Agenda of Local Planning Panel - Tuesday, 29 September 2020

Local Planning Panel 29 September 2020 Item 5.1

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 5.1

SUBJECT PUBLIC MEETING: Gateway Request: Planning Proposal for land at 112 Wharf Road, 30 & 32 Waratah Street, Melrose Park and 82 Hughes Avenue, Ermington

REFERENCE RZ/1/2020 -

APPLICANT/S Holdmark Property Group

OWNERS Holdmark Property Group

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer Land Use Planning

Development applications considered by Sydney central city planning panel Nil

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek the Local Planning Panel’s advice to Council on a request to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for a Gateway Determination for a Planning Proposal for land at 112 Wharf Road, 30 Waratah Street and 32 Waratah Street (also known as 1 Mary Street), Melrose Park and 82 Hughes Avenue, Ermington.

RECOMMENDATION

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

(a) That Council endorse for the purposes of seeking a Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE), the Planning Proposal for land at 112 Wharf Road, 30 Waratah Street and 32 Waratah Street, Melrose Park and 82 Hughes Avenue, Ermington which seeks to amend Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (PLEP 2011) by:

1. Rezoning 112 Wharf Road, 32 Waratah Street and 82 Hughes Avenue from IN1 General Industrial to part R4 High Density Residential and part RE1 Public Recreation.

2. Rezoning 30 Waratah Street from IN1 General Industrial to RE1 Public Recreation.

3. Amending the maximum building height from 12m to a combination of 34m, 45m and 77m (approximately 8, 12 and 22 storeys respectively).

4. Amending the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) on the East site from 1:1 to 1.66:1.

5. Amending the FSR on the West site from 1:1 to 1.79:1.

6. Inserting a site-specific provision in Part 6 Additional local provisions – generally of PLEP 2011 and amending the Additional Local Provisions map to include the land to ensure:

6. 1 That design excellence provisions be applicable to buildings of 55m and above in height without the provision of bonuses.

6.2 A minimum of 1,000m² of non-residential floor space is to be provided within the site to serve the local retail and commercial needs of the incoming population.

7. Amending the Land Reservation Acquisition map to reflect areas of open space to be dedicated to Council.

8. Inserting provisions into PLEP 2011 to ensure that the number of dwellings approved at the development application stage aligns with the delivery of the required infrastructure as identified by Council and in the TMAP as per the implementation plans endorsed by Council on 12 August 2019.

9. Amending Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses to permit ‘food and drink premises’ in the R4 High Density Residential zone.

(b) That the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for Gateway determination.

(c) That a site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) be prepared and reported to Council prior to formal exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

(d) That Council delegates authority to the CEO to commence negotiations to enter into a planning agreement with the applicant in relation to infrastructure provision required to support the proposal and that any planning agreement entered into is:

1. in addition to developer contributions payable; and

2. reported to Council prior to public exhibition.

(e) That the site-specific DCP and Planning Agreement be publicly exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal should Gateway determination be issued.

(f) That Council advises the DPIE that the CEO will be not be seeking to exercise its plan-making delegations for this Planning Proposal, as authorised by Council on 26 November 2012.

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

PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE

SUMMARY

1. This report seeks the Local Planning Panel’s (LPP) endorsement to forward a Planning Proposal for land at 112 Wharf Road, 30 Waratah Street and 32 Waratah Street, Melrose Park and 82 Hughes Avenue, Ermington in accordance with the recommendations outlined in this report to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) for Gateway determination.

2. The Planning Proposal seeks to amend Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (PLEP) 2011 to enable non-industrial development on these sites in the form of high density residential and public open space uses generally in accordance with the adopted Melrose Park Southern Structure Plan (Southern Structure Plan) adopted by Council on 16 December 2019. Should the Planning Proposal proceed then approximately 1,925 units could potentially be delivered on the site with building heights ranging from 8 storeys to 22 storeys.

3. The Planning Proposal has been assessed against the adopted structure plan and is considered acceptable by Council officers to proceed to Gateway determination. It is recommended that a site-specific DCP be prepared to address the specific built form requirements and that a planning agreement be entered into between the developer and Council to ensure the infrastructure needs of the precinct are addressed.

BACKGROUND

4. Council adopted the Parramatta Employment Lands Strategy (ELS) at its meeting of 11 July 2016, which identified the Melrose Park industrial area precinct as being a Structure Plan precinct and suitable for redevelopment for non-industrial uses. This was primarily due to a decline in the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, which had a significant presence within the precinct.

5. In May 2016, a Planning Proposal was lodged by the applicant relating to 112 Wharf Road, 30 Waratah Street and 32 Waratah Street, Melrose Park, however this was not progressed due to the requirement within the adopted ELS to first prepare a structure plan for the precinct before any planning proposals could be progressed.

6. It was initially intended that one structure plan would be prepared for the whole Melrose Park precinct. However, in July 2016, Council resolved to consider the structure planning of Melrose Park precinct in two parts (a Northern Structure Plan and Southern Structure Plan) to enable redevelopment of the precinct to be progressed in a timeframe that suited the landowners in both the northern and southern precincts.

7. In August 2016, Council resolved to exhibit the draft Northern Structure Plan and supporting documents, and it was adopted by Council on 12 December 2016. Since this time, the Melrose Park North Planning Proposal has received Gateway determination and the draft site-specific DCP and Planning Agreement preparations are now taking place to enable the public exhibition of the proposed planning provisions in the northern precinct to occur.

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

9. Over the course of 2017 and 2018, multiple versions of the draft Structure Plan were prepared and considered by Council officers with the final draft version adopted by Council for the purposes of public exhibition on 24 June 2019. The draft Southern Structure Plan was subsequently placed on public exhibition from 14 August to 10 September 2019.

10. As a result of feedback received during the public exhibition, a number of amendments were made to the draft Structure Plan and a revised version was reported to and endorsed by Council on 16 December 2019.

11. Upon finalisation of the Southern Structure Plan it is now possible to proceed with planning proposals for land in the southern precinct in accordance with the framework endorsed by Council for both the northern and southern precincts.

12. As a result, the applicant has subsequently revised their original Planning Proposal to reflect the requirements of the Southern Structure Plan and also incorporate the additional property at 82 Hughes Avenue which was purchased during the preparation of the structure plan. This report considers the revised planning proposal that was lodged with Council on 11 May 2020.

SOUTHERN STRUCTURE PLAN

13. A structure plan is intended to act as a guiding document for future redevelopment of an area and provide high-level strategic principles for development, which is evident in the Northern Structure Plan. However, due to the large number of landowners and likelihood that the southern precinct will redevelop at various stages, the Southern Structure Plan was required to adopt a more detailed approach to ensure the vision and desired character would be achieved.

14. As a result, the Southern Structure Plan was subject to a greater level of urban design testing and provides an indicative development scheme (refer to Figure 1) for the precinct that achieves the Council-endorsed maximum FSR of 1.7:1 across the southern precinct. The structure plan also seeks to identify indicative densities by applying FSRs and maximum buildings heights to individual development lots and provides indicative locations of open space and new roads (refer to Figure 2).

Figure 1. Adopted indicative development scheme for the southern precinct

Figure 2. Adopted density table for the southern precinct

SITE CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION

15. The southern precinct is bound by Hope Street to the north, Wharf Road to the east, Parramatta River to the south and Atkins Road to the west. It is located approximately 6km east of the Parramatta CBD and adjoins the Ryde Local Government Area (LGA). The structure plan area is approximately 19ha in size and consists of 22 land parcels and 20 separate ownerships in addition to multiple strata-owned properties.

16. The sites subject to this Planning Proposal are located in the eastern and western sides of the southern precinct. The eastern site, which relates to the 112 Wharf Road, 30 and 32 Waratah Street is approximately 42,692m² (4.2ha) in area located to the south of Melrose Park Public School. The western site was formerly owned by Glaxo Smith Kline and is approximately 51,607m² (5.1ha) and bound by Hughes Avenue to the east, Parramatta River to the south, Atkins Road to the west and 71 Atkins Road and 80 Hughes Avenue along the northern boundary. For the purposes of clarity, these sites will be referred to as “East” and “West” respectively in this report. Refer to Figure 3 for the locations of the East and West sites that are subject to the Planning Proposal.

17. The sites are currently largely heavily developed and occupied by a variety of industrial premises. The East site includes pharmaceutical, engineering and plastics manufacturing. The West site includes purpose-built pharmaceutical manufacturing buildings.

18. Surrounding land uses include low density residential in both the Parramatta and Ryde LGAs to the east and west, Parramatta River to the south and industrial land between both sites.

Figure 3. Sites subject to this Planning Proposal

19. Access to the sites is primarily provided from Wharf Road and Atkins Road. These roads service residential and commercial traffic and have carrying capacity for large trucks.

20. The sites are developed and therefore have existing water, sewer, telecommunications and gas trunk services. These services will need to be augmented to service the proposed higher intensity development. A high pressure oil pipeline is also located adjacent to the East site along Waratah Street.

CURRENT PLANNING CONTROLS

21. Both the East and West sites are currently zoned IN1 General Industrial with an FSR of 1:1 and maximum building height of 12m. Refer to Figures 4, 5 and 6.

Figure 4. Current land use zone applicable to the sites

Figure 5. Current FSR applicable to the sites

Figure 6. Current applicable building height applicable to the site

TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT AND ACCESSIBILITY PLAN (TMAP)

22. Traffic and transport issues were identified as a key consideration early in the planning process for the entire precinct (both north and south) and as a result, a Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP) was commissioned by key northern precinct landowners, Payce, and a reference group including stakeholders from Council State agencies (RMS, TfNSW and DPIE) and applicants from the northern (Payce) and southern (Holdmark and Goodman) precincts to monitor and provide input into the TMAP process. The preparation of the TMAP was also a condition of the Gateway determination associated with the Melrose Park North Planning Proposal and will used as a supporting technical document for all Planning Proposals within the precinct.

23. The TMAP tested an agreed FSR range from 1.6:1 and 1.85:1 across the whole Melrose Park precinct to help determine the capacity of the precinct from a traffic and transport perspective and to be used to inform the appropriate density within the Melrose Park precinct along with further urban design testing.

24. The TMAP was completed in late 2018 and concluded that the precinct has the capacity to accommodate up to 11,000 dwellings from a traffic and transport perspective subject to the identified road and public transport improvements and new infrastructure being delivered at the appropriate stages. The TMAP has been endorsed by TfNSW, RMS and Council for exhibition purposes and will be exhibited with the Revised Melrose Park North Planning Proposal. Prior to final endorsement, however, further investigation is required to be undertaken following the exhibition period. A summary of the TMAP’s aims, objectives and findings is provided at Attachment 9.

Implementation Plan A

25. Based on consultation between State agencies and as noted above, Council and other key stakeholders, an Implementation Plan has been developed and included in the TMAP (refer to Table 1 )to ensure required infrastructure is delivered within and outside the precinct at the appropriate stages of development to cater for the increase in demand. The Implementation Plan included in the TMAP (Implementation Plan A) provides a framework to ensure an integrated and coordinated approach in the delivery of this infrastructure, and implementation of the measures identified in the TMAP will be undertaken by Council, State agencies and developers within the precinct at the appropriate stages.

