Agenda of Local Planning Panel

Local Planning Panel 16 June 2020 Item 6.1

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 6.1

SUBJECT Pre-Gateway: Planning Proposal for land at 355 and 375 Church St, Parramatta

REFERENCE RZ/10/2018 - D07161401

REPORT OF Acting Team Leader Land Use Planning

APPLICANT Stockland Development Pty Ltd

LANDOWNER McDonald’s Australia Ltd

PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS

DA/96/2015 – Staged development involving a redeveloped McDonald’s restaurant and concept approval for a future-mixed-use development; the Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel deferred its formal determination on this matter, and the application was withdrawn May 2016.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek the Local Planning Panel’s advice to Council on a Planning Proposal for land at 355 and 375 Church Street, Parramatta. This report recommends forwarding the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) with a request for a Gateway Determination.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Local Planning Panel consider the following Council officer recommendation in the Panel’s advice to Council:

(a) That Council endorse for the purpose of forwarding to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) with a request for a Gateway Determination, the Planning Proposal at Attachment 1 to amend Parramatta LEP 2011 for land at 355 and 375 Church St, Parramatta as follows:

1) Apply the Prince Alfred Square Solar Access Plane as the height controls for this site

2) Increase FSR from part 3:1/part 4:1 to 6:1 (exclusive of Design Excellence)

3) Apply maximum car parking rates as follows:

i. For floorspace used for the purposes of Take Away Food and Drink Premises: 1 space / 30 square metres of Gross Floor Area or 30 spaces (whichever is less). Noting that the Planning Proposal also includes a 5-year sunset clause for this parking rate, after which time this rate would revert to the rate contained in the draft Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

ii. For residential and other commercial floorspace not part of the use described in 3)(i): the rates which are currently contained in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

(b) That Council advises DPIE that the Chief Executive Officer will not be exercising the plan-making delegations for this Planning Proposal as authorised by Council on 26 November 2012.

(c) That a draft site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) for the subject site be prepared that addresses matters including but not limited to:

1) Further defining the preferred two-tower scheme, including podium heights and tower setbacks, with a view to minimising any non-compliances with relevant ADG requirements;

2) Relationship to and mitigating impacts on Heritage Items;

3) Traffic issues such as sightlines, vehicle queuing, pedestrian safety and bicycle parking;

4) Demonstrating adaptive re-use potential of drive-through facility and at least some of the parking spaces proposed;

5) Active frontage requirements; and

6) Relationship to 383 Church Street isolated site.

(d) That the CEO be authorised to negotiate a draft Planning Agreement with the landowner in accordance with the Parramatta CBD Community Infrastructure framework.

(e) That the draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement are reported back to Council prior to their concurrent exhibition with the Planning Proposal.

(f) Further, 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.

PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE

BACKGROUND

1. On 21 August 2018, Stockland Development Pty Ltd (“the applicant”) lodged a Planning Proposal with Council on behalf of McDonald’s Australia Ltd (“the landowner”) for land at 355 and 375 Church Street, Parramatta (“the site”).

2. The site was the subject of a previous Development Application (DA/96/2015) which proposed a staged development involving a redeveloped McDonald’s restaurant and concept approval for a future mixed-use development. On 11 November 2015, the Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) deferred its formal determination of this matter, noting:

“[the Panel] considers the development as now proposed is a lost opportunity to present a major architectural feature on this significant site which is located at the intersection of two historical roadways within Parramatta. The Panel acknowledge the Design Excellence Advisory Panel’s opinion that substantial amendment is required to create a building of more appropriate scale and city character in this very significant location of Parramatta, particularly given Parramatta’s role as Sydney’s western CBD.”

3. This DA was subsequently withdrawn in May 2016. Following withdrawal of the DA, the landowner and applicant prepared a Planning Proposal in response to the evolving strategic planning context for the Parramatta CBD.

THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT

4. The site is illustrated in Figure 1 below. It is located in the block bounded by Victoria Road, Villiers Street, Ross Street and Church Street, Parramatta, and has an approximate site area of 4,796 square metres. The site has frontages to Victoria Road, Church Street and Ross Street. Prince Alfred Square is located South of the site (across Victoria Street), and the Parramatta Light Rail (PLR) Stage 1 corridor runs adjacent to the site along Church Street.

Figure 1: Subject site at 355 and 375 Church Street and surrounding context

Source: Council’s internal mapping with annotations from Council officers

5. Existing development on the site includes a two-storey retail/commercial building (corner of Victoria Road/Church Street), a McDonald’s restaurant (including surface parking and drive-through with vehicle access to both Victoria Road and Ross Street) and a two-storey office building (facing Ross Street).

6. The site does not include 383 Church Street, located at the corner of Ross and Church Streets. The existing development at 383 Church Street is a three-storey retail/commercial building. This report addresses the relationship between the subject Planning Proposal and 383 Church Street.

7. The western half of this city block is characterised by low to mid-rise commercial buildings. A previous Planning Proposal (RZ/9/2013) which was finalised in 2016 increased the planning controls over a portion of the western half of the block (illustrated in Figure 1) and involved increasing the FSR control from 2:1 to 4.8:1, and the maximum height control from 24m to 49m. RZ/9/2013 was initiated prior to Council’s strategic work to increase planning controls across the Parramatta CBD through the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal process, and therefore did not respond to the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

COMPARISON OF PLANNING CONTROLS: EXISTING, PARRAMATTA CBD PLANNING PROPOSAL AND SITE-SPECIFIC PLANNING PROPOSAL

8. Table 1 outlines the planning controls for the site under three scenarios: (1) existing, (2) Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and (3) recommended by Council officers for this site-specific Planning Proposal.

Table 1: Comparison of planning controls

	Parramatta LEP 2011	Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal endorsed by Council 25 November 2019	Planning Proposal recommended in this report
Zoning	B4 Mixed Use	B4 Mixed Use	B4 Mixed Use
Max. height of building	Part 34m, part 24m	Prince Alfred Square Sun Access Plane (approx. 29 stories maximum within the portion of the site affected by the Sun Access Plane and no height limit on portion of site outside the Sun Access Plane)	Prince Alfred Square Sun Access Plane (in the preferred reference design, this results in approx. 29 storeys within the portion of the site affected by the Sun Access Plane and approx. 32 storeys on the portion of the site outside the Sun Access Plane)
Maximum FSR	Part 3:1, part 4:1	6:1 (plus Design Excellence i.e. 6.9:1)	6:1 (plus Design Excellence i.e. 6.9:1)
Site-specific provisions	Nil	Maximum car parking rates: Residential: Studio: 0.1 spaces 1 bed: 0.3 spaces 2 bed: 0.7 spaces 3 bed: 1 space Commercial premises: M = (G X A) / (50 X T) Where: M is the maximum number of parking spaces, G is the gross floor area of all commercial uses in the building in square metres, A is the site area in square metres, and T is the total gross floor area of all buildings on the site in square metres Commercial - Take away food and drink premises: no rate provided.	Maximum car parking rates: Residential: Studio: 0.1 spaces 1 bed: 0.3 spaces 2 bed: 0.7 spaces 3 bed: 1 space Commercial premises (excluding Take Away Food and Drink Premises): M = (G X A) / (50 X T) Where: M is the maximum number of parking spaces, G is the gross floor area of all commercial uses (excluding Take Away Food and Drink Premises) in the building in square metres, A is the site area in square metres, and T is the total gross floor area of all buildings on the site in square metres Commercial - Take Away Food and Drink Premises: 1 space / 30 sqm GFA or 30 spaces, whichever is less; include a 5-year sunset clause for this provision
Maximum gross floor area (GFA)	15,047m²	33,092m²	33,092m²
Maximum dwelling yield	Approximately 177 units (maximum GFA / 85 m² for high density dwellings)	Approximately 389 residential units (assuming average GFA / 85 m² for high density dwellings and all FSR built as residential)	Approximately 346 residential units and approximately 1,355m² for Commercial Uses and Take Away Food and Drink Premises (as per current reference design)

9. Under the current provisions of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, the development proposed in the reference design would be eligible for the High-Performing Building Bonus. However, it is noted that the Applicant has not requested application of this bonus through this site-specific Planning Proposal process and given this the ability of this site to achieve the bonus within the solar access plane has not been tested. The Applicant could potentially seek this bonus at DA stage, depending on the timing of that DA assessment process and the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal process.

10. Procedurally, it is recommended that the height and FSR controls outlined above are contained in a site-specific clause, rather than as mapped amendments. This is because current Parramatta LEP 2011 maps do not contain the Prince Alfred Square Sun Access Plane (this is to be introduced under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal). It is noted that further guidance regarding structural clause drafting will be provided by DPIE and Parliamentary Counsel later in the process if required.

11. In summary, this Planning Proposal is consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, with the exception of specifying a parking rate for the Take Away Food and Drink Premises use proposed as part of the reference design. This issue is discussed in further detail later in this report.

ASSESSMENT OF KEY PLANNING ISSUES

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

12. The FSR sought under this Planning Proposal (6:1 FSR + 15% Design Excellence bonus, bringing the total FSR to 6.9:1) is consistent with the provisions for this site under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. This aspect of the Planning Proposal is therefore supported by Council officers.

Height and Sun Access Plane (SAP) to Prince Alfred Square

13. Under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, the height controls for this site are determined by the Prince Alfred Square Sun Access Plane (SAP). The SAP ensures that no additional overshadowing is created on the southern part of the Square between 12pm-2pm in midwinter (21 June). Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the protected portion of the park, and the impact that this control has on the potential building envelope for this site.

Figure 2: Portion of Prince Alfred Square protected by SAP (blue hatching)

Source: Draft Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (as at time of report writing)

Figure 3: Prince Alfred Square SAP and resulting building envelope on subject site

Source: Applicant’s reference design

14. The Planning Proposal aligns with the desired outcomes of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal on this issue, as it seeks to replicate the Prince Alfred Square SAP in its provisions and presents a preferred scheme that is compliant with this SAP (as discussed in the following section). Therefore, Council officers support the changes to height controls sought under this Planning Proposal.

Reference Design and Tower Massing

15. The applicant prefers a two-tower scheme on the site due to the market advantages of a staged development. However, the development of a two-tower reference design for this site indicated that there would likely be some non-compliances with setback and building separation requirements. To address this issue, the applicant explored one-tower and two-tower reference design schemes in the urban design analysis submitted as part of the Planning Proposal (refer to Attachment 2). Example images of these two schemes are shown below in Figures 4 and 5. Both schemes are compliant with the Prince Alfred Square SAP, as discussed in the previous section.

Figure 4: Example view - Two-tower reference design scheme –outlined in red

Source: Applicant’s reference design with annotations by Council officers

Figure 5: Example view - one-tower reference design scheme (outlined in red)

Source: Applicant’s reference design with annotations by Council officers

16. The one-tower scheme (shown in Figure 5) has a 7-8 storey podium and a single tall tower of 48 storeys fronting Church Street. The Prince Alfred Square SAP is the main driver behind the form of this scheme. The SAP impacts development massing on this site by push the massing “down” into a higher podium and “out” to the eastern part of the site to become concentrated into a single tall tower located on the Church St frontage.

17. The two-tower scheme (shown in Figure 4) has a 3-4 storey podium and two offset towers of 28-32 storeys. This scheme does have some non-compliances with separation requirements set out in the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), as well as upper-level (i.e. tower) setback requirements set out in the Parramatta Development Control Plan (DCP) 2011. These non-compliances include:

a. Tower setback of 3m along Church St (the DCP specifies 4m);

b. Building separation between the upper levels of the two towers is 9-12m, which is less than that specified in the ADG (12-24m); and

c. Building separation between Ross Street tower and potential development at 383 Church St (discussed in further detail in a later section of this report).

18. Despite these non-compliances, Council officers consider that the scale of the towers and podium in the two-tower scheme is more sensitive to the local context, which includes Church Street, Heritage-listed Prince Alfred Square, and other nearby Heritage items. Council officers consider that the scale of the podium of the two-tower scheme is more appropriately matched with that of nearby buildings, and that dividing the mass between two towers creates a more appropriate relationship between towers on this site and other likely future development in the vicinity (as envisioned under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal). To illustrate this point, Figure 6 illustrates the massing of the preferred two-tower scheme within the outline (blue dashed line) of the massing of the one-tower scheme.

Figure 6: Two-tower scheme (solid massing) vs. one-tower scheme (blue dashed line)

Source: Applicant’s reference design

19. In conclusion, Council officers support progressing a two-tower scheme as the preferred reference design for this site based on the analysis above. It is recommended that an important focus for the Design Competition and Development Control Plan (DCP) processes for this site will be to minimise any non-compliances of a two-tower scheme.

Heritage

20. The Planning Proposal is located in close proximity to many Heritage-listed items; those items closest to the site are detailed in Figure 7 and Table 2. The nearest Heritage Conservation Areas to this site are the North Parramatta and Sorrell Street Conservation Areas, the borders of which are located approximately one block from the subject site to the northwest and northeast respectively (red hatching in Figure 7).

Figure 7: Extract of Council’s Heritage Map - subject site in blue

Source: Parramatta LEP 2011 (with added annotation for subject site)

Table 2: Heritage Items located closest to site

PLEP 2011 Item no.	Item (all Items are Local Heritage items unless noted as State–listed)
I686	Alfred Square and potential archaeological site - State-listed item
I747	Horse trough (adjacent to 353a Church St)
I687	St Peter’s Uniting Church and studio theatre (and potential archaeological site)
I690	Anthony Malouf and Co
I691	Royal Oak Hotel and stables (and potential archaeological site)*
I742	Single-storey residence (14 Ross Street)
I743	Wine bar bistro (16 Ross Street)
I541	Lurlinea and potential archaeological site (8-10 Ross Street)
I550	Convent of Our Lady of Mercy and associated buildings
I00238	St. Patrick’s Cathedral, presbytery and precinct (and potential archaeological site) - State-listed item

*The Hotel has recently been demolished as part of the Parramatta Light Rail project. The stables, which are of significance, remain on the site.

21. The applicant submitted a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) alongside the Planning Proposal. The final version of the HIS is included at Attachment 6.

22. Council’s heritage officer has reviewed the proposal and requested that the proposal be consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. Given the proximity to Prince Alfred Square (a State-listed item), Council’s heritage officer also recommended that preliminary consultation be undertaken with the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).

23. OEH responded to Council officers’ referral with preliminary comments, which have been reviewed by Council officers and the Applicant. The Applicant has completed some additional work in response to these comments. For the information of the decision-makers, community and DPIE assessment staff, in Table 3 Council officers have copied OEH’s preliminary comments into this report and included a response.

Table 3: OEH preliminary comments and response

OEH Preliminary Comment	Council Officer Response
“The HIS has concentrated on the potential impact of the proposed development on views to and from the heritage items, more consideration needs to be given to assessing the impact of the proposal on the setting of heritage items in the immediate vicinity. Photomontages demonstrating the relationship between the new element and heritage items in the immediate vicinity should be provided in an updated HIS. The updated HIS should clearly articulate mitigation strategies recommended to reduce or avoid adverse impact on heritage items. Appropriate setbacks for the tower elements should be considered in the HIS. The proposed development should not overwhelm the neighbouring park or dominate vistas along Victoria Road.” “[the HIS] ... discusses views to and from heritage items in the vicinity however the images provided to not show a representation of proposed to development. Photomontages would assist in the assessment of the potential impact on views to and from these items. An updated HIS should included photomontages showing the extent to which the proposed development can be seen in identified views. Representations of the proposed structures should be solid (not semi-transparent).”	The Planning Proposal is consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, the formulation of which has taken into account impacts on heritage items. The HIS originally submitted by the applicant has been updated to include a diagrammatic cross-section showing the relationship between the reference design’s podium and St. Patrick’s Cathedral. The Planning Proposal considers changes to planning controls with a potential reference design envelope only (i.e. it does not consider detailed proposed development). Therefore, Council officers consider that a more detailed examination of impacts on heritage items (including issues such as setbacks, relationship to Prince Alfred Square, vistas, views etc.) and mitigation strategies should form part of later stages of this project, (including DCP, design competition and DA) when the specific nature of the proposed development is known. Officers also consider that photomontages are more appropriately included at those later stages of development (again, when the specific nature of the proposed development is known).
“Documentation accompanying the proposal indicates that large part of Prince Alfred Park will be overshadowed in winter as a result of the proposed development. This may impact on the use of this historic park and on its plantings. The concept design should seek to mitigate or avoid this impact. An updated HIS should address the impact of the overshadowing of the park on the significance of this item.”	The Planning Proposal complies with the Prince Alfred Square SAP, which seeks to protect the southern half of Prince Alfred Square. The Planning Proposal is considering changes to planning controls with a potential reference design envelope only (i.e. it does not consider detailed proposed development). Therefore, officers consider that further mitigation of the impacts on Prince Alfred Square should be investigated at later stages (including DCP, design competition and DA) when the specific nature of the proposed development is known.
“The podium elevation should be appropriately articulated on its street frontages to avoid the creation of a ‘wall effect’ along the length of the site.”	Officers consider that podium articulation is a design issue best addressed through the DCP and design competition stages. Nevertheless, the applicant has added further consideration of the podium’s relationship to nearby Heritage Items to the amended HIS; this discussion suggests a green interface with landscaping elements on the podium to break up the podium element and extend the green space established by Prince Alfred Square.
“The Australian Government, the NSW Government and Parramatta City Council have signed a Conservation Agreement under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to protect the world and National Heritage values of Old Government House and Domain (OGHD) in relation to its significant views and settings. The Agreement requires that the findings of the Technical Report (Planisphere 2012) be implemented. Council should satisfy themselves that the requirements of the Conservation Agreement have been met.” “The HIS identifies that the proposed development is within the ‘sensitive’ zone for views from Old Government House and Domain. The Technical Report includes design requirements that proposed development should address. An updated HIS should demonstrate how the proposed development meets these requirements.”	The outcome of the analysis and discussions between Council and the State, Federal Agencies when formulating the Conservation Agreement described by OEH is that only the sites in the Area of Special Significance (a precinct located south west of the subject site) would be subject of the agreement. Outside this precinct Council could continue to plan to allow growth in other parts of the Parramatta CBD without having to refer the changes to the Federal Government under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Area of Special Significance is the most significant precinct when it comes to the world and National Heritage values of Old Government House and Domain (OGHD). The impacts of growth outside the Area of Special Significance were considered in the Heritage Study prepared by Urbis (2015) undertaken as part of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. The conclusion of this study was that the growth proposed in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal does not have any significant impact on the world and National Heritage values of Old Government House and Domain (OGHD). The Planning Proposal does not propose development; it proposes to change planning controls consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. One of the factors considered in preparation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal were the various planning requirements relating to OGHD.
“An archaeological assessment may be required. Depending on the recommendations of the assessment further archaeological investigation maybe recommended prior to commencement of works. It is desirable that intact State significant archaeology be retained in situ.”	Broadly, the Planning Proposal does not change the potential archaeological impacts in comparison to the current planning controls for this site, as this site already has significant development potential under current controls. The Planning Proposal is seeking to allow more height and floorspace on the site. The site would be subject to archaeological assessment at DA stage, whether developed under current planning controls or the controls envisaged by the Planning Proposal. Therefore, it is not considered that an archaeological assessment is required at Planning Proposal stage. Consistent with officers’ approach to other similar site-specific Planning Proposals in the Parramatta CBD, officers recommend that archaeological matters are dealt with at DA stage.

24. Council officers acknowledge that some of the extra work requested by OEH in their preliminary comments was not completed at this initial stage of the Planning Proposal process. Pending a Gateway determination that authorises exhibition, OEH will be asked to comment formally on this Planning Proposal. OEH will have the opportunity at that point to revisit the preliminary comments made on this proposal, review the work done by the applicant in the interim, and make formal comment about any outstanding matters. Furthermore, DPIE consults Government agencies prior to issuing Gateway determinations as required, so it is assumed that OEH would have an opportunity to provide DPIE with advice about any necessary Gateway conditions with respect to heritage if DPIE considered this was necessary prior to issuing a Gateway determination.

Flooding

25. As illustrated in Figure 8, a portion of the site is within the area of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). However, the site is not affected by the 100-year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) flood area (i.e the “1%” flood zone).

