Agenda of Local Planning Panel - Tuesday, 15 November 2022

Local Planning Panel 15 November 2022 Item 6.1

PLANNING PROPOSAL

ITEM NUMBER 6.1

SUBJECT Exhibition Outcomes - Draft Planning Proposal, Draft Site-Specific DCP and Draft Planning Agreement - Holdmark Sites (Melrose Park South)

REFERENCE RZ/1/2020 -

APPLICANT/S Holdmark Property Group

OWNERS Holdmark Property Group

REPORT OF Senior Project Officer

Development applications considered by Sydney central city planning panel Nil

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to detail submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, draft Site-Specific Development Control Plan (DCP) and draft Planning Agreement and to respond to issues raised, relating to two (2) sites in the southern precinct of Melrose Park identified as the East Site (112 Wharf Road, 30 and 32 Waratah Street, Melrose Park) and West Site (82 Hughes Avenue, Ermington). The report recommends that the updated Planning Proposal, draft Site-Specific DCP and updated draft Planning Agreement be approved by Council.

RECOMMENDATION

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

(a) That Council receives and notes the submissions made during the exhibition of the Planning Proposal, draft Site-Specific Development Control Plan (DCP), and draft Planning Agreement (Attachment 1) and Council officer responses to the issues raised (Attachment 2).

(b) That Council approve the updated Planning Proposal for finalisation (provided at Attachment 3) that seeks to amend Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 as follows:

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

2. Rezone 30 Waratah Street, Melrose Park from IN1 General Industrial to RE1 Public Recreation.

3. Amend the maximum building height on the East Site and West Site from 12m to a combination of 25m (6 storeys), 34m (8 storeys), 68m (20 storeys, and 77m (22 storeys) on each site.

4. Amend the Floor Space Ratio on the East Site from 1:1 to 2.74:1 (net).

5. Amend the Floor Space Ratio on the West Site from 1:1 to 2.46:1 (net).

6. Insert a site-specific provision in Part 6 additional local provisions – generally of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 and amending the Additional Local Provisions map to include the East Site and West Site to ensure:

6.1 That design excellence provisions be applicable to buildings with a height of 55m and above and appoint a Design Excellence Panel to provide design advice for all development applications within the subject sites. Floor Space Ratio and height of building bonuses are not to be awarded on any development lot.

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

7. Amend the Land Reservation Acquisition map to reflect areas of open space to be dedicated to Council.8) Insert provisions into the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 to ensure that the number of dwellings approved at the development application stage aligns with the required infrastructure identified by Council in the Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP).

8. Insert provisions into the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 requiring the Planning Secretary to be satisfied that all State public infrastructure needs (including transport and schools) are met before development can proceed.

9. Insert provisions into Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 to ensure that the new planning controls do not take effect on the subject sites prior to the local infrastructure identified in the local Planning Agreement being secured by way of an executed Planning Agreement between Council and the Applicant.

10. Amend Schedule 1 Additional Permitted Uses of Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 to permit ‘food and drink’ premises in the R4 High Density Residential zone as identified on the new Additional Permitted Uses map.

(d) That Council approve the Site-Specific DCP at Attachment 4.

(e) That Council approve the Planning Agreement at Attachment 6 and the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign the Planning Agreement on behalf of Council.

(f) Further, that Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to make any minor amendments and corrections of a non-policy and administrative nature that may arise during the finalisation of the Planning Proposal, DCP and Planning Agreement.

PLANNING PROPOSAL TIMELINE

SUMMARY

1. This report seeks the Local Planning Panel’s (LPP) advice on a recommendation for Council to consider the outcomes of the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, draft Site-Specific DCP and draft Planning Agreement relating to two (2) sites within the southern precinct of Melrose Park (East Site and West Site).

2. The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2011 (PLEP 2011) to enable non-industrial development on the abovementioned sites in the form of high density residential, public open space, and small-scale retail/commercial uses. This Proposal is generally in accordance with the Southern Structure Plan adopted by Council in December 2019. Should the Planning Proposal and draft DCP be approved, approximately 1,925 new dwellings could be delivered across the two subject sites.

3. The Planning Proposal, draft DCP and Planning Agreement were placed on public exhibition from 25 August 2022 to 21 September 2022. Eighty-five (85) submissions were received comprising seventy-nine (79) from the community, with the remaining 6 from public agencies and other organisations. Overall, 3% of submissions were in support and 77% objected to the Proposal with the remaining 20% neither objecting nor supporting the Proposal. A summary of the key issues raised is provided later in this report, with further details and responses provided at Attachment 2.

4. The key issues raised in submissions relate to building heights, infrastructure provision, potential traffic impacts and character loss. With regards to building heights, the proposed heights are the result of detailed urban design testing and are compatible with the adopted building heights in the Melrose Park North precinct and will be consistent with the established future character of the area. In relation to concerns about increases in traffic, the proposed road upgrades and public transport improvements including a bridge connection over Parramatta River will ensure any impacts can be managed. The infrastructure identified to be provided as part of the Planning Proposal is consistent with the identified needs of the precinct and is considered appropriate. These matters can be further considered at the development application stage, which will be addressed by the controls within the PLEP 2011 and draft Melrose Park South DCP.

5. The matters raised in the submissions do not necessitate changes to the Planning Proposal, draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement. Minor changes are however proposed to the exhibited Planning Proposal to reflect the post-exhibition Gateway conditions and these changes are detailed within Table 2.

BACKGROUND

6. 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.

7. In May 2016, a Planning Proposal was lodged for the Holdmark East site, 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. This Planning Proposal was subsequently placed on hold until the Southern Structure Plan process was complete.

8. A draft Southern Structure Plan was submitted by the Applicant for the southern part of the Melrose Park precinct in November 2017, which was subject to extensive review and refinement over the course of 2018 and early 2019. Council endorsed the draft Southern Structure Plan for public exhibition on 24 June 2019 and it was exhibited from 14 August to 10 September 2019. Following exhibition, a revised version of the draft Southern Structure Plan (Attachment 5) was considered and adopted by Council on 16 December 2019.