26. The redevelopment of Melrose Park is a long term undertaking and will be developed in stages. The initial stages will be based on land ownership, market demand, funding, community needs and design and requires a level of flexibility to be able to adapt to changing needs over time. A summary of the proposed staging and the total dwelling yield apportioned between the north and south precincts that is able to be supported by each stage is shown below. The detailed staging and sequencing will be further refined to ensure an appropriate apportionment is achieved between the northern and southern precincts, however Table 1 below shows the indicative overall staging with further detail on each stage included in the TMAP contained at Attachment 2.

TMAP Implementation Plan A

STAGE	DELIVERED AT (DWELLINGS)	YIELD SUPPORTED (DWELLINGS)
Existing network	N/A	1,100
Stage 1A	1,100	1,800
Stage 1B	1,800	3,200
Stage 1C	3,200	6,700
Stage 2	6,700	11,000
STAGE	DELIVERABLE
1A	Widening of Wharf Road south of Victoria Road Left in/left out access from Victoria Road to Kissing Point Road extension
1B	Upgrade of Victoria Road intersection to provide: Additional dedicated left turn lane on eastern Victoria Road approach 4 lanes at the stopline on Wharf Road approach (1 left, 1 through and 2 right) Removal of slip lane on western Victoria Road approach and realignment of stopline to allow a more efficient signal phasing Additional through-lane on Marsden road approach
1C	Upgrade of Victoria Road/Kissing Point road intersection to provide: Fully signalised intersection allowing all turning movements Dual right turn lanes on the eastern and western Victoria Road approach Dual right turn lanes and a shared left/through lane on the southern Kissing Point Road approach 4 lanes at the stopline on the northern Kissing Point Road approach (1 right, 2 through and 1 left) New signalised pedestrian crossings on the northern, southern and western intersection legs There is the potential to provide an indented bus bay for eastbound services on Victoria Road directly east of the upgraded Kissing Point Road intersection. Further investigation is required.
Throughout Stage 1	Commencing with one bus, provide shuttle buses between Melrose Park and Meadowbank Station. Increase as additional dwellings are delivered with a total of 4 buses at 12 shuttles per hour in peak periods. Staged increases in the frequency of the M52 service on Victoria Road. Staged delivery of the internal road network and associated pedestrian and cycling infrastructure within the precinct.
Stage 2	New public and active transport bridge over the Parramatta River to Wentworth Point. The bridge will be able to cater for both bus and light rail to connect with Sydney Metro West. Maintaining improved M52 bus service along Victoria Road and providing services over the new bridge either via bus or light rail. Continued staged delivery of the internal road network and associated pedestrian and cycling infrastructure.

Table 1. TMAP Indicative Implementation Plan A for the delivery of transport/traffic infrastructure

27. Implementation Plan A which addresses the delivery of infrastructure to support up to 11,000 dwellings across the precinct and notes the required transport infrastructure referred to above. It will facilitate a maximum overall FSR of 1.85:1 for the northern part of the precinct and a similar appropriate development potential in the southern precinct of a maximum overall FSR of 1.7:1. However, it is considered necessary to include an alternative Implementation Plan B which will apply to the north and south precincts should no commitment to the bridge to Wentworth Point and light rail or equivalent bus service be made, noting that commitment has been made to the delivery of Sydney Metro West. The development scenario under Implementation Plan B will restrict the total yield to 6,700 dwellings across the precinct and result in a 40% reduction in overall density being applied to both the north and south precincts until such time that the required transport infrastructure is committed. It is proposed that Implementation Plan B will be included in the PLEP 2011 and reinforced by the site-specific DCP and VPA in addition to the TMAP’s Implementation Plan A. The TMAP is contained in Attachment 2 and contains further detail on the methodology, assessment and recommendations. This Planning Proposal has been informed by the outcomes of the TMAP and is consistent with the maximum development scenario of up to 11,000 dwellings being provided within the precinct.

PLANNING PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT

28. The Planning Proposal seeks to amend PLEP 2011 to enable redevelopment for high density residential, public open space and some retail/commercial uses on the sites. The Planning Proposal applies to two separate sites (refer to Figure 3) within the southern precinct of Melrose Park, with the applicable current and proposed planning controls for each site identified in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Summary of current and proposed planning controls

	EAST SITE			WEST SITE
	112 Wharf Road	30 Waratah Street	32 Waratah Street	82 Hughes Avenue
Current Zone	IN1 General Industrial
Proposed Zone	Part R4 High Density Residential, part RE1 Public Recreation	RE1 Public Recreation	Part R4 High Density Residential, part RE1 Public Recreation	Part R4 High Density Residential, part RE1 Public Recreation
Current FSR	1:1			1:1
Proposed FSR	1.66:1			1.78:1
Current height limit	12m			12m
Proposed Height limit	Ranging from 8 storeys (34m), 12 storeys (45m) and 22 storeys (77m)
Potential dwelling yield per site	835 units			1,090 units
Total potential dwelling yield	1,925
Non-residential floor space component	500m²			500m²

29. These two sites comprise of approximately 9.4ha of the 19ha southern precinct, which equates to approximately 49% of the land area under Holdmark’s ownership.

Strategic Planning Context

30. The Planning Proposal has been prepared in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and the NSW DPIE’s A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals and considers the State and local planning strategies and is consistent with Council’s adopted Local Strategic Planning Statement, Employment Lands Strategy and Local Housing Strategy.

Local Strategic Planning Statement

31. Council’s adopted Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) provides strategic direction on how the City of Parramatta is planning for the next 20 years and draws together the needs and aspirations of the community and identifies priorities for jobs, home and infrastructure. The LSPS contains actions and priorities to help Parramatta achieve the vision of the State Government’s Greater Sydney Region Plan and Central City District Plan and highlights its important role as the Central River City. In addition to being identified as a Growth Precinct in the LHS, the LSPS identifies it as a proposed Local Centre and one which could provide for over 2,000 jobs once fully redeveloped. The LSPS also identifies the need for improved public transport and demonstrates its important through Planning Priority 3 which relates Council’s policy directions on improving connectivity to the Parramatta CBD and surrounding district through staging of development in alignment with delivery of PLR Stage 2 (or equivalent) and Sydney Metro West. As Melrose Park is identified as a Growth Precinct and the Proposal will help delivery the housing and infrastructure needed, it aligns with the vision of the LSPS.

Employment Lands Strategy

32. The Planning Proposal is consistent with both the adopted Employment Lands Strategy (2016) and Employment Lands Strategy – Review and Update (2020) which identifies the industrial lands within Melrose Park as a Structure Plan area and being suitable for redevelopment for non-industrial uses. This is due to the restructuring of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, which has a strong presence in the precinct, and has resulted in a number of companies relocating to other larger and more accessible industrial precinct in Sydney or offshore. This has left behind large, purpose built buildings that aren’t able to be easily converted to other uses. In addition, the precinct is no longer considered suitable as an industrial precinct as it is not located close to any major transport corridors and is surrounded by residential development.

Local Housing Strategy

33. The Planning Proposal is consistent with the City of Parramatta Local Housing Strategy (LHS), which provides direction at the local level about when are where future housing growth will occur and how it aligns with the broader NSW-government strategic planning framework. The LHS identifies Melrose Park as a Growth Precinct and forecasts that approximately 6,330 new dwellings will occupy the precinct by 2036. The LHS also highlights the importance of ensuring that infrastructure delivery is aligned with housing growth and that growth precincts need to be aligned and effectively sequenced with State-driven transport delivery and to ensure targeted local infrastructure programs. The Proposal is consistent with this approach in that it is located within the announced Parramatta Light Rail (PLR) Stage 2 corridor and the TMAP for the precinct includes a staging plan for the delivery of the necessary road upgrades and public transport to support the future population of the precinct.

34. Full details of this assessment are contained within Part 3 of the Planning Proposal at Attachment 1.

35. While the Melrose Park precinct is centrally located, it does not benefit from factors that allow it to continue to operate successfully as an industrial precinct in the long term. These factors include having direct access to major arterial corridors, the ability to operate in a conflict-free environment with a sufficient buffer from residential uses, critical mass of land to enable large scale clustering of business activities, tenant diversity to minimise vacancy risk and generic buildings that can be easily re-purposed for other uses. Following the relatively recent departure of a number of large pharmaceutical businesses from the precinct, the potential benefits of redevelopment within the precinct in accordance with the ELS are more apparent.

Land Use Planning Assessment

36. This Planning Proposal has been prepared using the adopted Southern Structure Plan to inform the proposed built form and densities on the sites. The proposed land uses zones and land uses on the site are considered appropriate and consistent with the recommendation of the ELS in that the sites have been identified as being suitable for redevelopment for non-industrial uses. Refer to Figures 8, 9 and 10 for the proposed zones, FSRs and building heights on the sites.

Figure 8. Proposed land use zones on the sites

Figure 9. Proposed FSRs on the sites

Figure 10. Proposed maximum height of buildings on the sites

37. In order to ensure that the overall density in the southern precinct is contained and that the overall gross FSR does not exceed 1.7:1, the Southern Structure Plan identifies specific FSRs and maximum building heights for each developable lot (refer to Table 1 above). The lots that are subject to this Planning Proposal and their allocated FSR and maximum building heights as identified in the Southern Structure Plan are identified in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Southern Structure Plan allocated building heights and net FSR for lots subject to the Planning Proposal.

		FSR (gross)	FSR (net)	Maximum Height
East Site	Lot 12	1.66:1	3.4:1	64m (approx. 20 storeys
	Lot 13		2.2:1	26m (approx. 8 storeys)
	Lot 14		3.6:1	26m
West Site	Lot 3	1.79:1	2.3:1	20m (approx. 6 storeys)
	Lot 5		3.8:1	58m (approx. 18 storeys)
	Lot 16		3.9:1	58m

38. The Planning Proposal seeks to amend Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses of PLEP 2011 to permit ‘food and drink premises’ in the R4 High Density Residential zone. The intention of this amendment is to enable street-level activation by allowing restaurants and cafes to operate on the ground floor of buildings located on the East and West sites along the waterfront of Parramatta River. Council officers raise no objection to this and relevant controls will be included in the site-specific DCP to address amenity.

39. The Planning Proposal was referred to a number of sections within Council for assessment against the requirements of the adopted structure plan, with the key matters for consideration detailed below.

Urban Design

40. It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the structure plan requirements for these sites with the exception of the proposed building heights, where some variation is proposed. The Planning Proposal is seeking a significant increase in density on the sites compared to the current uses and therefore ensuring an appropriate design outcome is achieved is imperative.

41. Although the structure plan identifies an indicative built form for each development lot that demonstrates that the proposed densities can be achieved, there is an element of flexibility incorporated into a structure plan by nature to enable the best outcome can be delivered as a result of more detailed design work.

42. The key issue of the proposal relates to the proposed building heights of the of the towers located within the East and West sites as these are proposed to increase from the maximum 20 storeys identified in Southern Structure Plan to 22 storeys on the East site and 18 storeys to 22 storeys on the West site. However, the tower locations remain on the inner part of the site to maximise the distance between existing low density residential development on the eastern side of Wharf Road and western side of Atkins Road and achieves a better outcome in relation to building amenity and design on the remainder of the sites. As a result, it is considered an acceptable variation by Council officers.