Figure 8: Portion of site affected by PMF (denoted with light blue shading)

Source: Council’s internal mapping (subject site outlined in red)

26. Council officers have reviewed the applicant’s flood assessment (Attachment 5) submitted with the Planning Proposal. Council officers consider that river flooding is not an impediment to progression of this Planning Proposal, and that any overland flow issues can be addressed as part of a future DA process.

Interface with Parramatta Light Rail (PLR)

27. Council officers undertook a preliminary referral to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) given that the site is adjacent to the PLR Stage 1 corridor. TfNSW responded requesting further work relating to traffic impacts on the site. Council officers clarified with TfNSW which elements of the requested further work are relevant at Planning Proposal stage, and these elements are detailed in Table 4 along with an officer response.

Table 4: TfNSW preliminary comments and response

TfNSW Preliminary Comment	Council Officer Response
“A Traffic Impact Assessment should consider the existing and future performance of key intersections providing access to the site, supported by appropriate modelling and analysis to the satisfaction of RMS and TfNSW. The TIA should include proposed measures to mitigate impacts of the proposed development on the operation of existing and future traffic, public transport, pedestrian and bicycle networks including any required upgrades.”	The Applicant has submitted a traffic assessment that examines existing and future performance of key intersections. TfNSW will have the opportunity to comment formally on this assessment as part of agency referral and can identify any additional measures required for the satisfaction of transport agencies through that process.
“The TIA should include an assessment of any impacts of the development on the Parramatta Light Rail (PLR). During the construction and operation phases of the Parramatta Light Rail (PLR) there will be intermittent, short and long term road closures as well as material changes to road network operations. These changes may impact pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular access routes to the proposed development and should be included in any analysis.”	Council officers agreed with TfNSW’s view that the Applicant should review the PLR Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and related documents in greater detail, and consider these in an amended traffic assessment. This review has been undertaken and the Applicant’s traffic assessment has been updated to include changes to the road network as a result of the PLR (in particular the changes to the intersection of Victoria Road and Church St).

28. TfNSW has agreed with Council officers that the other matters raised in their preliminary comments (pertaining to issues such as sustainable transport options, construction management arrangements, and accommodation of freight and services) could be addressed at DA stage when the specific nature of the proposed development is known.

29. This site was originally proposed for partial acquisition under the PLR Stage 1 EIS to facilitate road widening. Following a more detailed design review of property impacts, TfNSW formally advised the applicant that PLR would not require road widening at this site. This advice has been shared with Council officers. Therefore, no concern is raised with the need for road widening in relation to PLR.

30. Based on the above, Council officers do not consider PLR an impediment to this Planning Proposal’s progress. As noted previously in relation to preliminary comments from OEH, it is envisiged that TfNSW will have the opportunity to make formal comment to DPIE (if required as part of the Gateway determination process) and to Council (as part of the exhibition process) later in the Planning Proposal process.

Traffic and Access Issues

31. As shown in Figure 9, the reference design envisages dual vehicle access from both Victoria Road (entry) and Ross Street (entry and exit), with retention of a drive-through facility located within the podium. The drive-through is integrated into the basement design and sleeved by lobbies and commercial/retail uses.

Figure 9: Ground floor plan demonstrating access and drive-through arrangements

Source: Applicant’s reference design

32. The applicant has submitted a traffic report alongside the Planning Proposal (refer Attachment 4). This report concludes that, in comparison to current traffic generation on the site, the reference design will result in a reduction of traffic during peak periods. Council officers queried the conclusions related to reduced traffic generation in an earlier version of the traffic report, and the applicant responded that this is due to the reduction in traffic generation from the redeveloped McDonald’s restaurant offsetting the future traffic generation of the new uses at the site.

33. Council’s traffic team requested that the applicant acknowledge that the right turn entry into the site from Victoria Road may be restricted in the future if this movement impacts on the traffic performance of Victoria Road. The applicant has acknowledged this point in a written response to Council.

34. Council’s traffic and transport officers have requested that sightlines, vehicle queueing, pedestrian safety and bicycle parking are addressed in further detail. It is recommended that these matters are addressed in future site-specific DCP, Design Competition and DA processes for this site.

35. Given concerns about vehicle congestion and the need to rebalance transport habits towards active transport in a growing CBD identified in Council’s strategic transport work, Council officers raised the concern that the drive-through facility associated with the McDonald’s restaurant may not be the optimal long-term outcome for this site. The applicant responded to this view by demonstrating their consideration of future adaptive re-uses for the drive-through facility, should it no longer be commercially desirable in the future. This response is included in the reference design at Attachment 2, and Council officers recommend that this matter is considered further during preparation of the site-specific DCP and Design Competition brief.

36. In the view of Council officers, the above matters have been addressed satisfactorily for the purposes of progressing a Planning Proposal. The final assessment matter relating to traffic relates to the parking rates applied in the Planning Proposal, and the next section of this report addresses this matter in more detail.

Parking Rates

Introduction

37. In April 2017, Council endorsed parking rates to be applied to site-specific Planning Proposals seeking to progress ahead of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and the related Integrated Transport Plan (ITP) for the Parramatta CBD. These rates have since been included in the provisions of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (endorsed by Council November 2019), and are currently as follows:

a. Maximum parking rates for residential uses:

Studio: 0.1 spaces/dwelling

1 bedroom: 0.3 spaces/dwelling

2 bedroom: 0.7 spaces/dwelling

3 bedroom: 1 space/dwelling

b. Maximum parking rate for commercial (i.e. retail, business and office) premises for buildings on land where the FSR is greater than 3.5:1:

M = (G X A) / (50 X T)

Where:

M is the maximum number of parking spaces,

G is the gross floor area of all commercial uses in the building in sqm,

A is the site area in sqm, and

T is the total gross floor area of all buildings on the site in sqm.

38. The initial version of the subject Planning Proposal lodged with Council requested higher maximum parking rates than those cited above. Following assessment and further discussion with the Applicant, the Planning Proposal now contains rates consistent with the above rates, with the exception of the Take Away Food and Drink Premise use for which a specific parking rate is proposed. The parking rates for each of the land uses proposed on this site are discussed in turn in the following sections.

Residential parking rate

39. The Applicant expressed concern that market conditions in Parramatta require more residential parking than the aforementioned maximum rate. In particular, the Applicant submitted market research indicating that two-bedroom residential units require a parking space to sell in current market conditions. This information was reviewed by Council officers and is noted.

40. For site-specific Planning Proposals seeking to progress ahead of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, Council officers continue to support the aforementioned residential parking rate. This rate has been consistently applied to other site-specific Planning Proposals and continues to be part of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal as the ITP is not complete. This precautionary approach is considered necessary until the ITP either confirms or amends these rates.

41. While the Applicant’s preference would be to provide more residential parking, they have accepted the maximum residential parking rate cited above in order to progress the Planning Proposal, and submitted an amended traffic report responding to these rates. Therefore, this component of the Planning Proposal is supported by Council officers.

Commercial parking rate (excluding Take Away Food and Drink Premises use)

42. For those commercial uses proposed - with the exception of the Takeaway Food and Drink Premise use - the Applicant has accepted the aforementioned formula to determine the number of spaces. Applying the formula so as to exclude the Take Away Food and Drink Premise use results in this component of the development having approximately 1 parking space.

43. This is generally consistent with rates endorsed by Council for site-specific Planning Proposals, as well as the current draft controls within the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. Therefore, this component of the Planning Proposal is supported by Council officers.

Take Away Food and Drink Premises Parking Rate

44. The proposed parking rate for Take Away Food and Drink Premises in the Planning Proposal at Attachment 1 is a maximum of 1 parking space / 30 sqm of GFA, or 30 parking spaces, whichever is less. It is also recommended that a five-year sunset clause apply to this rate. The process by which this rate was determined is described below.

45. The Applicant initially proposed applying the current Parramatta LEP 2011 parking rate for drive-in take away food and drink premises with seating, which is a maximum of one parking space/10sqm of gross floor area or one parking space/six seats (whichever is less). This would have resulted in about 34 parking spaces for the Take Away Food and Drink Premises use.

46. During assessment of the Planning Proposal, Council officers initially requested that all commercial uses (i.e. including the Take Away Food and Drink Premises use) conform to the formula for commercial uses cited in paragraph 37 of this report. Under the original reference design, this would have resulted in a total of approximately six (6) car parking spaces for all commercial uses on site, including approximately three (3) for the Take Away Food and Drink Premises use.

47. The Applicant has indicated that this outcome is not commercially viable for the landowner (who would operate the restaurant), and would therefore prevent the redevelopment of this site in the short to medium term. Therefore, whilst the Applicant accepted the application of the formula for other commercial uses proposed, they requested the opportunity to propose and provide justification for a specific rate for the Take Away Food and Drink Premises use.

48. Council officers provided the Applicant with the opportunity to propose and provide justification for a specific rate, due to the following considerations:

a. Parramatta LEP 2011 currently contains a parking rate relevant to the proposed use, however, the draft controls currently contained in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal do not. This is because the draft Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal adopts City of Sydney rates, which do not include a specific rate for the use in question. Council officers acknowledge that the list of uses within the draft controls of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal may need to evolve through the exhibition and finalisation process, and this may be one such case reflecting this issue.

b. This site is currently the only Take Away Food and Drink Premise with a drive through and seating located on an arterial road in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal area. Setting a rate for this specific land use at this particular site does not set a precedent for reconsidering the parking rates otherwise consistently applied to site-specific Planning Proposals seeking to proceed ahead of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

c. Developing a bespoke rate for this use at this site provides an opportunity to “unlock” redevelopment of this site in line with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, whilst carefully balancing this with traffic impacts.

d. A bespoke rate for this land use is considered appropriate so that development assessment officers have an appropriate tool for considering any future DA involving this land use.

49. The Applicant proposed a rate of 1 space / 30 sqm, which would facilitate provision of 30 parking spaces for the Take Away Food and Drink Premises use under the reference design. This justification was based in part on a benchmarking exercise of parking controls from across various jurisdictions in Sydney and Australia that showed a wide range of potential outcomes from 15-60+ parking spaces for this use if applied at this site. Key details of this benchmarking exercise are referred to later in this section.

50. In response to the above proposal, Council officers communicated the following position back to the Applicant:

· Council officers do not have any strong reservations in terms of traffic generation of the proposed rate, noting that 30 parking spaces is a significant reduction on the current amount of parking on site (approximately 60 spaces) and a marginal reduction on the parking rates for the use under current planning controls (approximately 35 spaces).

· Despite the above, Council officers have concerns about the proposed rate that stem from the perspective of (a) strategic vision and (b) precedent.

· With regards to strategic vision, Council officers note that the rate proposed would result in parking provision of 30 spaces, which is greater than the provision that would result in many of the centres identified in the Applicant’s benchmarking analysis, including Sydney CBD (fringe) (13.5 spaces), Burwood (13.5), Green Square (13.5), North Sydney (16-18), Crows Nest (18), Kogarah (20), and Lane Cove (22.5). Officers are concerned that accepting a rate greater than this group of centres would not align with the longstanding imperative to grow Parramatta CBD as Sydney’s Central City and achieve the vision of a true CBD of metropolitan - and even global - significance.

· With regards to precedent, Council officers are concerned that accepting car parking rates that do not align with Council’s established strategic framework would set a precedent that risks putting Council into the position of having to regularly renegotiate the rates in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

· However, Council officers recognise a shared vision to see this site redeveloped in line with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and acknowledge both the realistic pressures of development feasibility and the unique characteristics of this site.

· Taking into account the above, Council officers suggested that a compromise position of 1 space / 45 sqm (resulting in approximately 20 parking spaces) would be more aligned with the parking rates for the aforementioned group of centres and would more easily supportable.

51. In response to Council officers’ position, the Applicant has stated that (due to development feasibility issues) development would not proceed if the parking rate for the Take Away Food and Drink Premise use was 1 space / 45 sqm (about 20 spaces).

52. Council officers’ position remains that a parking rate of 1 space / 45 sqm (about 20 spaces) would be more aligned with strategic goals for the Parramatta CBD that envisage significant mode shift away from vehicles and towards active transport. Nevertheless, officers are prepared to support the Applicant’s proposed rate (1 space / 30 sqm or about 30 spaces) on the following basis:

a. Council officers acknowledge the broader shared vision for this site, which is to see it redeveloped in line with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (with which the proposal is otherwise consistent);

b. Council officers acknowledge the Applicant’s position relating to feasibility, which is that the blanket commercial parking rate formula otherwise applied in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal would make this development unviable in the short term. Council officers consider that car parking vs. active transport is one of many “transitional” issues facing the City as it assumes the role of Sydney’s Central City over the coming years. In other words, the viability of this development as proposed at present remains dependent on vehicle traffic. However, it is considered that the business model for this and many other vehicle-dependent businesses will necessarily rebalance toward active transport in coming years as (a) new public transport infrastructure comes on line and (b) a mix of public and active transport modes become the most viable transport option in to, out of and around the Parramatta CBD (given the significant increases in development).

c. The proposed rate results in a decrease of approximately 50% in on-site parking associated with this use, and the traffic report states that the net result of the development will be a reduction in vehicle traffic during the peak.

d. The Applicant has already completed conceptual work demonstrating how the drive through could be adapted to other uses in the future, and it is considered that this work could be extended to include at least some of the proposed parking.

e. Appropriate limits could be applied to the Applicant’s proposed rate at clause drafting stage, as follows:

i. Structuring the control to limit the parking to 1 space / 30 sqm or 30 spaces, whichever is less. This ensures that the number of spaces is capped at the 30 spaces, even if the size of the use increases at DA stage. It will also scale down the number of spaces if the size of the restaurant ends up being smaller than currently anticipated.

ii. Placing a 5-year “sunset” clause on this parking rate, after which time the control would revert to the blanket commercial rate applied to the rest of the commercial uses through the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal process. This ensures that, should the Applicant not gain planning permission for development within 5 years of finalising this LEP amendment, the parking question would be reconsidered. During that time, it is anticipated that Council will have established a final parking rate regime through the finalisation of the CBD Planning Proposal, and by which time development feasibility calculations may have changed based on transport mode shifts in the CBD.

53. In summary, the Planning Proposal recommended at Attachment 1 contains a rate for the Take Away Food and Drink Premises use of 1 parking space / 30 sqm GFA or 30 spaces (whichever is less), and includes a 5-year “sunset” clause provision.

54. Finally, Council officers note preliminary advice from DPIE and Transport for NSW as to how such a proposed variation to the draft Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal rates might be viewed by State agencies as part of a Gateway assessment. These agencies have advised that they are generally not supportive of such variations, and the Applicant has been made aware of this position. Nevertheless, given the assessment provided above, Council officers do not object to establishing a specific rate for this use at the pre-Gateway stage. This will be assessed by DPIE and relevant State agencies as part of their Gateway assessment.

Active Street Frontage

55. Under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, this site is affected by Active Frontages controls along the Victoria Road and Church St frontages (refer Figure 10). The draft controls for Active Frontages state that all premises on the ground floor of the building facing the street and any public spaces are to be used for the purposes of business or retail premises, community facilities, or entertainment facilities. Entrances/lobbies, services and related access, and vehicular access points are excluded from this requirement.

Figure 10: Active Frontages Map (active frontage requirement denoted in red)

Source: Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (as at time of report writing)

56. The reference design for this Planning Proposal meets this requirement, in that it proposes commercial/retail facilities along the Victoria Road and Church Street frontages. Parking and drive-through facilities located in the podium are sleeved by active uses. Council officers support these aspects of the reference design, and recommend incorporation of the same into the future DCP and Design Competition brief for this site.

Isolated Site

57. As noted previously in this report, this Planning Proposal does not include land located at 383 Church Street, Parramatta (i.e. on the corner of Ross Street and Church Street). Council officers consider that the optimal urban design outcome for these sites would be amalgamation and holistic redevelopment. However, the planning system cannot enforce this outcome. Council officers have requested that the Applicant engage with this isolated site issue through two means, namely:

a. Demonstrating the redevelopment potential of the isolated site

b. Demonstrating efforts towards meeting the NSW Planning Principle for addressing isolated site issues (a requirement for any future DA process at this site).

Potential redevelopment of the isolated site

58. While the planning system cannot enforce site amalgamation outcomes, they can be encouraged through levers such as the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal’s FSR “sliding scale” which encourages site amalgamation and better urban design outcomes by limiting the development potential of small sites. Under the sliding scale, 383 Church Street would have an FSR of 4:1 if developed on its own. If developed with the adjoining site that is the subject of this Planning Proposal, it would have an FSR of 6:1.

59. The applicant has completed urban design analysis demonstrating the development potential of the 383 Church Street at an FSR of 4:1. This is included at Attachment 2. The resulting building is a 6-storey building with 0m setbacks to the shared boundaries.

60. Officers have identified a potential building separation issue leading to amenity impacts between the northern tower in the two-tower reference design and potential redevelopment at 383 Church St. As demonstrated in Figure 11, there is a 3m separation between the units in the northwest corner of this tower and the potential redevelopment at 383 Church St. It is recommended that this matter is resolved in the DCP, acknowledging that the best solution may be for the lower levels of the northern tower to provide a 0m setback to the shared lot line at this point.

Figure 11: Illustration of upper level setback issue between reference design scheme and adjacent potential redevelopment of 383 Church St

Source: Applicant’s Reference Scheme with annotation by Council officers

Addressing NSW Planning Principle for isolated sites

61. As 383 Church Street would be considered an isolated site at DA stage, Council officers requested that the applicant begin the process to address the NSW Planning Principle relating to isolated sites (which is a requirement at DA stage). In demonstrating their engagement with the site isolation issue, the applicant has submitted copies of valuations and offers that were made to the landowner of 383 Church St, both as part of the previous DA process at this site, as well as just before lodgement of the current Planning Proposal. This information is noted.

Isolated site – conclusion

62. While Council officers consider that amalgamation of these sites would likely facilitate a better planning outcome, Council officers do not consider that the isolated site issue should be an impediment to the progress of this Planning Proposal, as the Applicant has demonstrated that the isolated site can develop in line with the sliding-scale provisions of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

63. The landowner of 383 Church Street will be notified as part of the public consultation process for this Planning Proposal, and will have the opportunity to formally respond to Council regarding their position at that time. Furthermore, Council officers will notify the landowner of 383 Church Street of this report to the LPP, and will continue to communicate with this landowner about reports concerning this Planning Proposal.

64. Based on experience with processes for other site-specific Planning Proposals that are adjacent to isolated sites, Council officers consider it possible that DPIE will direct the inclusion of 383 Church St in this Planning Proposal through the conditions of a future Gateway determination. In this instance, officers consider it would be prudent to request that sliding-scale provisions consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal are also included in an amended Planning Proposal, as it is not expected that these two sites would amalgamate in the near future.

65. Council could make a decision to include 383 Church St to pre-empt a potential decision by DPIE to have it included. However, this option results in further potential cost and delay for the applicant. Inclusion of this site would require documents to be reviewed and amended to include 383 Church St prior to any consultation process. Council officers consider that it is not justified to require the applicant to incur this cost unless DPIE deems it necessary.

Other statutory considerations

66. The proposal has been assessed against the statutory considerations including relevant local and regional strategies and planning policies and relevant Ministerial directions. Details of the assessment of these matters is included in the Planning Proposal provided at Attachment 1.

Conclusion of officer assessment of Planning Proposal

67. In conclusion, based on the analysis summarised in previous sections, Council officers recommend progression of this Planning Proposal.

68. Council officers also recommend that Council advise DPIE that the CEO will not be exercising the plan-making delegations for this Planning Proposal. This is on the basis that Council is also advancing the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (which affects this site), and the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal has not yet been approved by DPIE for finalisation.

PLANNING AGREEMENT

69. The Applicant has provided an initial letter of offer that accepts valuing the total public benefit to be provided under a future Planning Agreement to be calculated at a rate of $150/sqm of additional approved gross floor area (GFA) above the “base” FSR.

70. The $150/sqm rate proposed is consistent with the Community Infrastructure framework established through the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal process.

71. The Applicant’s proposed approach to calculating the monetary contribution allows for flexibility as part of the DA process, wherein the final quantum of GFA approved will more than likely differ from a strict theoretical calculation converting the maximum permissible FSR into a GFA figure. For instance, detailed design may result in a building that is slightly less than the overall FSR; on the other hand, the applicant might pursue a minor variation to the FSR control through a Section 4.55 variation that results in a building with slightly more FSR than the controls. It is considered that the Planning Agreement should have the flexibility to respond to either scenario, and should therefore contain provisions calculating the final contribution to be payable based on the GFA approved at Development Application stage (on a $150/sqm basis). A recent precedent for this was set in the Planning Agreement negotiations for 14-20 Parkes St, Harris Park.