9. Adopted by Council on 23 March 2020, City of Parramatta’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) sets out Council’s 20-year vision for land use and infrastructure in the City of Parramatta. Melrose Park is identified as a Local Centre within the LSPS and is therefore suitable for high density residential development. The LSPS recognises that Melrose Park could provide over 2,000 jobs once redeveloped and identifies the need for improved public transport. As Melrose Park is identified as a Growth Precinct and the Planning Proposal will help deliver housing and infrastructure needs, it aligns with the vision of the LSPS.

10. The Applicant lodged a revised Planning Proposal with Council on 11 May 2020 reflecting the requirements of the adopted Southern Structure Plan and incorporating an additional site at 82 Hughes Avenue. The revised Planning Proposal was considered by the LPP on 29 September 2020 and the LPP unanimously supported the recommendation of the report. Council endorsed the Planning Proposal to proceed to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for Gateway Determination on 9 November 2020.

11. A Gateway determination was issued by DPE on 17 August 2021 requiring the Planning Proposal to be submitted to DPE by 30 June 2022 for finalisation to occur by 31 August 2022.

12. A report on the draft Site-Specific DCP and draft Planning Agreement was considered by Council on 28 March 2022, where both documents were endorsed to proceed to public exhibition. After this time, Council officers undertook further discussions with the proponent regarding the finer details of the clauses within the Planning Agreement, which took several months to resolve.

13. A Gateway Alteration was issued by DPE on 12 September 2022 granting an extension until 24 December 2022 for the Planning Proposal to be submitted to DPE for finalisation.

14. The draft Planning Proposal, draft Site-Specific DCP and draft Planning Agreement were publicly exhibited from 25 August to 21 September 2022.

SITE 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) to the east. The proposed Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 (PLR2) corridor runs through the precinct along Hope Street before turning south onto Waratah Street and over the proposed bridge connecting to Wentworth Point.

16. The sites subject to this Planning Proposal are located on the eastern and western sides of the southern precinct. The East Site, which relates to 112 Wharf Road and 30 and 32 Waratah Street is approximately 42,692m² (4.2ha) and is located to the south of Melrose Park Public School. The West Site 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. These sites are referred to as “East” and “West” respectively in this report (see Figure 1). 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

17. The sites are currently largely developed and occupied by a variety of industrial premises. The East Site comprises pharmaceutical, engineering and plastics manufacturing. The West Site comprises purpose-built pharmaceutical manufacturing buildings. Surrounding land uses comprise low density residential in both the Parramatta (west) and Ryde LGAs (east), Parramatta River to the south and industrial land between both sites.

18. There are currently no Planning Proposals lodged with Council for the remaining industrial sites within the southern precinct. As a result, it is difficult to provide a timeframe for when the remainder of the southern precinct will be redeveloped.

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 1. Sites subject to this Planning Proposal

OVERVIEW OF THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

19. The Planning Proposal seeks to amend PLEP 2011 to enable redevelopment for high density residential, public open space and some small-scale retail/commercial uses on the two sites. Refer to Table 1 below for a summary of the existing and proposed controls.

20. Specifically, the Planning Proposal also seeks the following amendments:

 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.

 Amend the Land Reservation Acquisition map to reflect areas of open space to be dedicated to Council.

 Insert provisions into PLEP 2011 similar to those utilised for the Melrose Park North amendment to ensure that consideration is given to the State infrastructure, including schools, required to serve the precinct relative to the number of dwellings proposed when development applications are determined.

 Insert provisions in PLEP 2011 to ensure that the new planning controls do not take effect on the subject sites prior to the local infrastructure identified in the local Planning Agreement being secured. It is envisaged that the mechanism will be via a deferred commencement clause as was done with the Melrose Park North amendment.

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

- That design excellence provisions be applicable to buildings of 55m and above in height and appoint a Design Excellence Panel to provide design advice for all development applications within the subject sites. Floor space and height bonuses are not to be awarded on any development lot.

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

Table 1. Summary of current and proposed planning controls on the subject sites

	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 (gross)	1.66:1			1.78:1
Proposed FSR (net)	2.74:1			2.46:1
Current height limit	12m			12m
Proposed Height	Ranging between 6 storeys (25m), 8 storeys (34m), 20 storeys (68m) and 22 storeys (77m)
Potential dwelling yield per site	835 dwellings			1,090 dwellings
Combined potential dwelling yield	1,925 dwellings
Non-residential floor space component	500m²			500m²

21. Refer to Figures 2 to 7 showing the current and proposed zones, height of buildings and FSR controls. Figure 8 shows the proposed Additional Local Provisions location, Figure 9 shows the proposed land reserved for dedication to Council (at no cost as per Planning Agreement) and Figure 10 shows the proposed Additional Permitted Uses location.

Figure 2. Current land use zones applicable on the subject sites

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 3. Proposed land use zones on the subject sites

Map

Description automatically generated

Figure 4. Current maximum height of building applicable on the subject sites

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 5. Proposed height of buildings on the subject sites

A picture containing diagram

Description automatically generated

Figure 6. Current FSR applicable on the subject sites

Figure 7. Proposed FSRs on the subject sites

Figure 8. Proposed location of Additional Local Provisions (design excellence competition)

Figure 9. Land subject to dedication to Council

Figure 10. Proposed location of Additional Permitted Uses provision (food and drink premises)

PLANNING PROPOSAL CHANGES

22. No changes to the intended outcomes are proposed to the Planning Proposal as a result of the public exhibition. However, several minor amendments have been made to reflect the conditions of the Gateway determination. These changes are identified in Table 2 below. Two mapping changes have been made to better identify the land subject to the proposed additional permitted use and additional local provisions. These include:

i. Updating the Additional Local Provisions map (Figure 8) which now identifies the land subject to design excellence competition provisions requiring buildings of 55m and above to be subject to a design excellence competition and that all development applications on the East Site and West Site be subject to review by the Design Excellence Panel.

ii. Creation of an Additional Permitted Uses map (Figure 10) to identify the expanded area subject to the proposed additional permitted use of ‘food and drink premises’.

