Local Planning Panel 9 November 2022 Item 5.1
ITEM NUMBER 5.1
SUBJECT Post-exhibition - Planning Proposal, draft Development Control Plan and draft Planning Agreement for 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta (St John's Anglican Church)
REFERENCE RZ/5/2018 -
APPLICANT/S Jattca Pty Ltd
OWNERS St John's Parramatta Endownment Fund
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 Parramatta Local Planning Panel’s advice to Council on a recommendation to support finalisation of a Planning Proposal, DCP and Panning Agreement for the St John’s Anglican Church site in the Parramatta CBD.
(a) That Council notes the submissions received in response to the exhibition of the Planning Proposal, Development Control Plan (DCP) amendment and Planning Agreement as summarised in Attachment 4 for the St John’s Anglican Church Site.
(b) That Council note the Department of Planning and Environment’s (the DPE) preliminary findings for the ‘SEPP 2 work’ as outlined in their letter dated 17 October 2022 at Attachment 5 and advise the DPE that the additional commercial floor space sought by the subject Planning Proposal, for the portion of the subject site proposed to be zoned B3 Commercial Core, has been assessed in regard to the findings and recommendations for the Western Edge Precinct outlined in the DPE’s advice with the conclusion that a tall, slender tower with an appropriate street wall consistent with the site specific DCP (as amended) is consistent with the principles outlined in the DPE’s letter.
(c) That Council approve the finalisation of the Planning Proposal (at Attachment 1) for land at 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta as follows:
a. For the northern development site:
i. Rezone from B4 - Mixed Use and SP1 – Special Activities (Place of Public Worship) to part B3 - Commercial Core and part SP1 - Special Activities (Place of Public Worship);
ii. A maximum Height of Building Control of 211 RL; and
iii. A maximum FSR of 17.5:1 (or 16:1 exclusive of Design Excellence bonus), made up of a mapped FSR of 10:1 (plus 1.5:1 design excellence bonus) and a site-specific clause permitting a maximum FSR of 6:1 for office uses.
b. For the southern development site:
i. Include on the Land Reservation Acquisition (LRA) map at 41-45 Hunter Street a 6m wide accessway along the boundary to the rail line;
ii. Application of the FSR sliding scale; and
iii. Allow car parking on small portion of SP1-zoned land.
c. The following amendments:
i. For the northern development site:
1. Amendments to include site specific local provisions that address:
a. Conversion of the exhibited provision relating to Unlimited Commercial Floor Space to an equivalent nominated FSR control for office uses of 6:1;
b. Limiting the height to 211 RL inclusive of a design excellence bonus; and
c. A requirement for a site specific DCP to be prepared that provides for identified matters to be satisfied including the outcome for St John’s Parish Hall.
ii. For the southern development site:
1. Removal of the following provisions as they are consistent with the finalised Parramatta Local Environment Plan (LEP) 2011 (Amendment No. 56) and are no longer required:
a. A maximum Height of Building Control of 211 RL; and
b. A maximum FSR of 10:1.
iii. For both development sites:
1. Removal of the following provisions as they are consistent with the finalised Parramatta LEP 2011 (Amendment No. 56) and are no longer required:
a. Parramatta Square solar access,
b. Aerospace investigations, and
c. Car parking.
2. Amendments to address the following two minor Gateway compliance issues discussed in this report:
a. Addressing the Direction on Remediation of Contaminated Land in the Planning Proposal document; and
b. Raising the State infrastructure needs generated by the proposal when consulting State Agencies.
3. Noting the following unresolved matters raised by State Agencies:
a. Transport for NSW: objects to the number of car parking spaces on the site;
b. Department of Planning and Environment – Environment and Heritage Group: raises concern about the inconsistency of the Planning Proposal with Ministerial Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land
c. State Emergency Service NSW: raises concern about the flood planning and management policy framework for the Planning Proposal and wider-CBD.
(d) That Council forwards the amended Planning Proposal at Attachment 1 including the amendments summarised in part (c) above, for which are also detailed in this report, to the DPE for finalisation.
(e) That Council approves the DCP controls at Attachment 2 including the amendments summarised at Table 10 in this report.
(f) That Council enters into the Planning Agreement at Attachment 3 and delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to sign it on behalf of Council.
(g) That in the event the DPE makes changes to the Planning Proposal and in response the applicant seeks to withdraw or renegotiate the Planning Agreement (outside the Chief Executive Officer’s delegation at (h) below), then the DCP is to be amended to remove provisions relating to the Stage 1 DA and “Option A” [removal of Hall] and finalised with “Option B” [partial retention of Hall] only, thereby becoming the only option. The DCP is to be finalised and published as soon as practicable following finalisation of the LEP amendment.
(h) Further, that Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to make any minor amendments and corrections of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during the plan finalisation process relating to the Planning Proposal, DCP amendment and Planning Agreement.
1. Council publicly exhibited from 29 March 2022 to 13 May 2022 the St Johns Planning Scheme. The Planning Scheme is made up of a Planning Proposal, site specific Development Control Plan and a Planning Agreement. The Planning Agreement is activated should the Parish Hall be approved for demolition at Development Application stage.
2. In response to the exhibition 406 submissions were received, from eight (8) Public Authorities and Service Providers; five (5) Developers, Major Landowners, and Planning Consultants; three (3) Peak Body Organisations; and 390 submissions from Residents, Individuals and Community Groups with the breakdown of these submissions being 40% in support, 59% not in support and 1% neutral.
3. The purpose of this report is to detail the outcomes of the public exhibition of the St John’s Planning Scheme and to respond to the Department of Planning and Environment’s (DPE) preliminary findings and recommendations from their investigation of additional floor space for commercial uses; with the recommendation to Council from Council officers being to support the Planning Scheme subject to amendments and forward the Planning Proposal to the DPE for finalisation.
4. The St John’s Planning Proposal seeks to re-zone some parts of the site and amend the height and floor space controls to enable significant development uplift on specific areas of the site for a commercial tower (on the northern site) and a separate mixed-use development (on the southern site), along with works to the adjacent open space and the provision of a basement car park. The supporting draft Development Controls Plan contains controls for two scenarios for the commercial building on the northern site depending on whether a Development Application grants consent to demolish the Parish Hall.
5. During the exhibition of the Planning Scheme, the DPE finalised the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (CBD PP) on 6 May 2022 as Amendment No. 56 to Parramatta LEP 2011. A key change to the Council endorsed CBD PP controls included the removal of the Unlimited Commercial Floor Space (UCFS) provision for certain B3 Commercial Core and B4 Mixed use land. This is relevant to St John’s Planning Scheme as the Planning Proposal sought to apply similar unlimited commercial floor space provisions on this site.
6. The UCFS provision was subsequently reinstated for some B3 zoned by the DPE via a State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) with the change effective from 14 October 2022, being the same date Amendment No. 56 became effective. Council requested the reintroduction of additional commercial floor space for other B4 and B3 land be investigated with the DPE agreeing to undertake a study and any amendments to the controls being finalised via another SEPP by December 2022.
7. To enable Council to assess the suitability of the UCFS provision proposed in the subject Planning Proposal and meet the Gateway condition for finalisation by 30 November 2022, the DPE prioritised the investigation of additional commercial floor space for part of the study area adjacent to the St John’s Planning Scheme, outlining key principles and preliminary findings in a letter to Council dated 17 October 2022 and included in Attachment 5.