72. To give an indication of potential value of the Planning Agreement, Council officers have also undertaken a calculation of the value based on the increase from current FSR controls to future FSR controls (excluding Design Excellence bonus). This calculation is shown in Table 5 and takes into account that two different parts of the site have different “base” or current FSRs. As noted above, calculating this value based on the amount of GFA ultimately approved means that the final value of the VPA would likely vary somewhat from this amount; however, the below estimate provides an indication of the likely final value.

Table 5 – Estimate of likely value of Planning Agreement

	Land Area	Base FSR	Planning Proposal FSR (excluding Design Excellence bonus)	Value based on $150/sqm of FSR uplift
Parcel A	659 sqm	4:1	6:1	$ 197,700
Parcel B	4,137 sqm	3:1	6:1	$ 1,861,650
Total	4,796 sqm			$ 2,059,350

73. While the value of the Planning Agreement contribution offer is consistent with Council policy framework, the detailed content of the agreement is still to be negotiated. However, it is noted that the Applicant and Council officers have already discussed two potential land dedications with the Applicant, namely:

a. A footpath widening dedication of width up to 1m at the corner of Church Street and Victoria Road to support increased pedestrian traffic in this area, and

b. The dedication of the small irregularly-shaped “notch” of land located in the centre of this city block which would form part of a future laneway running from Ross Street to Victoria Road.

74. Therefore, Council officers recommend the negotiation of a draft Planning Agreement in accordance with the following principles:

a. Inclusion of the footpath and laneway dedications discussed above, noting that Council’s policy on such dedications is to assign a nominal ($1) value to such dedications, as the Applicant is receiving the benefit of the FSR from the dedicated land;

b. A monetary contribution in line with the Parramatta CBD Community Infrastructure framework, noting that a potential use of some or all of this contribution for improvement of Prince Alfred Square should be explored as part of the negotiations (given the proximity of the site to the Square and that Council has recently completed a masterplan for it);

c. Addressing the potential circumstance in which the rate in the Parramatta CBD Community Infrastructure framework changes;

d. Addressing the potential circumstance where this site proceeds in whole or in part as a non-residential use (in which case the framework would not apply to non-residential floorspace); and

e. Addressing the potential circumstance in which Council decides not to proceed with the Community Infrastructure framework, and instead pursues amendments to its other contributions plans.

75. It is recommended that the draft Planning Agreement is reported back to Council alongside the draft DCP (addressed in next section) prior to concurrent exhibition with the Planning Proposal.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

76. As is standard practice for site-specific Planning Proposals in the Parramatta CBD, Council officers will work with the Applicant to prepare a site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) for the site. This DCP will address the issues raised in the assessment of the proposal, including, but not limited to:

a. Further defining the preferred two-tower scheme, including podium heights and tower setbacks, with a view to minimising any non-compliances with relevant ADG requirements;

b. Relationship to and mitigating impacts on Heritage items;

c. Traffic issues such as sightlines, vehicle queuing, pedestrian safety and bicycle parking;

d. Demonstrating adaptive re-use potential of drive-through facility and at least some of the parking spaces proposed;

e. Active frontage requirements; and

f. Relationship to 383 Church Street isolated site.

77. It is recommended that the draft DCP is reported back to Council alongside the draft Planning Agreement prior to concurrent exhibition with the Planning Proposal.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

78. It is expected that specific requirements for the public exhibition period would be set out in the Gateway determination for this Planning Proposal.

79. The details of preliminary consultation undertaken with relevant State Government agencies are detailed in the previous section entitled “Assessment of Key Issues”.

80. Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) was briefed on this Planning Proposal at its meeting of 31 October 2018. The Planning Proposal will be considered by the HAC at its extraordinary meeting of 3 June 2020. Due to this LPP report needing to be finalised before the extraordinary meeting any comment from the HAC received at that meeting will be circulated to members of the LPP under separate cover.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

81. The Planning Agreement process associated with this Planning Proposal is discussed in detail in the previous section of this report entitled “Planning Agreement”. The financial implication for Council is a contribution in line with Council’s current policy position for Community Infrastructure funding in the Parramatta CBD, which would be approximately $2.06 million, depending on the final GFA approved through the relevant Development Application process.

RECOMMENDATION

82. For the reasons detailed previously in this report, Council officers recommend progression of this Planning Proposal, as well as the associated DCP and Planning Agreement processes.

Sarah Baker

Project Officer

Robert Cologna

Land Use Planning Manager

David Birds

Group Manager, City Planning

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Planning Proposal	34 Pages
2 ⇩	Urban Design Report	98 Pages
3 ⇩	Landscape Concept Plan	8 Pages
4 ⇩	Transport Report	33 Pages
5 ⇩	Flood Assessment	8 Pages
6 ⇩	Heritage Impact Statement	86 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Planning Proposal drafts

Proponent versions:

No.	Author	Version
1.	Ethos Urban	14 November 2019
2.	Proponent	12 May 2020 - Draft in preparation for pre-Gateway report to Local Planning Panel and Council

Council versions:

No.	Author	Version
1.	City of Parramatta Council	June 2020 – final version for attaching to pre-Gateway report to Local Planning Panel and Council

INTRODUCTION

This planning proposal explains the intended effect of, and justification for, the proposed amendment to Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011. It has been prepared in accordance with Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) guides, 'A Guide to Preparing Local Environment Plans' (August 2016), 'A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals' (August 2016) and ‘Guidance for merged councils on planning functions’ (May 2016).

Background and context

The subject site is located at 355 and 375 Church Street, Parramatta, on the north-west corner of the intersection of Victoria Road and Church Street, Parramatta; see Figure 1. The legal description is Lot 1 in DP668821 (the southeastern corner lot) and Lot 1000 in DP791977. The site has a total area of approximately 4,796m² and is currently occupied by a currently vacant low-rise retail building on the southeastern corner, with the remainder of the site accommodating an existing McDonald’s restaurant and drive-through facility.

Figure 1 – Site at 355 and 375 Church Street, Parramatta subject to the planning proposal

Under the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 the site:

· is zoned B4 mixed use;

· has a maximum building height of 24 metres (northern and western part of the site) and 34 metres (south-eastern corner of the site);

· has a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of part 3:1 and part 4:1.

These principal planning controls are to remain unchanged under this planning proposal. Instead, this planning proposal seeks to introduce a site-specific local provision in Part 7 of the Parramatta LEP which contains an incentive height control to be determined by the sun access control to Prince Alfred Square, an incentive FSR control of 6.9:1, and other provisions.

These amendments are sought with the intention of providing a mixed-use residential and commercial tower complex at the site. An indicative development concept has been prepared to test the opportunities for built form within the envelopes sought, consisting of a 31-storey mixed-use building that is inclusive of a three (3) to four (4) storey podium and two (2) towers (31 and 28 storeys) over a single basement level for car parking. An indicative concept is shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 – Indicative design concept

This Planning Proposal is a result of the findings of the Parramatta CBD Planning Strategy (2015) and Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (2016), both of which identify the site as being suitable for increased density to support the future growth of Parramatta CBD. This Planning Proposal seeks to amend core development standards within the LEP in accordance with the development standards Council has already recommended for the site. The purpose of this standalone Planning Proposal is to facilitate an indicative development concept that would deliver a project in keeping with the vision set in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

In 2015, the applicant (McDonald’s) submitted a previous Development Application (DA96/2015A) for a staged development of the site involving the demolition of existing structures, consolidation and subdivision to create 2 Torrens title allotments, construction of a McDonald’s restaurant on proposed Lot A (Stage 1) and concept approval for a future mixed-use development over basement parking on proposed Lot B (Stage 2). This application was deferred by the Sydney West Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP), with the Panel recommending that an amended proposal be developed that responds to design issues identified. McDonald's and Stockland (the applicant) have subsequently committed to renew the site into a mixed-use precinct and this Planning Proposal will facilitate changes to the LEP that will enable this key site to be redeveloped, in keeping with the Panel’s comments from this previous DA.

PART 1 – OBJECTIVES OR INTENDED OUTCOMES

The key objective of this planning proposal is to increase the permissible density of development at 355 and 375 Church Street, Parramatta, whilst minimising amenity impacts on surrounding sites.

The intended outcomes of this planning proposal are as follows:

· Deliver controls and a built form outcome which is generally consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal

· Achieve design excellence on a strategic CBD site

· Protect solar access to Prince Alfred Square

· Ensure a podium design that is compatible to the existing streetscape and which provides attractive active frontages to Victoria Road and Church Street

· Facilitate higher density residential development on a strategic site in immediate proximity of the future light rail, building on the principles of transit-oriented development

PART 2 – EXPLANATION OF PROVISIONS

This planning proposal seeks to amend Parramatta LEP 2011 (PLEP 2011) in relation to introducing site-specific local provisions for an incentive height of building and floor space ratio control at 355 and 375 Church Street, Parramatta (the site).

In order to achieve these desired objectives, the following amendments to the PLEP 2011 would need to be made:

1. Introduce an incentive height control with maximum height determined by the sun access plane to Prince Alfred Square in accordance with a site-specific local provision, and in a manner consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. The existing Height of Buildings Map is to remain unchanged, while the Sun Access Protection Map would be altered to introduce designation of the portion of Prince Alfred Square which is subject to sun access protection.

2. Introduce an incentive FSR control of 6.9:1 in accordance with a site-specific local provision, and in a manner consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. The existing Floor Space Ratio map is to remain unchanged.

3. Introduce a site-specific local provision in Part 7 to facilitate the above height and FSR controls, as well as introduce site-specific maximum car parking rates for residential uses, commercial uses, and Take Away Food and Drink Premises uses as outlined in the example clause below:

7.XX Development on land at 355 and 375 Church Street, Parramatta

1. This clause applies to land marked “Area #xx” on the Special Provisions Area Map.

2. Despite any other provision of this Plan, the consent authority may grant consent to the erection of a building on land to which this clause applies that has a floor space ratio that exceeds the maximum floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map, up to a maximum floor space ratio of 6.9:1, but only if the consent authority is satisfied that the development has been subject to a competitive design process and exhibits design excellence as provided in clause 7.10.

3. Despite any other provision of this Plan, the consent authority may grant consent to the erection of a building on land to which this clause applies that has a height that exceeds the maximum height of a building shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map, but only if the consent authority is satisfied that the development does not result in any additional overshadowing on the land shown with blue hatching as ‘Prince Alfred Square’ on the Sun Access Protection Map – between 12 noon and 2pm on 21 June in each year.

4. Despite any other provisions of this Plan, the maximum number of car parking spaces for residential accommodation in a building on land to which this clause applies is as follows—

(a) 0.1 space per studio apartment,

(b) 0.3 space per 1 bedroom apartment,

(c) 0.7 space per 2 bedroom apartment,

(d) 1 space per 3 bedroom apartment.

5. Despite any other provisions of this Plan, the maximum number of car parking spaces for non-residential premises in a building on land to which this clause applies is to be calculated using the following formula (but only if the building has a floor space ratio greater than 3.5:1)—M = (G X A) / (50 x T)

where—

M is the maximum number of parking spaces.

G is the gross floor area of all non-residential premises (excluding any gross floor area used for the purposes of Take Away Food and Drink Premises**) in the building in square metres.

A is the site area in square metres.

T is the total gross floor area of all buildings on the site in square metres.

6. Despite any other provisions of this Plan, the maximum number of car parking spaces for Take Away Food and Drink Premises in a building on land to which this clause applies is as follows:

1 parking space / 30 sqm of gross floor area of all Take Away Food and Drink Premises, or a maximum of 30 parking spaces, whichever is less**

*Note: the parking rate described above for Take Away Food and Drink Premises will also have a “sunset” clause which will end the application of this provision after 5 years from the date of notification of the amendment. This would also require a change to the provision above containing the formula for calculating parking spaces for other non-residential uses, in order to include the Take Away Food and Drink Premise use into the calculation under that formula.

1.1. Other relevant matters

1.1.1. Voluntary Planning Agreement

The Applicant has indicated willingness to negotiate a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) alongside this Planning Proposal. This matter is discussed in further detail in the pre-Gateway reports to Local Planning Panel and Council.

1.1.2. Draft DCP

A site-specific DCP will accompany the PP process, and the parameters for commencing this process are set out in the pre-Gateway reports to Local Planning Panel and Council.

PART 3 – JUSTIFICATION

This part describes the reasons for the proposed outcomes and development standards in the planning proposal.

3.1 Section A - Need for the planning proposal

3. This section establishes the need for a planning proposal in achieving the key outcome and objectives. The set questions address the strategic origins of the proposal and whether amending the LEP is the best mechanism to achieve the aims on the proposal.

3.1.1. Is the planning proposal a result of an endorsed local strategic planning statement, strategic study or report?

Yes. The primary outcome of this Planning Proposal, to enable a higher density of development and mix of residential and commercial land uses, stems from local and state government strategic plans including the NSW Government’s ‘A Metropolis of Three Cities – Greater Sydney Regional Plan’ (the Regional Plan) and the Parramatta CBD Planning Strategy. The proposal’s consistency and alignment to these two strategies, is outlined later in this section of the report.

Council adopted the Parramatta CBD Planning Strategy at its meeting on 27 April 2015. The Strategy is the outcome of a study which reviewed the current planning framework and also a significant program of consultation with stakeholders and the community. The Strategy sets the vision for the growth of the Parramatta CBD. Council has subsequently prepared a CBD-wide Planning Proposal which has been informed by workshops and Council resolutions.

The Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal was adopted by Council on 11 April 2016. It has been submitted to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, and has received a Gateway determination.

3.1.2. Is the Planning Proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?

Yes. A Planning Proposal seeking to amend the LEP is the most effective way of providing certainty for Council, the local community and the landowner. The existing height and FSR standards do not permit the development envisaged in this Planning Proposal, nor do they respond to the emerging CBD character of Parramatta.

3.2. Section B – Relationship to strategic planning framework

This section assesses the relevance of the Planning Proposal to the directions outlined in key strategic planning policy documents. Questions in this section consider state and local government plans including the Greater Sydney Commission’s Greater Sydney Region Plan and District Plans, State Environmental Planning Policies, local strategic and community plans and applicable Ministerial Directions.

3.2.1. Will the planning proposal give effect to the objectives and actions of the applicable regional, or district plan or strategy (including any exhibited draft plans or strategies)?

A Metropolis of Three Cities

In March 2018, the NSW Government released the Greater Sydney Region Plan: A Metropolis of Three Cities (“the GSRP”), a 20 year plan which outlines a three-city vision for metropolitan Sydney for to the year 2036.

The GSRP is structured under four themes: Infrastructure and Collaboration, Liveability, Productivity and Sustainability. Within these themes are 10 directions that each contain Potential Indicators and, generally, a suite of objective/s supported by a Strategy or Strategies. Those objectives and or strategies relevant to this planning proposal are discussed below.

Liveability

An assessment of the planning proposal’s consistency with the GSRP’s relevant Liveability objectives is provided in Table 3a, below.

Table 3a – Consistency of planning proposal with relevant GSRP Actions – Liveability

Liveability Direction

Relevant Objective

Comment

Housing the city

O10: Greater housing supply

The planning proposal will meet contribute to delivering housing targets in the Central District and facilitate the Greater Parramatta Growth area. Consistent with the objective it will link the delivery of new homes in the right locations with local infrastructure evidenced by the proximity of the proposal to the Parramatta Light Rail.

O11: Housing is more diverse and affordable

The planning proposal will facilitate a diversity of housing types, sizes and price points that can help improve affordability. It will increase the supply of housing that is of universal design and adaptable to people’s changing needs as they age which is increasingly important across Greater Sydney.

Productivity

An assessment of the planning proposal’s consistency with the GSRP’s relevant Productivity objectives is provided in Table 3b, below.

Table 3b – Consistency of planning proposal with relevant GSRP Actions – Productivity

Productivity Direction	Relevant Objective	Comment
A well connected city	O14: The plan integrates land use and transport creates walkable and 30 minute cities	The planning proposal will attract housing in the Parramatta Metropolitan centre to create walkable, cycle-friendly neighbourhoods. Specifically, the site is in the Parramatta CBD and therefore provides future residents with excellence access to jobs and services, well below 30 minutes.
A well connected city	O15: The Eastern, GPOP and Western Economic Corridors are better connected and more competitive	The planning proposal is consistent with this objective and will contribute to delivery of the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula (GPOP) vision. It is consistent with Parramatta Light Rail by locating new housing and business opportunities in the GPOP area.
Jobs and skills for the city	O22: Investment and business activity in centres	The planning proposal will create the conditions for residential development within the Parramatta strategic centre within walking distance of the CBD core.

Central City District Plan

In March 2018, the NSW Government released Central City District Plan which outlines a 20 year plan for the Central City District which comprises The Hills, Blacktown, Cumberland and Parramatta local government areas.

Taking its lead from the GSRP, the Central City District Plan (“CCDP”) is also structured under four themes relating to Infrastructure and Collaboration, Liveability, Productivity and Sustainability. Within these themes are Planning Priorities that are each supported by corresponding Actions. Those Planning Priorities and Actions relevant to this planning proposal are discussed below.

Liveability

An assessment of the planning proposal’s consistency with the CCDP’s relevant Liveability Priorities and Actions is provided in Table 4a, below.

Table 4a – Consistency of planning proposal with relevant CCDP Actions – Liveability

Liveability Direction

Planning Priority/Action

Comment

Housing the city

O10: Greater housing supply

O11: Housing is more diverse and affordable

PP C5: Providing housing supply, choice and affordability, with access to jobs, services and public transport

· A16: Prepare local or district housing strategies that address housing targets [abridged version]

The planning proposal is consistent with the Planning Priority and actions by facilitating new housing supply and choice which will put downward pressure on affordability. The site is in a key location that will be close to jobs, service and public transport.

Importantly, the planning proposal supports the appropriate land use planning of sites proximate to new public infrastructure, ensuring good utilisation of land.

A city of great places

O12: Great places that bring people together

O13: Environmental heritage is identified, conserved and enhanced

PP C6: Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the District’s heritage

· A18: Using a place-based and collaborative approach throughout planning, design, development and management deliver great places by (a-e)

· A20: Use place-based planning to support the role of centres as a focus for connected neighbourhoods

· A21: In Collaboration Areas, Planned Precincts and planning for centres (a-d)

· A22: Use flexible and innovative approaches to revitalise high streets in decline.

The planning proposal will renewal of a strategic site in Parramatta CBD. It will enable revitalisation of the locality that will be activated by high quality spaces that will engage with the community.

The indicative concept design shows a future built form that has been designed and planned to respond to the local context, in particular providing a suitable and well-scaled built form relative to Prince Alfred Square.

Productivity

An assessment of the planning proposal’s consistency with the CCDP’s relevant Productivity Priorities and Actions is provided in Table 4b, below.

Table 4b – Consistency of planning proposal with relevant CCDP Actions – Productivity

Productivity Direction

Planning Priority/Action

Comment

A well-connected city

O19: Greater Parramatta is stronger and better connected

PP C7: Growing a stronger and more competitive Greater Parramatta

· A23: Strengthen the economic competitiveness of Greater Parramatta and grow its vibrancy [abridged]

The planning proposal is consistent with the CBD PP and will contribute to a stronger and more competitive Parramatta by facilitating a high-quality development in a key strategic location.

O14: The plan integrates land use and transport creates walkable and 30 minute cities

PP C9: Delivering integrated land use and transport planning and a 30-minute city

· A32: Integrate land use and transport plans to deliver a 30-minute city

The planning proposal will facilitate housing and jobs in a location close to public transport, consistent with the principles of the 30-minute city.

NSW State Plan 2021

The New South Wales State Plan sets the strategic direction and goals for the NSW Government across a broad range of services and infrastructure. The planning proposal is consistent with the revised NSW State Plan 2021 in that it will:

- Create construction jobs

- Contribute to housing supply

- Encourage business investment in the Parramatta City Centre

- Develop a high-quality development in proximity to new infrastructure delivered by the NSW Government, including the Parramatta Light Rail Network.