23. The ‘food and drink premises’ use was initially envisaged to be permissible only along the waterfront of Parramatta River but has been revised to enable the use to be permissible anywhere within the R4 High Density Residential zone. This is to ensure greater flexibility and to be consistent with the Council resolution from 9 November 2020 that endorsed the submission of the Planning Proposal for Gateway determination. It is noted that the future fit out and use of these premises will be subject to detailed impact assessment at the development application stage.

Table 2. Changes to the Planning Proposal

POST-EXHIBITION GATEWAY CONDITIONS
Condition		Action
a)	ensure endorsement of the Parramatta Employment Land Study and alignment with the planning proposal outcomes;	The Parramatta Employment Land Study is currently with DPE for endorsement; however, no timeframe has been provided as to when endorsement may occur. Following advice from DPE, a statement has been included in Section 3.1.1 of the Planning Proposal outlining how the Proposal responds to the requirements of the Employment Lands Study.
b)	further consideration of how the planning proposal aligns with the broader Melrose Park precinct in terms of implementation and delivery of infrastructure to ensure the orderly development of land	As experienced in the finalisation of the Melrose Park North Planning Proposal, it is not possible to dictate the order in which redevelopment of land occurs within the Melrose Park Precinct. However, the local Planning Agreement (refer to summary later in this report) includes a staging plan in the Infrastructure Services Delivery Plan identifying at which stage of redevelopment the identified infrastructure items are required to be delivered. This ensures that the infrastructure required to support the incoming population is delivered at the appropriate stag of redevelopment. This has been inserted into Section 10.1.1 of the Planning Proposal.
c)	consistency with section 9.1 Direction 1.1 Business and Industrial Zones and Central City District Plan Planning Priority C11;	Additional explanation has been included in Section 3.2.3 of the Planning Proposal detailing consistency with this Direction and Priority.
d)	ensure there is a mechanism in place for the delivery of local and State infrastructure required to support the anticipated growth;	Text has been inserted in Section 1.1 of the Planning Proposal indicating that the intended mechanism to meet this condition is via the requirement of the proponent to enter into Planning Agreements with both Council and the State Government to secure applicable contributions towards the delivery of local and State infrastructure. It is anticipated that a concurrence clause will be inserted into PLEP 2011 relating to the timing of development and State infrastructure delivery such as significant road works and schools. This approach was taken for the Melrose Park North Planning Proposal The draft local Planning Agreement includes a staging plan in the Infrastructure Services Delivery Plan identifying at which stage of redevelopment the identified infrastructure items are required to be delivered. In addition, Council’s officers will recommend to DPE that a provision be inserted into PLEP 2011 that specifies a date to which the new controls come into effect. This approach was taken with the Melrose Park North Planning Proposal to ensure the local Planning Agreement is finalised and registered before any redevelopment of the site seeking to utilise the new controls could occur.
e)	ensure that the land is suitable for the intended land uses with regard to high-pressure pipeline safety risk with a hazard assessment against the relevant legislation and policies.	A Hazard Analysis Report was prepared during the preparation of the Melrose Park North Planning Proposal to address DPE’s and School Infrastructure NSW’s concerns about the proximity of the Viva high pressure oil pipeline to the new school site in the northern precinct. This report covers the entire Melrose Park precinct and concludes that the maximum individual fatality risk only occurs at two locations where the Gore Bay Pipeline changes direction and would only apply to sensitive land uses (schools, hospitals, etc.). These uses are not currently proposed on the subject sites. Therefore, the proposed redevelopment satisfies the individual fatality risk criteria. Despite the report concluding that there is no risk to the subject sites, the report does recommend several measures, many of which relate to sensitive land uses such as hospitals, aged care facilities and child care centres. The remaining recommendations are in relation to the detailed design of the future buildings within the precinct. Given the Proposal is still at rezoning stage, the Arriscar report is sufficient to satisfy item 5 (e) of the Gateway Determination. Further studies will be undertaken at Development Application and Construction Certificate stage once the use and design of each individual building is known. This has been inserted into Section 3.2.2 of the Planning Proposal.

OVERVIEW OF THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN

24. The LEP is a higher-order planning instrument than the DCP and contains the overarching planning provisions such as the zoning, height of buildings and floor space ratio. The Draft Site-Specific DCP supports the provisions within the LEP by providing detailed development controls relating to design, character, and the environment to ensure the desired outcome for the site is achieved. The draft Site-Specific DCP was endorsed by Council for public exhibition on 28 March 2022 provides specific development requirements for the Melrose Park South precinct and is required to be consistent with the new LEP controls that are set by the Planning Proposal.

25. The Melrose Park South Site-Specific DCP (refer to Attachment 4) has been drafted using the Melrose Park North DCP (adopted by Council on 11 October 2021) as a template with changes made where necessary to respond to the context of the southern precinct. As with the north, a collaborative approach has been taken in working with the proponent to finalise the draft DCP.

26. The draft DCP reflects and is consistent with the key development standards and desired outcome of this Planning Proposal.

Primary DCP Objectives

27. The draft DCP will guide development and contain specific requirements that must be addressed during the design stage of the planning process and future development applications, having regard to the location within an identified Growth Precinct, the local context and detailed design requirements for the two sites. The detailed design requirements are grouped into five (5) main parts, being:

i. Introduction

ii. Built Form

iii. Public Domain

iv. Vehicular Access, Parking and Servicing

v. Sustainability

28. These parts contain multiple sub-sections that include detailed controls, such as:

· General objectives and principles	· Solar access
· Allocation of gross floor area (building envelopes)	· Dwelling mix
· Setbacks	· Desired future character
· Street and block layout	· Open space
· Tower design	· Parking requirements
· Ground floor frontage	· Stormwater management

29. A key consideration when drafting the DCP controls was to ensure that the best possible amenity in the precinct could be achieved for the future residents, visitors, and existing neighbours in the surrounding low density residential areas. The draft DCP underpins and relates to the site configurations and building envelopes identified in the Southern Structure Plan (refer to Attachment 5) and the Planning Proposal to achieve the FSRs and building heights adopted by Council for these sites and the broader southern precinct. The current scheme is shown in Figure 9 below.

