations;

b.      The Church wishes to expand its ancillary facilities in the podium of the new proposed office tower on the northern side of the site and retaining the Church Hall means the new facilities would be fragmented across two buildings rather than incorporated and integrated in one new building;

c.       It is not viable for an A-grade office tower to be provided on site if the Church Hall is retained. In addition, the cost of constructing an A-grade office tower that is designed to accommodate the Church Hall and cantilever over the top of the Church Hall will add to the design complexity and cost of the redevelopment impacting on its viability;

d.      The Church wishes to provide a new civic space and new pedestrian laneway linking the new civic space to Macquarie Street along the western edge of the site, to provide an improved public domain outcome in front of the Cathedral. Removing the Church Hall will allow for the new civic space to be larger, better connected to other civic space around the Church and to Centenary Square and be better activated as the existing Church Hall has limited opportunities for openings and interactions along its southern edge fronting the new civic space. The area of civic space that the Church is able to contribute to the new civic square can be increased by 640 square metres from 1,210 square metres to 1,850 square metres, if the Church Hall is removed;

e.      For the Church to make their 100-year masterplan financially viable, they need to be able to develop a viable A-grade office building. This would also be a valuable contribution to the CBD where employment uses should be encouraged;

f.       Retaining the Church Hall would limit the ability to achieve a continuous functional basement; and

g.      The public benefit from the new public domain and the additional A-grade jobs will outweigh the public loss associated with the future demolition of the locally listed Church Hall.

 

16.    As part of the assessment, Council asked the Applicant to provide details of the different development outcomes on the site if the Hall is demolished or retained including an option with an office tower cantilevering over the Church Hall.

 

17.    As indicated above, the independent heritage assessment recommended the Church Hall be retained and that any tower adjoining it should not cantilever over the Hall. This position is supported by Council’s Heritage Advisor and the Heritage Advisory Committee.

 

18.    An independent assessment was undertaken by JPW Architects to test the viability of providing an A-grade office building if the Church Hall is retained. The key conclusions were that it is possible to achieve an A-grade office tower if the Church Hall is removed or if it cantilevers above the Hall but not if the Church Hall is retained.

 

19.    Copies of the heritage and A-grade office viability studies Council engaged are provided in Attachments 8 and 11.

 

20.    An assessment of the economic benefits of the proposal was obtained from Council’s Economic Development team who acknowledged the benefits and demand for additional A-grade office space in this location in the Parramatta CBD.

 

21.    The recommendation on whether the Church Hall should be demolished rests on the net public benefit from the project. The operational issues associated with the operation of the Church are secondary issues. The key issue is whether the public benefits accruing from the larger new civic space, the improved level of design and activation of this space and the economic benefits of an A-grade office space outweighs loss the community will experience by having a locally listed heritage item demolished. After considering the issues, Council officers consider that on balance the public benefits accruing to the community by the proposal are greater than the loss associated with potential demolition of the Church Hall, consequently, it is recommended Council support the Applicant’s proposal to de-list the Church Hall. De-listing the Church Hall from the heritage schedule in the Parramatta LEP 2011 will simplify the assessment of any future development application for demolition and increase the likelihood that any future proposed demolition will be approved.

 

Overshadowing of Parramatta Square

 

22.    Figure 3 shows the portion of Parramatta Square that the Parramatta LEP 2011 seeks to protect from overshadowing between 12pm and 2pm year round. Under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, it is proposed that this area be protected between 12pm and 2pm on 21 June. This would allow some overshadowing during other times of the year providing there is no shadow impact on 21 June.

 

23.    The northern office tower proposed by the Applicant complies with the proposed Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal control which would protect the site on 21 June from 12 pm to 2pm. The proposed office tower would overshadow the key portion of Parramatta Square between 12pm and 2pm during two periods of the year from March to May and August to October, but complies with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal controls.