8. Council officers have considered the DPE’s recommendation not to support additional floor space for commercial uses in the area north of the St John’s site, and have also considered the issues raised in the submissions to the exhibition and other post exhibition planning matters, and are recommending support for the St John’s Planning Scheme that includes some additional commercial floor space (but not unlimited floor space) for the following key reasons:
a. The proposal for the site is consistent with the Council endorsed strategic position for the Parramatta CBD.
b. The employment-generating uses within the future office building are a core policy aim for Council and this site is well-positioned adjacent to the commercial core and major public transport and cultural facilities.
c. The site specific DCP controls are recommended to be amended in response to the DPE’s analysis to require a well-proportioned, tall and slender commercial tower, with no development above the podium able to encroach the Parramatta Square Solar Access Plane (PSQ SAP) angle to reduce the mass and presence on Centenary Square and the civic spaces and open up views across the podium to the surrounding streets and sky. A tall, slender tower on the northern site and an appropriate street wall consistent with the site-specific DCP is considered by Council officers to be consistent with the principles outlined in the DPE’s letter dated 17 October 2022 for assessing additional floor space. This recommendation also responds, in part, to the submissions objecting to the proposal as a slender tower is considered to lessen the impact on St John’s Cathedral and Centenary Square.
d. The site specific DCP controls provides for:
i. The height and design of the street wall/ podium at the base of both the commercial building (northern development site) and mixed use building (southern development site) to respond to the varying interface conditions (street, squares, heritage, and open space).
ii. The massing of the mixed use building to respond to the constrained site conditions and adjacent heritage while opening up rear vehicle access for a future laneway to Marsden Street.
iii. Approval by Council of a design brief and public domain design that provides publicly accessible open spaces complementary to the existing Parramatta Square and Centenary Square.
e. The Planning Agreement, if activated, provides for the following key benefits: licence in perpetuity for public access to the open space surrounding the Cathedral, dedication of land to enable a laneway to Marsden Street, embellishment of land to create a civic space to be maintained by the Church in perpetuity and monetary contribution to the value of $5 million.
f. Additional height in the area outside the Highly Sensitive Park Edge Area (west of Marsden Street) is not inconsistent with the tripartite agreement for the Old Government House and Domain UNESCO heritage protection area, and no objections to height were received from the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communication (DIRD) and Heritage NSW.
9. In summary, Council officers support the finalisation of the planning controls as described in the recommendation.
PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE
BACKGROUND
10. At the Council Meeting on 21 March 2022 Council resolved (in summary) to exhibit a Planning Scheme consisting of a Planning Proposal, site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP) amendment (amending Parramatta DCP 2011) and Planning Agreement for the subject site. The purpose of this report is to advise the Local Planning Panel of the outcome of the exhibition, and to make a recommendation regarding the Panel’s advice to Council.
11. The subject site contains 195 Church Street, 65-79 Macquarie Street, 38 and 45 Hunter Street, Parramatta. These properties comprise twelve (12) allotments currently owned by the Anglican Church Property Trust, Diocese of Sydney, as Trustee for the Parish of Parramatta and the St John’s Parramatta Endowment Fund (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: The Subject Site (blue outline) and Proposed Land Use Zoning
12. The ‘northern site’ (also referred to as the ‘northern development site’) refers to the land between Macquarie Street and Hunter Street proposed to be zoned B3 Commercial Core, and the ‘southern site’ (also referred to as the ‘southern development site’) refers to land between Hunter Street and the Railway zoned B4 Mixed Use. A detailed description of the site and surrounds, including heritage items and background to the subject application is contained in the previous report to Council dated 21 February 2022, available here: https://businesspapers.parracity.nsw.gov.au/Open/2022/02/OC_21022022_AGN_720_AT.PDF
PLANNING SCHEME DESCRIPTION
13. The Planning Scheme consists of a Planning Proposal, draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement. The Draft DCP provides for two options for the northern site depending on whether a Development Application consent is issued for the demolition of the Parish Hall:
a. Option A: the Hall is demolished, and the Planning Agreement is triggered (Applicant-preferred).
b. Option B: the Hall is partially retained (i.e. the original fabric is retained, with certain built elements dating from after the second World War removed), and the Planning Agreement is not triggered.
14. Council’s original Planning Proposal supported de-listing of the Hall, however, the DPE’s Gateway Determination required that this aspect of the Planning Proposal be removed from the Planning Proposal and suggested any proposal to remove the item should be assessed as part of a future DA. This is the reason for the structure of the Planning Scheme as discussed above.
15. More specifically, the exhibited Planning Scheme is summarised as follows:
TABLE 1: Summary of exhibited Planning Scheme
|
Planning Proposal (Attachment 1) |
|
Changes planning controls as follows: i. Rezoning the land from part B4 (Mixed Use) and part SP1 (Special Activities – Place of Public Worship) to part B3 (Commercial Core), part B4 (Mixed Use) and part SP1 (Special Activities – Place of Public Worship) (refer Figure 1) ii. Amending FSR controls to allow a mapped FSR of 10:1 on both the northern development site (B3 land shown in Figure 1) and southern development site (B4 land shown in Figure 1) sites. iii. Allowing unlimited commercial development on the northern tower site iv. Applying relevant FSR sliding-scale provisions which would limit the effective FSR on the southern development site v. Amending Height controls to allow a mapped height of part 211m (northern and southern tower sites), 12m (along Centenary Square frontage of northern tower site), and no building height (portion containing Cathedral) vi. Applying relevant Airspace Operations controls vii. Identifying land at 41, 43 and 45 Hunter St in the Land Reservation Acquisition Map to facilitate the creation of a 6 metre wide laneway which will provide future vehicle access to these sites and 181 Church Street. viii. Allowing car parking as a permissible use on a small portion of the land zoned SP1 ix. Applying solar access requirements consistent with Parramatta Square, as endorsed by Council as part of the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal on 12 June 2021 x. Applying maximum car parking rates consistent with Council’s policy position of 12 June 2021 xi. Applying an additional site-specific clause requiring a DCP to be prepared that provides for the critical matters to be satisfied including the outcome for the Parish Hall |
|
Development Control Plan (Attachment 2) |
|
Outlines the preferred planning pathway (Stage 1 Concept DA followed by Design Competition and detailed DA) a staged Development Application and sets development controls for: i. Heritage conservation (including options to cover scenarios in which the Parish Hall is and is not retained), ii. The form of the buildings and public domain, iii. Vehicle access, parking and servicing, iv. Management of flood and rainwater risks; and v. Environmental sustainability. |
|
Planning Agreement (Attachment 3) |
|
i. Licence in perpetuity for public access to the open space surrounding the Cathedral subject to the St Johns Church maintaining the right to limit some uses on this land. ii. Stratum dedication of land to enable laneway between 181 Church Street site and Marsden Street. iii. Agreement to allow temporary vehicle access for 181 Church Street site to access Hunter Street for 10 years or until the new laneway described in part ii above is available (subject to the agreement of 181 Church Street). iv. Embellishment of the following land to create a civic space: · Church land between the Cathedral building and Hunter Street · Portion of road in front of 45 Hunter Street to be closed and included in the civic space but remain in Council ownership v. Church to bear the maintenance and liability for the civic space site (including the Council owned portion) in perpetuity. vi. Compensation of $1.1 million for the reduction in public benefit lost due to the driveway arrangements restricting the size of the civic space and eliminating the previously proposed laneway. vi. Compensation of $3.5 million to recognise Council’s risk from not having the public access recognised on the land title and accepting limitations outlined in the Church’s Social Covenant and related to the Church’s operational use of the land.
|
COMPARISON WITH RELEVANT CONTROLS
16. It is critical to note that the relevant LEP controls for this site have shifted during the public exhibition. This is because DPE finalised the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (CBD PP) on 6 May 2022 during the public exhibition of this Planning Scheme. The CBD PP amendment was Amendment No. 56 to Parramatta LEP 2011 (PLEP 2011), and is referred to this way throughout this report. The controls in Amendment No. 56 became active on 14 October 2022 following publication on the NSW legislation website.
17. The finalised version of the CBD PP saw the DPE remove provisions Council was seeking to put in place which permitted unlimited commercial floor space on certain sites zoned B3 Commercial Core. The exhibited St John’s Planning Scheme also sought to apply similar unlimited commercial floor space controls to this site. However, between the 6 May 2022 and the 14 October 2022 the DPE reconsidered their position and has (via a State Environmental Planning Policy referred to in this report as the ‘First CBD SEPP’,) reinstated unlimited commercial floor space provisions for B3 Commercial Core zoned sites located northeast of the subject site (Refer to Figure 2 below). The first CBD SEPP amendments also became active on 14 October 20022.
18. The DPE has also made a commitment to consider allowing additional commercial floor area in certain B3 Commercial Core and B4 Mixed Use sites also referred to in Figure 2 and, if appropriate, to enable this additional commercial floor space via a second SEPP process (referred to in this report as the ‘Second CBD SEPP’). The timetable provided by the DPE is that this second CBD SEPP process should be completed by December 2022.