Figure 9. Proposed scheme on the East Site and West Site

30. Although several submissions raised matters relating to the draft DCP, including road carriageway requirements and the effectiveness of the design controls, these concerns are considered to be addressed by the proposed controls. Details of these matters and Council officer responses are provided at Attachment 2.

31. A concern was raised in a submission relating to the indicative gross floor area map contained at Figure 2 on page 14 of the draft DCP, and the distribution of non-residential gross floor area between the East Site and West Site. Figure 2 only provides for a maximum residential gross floor area and does not include the minimum 1,000m² non-residential gross floor area that is required by the draft LEP provisions. Council officers have since confirmed that Figure 2 included the residential and non-residential gross floor area as part of the residential gross floor area figure. Therefore, it is recommended that the legend be updated to refer to the combined residential and non-residential gross floor area (refer to Figure 10 below). The distribution of residential and non-residential gross floor area will be considered further at the development application stage.

Figure 10. Updated Figure 2 referring to combined residential and non-residential GFA

OVERVIEW OF THE DRAFT PLANNING AGREEMENT

32. The draft Planning Agreement relating to the provision of local infrastructure has a total value of $37,246,825 and proposed to deliver the following items.

NO	ITEM	CONTRIBUTION VALUE
1.	Affordable rental housing (24 units with a minimum of 34 bedrooms) dedicated to Council in perpetuity.	$16,169,411
2.	Dedication of land to be used as public open space to Council at no cost. Embellishment of new public open space to Council’s requirements with a 50% offset* included in the Planning Agreement for the cost of works.	$21,077,414
3.	Delivery of cycleways and new roads with a 50% offset* for the cost of works included in the Planning Agreement.	$21,077,414
	TOTAL VALUE OF OFFER	$37,246,825
	Per Unit Contribution	$19, 349

* A 50% offset is included in the Planning Agreement as an acknowledgement by Council that the subject works will benefit the broader community and not just the residents within the development. It means that half of the identified cost of delivering this infrastructure is offset by Council and half is offset by the developer.

33. This offer is the result of extensive negotiations over the past 12 months and is considered an appropriate contribution towards the provision of local infrastructure. The items included in the offer are consistent with the Infrastructure Needs List (INL) for the precinct which is to be used to inform all Planning Agreements in the precinct.

34. Comments on the draft Planning Agreement that were raised in submissions related to appropriateness of the included infrastructure items. Council officer responses are provided later in this report.

CONSULTATION

35. The Planning Proposal, draft Site-Specific DCP and Draft Planning Agreement and supporting documents were publicly exhibited from 25 August to 21 September 2022. During this time the community was invited to comment on the draft documents. Notification methods used in the exhibition included:

a. Letters to landowners within a 1km radius of the site, including those within the Ryde LGA (over 6,400 letters in total);

b. Dedicated exhibition page on Council’s Participate Parramatta website;

c. Advertisement on Council’s website;

d. Hard copies of the draft documents and supporting information provided at Council’s Customer Contact Centre, Parramatta Library and Ermington Branch Library;

e. Geo-targeted social media campaigns on Council’s Facebook and Instagram platforms; and

f. Advertisement in Parra News.

36. Public agencies and State Members of Parliament were also notified in writing of the public exhibition, with the following consulted:

· Transport for NSW	· City of Ryde Council
· Transport for NSW - Parramatta Light Rail	· Sydney Water
· Environment, Energy and Science	· Viva Energy
· Department of Education	· Ausgrid
· Heritage NSW	· Transgrid
· Fire and Rescue NSW	· Endeavour Energy
· Western Sydney Local Health District	· Dr Geoff Lee MP, Member for Parramatta
· NSW Ministry of Health	· Victor Dominello MP, Member for Ryde
· Greater Cities Commission

37. A total of eighty-six (86) submissions were received from 85 submitters (two submissions were received from the same submitter) as part of the community consultation period. A detailed breakdown of positions taken by the submitters is provided in Table 3. Overall, 3% of submissions supported the Proposal in full and 77% objected to the Proposal in full. Other submissions either partially supported or objected or were uncertain. A breakdown of who made submissions is provided in Table 4.

Table 3. Breakdown of submission positions

POSITION	TOTAL NUMBER	PERCENTAGE %
Support	2	3
Object	65	77
Partial Objection	1	1
Partial Support	7	8
No Objection	4	4
Neutral	6	7
Total	85	100

Table 4. Breakdown of submissions received

	NUMBER	BREAKDOWN
Community/landowners	77	Various residents, landowners and stakeholders
Public Agencies	4	· Western Sydney Local Health District · Environment, Energy and Science Group (part of DPE) · Transport for NSW (combined with PLR) ·  Education NSW/School Infrastructure NSW
Other Organisation	4	· Endeavour Energy · City of Ryde Council · Community Housing Industry Association NSW · Mecone
Total	85

COUNCIL OFFICER RESPONSES TO KEY ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS

38. A summary of the common concerns raised in the submissions and Council officer responses is provided below. A number of other concerns were raised in submissions in addition to those mentioned below. Detailed Council officer responses are provided in Attachment 2 to this report. While a number of issues have been raised in relation to the exhibited planning provisions, it is considered that these matters are addressed in the draft provisions or can be addressed as part of the detailed design at the development application stage. Therefore, no changes to the exhibited draft Planning Proposal, DCP or Planning Agreement are recommended as a result of the issues raised in submissions.

39. The most common themes raised by community members/landowners were as follows:

a. building height, scale, location, and local character/amenity (raised by 78%),

b. Traffic impacts, parking, and Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP) (raised by 70%),

c. Infrastructure provision (raised by 70%),

d. Environmental impacts (raised by 34%),

e. Heritage impacts (raised by 9%), and

f. Consultation process (raised by 9%).

Building Heights and Amenity

40. Most submissions objecting to the exhibited scheme raised concerns regarding the proposed building heights, advising they are too high resulting in overshadowing, loss of privacy and neighbourhood character, in addition to being inconsistent with the Southern Structure Plan that was adopted by Council on 16 December 2019.

Council Officer Response

41. It is acknowledged that there are some differences between the proposed building heights identified in the Southern Structure Plan, however they are considered to remain consistent with the envisaged approach for the precinct. The proposed height variation on the East Site ranges between an additional 7m to 10m above those identified within the Southern Structure Plan. On the West Site, the height variation ranges between an additional 10m and 19m above that identified in the Southern Structure Plan.