 

 Figure 3 – Subject site in relation to Parramatta Square Sun Access Plane

 

24.    The conclusion of the assessment is that taller buildings can be supported on the northern portion of the site from a heritage viewpoint and that there is a net public benefit in promoting an A-grade office building on this site by allowing for the demolition of the existing Church Hall. Also, the shadow impact is consistent with Council’s overshadowing policy. Given these conclusions, the Applicant’s proposed de-listing and demolition of the Church Hall and an increase in FSR and heights are supported on the northern part of the site. The specific FSR and height recommended are discussed later in the report.

 

Residential building proposed at the southern end of site (fronting Hunter Street)

 

25.    The residential tower development is shown in Figure 2. The Applicant is proposing a 43-storey (154 metre high) residential tower building with up to 15,000 square metres of floor area. Development on the southern end of the site would be limited to the 45 Hunter Street site because the remainder of the southern part of the site is within the state listed curtilage of the Cathedral where development would not be supported.

26.    The applicant is also seeking to expand the existing B4 Mixed Use zoned area immediately west of the Cathedral, as shown in to Figure 4. This would allow an FSR to be applied to this land. This proposal if accepted would allow the Applicant to avoid application of the sliding-scale provision (by having sufficient land area to maximise the FSR) and allow a much bigger building on 45 Hunter Street than would be permitted under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. A comparison of the development permitted under the Applicant’s proposal and the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal is shown in Table 3.

 

Figure 4 – Applicant’s proposed zoning

 

Table 3 – Comparison of Applicant’s proposed and Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal controls

Scenario

Site Area (approx.)

FSR with Sliding-scale FSR

Floor Space Achievable

Height of building

Applicant’s proposal

1,600 m2*

9.4:1

14,500 m2

45-storeys

CBD Planning Proposal and recommendation for this site-specific Planning Proposal

864 m2^

6:1

5,184 m2

8-storeys

*Area Applicant is proposing to zone B4 Mixed use

^Site area of 45 Hunter Street.

 

27.    A detailed assessment of the urban design impacts indicates that permitting the Applicant’s proposed controls would produce an unacceptable urban design outcome with large towers with minimal setbacks and large blank walls on 45 Hunter Street and the adjoining site at 43 Hunter Street. The design outcome is inconsistent with the objectives of the Apartment Design Guide and Council’s policy framework. This detailed assessment is provided in Attachment 1. A better urban design outcome is achieved by encouraging amalgamation of 43 and 45 Hunter Street to obtain one tower with setbacks that comply with the objectives for the Apartment Design Guide and Council’s policy framework.

 

28.    Given the findings of the urban design assessment, a planning policy that encourages amalgamation of these sites is recommended. The existing Parramatta LEP 2011 and the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal both contain sliding-scale controls that seek to encourage amalgamation by allowing the landowners to achieve a higher FSR if they amalgamate their sites and achieve the greater site area and urban design outcomes. It is recommended that the FSR and height controls be permitted to increase in accordance with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and that the current sliding-scale controls be applied to encourage amalgamation and achievement of better urban design outcomes. 

 

ASSESSMENT OF OTHER PLANNING MATTERS

 

29.    An assessment of traffic, vehicle access, flooding and other statutory matters are provided at Attachment 1.

 

30.    This assessment includes an analysis of the impact of this Proposal on two sites at 83 Macquarie Street and 181 Church Street that will become isolated unless they can be amalgamated with the Church site and developed in an integrated manner. The two sites are shown in Figure 5.

 

Figure 5 – Isolated sites

 

 

31.    The isolated site assessment concludes that, if the two sites are developed separately, the development potential they will be able to achieve will not be greater than what is permitted under current controls in Parramatta LEP 2011 due to constraints related to protecting the view corridor to St John’s Cathedral.

 

32.    If they are amalgamated with the Church site, the net development potential will not increase and the urban design outcomes will not be significantly different.

 

33.    Given this, there is no benefit to any landowner or additional incentive to amalgamate these sites with the Church site if these sites are included in the subject site-specific Planning Proposal. These isolated sites are not considered an issue that warrants Council making a decision not to progress the current site-specific Planning Proposal.