43. A comparison of the building heights identified in the structure plan and the proposed revised heights is provided in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Comparison of structure plan and proposed revised building heights

		FSR (gross)	Maximum Height (Structure Plan)	Revised Height
East Site	Lot 12	1.66:1	64m (approx. 20 storeys	77m (approx. 22 storeys
	Lot 13		26m (approx. 8 storeys)	28m (approx. 8 storeys. Allows for higher floor to ceiling heights on the first two levels, site topography and lift overrun)
	Lot 14		26m
West Site
	Lot 3	1.79:1	20m (approx. 6 storeys)	Part 28m (approx. 8 storeys & part 77m (approx. 22 storeys
	Lot 5		58m (approx. 18 storeys)	77m (approx. 22 storeys
Lot 16	58m		Part 28m (approx. 8 storeys. Allows for higher floor to ceiling heights on the first two levels, site topography and lift overrun) and part 77m (approx. 22 storeys)

44. These increases in heights are considered to be acceptable as it will:

· allow greater internal building separation on each lot and therefore provide a more usable and livable courtyard to be accommodated on each lot

· enable an appropriate building depth to be achieved

· enable appropriate deep soil areas on the sites for the planting of large canopy trees

· enable the provision of through-site pedestrian links

· provide the required view corridors from existing streets.

45. The tower elements will be limited to being located on the inner lots of each site and the perimeter lots will maintain the 6-8 storey limit as identified in the structure plan. This will to ensure that an appropriate transition is provided between the new development and existing low density development on the opposite side of both Wharf Road and Atkins Road.

46. The revised heights will also produce a better design outcome for each building on the lots and ensure that the required sight lines from Andrew Street through the East site can be maintained and that views to the river are maximised from each building. Refer to Figures 11 and 12 for the revised indicative schemes for the East and West sites showing the proposed building heights and locations of towers and heights.

Figure 11. Revised East site scheme

Figure 12. Revised West site scheme

Design Excellence

47. The applicant has indicated a willingness to incorporate design excellence provisions into the planning controls for the proposal, which is supported by Council officers due to the scale of the proposed development within the precinct. It is therefore recommended that a design excellence clause be introduced into PLEP 2011 requiring a design competition process to be undertaken on development lots where buildings exceeding 55m are proposed. This approach will ensure a high standard in architectural, urban and landscape design is achieved. As this proposal is not related to a single site and the proposed density is considered sufficient, it is recommended that no height and FSR bonuses be awarded on these sites due to concerns relating to the cumulative impacts on the overall density of the precinct.

48. This approach is consistent with the already adopted draft design excellence provisions within the Melrose Park North precinct as endorsed by Council on 12 August 2019. It should however be noted that the design excellence provisions within the Melrose Park North precinct are still draft provisions and are yet to be publicly exhibited or formally incorporated into any planning controls. However, it is intended that the same approach be applied to both North and South precincts to ensure consistency and equity between precincts. Any design competition would be undertaken in accordance with the City of Parramatta’s Design Excellence Competition Guidelines.

Density Control

Implementation Plan B

49. The TMAP includes an Implementation Plan A which provides up to 11,000 dwellings over the north and south precincts subject to identified road and traffic works, the bridge to Wentworth Point with light rail or equivalent bus service and Sydney West Metro being delivered. Implementation Plan A will facilitate an FSR 1.85:1 for the northern part of the precinct and 1.7:1 in the southern precinct. However, an Implementation Plan B is proposed to be included in the LEP to address the capacity of the precinct in the event that no commitment has been made by the State Government towards the bridge to Wentworth Point and associated light rail or bus service at the time of development applications being lodged in the precinct (noting that commitment has been made to the delivery of Sydney Metro West).

50. As a result, the dwelling number will be restricted to 6,700 as this is the upper limit that can be accommodated across the entire precinct without Sydney West Metro, the bridge to Wentworth Point and associated light rail or bus service being provided as identified in the TMAP. Accordingly, a 40% reduction in yield will be applied to development in Melrose Park to ensure both north and south precincts are treated equitably. Should a commitment to the bridge to Wentworth Point and associated light rail or bus service be made after this time then development to the full 11,000 dwellings can be achieved. Further discussion between Council officers and the DPIE is required regarding the best mechanism for the inclusion of this restriction in the PLEP, site specific DCP and VPA and further details will be reported to Council separately post-exhibition of the Planning Proposal.

Traffic and Transport

51. The applicant has undertaken a Traffic and Transport Assessment prepared by Ason Group (refer to Attachment 3). This assessment complements the TMAP by analysing the potential site-specific traffic implications should the redevelopment proceed and providing recommendations to resolve any identified issues, whereas the TMAP has a broader study area that assesses the potential implications at a catchment level.

52. The Planning Proposal was referred to Council’s Development and Traffic Services section for comment and raises no concerns were raised regarding the proposed densities on the sites from a traffic generation perspective given the proposed FSRs are consistent with the adopted Southern Structure Plan and the densities tested by the TMAP.

53. As part of the redevelopment, alterations to the access roads are proposed that are generally consistent with the adopted Southern Structure Plan. The proposed new roads are labelled and identified in blue in Figure 13 below. This includes facilitating the extension of Mary Street through to Atkins Road to create a foreshore connection, the reopening of Waratah Street to link to Wharf Road (subject to Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 requirements), a new north-south park side road on the West site and new local streets on both the East and West sites to provide development frontages (see Figure 1). Council officers raise no concerns relating to the proposed access roads, however it is recommended that the intersection of Hughes Avenue and the new foreshore road be designed to enable adequate sight lines for vehicles exiting Hughes Avenue onto the foreshore road. It is considered that this can be addressed as part of the site-specific DCP and future development assessment process and does not prevent the Planning Proposal from progressing.

54. However, Council officers do not support the parking rates proposed in the Planning Proposal. It is acknowledged that these rates are consistent with those included in the TMAP, however, these have not been endorsed by Council officers. This is due the significant difference between the short term and medium/long term rates identified in the TMAP which for the short term, specify 1 car space per studio, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units and 1.2 spaces for 3+ bedroom units. For medium-long term, it specifies 0 spaces for studio units, 0.3 spaces for 1 bedroom units, 0.7 spaces per 2 bedroom units and 1 space per 3+ bedroom units. The lack of clarity as to when the shift between these rates is triggered. As a result, it is recommended that the parking rates detailed in Parramatta DCP 2011 for residential flat buildings be used which is consistent with the parking rates being applied in the northern precinct. This matter will be addressed as part of the site-specific DCP for the southern precinct and does not prevent the Planning Proposal from progressing.

55. The Planning Proposal was referred to Council’s Transport Planning section who raise no significant concerns upon review of the proposal and supporting Transport Assessment prepared by ASON. The applicant has provided a Green Travel Plan which is supported by Council officers, however requires the incorporation of accountability measures that the applicant will need to comply with and demonstrate how they are being addressed at the development assessment stage. This matter will be further addressed as part of the drafting of the site-specific DCP.

56. It has been noted that the proposal will be required to provide bicycle parking rates and cycling infrastructure consistent with those detailed in Council’s adopted Bike Plan. It is considered that these matters can be addressed as part of the site-specific DCP.

Figure 13. Proposed new roads in the southern precinct.

Open Space

57. The applicant has provided an Ecological Assessment prepared by Eco Logical and Landscape Study prepared by Site Image (Attachment 4) to support the Planning Proposal. The proposal includes the provision of approximately 11,517m² of new public open space within the East site and approximately 14,187m² within the West site. This makes for a total of 25,704m² (approximately 27% of the site) of new public open space.

58. The new public open space is proposed to be located in three key areas within the sites. Two of the key areas are proposed to be formal landscaped areas located adjacent to the foreshore area in each of the East and West sites which will provide for predominantly passive recreation uses and an appropriate buffer to the sensitive Ermington Bay wetland. The third key areas is located along Wharf Road and comprises a landscape strip up to 20m in width which will ensure that existing trees can be retained and also provide separation between the high density development on the Holdmark site and the existing low density development on the eastern side of Wharf Road within the Ryde LGA (refer to Figure 14).

Figure 14. Proposed new open space

59. The Planning Proposal has been assessed by Council’s Open Space and Recreation section against the requirements of the Southern Structure Plan regarding the provision and quality of public open space proposed to be provided on the sites. Council officers support the proposed areas of new open space, however it will need to incorporate a playground in the West and West sites, outdoor fitness equipment and a multipurpose court.

60. It is noted that the Ecological Assessment recognises the Ermington Bay wetland as having high ecological significance and requires appropriate protection to ensure it is not affected by the proposed redevelopment. This includes providing a vegetative and open space buffer of 20-30m from the edge of the wetlands to protect ecological processes and functions essential to ongoing health of the ecosystem. This buffer also ensures that the wetland will receive full solar access post-development as it is extremely sensitive to changes in microclimate .Controls to ensure the wetlands are appropriately protected will be included in the site-specific DCP that will support the Planning Proposal should it proceed.

61. Council officers raised concern that the proposed 20m wide foreshore road will encroach on the vegetated buffer and compromise its functionality. In accordance with the NSW Office of Water Guidelines for Riparian Corridors on Waterfront Land, roads are to be excluded from the open space buffer. After receiving more detailed information from the applicant regarding the road and site boundaries and mean high water mark, it is considered that the location of the road will comply with the Guidelines, however this is to be further reviewed as part of the site-specific DCP and development assessment process to ensure compliance is maintained.

62. Further detail is also required regarding the potential overshadowing of new public open space areas once the tower locations are refined. This is to be addressed as part of the site-specific DCP and as part of the development assessment process to ensure adequate sunlight is provided to public open space.

63. Concern was raised regarding the potential for bird-strikes on tower buildings. The Ermington Bat wetland provides important migratory bird habitat and there is evidence suggesting that tall buildings pose a significant danger to birds due to their reflectivity and transparency and light emissions at night. Birds perceive mirroring of the sky, trees and other features as a continuation of the habitat and can result in collisions. While important, it is considered that this matter can be addressed as part of the site-specific DCP in relation to building materials used on taller buildings especially along the foreshore. This issue is also being addressed in the formulation of planning controls for development sites within Wentworth Point.

64. In relation to the provision of open space for active recreation, this is not proposed to be provided as part of this Planning Proposal. A playing field is identified in the adopted structure plan and is proposed to be located on the site at 6 Hope Street (refer to Figure 1) and will be delivered as part of a future Planning Proposal for this site. The playing field is proposed for this location and considered suitable for the following reasons:

· It is situated wholly within one site under single ownership which enables easier delivery and the FSR to be easily redistributed across the remainder of the site;

· Its central location is easily accessible to the future residents of the precinct;

· It aligns with the core open space areas proposed in the northern precinct; and

· It is considered to enable the best urban design outcome and to be achieved from an overshadowing, passive surveillance and built form perspective.

Flooding

65. The Planning Proposal was referred to Council’s Catchment Engineer for comment, who raised no significant concerns in relation to the applicant’s proposed approach to the management of flooding and overland flow on the site. However, it is noted that management of this issue needs to be considered in conjunction with the northern precinct to ensure that both approaches are integrated and don’t result in any negative impacts on either part of the precinct. Should the overland flow from the northern precinct result in a ‘floodway’ across the southern precinct, it will need to be accommodated and not obstructed by buildings. The overland flow modelling for the northern precinct is currently being undertaken and therefore the full extent to which this may affect the southern precinct is not yet known. This will continue to be monitored and considered as this work progresses. The distribution of density within the Planning Proposal will allow refinements to the built form that will be able to accommodate changes to the future flow of water through the site. This will be re-enforced by controls within the site-specific DCP.