42. The proposed buildings heights identified on the subject sites in the Proposal have been informed by those identified in the Southern Structure Plan, which was a high-level guiding document intended to inform any future Planning Proposal in the Precinct. Although urban design testing was undertaken as part of the development of the Southern Structure Plan to determine appropriate height and FSR controls, it was acknowledged that these would be subject to further, detailed testing and refinement at the Planning Proposal stage.

43. As a result of detailed testing and discussions between Council officers and the proponent as part of the Planning Proposal and DCP work, some variations to building height were considered appropriate to produce a better built form outcome. These height variations do not result in an increase in the gross floor area (GFA) identified on these sites in the Southern Structure Plan. Additionally, the core principles of the Southern Structure Plan have been retained, which include:

a. ensuring that the taller buildings are located within the centre of the site and away from existing low-density residential development surrounding the precinct;

b. ensuring that each building has a courtyard width greater than that is required by the Apartment Design Guide;

c. that solar access within and outside of the two development sites is maximised;

d. maintaining key view lines outside the precinct to minimise the perception of density; and

e. maintenance of the 17m landscaped buffer along Wharf Road.

44. While the variations may not appear to be minor, they have enabled better utilisation of lower building heights on the perimeter of the site and improve the interface to surrounding lower density areas. The draft DCP (refer to Appendix 3) shows buildings of four (4) storeys can be achieved in certain areas on the West Site because of the heights increasing elsewhere. Council officers consider that lower perimeter heights are preferred even if it results in the taller building in the centre of the site. These amended heights have been tested and comply with solar access and other Apartment Design Guide (ADG) requirements.

45. In addition, the draft DCP includes objectives and controls relating to built form, which specifies requirements such as building setbacks, building separation, the distribution and allocation of floor space on a block-by-block basis, and tower design and slenderness. These controls are intended to ensure that the perception of the building heights within the precinct is minimised at street level.

46. The issues raised in relation to the height of buildings are therefore not considered sufficient justification to warrant a reduction in the proposed building heights on the site. Extensive urban design testing has been undertaken to demonstrate that the proposed heights can be achieved without significant and unmanageable impacts being experienced by future or surrounding residents and this is considered to be consistent with the core principles of the adopted Southern Structure Plan. It is therefore recommended that the provisions be retained as exhibited.

Traffic Impacts and Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (TMAP)

47. Most submissions objecting to the proposal raised concern regarding the potential traffic impacts on the existing road network, particularly within the Ryde LGA, and questioned the TMAP’s (Attachment 7) validity, relevancy to current road and traffic conditions, and level of consultation with Ryde Council.

Council Officer Response

48. It is acknowledged that any redevelopment within the Melrose Park precinct will have some impact upon the local road network and to a lesser extent, the wider regional network.

49. A TMAP was prepared in response to a Gateway Determination condition relating to the Melrose Park North Planning Proposal. The aims of the TMAP were to understand the existing traffic behaviour, road network capacity and public transport services and identify improvements to public transport and the road infrastructure that would be required to support the proposed redevelopment of the Melrose Park precinct at each stage of its redevelopment. The TMAP was subject to extensive review and consultation by the TMAP reference group, which comprised stakeholders from Council and State Agencies, including Transport for NSW (TfNSW), DPE, and applicants from the northern and southern precincts of Melrose Park. The TMAP was signed off and endorsed for exhibition by TfNSW.

50. The TMAP is required to be utilised for all Planning Proposals within Melrose Park in addition to site-specific traffic studies for each Planning Proposal. While not involved in the TMAP reference group, Ryde Council officers were briefed in the TMAP, and their input was provided as part of the exhibited Planning Proposal for the Melrose Park North Precinct. Should a review of the TMAP be required, further input from Ryde Council will be sought to ensure any additional concerns have been addressed.

51. The TMAP is an informing document to the Proposal and provides a comprehensive analysis of the potential traffic and parking impacts and includes required mitigation measures that future redevelopment must deliver to ensure the traffic and transport network can accommodate the proposed increase in density on the site. It also provides a Staging Plan for the delivery of required road upgrades and public transport infrastructure to service the precinct as well as recommended parking rates. Refer to Table 4 for a summary of the staging plan and dwelling thresholds. As development progresses, the applicant will need to demonstrate that the required infrastructure will also be delivered as identified in the TMAP’s staging plan.

Table 4. TMAP infrastructure staging plan

STAGE	INFRASTRUCTURE TRIGGER POINT (DWELLINGS)	YIELD SUPPORTED (DWELLINGS)	KEY INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED
Existing network	NA	1,100	Nil
Stage 1A	1,100	1,800	Wharf Road widening south of Victoria Road Left in/left out access from Victoria Road to NSR2
Stage 1B	1,800	3,200	Upgrades of Victoria Road/Wharf Road intersection including additional turning lanes Additional through-lane on Marsden Road
Stage 1C	3,200	6,700	Further upgrades of Victoria Road/Wharf Road intersection - Full signalisation - Additional R turn lanes on Victoria Rd - 3 new lanes on southern Kissing Point Road approach - 4 new lanes on northern approach Kissing Point Road approach - New signalised pedestrian crossings - Widening of Victoria Rd between Kissing Point Road and Wharf Road - - Shuttle bus service to Meadowbank Station and increased frequency of public services throughout Stage 1
Stage 2	6,700	11,000	New bridge to Wentworth Point and PLR Stage 2 or bus equivalent Staged delivery of internal road network Increased public transport services

52. Stages 1A, 1B and elements of Stage 1C are being delivered as part of the redevelopment in the northern part of the precinct, which will enable the 6,700 dwelling capacity to be realised. In addition, the State Government has committed to providing the bridge to Wentworth Point to be utilised by public and active transport users. Although the bridge may not be delivered for several years and may not immediately accommodate light rail services, it is expected that the timing of construction being finished will coincide with the earlier stages of redevelopment of the precinct also being completed. The bridge to Wentworth Point is a significant undertaking and will allow residents on the North side of Parramatta River to access the Sydney Metro West Station at Sydney Olympic Park. This will provide considerable public transport benefits to future residents in Melrose Park and as well as those within the Ryde LGA.