 

34.    The assessment of these additional issues has identified a range of further amendments to the planning controls that are recommended for inclusion in the Planning Proposal. These are summarised in Table 4.

 

Table 4: Additional recommended controls

Recommended control

Justification

Allow basement parking as an additional permitted use in part of SP1 Special Activities (Place of Public Worship) zoned land to allow a single connected basement to be achieved

f9

Figure 6 : Applicant proposed basement parking Plan

The basement parking is unlikely to have a significant impact on the heritage significance of the Cathedral.

The potential benefits of achieving a large basement that links both the proposed building on the site is acknowledged.

Allowing this additional permitted use will allow the impact of a basement to be considered in more detailed at Development Application stage where otherwise it would not be permitted and not able to be considered.

Include car parking rates for the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal  endorsed by Council on 10 April 2017

Ensure consistency with Council’s resolved position on parking in the Parramatta CBD. The planning proposal would be unlikely to be supported by State Government planning or transport agencies unless this is included.

Include a 6m strip of land parallel to the rail line impacting on 41, 43 and 45 Hunter Street on the Land Reservation Acquisition Map to ensure that a new laneway can be delivered. While technically this will make Council the acquisition authority for this land it is envisaged that the laneway will be delivered as an infrastructure contribution that would be negotiated when these sites are redeveloped in the future rather than acquired by Council. Given the boundaries of the lots the impact on 43 and 45 is to take a 6m strip along the southern boundary of these site. However, 43 Hunter Street has a battle-axe handle driveway linking the site to Marsden Street that is approximately 4.5 metres wide so an additional 1.5m will be required. The proposed access way would cover this battle-axe driveway and so the land take from 41 Hunter Street will be in the order of 1.5m. (see Figure 10 in Attachment 1 for location of vehicle access laneway)

This laneway provides pedestrian safety benefits in Hunter Street and will ensure the new proposed civic space is more pedestrian friendly, by taking vehicles accessing these properties off Hunter Street. This also would provide an opportunity to resolve an access issue associated with 181 Church Street (ie Queensland Arcade). Current vehicle access to the Queensland Arcade site involves vehicles driving across a pedestrian zone immediately north of the Church Street railway underpass which represents an on-going pedestrian safety issue. This laneway could provide alternate access to this site to assist in resolving this pedestrian safety issue.

Solar Access provision to protect Parramatta Square from overshadowing,  

To apply controls consistent with Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal that propose to protect solar access in Parramatta Square. Details of these controls have been provided previously in this report.

Apply clause 7.6 Aeronautical Operations to this site

Given the height of the proposed buildings an assessment of their impact on aeronautical operations will be required to be undertaken at development application stage.

 

 

RECOMMENDED ZONING, FSR AND HEIGHT CONTROLS

 

35.    As a result of the assessment undertaken the zoning, FSR and height of buildings controls recommended for the site are shown in the Figure 7

 

36.    The controls recommended are consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal except for the zoning change to enable a new A-grade commercial building on the northern part of the site. The benefits associated with the new civic space and A-grade office building are considered on balance to provide adequate justification for the recommended de-listing of the Church Hall and the increase in FSR and height on the site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7:  Recommended Zoning, Height of Building and FSR Controls

 

SALE OF PART OF HUNTER STREET

 

37.    The proposed delivery of the new civic square is supported in principle as it will contribute to the supply of new open space in a strategically important area within the CBD, will enhance the setting of the western part of the site, which currently presents as a cul-de-sac at the end of Hunter Street, and complements existing adjoining civic spaces.

 

38.    The Applicant’s proposal includes the closure of part of Hunter Street to create a new rectangular civic space and to accommodate a new basement car park as shown in Figure 8. Council officers consider there is merit in pursuing the new civic space if the subject site is to be redeveloped in accordance with the Planning Proposal lodged.