66. There are existing outlets along the river foreshore where storm water is currently discharged into the river, which is proposed to continue occurring once the site has been redeveloped. The management of this storm water will need to be addressed in further detailed in relation to potential environmental impacts and the mitigation of these impacts (if needed), however for the purposes of progressing the Planning Proposal it is considered that this matter can be addressed as part of the development approval process.

67. The matter of on-site detention (OSD) and incorporation of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) into both the public and private domains on the site was also raised as matters that need to be addressed in further detail to properly inform the development of the sites subject to the Planning Proposal and the Melrose Park precinct as a whole. Detailed controls to address these matters are not required to be included in an LEP amendment associated with a Planning Proposal, however these matters will be addressed in much greater detail as part of the development of the supporting DCP should the Planning Proposal progress to gateway. This is similar to the approach taken to the Melrose Park North precinct Planning Proposal that has already received gateway and is currently subject to a comprehensive DCP preparation process.

Social Outcomes

68. A Community and Place Benefits Analysis has been prepared by Cred Consulting (Attachment 5) on behalf of the applicant and provided as a supporting document to the Planning Proposal. The analysis identifies that the forecast population resulting from the redevelopment of the Holdmark sites will bring an additional 5,012 people to the southern precinct. As a result, Cred recommends the following community and place benefits be provided:

· New on-site multipurpose community hub

· Contribution towards the Ermington Community Hub

· New long day care centre- the redevelopment of the Holdmark sites will generate the need for 162 places or two new centres. One of the centres could be co-located with the multipurpose community hub and dedicated to Council.

· New Out of School Hours (OOSH) facility. The redevelopment will generate the need for 166 additional places for children ages 5 to 11 years. His facility could be incorporated into the existing or proposed education facilities in the precinct and would require discussion with School Infrastructure NSW.

· Communal spaces for activities such as music practice rooms or study areas away from apartments.

· New public open space. Approximately 20% of the developable site area is proposed to be provided as public open space.

· Outdoor recreation facilities including outdoor fitness stations, playgrounds and an outdoor multipurpose court.

· Connectivity to Parramatta River. Create pedestrian and cycle access to the Parramatta Valley Cycleway and riverfront.

· Key worker housing.

· Public Art. Explore opportunities for public art that is embedded into building design and the public domain that depicts local history.

· Community building. The delivery of community spaces in the precinct is considered a priority given no such facilities currently exist as a result of the former industrial uses on the site.

69. The applicant has expressed a willingness to discuss these items further to determine suitable locations for this infrastructure or alternatively suitable contributions for their delivery.

70. Council’s Social Outcomes section has reviewed the Planning Proposal and the Analysis and agree with the infrastructure items/public benefits identified by Cred. However, it is noted that the following matters, as identified by Cred, should be taken into consideration and given high priority for delivery to be consistent with the requirements of Council’s Community Infrastructure Strategy (CIS):

· Provision on fitness/equipment stations in the open space areas, two playgrounds and one outdoor multipurpose court.

· Confirmation of the location and proposed uses of the 400m² of community floor space

· Further detail about the provision of a new long day care and Out of School Hours (OOSH) centre

· Further detail on the intention to provide affordable rental housing within the development

· Demonstrate opportunities for public art and delivery of community building programs and activities.

71. It is considered that the majority of these matters can be facilitated through either the site-specific DCP and/or during the development assessment process and can be agreed with the developer via a planning agreement. In relation to the provision of affordable rental housing within the development, Council officers will seek to ensure it is delivered in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Affordable Rental Housing Policy. Council officers therefore raise no significant concerns that would prevent the proposal from progressing. It is intended that a planning agreement be negotiated with the developer and exhibited concurrently with the Planning Proposal and site-specific DCP should this matter proceed.

Contamination

72. The land subject to this Planning Proposal is industrial land which has been occupied by a variety of uses since the 1950s, in particular those relating to pharmaceutical manufacturing. As a result, the applicant has undertaken a Preliminary Site Investigation Study (SIS) prepared by Senversa (Attachment 6) to support the Planning Proposal. The SIS identifies a number of potential contamination sources as a result of the past uses on the site, and recommends that further assessment of both sites be undertaken at the development application stage in accordance with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 55 – Remediation of Land, Contamination Planning Guidelines. This should include:

· Extensive groundwater assessment of the West site

· A Detailed Site Investigation of the East site

· Undertake any necessary remediation of the land to ensure it is suitable for redevelopment.

73. As a result of these recommendations, the proposal was referred to Council’s Regulatory Services section for comment. It is considered that for the purposes of the Planning Proposal, no concerns are raised but that further detailed review and investigations are to undertaken during the development assessment stage in accordance with the relevant legislative requirements.

Heritage

74. The sites are located adjacent to the Ermington Bay wetland which is identified as an item (I1) of local heritage significance in Schedule 5 of PLEP 2011. The sites are also within close proximity to two other locally listed heritage items, being the Bulla Cream Dairy at 64 Hughes Avenue (I64) and Ermington Wharf (I82). Refer to Figure 15 for location of nearby heritage items.

75. A Heritage Assessment has been prepared by Tropman & Tropman Architects to support the Planning Proposal (Attachment 7). The Assessment acknowledges that the proposed future development will have some visual impact to and from the adjacent heritage listed items, however these are considered to be minor and will not detract from the heritage significance or impact on the curtilage of the nearby items Ermington Bay wetland (I1) and Ermington Wharf (I82). In addition, the proposed public open space between the wetland and proposed redevelopment will provide a buffer as part of the heritage curtilage of the items.

76. Further investigation to identify potential archaeological significance in the southern precinct will be undertaken as part of the development application process to assess the level of significance, particularly in relation to the East site. As a result, it is considered that the potential impacts on the adjacent heritage items as a result of the proposal will be minimal.

77. Council’s Heritage Adviser has reviewed the proposal and supporting Heritage Assessment and raises no concerns with the findings of the Heritage Assessment or Planning Proposal from a heritage perspective.

Figure 15. Location of heritage items

Employment and Non-Residential Floor Space

78. Due to the shifting nature of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, many long term occupiers have relocated from the precinct, leaving a number of large, purpose-built warehouses which are difficult to tenant.

79. A key consideration in the redevelopment of the precinct as a whole is the retention of employment generating land uses to ensure a sufficient number of jobs are able to be provided on-site. A requirement of the ELS is that there be no net job loss on site as a result of redevelopment. At the time of finalising the ELS in 2016, there were approximately 2,546 employees in the precinct in total, however this has subsequently reduced as a result of further relocations of tenants. The ELS does not provide a breakdown of the number of employees in the northern and southern precincts individually. Refer to Table 4 for a comparison of employment numbers between the ELS and northern and southern precincts.

	Job Number (long term)	% of Total Jobs Compared to ELS Requirement
ELS Requirement	2,546 (as at 2016)	-
Northern Precinct	1,538-1,932	60%-76%
Southern Precinct (Holdmark)	160	6.3%
Southern Precinct (remaining sites)	454-848	18%-33%

Table 4. Job number comparison

80. An Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) has been prepared by HillPDA (Attachment 8) to support the Planning Proposal that identifies a of minimum 1,000m² of non-residential floor space be provided on site comprising 600m² for the purposes of food and other local retail and commercial services and 400m2 for child care. According to HillPDA, this floor space would have the potential of providing approximately 160 new jobs on the site in addition to 1,841 direct construction jobs and a further 5,552 indirect jobs.

81. The EIA indicates that there will be a net loss of jobs on the Holdmark sites as a result of the redevelopment but that this needs to be assessed within the context of the broader precinct. The northern precinct is proposing to incorporate a new town centre (located on the north side of Hope Street) into the redevelopment of the Payce site in the northern precinct, which will provide 30,000m² of non-residential floor space and generate between 1,538 to 1,932 new jobs alone and provide for the majority of the employment generating uses in the precinct. Other sites within the Southern Precinct of Melrose Park will also be required to provide non-residential floor space to meet the job requirement and are in closer proximity to the proposed town centre. Therefore, they are better positioned to provide a greater number of jobs in the Precinct. It is therefore not considered to be economically feasible for the Holdmark sites to provide additional non-residential floor space as it would potentially result in an oversupply of commercial and retail spaces and would result in a fragmented distribution of this space across the precinct. As a result of the proposed new town centre in the northern precinct, the role of the non-residential floor space in the southern precinct is proposed to be for the provision of convenience retail for local residents.

82. The provision of non-residential floor space in the southern precinct has been discussed between Council officers and the applicant and the abovementioned justification is considered to be consistent with the adopted policy position Council has taken for the overall redevelopment of Melrose Park.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

83. Due to the extent and scale of redevelopment proposed within the precinct, a site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) is required to be prepared for the sites subject to the Planning Proposal.

84. The future site-specific DCP will guide development and contain specific requirements that must be addressed during the design stage of the planning process and future development application on this site, having regard to the local context and detailed design requirements for the site. These include, but are not limited to:

· Site levels

· Street and block layout

· Relationship of building to the street and block pattern

· Building typologies

· Desired future character

· Public domain, open space and landscaping

· Site access, circulation and connectivity

· Transport and parking

· Environmental sustainability

· Storm water management

· Solar access

· Transition areas to surrounding development

85. The site-specific DCP will be prepared once the Planning Proposal has been submitted to the DPIE for Gateway determination, should Council resolve to proceed, with a draft document to be reported to Council separately prior to exhibition. The preparation of the site-specific DCP for the southern precinct is following the same drafting process as the DCP currently being prepared for the northern precinct, which commenced after the Melrose Park North Planning Proposal received Gateway determination, and it is anticipated that the two site-specific DCPs will closely resemble one another.

PLANNING AGREEMENT

86. A Planning Agreement can be made under Subdivision 2 of the EP&A Act and is a voluntary agreement between Council and the developer, under which the developer may agree to dedicate land free of cost, pay a monetary contribution or provide other material public benefit, or a combination of these, to be used towards a public purpose.

87. The Act specifies that a public purpose includes the provision of public amenities or public services, the provision of affordable housing, the provision of transport or other infrastructure relating to the land, the funding of recurrent expenditure relating to any of these, the monitoring of the planning impacts of a development and the conservation or enhancement of the natural environment.

88. Council has an adopted Planning Agreement Policy (2018) which sets out the principles governing such agreements, matters that Council will consider in negotiating agreements, steps in the negotiating process, public probity, notification requirements and implementation. The EP&A Act and Regulation sets out the legal and procedural framework for planning agreements.

89. Key principles of Council’s policy are that:

· planning decisions will not be bought or sold through planning agreements,

· development that is unacceptable on planning grounds will not be permitted because of the benefits of a planning agreement,

· the benefits of the planning agreement will bear a relationship to the application,

· Council will not give undue weight to a planning agreement when making a decision on a development application, and

· Council will not improperly rely on its position in order to extract unreasonable public benefits under planning agreements.

90. Council officers are developing an Infrastructure Needs List (INL) to ensure the infrastructure needs of the entire precinct are provided and are sufficient to service the incoming population associated with the new development. This list includes items identified in Council’s Community Infrastructure Strategy and Development Contributions Works Schedule and is to be used to inform all planning agreement negotiations associated with Planning Proposals for land within the precinct. Although the list includes infrastructure that has been identified as required within the precinct, an element of flexibility can be applied should an applicant/land owner seek to provide infrastructure not identified on the list. It is envisaged that Council will still have the flexibility to endorse such works after it has assessed their appropriateness as part of assessing the planning agreement offer. Further details on the items included in the INL will be provided as part of the future report on planning agreements in the precinct.