53. The methodology and the assumptions and inputs used in the TMAP were presented to and endorsed by the project reference group in the early stages of the project and were considered appropriate to ensure the results would be an accurate reflection of the potential changes to the use and density of the Precinct. The outcomes of the TMAP testing were also supported by the project reference group prior to finalisation of the TMAP report.

54. Despite the TMAP being finalised in early 2019, it retains its relevancy and ability to provide direction for the precinct. Technical studies relating to large projects such as Melrose Park North are prepared at varying stages throughout the project’s life and, it is not uncommon for the studies to precede the project’s exhibition date given that they are used to inform the content that is ultimately placed on exhibition. In this instance, any change in inputs used for the modelling and assumptions is likely to not be significant and would have a negligible impact in the TMAP’s results, particularly as the overall dwelling yields that have been modelled are not subject to change.

55. In response to concerns raised regarding local traffic impacts, especially on Andrew Street and Constitution Road West within the Ryde LGA, these areas were included in the TMAP’s study area and therefore considered during the modelling phase. The TMAP does not identify a need for any specific upgrades or alterations to these roads as part of future works. However, traffic management solutions implemented on the roads within the southern precinct such as turning restrictions from the precinct into Andrew Street to discourage rat-running by drivers trying to avoid Victoria and Wharf Roads will be explored in further detail at the development application stage. Traffic management measures can also be reviewed at any time regardless of whether they are associated with proposed redevelopment. Council’s Traffic team will continue to monitor the functionality of the road network within the precinct as development progresses and after full redevelopment of the precinct has occurred to determine what measures will be required to address any traffic management concerns.

56. No change is recommended to the TMAP at this stage. The TMAP is still considered to be a relevant document for its intended purposes given the overall dwelling yields that have been modelled in the Precinct have not changed since the study delivered its initial recommendations. The infrastructure upgrades required to meet the density thresholds, many of which are to be delivered as part of redevelopment in the northern precinct, are considered to be sufficient to reasonably accommodate the proposed development. Solutions to manage potential commuter traffic behaviour into Andrew Street are not identified in the TMAP or the proponent’s Traffic Assessment, however, will be explored in further detail at the development application stage.

Infrastructure Provision

57. Many submissions commented that the Planning Proposal and draft Planning Agreement do not provide sufficient infrastructure within the precinct nor propose any contribution towards funding new infrastructure or upgrades to existing infrastructure within the Ryde LGA.

Council Officer Response

58. The Melrose Park precinct is intended to be self-sufficient in providing for the daily recreation needs and in the provision of local retail/commercial facilities for incoming residents. Therefore, it is not considered that the majority of residents will regularly leave the precinct for these reasons. It is acknowledged however that the incoming residents to Melrose Park will potentially utilise some infrastructure such as roads and public open space located within the Ryde LGA. However, this is not expected to place a significant burden on this infrastructure. In return, residents within the Ryde LGA will likely utilise the new infrastructure within Melrose Park, such as new open space along the foreshore, the new playing field in the northern precinct, new retail services in the town centre and George Kendall Riverside Park. George Kendall Riverside Park provides for regional organised sporting facilities in additional to informal active recreation, which is similar in function to Meadowbank Park within the Ryde LGA. Incoming residents are expected to more readily utilise the facilities of George Kendall Riverside Park, which provides similar amenities to Meadowbank Park, due to its closer proximity

59. With regards to increased road usage outside the precinct within the Ryde LGA, traffic modelling undertaken for this precinct as part of the TMAP indicates that a significant increase in the volume of traffic is not anticipated as a result of the redevelopment of the precinct. Extensive upgrades are proposed to Wharf Road and Victoria Road to increase efficiency at this intersection, and it is possible to incorporate traffic management measures as part of future development applications to discourage commuter vehicles from using Andrew Street during peak times. It is not anticipated that the additional traffic on local roads within the Ryde LGA will significantly accelerate road deterioration.

60. Further, the introduction of light rail or alternative public transport service to the precinct will enable residents to connect to the new Sydney West Metro service at Sydney Olympic Park, resulting in fewer vehicles relying on the road network.

Character Loss

61. A high proportion of submissions raised concern regarding a loss of neighbourhood character that will result from the proposed redevelopment.

Council Officer Response

62. It is acknowledged that Melrose Park has an established character both as industrial within the Parramatta LGA and low density residential within the Ryde LGA. The proposed changes to the precinct within Parramatta are necessary because of the declining functionality of the existing industrial land, as evidenced in the Planning Proposal and within the 2016 Council Employment Lands Strategy, which was also confirmed in the 2020 revision. Further, Melrose Park is identified as a Local Centre within the LSPS and is therefore suitable for high density residential development as an identified Growth Precinct.

63. Whilst the introduction of high-density residential development will change the existing character, it is intended to revitalise the area and create a vibrant urban environment with improved amenities for residents within and adjacent to the precinct. This will occur through the introduction of new public open space, a new primary school (in the northern precinct), and 30,000m² of new retail and commercial facilities as part of the new town centre in the northern precinct. The precinct has been designed to minimise impacts on adjoining low density residential properties through the use of landscaped buffer zones along Wharf Road and lower building heights on the perimeter of the development.

SOUTHERN PRECINCT LANDOWNER SUBMISSIONS

Southern Precinct Landowner Group (Mecone)

64. A submission was received from a representative of multiple landowners within the southern precinct. The submission does not object to the redevelopment of the precinct but does comment on the proposed non-residential floor space provision, considering it to be insufficient, and raises concern regarding the proposed building height variation from the Southern Structure Plan and considers that a finer-grained approach should be applied in the LEP mapping.

Council Officer Response

65. The matters raised in this submission are noted. It is considered that they can be addressed through further discussion with the relevant landowners to determine potential future intentions for the respective sites to achieve the best possible outcome. A portion of the required non-residential floor space is being provided within the northern precinct as part of the new 30,000m² town centre, which will serve many of the community’s needs. With regards to the difference in building height per the Southern Structure Plan this is addressed under ‘Building Heights and Amenity’ above.