 

Figure 8 – Portion of Hunter Street Applicant wishes to acquire to allow for basement car park

 

39.    It is recommended that Council in parallel with ongoing discussions with the Applicant on the Planning Agreement, undertake a more detailed assessment of the merits of closing the relevant portion of road and selling it to the Church. The assessment would be provided at the same time the report to progress the Planning Agreement for the site is reported to Council.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

40.    Council officers will work with the Applicant to prepare a draft site-specific DCP for the site, based on issues raised during the assessment of the proposal including but not limited to built form, flooding, heritage interpretation, access and service arrangements and requirements for the pedestrian laneway and civic square. The draft site-specific DCP will be reported to Council prior to its exhibition.

 

PLANNING AGREEMENT

 

41.    The Applicant submitted potential public benefits as part of their original Planning Proposal with further detail provided in a letter to Council on 12 September 2019. The Applicant has agreed to include the following in a Planning Agreement should Council be supportive of their proposal and in particular the de-listing and demolition of the Church Hall:

·    New civic space and laneway;

·    Immediate temporary vehicle access to 181 Church Street; and

·    Future permanent vehicle access along the rear of 45 Hunter Street.

 

42.    Negotiations on the Planning Agreement should take into consideration the following issues:

a.      Council’s Planning Agreements Policy;

b.      Council’s Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal Value Sharing Framework;

c.       The delivery of the proposed civic space, new pedestrian lane and embellishment of these spaces is proposed to offset the removal of the Church Hall. When assessing the Applicant’s offer against the CBD Planning Proposal, the value of these works should not be taken into account when determining whether the Applicant’s offer is consistent with Council’s policy framework.

d.      The recommended negotiating position is that any planning agreement contribution be in addition to development contributions required at the development application stage under Council’s CBD development contributions plan.

 

43.    A Draft Planning Agreement will be reported to Council for endorsement before it is placed on public exhibition.

 

LOCAL PLANNING PANEL ADVICE

 

44.    The Local Planning Panel considered a detailed assessment report on the Planning Proposal at its meeting on 3 December 2019. An extract of the Minutes from the Panel’s meeting is provided at Attachment 12.

 

45.    The Panel’s advice to Council relates to two key matters:

a.   de-listing the Church Hall from the heritage schedule; and

b.   consulting with landowners of 41 and 43 Hunter Street.

 

De-listing the Church Hall

 

46.    The Panel endorsed the Planning Proposal with all Council officer recommended amendments except Council officer’s recommended amendment to de-list the Church Hall from the heritage schedule. The Panel does not consider de-listing the Hall is appropriate. The Panel would instead prefer the merits of demolishing a listed heritage item to be tested further as part of a future development application by the Applicant.

 

47.    Council has commissioned a number of heritage reports, which include consideration of the subject site and Church Hall, in connection with the current site-specific Planning Proposal as well as the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. Council officers have also sought advice from Council’s Heritage Adviser and Heritage Advisory Committee. The Applicant has also commissioned multiple heritage reports. Given the comprehensive advice sought to date, it is unlikely that a further heritage report commissioned as part of a development application will reveal any significant new information.

 

48.    As noted in this report, Council officers acknowledge that de-listing and demolishing the Church Hall will impact on heritage, however, consider that on balance the public benefits that will be derived from de-listing and demolishing the Church Hall are of sufficient strategic importance to justify de-listing the Church Hall. The three key public benefits to be accrued from de-listing and demolishing the Church Hall are a larger new civic space, better activation of the civic space, and the provision of A-grade office space. These benefits will be particularly important owing to the site’s central and strategically important location.

 

49.    If Council seeks to retain the Church Hall and does not allow a cantilever the merit of zoning this portion of the site B3 Commercial Core is in question as an A-grade office tower cannot be achieved. This recommendation is critical to the corresponding Council officer recommendation on the zoning of the site. In the report to the Local Planning Panel it has been noted that if demolition of the Church Hall is supported then it should be conditional upon the zoning of the relevant portion of the site being amended from B4 Mixed Use (which permits residential development) to B3 Commercial Core (which prohibits residential development). This will effectively “lock in” the public benefit by requiring the site to provide a commercial/office use and prevent the site from being developed for a residential purpose after the Church Hall is demolished. If an A-grade commercial tower is not possible Council could consider retaining the existing B4 Mixed Use zoning to provide more flexibility in the future use of the site to the owner.