Future Transport Strategy 2056

The Future Transport Strategy is a 40-year strategy to achieve the Government’s vision for the city’s transport system. The planning proposal is consistent with the Strategy by:

- Integrating land use and transport by increasing density directly adjacent to the future Parramatta Light Rail line on Church Street

- Improving liveability by providing housing and jobs close to high quality, reliable public transport

- Improving sustainability by locating jobs and homes close to public transport which will reduce reliance on private motor vehicles and encourages active transport.

3.2.1. Will the planning proposal give effect to a council’s endorsed local strategic planning statement, or another endorsed local strategy or strategic plan?

The following local strategic planning documents are relevant to the planning proposal.

Parramatta 2038 Community Strategic Plan

Parramatta 2038 is a long term Community Strategic Plan for the City of Parramatta and it links to the long-term future of Sydney. The plan formalises several big and transformational ideas for the City and the region.

This planning proposal is consistent with the strategies and key objectives identified in the Plan, including its central vision for “a successful and connected CBD with a thriving commercial heart”, by facilitating the provision of a higher density development at 355 and 375 Church Street that exhibits design excellence. It is consistent with the identified strategic objectives of ‘Environment’, ‘Connectivity’, and ‘People and Neighbourhoods’, with the indicative development scheme at the site to increase energy and water efficiency, increase walking/cycling/public transportation usage, and improve housing affordability and diversity.

Parramatta Local Strategic Planning Statement

The Parramatta Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) entered into effect on 31 March 2020, becoming the primary strategic planning document defining Council’s long-term vision for land use and infrastructure provision within the LGA and giving guidance to its future character. Local Strategic Planning Statements are statutory requirements under the EP&A Act (updated at least every seven years), giving effect to the Greater Sydney Region Plan, Eastern City District Plan and other strategies such as Future Transport 2056 and the State Infrastructure Strategy.

The LSPS is a formal matter for consideration for any future rezoning of sites within the LGA. The LSPS will also inform the future revision of Council’s LEP and DCP controls. This planning proposal is consistent with the relevant Planning Priorities of the finalised LSPS, including that of the following:

• Expand Parramatta’s economic role as the Central City of Greater Sydney

• Focus housing and employment growth in the GPOP and Strategic Centres

• Provide for a diversity of housing types and sizes to meet community needs into the future

• Build the capacity of the Parramatta CBD, Strategic Centres, and Employment Lands to be strong, competitive and productive

Parramatta Local Housing Strategy

The Draft Parramatta Local Housing Strategy was exhibited in conjunction with Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement and Community Infrastructure Strategy for six weeks from September to November 2019. It is anticipated to be considered by Council in mid-2020.

The planning proposal is consistent with the overarching aims and objectives of the Draft Local Housing Strategy, including that of the following:

• Housing delivery complements, not compromises, the economic significance of the City

• Additional housing is focussed in identified growth precincts and is aligned and sequenced with existing transport and capacity improvements

• Housing supports the key essential services in the City through striving for housing affordability.

The draft Local Housing Strategy, in addition to the Central City District Plan, identifies the need for 83,975 new dwellings to be constructed within the LGA between the years of 2016 and 2036. The indicative development concept of this planning proposal will contribute towards meeting this target, by providing an additional 346 apartments.

Parramatta CBD Planning Strategy

The vision and objectives in the Parramatta CBD Planning Strategy were prepared to reflect Council’s vision for how the objectives in A Plan for Growing Sydney will be achieved in the Parramatta CBD. This planning proposal is consistent with the principles of the Parramatta CBD Planning Strategy as it will:

- Integrate appropriate land use, density and transport at a strategically important site

- Contribute toward the additional 27,000 additional jobs and 7,500 additional dwellings identified

- Provide financial contribution toward community infrastructure

- Provide value uplift sharing as a result of the incentive floor space

- Enable delivery of a built form outcome that can achieve design excellence and slender tower forms

- Renew an underutilised site in a key location that will improve the public domain.

Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal

The City of Parramatta has expressed clear ambitions to provide for an expanded and more intense commercial core and to support the CBD as a vibrant centre by surrounding the core with higher density mixed use. The commissioning of the Parramatta CBD Planning Strategy lead to the establishment of a vision for growth, including principles and actions to guide a new planning framework and an implementation plan for delivery. This Planning Strategy has been translated into the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, against which this planning proposal is generally consistent.

Parramatta Draft Social Infrastructure Strategy

The Parramatta Draft Social Infrastructure Strategy outlines the City of Parramatta Council’s long-term direction for social infrastructure provision. Once finalised, it will be used by Council to identify priorities for future social infrastructure, direct sound decision making about planning, funding, delivering and negotiating for social infrastructure.

This planning proposal includes a local provision that enables the site to achieve incentive floor space where community infrastructure is provided or is contributed toward. The incentive FSR control is to enable some of the financial value resulting from the uplift to the residential floor space ratio of a site to be captured for the benefit of the community.

A Voluntary Planning Agreement is proposed that would provide a financial contribution toward community infrastructure that may include Prince Alfred Square, as identified by the Draft Social Infrastructure Strategy.

Notwithstanding the above, the Strategy outlines ways in which social infrastructure can be integrated within development. The indicative development concept has considered how the McDonalds drive-through could be adapted in the future where it is no longer required, as a way to respond to community requirements in the future.

Parramatta Priority Growth Area Interim Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Plan

The planning proposal is consistent with the Greater Parramatta Priority Growth Area Interim Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Plan as it will:

- Contribute to the additional 20,297 housing and 48,763 jobs forecast for the Parramatta CBD District

- Locate new housing and jobs in an urban renewal area that takes advantage of the opportunities the new Parramatta Light Rail will provide

- Provide financial contributions through value uplift sharing that will contribute toward Council infrastructure needs

3.2.2. Is the planning proposal consistent with the applicable State Environmental Planning Policies?

The following State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) are of relevance to the site (refer to Table 5 below).

Table 5 – Consistency of planning proposal with relevant SEPPs

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)	Consistency: Yes = ✓ No = x N/A = Not applicable	Comment
SEPP No 1 Development Standards	N/A	This SEPP is not applicable to the subject land under Clause 1.9 of the Parramatta LEP 2011.
SEPP 4 – Development Without Consent and Miscellaneous Exempt and Complying Development	N/A	Not relevant to proposed LEP amendment
SEPP 6 – Number of Storeys in a Building	N/A	Not relevant to proposed LEP amendment
SEPP 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development	N/A	Not relevant to proposed LEP amendment
SEPP No 55 Remediation of Land	✓	Not relevant to proposed LEP amendment. May apply to future development on the sites.
SEPP 60 – Exempt and Complying Development	N/A	Not relevant to proposed LEP amendment
SEPP 64 – Advertising and Signage	N/A	Not relevant to proposed LEP amendment
SEPP No 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Development	✓	Nothing within this amendment will prevent a future DA’s ability to comply with SEPP 65.
SEPP No.70 Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes)	N/A	Not relevant to proposed LEP amendment
SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009	N/A	Not relevant to proposed LEP amendment
SEPP (BASIX) 2004	✓	Not relevant to proposed LEP amendment. May apply to future development on the sites.
SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008	N/A	Not relevant to proposed LEP amendment
SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007	✓	Not relevant to proposed LEP amendment. May apply to future development on the sites.
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 18–Public Transport Corridors	N/A	This SEPP is not applicable to the subject land under Clause 1.9 of the Parramatta LEP 2011.
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005	N/A	Not relevant to proposed LEP amendment
SEPP (Urban Renewal) 2010	✓	The Planning Proposal will stimulate renewal within Parramatta and will contribute to the employment and job targets for the area.

3.2.3. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s.9.1 directions)

In accordance with Clause 9.1 of the EP&A Act 1979 the Minister issues directions for the relevant planning authorities to follow when preparing planning proposals for new LEPs. The directions are listed under the following categories:

· Employment and resources

· Environment and heritage

· Housing, infrastructure and urban development

· Hazard and risk

· Local plan making

· Metropolitan planning

The following directions are considered relevant to the subject Planning Proposal.

Table 6 – Consistency of planning proposal with relevant Section 9.1 Directions

Relevant Direction	Comment	Compliance
1. Employment and Resources
Direction 1.1 – Business and Industrial Zones	While the planning proposal does not seek to amend the B4 Mixed Use zoning, the planning proposal will facilitate a mixed-use development consistent with this direction in that it retains a zoning that permits all types of commercial premises with consent.	Yes
3. Housing, Infrastructure and Urban Development
Direction 3.1 - Residential Zones	The planning proposal is consistent with the objectives of this direction as it will increase residential densities and housing choice in a location that is close to public transport, shops, employment and recreational opportunities.	Yes
Direction 3.4 - Integrating Land Use and Transport	This Direction applies due to this planning proposal relating to a residential zone. The Direction states that a planning proposal must be consistent with the aims, objectives and principles of: · Improving Transport Choice – Guidelines for planning and development (DUAP 2001), and · The Right Place for Business and Services – Planning Policy (DUAP 2001). The planning proposal is broadly consistent with the aims, objectives and principles of the above documents in that it will provide residential accommodation in an area well serviced by public transport.	Yes
Direction 3.5 - Development Near Licensed Aerodromes	Bankstown Airport is subject to the federal Airports Act 1996 and the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996. Airspace above the Parramatta CBD is affected by operational requirements for this airport. A building that penetrates the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) requires approval under that legislation, via the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. In accordance with the Direction, relevant approvals will be sought at the relevant stage.	Yes
4. Hazard and Risk
Direction 4.1 - Acid Sulfate Soils	Parramatta LEP 2011 contains acid sulphate soils provisions and this proposal does not seek to amend them. Acid sulphate soils investigations and analysis will accordingly be undertaken as part of any future development of the land in accordance with the requirements of the LEP.	Yes
Direction 4.3 - Flood Prone Land	A draft LEP may be inconsistent with the requirements of this direction if it “is in accordance with a floodplain risk management plan prepared in accordance with the principles and guidelines of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005.” Flood Advice for the site has been prepared that confirms the site is located on the fringe of the PMF extent, is not in a floodway and will not result in significant flood impacts to other properties. Furthermore, while the subject site is located within the extent of the PMF Direction 4.3 states that this is permitted where any development proposal is prepared in accordance with a floodplain risk management plan prepared in accordance with the principles and guidelines of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005. The indicative development concept is in accordance with the requirements of The Floodplain Risk Management Plan for the Upper Parramatta River Catchment and therefore the planning proposal is consistent with the requirements of Direction 4.3.	Yes
5. Local Plan Making
Direction 6.1 – Approval and Referral Requirements	This planning proposal is consistent with this Direction in that it does not introduce any provisions that require any additional concurrence, consultation or referral.	Yes
Direction 6.2 – Reserving Land for Public Purposes	This planning proposal is consistent with this Direction in that it does not create, alter or reduce existing zonings or reservations of land for public purposes.	Yes
Direction 6.3 – Site Specific Provision	Site specific amendments to the LEP are sought, however, these are consistent with the proposed provisions of the CBD PP.	Yes
6. Metropolitan Planning
Direction 7.1 - Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney	The planning proposal is consistent with the Metropolitan Plan, as discussed in above.	Yes
Direction 7.5 – Implementation of Greater Parramatta Priority Growth Area Interim Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Plan	The planning proposal is consistent with the Interim Plan.	Yes

3.3. Section C – Environmental, social and economic impact

This section considers the potential environmental, social and economic impacts which may result from the Planning Proposal.

3.3.1. Is there any likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal?

The site is located within a highly modified urban environment and does not contain critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats.

3.3.2. Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?

Density

The FSR sought under this Planning Proposal (6:1 FSR + 15% Design Excellence bonus, bringing total FSR to 6.9:1) is consistent with the provisions for this site under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

Height and Sun Access Plane (SAP) to Prince Alfred Square

Under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, the height controls for this site are determined by the Prince Alfred Square Sun Access Plane (SAP). The SAP ensures that no additional overshadowing is created on the southern part of the Square between 12pm-2pm in midwinter (21 June). Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the protected portion of the park, and the impact that this control has on the potential building envelope for this site.

Figure 3: Portion of Prince Alfred Square protected by SAP (blue hatching)

Source: Draft Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (as at time of report writing)

Figure 4: Prince Alfred Square SAP and resulting building envelope on subject site

Source: Applicant’s reference design

The Planning Proposal aligns with the desired outcomes of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal on this issue, as it seeks to replicate the Prince Alfred Square SAP in its provisions and presents a preferred scheme that is compliant with this SAP (as discussed in the following section).

Urban design and built form

In preparing the indicative concept design that supports this Planning Proposal, a number of options were considered to facilitate the intended outcomes outlined at Section 5.1, including:

- Option 1: A single tower scheme

- Option 2: A two tower scheme (the Planning Proposal)

- Option 3: Retain existing controls

- Option 4: Await gazettal of the CBD PP

Option 1: Single tower scheme

Under a single tower scheme, the resultant tower would include a 1,000m2 floorplate to a height of 146m or 45 levels. The single tower would present a dominant ‘monolith’ that would not frame the surrounding space and would not relate well to Prince Alfred Square or the local context. This Planning Proposal therefore seeks controls that facilitate an alternative design that maintains a similar yield and protects shadowing of the park through delivery of two slender and shorter towers on the site.

Option 2: Two tower scheme (this Planning Proposal)

The preferred indicative development concept comprises two towers that are slender and elegant in appearance. The South Tower has a height of 31 storeys with a maximum floorplate of 912m2. The North Tower reaches 28 storeys and has a maximum floorplate of 711m2. Each tower tapers on upper levels reducing overshadowing and minimising building scale. Together the towers frame the space which is considered suitable to the surrounding context and to Prince Alfred Square. This scheme may have some non-compliances with the requirements set out in the Apartment Design Guide.

Option 3: Retain existing controls

The retention of the existing controls under the Parramatta LEP would not facilitate a development commensurate with the strategic nature of the site. As detailed in Council’s CBD Planning Proposal, Council’s position is that the site has the capacity to accommodate a greater height and floor space ratio control than those existing currently.

Option 4: Await gazettal of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal

Gazettal of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (in its current form) would result in the same controls applied to the site as proposed in this Planning Proposal. However, due to the complexity associated with the scale of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, the timeframe for its finalisation is currently not known.

Submitting a site-specific Planning Proposal will likely result in a quicker assessment process and therefore, facilitate the development of a high quality mixed-use development on this strategic site quicker than awaiting gazettal of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. It also enables certainty about the LEP outcome, enabling the progression of a site-specific DCP for this site.

A comparison of Options 1 and 2 is included in the Design Report appended to this Planning Proposal.

Despite the potential non-compliances of a two-tower scheme with the Apartment Design Guide, the scale of the towers and podium in the two-tower scheme is considered more sensitive to the local context, which includes Church Street, Heritage-listed Prince Alfred Square, and other nearby Heritage items. The scale of the podium of the two-tower scheme is more appropriately matched with that of nearby buildings, and dividing the mass between two towers creates a more appropriate relationship between towers on this site and other likely future development in the vicinity (as envisioned under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal).

Heritage

A Heritage Impact Statement is appended to this Planning Proposal.

The proposal is consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, which has given extensive consideration to Heritage matters. Given the proximity to Prince Alfred Square, a preliminary referral to the Office of Environment and Heritage was also undertaken. OEH’s preliminary comments and a response from Council officers is detailed in the table below.

OEH Preliminary Comment	Council Officer Response
“The HIS has concentrated on the potential impact of the proposed development on views to and from the heritage items, more consideration needs to be given to assessing the impact of the proposal on the setting of heritage items in the immediate vicinity. Photomontages demonstrating the relationship between the new element and heritage items in the immediate vicinity should be provided in an updated HIS. The updated HIS should clearly articulate mitigation strategies recommended to reduce or avoid adverse impact on heritage items. Appropriate setbacks for the tower elements should be considered in the HIS. The proposed development should not overwhelm the neighbouring park or dominate vistas along Victoria Road.” “[the HIS] ... discusses views to and from heritage items in the vicinity however the images provided to not show a representation of proposed to development. Photomontages would assist in the assessment of the potential impact on views to and from these items. An updated HIS should included photomontages showing the extent to which the proposed development can be seen in identified views. Representations of the proposed structures should be solid (not semi-transparent).”	The Planning Proposal is consistent with the CBD Planning Proposal, the formulation of which has taken into account impacts on heritage items. The HIS originally submitted by the applicant has been updated to include a diagrammatic cross-section showing the relationship between the reference design’s podium and St. Patrick’s Cathedral. The Planning Proposal considers changes to planning controls with a potential reference design envelope only (i.e. it does not consider detailed proposed development). Therefore, Council officers consider that a more detailed examination of impacts on heritage items (including issues such as setbacks, relationship to Prince Alfred Square, vistas, views etc.) and mitigation strategies should form part of later stages of this project, (including DCP, design competition and DA) when the specific nature of the proposed development is known. Officers also consider that photomontages are more appropriately included at those later stages of development (again, when the specific nature of the proposed development is known).
“Documentation accompanying the proposal indicates that large part of Prince Alfred Park will be overshadowed in winter as a result of the proposed development. This may impact on the use of this historic park and on its plantings. The concept design should seek to mitigate or avoid this impact. An updated HIS should address the impact of the overshadowing of the park on the significance of this item.”	The Planning Proposal complies with the Prince Alfred Square SAP, which seeks to protect the Southern half of Prince Alfred Square. The Planning Proposal is considering changes to planning controls with a potential reference design envelope only (i.e. it does not consider detailed proposed development). Therefore, officers consider that further mitigation of the impacts on Prince Alfred Square should be investigated at later stages (including DCP, design competition and DA) when the specific nature of the proposed development is known.
“The podium elevation should be appropriately articulated on its street frontages to avoid the creation of a ‘wall effect’ along the length of the site.”	Officers consider that podium articulation is a design issue best addressed through the DCP and design competition stages. Nevertheless, the applicant has added further consideration of the podium’s relationship to nearby Heritage Items to the amended HIS; this discussion suggests a green interface with landscaping elements on the podium to break up the podium element and extend the green space established by Prince Alfred Square.
“The Australian Government, the NSW Government and Parramatta City Council have signed a Conservation Agreement under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to protect the world and National Heritage values of Old Government House and Domain (OGHD) in relation to its significant views and settings. The Agreement requires that the findings of the Technical Report (Planisphere 2012) be implemented. Council should satisfy themselves that the requirements of the Conservation Agreement have been met.” “The HIS identifies that the proposed development is within the ‘sensitive’ zone for views from Old Government House and Domain. The Technical Report includes design requirements that proposed development should address. An updated HIS should demonstrate how the proposed development meets these requirements.”	The outcome of the analysis and discussions between Council and the State, Federal Agencies when formulating the Conservation Agreement described by OEH is that only the sites in the Area of Special Significance (a precinct located south west of the subject site) would be subject of the agreement. Outside this precinct Council could continue to plan to allow growth in other parts of the Parramatta CBD without having to refer the changes to the Federal Government under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Area of Special Significance is the most significant precinct when it comes to the world and National Heritage values of Old Government House and Domain (OGHD). The impacts of growth outside the Area of Special Significance were considered in the Heritage Study prepared by Urbis (2015) undertaken as part of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. The conclusion of this study was that the growth proposed in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal does not have any significant impact on the world and National Heritage values of Old Government House and Domain (OGHD). The Planning Proposal does not propose development; it proposes to change planning controls consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. One of the factors considered in preparation of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal were the various planning requirements relating to OGHD.
“An archaeological assessment may be required. Depending on the recommendations of the assessment further archaeological investigation maybe recommended prior to commencement of works. It is desirable that intact State significant archaeology be retained in situ.”	Broadly, the Planning Proposal does not change the potential archaeological impacts in comparison to the current planning controls for this site, as this site already has significant development potential under current controls. The Planning Proposal is seeking to allow more height and floorspace on the site. The site would be subject to archaeological assessment at DA stage, whether developed under current planning controls or the controls envisiged by the Planning Proposal. Therefore, it is not considered that an archaeological assessment is required at Planning Proposal stage. Consistent with officers’ approach to other similar site-specific Planning Proposals in the Parramatta CBD, officers recommend that archaeological matters are dealt with at DA stage.

It is acknowledged that some of the extra work requested by OEH was not completed at this initial stage of the Planning Proposal process, as described in the above table. It is expected that OEH will have the opportunity to provide a formal comment as part of the exhibition process for this Planning Proposal.