91. The applicant has indicated a willingness to contribute towards infrastructure provision within the precinct, including affordable rental housing, however has not included a Letter of Offer with the submitted Planning Proposal. Ensuring that all developers make a fair and equitable contribution to the infrastructure needs associated with the future growth in Melrose Park is essential for the future of the precinct. It is not incumbent upon the Council to fund the provision of key infrastructure directly attributable to new development of this scale, therefore it is considered necessary that a planning agreement be negotiated with the developer to ensure a reasonable contribution is made to support the development needs. Council officers will continue to work with the applicant regarding this matter, and any planning agreement will be subject to detailed analysis in keeping with Council’s Planning Agreements Policy and be reported to Council for endorsement prior to any concurrent public exhibition of the Planning Proposal and site specific DCP.

92. In relation to affordable rental housing, Council’s Affordable Rental Housing Policy is applicable to this proposal. The Policy stipulates that the provision of affordable rental housing is to be 10% of the value uplift on the site. Despite no formal Letter of Offer being received from the applicant, a willingness to contribute towards the provision of this housing within the precinct has been indicated. Any future planning agreement between the applicant and Council will need to reflect the requirements of the Policy.

93. Further, any contributions made as part of a planning agreement will be in addition to Section 7.11/Section 7.12 developer contributions.

State Infrastructure

94. Due to the significant increase in density that is proposed by the Planning Proposal and broader Melrose Park Precinct, it is anticipated that a contribution towards State infrastructure will be required and that a separate Planning Agreement will be entered into between the developer and State agencies. This planning agreement is intended to relate infrastructure such as the proposed new school and upgrades to State-owned roads, however, details are still being finalised between the applicant and State Agencies regarding the exact nature of this agreement.

95. It is important when determining infrastructure needs that there be sufficient scope to ensure that the required infrastructure can be delivered at both the local and regional level. When negotiating any planning agreement, associated with the Planning Proposal Council officers will liaise with all State agencies to ensure that any State Planning Agreement is balanced for all parties but does not compromise the ability of any local Planning Agreement to provide sufficient funding/works to meet the needs of the local community.

PLAN-MAKING DELEGATION

96. New 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. It is noted that delegations were not granted to the CEO for the Melrose Park North Planning Proposal due to the size and complexity of the redevelopment and for this reason, it is not recommended that Council request to the DPIE that delegation be given to the CEO on this occasion due to the complexities surrounding the dwelling thresholds and mechanisms to deliver infrastructure in the precinct. When a council is not granted plan-making delegations then the DPIE is responsible for liaising with Parliamentary Counsel to finalise the LEP amendment.

CONSULTATION & TIMING

97. Should the LPP endorse the Planning Proposal, it will be considered by Council at the next available Council meeting.

98. If resolved by Council, Council officers in collaboration with the applicant will commence the drafting of a site-specific DCP. This will be reported o Council prior to it exhibition.

99. Should Council resolve to proceed with the Planning Proposal, the Planning Proposal will be forwarded to the DPIE for Gateway determination.

100. Both the site specific DCP and planning agreement will be developed further in consultation with the applicant and reported to Council prior to any public exhibition.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

101. Should Council resolve to proceed with the Planning Proposal, the financial implications for Council include costs associated with the exhibition process, which include advertising and landowner notification by mail out. These costs are funded from the City Planning and Design budget. Should a Planning Agreement be required to support the Planning Proposal to facilitate infrastructure provision and delivery then, a separate report will be provided to Council outlining all financial implications associated with that agreement.

Amberley Moore

Senior Project Officer Land Use Planning

Kevin Kuo

Team Leader LUP

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 land at 112 Wharf Road, 30 and 32 Waratah Street, Melrose Park and 82 Hughes Avenue, Ermington	60 Pages
2 ⇩	Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP)	177 Pages
3 ⇩	Applicant's Traffic and Transport Assessment	51 Pages
4 ⇩	Ecological Assessment	64 Pages
5 ⇩	Community and Place Benefit Analysis	52 Pages
6 ⇩	Preliminary Site Investigation Study	288 Pages
7 ⇩	Heritage Assessment	61 Pages
8 ⇩	Economic Impact Assessment	25 Pages
9 ⇩	TMAP Summary	4 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Local Planning Panel 29 September 2020 Item 5.2

INNOVATIVE

ITEM NUMBER 5.2

SUBJECT PUBLIC MEETING: Gateway Request: Planning Proposal - Increasing Commercial Floorspace in the Epping Town Centre

REFERENCE F2018/03032 -

REPORT OF Team Leader Land Use Planning

Development applications considered by Sydney central city planning panel Nil

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to seek the Local Planning Panel’s advice to progress a planning proposal to mandate an increase in commercial floor space on certain land within the Epping Town Centre.

RECOMMENDATION

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

(a) That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to prepare a planning proposal which seeks the following amendments to Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and Hornsby Local Environmental Plan 2013 applying to all land in the B2 Local Centre zone in the Epping Town Centre with the exception of 6 - 14 and 18A Bridge Street and 24-30 High Street relating to Option 3 detailed in this report that:

i. Introduces a new clause which will limit the ground, first and second floors of any building facing a street to non-residential uses only and ensure a change of use proposed on these levels would not allow residential uses. An exception will be applied to that part of a building that faces a service lane or is required for entrances and lobbies, access for fire services or vehicular access associated with residential accommodation.

ii. Amends the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) and height of buildings to accommodate additional non-residential uses.

(b) That the Chief Executive Officer forwards the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) to request the issuing of a Gateway Determination on behalf of Council.

(c) That Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to prepare amendments to the relevant sections of the Parramatta Development Control Plan 2011 and Hornsby Development Control Plan 2013 to support the Planning Proposal relating to the following design controls, and place these on public exhibition with the Planning Proposal:

i. podium height controls;

ii. minimum floorplate dimensions;

iii. floor to ceiling heights for non-residential uses;

iv. location of services; and

v. building and podium setback controls.

(d) That Council advises the DPIE that the Chief Executive Officer will be exercising the plan-making delegations for this Planning Proposal as authorised by Council on 26 November 2012.

(e) 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 plan-making process.

PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE

SUMMARY

1. The loss of commercial floor space within the Epping Town Centre was a key planning issue examined by Council as part of Phase 1 of the Epping Planning Review (Review) undertaken between 2017 and 2018. The Review identified that since the 2014 Epping Urban Activation Precinct rezoning, new development within the B2 Local Centre zoning (refer Figure 1) has reduced the amount of commercial floor space (and therefore jobs) within the Epping Town Centre. Recent developments are typically replacing large and small-scale offices with shop top housing. These developments only provide ground floor retail or business premises with residential towers above and little or no floor space for other job generating activities.

2. On 9 July 2018, Council considered the consultation outcomes and technical analysis of the Review and resolved that a planning proposal be prepared to progress new planning controls to require the provision of commercial floor space in the Epping Town Centre.

3. By mandating a minimum provision of commercial floor space in Epping Town Centre, the following land use planning objectives will be met:

a. Supporting Epping’s status as a Strategic Centre as identified in the Central City District Plan (2018) and its target of 7,000 jobs;

b. Take advantage of Epping’s accessible location and public transport availability;

c. Providing services and products for the local and surrounding population; and

d. Supporting a vibrant and active town centre.

4. This report considers three potential planning options in relation to the provision of commercial floor space in Epping, as follows:

- Option 1 – no change to planning controls, that is, based on current development trends, provision of only ground floor retail/business floor space; or

- Option 2 - mandate a minimum amount of non-residential floor space within the current maximum floor space ratio (FSR) and height controls; or

- Option 3 - mandate a minimum amount of non-residential floor space in addition to the current permitted maximum floor space ratio and height controls.

5. This report outlines the potential advantages and disadvantages of each Option. As Options 2 and 3 result in potential changes to planning controls, these would result in the need to prepare a planning proposal. Council Officer assessment concludes that Option 3, which is to mandate a minimum amount of non-residential floor space in addition to the current maximum FSR and height, is the best approach. This recommendation is based on the market’s likely response to the proposed planning controls (as opposed to Option 2). Council Officers believe this is the best approach to ensure the forecast additional demand for commercial floorspace is realised in the Epping Town Centre.

6. If Option 2 was pursued, the concern is that landowners would rush to obtain approvals under the existing controls to avoid losing residential development potential and that a rush of these applications would mean that the commercial floor space targets for Epping would not be achieved.

7. It is acknowledged that there would be some adverse impact by pursing Option 3 in relation to increased overshadowing and traffic impact. However, on balance the impact is considered reasonable in order to practically deliver the additional commercial floor space required to realise Epping as a thriving and vibrant employment centre. Option 3 will result in taller buildings which will create some minor additional overshadowing. Some sites along Bridge Street will be excluded from the Planning Proposal due to the potential for overshadowing impact on adjacent residential heritage conservation areas. The exclusion of these sites will not impact substantially on the delivery of commercial floor space in the future.

8. Therefore, Council Officers recommend that Council prepares a planning proposal based on Option 3, which seeks to restrict residential uses and tourist and visitor accommodation on the ground, first and second floors of any new development, or a change of use of a building, and in order to accommodate this provide for additional height and density on certain B2 Local Centre zoned sites within the Epping Town Centre.

CURRENT PLANNING CONTROLS

9. This planning matter relates to B2 Local Centre zoned land in the Epping Town Centre. As indicated on Figure 1 the Epping Town Centre is divided by two sets of planning controls - the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2011 and Hornsby Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2013.

Figure 1: B2 Zoned Land within the Epping Town Centre shown in blue

10. Council’s current Harmonisation Planning Proposal seeks to consolidate into one Planning Instrument a set of controls that will replace the controls in the five different Local Environmental Plans that currently apply in different parts of the City of Parramatta. This Planning Proposal has received Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) and at the time of writing this report, is currently on public exhibition. There is no change proposed to the extent of the B2 Local Centre zoning within the Epping Town Centre under the Harmonisation Planning Proposal.

11. Table 1 summarises the planning controls, which apply to the B2 Local Centre zoning, both currently and under the Harmonisation Planning Proposal.

Table 1 Summary of Planning Controls within the B2 Local Centre zoned sites in Epping Town Centre

	Maximum FSRs	Maximum Height of Building	Permitted Land Uses/Relevant clauses
Hornsby LEP 2013	6:1 & 4.5:1	72m & 48m	- Commercial uses, shop top housing, tourist and visitor accommodation and community facilities
Parramatta LEP 2011	6.1; 4.5:1 & 3:1	72m, 48m & 21m	- Commercial uses, shop top housing, tourist and visitor accommodation and community facilities
Harmonisation Planning Proposal	As above (no change)	As above (no change)	- Permissible land uses as above. - Clause requiring B2 zoned sites to include non-residential on the ground floor.

BACKGROUND

Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Process

12. On 14 March 2014, the then Department of Planning and Environment (Department) finalised the Epping Urban Activation Precinct (UAP) amendments to the Hornsby and Parramatta Local Environmental Plans via State Environmental Planning Policy (Epping Town Centre) 2013 (“the SEPP Amendment”). The SEPP Amendment provided capacity for approximately 10,000 additional dwellings and sought to revitalise the commercial and retail core adjacent to a major transport hub.