 

50.    However, it should be noted that the Applicant originally proposed the B3 Commercial Core zoning and have written to Council following the Local Planning Panel meeting of 3 December 2019 confirming that they support the B3 Commercial Core zoning being applied to this portion of the site regardless of the decision that is made by Council on the listing of the Church Hall.

 

51.    The Panel’s advice is that the preparation of a draft DCP for the site should address a number of principles including the following principle that relates to the Church Hall:

 

“Significant heritage interpretation of the Church Hall for potential future demolition”

 

52.    If Council resolves to retain the listing of the Church Hall, as per the Panel’s advice, Council officers advise that the draft DCP to be prepared for the site should incorporate controls that promote the retention and interpretation of the Church Hall. Section 3.42 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 states that the purpose of a DCP is to give effect to the aims and objectives of the relevant planning instrument. If the Church Hall remains listed the aim and objective of Council’s Parramatta LEP 2011 will be that the Church Hall be retained, enhanced and interpreted as a heritage item. Therefore, any DCP controls that are drafted should facilitate the retention, enhancement and interpretation of the Church Hall not foreshadow its demolition. As noted, retention of the Church Hall will mean that the three key benefits from removing the Church Hall cannot be realised.

 

53.    The Applicant when they first submitted the Planning Proposal were not seeking to have the Church Hall de-listed. They amended their Planning Proposal after a request from Council officers once Council officers advised the Applicant that de-listing was the officers’ preferred position to ensure planning controls will be consistent.

 

54.    The Applicant in their original Planning Proposal were proposing that the listing be retained but that the Church Hall be demolished. The process they envisaged to achieve this outcome was that a Development Application would be lodged to seek approval to demolish the Church Hall. The Applicant as part of this process was requesting that Council consider DCP controls that allowed for/envisaged the Church Hall potentially being demolished.

 

55.    If the Church Hall is not delisted and DCP controls that specifically contemplate removal of the Church Hall are not prepared, the absence of specific DCP controls relevant to the demolition will mean Council cannot determine the planning framework to positively influence the design of a proposed development proposing to remove the Church Hall at the development application stage. As Council will not be able to impose controls, if the relevant planning panel supports removing the Church Hall,  the panel rather than Council will determine issues such as:

a.   how far back the new commercial podium should be setback;

b.   what the minimum expanded area of the new civic square must be if the Church Hall is removed;

c.   design of the new podium to ensure appropriate activation of the new civic square;

d.   what the tower setback from the new podium should be to minimise visual amenity impacts of the new tower on the new civic square ensure; and

e.   interpretation of the Church Hall in the new development if the Church Hall is removed.

 

56.    Instead, in the absence of specific DCP controls on how to address these matters, the applicant will propose their own approach on how to do this. It will also mean Council cannot negotiate to secure the expansion of the new civic square in the Planning Agreement. Instead, it would rely on the applicant volunteering to offer to enter into a Planning Agreement at the development application. As noted, expansion of the new civic square is one of three key public benefits underpinning the Planning Proposal.

 

57.    The decision that Council makes on the draft DCP will be critical. The advice of Council officers is that if the listing of the Church Hall is to be retained the draft DCP should include controls that are consistent with the aim and objectives of the Parramatta LEP 2011 and that seek to retain, enhance and interpret the Church Hall as a heritage item.

 

58.    Including DCP controls that envisage that the Church Hall may be demolished (despite it being heritage listed) would result in an inconsistent policy framework. It would leave the community having to interpret controls where it is unclear whether Council supports demolition or not, and would set a precedent for other sites/applicants who may seek two possible development scenarios in the DCP controls for their site if they contain a heritage item: one with the heritage item retained and one with it demolished. Council officers do not consider that this would be an appropriate precedent.

 

59.    Council officers’ recommendations is that the Church Hall be de-listed to provide a clear policy framework for the future redevelopment of the subject site.