Flooding

A portion of the site is within the area of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) – refer below image. However, the site is not affected by the 100-year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) flood area (i.e the “1%” flood zone). It is considered that river flooding is not an impediment to progression of this Planning Proposal, and that any overland flow issues can be addressed as part of a future DA process.

Figure xx: portion of site affected by PMF (denoted with light blue shading)

Source: Council’s internal mapping (subject site outlined in red)

Interface with Parramatta Light Rail

It is not considered that Parramatta Light Rail shoud impede the progression of this Planning Proposal. A preliminary referral to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) was undertaken as part of the initial assessment by Council. The comments made by TFNSW which were relevant to the Planning Stage and a response from Council officers is below. It is anticipated that a further formal referral will be made to TFNSW as part of the exhibition of this Planning Proposal.

TfNSW Preliminary Comment	Council Officer Response
“A Traffic Impact Assessment should consider the existing and future performance of key intersections providing access to the site, supported by appropriate modelling and analysis to the satisfaction of RMS and TfNSW. The TIA should include proposed measures to mitigate impacts of the proposed development on the operation of existing and future traffic, public transport, pedestrian and bicycle networks including any required upgrades.”	The Applicant has submitted a traffic assessment that examines existing and future performance of key intersections. TfNSW will have the opportunity to comment formally on this assessment as part of agency referral and can identify any additional measures required for the satisfaction of transport agencies through that process.
“The TIA should include an assessment of any impacts of the development on the Parramatta Light Rail (PLR). During the construction and operation phases of the Parramatta Light Rail (PLR) there will be intermittent, short and long term road closures as well as material changes to road network operations. These changes may impact pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular access routes to the proposed development and should be included in any analysis.”	Council officers agreed with TfNSW’s view that the Applicant should review the PLR Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and related documents in greater detail, and consider these in an amended traffic assessment. This review has been undertaken and the Applicant’s traffic assessment has been updated to include changes to the road network as a result of the PLR (in particular the changes to the intersection of Victoria Road and Church St).

Traffic and Access Issues

The reference design envisages dual vehicle access from both Victoria Road (entry) and Ross Street (entry and exit), with retention of a drive-through facility located within the podium. The drive-through is integrated into the basement design and sleeved by lobbies and commercial/retail uses.

The traffic report (appended to this Planning Proposal) concludes that the reference design will result in a reduction of traffic during peak periods.

The Planning Proposal applicant has acknowledged that the right turn entry from Victoria Rd may be limited in future.

The reference design demonstrates consideration of future adaptive re-use of the drive-through facility, should it no longer be commercially desirable in future.

Parking Issues

The rates for residential and commercial (excluding Take Away Food and Drink Premises) are consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

The Planning Proposal proposes establishing a specific parking rate for the Take Away Food and Drink Premises. This parking rate is supported on the following basis:

a. There is a shared vision for this site, which is to see it redeveloped in line with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (with which the proposal is otherwise consistent);

b. Feasibility pressures are acknowledged, i.e. the blanket commercial parking rate formula otherwise applied in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal would make this development unviable in the short term. It is considered that car parking vs. active transport is one of many “transitional” issues facing the City as it assumes the role of Sydney’s Central City over the coming years. In other words, the viability of this development as proposed at present remains dependent on vehicle traffic. However, it is considered that the business model for this and many other vehicle-dependent businesses will necessarily rebalance toward active transport in coming years as (a) new public transport infrastructure comes on line and (b) a mix of public and active transport modes become the most viable transport option in to, out of and around the Parramatta CBD (given the significant increases in development).

d. The Design Report includes conceptual work demonstrating how the drive through could be adapted to other uses in the future, and it is considered that this work could be extended to include at least some of the proposed parking.

e. Appropriate limits can be applied to the proposed rate at clause drafting stage, as follows:

i. Structuring the control to limit the parking to 1 space / 30 sqm or 30 spaces, whichever is less. This ensures that the number of spaces is capped at the 30 spaces, even if the size of the use increases at DA stage. It will also scale down the number of spaces if the size of the restaurant ends up being smaller than currently anticipated.

j. Placing a 5-year “sunset” clause on this parking rate, after which time the control would revert to the blanket commercial rate applied to the rest of the commercial uses through the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal process. This ensures that, should the Applicant not gain planning permission for development within 5 years of finalising this LEP amendment, the parking question would be reconsidered. During that time, it is anticipated that Council will have established a final parking rate regime through the finalisation of the CBD Planning Proposal, and by which time development feasibility calculations may have changed based on transport mode shifts in the CBD.

Isolated Site

The Design Report appended to this Planning Proposal demonstrates how the property at 383 Church St could develop independent of this site in line with the sliding-scale provisions of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

3.3.3. How has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?

The Planning Proposal will result in positive social and economic effects for the local area through the generation of local employment opportunities during construction and operation. It will improve local facilities, employment opportunities, increase housing stock close to public transport and amenities, provide greater housing choice as well as improve public domain facilities and the pedestrian interface with surrounding streets.

3.4. Section D – State and Commonwealth Interests

3.4.1. Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?

The site is located in an established urban area and has access to a range of existing services. Any future DA on the site will include further investigations to determine whether any upgrade of existing facilities will be required. These items would be appropriately addressed at DA stage.

3.4.2. What are the views of State and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the gateway determination?

Consultation with the State and Commonwealth public authorities will be undertaken as required by the Gateway determination.

PART 4 – MAPPING

Extracts of current Land Use Zoning, FSR, and Height maps & legends from PLEP 2011 are shown below. No changes are proposed to these maps as part of this Planning Proposal. Following those maps, current and proposed mapping for the Key Sites, Special Provisions, and Sun Access Protection Map is shown.

Land Use Zoning – B4 Mixed Use

FSR – part 3:1, part 4:1

Height – part 24m, part 34m

Key Sites, Special Provisions and Sun Access Protection Map

An extract of the current Key Sites, Special Provisions and Sun Access Protection Map of PLEP 2011 and relevant legend is shown below. This is the map which is proposed to be changed as part of this Planning Proposal. As shown below, no specific controls currently apply to the site in question as part of this Planning Proposal.

The below image contains indicative mapping for this planning proposal, illustrating what changes are sought. Specifically, this proposal seeks to amend the Key Sites, Special Provisions and Sun Access Protection Map of the PLEP 2011 as shown below. This image can be updated prior to exhibition with a more formal draft LEP map.

PART 5 – COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

The planning proposal (as revised to comply with the Gateway determination as necessary) is to be publicly available for community consultation.

Public exhibition is likely to include:

· display on the Council’s web-site; and

· written notification to adjoining landowners.

The Gateway determination will specify the level of public consultation that must be undertaken in relation to the planning proposal including those with government agencies.

Consistent with sections 3.34(4) and 3.34(8) of the EP&A Act 1979, where community consultation is required, an instrument cannot be made unless the community has been given an opportunity to make submissions and the submissions have been considered.

PART 6 – PROJECT TIMELINE

Once the planning proposal has been referred to the Minister for review of the Gateway Determination and received a Gateway determination, the anticipated project timeline will be further refined, including at each major milestone throughout the planning proposal’s process.

Table 7 below outlines the anticipated timeframe for the completion of the planning proposal.

Table 7 – Anticipated timeframe to planning proposal process

MILESTONE	ANTICIPATED TIMEFRAME
Report to LPP on the assessment of the PP	June 2020
Report to Council on the assessment of the PP	July 2020
Referral to Minister for review of Gateway determination	July 2020
Date of issue of the Gateway determination	October 2020
Commencement and completion dates for public exhibition period	November - December 2021
Commencement and completion dates for government agency notification	November - December 2021
Consideration of submissions	January 2021
Consideration of planning proposal post exhibition and associated report to Council	February 2021
Submission to the Department to finalise the LEP	March 2021
Notification of instrument	April 2021

List of Appendices

(attached to LPP / Council reports under separate cover)

Appendix 1 – Indicative Development Concept (Design Report)

Appendix 2 – Landscape Concept Plan

Appendix 3 – Transport Report

Appendix 4 – Flood Assessment

Appendix 5 – Heritage Impact Statement

Local Planning Panel 16 June 2020 Item 6.2

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 6.2

SUBJECT Pre-Gateway: Planning Proposal for land at 1 Windsor Road, North Rocks

REFERENCE RZ/9/2019 - D07390890

REPORT OF Project Officer Land Use

LANDOWNER J L Dunrose Pty Ltd

APPLICANT Fabcot Pty Ltd

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS CONSIDERED BY SYDNEY CENTRAL CITY PLANNING PANEL - Nil

PURPOSE:

To seek Local Planning Panel (LPP) advice on a Planning Proposal for land at 1 Windsor Road, North Rocks for the purposes of seeking a Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Local Planning Panel consider the following Council Officer recommendation in its advice to Council:

(a) That Council endorse the Planning Proposal for the purposes of seeking a Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for land at 1 Windsor Road, North Rocks which seeks to amend Schedule 1 of the Parramatta (former The Hills) Local Environmental Plan 2012 by adding retail premises as an additional permitted use (limited to a maximum of 3,800m2) to facilitate a Woolworths supermarket and a liquor store.

(b) That the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the DPIE for a Gateway Determination.

(c) That Council advises the DPIE that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) will be exercising the plan-making delegations for this Planning Proposal as authorised by Council.

(d) That Council authorise the CEO to negotiate a Planning Agreement on behalf of Council, with the outcome of negotiations to be reported back to Council prior to its concurrent public exhibition with the Planning Proposal, relating to the following:

1. delivery of a roundabout on North Rocks Road, and

2. augmentation of the existing bridge over Darling Mills Creek to facilitate increased capacity for pedestrian and cyclists.

(e) That a delivery mechanism be agreed to by the State Government and the proponent to facilitate the delivery of the land required to accommodate future upgrades to the James Ruse Drive/Windsor Rd intersection prior to public exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

(f) Further, that Council authorise the CEO to correct any minor anomalies of a
non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during the plan-making
process.

PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE

BACKGROUND

1. On 28 October 2019, the applicant, Planning Ingenuity Pty Ltd, on behalf of the landowner, Fabcot Pty Ltd, lodged a Planning Proposal with the City of Parramatta Council for land at 1 Windsor Road, North Rocks. The site was previously occupied by a Bunnings store however it is currently unoccupied.

SITE

2. The subject site is located on the corner of Windsor Road and James Ruse Drive. The site comprises two lots and is legally described as Lot 1 in DP 112482 and Lot 6 in DP 247452, with a total area of approximately 2.52ha. See Figure 1 and Figure 2 below.

Figure 1 – Site at 1 Windsor Road, North Rocks subject to the Planning Proposal

Figure 2 – Aerial view

3. The site has frontage to Windsor Road to the west and to James Ruse Drive (slipway) to the north. It is adjacent to, but does not have frontage to, North Rocks Road, being separated by Darling Mills Creek which runs adjacent to the site to the eastern and southern boundaries.

4. The main access to the site is from North Rocks Road with vehicular entry/exit and a pedestrian walkway via an elevated concrete bridge over Darling Mills Creek. Secondary vehicular access is available to Windsor Road.

5. The site is currently occupied by a large warehouse building (previously occupied by Bunnings Warehouse), with a gross floor area of 7,405m². At grade car parking is provided on the site, with 260 spaces located predominantly to the south of the building with the remainder to the north and west.

CURRENT PLANNING CONTROLS

6. The subject site is zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor and SP2 Infrastructure (Public Transport Corridor) under the provisions of The Parramatta (former The Hills) Local Environmental Plan 2012 as shown in Figure 3.

B6 Enterprise Corridor

SP2 Infrastructure (Public Transport Corridor)

Zone

Figure 3: Zoning Map, Parramatta (former The Hills) Local Environmental Plan 2012

7. The site currently has a height limit of 16m under the Height of Buildings (HOB) map (refer to Figure 4).

Figure 4: Height of Building Map, Parramatta (former The Hills) Local Environmental Plan 2012

8. This site currently has a floor space ratio of 1:1 under the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) map (refer to Figure 5).

Figure 5: Floor Space Ratio Map, Parramatta (former The Hills) Local Environmental Plan 2012

9.

FSR

N 1:1

This site contains Heritage Item 23 – Stone Bridge Approaches and Foundation Plaque, Sydney Woollen Mills (refer to Figure 6).

Figure 6: Heritage Map, Parramatta (former The Hills) Local Environmental Plan 2012

PLANNING PROPOSAL

10. The submitted Planning Proposal (dated 22 October 2019) seeks approval to permit ‘retail premises’ in the form of a supermarket and liquor shop on the site. The site is within the B6 Enterprise Corridor Zone which currently allows a range of non-residential (and commercial) uses but not ‘retail premises’. The site also contains a small portion of land zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Public Transport Corridor) along the Windsor Road frontage, but this does not affect any existing structures. The proposed future development of the site seeks to utilise the existing warehouse building on the site to accommodate a full-line Woolworths supermarket of 3,800m² (including a BWS liquor store). The remainder of the existing building (3,015m²) will potentially be developed as a warehouse and distribution centre (non-retail) which is permitted under the current B6 zone that applies to the site. Further, an existing mezzanine level of 590m² is proposed to accommodate office space that is also permitted within the current zone. A copy of the Planning Proposal is included at Attachment 1.

LOCAL & STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXT

State Planning Policies

11. The Planning Proposal is generally consistent with the relevant state policies and planning strategies including the Central City District Plan, State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Ministerial Directions under Clause 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

12. The Central City District Plan (CCDP) covers the area that includes Blacktown, Cumberland, Parramatta and The Hills LGAs. The role of this Plan is to help deliver the ten directions of the overarching Greater Sydney Region Plan A Metropolis of Three Cities and contains a number of planning priorities and objectives that address infrastructure provision and collaboration, liveability, productivity and sustainability objectives. Whilst the CCDP makes many references to future development in Parramatta, this principally relates to the Parramatta CBD where this site is not located. Nevertheless, the CCDP identifies the need to accommodate a significant amount of additional retail floorspace within the District over the next 20 years and the Planning Proposal will contribute to this objective. It is therefore considered that the Planning Proposal is consistent with the CCDP.

Local Strategies

13. Councils are required to prepare a Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) by the State Government. The LSPS sets out the long-term vision for land use planning in a council’s local government area (LGA) and responds to broader priorities identified in the District Plans and integrates with a Council’s Community Strategic Plan. The LSPS provides greater weight to strategic planning in the broader plan making process and any new planning proposal must justify any inconsistency with this framework and the supporting Local Housing Strategy (LHS) and Employment Lands Strategy (ELS).

14. Council’s LSPS was published on 31 March 2020. The LSPS provides strategic direction on how the City of Parramatta is planning for the next 20 years. The site is not in an area that is specifically identified for growth within the LSPS, however given there is an existing undersupply of supermarket floorspace in the broader region as identified in the supporting economic impact analysis and the potential job creation from the proposal (detailed in the Assessment of Key Issues below), it is considered that the Proposal is generally consistent with the LSPS. More specifically, the proposal is consistent with Planning Priority 11 of the LSPS that seeks to “Build the capacity of…Local Centres and Employment Lands to be strong, competitive and productive”.

ASSESSMENT OF KEY ISSUES

15. The following section provides an analysis of the key issues associated with the Planning Proposal. It is recommended that the Planning Proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) requesting that retail premises up to a maximum of 3,800m² be permitted on the site as an additional permitted use. The key issues that must be addressed relate to traffic and economic impacts and are discussed in detail below.

Traffic and Transport

16. An assessment of potential traffic and parking implications has been prepared by the applicant’s traffic consultant, Colston Budd Rogers & Kafes in support of the Planning Proposal. A copy of the traffic assessment is included at Attachment 2. Council officers have reviewed the applicant’s Traffic Report and raise the following comments:

Car Parking

17. The Traffic Report states that while the site currently provides approximately 300 parking spaces within the existing at grade car parking area, this will be reconfigured to provide a reduction to the total number of spaces resulting in approximately 256 car spaces in accordance with the RMS rates for supermarkets. In addition, bicycle and motor cycle spaces will be provided in accordance with Council requirements.

18. Based on the parking rates of The Hills DCP 2012, the proposed development would be required to provide a minimum 291 off-street parking spaces. Although the proposed provision of 256 parking spaces is lower than the parking requirement based on The Hills DCP 2012, Council’s Traffic and Transport team consider that the reduction in car spaces consistent with RMS rates is acceptable in this case as the site is also in close proximity to public transport (bus) services on Windsor Road which has the potential to further reduce private vehicle trips to the site.

Traffic Generation

19. The Traffic Report indicates that the previous Bunnings store on the site was surveyed by the RMS and found to generate approximately 200 vehicles per hour (two way) in the weekday afternoon peak hour. The report also states that based on surveys of similar supermarkets and RMS guidelines for warehouses and offices, the proposed development would generate approximately 420 vehicles per hour (two way) in the weekday afternoon peak hour. The report, then notes that during the afternoon peak period, a high proportion of the trips will be passing trade given the site’s location and heavy traffic flows on the adjacent road network. Accordingly, the report concludes that the increase in traffic on the surrounding road network compared to the previous Bunnings store (when excluding passing trade given these vehicles are already on the road network) is likely to increase by up to 100 vehicles per hour (two way). However, when this is distributed to the surrounding road network, increases in traffic on North Rocks Road and Windsor Road will be minor at approximately 50 vehicles per hour (two way).

20. Council officers consider that the trip generation from the site is likely to be lower than similar sites in the afternoon peak due to the high levels of traffic congestion within the area. A supermarket located in a residential area with low traffic congestion is likely to have significantly higher trip generation due the practicality of being able to access the site in a timely manner rather than sitting in traffic. It is considered that customers are likely to travel to other supermarkets that are easier to access during peak periods or may also travel to the site outside of these peak times to take advantage of the extended trading hours of supermarkets. For this reason, Council officers consider that the proposed centre is not likely to contribute to additional traffic as much as may occur in other locations. That said, whilst the proposal will have a relatively minor impact on the surrounding road network (based on the applicant’s modelling detailed above) when compared with the previously approved Bunnings store, Council officers and the applicant’s traffic consultant acknowledge that the adjacent road network is currently operating at capacity in the weekday afternoon peak. Notwithstanding the above, the site is well located to deliver improvements to the surrounding traffic network while also improving access to and from the site. This is discussed in detail below under Traffic and Transport Infrastructure Upgrades.

Traffic and Transport Infrastructure Upgrades

21. The Traffic Report recommends the provision of a third lane on the westbound off ramp of James Ruse Drive onto Windsor Road. The report indicates that the additional left turn lane will result in reduced delay/queues on the westbound off ramp as well as the ability to reallocate the traffic signalisation phases across the overall road network in this area, including the North Rocks Road approach to Windsor Road (benefitting right turn egress from the subject site).

22. It is noted that the site is well located to facilitate this additional left hand turn lane as it would require some land take along the James Ruse Drive frontage of the subject site which is currently undeveloped (e.g. some at grade car spaces, and landscape buffer). Given that both James Ruse Drive and Windsor Road are State roads the Planning Proposal and associated Traffic Report was also referred to Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for preliminary comment.

23. The key traffic issues raised by TfNSW are detailed in the below table:

Table 1: TfNSW preliminary comments and response

TfNSW Preliminary Comment

Council Officer Response

TfNSW recommend that “a site specific clause be inserted into the LEP limiting retail on the subject site to 3,800sqm only” to align with the traffic generating rate of a shopping centre < 10,000sqm (12.7 vehicle trips per 100sqm GLFA in PM peak period).

The applicant’s traffic assessment was based on a 3,800m2 supermarket with the balance of the site a warehouse/distribution centre. Therefore, Council officers agree with TfNSW’s recommendation that a site specific clause limiting retail on the site to 3,800m2 of retail space in total is appropriate.

TfNSW currently have no approved road proposal that impacts the subject site, however the James Ruse Drive intersection with Windsor Road is currently under investigation for potential future transport improvements in the medium to long term.

TfNSW acknowledge that an additional left turn lane at the James Ruse Drive off ramp into Church St/Windsor road will not only benefit the broader network but will also benefits for the proposed development given the existing traffic capacity issues within the adjoining network.

Should land be provided to facilitate the above additional lane, TfNSW will consider waiving a right hand turn restriction from the site into North Rocks Rd during afternoon peak.