13. The Epping UAP envisaged Epping Town Centre’s future role as a residential origin, rather than an employment destination. The redevelopment of Epping was seen as providing housing growth and choice and serving nearby employment centres at Parramatta, Macquarie Park, Chatswood and Norwest. It envisaged that the majority of high-density buildings in the Epping Town Centre would provide the majority of new dwellings, with a range of retail and commercial activities at lower levels to serve the local population.

14. The rezoning resulting from the UAP process realised a net increase in sites zoned B2 Local Centre (with one site, NSW Government’s Beecroft Road site being converted to R4 High Density Residential), coupled with significantly increased maximum densities and heights. The permissible land uses under the Hornsby and Parramatta LEPs remained, including commercial uses, office and shop top housing.

15. Following the rezoning, precinct specific development control plan (DCP) controls for the Epping Town Centre were introduced within the Parramatta DCP 2011 and Hornsby DCP 2013. The provisions in both DCPs encourage new development within the Epping Town Centre to allocate a proportion of the development to non-residential uses. Hornsby DCP currently requires a 2 to 3 storey podium and Parramatta DCP currently requires ‘up to’ 4 storeys for commercial uses. Under current planning legislation, the role of DCPs have been weakened relative to their historical role, and are considered to be a guide, which can be varied as part of the development application process.

16. Therefore, since the 2014 rezoning, new development within the B2 Local Centre zoning has resulted in the development of residential floorspace at the expense of existing office floorspace. That is, development of shop top housing, with ground floor retail or business uses and residential towers above. This issue and others relating to the consequences of the loss of commercial floorspace is discussed in more detail below.

Epping Planning Review Project – Stage 1

17. In December 2016, the Epping Planning Review (Review) was commenced by the City of Parramatta Council. The scope of the Review was to address the unintended consequences of the planning control amendments brought into effect in March 2014. It also allowed the Council to progress matters considered by the former Hornsby Shire Council, including heritage matters.

18. The Review involved the following stages:

a. Stage 1 – the preparation of technical studies, community consultation and the release of a discussion paper for public comment.

b. Stage 2 – the statutory phase, including the preparation of planning proposals that seek to amend the current planning controls to resolve the land use issues identified during the first phase. Council is currently in this phase of the project and the Planning Proposal the subject of this report forms part of this stage.

19. Stage 1 was undertaken primarily between December 2016 and July 2018 and included the preparation of a series of technical studies, community consultation and release of the Epping Planning Review Discussion Paper and further consultation. A copy of these studies and the Discussion Paper can be found at https://www.cityofparramatta.nsw.gov.au/councilprecinct-planning/epping-planning-review.

20. Council commissioned SGS Economics and Planning to undertake a Commercial Floor Space Study to understand the loss of commercial floor space and Epping’s role as a centre and therefore the future demand for retail and commercial floorspace. The Commercial Floor Space Study (the Study) is provided at Attachment 1.

21. Key issues identified in the Study include:

a. Recent development activity has seen the development of new residential floor space at the expense of existing commercial floor space. The market has determined that residential is the highest yielding land use, at the expense of existing commercial floor space.

b. The current planning controls will likely continue to result in the loss of commercial floor space and, best case, replace current ground level retail offerings.

c. Due to some landowner’s desire to maintain redevelopment potential of their land, there is currently very little commercial floor space on a long-term lease or a lease without a demolition clause. This creates an environment of uncertainty for existing and potential commercial tenants which has seen commercial uses unable to access appropriate floor space to support their business.

22. The Study identifies Epping Town Centre as having a number of competitive advantages over other nearby centres. Firstly, its high rate of growth, resulting in a larger population of residents provides a local employment pool of highly educated and professional people, as well as demand for services and jobs close by. Secondly, Epping has good accessibility, both by road and public transport. The Study highlights Epping’s weaknesses, including lack of accessibility to major hospital or university precincts and the lack of prestige in relation to other centres such as Rhodes, Macquarie Park and Chatswood. The Study concludes there is demand for retail and office floor space in Epping that is not currently being met.

23. In light of the above strengths and weaknesses of Epping Town Centre, the Study modelled three employment scenarios for Epping:

a. Low scenario - where Epping is a population serving centre and represents a further reduction in office floor space;

b. Medium scenario - where Epping is a local centre (meeting the demands of a local catchment) and forecasts demand for 31,845sqm to 2036 of office floor space. This is in line with current provision; and

c. High scenario, where Epping fulfils its function as a sub-district centre (as a professional services hub) and forecasts demand for 55,616sqm to 2036 of office floor space.

24. The Study concluded:

a. The office space demand for Epping is likely to sit between the medium and high scenario and therefore supportable demand of between 40,000sqm and 45,000sqm at 2036 is considered the most likely limit for office floor space for Epping. It is noted that the Study’s reference to office floor space includes knowledge intensive, population serving and health and education.

b. The forecast demand for retail floor space in Epping to 2036 is 13,000sqm.

25. In relation to ‘office’ floor space, the Study anticipates that Epping is likely to function as a secondary employment centre in the local office market (supporting, not competing with, Parramatta CBD and Macquarie Park) and provide for local and small-medium enterprises and strategic knowledge intensive businesses in a highly accessible location, with smaller floorplates.

26. In relation to retail floor space, the Study identifies the opportunity to renew existing retail offerings to meet local demand (complementary to Carlingford shops), which is likely to offer quality and convenience retail and hospitality in a highly accessible location.

27. Current patterns of development are unlikely to deliver the quantum of commercial floor space required by 2036. Therefore, the Study recommends applying a non-residential floor space ratio (excluding visitor and tourist accommodation) within the B2 Local Centre zone to ensure these uses are accommodated in a truly mixed-use development providing services for the local and surrounding population.

Council Reports and Resolutions

28. On 9 July 2018, a report was considered by Council that detailed the findings of the Epping Planning Review, including the findings of the Commercial Floor Space Study and community feedback in relation to the loss of commercial floor space in Epping Town Centre. The 9 July 2018 Council report and minutes can be found at Item 18.4: https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2020/OC_09062020_AGN_585_AT_WEB.HTM and the resolution at: https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2020/OC_09062020_MIN_585.HTM#PDF2_ReportName_9025.

29. Specifically in response to the loss of commercial floor space, Council (part) resolved at its meeting of 9 July 2018:

(l) That a Planning Proposal including all necessary background studies and analysis be prepared to progress the recommended LEP amendments detailed in this report relating to new controls to require the provision of commercial floor space in the Town Centre and that the Planning Proposal and associated material be reported to Council for endorsement before it is forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking any Gateway Determination for the planning proposal.

30. Further, it is noted that Council at its 9 July 2018 meeting resolved to not support any planning proposal or preliminary planning proposal which seeks to deliver additional housing to what can be achieved under the current planning controls, unless it seeks to address a planning issue identified in the Council’s Epping Planning Review process related to:

a. commercial floor space in Epping Town Centre; or

b. The planning controls that should apply to the heritage conservation areas or areas that interface with the High Density Residential zones surrounding Epping Town Centre.

KEY ISSUES

Fulfilling Epping’s role as a Strategic Centre

31. Epping is identified as a Strategic Centre in the Greater Sydney Commission Central City District Plan (2018) (District Plan), alongside Blacktown, Sydney Olympic Park, Norwest, Castle Hill, Rouse Hill, Mount Druitt and Marsden Park. The District Plan defines that all strategic centres have similar expectations, including:

- “high levels of private sector investment

- flexibility, so that the private sector can choose where and when to invest

- co-location of a wide mix of activities, including residential

- high levels of amenity, walkability and being cycle-friendly

- areas identified for commercial uses, and where appropriate, commercial cores.”

32. In relation to employment growth, the District Plan states that “employment growth is the principal underlying economic goal for metropolitan and strategic centres” and as such has set a baseline jobs target of 7,000 jobs, with a higher target of 7,500 jobs by 2036.

33. In relation to balancing residential uses and the desire for employment growth, Planning Priority C10 of the District Plan “Growing investment, business opportunities and jobs in strategic centres” identifies that:

“Employment growth is the principal underlying economic goal for metropolitan and strategic centres. Therefore the designation of a commercial core within a strategic centre for economic and employment uses, may be necessary to manage the impact of residential developments in crowding out commercial activity.

A balance must be struck in providing adequate mixed-use or residential zoned land around the commercial core zone to ensure new residential developments can benefit from access and services in centres.”

and further

“Delivering housing within a walkable distance of strategic centres is an important outcome as it encourages non-vehicle trips, which foster healthier communities. Housing within centres contributes to a sense of vibrancy; however, the delivery of housing should not constrain commercial and retail activities.”

34. Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) came into effect in March 2020 and sets out a 20-year land use planning vision for the City of Parramatta. It aims to link the District Plan and Council’s local planning framework. As such, it supports Epping in its role as a Strategic Centre and sets a jobs target of 9,400 to 2036. This jobs forecast is based on a ‘high employment scenario’ as per the Commercial Floor Space Study (SGS) and as identified in the Study, this is an aspirational target. To meet this target, the following key actions are identified in the LSPS:

a. A6 - Complete a review of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone and B2 Local Centre zone to identify mechanisms to strengthen the economic offering in centres.

b. A2 - Undertake place-based policy or strategic analysis that informs and supports the future of specific employment precincts.

35. Table 2 below summarises the job targets and projected demand for Epping Town Centre.

Table 2: Summary of job targets for Epping Town Centre

Strategy/ Study	Job Target / Project Demand to 2036	Notes
Central District Plan (March 2018)	7,000 – 7,500
Epping Commercial Floor Space Study (SGS Economics 2017)	5,674- 9,353	The jobs forecast range is based on between a ‘medium’ to ‘high’ employment forecast scenario. The SGS Study notes the high scenario is aspirational and in light of the competitive offer of Epping, the supportable demand for office floor space sits between 40,000 & 45,000sqm (by 2036) and 13,000sqm of retail floor space (by 2036).
Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (March 2020)	9,400	This jobs forecast is based on a ‘high employment scenario’ as per the Commercial Floor Space Study (SGS) and as identified in the Study, the high scenario is aspirational.

36. The Census employment figures for the Epping Town Centre indicate a loss of 1,827 jobs over a 5 year period, as follows:

- 2011 Census – 5,550 jobs; and

- 2016 Census – 3,723 jobs.

It is expected that this loss will continue with the types of development occurring in the Town Centre.

37. Council Officers have undertaken analysis of sites which have redevelopment potential zoned B2 Local Centre within the Epping Town Centre (excluding those sites that have already realised redevelopment potential). The analysis assumes that future development of these sites would include ground floor retail and first and second floor commercial (or other non-residential uses).

38. The analysis found that there is potential for these sites to yield approximately 57,000sqm of non-residential floor space comprising:

a. Approximately 10,750sqm of retail floor space on the ground floor; and

b. Approximately 46,250sqm of commercial or non-residential floor space on the first and second storeys.

39. The above analysis demonstrates that by providing non-residential within the first three levels of development, that the projected demand identified in the SGS Commercial Floor Space Study of between 40,000 and 45,000sqm of office floor space may be met, and the projected demand of 13,000sqm of retail floor space by 2036 could be met (noting that the existing non-residential floor space is not included in calculations).

40. It is important to note that larger sites in Epping (over 6,500sqm in site area) that were included in the projections above, could accommodate significantly more non-residential floor space through their redevelopment within the Epping Town Centre and therefore the projected overall non-residential floor space may further increase.