19. While both these SEPP Amendments do not apply to the land subject to the St John’s Planning Scheme as shown in Figure 2, they are relevant for context and assessment of the additional commercial floor space sought via this SSPP. These issues are discussed in detail later in this report, as it arose during and immediately after exhibition and needs to be considered as a post-exhibition matter.
20. The DPE provided Council with advice in a letter dated 17 October 2022 (as at Attachment 5) regarding the progress of a second CBD SEPP analysis to assist Council with the assessment of the SSPP for St John’s site. The letter stated work is still ongoing however the DPE prioritised an area identified as the “Western Edge Precinct” of the CBD and provided preliminary findings and recommendations. The land subject to the SEPPs is shown in Figure 2, and the implications of this work discussed in further detail below.
Figure 2: The Subject Site (blue outline) and the land subject to the first and second CBD SEPPs
Southern Development Site (45 Hunter St)
21. The FSR and Height controls in the Planning Scheme for the southern development site (i.e. 45 Hunter St) are consistent with Amendment No. 56. As these planning controls have already been brought into effect through the CBD PP, they are no longer a technical requirement of this site-specific Planning Proposal. The recommendation of this report reflects this.
22. However, the Land Reservation Acquisition [LRA] notation at 41-45 Hunter St to create a 6m wide accessway along the boundary to the rail line was not included in Amendment No. 56, and is still relevant for finalisation as part of this site-specific Planning Proposal. The recommendation of this report reflects this. The application of the FSR sliding scale provision to the ‘southern development site’ is also still relevant to ensure a proportional building on the 864sqm site and that amalgamation with adjoining SP1 zoned land cannot be used to circumvent the sliding scale for this site to achieve a greater FSR that that applied to the B4 zoned portion of the site. The recommendation of the report that the sliding scale will be applied reflects the desire to ensure that nothing in the controls enables the sliding scale provisions to be circumvented.
Northern Development and Cathedral Site
23. The Planning Scheme represents significant development uplift on the northern development site compared with Amendment No. 56. A comparison of key planning controls for the northern tower site is outlined below. It is important to note that the St John’s Planning Proposal essentially brings the northern tower site in line with controls finalised through Amendment No. 56 for other B3 sites in the CBD and the First CBD SEPP (blue column in the below table).
Table 2: Northern Tower – Comparison of Key Planning Controls
|
|
EXISTING CONTROLS:
Parramatta LEP 2011 (as modified by the finalised CBD PP)
*These clauses came into effect on 14 October 2022 via Amendment No. 56 to PLEP 2011 |
PROPOSED CONTROLS:
Site-specific Planning Proposal (as exhibited) for the Northern development site |
COMPARISION OF CONTROLS:
*These clauses came into effect on 14 October 2022 via Amendment No. 56 to PLEP 2011 and SEPP Amendment (Parramatta CBD) 2022. |
|
Zoning |
Part B4 (Mixed Use)
Part SP1 Place of Public Worship |
Part B3 (Commercial Core)
Part SP1 Place of Public Worship |
B3 (Commercial Core) |
|
Height |
For the B4 land, part 12m, part 18m, part 24m,
For the SP1 land, no building height |
For the B3 land, 211m (northern tower site) and 12m (along Centenary Square frontage of the northern tower site)
For the SP1 land, no building height (portion containing the Cathedral) |
Generally 211m, with some nuances based on site-specific considerations |
|
FSR |
For the B4 land, 3:1
For the SP1 land, no FSR control |
For the B3 land, 10:1 FSR (plus 15% Design Excellence bonus)
For the SP1 land, no FSR control |
10:1 FSR (plus 15% Design Excellence bonus) |
|
Heritage status of Parish Church Hall |
Listed |
Listed |
Listed |
|
Additional clauses related to CBD PP |
· Parking Rates · Solar Access Provisions relating to Parramatta Square · Airspace operations · FSR sliding-scale
|
· Parking Rates · Solar Access Provisions relating to Parramatta Square · Airspace operations · FSR sliding-scale · Unlimited Commercial Floor Space (see further discussion) |
· Parking Rates · Solar Access Provisions relating to Parramatta Square · Airspace operations · FSR sliding-scale · Unlimited Commercial Floor Space (see further discussion) |
|
Additional site-specific clauses |
n/a |
· LRA notation at rear of 41-45 Hunter St · Allow car parking on small portion of SP1-zoned land · Preparation of a DCP prior to development consent being granted to address matters related to the heritage listed St John’s Hall |
n/a |
24. As shown in the green column in the above table, the CBD PP originally envisioned no development uplift for the northern tower site; this was due to high level heritage considerations. However, through site-specific and detailed consideration, Council formed the view that the development uplift envisioned in this Planning Scheme is appropriate for the northern tower site.
26. Whilst the independent heritage report was not supportive of de-listing the Hall and the expansion of civic space in front of the Cathedral’s western towers, Council ultimately concluded that the public benefits associated with the new expanded civic space over Hunter Street and A-grade office building were considered on balance to provide adequate justification to de-list the Church Hall and that the additional FSR and height were acceptable. (Noting that DPE’s Gateway determination subsequently rejected de-listing of the Hall, as discussed elsewhere in this report). In other words, Council concluded that – provided that adequate public benefits were delivered to offset the loss of the Hall - this site could otherwise benefit from planning controls commensurate with other B3 sites in the (then-current) draft CBD PP.
PLAN-MAKING AUTHORITY
PRE-EXHIBITION AMENDMENTS
28. On 21 March 2022, Council resolved to amend the Planning Proposal to remove all references to the de-listing of the Hall as an item of local Heritage significance (as required by DPE’s Gateway determination), and relevant amendments were made for the exhibited version of the Planning Scheme.
29. Council also resolved on 21 March 2022 to request that DPE endorse amendments to the Planning Proposal to include a new site-specific clause that requires the preparation of a DCP prior to development consent being granted to development that provides for the specific matters to be addressed, with the inclusion of a note that this obligation may be satisfied by the making and approval of a concept development application (also referred to as a Stage 1 Development Application) consistent with Section 4.23 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. (This matter is described in detail in the Council report of 21 February 2022.) This is the method by which the demolition of the Church Hall will be assessed in a future Development Application process (rather than directly de-listing the Hall as originally supported by Council). DPE approved this request, and relevant amendments were made for the exhibited version of the Planning Scheme.
SUMMARY OF EXHIBITION AND SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED
31. Exhibition consisted of:
a. Participate Parramatta webpage including link from Council’s website
b. Hard copies placed in CBD library and Customer Service Centre
c. Mail notification to neighbouring and nearby properties
d. Electronic notification to relevant agencies
e. Newspaper advertisement
f. Phone-a-Planner sessions
g. Social media announcement
32. Council received 406 submissions in response to the exhibition. The below table enumerates the submissions received. The submissions are summarised in the following sections of this report and also addressed in detail in Attachment 4.
TABLE 3: Submissions Received
|
State Agencies & Service providers |
8 |
|
Peak Body Organisations |
3 |
|
Adjacent Landowners |
5 |
|
Residents, Individuals and Community Groups |
390 |
|
- Support |
- 156 |
|
- Did not support |
- 230 |
|
- Other views |
- 4 |
|
TOTAL |
406 |
33. The quantity and complexity of submissions received was unprecedented for a site-specific Planning Proposal in the Parramatta CBD, and made the strict timeframe set by DPE for finalisation of the Planning Proposal (30 June 2022) unachievable. Therefore, DPE granted Council officers’ request for an extension so that submissions could be adequately considered and set a new finalisation date of 30 August 2022. To allow for this Planning Proposal assessment to consider analysis the DPE was undertaking for the second CBD SEPP, DPE then extended the finalisation date further to 30 November 2022.
34. Eight (8) submissions from State Agencies were received. The Agencies generally did not object. However, they did raise a number of issues with the Planning Scheme. The below table contains key issues and a response from Council officers. These submissions are summarised and responded to in greater detail in Appendix D at Attachment 4.