However, to provide flexibility for motorists exiting the site, a U-turn facility (roundabout) should be provided on North Rocks Road (in the vicinity of the site) to allow vehicles wishing to turn right out of the site onto North Rocks Road, can instead turn left, then do a U-turn nearby to allow them to get to Windsor Road, in order to assist right hand turn movements out of the site during peak periods.

At this stage, TfNSW are still yet to prepare a Property Impact Plan detailing how much land will be required for the additional left turn lane on the James Ruse Drive off ramp onto Church Street/ Windsor Road. It is understood that TfNSW are currently in the process of preparing this plan for consideration by the applicant.

Should this be agreed to by the applicant, a suitable mechanism to facilitate the delivery of this land to State Government will need formalised (e.g. VPA with the State Government/Satisfactory Arrangements Provisions within the Planning Proposal or other) as this relates to a State Government owned road i.e. James Ruse Drive.

In relation to the U-turn facility, Council has care and control of North Rocks Road and it is therefore recommended that Council enter into negotiations with the applicant for the purposes of delivering a roundabout/U-turn facility on North Rocks Road within an appropriate location. It is noted that the proposed roundabout will ultimately need to be approved by Council’s Traffic Committee and would not need to be delivered until the supermarket opens, however to ensure certainty that the roundabout will be delivered by the applicant, it is recommended that the commitment to deliver the works is formalised as part of a VPA with Council.

The proponent is required to prepare a detailed Plan of Management that identifies practicable measures to minimise as much as possible queuing/congestion within the site associated with potential delays for motorists attempting to turn right from the site to North Rocks Road during peak periods. This is due to queues on the North Rocks Road approach to Windsor Road extending past the signalised site access road in the peak periods. The Plan of Management should be submitted to Council and TfNSW for review and comment as part of any future DA for the proposed development.

Noted. It considered that the requirements of the Plan of Management could be addressed through the delivery of the roundabout.

24. Council’s Traffic and Transport team have also raised a number of issues relating to pedestrian and cyclist access to and from the site. The existing footpath on the southern side of the existing driveway bridge over Darling Mills creek is approximately 1.2m wide which is acceptable for the previous Bunnings use where most customers are picking up hardware and garden supplies by vehicle, but for a supermarket use the nature of shopping trips is different and is likely to generate a greater proportion of trips from pedestrians and/or cyclists.

25. It is therefore recommended that Council investigate the option of negotiating a planning agreement (in addition to the roundabout discussed in the above table) with the applicant to facilitate the provision of a shared path (at least 3m wide) which may require augmentation to the existing bridge (i.e. clip on structure) or alternatively a standalone bridge alongside to facilitate safe access for pedestrians and cyclists entering and leaving the site.

26. Based on the above, it is considered that there are still a number of outstanding traffic and transport matters that are yet to be resolved, however these relate to confirming a delivery mechanism for the proposed additional left turn lane at the James Ruse Drive off ramp into Church Street/Windsor Road (State infrastructure), new roundabout on North Rocks road to manage right hand turn movements from the subject site (Council infrastructure) and improved accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists.

27. It noted that while these delivery mechanisms are still yet to be confirmed, it is considered that the Planning Proposal has appropriately considered the traffic and transport impacts and there is sufficient scope to address how these items will be delivered following Gateway Determination being issued, but prior to public exhibition of the proposal.

28. Should Council endorse the Planning Proposal to proceed to Gateway Determination, Council will continue to liaise with State Government and the applicant to ensure that the identified traffic and transport works (both State and local) are confirmed via an appropriate delivery mechanism (either via VPA and/or planning provisions to be included within the Planning Proposal such as satisfactory arrangements).

Economic Impact

29. An Economic Impact Assessment has also been provided in support of the Planning Proposal prepared by Location IQ. The study presents an analysis of the trade area, its demographics, socio-economic profile, projected population growth and expenditure capacity. It also presents a detailed analysis of the retail profile of the trade area, including a competitor analysis, highlighting the supply and the indicative performance of food retailing stores in the area. Overall, the analysis supports the viability for the proposed supermarket at the subject site. A copy of the Economic Impact Assessment is included at Attachment 3.

30. The study notes that there is currently an undersupply of supermarket space within the identified trade area and any impacts on nearby centres or supermarkets both within and outside the main trade area are manageable. The economic impact analysis undertaken by Location IQ indicates that all impacts of the proposed supermarket at 1 Windsor Road, North Rocks on surrounding centres are within a reasonable competitive range of 10% or less. Therefore, the proposal will not threaten the viability of any nearby centre or supermarket, particularly given the current undersupply of supermarket floorspace in the trade area. In addition, the impacts from the proposed development on other centres will be offset over time given the underlying population growth (and associated growth in retail spending) within the trade area and within the broader region. The identified trade area for the proposed supermarket as contained in the economic impact analysis is shown in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7: Main Trade Area and Competition (extracted from Economic Impact Assessment)

31. Furthermore, the study notes that the proposed supermarket and associated liquor store, coupled with the warehouse and distribution and ancillary office use will provide both direct and indirect employment generation in the region of 1,196 jobs.

32. Council’s Economic Development Team has undertaken a detailed review of the Economic Impact Assessment and agreed with its findings and raised no objection to the Planning Proposal proceeding. On this basis, the Planning Proposal is supported on economic grounds particularly given the potential job creation associated with the proposed development and existing undersupply of supermarket space within the trade area as articulated in the supporting economic impact analysis.

33. It is noted that the Economic Impact Assessment only assesses the potential economic impacts of the proposed development being a supermarket and liquor store of 3,800m², a warehouse and distribution centre and associated office space. However, should the Planning Proposal proceed as submitted and allow retail premises as an additional permitted use, there is potential for a much larger retail centre to be developed on the site that could include a large number of specialty stores or discount department stores. Such a centre would have a profoundly different impact on surrounding centres that has not been adequately considered should the proposed LEP amendment proceed in its current form. The potential for a much larger centre would also lead to significantly different traffic generation from the site as noted in the traffic and transport section above.

34. In order to address this concern, it is proposed that the additional permitted use of retail premises be limited to a maximum of 3,800m² in accordance with the proposed supermarket and liquor store development included in the Planning Proposal. It is proposed to include this limit as part of the Additional Permitted Use provisions within Schedule 1 of the Parramatta (former The Hills) Local Environmental Plan 2012. This will ensure that retail uses are capped on the site and any additional retail uses do not occur on the site over and above those that have already been subject to a detailed impact analysis.

Heritage

35. A Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared by Extent Heritage Advisors in support of the submitted Planning Proposal and is included at Attachment 4. The site contains a locally listed heritage item referred to as, ‘Stone Bridge Approaches and Foundation Plaque, Sydney Woollen Mills’, Item A23 in Schedule 5 of The Parramatta (former The Hills) Local Environmental Plan 2012. The only known built heritage elements on the site is a portion of wall with inset foundation plaques located along Windsor Road, directly adjacent to the footpath, which is bounded at the rear by metal cyclone fencing.

Figure 8: Proposed works with existing built heritage item outlined in red

36. The proposed future development of the site seeks to utilise the existing warehouse building, with minor alterations including adjustments to some openings, new shopfront glazing and new awnings. All works would be clear of the existing built heritage fabric by approximately 25 metres, and hence there would be no physical impact on the heritage item. No ground penetrating works are proposed that could impact upon potential archaeological resources (refer to Figure 8).

37. There is no direct change proposed to the built heritage item and therefore no impact to its heritage fabric.

38. Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the Proposal and advised that the proposed planning amendment will have no impact on the heritage significance of the item on site. A full assessment of potential heritage impacts would be required as part of the future detailed development application and would address any potential impacts, including visual impacts, however these are expected to be minimal.

Flooding

39. An Overland Flow Assessment report has been prepared by BMT WBM Pty Ltd in support of the submitted Planning Proposal. A copy of the Overland Flow Assessment is included at Attachment 5. Figure 9 below shows there is some flood affectation in the 1% AEP (100 year ARI) flood event but only around the eastern and southern edges of the site (the immediate area of Darling Mills Creek).

Figure 9: Flood Affectation

40.

Hazard

High Risk

Low Risk

Figure 10 shows there is an area of high flood hazard flow (shown in red), but affects the site only the outer edges and is located near the Darling Mills Creek.

Figure 10: Flood Risk – map showing ‘low hazard’ flood zone in yellow

41. The change in use from the hardware warehouse (Bunnings) to a supermarket is predicted to increase the number of occupants on the site, which will increase the flood risk associated with this development. However the flood studies indicate minimal intrusion of high hazard flooding onto the site and only minor intrusion of moderate hazard 1% AEP (100 year ARI) flooding around the edges of the land. This means increasing the number of occupants on the site is not likely to generate an increased risk from overland flow flooding.

42. As the proposal is not seeking to alter the extent of the existing building envelope on the site, it does not appear to be obstructing any significant overland flow conveyance path (‘floodway’) nor will it cause unacceptable displacement of overland flow floodwaters onto other properties or lands.

43. In conclusion, Council’s Senior Catchment and Development Engineer advised that there is no apparent impediment to the proposal proceeding with respect to flooding impacts and affectation. Potential flood impacts would be further considered and addressed as a part of the future detailed development application.

PLANNING AGREEMENT

44. Under the City of Parramatta Planning Agreements Policy (adopted 26 November 2018) “Council will consider, as a matter of public interest, whether satisfactory arrangements have been or will be made for the provision of community infrastructure, given the likely increase in demand for services and infrastructure” (clause 2.5.2). The Policy also seeks to ascribe a value to any planning agreement related to the land value uplift as a result of the planning proposal.

45. The submitted Planning Proposal is not accompanied by a Letter of Offer seeking to enter into a Planning Agreement with Council as it is only proposing to include retail premises as an additional permitted use on the site and is not seeking any density uplift. However, given the issues identified within the Traffic and Transport section above, a Planning Agreement may provide an appropriate mechanism to ensure that issues associated with the increase in demand for infrastructure as a result of the Planning Proposal are satisfactorily addressed.

46. It is therefore recommended that Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to negotiate a Planning Agreement on behalf of Council. Should the Planning Agreement proceed, the outcome of the negotiations would be reported back to Council prior to its concurrent public exhibition with the Planning Proposal. The key elements of the Planning Agreement would address the following:

· delivery of a roundabout on North Rocks Road, and

· augmentation of the existing bridge over Darling Mills Creek to facilitate increased capacity for pedestrian and cyclists.

47. In addition, as noted in the Traffic and Transport section above, a mechanism to deliver a third lane on the James Ruse Drive off ramp should be agreed to by the State Government and the proponent prior to any public exhibition of the Planning Proposal. This will likely require some land take on the northern boundary of the site but will not impact the existing structures on site. Should a Planning Agreement be required to deliver the additional lane, it would be undertaken at State level as James Ruse Drive is not a Council owned and managed road.

SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

48. It is noted that the Planning Proposal is only seeking to include a supermarket and associated liquor store as an additional permitted use within Schedule 1 of the Parramatta (former The Hills) Local Environmental Plan 2012, and that the use is proposed to be incorporated within an existing building on site. It is therefore not considered necessary to include a site-specific DCP to support the proposal in this instance. The existing provisions within The Hills Shire DCP 2012 are considered sufficient to manage the assessment of any development application on the site should the proposal proceed.

PLAN-MAKING DELEGATIONS

49. Revised delegations were announced by the then Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in October 2012, allowing councils to make LEPs of local significance. On 26 November 2012, Council resolved to accept the delegation for plan-making functions. Council has resolved that these functions be delegated to the CEO.

50. Should Council resolve to endorse the Planning Proposal to proceed, it is recommended that Council request that it exercise its plan-making delegations. This means that once the Planning Proposal has been to Gateway, undergone public exhibition and been adopted by Council, Council officers will deal directly with the Parliamentary Counsel Office on the legal drafting and mapping of the amendment. The LEP amendment is then signed by the CEO before being notified on the NSW Legislation website.

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

51. This report recommends that the Planning Proposal for 1 Windsor Road, North Rocks proceed to Gateway.

52. Should the proposal proceed and a Gateway Determination be issued, the Planning Proposal will be placed on public exhibition and the outcomes of the exhibition will be reported to the Local Planning Panel if any objections are received. If no objections are received, the matter will be reported directly to Council post-exhibition.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

53. The Planning Proposal and supporting documents were referred internally to Council’s Heritage, Flooding, Traffic and Transport, Economic Development teams and externally to the TfNSW for comment.

54. No public consultation has been undertaken relating to this Planning Proposal. Should Council resolve to proceed with the Planning Proposal, it (and all related information) will be submitted to the DPIE for Gateway Determination. Community consultation will be undertaken as required by the Gateway Determination.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

55. Should Council resolve to proceed with the Planning Proposal, the costs incurred in conducting the community consultation are covered by the fees associated with the submission of the Planning Proposal request. Should a Planning Agreement be required to support the Planning Proposal, a separate report will be provided to Council outlining all financial implications associated with such an agreement.

Jane Liang

Project Officer Land Use

Michael Rogers

Land Use Planning Manager

David Birds

Group Manager, City Planning

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Planning Proposal for 1 Windsor Road, North Rocks	46 Pages
2 ⇩	Traffic Review	8 Pages
3 ⇩	Economic Impact Assessment	61 Pages
4 ⇩	Heritage Impact Assessment	9 Pages
5 ⇩	Flooding Report	8 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Local Planning Panel 16 June 2020 Item 6.3

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 6.3

SUBJECT Pre-Gateway: Planning Proposal for land at 114-118 Harris Street, Harris Park

REFERENCE RZ/9/2018 - D07402799

REPORT OF Project Officer Land Use

LAND OWNER: Harris Street Developments Pty Ltd

APPLICANT: Think Planners Pty Ltd

Development Applications CONSIDERED BY SYDNEY CENTRAL CITY PLANNING PANEL – Nil.

PURPOSE:

To seek the Local Planning Panel’s advice on a Planning Proposal at 114-118 Harris Street, Harris Park for the purposes of seeking a Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. This report also deals with the preparation of a site-specific Development Control Plan a draft Planning Agreement for this site.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Local Planning Panel consider the following Council officer recommendation in the Panel’s advice to Council:

(a) That Council endorse for the purposes of seeking a Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, the Planning Proposal at 114–118, Harris Street, Harris Park (included as Attachment 1) which seeks the following amendments to Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 in relation to the subject site:

1. Increase the maximum building height from 54 metres (15 storeys) to 126 metres (32 storeys);

2. Increase the maximum FSR on the Floor Space Ratio Map from 4:1 to 10:1;

3. Inclusion of controls to deal with management of flooding including, but not limited to, provisions for safe refuge and ensure the building is capable of withstanding and does not obstruct flood flows; and

4. Amend the Special Areas Provisions Map to identify the site and add site-specific controls that provide for the following:

a. Provision outlining that the mapped FSR of 10:1 is subject to the sliding scale requirements of Clause 7.2 of the draft LEP provisions of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

b. Requirement for minimum 1:1 commercial floor space

c. Maximum parking rates, in line with the resolution of the City of Parramatta Council on 26 November 2019 with regard to parking rates in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

d. Requirement to demonstrate Experiment Farm is not overshadowed by development of the site.

(b) That the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment to request the issuing of a Gateway Determination.

(c) That a draft site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) be prepared and reported to Council prior to its public exhibition. This draft DCP should address, at a minimum:

1. Built form and massing;

2. Building setbacks;

3. Flooding; and

4. Road widening.

(d) That with regards to a Planning Agreement for the subject site:

1. the applicant be invited to negotiate a Planning Agreement in line with Council’s policy position on Planning Agreements in the Parramatta CBD;

2. delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate a draft Planning Agreement with the landowner in relation to the Planning Proposal on behalf of Council; and

3. the outcome of the negotiations shall be reported back to Council prior to the draft Planning Agreement being placed on public exhibition.

(e) That the Planning Proposal, DCP and Planning Agreement are concurrently exhibited.

(f) That Council advises DPIE that the Chief Executive Officer will not be exercising the plan-making delegations for this Planning Proposal as authorised by Council on 26 November 2012.

(g) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to correct any minor anomalies of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during the Planning Proposal, DCP and / or Planning Agreement processes.

PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE

INTRODUCTION

1. The Planning Proposal for 114 – 118 Harris Street is one of three Planning Proposals for land at the corner of Parkes and Harris Streets. Other Planning Proposals have been lodged for 24 Parkes Street and 26-30 Parkes Street. These three sites are shown in Figure 1. This report addresses the Planning Proposal for site 3 in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Three adjacent Planning Proposals, Harris Park

[1: 24 Parkes Street; 2: 26–30 Parkes Street; 3: 114–118 Harris Street)

2. The background to these three Planning Proposals extends over a period of approximately three years with extensive consultation with Council officers during that time. During this time Council staff have raised a number of issues concerning development of the sites; the main issues are summarised as follows:

· The need to satisfactorily resolve setbacks for the sites and particularly on the western boundary of 26–30 Parkes Street. This was necessary to ensure that the adjoining site to the west at 24 Parkes Street does not suffer from site isolation and that there is adequate space between buildings.

· Possible overshadowing impacts on the nearby conservation areas of Harris Park West, and Experiment Farm, and also Experiment Farm Cottage contained on the State Heritage Register. To establish the magnitude of possible overshadowing impacts Council officers have undertaken extensive analysis as part of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

· Council staff have been of the consistent view that site consolidation is the best means to secure good built form and urban design outcomes and avoid site isolation of 24 Parkes Street. Also, with site amalgamation the permitted FSR for the sites would not be subject to the sliding scale restrictions under the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal and may be able to achieve a maximum permitted FSR of 10:1.

3. Nevertheless, after consideration Council officers have reached the conclusion that 114–118 Harris Street can be reported as a stand-alone Planning Proposal. As will be discussed further in this report, this site may be developed without amalgamation to achieve acceptable urban design and planning outcomes, and the Planning Proposal is consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. Urban design and planning issues are largely resolved and can be further dealt with through the preparation of a DCP for the site.

SITE DESCRIPTION

4. The subject site has an area of 1,776 m² and its legal description is as follows: SP 35413 (114, Harris Street) and SP 53257 (116 – 118, Harris Street). The site is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Location of Site (site shown outlined in red)

5. The site is on the south eastern edge of the Parramatta CBD. To the east of the site is the Robin Thomas Reserve, which is one of the few city centre open space areas and contributes to the character and amenity of the area. Clay Cliff Creek (an open channel) adjoins the northern boundary of the site.

6. The immediate locality is characterised by a mix of uses and built form. To the west of the site is generally aged building stock that is currently undergoing a transition in character because of development approvals under construction and the recent Planning Proposal at 14 – 20 Parkes Street, Harris Park.

CURRENT PLANNING CONTROLS

7. The site is subject to Parramatta LEP 2011 and the following key provisions apply to the site:

· zoning: B4 Mixed Use;

· maximum Height of Buildings (HOB): 54 metres;

· maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR): 4:1.

8. The site is not listed as a heritage item. However, it is in close proximity to a number of heritage items and conservation areas as listed below and illustrated at Figure 3.

· 100768: Experiment Farm Cottage and Environs (State Significance);

· A00768: Experiment Farm Archaeological Site (State Significance);

· Experiment Farm Conservation Area.

Figure 3: Heritage properties in relation to subject site (site shown outlined in red)

Flooding

9. The site is affected by the probable maximum flood (PMF) event, as well as the 1:100 and 1:20 year flood. The northern margin of the site adjacent to Clay Cliff Creek is subject to high hazard flooding. Flood maps are shown in Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4: Flooding (1:20 and 1:100 year flood) (site shown outlined in red)

Figure 5: Flooding Hazard Levels (site shown outlined in red)

DESCRIPTION OF THIS PLANNING PROPOSAL AND COMPARISON OF CONTROLS WITH CURRENT AND PARRAMATTA CBD PLANNING PROPOSAL

10. On 27 August 2018, a Planning Proposal was lodged for 114–118 Harris Street, Harris Park to remove the maximum height of building (HOB) under the incentive HOB map and to increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio from 4:1 to 14.5:1.

11. Following consultation with Council officers the Planning Proposal has been modified to seek the following amendments to Parramatta LEP 2011:

· Apply a maximum building height of 145 metres

· Apply a mapped FSR of 10:1

· Include a provision subjecting the mapped FSR of 10:1 to the sliding scale requirements of Clause 7.2 of the draft LEP provisions of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

· Include an additional site specific clause requiring a mandatory 1:1 of commercial floor space.