Options for Mandating Non-Residential Floor Space

41. In order to achieve commercial floor space targets for Epping (described above), there are three potential planning approaches, as follows:

a. Option 1 – no change to planning controls, that is, based on current development trends, provision only ground floor commercial (retail); or

b. Option 2 - mandate a minimum amount of non-residential floor space within the current maximum floor space ratio controls; or

c. Option 3 - mandate a minimum amount of non-residential floor space in excess of the current maximum floor space ratio (FSR).

42. The Commercial Floor Space Study concludes that Option 1 would likely result, based on current development trends and permissibility of shop top housing within the B2 Local Centre Zone, in retail or business on the ground floor with residential towers above. Therefore, over time this would result in further commercial floor space and job loss within the Epping Town Centre.

43. Options 2 and 3 would provide for future commercial and retail floor space targets for Epping to be met, and would require changes to planning controls, that is, an amendment to the Hornsby LEP 2013 and Parramatta LEP 2011 via a Planning Proposal. Therefore, an assessment of these two options is presented in more detail in this report below.

Commercial Floor Space Traffic Study

44. In order to understand and compare the traffic impact of the planning options for increasing commercial floor space in the Epping Town Centre, Council commissioned EMM Consulting to undertake a traffic study. The Commercial Floor Space Traffic Study (February 2020) is provided at Attachment 2.

45. By way of background, Council originally commissioned EMM Consulting to prepare a model for Epping which resulted in the preparation of the Epping Town Centre Traffic Study (May 2017) - the town centre wide traffic study which informed the Epping Planning Review.

46. The Commercial Floor Space Traffic Study (the Traffic Study) modelled three planning scenarios at the year 2026:

a) Scenario 0 – Baseline - a forecast development scenario of the existing pattern of development.

b) Scenario 1 - a minimum 3 storeys be provided of non-residential uses within the existing FSR (i.e. Option 2).

c) Scenario 2 – a minimum of 3 storeys be provided of non-residential uses in addition to the existing FSR (i.e. Option 3).

47. The Study quantified the expected impact on traffic for each Scenario, that is, impact at peak hours (morning (AM) and afternoon (PM)) at key intersections in Epping Town Centre.

48. Overall results indicate that in comparison to the base year (2026) traffic conditions, both Scenarios are showing some increased traffic volumes. Noting that commercial uses generate more car traffic than residential uses in both the AM and PM peak periods. In summary:

a. In the morning peak there is overall worsening in intersection delays as compared to Baseline 2026, however Scenario 1 has less overall delays in additional seconds than Scenario 2.

b. In the afternoon peak traffic conditions generally perform better than the morning peak, which is primarily believed to due be the Epping Bridge widening (therefore relieving westbound traffic flows).

49. Each of the key impacts under the morning and afternoon peaks are described below. Note that the term ‘level of service’ refers to how well the road intersection is operating from a commuter’s perspective. Typically, six levels of service are defined and each is assigned a letter designation from A to F, with level of service ‘A’ representing the best operating conditions, and level of service ‘F’ the worst.

Traffic Impact at the Morning Peak

50. The key results in relation to the morning peak are summarised in Table 3 below. It is noted that four key intersections will be already operating under the Baseline Scenario (at 2026) at highly congested traffic conditions (level of service F) – these are Carlingford Road/Midson Road; Carlingford Road/Ray Road/Rawson Street; Carlingford Road/Beecroft Road; and Epping Road/Essex Street. Both Scenarios 1 and 2 will further increase the delays to three of these intersections during the morning peak. In addition, two intersections will experience changes to the level of service under both Scenarios.

Table 3. Summary of Impact on Key Intersection at Morning Peak for each Scenarios

Intersection	Summary of Impact of Scenarios 1 & 2 against Base Case
Carlingford Rd/Ray Road/Rawson Street	Will continue to operate at level of service F - with increase in intersection delays less under Scenario 1 (59.3 sec) than Scenario 2 (134.2 sec).
Carlingford Road/Beecroft Road	Will continue to operate at level of service F - with increase in intersection delays slightly greater under Scenario 1 (17.8 sec) than Scenario 2 (17.4 sec).
Epping Road/Blaxland Road/Langston Place	Will change from a level of service C (baseline) to level of service D (both Scenarios).
Epping Road/Pembroke Street	Will change to a level of service A (baseline) to level of service B. Both level of service A and B are acceptable levels of service.
Epping Road/Essex Street	Will continue to operate at level of service F - with increase in intersection delays under both Scenarios 1 and 2. The increase in delay time is less in Scenario 1 (17.7 sec) than under Scenario 2 (19.7 sec).
Carlingford Rd/Midson Road	Will continue to operate at level of service F – with increase in intersection delays slightly greater under Scenario 1 (17.8 sec) than under Scenario 2 (17.4 sec).

Traffic Impact at the Afternoon Peak

51. In the afternoon, peak traffic conditions generally perform better than the morning peak, which is primarily believed to be due to the Epping Bridge widening relieving westbound traffic flows.

52. There are no changes to service levels for any of the key intersections under Scenarios 1 or 2 (as compared to Baseline 2026). However, the Carlingford Road/Beecroft Road intersection, which will be operating at over capacity traffic conditions (level of service F), will experience increases in the level of delay (37 and 49.5 seconds respectively) under Scenarios 1 and 2.

Conclusion

53. It is acknowledged that there are, and will be, highly congested traffic conditions in Epping under the current planning controls, and that the proposal to mandate additional non-residential floor space will result in additional delays at identified intersections in the peak (in the short to medium term). Notwithstanding this, it is recommended the mandating of non-residential floor space within Epping Town Centre be pursued.

54. As a result of changes to planning controls, there will be a short to medium term adverse traffic impact, however this must be balanced with the long term pursuit of the strategic goal of making Epping a thriving Town Centre. There are demonstrable benefits from having an activity and employment based centre which is best placed to serve the needs of the broader community.

55. Furthermore, Council will continue to focus its efforts on delivering and advocating for the necessary traffic and transport improvements required in Epping. By taking advantage of Epping as a public transport hub this will continue to assist in resolving the road based transport issues, and seeking improvements in public transport provisions in areas east and west of Epping to reduce the levels of private vehicle through traffic, which is currently the primary source of congestion problems in the Epping Town Centre.

56. Whilst this approach would result in additional short term congestion, in the longer term it would help establish Epping as a thriving centre with a sustainable mix of use, and rely on future transport improvements that encourage use of other forms of transport to resolve the road based transport issues.

Overshadowing Analysis

57. If Option 3 was pursued as a Planning Proposal, it would result in an increase in density and height controls on B2 zoned sites within the Epping Town Centre. An example of a potential change to the built form is shown in Figures 2 and 3 below, where blue is shown as the minimum amount of non-residential floor space proposed to be mandated under Option 2 and 3, with the orange floor space (likely residential) as compliant under the current height and density controls. The pink area highlighted in Figure 3 is the additional floor space required under Option 3.

Figure 2: Example of potential built form outcome under Option 2 (current FSR and height controls under the LEP)

Figure 3: Example of potential built form outcome under Option 3 (an increase in FSR and height controls)

58. Under Option 2 and 3, as compared with Option 1 (status quo) the street level would likely be improved as the development control plan (DCP) controls for the Epping Town Centre would be realised, that is, a 3 to 4 storey podium for commercial uses, with a residential tower above. Current development typically has one storey of commercial floor space and a residential tower above. A better street wall podium, with well set back residential towers would create an appropriate human scale built form.

59. An impact of additional density and height (and therefore taller buildings) is an increase in overshadowing. In order to compare the extent of overshadowing of Option 2 (current planning controls) and Option 3 (additional height and density to the current planning controls), Council’s City Design Unit created a 3D model for all B2 Local Centre zoned sites in Epping Town Centre, inputting the following data:

a. Development that is constructed or under construction and applying current planning controls for Option 2 only, as it is assumed these developments are finalised;

b. Development applications that have been approved or currently under assessment (however construction not commenced) and applying both current planning controls for Option 2 and proposed planning controls under Option 3; and

c. Sites which have not lodged development applications and not realised the full potential of the planning controls and applying both current planning controls for Option 2 and proposed planning controls under Option 3.

60. The 3D model then calculated the difference in overshadowing impact for the sites modelled under Options 2 and 3. The shadows cast were analysed on an hourly basis between 10am and 2pm on 21 June (winter solstice), as this is the time of the year that the sun is lowest in the sky and the shadows cast are the longest. The hourly shadow analysis between 10am and 2pm at 21 June is provided at Attachment 3.

61. Figures 4 and 5 below provides a snapshot from the shadow analysis at 11am and at 1pm on 21 June. The pink shaded area indicates the potential net increase in overshadowing caused by increasing the height and density to accommodate an increase in commercial floor space. It is noted that the grey areas include both the shadow under the existing planning controls (Option 2) and shadow from Option 3 (therefore no resultant net increase of shadow).

Figures 4 and 5: Net shadowing increase (shown in pink) between Option 2 and Option 3 on B2 Local Centre zoned sites in Epping Town Centre on 21 June at 11am and at 1pm.

11am 1pm

62. The overshadowing analysis at Attachment 3 shows that any additional overshadowing (shown in pink) falling on the edge of Boronia Park, the residential areas to the south west of the Epping Town Centre and over the railway line between 10am and 11am, is marginal and has progressed further eastward by 12 midday. Therefore the overall net additional overshadowing caused by Option 3 for the majority of B2 sites is considered acceptable.

63. However it is noted that the additional net shadow (shown in pink) caused by additional height and density at 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 18A Bridge Street and 24-30 High Street largely impacts those sites to its immediate south for the majority of time between 10am and 2pm (refer Attachment 3 and Figure 6). Figure 6 below highlights the overshadowing impact at 12pm as a result from an increase in density and height from these sites. The sites impacted are located along Rawson and High Streets, are low density residential areas and sit within the Epping Eastwood Heritage Conservation Area under the Parramatta LEP 2011. It is therefore recommended that the B2 Local Centre sites 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 18A Bridge Street and 24-30 High Street be excluded from any planning proposal for Option 3.

64. The exclusion of these sites would not impact substantially on the delivery of commercial floor space in the future, as the sites have a current maximum FSR of 3:1 and height of buildings of 21 metres, the lowest density and height controls in the Epping Town Centre.

Figure 6: Additional overshadowing at 12 midday (shown in pink) onto the Epping Eastwood Heritage Conservation Area and residential area (shown in orange) by sites along Bridge and High St (shown in black dash line)

Epping_12pm

65. The likely amendments to FSR and height controls that apply to the B2 Local Centre zone under the Parramatta LEP 2011 and Hornsby LEP 2013 required to accommodate additional commercial floor space are explained under Option 3 below.

Market Response

66. Another key issue to consider when examining how to achieve an increase in commercial floor space in Epping Town Centre is how the market - developers and/or landowners - will respond to Options 2 and 3.

67. A key risk for the implementation of Option 2 (to mandate a minimum amount of commercial floor space within the current height and FSR controls), is that the market will attempt to avoid the amendment to the planning controls. Based on development trends since the 2014 rezoning of Epping Town Centre, the market has determined for Epping that residential is the highest yielding land use, that is, residential floor space gains higher financial returns than commercial floor space. Option 2 will result in displacing current allowable residential floor space for commercial floor space within shop top housing development.

The timeframe for a planning proposal to be finalised, that is, the legal amendment to the local environment plan (LEP), is between 12 and 18 months. In the time it takes to process the planning proposal for Option 2, it is anticipated that landowners / developers will lodge development applications for shop top housing developments to ensure that they realise the land’s development potential. A standard length of a development approval is for 5 years. Therefore the key achievement of increasing commercial floor space may be lost within the timeframe for processing the planning proposal and the length of time a development approval stands.

68. Alternatively Option 3, would result in an increase in commercial floor space whilst maintaining the residential development potential on any site. It is anticipated that the market would respond positively to Option 3 and the delivery of an increase in commercial floors pace in Epping Town Centre.

PLANNING PROPOSAL – OPTION 2 OR 3

69. Three potential planning approaches have been identified in relation to the provision of commercial floor space in Epping. As Option 1 will likely continue to result in the loss of commercial floor space and does not address Epping as a Strategic Centre it is recommended that this option is not pursued.

70. As Options 2 and 3 would require potential changes to planning controls, they each would result in the need to prepare a planning proposal to amend the Hornsby LEP 2013 and Parramatta LEP 2011. Council Officers recommend pursuing Option 3 as a planning proposal. An assessment of the relative merits Options 2 and 3 is summarised below.

Option 2 - mandate a minimum amount of non-residential floor space within the current maximum floor space ratio and height controls.

71. As detailed in the assessment section of this report, Option 2 results in some short to medium term traffic impact, however Council will continue to build, plan for and advocate for improvements to the road network in Epping and to take advantage of the public transport centre it has become.

72. Although on paper Option 2 would deliver an increase in non-residential floor space, practically it is unlikely the market would respond favourably to the proposed controls. Council may experience a rush of development applications lodged for sites in Epping by landowners and developers in order to avoid the proposed controls. This would result in a lost opportunity to deliver commercial floor space within Epping Town Centre, in most cases a permanent loss due to the strata of residential units, which would be unlikely to be redeveloped again within 50 to 80 years.

Option 3 - mandate a minimum amount of non-residential floor space in excess of the current maximum floor space ratio (FSR).

73. Option 3 involves increasing the commercial floor space requirements by amending the height and density (FSR) controls to retain, where it results in minimal impact, an FSR for residential equivalent to existing levels. This would mean increases in overall density and building heights but makes delivery of more commercial floor space more viable.

74. Landowners or developers may support Option 3 as it would not decrease the residential potential available on a site, which is currently viewed by the market as the highest yielding land use. However it is acknowledged that concerns in relation to any increase in building height and density of development in and around Epping are issues local residents and other stakeholders raised during the Epping Planning Review.

75. Traffic impact in the morning peak, in the short to medium term, would be greater than Option 2 (refer to paragraphs 50-56 above), however as stated above, this must be balanced with the long term pursuit of creating a vibrant employment based Town Centre. It is also recognised that further traffic and transport improvements need to be advocated for and undertaken by Council to ease congestion.

76. If a planning proposal was pursued, the following Table 4 indicates the proposed FSR and heights that would be required to accommodate the additional commercial floor space provision.

Table 4: Proposed FSR and Height of buildings under Option 3

Current Maximum FSR and Height of Building (HoB) Controls on B2 sites in Epping	Proposed Maximum FSR and Height of Building (HoB) Controls on B2 sites in Epping
6:1 and 72 metres (22 storeys)	7:1 FSR and 90m (28 storeys)
4.5:1 and 72 metres (22 storeys)	5:1 FSR and 80m (24 storeys)
4.5:1 and 48 metres (15 storeys)	5:1 FSR and 80m (24 storeys)
3.5:1 and 21 metres (6 storeys)	No change proposed. As detailed above the sites are at 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 18A Bridge Street and 24-30 High Street and have shadow impact on adjacent residential heritage areas.

77. The proposed maximum FSR and heights have been devised based on the following:

a. Urban design testing of a selection of sites with the B2 Local Centre zoning;

b. Development applications that have been approved under the current controls and the height variations approved; and

c. Comparative centres and their density and height controls within the City of Parramatta LGA.

78. Urban design testing was carried out on a number of sites in the Epping Town Centre, modelling development of a 3 storey commercial podium and residential tower (refer Figure 3). The additional height and FSR was calculated by adding the equivalent floor space of two level of commercial floor space as additional floor space above in the residential tower (noting that ground floor commercial is not counted as additional as it is already required to be provided as part of shop top housing). As floorplates of residential towers are smaller than commercial floorplates, this additional floor space resulted between 2 and 5 additional storeys of residential floors. The testing considered the requirements of building separation and solar access to units of the NSW Apartment Design Guide. It also accommodated a range of constraints such as small, irregular or isolated sites (those which cannot amalgamate with adjoining sites).

79. The urban design testing highlights the need for additional height to accommodate the additional commercial floor space (between 2 to 5 storeys depending on the size and shape of the site). However as demonstrated below, additional height is also required to rectify the historical ‘mismatch’ between the current height and density (FSR) controls for B2 Local Centre zoned sites in Epping Town Centre. This is explained in more detail in paragraphs 80 to 81 and Table 5 below and is the reason for the significant increase in height of some sites that currently have a height of 48m. The areas where the increase in height goes from 48m to 80m is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Proposed Building Height and FSR changes in Epping Town Centre

80. A sample of approved development approvals for shop top housing within the B2 Local Centre zone in Epping Town Centre was reviewed (refer Table 5). It was revealed that in the majority of cases that Clause 4.6 variations to height of buildings was used. Clause 4.6 of Hornsby LEP 2013 or Parramatta LEP 2011 allows for variation to certain development standards, including the maximum height of buildings through the development application process, subject to detailed justification. These variations to building heights were granted consent in order to accommodate the maximum FSR on these sites. This demonstrates that in most cases, a ‘mismatch’ between the current maximum FSR and height.

Table 5: A sample of recent development approvals and Clause 4.6 height variations

Development Approval (Address & DA ref)	Current height & FSR controls	Approved height & FSR
12-22 Langston Place (DA/468/2016)	72 metres & 6:1	3 towers (62.4m,77.3m & 92.9m) & 6:1
24-36 Langston Place (DA/237/2017)	72 metres & 6:1	87.8m & 6:1
37-41 Oxford St (DA/314/2017)	72 metres & 4.5:1	95.67m & 4.5:1
16-18 Cambridge St (DA/560/2018)	72 metres & 4.5:1	73.8m & 4.5:1
44-48 Oxford St (DA/485/2016)	48 metres & 4.5:1	Two towers (57.5m & 49.9m) & 4.5:1

81. Furthermore, proposed height and density controls of comparable centres in the City of Parramatta LGA, which allow tower developments, assist in informing the proposed controls for B2 sites in the Epping Town Centre. The Council endorsed Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal, proposes sites of 6:1 (under base FSR controls) have a general corresponding maximum height of buildings of 80 metres (under base height controls).

82. The resultant planning controls based on the site testing, development application analysis and comparable planning controls is outlined in Table 4 above. The resultant built form will be tall slender residential tower above a 12 metre (3 storey) commercial podium.

Recommendation - Option 3

83. Council Officers recommend that Council proceed with Option 3, to mandate a minimum amount of commercial floor space in addition to the existing height and density controls. Specifically, it is recommended to prepare a planning proposal which applies to the B2 Local Centre zoning of the Parramatta LEP 2011 and Hornsby LEP 2013 within the Epping Town Centre to:

a. Introduces a new clause which mandates non-residential uses (and therefore restricts residential accommodation and tourist visitor accommodation and car parking) to the ground, first and second floors of any building facing a street and ensure a change of use proposed on these levels would not allow residential uses. An exception will be applied to that part of a building that faces a service lane or is required for entrances and lobbies, access for fire services or vehicular access associated with residential accommodation.

b. Amends the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) and height of buildings to accommodate additional non-residential uses.

84. Regardless of which option is pursued, it is recommended for reasons of expedience that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) be granted delegation to prepare and forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) to request the issuing of a Gateway Determination on behalf of Council.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

85. If Option 2 or 3 were pursued as a planning proposal, supporting controls would be drafted as an amendment to the Epping Town Centre controls contained in the Hornsby DCP 2013 and Parramatta DCP 2011. Potential draft DCP controls would relate to the following:

a. setting podium height controls to ensure appropriate height of podium at street level;

b. minimum floorplates dimensions for non-residential uses to ensure that floorplates are flexible for both office, and other non-residential uses to be located;

c. floor to ceiling heights for non-residential uses (which are higher than residential floor to ceiling heights);

d. location of services (to prevent the first three floors filling up with ‘services’); and

e. new building and podium setback controls.

86. It is recommended that Council delegate authority to the CEO to prepare amendments to the relevant sections of the Parramatta Development Control Plan (DCP) 2011 and Hornsby Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013 to support the planning proposal relating to design controls and place on public exhibition with the Planning Proposal.

PLAN-MAKING DELEGATION

87. Delegations were announced by the Minister for Planning 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 also resolved that these functions be delegated to the CEO.

88. Should Council resolve to proceed with this planning proposal, Council should exercise its plan-making delegations. This means that after 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 in the drafting of the LEP amendment, which is then signed by the CEO before being notified on the NSW Legislation website.

89. It is therefore recommended that Council request the DPIE that Council be granted plan-marking delegation for this Planning Proposal

CONSULTATION & TIMING

90. The matter will be reported to Council with the Local Planning Panel’s advice. If Council resolves to proceed with a Planning Proposal for Options 2 or 3, Council Officers will prepare a planning proposal document under the CEO delegation and it will be forwarded to the DPIE for a Gateway Determination.

91. If the matter proceeds to public consultation, a report on the outcomes of the public exhibition will be provided to the Panel addressing any objections received. If no objections are received, the matter will be reported directly to Council seeking approval to finalise the Planning Proposal.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

92. Under Council’s Planning Agreement Policy (adopted 26 November 2018) Council may, at its discretion, enter into a planning agreement for a Planning Proposal. The landowner would be required to provide infrastructure contributions that are valued at least 50 per cent of the land value uplift under Council’s policy.

93. In relation to Option 2, the proposed amendments to the planning controls does not result in any additional density or land uplift, therefore the Policy is not applicable. Furthermore, any future development (residential or non-residential uses) would need to pay development contributions to fund local infrastructure in accordance with the relevant development contributions plan.

94. In relation to Option 3, the proposed amendments to the planning controls would result in additional density and land uplift from commercial land uses. Council Officers recommend that no planning agreement be applied to these sites for the following reasons:

a. Based on the historic pattern of development to date, the market has been reluctant to deliver additional commercial floor space, therefore any additional monetary payment requirement may further dissuade commercial floor space provision;

b. This is line with Council’s policy position contained in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal which is to prioritise employment-generating floor space and to not subject this floor space to community infrastructure provisions;

a. No planning agreements were in place at the time of the 2014 Epping rezoning for those B2 Local Centre zoned sites already developed;

b. It is not practical to require a VPA with every individual landowner in Epping to achieve a contribution and it is unlikely in the view of Council Officers that the DPIE would support a community infrastructure mechanism such as the one proposed in the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal for a lower order centre such as Epping; and

c. Development contributions will apply at the time of development.

95. The preparation of the Planning Proposal and development control plan amendments and any subsequent public exhibition material would be prepared by Council Officers and therefore within the existing City Planning budget.

Bianca Lewis

Team Leader Land Use Planning

Robert Cologna