TABLE 4: Key Issues Raised in State Agency Submissions and Council Officer Response
|
High-level summary of submission |
Summary of response |
|
Endeavour Energy, Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communication (DIRD), and Sydney Water
These four (4) agencies did not object to the Planning Proposal and offered commentary mainly relating to later stages of the development process. |
Noted. The submissions have been forwarded to the Applicant for their information and assistance in progressing the project. |
|
Department of Planning and Environment – Environment and Heritage Group (EHG)
Did not object to the Planning Proposal but did raise various issues mainly relating to requesting minor amendments to DCP controls.
|
For reasons outlined in detail in in Appendix D at Attachment 4, Council officers consider that the majority of the issues raised do not require any amendments to the Planning Scheme, as they are adequately addressed by the proposed controls and/or process laid out for the site.
The EHG’s view that the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with Ministerial Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land with the Direction for Flood Prone Land is not supported. DPE did not raise this issue when issuing a Gateway determination and Council’s Flood Engineers have also not raised this as an issue. Council officers have included in the recommendation of this report that DPE consider this issue in the plan-making stage.
Council officers note that there are some issues where EHG and Council officers have taken a different view, and therefore have included in the recommendation of this report that DPE consider these issues in their plan-making.
One minor change to the DCP is recommended in response to this submission; the intent of this minor change is to ensure that the issue of size of new trees is balanced with heritage view lines.
Original control: “Large tree planting shall be provided within the public domain that is appropriate to its role, respectful of sight lines including from Hunter Street facing St John’s Anglican Cathedral and at a scale that is appropriate to a setting for the St John’s Anglican Cathedral. Trees shall be planted at natural (pre new development maximum) ground level, not in raised planters.”
Proposed amended control: “ |
|
State Emergency Service NSW [SESNSW]
Did not clearly object to or support the Planning Proposal, but some comments could be interpreted as objecting to the proposal.
In summary, SESNSW continues to have various concerns about the approach to flood planning and management taken in the CBD and has applied those concerns to this site. |
For reasons outlined in detail at Appendix D at Attachment 4, Council officers do not consider that the issues raised by SES require any changes to the planning controls or proposed process.
It should be noted that the concerns raised relate to the flood planning and management policy framework that applies to the entire CBD and are not particular to this site. DPE in finalising the CBD PP (Amendment 56) supported and implemented Council’s policy framework despite the SES concerns.
The remaining part of this policy framework which needs to be implemented are broader DCP controls for the City Centre related to flooding and evacuation policy which at the time of preparing this report are under consideration by Council for finalisation.
Council officers consider that Council’s policy framework generally address the issues raised in SESNSW’s submission; and their requirement for the site-specific controls to be consistent with the broader DCP controls for the City Centre.
However, Council officers also note that there are some issues where SESNSW and Council officers have taken a different view, and therefore have included in the recommendation of this report that DPE consider these issues in their plan-making. |
|
Transport for NSW (TfNSW)
Did not clearly object to or support the Planning Proposal, but some comments could be interpreted as objecting to the proposal (specifically, TfNSW does not support the car parking spaces stated in the traffic impact assessment, due to good public transport opportunities in close proximity).
|
For reasons outlined in detail at Appendix D at Attachment 4, Council officers consider that the majority of issues raised by TfNSW do not require any changes to the planning controls or proposed process.
Council officers particularly note TfNSW’s comments not supporting the car parking spaces. The Planning Proposal applies rates consistent with the Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal recently finalised by the DPE on 14 October 2022 via PLEP Amendment 56. Council officers and TfNSW have taken a different view on this issue, and therefore Council officers have included in the recommendation of this report that DPE consider this issue in their plan-making.
One minor change to the DCP is proposed in response to this submission. An additional objective and control is proposed, with the intention of clarifying and strengthening the position around the location of servicing/loading activities:
“Oxx. Minimise the impact of vehicular servicing and loading activities on the surrounding street network.”
“Cxx. All vehicular servicing and loading activities shall be accommodated on-site.”
|
|
Heritage NSW
Did not object to the proposal, and offers commentary mainly relating to the DCP and future development assessment matters that Heritage NSW would like to see addressed including an archaeological report.
|
For reasons outlined in detail at Appendix D at Attachment 4, Council officers consider that the majority of issues raised by Heritage NSW do not require any changes to the planning controls or proposed process, with most of the issues raised therein will be assessed in the staged DA process that the Planning Scheme sets out.
Two minor changes to the DCP are proposed in response to this submission as follows:
Firstly, in the steps outlined for the staged DA process under the heading ‘Options for Development and Planning Pathway’, a new report is required in the first step being an Archaeological report, based on archaeological testing.
Secondly, an additional objective and control is proposed in ‘Part B Understanding the Place’ of the Heritage Controls for both Option A and Option B to align with the requirement for an archaeology report to be submitted with the Stage 1 DA.
“O.3. Ensure the archaeological resources of the place determined through early archaeological test excavations and incorporated into the Archaeological report inform the detailed design for the site. of the excavations are incorporated into the detailed design”.
“C.2. The recommendations of the Archaeological report (that includes the results of the test excavations) are to be incorporated into the detailed design. This includes the conservation of local and State significant archaeology. Where this is not possible or practical, excavation, salvage, reuse and/or interpretation of the archaeology in accordance with an approved archaeological research design and excavation methodology is to occur”. |
35. As noted in the above table, there were some submissions that raised unresolved issues with Council’s approach in the Planning Scheme. While not formal objections, Council officers consider it prudent that the recommendation of this report note these issues so that they are drawn to the attention of DPE during the plan making stage.
Peak Body Organisations
36. Council received three (3) submissions from peak body organisations, namely the National Trust (separate submissions from Parramatta Branch and NSW Branch) and the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA). All three submissions objected to the Planning Scheme. The following table contains key issues arising in these submissions and a response from Council officers. These submissions are summarised and responded to in greater detail in Appendix B at Attachment 4.
TABLE 5: Key Issues Raised in Organisation Submissions and Council Officer Response
|
High-level summary of submission |
Summary of response |
|
National Trust (NSW Branch)
Objects to Option A and expresses strong concern with Option B. The submission objects on a variety of heritage-related issues, including site-specific and cumulative impacts, and other issues.
|
The Planning Scheme sets up a staged process by which heritage (amongst other) impacts can be considered in a Development Application process.
No changes are recommended in response. Please refer to more detail at Appendix B at Attachment 4. |
|
National Trust (Parramatta Branch)
The submission considers that the Planning Proposal has not met site-specific or strategic merit tests required of Planning Proposals. It also raises objections to the relationship to the Planning Agreement, as well as other issues.
|
Council ultimately came to the view through the assessment process that the public benefits associated with the new civic space and A-grade office building were considered on balance to provide adequate justification to de-list the Church Hall and that the additional FSR and height were acceptable.
No changes are recommended in response. Please refer to more detail Appendix B at Attachment 4. |
|
Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA)
Raises a number of issues relating to the theme that landscape architecture has not been adequately considered; the proposal will adversely impact on the adjacent historic areas; and the height and form of the tower is inappropriate. |
Council officers through site specific assessment have come to a different view in relation to the height of the tower and are recommending amendments to the DCP to support a slenderer tower.
Council officers are also recommending minor changes to a DCP objective and control to ensure landscape architecture is considered in the DA process. Please refer to more detail at Appendix B at Attachment 4.
In ‘Part B Understanding the Place’ of the Heritage Controls for both Option A and Option B the following amendments are proposed. Note: Additions/subtractions shown as bold and underlined
Proposed amended objective O.2 Ensure the
important relationships between St John’s Anglican Cathedral complex
and Parramatta City Centre, including heritage listed places,
Proposed amended control: “C.1 The
relationship between the St John’s Anglican Cathedral complex, the
adjacent heritage items,
|
Adjacent Landowner Submissions
37. Council received five (5) submissions from adjacent landowners, as identified in Figure 3 below. The following table contains key issues arising in these submissions and a response from Council officers. These submissions are summarised and responded to in greater detail at Appendix C in Attachment 4.