George Weston Foods

66. A submission was received from the landowner of a site currently occupied by large scale bread manufacturing operations. The submission raised no objection to the draft Planning Proposal, however raised concerns regarding the potential for land use conflicts between existing industrial uses and future high density residential uses, loss of employment, and the distribution of building height and FSR allocations.

Council Officer Response

67. It is acknowledged that the presence of contrasting land uses while the precinct undergoes redevelopment is a matter that will need to be carefully managed, however it is considered that the DCP and other applicable controls will ensure that any potential negative amenity impacts, and interface issues are minimised as the precinct transitions away from industrial uses. The loss of industrial employment will be largely offset by the introduction of retail and commercial employment principally within the town centre. Again, issues relating to building heights are addressed under ‘Building Heights and Amenity’ above.

AGENCY SUBMISSIONS

68. A total of seventeen (17) public and private agencies and organisations were notified as part of the public exhibition, with seven (7) submissions received. These submissions are briefly summarised and addressed below..

Transport for NSW (TfNSW) / Parramatta Light Rail (PLR)

69. The combined submission from TfNSW and PLR raises no objection to the Planning Proposal, but provides several comments as follows:

a. The need for proponents in Melrose Park South to contribute to the infrastructure and services.

b. Suggestion that any amendment to PLEP 2011 for the southern precinct include similar provisions for the concurrence of the Planning Secretary as the northern precinct and that the proponent should enter into a Planning Agreement outlining the developer’s contribution to delivering State infrastructure and services.

c. That the State Government has committed funding of some nearby major public transport initiatives including Sydney Metro West and a public and active transport connection across Parramatta River to accommodate the future Parramatta Light Rail Stage 2 and public bus operations.

d. That the timing of delivery of this State infrastructure may be after redevelopment of the precinct and it’s therefore important that the early stages of development need to be supported by shuttle buses to nearby transport hubs provided by proponents.

e. It is estimated that a 50% share of trips will be made by active and public transport by future residents of Melrose Park. It is therefore important that road reserves (carriageway and footways) can appropriately and safely accommodate public transport, freight, and active transport.

f. That it is unclear whether the needs of the local road users have been fully considered, particularly in the areas adjacent to the proposed town centre.

g. That it is unclear from the plans included in the DCP whether adequate space has been allocated along Hope Street to cater for future public transport services and active transport movements.

h. That a provision relating to the operating length of any shuttle bus be inserted into the draft Planning Agreement.

i. That land proposed for dedication along the PLR corridor be made clear in the Planning Agreement.

Council Officer Response

70. These matters are noted, and it is considered that they can be addressed as part of the post exhibition and finalisation processes of the Planning Proposal, DCP and Planning Agreement.

71. With regards to the recommendation for a provision for a shuttle bus to be inserted into the Planning Agreement, it is noted that a shuttle bus is proposed to serve all of Melrose Park as part of the draft Planning Agreement associated with the Melrose Park North Planning Proposal. It is insufficient for each developer to run their own respective shuttle bus service in this regard. The shuttle bus is expected to run until such time that Parramatta Light Rail (stage 2) or similar is provided in conjunction with the bridge (now committed to by the State government) connecting the precinct to Wentworth Point.

Department of Education / School Infrastructure NSW

72. The submission from School Infrastructure NSW raised no objection to the Proposal but does comment on several matters for consideration. These relate to the demand for educational facilities within the precinct, overshadowing and privacy impacts on the existing Melrose Park Public School, active transport and access and infrastructure contributions. The submission provided no clear direction on the provision of a secondary school within the precinct or within the catchment of the precinct.

Council Officer Response

73. The matters raised in the submission are noted. It is considered that potential overshadowing and privacy impacts on the existing school site as a result of the proposed redevelopment can be addressed in detail at the development application stage, as can active transport and access needs.

74. The matter of demand for educational facilities, in particular the provision of a secondary school facility, is an ongoing concern for Council officers which requires an active and considered approach from School Infrastructure NSW as a priority to ensure that the education needs of the precinct can be met. School Infrastructure NSW has stated in its submission its commitment to ensuring public schools are supporting the community’s needs and continue to be appropriately resourced to respond to student population changes. A provision for ensuring this matter is appropriately addressed by School Infrastructure NSW is proposed to be included in PLEP 2011 through the use of a concurrence clause that will require the Planning Secretary to be satisfied that State public infrastructure needs (including transport and schools) are met before development proceeds. With regards to the request for public schools to be exempt from paying development contributions, this matter will be considered by Council officers as part of ongoing reviews of Council’s infrastructure contributions plans.

Western Sydney Local Health District

75. The submission from the Western Sydney Local Health District raised no objection to the Proposal but recommends that several matters be considered by Council officers relating to mosquito management in the foreshore area along the southern boundary of the precinct, potential outdoor recreation space use, and river front access after storm events.

Council Officer Response

76. The matters raised in this submission are noted. Council has an Intertidal Management Plan to manage mosquitos in urban areas and it is considered that riverfront access can be managed through existing procedures.

Environment, Energy and Science

77. The submission from Environment, Energy and Science (EES) raised no objection to the Proposal. Comment is made on the biodiversity value of the Ermington Bay Wetland and identified potential impacts from shadowing and sedimentation. Comment is also made on flooding considerations and recommendations for further flood studies to be undertaken.

Council Officer Response

78. The ecological significance of the Ermington Bay Wetland is known by Council and protection of this sensitive ecosystem is an essential element for the future development of the Melrose Park Precinct. It is considered that the potential overshadowing impacts and sediment control can be managed by careful design and layout of the buildings and though soil management strategies. These matters, including detailed flood modelling, will be further addressed at the development applications stage.

City of Ryde Council

79. The submission objects to the Planning Proposal and raises some concern regarding the proposed additional permitted use on the site of ‘food and drink premises’’. Comment is also made on the draft local Planning Agreement relating to the lack of contributions towards funding infrastructure upgrades within the Ryde LGA and concern around the proposed securities for some items. Comment is also made on the application of Council’s contributions plans and on the lack of proposed open space provision and road and traffic network impacts, considering them to be unacceptable.