· Include a maximum car parking rate in accordance with the Parramatta CBD Strategic Transport Study and resolution of Council of 10 April 2017.

12. The applicant’s Planning Proposal is accompanied by traffic, wind and flood studies and a reference design (most recent reference design included at Attachment 2).

13. The Planning Proposal seeks to redevelop the site as a multi-storey mixed-use apartment building comprising one level of retail outlets, one level of commercial offices, 35 levels of residential apartments and one level of communal open space. Approximately 218 new dwellings will be delivered by the proposal. It is expected that there will be four levels of basement car parking. An illustration of the proposed design concept for the site is shown in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6: Eastern elevation of design concept for 114 – 118 Harris Street facing Harris Street

14. Table 1 compares the key planning controls recommended for the subject site with the current controls and the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

Table 1: Planning Proposal comparison to current controls and Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal

Scenario	Current Controls	Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal Controls	Recommended Site-specific Planning Proposal controls
Site Area – 1,776m²
Land zoning	B4 Mixed Use	B4 Mixed Use	B4 Mixed Use
FSR	4:1	Base: 4:1 Incentive: 10:1 (11.5 with bonus). However, under clause 7.2 of the draft CBD Planning Proposal LEP provisions the site is subject to a sliding scale, as resolved by Council on 24 March 2019	10:1 Under the sliding scale the permissible FSR for the site is 9.88:1 (which allows 11.362:1 with design excellence. This is reflected in the reference design).
HOB / solar access plane	54m (15 storeys)	Base: 54m Includes a new “Area 1 “control applied to protect Experiment Farm. Council resolved to protect solar access to Experiment Farm between 10 am and 2 pm midwinter.	The Height of Buildings map will show 126 metres 32 - storeys) (145m - 38 storeys with design excellence). A control to protect Solar Access to Experiment Farm will also affect the permitted maximum height. The control will be modelled on the Parramatta CBD Planning described in the adjoining row. Modelling suggests Experiment Farm will not be overshadowed if the building is at or below 145m. Given the height is based on preliminary modeling there is a small risk that a building at 145m could overshadow when detailed design work is completed. However this clause will ensure that a more detailed design prepared at Design Competition and Development Application stage will still comply with the requirement to keep Experiment Farm free from shadow at the specified periods of the day.
Land Acquisition	Nil	In the land reservation acquisition map for the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal the Harris Street frontage of the site is subject to the requirement for 3.5m road widening.	It is recommended that a Planning Agreement be negotiated to secure a 3.5m widening along Harris street.
Minimum Commercial Floor Space	Nil	Minimum 1:1 commercial floor space required in mixed use development.	Insert clause that will require a minimum commercial floor space of 1:1.
Active Street Frontages	N/A	Active frontage proposed for Harris Street.	Active frontage provided on Harris Street via DCP controls.
High performing buildings (residential)	N/A	5% high performing building bonus.	High performing building bonus is not supported (refer to detailed comments below).
Parking	Parking Rates	Endorsed Parking Rates consistent with City of Sydney CBD Parking rates - Category A.	Insert clause setting parking rates as per Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.
Yield	Approximately 89 dwellings*	Approximately 218 dwellings.	Approximately 218 dwellings.

*Based on Average Unit size of 80m²

15. In summary, the Planning Proposal recommended for the subject site seeks to amend the core planning controls of FSR and HOB in a manner that is consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal as described in Table 1.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SUBJECT PLANNING PROPOSAL

Sliding Scale / Amalgamation Issues

16. As noted earlier, this Planning Proposal is one of three Planning Proposals at the corner of Parkes and Harris Streets. Other proposals are for 24 and 26 – 30 Parkes Street (see Figure 7- labelled 1 and 2 respectively). The other two Planning Proposals sites also are below 1,800m2 in area and trigger the sliding scale provisions. In both cases the applicants have requested that sliding scale provision not be applied to their site.

Figure 7– Adjoining land subject to site-specific Planning Proposals

17. Officers consider that amalgamation of these sites would maximise the FSR that can be achieved as the sliding scale controls would not be applied to sites that are amalgamated to achieve an area of 1,800m2 or greater. It would also allow for the FSR to be achieved with more generous tower setbacks and separations which are desirable from an urban design viewpoint.

18. Council Officers met with all the applicants to determine whether amalgamation arrangements could be agreed. The applicants were unable to reach an agreement and have requested that their respective Planning Proposals be reported to Council with each application assessed separately assuming the sites will be developed as individual sites. The Planning Proposals for the adjoining sites are expected to be reported to the Local Planning Panel and Council once further information submitted by these applicants has been assessed.

19. If the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal is finalised as per Council’s current policy framework then each of these site will be permitted to be developed individually subject to application of the sliding scale. Given this Council Officers consider that it is acceptable to proceed with individual assessments for these site-specific Planning Proposals.

Setback Issues in absence of site amalgamation

20. Figure 7 also shows the amalgamation options for the subject site are limited to the two adjoining sites that are the subject of the other applications due to the creek.

21. If this site is developed independently the only way the adjoining sites can achieve the minimum 1,800m2 to avoid the application of sliding scale is for those two sites to amalgamate (i.e. sites 1 and 2). If they were to amalgamate in the future the “L’ shaped site created is not an efficient shape for a redevelopment and setbacks and tower separations that can be achieved whilst still allowing a viable floor plate are more limited. If the sites are all developed independently setback and separation limitations are exacerbated.

Application of High Performing Building Bonus

22. The applicant is seeking to apply the high performing building bonus to this site. The bonus allows the developer to achieve an additional 5% bonus if they are able to achieve higher environmental performance criteria than would otherwise be required. However the site does not meet the criteria to be eligible for this bonus as the site must have a site area of 1,800m2 and the subject site is 1,776m².

23. The applicant’s justification for this variation is:

· The subject site is 24m² under the minimum 1,800m² required to be eligible for the 0.5 high performing building floor space ratio bonus. The site represents an insignificant shortfall in the minimum area required to obtain this bonus.

· In this case, a superior environmental outcome can be achieved if the clause is applied to this slightly undersized lot. The benefits of the high performing building which result in a development that achieves lower energy and water usage will bring a larger public benefit to the City of Parramatta.

· Rigid application of this control in this circumstance is unwarranted and does not achieve the overall intentions and objectives of the high performing building provisions.

24. If permitted it would allow a design for the site with base FSR of 9.8:1 (applying sliding scale), plus design excellence (15% of base FSR), together with high performing building bonus (5% of base FSR) to achieve an FSR of 11.8:1. Compared to the FSR of 11.4:1 which is being recommended for the subject Planning Proposal.

25. Council officers do not support the application of this bonus because it would undermine the sliding scale provisions that are being applied to encourage higher FSR bonuses to be available if amalgamation occurs to achieve larger lots. Allowing the high performing building bonus without meeting the site criteria would set an unacceptable precedent which would undermine the sliding scale provisions as developers could achieve higher FSR without having to amalgamate. Promotion of amalgamation via the sliding scale mechanism is a critical objective that underpins the achievement of the broader objective of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal

Built form and urban design

26. Council’s City Design Unit has reviewed the applicant’s urban design reports and reference design drawings. Table 2 below compares the setbacks currently being considered by Council Officers given urban design and flooding issues and those proposed by the applicant.

Table 2: Comparison of setbacks proposed by Council and those in most recent reference design

Council officer proposed setbacks	Applicant's setbacks
a. Podium
0m to south	0m to south
1.5m to east	1m to east
6m to the north	6m to the north
0m to west	0m
b. Tower
9m to south	9m to south
4.5m from east podium along Harris Street	Levels 5-34, 2m and Levels 35-37, 11m from east podium along Harris Street
1.5m to 2 m from north podium	0m from north podium
9m to west	9m to west

27. The applicant argues their proposed setbacks are acceptable and this demonstrates they can achieve an FSR of up to 11.8:1. Council’s City Design Unit are yet to accept the setbacks proposed but are committed to continue discussions on what the appropriate setback might be and whether their current recommended setbacks might be relaxed. Currently the key concern of Council officers is that reducing the setbacks will impact on the streetscape and perceived mass of the buildings and where they bring buildings closer to adjoining sites may impact on the amenity of residents of adjoining future buildings at 24 and 26 – 30 Parkes Street.

28. One of the principles of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal is that height should only be limited in cases where there are overshadowing or other factors that require a specific height control to be imposed. Otherwise the only restriction on height are aeronautical constraints. Due to the overshadowing of Experiment Farm this is one of the sites where height has been limited. This means that larger setbacks potentially impacts on the ability of the applicant to achieve a higher FSR on this site because the height of the building cannot be increased to retain the maximum FSR. Therefore the setbacks negotiation will have a significant impact on the maximum FSR achievable on this site

29. A draft DCP reflecting the outcome of these further discussion on setbacks will be reported to Council for endorsement so it can be exhibited with the Planning Proposal. This report recommends Council permit the maximum FSR in accordance with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal so if the applicant is able to satisfy Council Officers that their setbacks are appropriate that they can then achieve this maximum FSR without having to amend the Planning Proposal. This approach allows an appropriate level of flexibility.

Heritage

30. It is noted that the subject site does not contain any heritage items or is within a conservation area. However, the impact of future development must ensure that solar access to Experiment Farm is protected.

31. The proposed building envelope and indicative architectural plans within the Urban Design Analysis show the development does not overshadow Experiment Farm. Council Officers are satisfied that there is no overshadowing impact to Experiment Farm under the proposed indicative massing. Further refinement and detail will need to be provided during the Design Excellence process and later at the Development Application stage to ensure this matter is appropriately managed.

Flooding

32. A Flood Impact Assessment has been prepared for the applicant by Cardno Pty Ltd with the report demonstrating the storm water flooding extent and behavior for the Planning Proposal.

33. Council’s Senior Catchment and Development Engineer has reviewed the applicant’s flood study, along with flood studies for the adjacent Planning Proposals at 24 and 26 to 30 Parkes Street and has commented as follows:

· There are potentially two sources of flooding: 1. From Clay Cliff Creek, for which Council’s adopted flood levels may be used. 2. From overland flow (rainfall) in the local catchment above the site.

· The applicable flood planning level is the higher of these flood levels for the critical 1% AEP flood event plus 0.5m freeboard.

· Minimum floor levels for habitable floors/rooms shall be the flood planning level.

· Development / buildings must not obstruct the floodway. There is a floodway beyond the channel of Clay Cliff Creek that is a critical issue but should be resolvable by design.

· The provision of a 6 metres setback from the canal edge at ground level (and at least 4 metres overhead clearance above the surface) is considered important to allow for floodwaters to pass alongside and above the channel. This is important in ensuring that the floodway is not unreasonably obstructed by the development and will in turn help to satisfy the requirements of the Minister's Section 9.1Direction.

· Council prefers that there are no basements. If basements are pursued (for car parking only), the basement driveway entry must be provided with a flood barrier crest at or above the flood planning level. Wingwalls to this level and other passive measures such as raised entries to stairs to prevent flood waters entering the basement must be provided to the flood planning level. Additionally floodwaters higher than the flood planning level up to the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) must be excluded from the basement. This can be done with bund walls, self-actuating flood gates on the driveway crest and elsewhere, flood doors on stairwells etc and other measures as needed.

· The Applicants have begun to address Flood Emergency Response Plans, including ‘shelter in place’ facilities and evacuation. This can be taken further as details are developed.

· Under DCP 2011 and the Council Floodplain Risk Management Policy, Council does not permit ‘Sensitive Uses’, including centre-based child care, in flood prone land (that is affected by the PMF).

34. It is concluded that the site is generally suitable for residential development from a flood risk perspective. The Planning Proposal is considered to be capable of being consistent with Section 4.3 Flood Prone Land of the Section 9.1 Ministerial Direction subject to inclusion of controls described below.

35. There are two nearby sites that all front onto Clay Cliff Creek where the approach to applying the flood controls likely to be introduced as part of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal have been managed differently over time.

Site	Controls
12A Parkes Street	Planning proposal was finalised with controls included in LEP
14-20 Parkes Street	Council initially proposed some controls in the DCP but as part of the Planning Proposal finalisation process they intend to include these controls in the LEP

36. Given the Department of Planning most recent decision on 14-20 Parkes Street it is recommended that provisions be added to the Planning Proposal that require the development to address floodplain risk management in a manner consistent with the approach proposed in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. The controls will require safe areas for refuge and ensure the building is capable of withstanding and does not obstruct flood flows.

Traffic and Transport

37. Council’s Traffic and Transport Section has reviewed the subject Planning Proposal, along with the adjacent Planning Proposals for 24 Parkes Street and 26 – 30 Parkes Street. The section supports the maximum parking provision for each site in line with the rates of the strategic transport study for the Parramatta CBD that Council endorsed on 10 April 2017. Council resolved to include reduced parking rates in the CBD Planning Proposal, pending results of the forthcoming detailed (mesoscopic) study. This resolution was in part to allow site-specific Planning Proposals to proceed ahead of the detailed modelling. The rates will be those included in the Draft Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal when it was endorsed on 26 November 2019 and include the following generic rates for residential and commercial uses as well as other rates for specific uses:

a. Residential parking rates

Type of Apartment	Spaces/unit
3-bedroom	1 space/unit
2-bedroom	0.7 spaces/unit
1-bedroom	0.3 spaces/unit
Studio	0.1 spaces/unit

b. Commercial parking rates

If the FSR > 3.5:1

M = (G * A) / (50 * T)

where:

M = maximum number of parking spaces

G = GFA of all office/business premises in the building (m²)

A = Site Area (m²)

T = Total GFA of all buildings on the site (m²)

38. The Section has also commented that traffic modelling is not required to be conducted as part of the Traffic Analysis submitted as part of the Planning Proposal given Council is conducting a detailed traffic study that investigates the cumulative impact of traffic generation under the 15:1 FSR growth scenario.

39. The Planning Proposal is required to take into consideration a provision on the Local Reservation Acquisition (LRA) Maps of the draft Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal that provides for local road widening on the western side of Harris Street. The width of the widening is approximately 3.5 metres. The widening has been incorporated into the strategic traffic modelling for the CBD Planning Proposal, and at this stage it has been jointly agreed by Transport for NSW and Council to facilitate the creation of a potential additional lane along the west side of Harris Street. Therefore, it has been included in the Local Reservation Acquisition Maps for the draft CBD Planning Proposal. This is discussed further in the section of this report relating to a Planning Agreement.

Summary of Assessment

40. The redevelopment of the site without amalgamation does not result in optimal urban design and planning outcomes but the Planning Proposal recommended by Council Officers will be generally consistent with the CBD Planning Proposal as endorsed by Council and will deliver acceptable outcomes and so can be supported.

41. Council officers also recommend that Council advise DPIE that the CEO will not be exercising the plan-making delegations for this Planning Proposal. This is on the basis that Council is also advancing the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (which affects this site), and the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal has not yet been approved by DPIE for finalisation.

SITE-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

42. It is recommended that a site-specific DCP be prepared that will deal with issues including, but not limited to, built form and massing, setbacks, flooding and road widening.

PLANNING AGREEMENT

43. It is expected that a Planning Agreement will be negotiated in line with the Parramatta CBD Community Infrastructure framework. Council’s negotiating position for the Planning Agreement will be based on the endorsed value sharing rates for the Parramatta CBD, namely $150/m2 of residential floor space. The basis of the amount for payment is set out in the table below.

Table xx: Calculations for payment of monetary contribution

Development parameters
Site area	1776 m2
Base Gross Floor Area	4:1 = 4 x 1,776 m2= 7104 m2
Incentive Floor area (Phase 1)	9.88:1 = 9.88: x 1776 m2 =17,546.88 m2
Uplift in Gross Floor Area	(17,546.88 – 7104) = 10,442.88 m2
Community infrastructure payment required at $150 /m²	$1,566,432 (Mixed use development with commercial and residential use)

44. The landowners of the site have submitted a letter of offer (Attachment 3 ) proposing to make voluntary financial contributions consistent with the Phase 1 Value Sharing methodology that will provide contributions towards Community Infrastructure.

45. As noted above, the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal LRA map contains provisions for a 3.5 metre road widening along Harris Street at this site. It is recommended that Council seek to negotiate inclusion of this road widening in the subject Planning Agreement for the site, noting that Council’s policy position is to assign a nominal value ($1) to land dedicated where the Applicant receives the benefit of the FSR from that land.

46. In order to progress a Planning Agreement Council Officers require delegation from Council to negotiate a Planning Agreement in association with this Planning Proposal. It is recommended that delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate a Planning Agreement with the landowners on behalf of Council and that the outcome of negotiations be reported back to Council before its public exhibition. These negotiations are to be undertaken in line with Council’s recently endorsed Planning Agreement Policy 2018.

47. In addition, Council Officers recommend the negotiation of a draft Planning Agreement should take into account the following matters:

a. Addressing the potential circumstance in which the rate in the Parramatta CBD Community Infrastructure framework changes;

b. Addressing the potential circumstance where this site proceeds in whole or in part as a non-residential use (in which case the framework would not apply to non-residential floorspace); and

c. Addressing the potential circumstance in which Council decides not to proceed with the Community Infrastructure framework, and instead pursues amendments to its other contributions plans.

NEXT STEPS

48. Council officers recommend that Council:

· Progress the Planning Proposal described in this report, and included at Attachment 1;

· prepare a site-specific DCP;

· invite the applicant to commence negotiations for a Planning Agreement associated with the Planning Proposal;

· exhibit the Planning Proposal, Planning Agreement and site-specific DCP concurrently; and

· endorse other administrative matters as outlined in the recommendation.

49. Pending Council’s endorsement, the next step would be to send the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment with a request for a Gateway Determination.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR COUNCIL

50. This report recommends progression of a Planning Agreement process in line with Council’s policy position for the Parramatta CBD, in order to support the delivery of community infrastructure in the Parramatta CBD. An indicative estimate of the monetary contribution that Council will seek to negotiate is $1,566,432.

Paul Kennedy

Project Officer Land Use

Robert Cologna

Land Use Planning Manager

David Birds

Group Manager, City Planning

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Planning Proposal	36 Pages
2 ⇩	Refence Design	51 Pages
3 ⇩	Letter of offer	1 Page

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Planning Proposal drafts

Proponent versions:

No.	Author	Version
1.	Think Planners	14 May 2020

Council versions:

No.	Author	Version
1.	City of Parramatta Council	Report to Local Planning Panel and Council on the assessment of planning proposal

INTRODUCTION

This planning proposal explains the intended effect of, and justification for, the proposed amendment to Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 to modify the maximum building height and floor space ratio (FSR) controls that apply to land at 114 -118 Harris Street Parramatta (legally described SP 35413 and SP 53257) consistent with the broader Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal.

These amendments are sought with the intent to construct a mixed use development comprising a podium with commercial uses and a residential tower above.

The planning proposal has been prepared in accordance with Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) guides, 'A Guide to Preparing Local Environment Plans' (August 2016) and 'A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals' (August 2016) and ‘Guidance for merged councils on planning functions’ (May 2016).

Description of the site and surrounds

The subject site is located at 114-118 Harris Street Parramatta and the legal property description is SP 35413 and SP 53257.

Background and context

The planning proposal was originally submitted in August 2018. When lodged the planning proposal sought a maximum floor space ratio of 14.5:1 with no maximum building height limit. This planning proposal was submitted at the same time as two other planning proposals on adjoining land at 26-30 Parkes Street and 24 Parkes Street.

The amendments proposed in this planning proposal are specific to the site and will facilitate a new high quality mixed use development that will contribute to the housing supply at the edges of the Parramatta city centre and contribute to the renewal of the town centre and character of Parramatta.

The proposed amendments are driven by a desire to deliver a superior urban design outcome for the site which addresses Council’s vision for stepping buildings down in height and density from the centre of the CBD to the South Parramatta Conservation Area but also delivering development which is consistent with the desired future character of Parramatta. The proposed amendments to planning controls will facilitate the delivery of high quality development contributing to much needed housing supply within this strategic centre. The proposal has been the subject of a design review that analyses broader urban design principles as well as site specific reference architecture.

This planning proposal was submitted ahead of the finalisation the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal due to site specific conditions that are addressed in this planning proposal. The draft LEP provisions published for the Parramatta CBD comprise controls to allow an incentive Height and Floor Space Ratio.