Figure 3: Map of submissions from adjacent landowners
TABLE 6: Key Issues Raised in Adjacent Landowner Submissions and Council Officer Response
|
High-level summary of submission |
Officer Response |
|
57 Macquarie St
No in principle objection. Concern about St John’s development constraining their development and seeking confirmation of setbacks for their site, particularly the western tower setback. |
One change is recommended in response to an issue raised by the Submitter and in response to a post exhibition issue identified by council officers. The change is to clarify that the western tower setback is 6 metres (not 9 metres) from the podium edge. The reasons for this change are outlined in detail below.
With regards to the other matters raised by the Submitter, the 57 Macquarie St Planning Proposal will be assessed on its own merits within the strategic context of the finalised CBD PP published as Parramatta LEP (Amendment No 56) on 14 October 2022. The St John’s proposal does not change any planning controls for their site. The reference design for St John’s does not set out setbacks for 57 Macquarie St; the relevant setbacks at 57 Macquarie St are those which will be applied through Part 6 – Parramatta City Centre recently endorsed by Council on 31 October 2022. Refer to Appendix C in Attachment 4 for more detail.
|
|
87 Marsden St
Does not object, but is concerned about scale and impacts of St John’s development, including overshadowing, setbacks, on heritage items and Parramatta Square, solar access, privacy, views, and on 87 Marsden St.
Concern also raised with a reference in the Planning Proposal documentation to Council’s support of removing the Hall.
Questions the need for the proposal given other sites providing commercial development potential. |
No changes recommended in response, however clarification provided that the western tower setback is proposed to be 6m not 9 metres. The reasons for this change are outlined in detail below.
With regards to the other matters raised by the Submitter, any development at 87 Marsden St will be assessed on its own merits within the strategic context of Parramatta LEP (Amendment No 56). The St John’s proposal does not change any planning controls for their site. The impacts raised in the submission can be adequately addressed, as per Council officers’ more detailed response Appendix C in Attachment 4.
Ideally this reference would have been removed as per DPE’s direction in the Gateway to remove references to the Hall’s removal. However, the remainder of the exhibited materials make it clear that the Planning Scheme presents options for the treatment of the Hall, based on a site specific LEP clause and staged DA process.
Employment-generating uses are a core policy aim for Council. |
|
41-43 Hunter St
Generally supports the proposal. Seeks confirmation of setbacks for the southern building and their site. |
No changes recommended in response.
The setback that will be applied are specific in the draft site specific DCP which contains control C.7 which requires on the southern development site (No. 45) - where amalgamation of 41, 43 and 45 Hunter St does not occur – that any single level additional storey above the 14-16m street wall is to be setback 6m from Hunter St, and the setbacks to the east, south and west of this additional one storey to be established through detailed design taking into consideration potential development on 41-43 Hunter St. The FSR sliding scale provisions continue to apply to the southern development site.
Refer to Appendix C in Attachment 4 for more detail and discussion in this report. |
|
Queensland Arcade
Does not agree to the access terms contained the draft Planning Agreement.
Wishes to pursue a conversation for increased development potential at their site. |
No changes recommended in response. Queensland Arcade’s view on the access terms is noted; they are not compelled to agree to these terms.
Council does not support uplift for this site, and this position was made clear in Council’s resolution to not progress this matter as part of the CBD Planning Proposal post-exhibition process. The reasoning for this position is discussed in more detail Appendix C in Attachment 4. |
|
Walker Corporation (Parramatta Square)
Does not object to development of the St John’s site but raises concerns relating to heritage and the Planning Agreement, and also solar access.
Considers the heritage items on the site and nearby are a ‘unique family’ and that redevelopment for two towers is possible while also retaining the Hall; while the public domain surrounding the Cathedral should be improved in any development scenario to provide an improved connection congruent with the outdoor space with Parramatta Square.
Considers the exhibited solar access clause in the Planning Proposal is not consistent with the CBD Planning Proposal.
|
No changes recommended in response. The Walker’s Corporation’s view on the terms of the Planning Agreement is noted. On balance, Council concluded that the public benefits offered were appropriate to offset the impacts from the loss of the Heritage item. The Applicant has made it clear in negotiations that if the Hall is not approved for demolition, they have no interest in providing the Planning Agreement benefits. It is acknowledged that a portion of the Applicant’s land functions as “public domain”, however this land is actually privately owned, and Council cannot compel the Applicant to take any particular actions with it (outside of those responsibilities already listed in an existing agreement between Council and the Church).
The Gateway included two conditions related to solar access, specifically consistency with the CBD PP and inclusion of the compensatory area, and this was reflected in the exhibited clause. While a map of the compensatory area was not part of PP exhibited material, references to the CBD PP were included and available.
Refer to Appendix C in Attachment 4 for more detail and discussion in this report. |
Community Submissions
38. Council received 389 community submissions which expressed a range of views on the proposal. Appendices A-1, A2 and A-3 in Attachment 4 contains a detailed summary of these submissions, and responses to the issues raised therein are detailed in the body of Attachment 4.
39. 156 of the community submissions expressed support for the Planning Scheme. After considering the submissions, Council officers have identified 10 key themes across these submissions. These themes are detailed in Table 7, with the number of submissions raising issues under these themes also enumerated. The issues raised under these themes and a response on each theme is included at Attachment 4 of this report.
Table 7: Key Themes from Community Submissions Supporting the Planning Scheme
|
No. |
Theme |
Submissions raising issues under this theme |
|
|
|
No. |
% (rounded) |
|
|
1 |
Will enhance the Church’s use |
79 |
23% |
|
2 |
Public, community, cultural and economic benefits of proposal |
67 |
20% |
|
3 |
Positive urban/planning design outcomes |
61 |
18% |
|
4 |
Positive public domain |
45 |
13% |
|
5 |
Support for option A for Church Hall |
44 |
13% |
|
6 |
Positive heritage outcomes |
22 |
6% |
|
7 |
Positive impacts for pedestrian safety/parking/traffic/infrastructure |
17 |
5% |
|
8 |
Role and recognition of Church in preparing proposal |
7 |
2% |
|
9 |
Queries impact on Centenary Square from Parramatta Light Rail |
1 |
0.3% |
|
10 |
Support for Option A and B for Church Hall |
1 |
0.3% |
40. 229 of the community submissions objected to the Planning Scheme. After considering these submissions, Council officers have identified 15 key themes across these submissions. These themes are detailed in the Table 8, with the number of submissions raising issues under these themes also enumerated. The issues raised under these themes and a response on each theme is included at Attachment 4 of this report.
Table 8: Key Themes from Community Submissions Objecting to Planning Scheme
|
Theme |
Submissions raising issues under this theme |
||
|
|
No. |
& (rounded) |
|
|
1 |
Impacts on St John’s Cathedral and grounds |
147 |
28% |
|
2 |
Concern that the Cathedral will be demolished |
2 |
0.4% |
|
3 |
Relationship to Parramatta’s history and heritage |
140 |
26% |
|
4 |
Concerns relating to St John’s Parish Hall |
40 |
7% |
|
5 |
Concerns relating to contributions & private benefit |
7 |
1% |
|
6 |
Impacts on public open space |
75 |
14% |
|
7 |
Impacts on Hunter Street |
10 |
2% |
|
8 |
Traffic and transport impacts |
4 |
1% |
|
9 |
Social/infrastructure impacts and community interest |
16 |
3% |
|
10 |
Need for the proposal |
12 |
2% |
|
11 |
Relationship to planning instruments and processes |
57 |
10% |
|
12 |
Environment and sustainability |
6 |
1% |
|
13 |
Concerns relating to overdevelopment |
16 |
3% |
|
14 |
Concerns relating to building design/ general impacts |
11 |
2% |
|
15 |
No reason for objection provided |
7 |
1% |
41. An additional four (4) community submissions expressed other views on the project, including: Support in part / qualified support; Neutral / offered commentary and Made enquiries. The issues raised and a response is included at Attachment 4 of this report.
Phone-A-Planner Sessions / Phone Contact
42. No bookings were made for the phone-a-planner sessions offered. Council officers received one phone call with queries about the Planning Scheme during exhibition, and answered the questions raised therein.
Heritage Advisory Committee
43. Council’s Heritage Advisory Committee (the Committee) is routinely briefed on strategic planning matters impacting heritage items and invited to comment during exhibitions.