Council Officer Response

80. The proposed zoning and the suite of potential uses that might be proposed are considered reasonable to ensure a vibrant precinct is delivered. Any impacts from other specific potential land uses that may become permissible as a result of the rezoning will be subject to a detailed assessment as part of a development application should such a use be proposed. This assessment process will include a further public exhibition period where input from the community will be sought. If proposed, any ‘food and drink premises’ must demonstrate that the potential amenity impacts from its operation are considered acceptable in order for it to be approved.

81. The draft Planning Agreement is between the City of Parramatta Council and the proponent. As indicated above, it is not considered that the anticipated population of Melrose Park will result in significant increases in demand on infrastructure within the Ryde LGA particularly given the recreational and active open space areas that will be provided within the Melrose Park Precinct, which will also be available for use by residents within the Ryde LGA to use if they wish. Therefore, no contributions are proposed to fund specific works within the Ryde LGA. The infrastructure to be delivered as part of this development and the broader redevelopment of the precinct has been identified in the INL and the requirements for each Planning Proposal are assessed using this list and on a merit basis to determine whether it is appropriate for additional infrastructure to be included in Planning Agreements.

82. Any proposed traffic management works required to be undertaken to reduce the impact on traffic flow within the Ryde LGA as a result of the proposed development can be addressed at the development application stage. Council officers will hold discussions with Ryde Council staff regarding appropriate solutions and traffic treatments to ameliorate any problems that should arise as the precinct redevelops.

83. In relation to the non-inclusion of clauses in the Planning Agreement regarding securities and defects periods, this was an unintentional omission and will be addressed prior to the Planning Agreement being executed. The proponent has agreed to the inclusion of such provisions. These provisions do not impact on the value of the items proposed to be delivered in the Planning Agreement.

Endeavour Energy

84. The submission received from Endeavour Energy raised no objection to the Proposal. The submission comments on the current capacity of the network and suggests that a new zone substation may be required within the precinct to ensure future demand can be met.

Council Officer Response

85. The comments raised in this submission are noted. Any future upgrades required to the network as part of the redevelopment will be addressed at the development application stage.

Community Housing Industry Association NSW

86. This submission supports the proposed inclusion of affordable rental housing units, however, does question why more units are not being provided given the proposed uplift. Comments are made on affordable rental housing strategies for Council’s consideration to ensure adequate provision in future redevelopments.

Council Officer Response

87. The comments made in this submission are noted and the exploration of alternative options for securing the provision of affordable rental housing will always be pursued. The approach taken when negotiating the affordable rental housing provision as part of this Planning Proposal and Planning Agreement was that preference was given to securing affordable rental units in perpetuity in addition to securing other required infrastructure in the precinct. This is considered better than relying on the provision of affordable rental housing via the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (Housing SEPP) which only guarantees the provision of said housing for a limited time period. The draft Planning Agreement does not preclude the provision of affordable rental housing under the Housing SEPP at the development application stage.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNCIL

88. Any work to progress the finalisation of the Planning Proposal would be prepared by Council Officers and therefore within the existing City Planning and Design budget. Should this matter progress, a Planning Agreement delivering new public open space, social and community infrastructure to the value of $37,246,825 will be entered into between Council and the applicant. Further, at development application stage, development contributions in keeping with the current rates contained in the former Parramatta Section 94A Development Contributions Plan (Amendment No. 5) 2017 will be applied to the development.

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

89. It is recommended that the Local Planning Panel support the Council Officer recommendation that the Planning Proposal be referred to the DPE for finalisation.

90. Council officers recommend that the Local Planning Panel support the Council Officer recommendation to finalise the draft DCP, which provides detailed design controls in support of the Planning Proposal.

91. Council officers recommend that the Local Planning Panel support the Council Officer recommendation to adopt the draft Planning Agreement.

92. Following Local Planning Panel consideration of the recommendations of this report, the outcomes of the exhibition period for the draft Planning Proposal, Draft DCP and draft Planning Agreement will be reported to an upcoming Council meeting along with the Panel’s advice.

Amberley Moore

Senior Project Officer

Michael Rogers

Land Use Planning Manager

David Birds

Group Manager, Major Projects and Precincts

Jennifer Concato

Executive Director City Planning and Design

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Table of Community Submissions	28 Pages
2 ⇩	Responses to Issues Raised	20 Pages
3 ⇩	Updated Planning Proposal	81 Pages
4 ⇩	Site-Specific DCP (Melrose Park South)	102 Pages
5 ⇩	Southern Structure Plan	4 Pages
6 ⇩	Planning Agreement	90 Pages
7 ⇩	TMAP	117 Pages

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Day	Hours	Balcony
Sunday to Thursday	10am to 12 midnight	10pm
Friday and Saturday	10am to 2am	10pm

1 ⇩	Assessment Report and Draft Conditions	40 Pages
2 ⇩	Locality Map	1 Page
3 ⇩	Plans used for Assessment	23 Pages
4 ⇩	Plan of Management	18 Pages
5 ⇩	Gaming Plan of Management	15 Pages

1 ⇩	Assessment Report and draft Conditions	66 Pages
2 ⇩	Locality map	1 Page
3 ⇩	Plans used for assessment	31 Pages
4	Internal plans used for assessment (confidential)	12 Pages
5	Internal referral comments (confidential)	37 Pages
6 ⇩	Statement of Environmental Effects	43 Pages
7 ⇩	Waste Management Plan	9 Pages
8 ⇩	BASIX Certificate	15 Pages
9	Easement of Confirmation (confidential)	12 Pages
10 ⇩	Clause 4.6 variation report	12 Pages
11 ⇩	SEPP-65 report	7 Pages
12	Access Report (confidential)	28 Pages
13 ⇩	Arborist Report	38 Pages
14	Preliminary Site Investigation (confidential)	72 Pages
15	Hazardous Materials Survey (confidential)	57 Pages
16 ⇩	Traffic Report	5 Pages
17 ⇩	Geotechnical Investigation report	26 Pages
18 ⇩	Acoustic Report	29 Pages
19 ⇩	BCA Report	42 Pages