 

Consulting with landowners of 41 and 43 Hunter Street

 

60.    The Panel also consider that the revised Planning Proposal should be forwarded to the DPIE with a request for a Gateway determination only after consultation with landowners of 41 and 43 Hunter Street.

 

61.    It is understood the landowners are concerned about Council officers’ recommendation that the Planning Proposal be amended so that a portion of land at 41, 43 Hunter Street is identified on the Land Reservation Acquisition Map. As noted, this is to facilitate the creation of a 6-metre wide vehicle laneway to provide future vehicle access to these three sites and the Queensland Arcade site at 181 Church Street (refer to Figure 10 in Attachment 1 for the location of the proposed lane).

 

62.    It is understood landowners’ concerns include the level of notification provided before the Panel meeting, potential financial impacts and a perception Council officers recommended the amendment to favour the Applicant.

 

63.    Council officers recommended the amendment for public interest reasons, namely, to assist with addressing public safety, amenity and accessibility issues associated with current vehicle access arrangements to Queensland Arcade. Council officers did not recommend the amendment to favour the Applicant.

 

64.    As outlined in this report, the preferred approach is for affected landowners to dedicate the land when they redevelop their sites, so they can still ‘harvest’ the floor space from the dedicated land and it does not impact on their sites’ development potential. Compulsory acquisition is not the preferred approach.

 

65.    In the unlikely event the land is acquired compulsorily, it would be governed by the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. A key objective of this Act is to guarantee that, when land affected by a proposal for acquisition by an authority of the State is eventually acquired, the amount of compensation will be not less than the market value of the land (unaffected by the proposal) at the date of acquisition.

 

66.    When Council proposes a change to planning controls it typically consults with affected landowners during the statutory public exhibition phase of the planning proposal. There is also a risk the DPIE may determine that the Planning Proposal cannot progress or it may impose conditions that substantially change the Planning Proposal.

 

67.    If Council accepts the Panel’s advice to consult before requesting a Gateway Determination, it will require the submission of a further report to Council in 2020 so that Council can consider the outcome of this consultation with the owners of 41 and 43 Hunter Street prior to the Planning Proposal being referred to the DPIE. If following this consultation Council decides to proceed and a Gateway Determination is issued, a further statutory consultation period will be required where these landowners will be consulted a second time. The duplication of the consultation will extend the timeframe for the processing of this Planning Proposal.

 

68.    Council officers do not consider that the consultation process should be duplicated and recommend that the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the DPIE immediately and the owners of 41 and 43 Hunter Street be consulted as part of the statutory consultation process required after the DPIE provides a Gateway determination.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

69.    The report has flagged that Council may need to acquire a narrow strip of land along the rear of 41 and 43 Hunter Street to enable a future vehicle laneway. Council will only need to acquire the land if Council is unable to facilitate the dedication of land for this laneway through the redevelopment of these sites.

 

70.    A preliminary assessment of the financial impact of any future acquisition has been provided to Council under separate cover. The new vehicle laneway will be considered for inclusion in the new Parramatta CBD Contributions Plan being prepared in parallel with the CBD Planning Proposal. Options will be pursued to minimise the likelihood that Council will need to formally acquire the land. The option of having the land dedicated to Council at no or minimal cost as part of redevelopment of the relevant sites will be the first option pursued.

 

71.    A contribution to Council for community infrastructure should be sought as part of ongoing negotiations on the Planning Agreement. This might take the form of a monetary contribution to fund Council works but the details of this are subject to negotiation with the Applicant. The Applicant as part of the discussions to date has flagged the potential dedication of a portion of 45 Hunter Street to create the new vehicle lane as a potential inclusion in a future Planning Agreement.

 

72.    The potential closure and sale of part of Hunter Street to allow the Church to create a new rectangular civic space with car parking below should also be investigated. The sale of this land would also generate revenue for Council, which could also be allocated to community infrastructure provision in the CBD.