This planning proposal has since been amended over time to align with the sliding scale floor space ratio as proposed in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal. The subject site, 114-118 Harris Street has a total site area of 1776m² and is located within proximity to the south eastern edge of the Parramatta CBD. The site fronts onto Harris Street to the east, the canal to the north and is shown in Figure 1, below.

To east of the site is the mid-sized Robin Thomas Reserve, which is one of the few city centre open space areas and contributes to the character and amenity of the area.

To the south of the site, across Parkes St, are apartment buildings that are estimated to date from the 1970s and 1980s. To the north of the site Clay Cliff Creek (an open concrete channel) immediately adjoins the boundary.

The locality is characterised by a mix of uses and built form. To the west of the site is generally aged building stock that is currently undergoing a transition in character because of development approvals under construction and recent Planning Proposals at 14-20 Parkes St Parramatta. It is noted the strategic context map provided below demonstrates the sites location.

Subject Site

Figure 1 – Site at 114-118 Harris Street Parramatta subject to the planning proposal

Existing planning controls

Pursuant to Parramatta Local Environmental plan 2011 (PLEP 2011):

· The site is zoned B4 Mixed Use;

· Has a maximum building height of 54m and a maximum FSR of 4:1.

· The site is not identified as an item of local heritage significance, however is in close proximity of Experiment Farm and is affected by solar access provisions which ensure Experiment Farm is not impacted by overshadowing.

· Is the subject of additional local provisions under Part 7 given the sites location within the Parramatta City Centre

· Identified as Class 4 Acid Sulfate Soils.

· The site is identified as being floor-prone and affected by the PMF.

An extract of each the above maps is provided in Part 4 – Mapping; specifically, Section 4.1 Existing controls.

PART 1 – OBJECTIVES OR INTENDED OUTCOMES

The objective of this planning proposal is to seek the revisions to the maximum building height and floor space ratio controls for land at 114-118 Harris Street Parramatta to facilitate a mixed use comprising approximately 218 dwellings, 2,095m² of commercial floor space at the ground and first floor within the mixed use building.

To facilitate the site’s redevelopment, it is proposed the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (PLEP) is to be amended to:

· Has a maximum building height of 126 m and a maximum mapped FSR of 10:1.

· Include site-specific controls that provide for the following:

o Controls for the management of flooding.

o Requirement that the mapped FSR of 10:1 is subject to sliding scale requirements.

o Requirement for mandatory 1:1 of commercial floor space.

o Requirement for a maximum car parking rate in accordance with the Parramatta CBD Strategic Transport Study and resolution of Council of 10 April 2017.

o Requirement to demonstrate Experiment Farm is not overshadowed by development of the site.

PART 2 – EXPLANATION OF PROVISIONS

This planning proposal seeks to amend Parramatta LEP 2011 (PLEP 2011) in relation to the height and floor space ratio controls.

In order to achieve the desired objectives the following amendments to the PLEP 2011 would need to be made:

1. Amend the maximum building height in the Height of Buildings Map (Sheet HOB_010]) from 54 metres to 126 metres which equates to 32 storeys. Refer Figure [#] in Part 4 of this planning proposal.

2. Amend the maximum FSR in the Floor Space Ratio Map (Sheet FSR_010]) from 4:1 to 10:1. Refer Figure # in Part 4 of this planning proposal.

3. Amend the Special Areas Provision Map (Sheet CL1_010) to identify the site. Refer tp Figure # in Part 4 of this planning proposal.

4. Insert a new Clause in Part 7 to include site specific provisions as follows:

a. Inclusion of controls to deal with management of flooding including, but not limited to, provisions for safe refuge and ensure the building is capable of withstanding and does not obstruct flood flows.

b. Provision outlining that the mapped FSR of 10:1 is subject to the sliding scale requirements of Clause 7.2 of the draft LEP provisions of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal

c. Requirement for minimum 1:1 commercial floor space.

d. Maximum parking rates, in line with the resolution of the City of Parramatta Council on 26 November 2019 with regard to parking rates in the CBD Planning Proposal.

e. Requirement to demonstrate Experiment Farm is not overshadowed by development of the site.

1.1. Other relevant matters

1.1.1. Voluntary Planning Agreement

A draft Planning Agreement has been prepared with the applicant to require them to contribute towards the provision of community infrastructure in the Parramatta CBD. Pursuant to Council’s resolution on 10 July 2017, the draft Planning Agreement is to be publicly exhibited concurrently with the planning proposal and the draft DCP.

PART 3 – JUSTIFICATION

This part describes the reasons for the proposed outcomes and development standards in the planning proposal.

3.1 Section A - Need for the planning proposal

3.1.1. Is the planning proposal a result of an endorsed local strategic planning statement, strategic study or report?

The planning proposal is a result of an application from the landowner seeking to increase the density of development permitted on the site. The planning proposal was amended to reflect the Parramatta CBD Planning Strategy (the Strategy) and the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (CBD PP).

Council adopted the Strategy at its meeting of 27 April 2015. The Strategy is the outcome of a study which reviewed the current planning framework and also a significant program of consultation with stakeholders and the community. The Strategy sets the vision for the growth of the Parramatta CBD. Council has subsequently prepared a planning proposal which has been informed by workshops and Council resolutions.

The CBD PP was adopted by Council on 11 April 2016 and submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment. The CBD PP seeks a potential increase in height and FSR for sites within the Parramatta CBD subject to provision of community infrastructure.

The Department of Planning issued a Gateway in December 2018 and the CBD PP is Council’s most recently adopted position on density increases in the Parramatta CBD.

3.1.2. Is the Planning Proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?

It is considered that the planning proposal is the best means of achieving the stated objective of urban revitalisation of this land. The planning proposal is certainly the most efficient mechanism available for stimulating urban renewal and accelerating delivery of high-density housing in a manner consistent with the strategic directions established in the documents the Plan for Growing Sydney, A Metropolis of Three Cities – Greater Sydney Region Plan, the Central City District Plan, the Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsular Plan, the CBD Planning Proposal and the Parramatta CBD Strategy.

The planning proposal assists in amending the planning controls ahead of the Parramatta CBD Planning Strategy’s expected timeframe.

3.2. Section B – Relationship to strategic planning framework

This section assesses the relevance of the Planning Proposal to the directions outlined in key strategic planning policy documents. Questions in this section consider state and local government plans including the NSW Government’s Plan for Growing Sydney and subregional strategy, State Environmental Planning Policies, local strategic and community plans and applicable Ministerial Directions.

3.2.1. Will the planning proposal give effect to the objectives and actions of the applicable regional, or district plan or strategy (including any exhibited draft plans or strategies)?

A Metropolis of Three Cities

In March 2018, the NSW Government released the Greater Sydney Region Plan: A Metropolis of Three Cities (“the GSRP”) a 20 year plan which outlines a three-city vision for metropolitan Sydney for to the year 2036.

Infrastructure and Collaboration

An assessment of the planning proposal’s consistency with the GSRP’s relevant Infrastructure and Collaboration objectives is provided in Table 3a, below.

Table 3a – Consistency of planning proposal with relevant GSRP Actions – Infrastructure and Collaboration

Infrastructure and Collaboration Direction	Relevant Objective	Comment
A city supported by infrastructure	O1: Infrastructure supports the three cities	This Planning Proposal is consistent with the objectives of this direction as the site is less than 600m from Parramatta Rail Station. Bus stops associated with bus services linking Parramatta and Macquarie Park via Epping and Parramatta and Pennant Hills are immediately adjacent to the site. Redevelopment of the site in accordance with the Planning Proposal will result in an increase in the residential population, however this is not considered to be significant. Further a Letter of Offer has been submitted by the land owner with this planning proposal to enter into a VPA making contributions in accordance with Council’s Value Sharing Policy.
	O2: Infrastructure aligns with forecast growth – growth infrastructure compact
	O3: Infrastructure adapts to meet future need
	O4: Infrastructure use is optimised

Liveability

An assessment of the planning proposal’s consistency with the GSRP’s relevant Liveability objectives is provided in Table 3b, below.

Table 3b – Consistency of planning proposal with relevant GSRP Actions – Liveability

Liveability Direction	Relevant Objective	Comment
A city for people	O6: Services and infrastructure meet communities’ changing needs	As noted above, as part of the Planning Proposal the land owner has offered to enter into a Planning Agreement with Council in accordance with the adopted Value Sharing Policy. Therefore, the increased demand for infrastructure will be managed as part of the draft Planning Agreement to be entered into with Council in conjunction with the planning proposal and Section 7.12 contributions at the DA stage.
	O7: Communities are healthy, resilient and socially connected	The Planning Proposal is to be supported by a site specific development control plan that wo;; guide the built form of the proposed development to ensure it responds to the unique urban characteristics of the fringe of the Parramatta CBD, particularly those posed by the topography of the site, the adjoining road, Robin Thomas Reserve and nearby Harris Park conservation area.
	O8: Greater Sydney’s communities are culturally rich with diverse neighbourhoods
	O9: Greater Sydney celebrates the arts and supports creative industries and innovation
Housing the city	O10: Greater housing supply	The site reference plan which accompanies the Urban Design Analysis prepared for the Planning proposal, identifies that, if development proceeds in accordance with that plan, approximately 218 new dwellings will be located on the site. Therefore, it is considered that the Planning proposal is consistent with the objectives of this direction.
	O11: Housing is more diverse and affordable
A city of great places	O12: Great places that bring people together	The planning proposal is located nearby Experiment Farm and has been design to a maximum building height that results in no impact to overshadow Experiment Farm. The proposed maximum building height will ensure there is no impact when a future DA is prepared and detailed designs for the site.
	O13: Environmental heritage is identified, conserved and enhanced

Productivity

An assessment of the planning proposal’s consistency with the GSRP’s relevant Productivity objectives is provided in Table 3c, below.

Table 3c – Consistency of planning proposal with relevant GSRP Actions – Productivity

Productivity Direction	Relevant Objective	Comment
A well connected city	O14: The plan integrates land use and transport creates walkable and 30 minute cities	The site is located within the GPOP Corridor of the Central City and locates additional hosing in the vicinity of major transport corridors. The planning proposal satisfies O14 and O15 of the region plan.
A well connected city	O15: The Eastern, GPOP and Western Economic Corridors are better connected and more competitive
Jobs and skills for the city	O19: Greater Parramatta is stronger and better connected	This Planning Proposal is generally consistent with the vision under O19 of the region plan. It provides higher density housing in Parramatta with proximity to public transport, local schools, amenities and services. Parramatta Railway Station is 600m from the site and provides direct regular services to other parts of Western Sydney and the Sydney CBD.
Jobs and skills for the city	O22: Investment and business activity in centres	The planning proposal will provide more than 2,000m² of commercial/retail floor space which will generate space for small scale business activities on the site.

Sustainability

An assessment of the planning proposal’s consistency with the GSRP’s relevant Sustainability objectives is provided in Table 3d, below.

Table 3d – Consistency of planning proposal with relevant GSRP Actions – Sustainability

Sustainability Direction	Relevant Objective	Comment
A city in its landscape	O31: Public open space is accessible, protected and enhanced	The planning proposal will create an active frontage to Robin Thomas Reserve which assists with the casual surveillance and general enhancement of this space. The proposal also comprises its own communal open space including a large deep soil area running parallel with the canal which forms the northern boundary of the site.
	O32: The Green grid links Parks, open spaces, bushland and walking and cycling paths
An efficient city	O33: A low-carbon city contributes to net-zero emissions by 2050 and mitigates climate change	The proposal does not include sustainability initiatives such as recycled water, sustainable building materials, photovoltaics. Should the proposal proceed, initiatives towards net-zero emissions by 2050, methods of recycling construction and ongoing waste should be investigated as part of the Development Application stage. Further consideration should be given to Council’s Environmental Sustainability Strategy when delivering the proposal.
	O34: Energy and water flows are captured, used and re-used
	O35: More waste is re-used and recycled to support the development of a circular economy

Implementation

An assessment of the planning proposal’s consistency with the GSRP’s relevant Implementation objectives is provided in Table 3d, below.

Table 3d – Consistency of planning proposal with relevant GSRP Actions – Implementation

Implementation Direction

Relevant Objective

Comment

Implementation

O39: A collaborative approach to city planning

Should the planning proposal be satisfactory following feedback and issues raised from stakeholders during the exhibition period it should proceed in accordance with Section 3.34.

Great Parramatta to the Olympic Peninsula (GPOP) Vision

In October 2016, prior to the release of the draft district plans, the Greater Sydney Commission released a visioning document for the Greater Parramatta to Olympic Peninsula (GPOP) area. GPOP is a centrepiece of the Greater Sydney Commissions District plan for the Central City within which the bulk of the GPOP is located.

The vision for GPOP is: “our 2036 vision: GPOP will be Greater Sydney’s true centre – the connected, unifying heart”.

It is focused on driving 12 directions to deliver the GPOP Vision. The document also noted that the GPOP area is the subject of several land use planning activities which are to progress alongside, and consistent with, the developing GOPO Vision, such as the GPOP Land Use and Infrastructure Strategy, Department of Planning and Environment.

The site is located within the Parramatta CBD Westmead Health and Education Super Precinct. The planning proposal is consistent with the vision and directions of GPOP Vision as it will:

· Deliver additional housing and employment within Parramatta CBD that will revitalise the city centre and support the commercial core.

· Provide a mix of housing (Studios and 1 to 3 bedroom units) to suit individual household needs, preferences and budgets.

· Respect the heritage values of items within the vicinity of the site.

· Redevelop a site that has good access to public transport, jobs, services , recreational, educational and other opportunities.

Central City District Plan

Infrastructure and Collaboration

An assessment of the planning proposal’s consistency with the CCDP’s relevant Infrastructure and Collaboration Priorities and Actions is provided in Table 4a, below.

Table 4a – Consistency of planning proposal with relevant CCDP Actions – Infrastructure and Collaboration

Infrastructure and Collaboration Direction

Planning Priority/Action

Comment

A city supported by infrastructure

O1: Infrastructure supports the three cities

O2: Infrastructure aligns with forecast growth – growth infrastructure compact

O3: Infrastructure adapts to meet future need

O4: Infrastructure use is optimised

PP C1: Planning for a city supported by infrastructure

· A1: Prioritise infrastructure investments to support the vision of A metropolis

· A2: Sequence growth across the three cities to promote north-south and east-west connections

· A3: Align forecast growth with infrastructure

· A4: Sequence infrastructure provision using a place based approach

· A5: Consider the adaptability of infrastructure and its potential shared use when preparing infrastructure strategies and plans

· A6: Maximise the utility of existing infrastructure assets and consider strategies to influence behaviour changes to reduce the demand for new infrastructure, supporting the development of adaptive and flexible regulations to allow decentralised utilities

This proposal seeks to permit additional density of the site to deliver a high density mixed use development with 218 apartments.

Further, the site is situated along a classified road and 600m of the Parramatta Station (and proposed metro rail stop). Any uplift in residential yield for the site should consider the place-based approach that responds to the built form.

The VPA Letter of Offer also includes a number of infrastructure provisions to support the development changes for the site and surrounding vicinity. These items will contribute to the provisions of existing infrastructure assets in the area and support the actions of PP C1.

Liveability

An assessment of the planning proposal’s consistency with the CCDP’s relevant Liveability Priorities and Actions is provided in Table 4b, below.

Table 4b – Consistency of planning proposal with relevant CCDP Actions – Liveability

Liveability Direction

Planning Priority/Action

Comment

A city for people

O6: Services and infrastructure meet communities’ changing needs

PP C3: Provide services and social infrastructure to meet people’s changing needs

· A8: Deliver social infrastructure that reflects the need of the community now and in the future

· A9: Optimise the use of available public land for social infrastructure

The planning proposal exhibits a layout that aims to maximize the existing public domain, contribute to construction of a new road adjacent to the site and enhance facilities at the nearby public recreation area at Robin Thomas reserve.

O7: Communities are healthy, resilient and socially connected

O8: Greater Sydney’s communities are culturally rich with diverse neighbourhoods

O9: Greater Sydney celebrates the arts and supports creative industries and innovation

PP C4: Working through collaboration

· A10: Deliver healthy, safe and inclusive places for people of all ages and abilities that support active, resilient and socially connected communities by (a-d).

· A11: Incorporate cultural and linguistic diversity in strategic planning and engagement.

· A12: Consider the local infrastructure implications of areas that accommodate large migrant and refugee populations.

· A13: Strengthen the economic self-determination of Aboriginal communities by engagement and consultation with Local Aboriginal Land Council’s.

· A14: Facilitate opportunities for creative and artistic expression and participation, wherever feasible with a minimum regulatory burden including (a-c).

· A15: Strengthen social connections within and between communities through better understanding of the nature of social networks and supporting infrastructure in local places

The planning proposal exhibits a range of new dwelling types which will serve a large range of different household types in the future residential community.

Housing the city

O10: Greater housing supply

O11: Housing is more diverse and affordable

PP C5: Providing housing supply, choice and affordability, with access to jobs, services and public transport

· A16: Prepare local or district housing strategies that address housing targets [abridged version]

· A17: Prepare Affordable Rental housing Target Schemes

The planning proposal seeks to increase the yield of residential dwelling on the site with a gross floor area of 21,062m² and approximately 218 new dwellings. The proposal make a contribution to the housing targets for the Parramatta LGA and the Central City district.

A city of great places

O12: Great places that bring people together

O13: Environmental heritage is identified, conserved and enhanced

PP C6: Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the District’s heritage

· A18: Using a place-based and collaborative approach throughout planning, design, development and management deliver great places by (a-e)

· A19: Identify, conserve and enhance environmental heritage by (a-c)

· A20: Use place-based planning to support the role of centres as a focus for connected neighbourhoods

· A21: In Collaboration Areas, Planned Precincts and planning for centres (a-d)

· A22: Use flexible and innovative approaches to revitalise high streets in decline.

The CCDP encourages a place-based and collaborative approach throughout planning, design and development stages with a focus on centres supported by connected neighbourhoods.

The planning proposal exhibits planning principles that support a place-based approach that connects the site with the vicinity and nearby land uses in Parramatta and Harris Park.

Productivity

An assessment of the planning proposal’s consistency with the CCDP’s relevant Productivity Priorities and Actions is provided in Table 4c, below.

Table 4c – Consistency of planning proposal with relevant CCDP Actions – Productivity

Productivity Direction

Planning Priority/Action

Comment

A well-connected city

O19: Greater Parramatta is stronger and better connected

PP C7: Growing a stronger and more competitive Greater Parramatta

· A23: Strengthen the economic competitiveness of Greater Parramatta and grow its vibrancy [abridged]

· A24: Revitalise Hawkesbury Road so that it becomes the civic, transport, commercial and community heart of Westmead

· A25: Support the emergency services transport, including helicopter access

· A26: Prioritise infrastructure investment [abridged]

· A27: Manage car parking and identify smart traffic management strategies

· A28: Investigate opportunities for renewal of Westmead East as a mixed use precinct

The planning proposal wishes increase the dwelling capacity of the site for high density residential uses in Parramatta. C

1 ⇩	Attachment 1: Assessment Report	14 Pages
2 ⇩	Attachment 2: Locality Map	1 Page
3 ⇩	Attachment 3: Plans used during assessment	10 Pages
4 ⇩	Attachment 4: Original conditions issued by LEC	12 Pages
5 ⇩	Attachment 5: Draft Modification Conditions	8 Pages

1 ⇩	Attachment 1: Assessment Report	17 Pages
2 ⇩	Attachment 2: Locality Map	1 Page
3 ⇩	Attachment 3: Plans used during assessment	6 Pages
4	Attachment 4: Internal plans used during assessment (confidential)	5 Pages
5 ⇩	Attachment 5: Draft DA Conditions	22 Pages

1 ⇩	Attachment 1: Assessment Report	13 Pages
2 ⇩	Attachment 2: Locality Map	1 Page
3 ⇩	Attachment 3: Plans used during assessment	6 Pages
4	Attachment 4: Internal plans used during assessment (confidential)	4 Pages
5 ⇩	Attachment 5: Conditions	20 Pages

1 ⇩	Attachment 1: Section 4.15 Assessment Report	24 Pages
2 ⇩	Attachment 2: Recommended Conditions of Consent	24 Pages
3 ⇩	Attachment 3: Locality Map	1 Page
4 ⇩	Attachment 4: Architectural Plans	9 Pages