44. The previous Heritage Advisory Committee was briefed on 15 August 2019 at the Gateway request stage for the St John’s Planning Scheme. The Committee objected to the proposal, and this was reported to the Local Planning Panel meeting on 3 December 2019 [Agenda Link: Agenda of Local Planning Panel - 3 December 2019 (nsw.gov.au)] and Council meeting of 16 December 2019 [Agenda Link: Agenda of Council - 16 December 2019 (nsw.gov.au), refer Item 18.4].
45. Council officers provided a number of updates to the Committee on the progression of the planning proposal as part of briefings on planning matters, with the most recent briefing being on 19 August 2021.
46. There was no Committee in place during exhibition of this matter, as the previous Committee dissolved after its last meeting in November 2021 and in the post exhibition assessment phase of the St John’s Planning Scheme, the first meeting of the new Committee in September 2022 dealt with induction matters.
47. Given the comments of the first Heritage Committee and that the proposal in the post exhibition phase is largely the same as when the previous Committee considered the Proposal, it was considered unnecessary to seek another comment.
Reference Design
48. The exhibition included supporting documentation including a reference design, provided by the applicant in support of their application. Elements of the reference design are inconsistent with the draft DCP controls that were exhibited. The key documents that were exhibited and which represent the policy framework for the subject site are the Planning Proposal, draft DCP and Planning Agreement. Where there are inconsistencies between the reference design and these policy documents, the policy documents prevail. Some of these inconsistencies were noted in some submissions.
POST-EXHIBITION ISSUE #1: CONSULTATION WITH QUEENSLAND ARCADE
49. In its resolution of 21 March 2022, Council resolved that the CEO facilitate discussions with the owners of 181 Church Street, Parramatta (Queensland Arcade building) on alternate vehicle access arrangements to this site from Hunter Street in line with the Deed of Agreement attached to the Applicant’s Planning Agreement during the public exhibition period.
50. Ultimately, rather than a “Deed of Agreement”, the exhibited Planning Agreement included Temporary Access Terms (Schedule 7 of the Planning Agreement) as well as Temporary Access Proposed Routes (Annexure F of the Planning Agreement).
51. Council’s Property and Place directorate met with Queensland Arcade representatives in May 2022. As noted previously in this report, Council also received a written submission from Queensland Arcade to the exhibition of the Planning Scheme.
52. Based on the meeting and submission, Council officers understand that Queensland Arcade does not wish to discuss license terms as part of the St John’s Planning Agreement, nor alter access arrangements to their site at this time. Queensland Arcade wishes to discuss long-term redevelopment options available for their site and has indicated that it is as part of those discussions that they will consider closure of the Church Street Access.
54. Council officers will pursue a separate report to deal with the vehicle/pedestrian conflict safety issues associated with Queensland Arcade’s current site access, if Queensland Arcade is ultimately unwilling to consider the alternate access arrangement Council has facilitated in the St John’s Planning Agreement and in the event the Planning Agreement is not triggered. Should Queensland Arcade reconsider their position in future, the Church is still obliged under the Planning Agreement (if triggered) to allow access in accordance with the exhibited document.
56. In summary, no changes to the Planning Scheme are recommended as a result of consultation with Queensland Arcade.
POST-EXHIBITION ISSUE #2: FINALISATION OF PARRAMATTA CBD PLANNING PROPOSAL
57. As noted previously in this report, DPE finalised the CBD PP during exhibition of the St John’s Planning Scheme (on 6 May 2022). Amendment No. 56 published on 14 October 2022 included significant changes to the Council’s exhibited draft CBD PP. Most relevant to the St John’s Planning Scheme was DPE’s decision to reject Unlimited Commercial Floor Space (UCFS) provisions for the B3 and B4 zones.
58. Council’s draft UCFS provisions aimed to maximise job creation in the Parramatta CBD by allowing the development of unlimited floor space beyond the floorspace otherwise specified in the CBD PP - provided that the additional floor space was a commercial use (B4) or office use (B3) and also met other relevant planning criteria.
59. The DPE’s reasoning for rejecting the UCFS provisions in Council’s CBD PP is summarised as follows:
a. “…maximum building heights, inclusive of bonus (up to 243m) and unlimited FSR provisions could lead a proliferation of bulky buildings, homogenous built form outcomes, poor solar outcomes, walls of development fronting the Parramatta River, Church Street, George Street and Prince Alfred Park, all areas of key historical importance.”
b. “Concerns were also raised about the loss of blue-sky, potential for wind tunnel effects and a lack of built form transition.”
c. “The Department’s Height and Floor Space Ratio Practice Note advises that height and FSR controls should be adopted for all strategic centres and in areas where urban growth is planned. The use of height and FSR controls establish a primary building envelope, to ensure the size of the building is appropriate to the land size and compatible with the surrounding area. The provision of an unlimited FSR combined with significant building heights is likely to result in large bulky buildings and risks undermining Council’s objective for tall slender towers.”
d. “Further there are no development guidelines for commercial development such as the Apartment Design Guide for residential and Council is reliant on DCP controls to guide setbacks and tower separation.”
Source: DPE’s Plan Finalisation Report on the CBD PP available at: https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/ParramattaPP
POST-EXHIBITION ISSUE #3: RECONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL FLOOR SPACE PROVISIONS
61. Following the finalisation of PLEP 2011 (Amendment 56) on 6 May 2022, Council considered a report (Item 13.4) at the 25 July 2022 Council Meeting on the key policy changes made by the DPE to the CBD PP (as endorsed by Council on 15 June 2021). In relation to the DPE’s rejection of the UCFS provisions, Council resolved at this meeting to: write to the Minister for Planning to seek the reinstatement of the UCFS provision that allows for commercial uses consistent with Council’s resolution of 15 June 2021 via the preparation of two State Environmental Planning Policies (‘SEPP’) amendments that also addresses the concerns raised by the DPE in its ‘Plan Finalisation Report’.
62. It was noted in the same report that, ‘an understanding of the analysis/outcome of the SEPP(s)’ was required to progress the St John’s SSPP given that the UCFS was being sought, but the land was not identified on the map enabling access to the UCFS via the SEPP amendment.
63. In response to Council’s letter to the Minister, the DPE has:
a. Reinstated the UCFS provision for certain B3 Commercial Core land in PLEP 2011 via a SEPP amendment that was published on 14 October 2022 (“Area B”).
b. Agreed to progress investigations to introduce additional floor space for commercial uses for certain B4 Mixed Use and B3 land (not mapped as “Area B”) via a second SEPP.
c. Provided Council with preliminary study findings and recommendations for the priortised area adjacent to the St John’s site (identified as the ‘Western Edge Precinct’ in Figure 2 above).
64. The DPE’s 17 October 2022 letter to Council at Attachment 5 outlines the preliminary study findings and recommendations summarised here as follows:
a. “When assessing the suitability of sites to accommodate additional floor space ratio (FSR), the SEPP 2 study (study) seeks to balance the risk of impact to place values and the opportunities to encourage achievement of the strategic outcomes including to increase employment generation and attract investment”.
b. In determining the place values, “the study underway has identified a number of key principles centred on three key themes of amenity, character and resilience”.
c. “In reference to the preliminary findings, the Department considers additional FSR for any SEPP2 site within the Western Edge Precinct would have a significant impact on the place values and notes other SEPP2 sites may be better aligned to achieve the strategic objective of potential additional employment floor space”.
d. “No additional FSR for any SEPP2 site within the Western Edge Precinct is recommended”.
Support for additional commercial floor space
65. Council officers have considered the DPE’s principles and findings and have come to the conclusion that the additional commercial floor space sought for the northern development site is not inconsistent with the DPE’s SEPP 2 study findings for the following reasons:
a. The proposal for the site is consistent with the Council endorsed strategic position for the Parramatta CBD.
b. The employment-generating uses within the future office building are a core policy aim for Council and are well-positioned adjacent to the commercial core and major public transport and cultural facilities.
c. The site specific DCP controls are recommended to be amended in response to the DPE’s analysis to require a well-proportioned, tall and slender commercial tower that does not encroach the Parramatta Square Solar Access Plane (PSQ SAP) angle to reduce the mass and presence on Centenary Square and the civic spaces and open up views across the podium to the surrounding streets and sky. A tall, slender tower on the northern site and an appropriate street wall consistent with the site-specific DCP is considered by Council officers to be consistent with the principles outlined in the DPE’s letter dated 17 October 2022 for assessing additional floor space. This recommendation also responds, in part, to the submissions objecting to the proposal as a slender tower is considered to lessen the impact on St John’s Cathedral and Centenary Square.
d. The site specific DCP controls provides for:
i. The height and design of the street wall/ podium at the base of both the commercial building (northern development site) and mixed use building (southern development site) to respond to the varying interface conditions (street, squares, heritage, and open space).
ii. The massing of the mixed use building on the southern development site to respond to the constrained site conditions and adjacent heritage while opening up rear vehicle access for a future laneway to Marsden Street.
iii. Approval by Council of a design brief and public domain design that provides publicly accessible open spaces complementary to the existing Parramatta Square and Centenary Square.
e. The Planning Agreement, if activated, provides for the following key benefits: licence in perpetuity for public access to the open space surrounding the Cathedral, dedication of land to enable a laneway to Marsden Street, embellishment of land to create a civic space to be maintained by the Church in perpetuity and monetary contribution to the value of $5 million.
f. Additional height in the area outside the Highly Sensitive Park Edge Area (west of Marsden Street) is not inconsistent with the tripartite agreement for the Old Government House and Domain UNESCO heritage protection area, and no objections to height were received from the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communication (DIRD) and Heritage NSW.
66. As noted at part (c) in the above paragraph, an amendment to the site specific DCP is recommended to respond to issues raised and ensure the proposed tower on the northern development site that includes additional floor space for commercial development is consistent with the DPE’s principles for the SEPP2 area. This is discussed as a fourth post exhibition issue below.
POST-EXHIBITION ISSUE #4: AMENDMENT OF THE SITE SPECIFIC DCP
67. After considering the DPE’s preliminary findings and principles for the SEPP2 work and desire to balance place values with strategic outcomes, Council officers consider that an FSR greater than the current FSR (3:1 for the northern development site) and in excess of the 10:1 applied to surrounding sites under CBD PP (Amendment 56) can only be supported if the design of the tower is controlled to minimise the impacts on Centenary Square/ Parramatta Square and Church Street.
68. Consequently, to ensure that future design is controlled in this manner, Council officers are recommending amendments to the site specific DCP controls.
69. It is proposed to amend the DCP Figure “Built Form setout plan for Option A/B” and include a new objective and control that makes clear that the tower cannot include floor area under the Solar Access Plane. The objective of the amendment is to create a slenderer tower by prohibiting any encroachment above the podium of the PSQ SAP angle on the Macquarie Street/ Centenary Square corner of the tower to reduce the mass and presence on the civic spaces and open up views across the podium to the surrounding streets and sky. This is demonstrated in the comparison images in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: the Northern development site with and without encroachment of the tower above the podium in the Parramatta Square Solar Access Plane (PSQ SAP) under the two options (Option A Parish Hall removed, and Option B parish hall partly retained)
|
Northern development site – Option A (Parish Hall removed) – with no encroachment of the tower into the PSQ SAP angle |
Northern development site – Option B (Parish Hall partly retained) – with no encroachment of the tower into the PSQ SAP angle |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Northern development site – Option A (Parish Hall removed) – with encroachment of the tower into the PSQ SAP angle |
Northern development site – Option B (Parish Hall partly retained) – with encroachment of the tower into the PSQ SAP angle |
|
|
|
70. It is acknowledged that this will have an impact on the floorplate of the proposed building at these levels; however, it has become apparent that to increase amenity for the adjacent public spaces, the tower needs to be more slender. With no encroachment above the podium into the PSQ SAP angle, Option A tower delivers a maximum achievable floorplate of 1732sqm (GBA) or 1472sqm (GFA) being greater than the typical 1300-1500sqm Grade A tower floor plates*. Further, the GFA under the solar access plane is equivalent to 1,877sqm approximately, or 1.2 storeys, and given this, can be accommodated under the height limit for the site.
*As per the Urbis Study, “Economic Review – Achieving A Grade office development” commissioned by Council when preparing the PCBD PP in October 2015 and updated in September 2019.
71. It should also be noted that this still allows for a contribution of 3,230 jobs across the entire St John’s site. The provision of jobs capacity is a key part of Council’s strategy for the Parramatta CBD.
72. As a consequence of the amendment described above and the amendments details in Table 10 of this report, the exhibited Reference Design is no longer consistent with some of the finalised controls in the Planning Proposal and DCP. Therefore, it is important to note that any inconsistencies between the exhibited Reference Design and any finalised controls in the Planning Proposal and DCP will not be justification for a future variation of any of these controls.
73. Council officers acknowledge the significant response to this Planning Scheme, which overall was larger than the response to any other site-specific Planning Proposal in the CBD in recent years. A wide range of expert and community stakeholders engaged with the exhibition, and a wide variety of views were expressed in response.
74. Whilst acknowledging the objections and concerns raised, Council officers do not consider that the issues raised in the exhibition response should not prevent the Planning Proposal, DCP and Planning Agreement from proceeding towards finalisation subject to amendments described elsewhere in this report. The recommended change to the DCP for the northern part of the site will result in a more slender tower form than that permitted by the exhibited controls and this responds to both:
a. the assessment provided by the DPE; and
b. in part to the submissions concerned about the impact of the development on the cathedral and Centenary Square.
75. Some DCP amendments are recommended following the post-exhibition consideration as discussed elsewhere in this report, and are summarised below in Table 10.
a. Elements of the Planning Scheme which are consistent with Amendment No. 56:
Council officers consider that those aspects of the Planning Proposal which are consistent with Amendment No. 56 can be removed from this Planning Proposal, as they have already been brought into effect by Amendment No 56 which became active on 14 October 2022. The report recommendation reflects this position. These provisions are:
§ For the southern development site, removal of the 211 RL Height of Building Control provision; and removal of the FSR 10:1 provision.
§ For the northern development site, removal of the provision for the FSR sliding-scale (however, not for the southern development site).
§ For both development sites, removal of the provisions for Parramatta Square solar access, Aerospace investigations, and Car parking.
b. Key element of the Planning Scheme which is not consistent with Amendment No 56 (UCFS provisions):
DPE’s removal of the UCFS provisions in Amendment No. 56 was a critical issue for Council in when the Planning Proposal was finalised, as this decision essentially made the St John’s Planning Scheme retrospectively inconsistent with the relevant strategic planning framework on this key matter. Council does not have plan-making authority in this instance, so while Council must form its position on this Planning Proposal, DPE will need to make the final plan-making decision against the backdrop of the strategic framework instituted through DPE’s introduction of Amendment No. 56 and the preliminary study results for the second SEPP. DPE’s decision on this Planning Proposal then will have flow-on effects for the DCP and Planning Agreement. The following sections of this report outline the Council officer-recommended next steps in light of this issue.
77. In the event the DPE makes changes to the Planning Proposal and in response the applicant seeks to withdraw or renegotiate the Planning Agreement, the DCP should be amended to remove provisions relating to the Stage 1 DA and “Option A” [removal of Hall] and finalised with “Option B” [partial retention of Hall] only. This is because Council and the Applicant could not reach agreement on what public benefits would be delivered in the case of the Hall being approved for removal, and therefore only a development scenario in which the Hall was retained should be pursued. The Stage 1 DA would no longer be relevant in this instance, as the requirement of the LEP to provide a site-specific DCP (or alternatively a Stage 1 DA) could simply be satisfied by the DCP relating to “Option B” only, as it would be the only option.
78. Council officers recommend that Council not support a renegotiation of the Planning Agreement under this scenario, due to the following:
a. Usually, a Planning Agreement is negotiated to mitigate the impacts of increased development potential for a site.
b. However, in this instance, the development potential being sought at this site is consistent with a broader strategic framework (i.e. other B3 sites in the CBD PP), which also includes appropriate infrastructure funding mechanisms (i.e. the new CBD contributions plan) related to the increased development potential.
c. At this site, the reason for the Planning Agreement is the proposed removal of the Hall, as the Planning Agreement is only applicable if ‘Option A’ is assessed as acceptable. In other words, Council has formed the position that the Planning Agreement benefits offered would be satisfactory to mitigate the impacts of removing the Hall – not to mitigate the impacts of increased development potential at the site. (Noting that Option B also contemplates significant uplift compared with current controls without any triggering of the Planning Agreement).
Recommended minor changes to DCP
79. As noted above, the exhibition has prompted Council officers to recommend minor changes to the DCP as outlined below. These amendments are considered minor and would not require re-exhibition of the DCP. Table 10 below summarises the changes discussed throughout this report.
Table 10: Summary of the recommended Changes to the DCP (post-exhibition)
|
Reasoning |
|
|
Amend the DCP as detailed in this report in TABLE 4: Key Issues Raised in State Agency Submissions and Council Officer Response |
In response to issues raised by DPE’s Environment and Heritage Group; TfNSW; and Heritage NSW. |
|
Amend the DCP as detailed in this report in TABLE 5: Key Issues Raised in Organisation Submissions and Council Officer Response. |
In response to an issue raised by AILA |
|
Include a new objective O.11 and a new control (C.8) under the heading ‘Built Form’ in both Option A and Option B, and amend the associated figure to require no development above the podium to encroach the PSQ SAP angle for the north-east corner of the Northern development site to reduce the mass and presence on the civic spaces and open up views across the podium to the street and sky. |
In response to an issue raised by DPE in the study results for the Second CBD SEPP. |
|
Update the DCP to correct consequential changes and housekeeping amendments as a result of Amendment 56 coming into force and other administrative changes to the CBD DCP as part of its finalisation. |
In response to issues identified by Council officers. |
|
Amend diagrams in the DCP to reflect the intent of the exhibited DCP controls where inconsistencies have been identified. This includes for Option A and B the Public domain setout plan, and the Built Form setout plan. |
In response to issues identified by Council officers. |
|
Amend the figures for option A and Option B in the section titled ‘Options for Development and Planning Pathway’ to amend the label to say ‘Building Sites’ instead of ‘Maximum extent of new buildings’ to align with the other figures. |
In response to issues identified by Council officers. |
|
Amend explanatory text in the DCP under the heading ‘Options for Development and Planning Pathway’ to require an ‘Updated Reference Design’ to be submitted with the Stage 1 DA. |
In response to an issue identified by Council officers. |
|
Amend explanatory text in the DCP under the heading ‘Options for Development and Planning Pathway’ to correct an error.
“Where a Stage 1 Development
Application determined that the St Johns Parish Hall should be removed and replaced |
In response to an issue identified by Council officers. |
|
Amend control C.3 under the heading ‘Built Form’ in both Option A and Option B to clarify the western tower setback for the northern development site is 6 metres (not 9 metres) from the podium edge.. |
In response to an issue identified by Council officers. |
|
Amend control C.1 under the heading Heritage in ‘G. Development to Benefit a Heritage Item’ in both Option A and Option B to include the ‘St John’s Anglican Cathedral’ as one of the identified heritage items to be subject to conservation.
A detailed schedule of conservation works including detail drawings, is to be submitted as a component of the Stage 2 DA for the retained heritage buildings and elements, including St John’s Anglican Cathedral, St John’s Building, Warden’s Cottage and memorial gateway. |
In response to an issue raised by Council officers and in a submission from a Resident/ Individual. |
|
Amend the text under the heading ‘Desired Future Character’ to clarify that the land around the Cathedral is open space as opposed to public space. |
In response to an issue identified by Council officers. |
Table 12: Minor Gateway Compliance Issues
|
Issue |
Council Officer Consideration |
|
|
Gateway requirement 1(e): Prior to public exhibition, Council is to amend the planning proposal and supporting documentation as follows…updated to address the direction regarding Remediation of Contaminated Land.
NB: Direction 4.4, issued by the Minister of Planning under Section 9.1(2) of the EP&A Act 1979 and the Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP), requires Council to consider contamination issues when rezoning land |
The Planning Proposal and supporting documentation was not amended to address this Direction. |
The potential variations to development standards that may arise because of this planning proposal will, through the proposed regime of design excellence, as well as the general provisions of the assessment process, ensure that environmental effects of development are appropriately managed and mitigated.
Further, the planning proposal does not contain provisions that contradict or would hinder the application of SEPP No 55 Remediation of Land.
Steps to address: 1. Amend the PP to address the matter prior to sending to the DPE for finalisation consistent with any resolution of Council. 2. Advise the DPE to consider this matter in their plan-making. |
|
Gateway requirement 3 (in part): Council should raise the possibility of State infrastructure needs generated by the proposal when consulting State Agencies and forward their comments to the Department upon receipt. |
State infrastructure needs were not specifically raised in the consultation letter to State Agencies.
|
State Agencies were consulted on the Planning Scheme at the start of the exhibition, with links to documentation included. The submissions received from State Agencies were forwarded to DPE for their consideration as the plan-making authority for the Planning Proposal.
It should also be noted that this has been superseded by a clause which has been inserted in the Parramatta LEP via CBD PP Amendment 56) which requires a contribution to State government infrastructure which renders this consultation unnecessary.
Steps to address: 1. Advise the DPE to consider this matter in their plan-making. |
81. The Gateway Determination also contains a condition for finalisation by 30 November 2022. It is for this reason that an extraordinary Local Planning Panel (LPP) Meeting was arranged. The LPP extraordinary meeting will allow Council to consider the matter on 14 Nov 2022 and allow sufficient time for the matter to be forwarded to DPE by this deadline.
LEGAL & FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL
82. The legal and financial implications for Council centre on the Planning Agreement, which has been previously summarised in this report at Table 1 under the heading ‘Planning Scheme Description’ and is also included at Attachment 3. As outlined in this report, the Planning Agreement would only be triggered if the developer obtains a Construction Certificate for demolition of the Hall. The Planning Agreement at Attachment 3 is in a form that can be executed.
83. The previous reports to Council on 21 February 2022 and 22 March 2022 have detailed the financial implications for Council in relation to the new vehicle laneway from Marsden Street to the rear parking area of the 181 Church Street, Parramatta through the development of 41, 43 and 45 Hunter Street. Specifically, the reports flagged that if Council is unable to secure the dedication of required land for the vehicle laneway, Council may need to acquire the land.
84. The landowners of 41-43 Hunter Street in previous discussions with Council for redevelopment of the site as a private hospital, have designed an access lane consistent with the lane proposed by Council. They have also verbally advised Council officers they are willing to discuss how legal access to the lane can be secured by Council. However, their proposal will be assessed as a State Significant Development and Council will need to request the DPE enable legal access to Council to the laneway land.
85. The exhibited Planning Scheme included in the Planning Agreement an offer to dedicate via stratum the lane on the 45 Hunter Street site (St John’s site). In the situation where the dedication of the land does not eventuate via the Planning Agreement (because approval of the demolition the Hall is not granted and the Agreement is not enacted), Council could seek to acquire the land at the development application stage when redevelopment of 45 Hunter Street occurs at some time in the future.
Janelle Scully
Land Use Planning Team Leader
Robert Cologna
Group Manager, Strategic Land Use Planning
Jennifer Concato
Executive Director City Planning and Design
|
1⇩ |
COUNCIL REPORT 14 Nov 2022 - Attachment 1 - PLANNING ~ St John s Planning Scheme RZ 5 2018 v2 |
88 Pages |
|
|
2⇩ |
COUNCIL REPORT 14 Nov 2022 - Attachment 2 - Site Specific DCP CONTROLS - post exhibition amendments (261022, Final) St John's Planning Scheme RZ/5/2018 |
33 Pages |
|
|
3⇩ |
COUNCIL REPORT 14 Nov 2022 – Attachment 3 – Planning Agreement – St John’s Planning Scheme RZ/5/2018 |
74 Pages |
|
|
4⇩ |
COUNCIL REPORT 14 Nov 2022 - Attachment 4 - Community Engagement Plan (271022, Final) - St John's Planning Scheme RZ/5/2018 |
145 Pages |
|
|
5⇩ |
COUNCIL REPORT 14 Nov 2022 - Attachment 5 - Letter from DPE 17 October 2022 - Parramatta CBD Planning Proposal (Amendment 56) & SEPP 2 Preliminary study results |
2 Pages |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