 

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

 

73.    It is recommended that Council endorse a Planning Proposal for the purposes of public exhibition that proposes to amend Parramatta LEP 2011 to apply the following controls on the subject site:

·    Rezone a portion of the site from part B4 Mixed Use and part SP1 Special Activities (Place of Public Worship) to B3 Commercial Core;

·    Apply an FSR of 10:1 on the northern portion to be zoned B3 Commercial Core and include a special provision that allows unlimited office floor space on this part of the site;

·    Apply FSR controls to the remainder of the site consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and apply the sliding-scale contained in Parramatta LEP 2011 to the B4 Mixed Use portions of the site;

·    Apply a maximum height of building control of 211 metres RL for the majority of the portion of the site proposed to be zoned B3 Commercial Core with a height limit of 12 metres to be applied to a strip adjoining Centenary Square;

·    Apply height of building controls to the remainder of the site in accordance with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, which proposes 211 metres RL for the B4 Mixed Use zone with no height controls for the portion recommended to retain the existing SP1 Special Activities (Place of Public Worship) zone;

·    Apply the solar access provisions to protect the public domain of Parramatta Square and aeronautical operations clause consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal;

·    Remove the Church Hall from the heritage schedule;

·    Allow basement parking as an additional permitted use in a portion of the SP1 Special Activities (Place of Public Worship) zoned land;

·    Identify on the Land Reservations Acquisition Map the parts of 41, 43 and 45 Hunter Street required for potential acquisition to enable creation of a new vehicle laneway; and

·    Apply the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal car parking rates.

 

74.    Should Council endorse the attached Planning Proposal subject to the recommendations of this report, the Council will prepare the Planning Proposal for forwarding to the DPIE to seek a Gateway Determination.

 

75.    While waiting for the Gateway Determination, Council officers will work with the Applicant to prepare a draft site-specific DCP for the site, based on the issues raised within this report. In addition, the Applicant will be invited to negotiate a Planning Agreement. A separate report will be provided to Council on these matters to seek Council’s endorsement for exhibition purposes, concurrent with the Planning Proposal.

 

Jonathon Carle

Land Use Planning Manager

 

Geoff King

Group Manager City Strategy

 

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Strategy and Development

 

 

Attachments:

1

Attachment 1 - Report to Local Planning Panel (including extract of minute from panel meeting)

40 Pages

 

2

Attachment 2 - Planning Proposal -St John's Cathedral Site, 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 41-45 Hunter Street1

54 Pages

 

3

Attachment 3 - Applicant Urban Design Report

104 Pages

 

4

Attachment 4 - Applicant Traffic Assessment

74 Pages

 

5

Attachment 5 - Applicant Heritage Impact Statement

56 Pages

 

6

Attachment 6 - Applicant Draft Conservation Management Plan

236 Pages

 

7

Attachment 7 - Applicant Submission  Solar Access to Parramatta Square

25 Pages

 

8

Attachment 8 - City Commissioned Heritage Advice

16 Pages

 

9

Attachment 9 - Applicant Heritage Report Responding to Independent Heritage Review

19 Pages

 

10

Attachment 10 -  Applicant Landscape Report Responding to Independent Heritage Review

8 Pages

 

11

Attachment 11 -  City commissioned independent office building concept assessment

41 Pages

 

12

Attachment 12 - Applicant ground plane study responding to independent office building assessment

10 Pages

 

13

Attachment 13 - Applicant further heritage assessment responding to independent office building assessment

2 Pages

 

 

 

REFERENCE MATERIAL

 


Item 18.4 - Attachment 1

Attachment 1 - Report to Local Planning Panel (including extract of minute from panel meeting)

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 18.4 - Attachment 2

Attachment 2 - Planning Proposal -St John's Cathedral Site, 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 41-45 Hunter Street1

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 18.4 - Attachment 3

Attachment 3 - Applicant Urban Design Report

 









































































































Item 18.4 - Attachment 4

Attachment 4 - Applicant Traffic Assessment

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator






PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator



Item 18.4 - Attachment 5

Attachment 5 - Applicant Heritage Impact Statement

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 18.4 - Attachment 6

Attachment 6 - Applicant Draft Conservation Management Plan

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator
















PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator