|
Item 8.8 - Attachment 5 |
Detailed Report - Assessment of planning proposal
prepared by Don Fox Planning Consultants |
Attachment 1 to Report to Council in relation to
RZ/6/2010 being the Planning Proposal for
REPORT BY Don
Fox Planning Pty Ltd
REPORT
1. THE
SITE
The subject site is known as
· Lot C DP388870
· Lot B DP334882
· Lot 1 DP663258
· Lot 2 Sec R DP1249
· Lot 3 Sec R DP1249
· Lot 4 Sec R DP1249
· Lot 5 Sec R DP1249
· Lot 6 Sec R DP1249
· Lot 1 DP836932
· Lot 1 DP190771
· Lot 1 DP201664
The site has an area of approximately 1.8 hectares and a frontage of about
270 metres to
The site is within a small light industrial precinct of Harris Park
which is bounded by
The site is currently used for light industrial purposes with large
paved areas used for car parking. Other
uses in the immediate vicinity of the site include Riverside Corporate Centre
to the east, a small, strata titled industrial unit development on the opposite
side of
A location plan showing the context of the site in relation to adjoining
land is at Figure 1 below. Figure
2 is an aerial photograph of the subject site.
Figure 1 Location Plan
Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of subject site.
Most of the
site is flood affected and this could have significant impacts on the capacity
of the site to be more intensively developed.
Existing
vegetation on the site is limited to scattered trees within the existing at
grade car park on
2. THE
PROPOSAL
The proponents have requested rezoning of the site to B4 Mixed Use and
RE1 zone.
On that part of the site to be zoned B4 mixed
use the proponents have requested:
· A floor space ratio
of 2.95:1 based on the total site area of approximately 1.8 ha;
· Built form that
provides separation between buildings to maintain historic view corridors;
· Building heights
ranging between 8 storeys to 14 storeys.
The proponent’s proposal provides for a mixed
use development within 3 buildings on
The proponent’s proposal provides for a 15
metre setback from the top of the bank along the
Development on
· Proposed Building 1 is
a 14 storey building with the upper floor level reduced in size to provide
articulation. The ground floor level of
Building 1 is proposed to comprise a child care centre and medical centre with
Level 1 comprising serviced apartments.
Level 2 and above will comprise a residential flat development.
· Buildings 2 and 3
are mixed use apartment towers and with the ground floor level and Level 1
forming a podium. The ground floor level of the podium is proposed to comprise
a mixture of retail and commercial development including a hotel and restaurant
facilities and Level 1 comprising serviced apartments. Level 2 and the floors above
will comprise a residential flat development. The tower in Building 2 is
proposed to be a 10 level building and Building 3 is an 8 level building,
including the podium level.
· Car parking would be
provided in a 2 level basement car park beneath Buildings 1, 2 and 3.
· Building 4 is
proposed to be located on 10-12 River Road West. The footprint of this building
is roughly triangular in shape, however no details of the proposed floor space
usage within this building have been provided. The Building 4 proposal provided
by the proponent indicates a 14 storey building on 10-12 River Road West with
the uppermost level being reduced in size to provide articulation.
The proponent’s proposal provides separation
between the mixed use tower buildings with the separation between Buildings 2
and 3 being 25 metres, between Buildings 1 and 2 being 26 metres and between
Buildings 4 and 1 being 35 metres.
On-site car parking is proposed to be provided
within a two level basement car park below Buildings 1, 2 and 3. No details
regarding any basement car parking provision under Building 4 has been
provided.
The proponent has supported this planning
proposal with an Urban Design Analysis prepared by
The proponent’s proposal provides for access
to the river foreshore through the site and provides for building separation which
is intended to retain critical historic view corridors from and to Elizabeth
Farm. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 4.2 of this report.
As noted above, the proponent’s concept
proposal provides for an indicative floor space ratio of 2.95:1 (based on the
total site area) and building heights of between 8 and 14 storeys. By way of
comparison, the Morton Street Precinct which is directly north of the subject
site, across the
The proponent’s proposal also provides for
activation of the river frontage by the provision of a hotel, restaurant
facilities, medical centre and child care centre along the northern side of the
buildings. The proponent’s concept plan also includes the potential for a
restaurant to be provided within
The concept proposal for the site provides for
maintenance of only four existing trees on the site and retention of mangroves
along the river frontage.
3. PLANNING CONTROLS
3.1 Existing Planning
Controls
The land is currently zoned Light Industrial under the provisions of
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 –
The aims relating to Part 4 Precinct 2 – Harris Park Precinct are as
follows:
(a) to conserve the significance
of heritage items, their settings, historic subdivisions, conservation areas,
identified views and sites of national significance, and to facilitate the
preservation of those areas and sites and their presentation as an important
cultural tourist attraction,
(b) to maintain the role, and
improve the amenity of, Harris Park Precinct as an important residential area
close to the Parramatta City Centre, providing a range of different housing
types and supporting land uses,
(c) to protect and enhance the
unique visual qualities of the Parramatta River by ensuring that development
along the foreshore is of a scale and character in keeping with its foreshore
location, and to maximise public access to, and use of, foreshore land,
(d) to maintain existing
commercial and industrial areas and encourage low to medium-rise buildings that
are compatible with surrounding residential land uses,
(e) to achieve environmental
management best practice that protects and promotes the natural assets of the
Harris Park Precinct,
(f) to improve the environmental
performance of development in a way that minimises energy and resource use and
noise, odour, dust, water, soil, air quality and contamination impact,
(g) to protect and enhance local
and regional biodiversity, maximising the extent and integrity of aquatic and
natural land areas, in particular, the Parramatta River and Clay Cliff Creek
corridors.
The subject land is located within an Area of
National Significance and the Harris Park River Area which are designated as
Special Areas under SREP 28. These areas are identified in Figure 3
below. The provisions of SREP 28 as they
apply to these Special Areas have been carried across to the Draft Parramatta
DCP 2010.
Figure
3: Extract from SREP 28 showing location
of Area of National Significance,
In relation to development within the Area of
National Significance under SREP 28, prior to granting development consent Council
must be satisfied that:
· the
scale, form, siting, materials and use of new development will not adversely
affect the heritage significance of the Area of National Significance,
· the
existing allotment and development pattern, and the natural landform of the
Area of National Significance will be maintained,
· the
original course of Clay Cliff Creek (as shown on the Harris Park Precinct
Design Control Map) will be re-established or, if that is not reasonably
practicable, permanent evidence of its original course will be provided by way
of signs or other interpretative aids, and
· that
development does not impact upon or adversely affect the existing views into
and out of the sites of Elizabeth Farm House, Experiment Farm Cottage and
Hambledon Cottage, the Female Orphan School (University of Western Sydney
Rydalmere Campus), the Parramatta River corridor and the Pennant Hills open
space ridge line.
Similarly, in relation to development within the
Special Area known as Harris Park River Area the following assessment criteria is
required to be considered prior to development being undertaken:
· whether
all reasonable opportunities to re-establish foreshore public land are taken
up, whether the development retains and
enhances open space links along the Parramatta River foreshore,
· whether
the development retains and enhances open space links between Elizabeth Farm
House, Experiment Farm Cottage, Hambledon Cottage and the Parramatta River
foreshore, and facilitates or enhances the views and public access between the
historic places in the Harris Park Precinct,
· whether
buildings adjacent to the River address the River with high quality facades and
entrances,
· whether
the scale of buildings along the River will not dominate the topographical
features of the River landscape,
· whether
the proposal maintains and re-establishes building setbacks along the River,
and
· whether
the development improves foreshore landscaping and makes apparent the settings
of the important historic places and views along the river, such as the Queens
Wharf.
It is critical that any mixed use redevelopment
of the subject site demonstrates how it will respond to these objectives. It will be important that and specific DCP
controls for the site be formulated and adopted by Council for appropriate
consideration by the proponents at DA the stage.
3.2 Draft
The public exhibition of Draft Parramatta LEP
2010 and Draft DCP 2010 finished on Friday 7 May 2010. All submissions
received during the exhibition period in relation to the Draft LEP were
considered by Council on 5 October 2010 and resulted in some further proposed
amendments to the draft LEP. Some of these proposed amendments were
exhibited by Council for public comment from 20 October 2010 to 19
November 2010.
At its meeting of 18 October 2010 Council
resolved to make further amendments to the draft LEP in relation to Places of
Public Worship, Sex Service Premises and Restricted Premises. These amendments were
on public exhibition from 3
November 2010 to 1 December 2010.
Draft Parramatta LEP 2010 proposes to zone the
subject site IN1 General Industrial. This
zone has been adopted for the subject site as the Draft Parramatta LEP 2010 in
general adopts a ‘like for like’ zoning.
The objectives of the IN1 zone are as follows:
· To
provide a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses.
· To
encourage employment opportunities.
· To
minimise any adverse effect of industry on other land uses.
· To
facilitate a range of non-industrial land uses that serve the needs of workers
and visitors to land within this zone.
Development of the subject site for mixed use
purposes would not be permitted under the IN1 zoning.
Other provisions of the Draft LEP which are
relevant to this site include:
· Maximum height of buildings to be no greater
than RL14.
· The site is subject to a foreshore building
line and therefore the provisions of Clause 6.4 need to be taken into
consideration. The Environmental
Protection map and Foreshore Building Line map identify the subject site as
being affected by a 30m foreshore building setback at the eastern end of the
site and a 15m foreshore building setback along the river frontage of 2-10 and
part of No. 12 River Road West.
· The site is flood affected and therefore the
provisions of Clause 6.5 need to be taken into consideration.
· There are acid sulphate soils (ASS) on the
site and therefore the provisions of Clause 6.6 need to be taken into
consideration. The ASS map identifies
the site as being affected by Class 4 ASS.
· The site is affected by a heritage item being
the wetlands along the river frontage.
· The site is not identified on the Floor Space
Ratio (FSR) map as having a maximum FSR control for development.
4. THE
ISSUES
4.1 Flooding
Council’s Flood Maps indicate the site for the mixed use planning proposal has potential flooding and floodplain issues in that:
(a) There are floodplain cross-sections located along the overall site’s frontage to the river. The western (ie. upstream) and eastern (downstream) respective flood levels are:
· PMF flood levels = RL9.3 and 9.4 metres AHD
· 100 year flood levels = RL5.02 and 5.01 metres AHD
· 20 year flood levels = RL4.38 and 4.36 metres AHD
(b) There are floodplain cross-sections also
in
The Council’s Flood Map also shows that:
· Some parts of the site are inundated in the 20 year event (with the largest area located at the eastern corner of the site); and
· Approximately the eastern half of the site together with a small south-western portion of the site is within the 100 year floodplain.
Furthermore, the whole site is very significantly impacted in the PMF(Probable Maximum Flood) event.
The proponents for the mixed use rezoning proposal commissioned HKMA Engineers to prepare a Flood Impact Report (3 May 2010). Supplementary advice which addressed concerns raised by Council in respect to the mixed use planning proposal and the potential flooding of the site was provided on 4 November 2010. These documents have been reviewed by Bewsher Consulting Engineers on behalf of Council in a report dated 22 November 2010. The Bewsher Consulting report identifies a range of flooding issues for this site which they consider the proponents need to address at the rezoning stage in order to achieve certainty that the site can be developed in accordance with its proposed B4 Mixed Use zoning as requested in the planning proposal.
Specifically the Bewsher
Consulting Engineers report recommends that the
planning proposal submission provide a more detailed flood impact assessment
which includes additional documentation as follows:
· “existing” and “post-development” conditions
flood modelling of the 20 year, 100 year and PMF events associated with both
Parramatta River and Clay Cliff Creek. Furthermore the modelling to explicitly
show no adverse impacts in the 20 year and 100 year events and no significant
changes in the PMF flood regime;
· examines more closely the risk issues
associated with the planning proposal with a particular focus on inundation of
the basement in floods which are bigger than 100 year plus 0.5 metres together
with details of how those risks will be addressed;
· provides a detailed Flood Response Plan for
the site (and it is noted that this should reflect the results of formal
discussions with the SES).”
Council’s Engineers concur with the findings and recommendations of the Bewsher Consulting Engineers report on flooding and floodplain issues for the mixed use planning proposal at the site. These flooding and floodplain issues need to be more fully investigated by the proponents prior to Council providing any final endorsement of the B4 – Mixed Use rezoning planning proposal for the site.
Section 117(2) Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land states as follows:
“Objectives
(1) The objectives of this Direction are:
(a) to
ensure that development of flood prone land is consistent with the NSW
Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy and the principles of the Floodplain
Development Manual 2005, and
(b) to
ensure that the provisions of an LEP on flood prone land is commensurate with
flood hazard and includes consideration of the potential flood impacts both on
and off the subject land.
Where this Direction applies
(2) This
Direction applies to all relevant planning authorities that are responsible for
flood prone land within their LGA.
When this Direction applies
(3) This
Direction applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning
proposal that creates, removes or alters a zone or a provision that affects
flood prone land.
What a relevant planning authority must do if this Direction applies
(4) A
planning proposal must include provisions that give effect to and are
consistent with the
…….
(6) A
planning proposal must not contain provisions that apply to the flood planning
areas which:
(a) permit development in floodway areas,
(b) permit
development that will result in significant flood impacts to other properties,
(c) permit a significant increase in the
development of that land,
(d) are
likely to result in a substantially increased requirement for government
spending on flood mitigation measures, infrastructure or services, or
(e) permit
development to be carried out without development consent except for the
purposes of agriculture (not including dams, drainage canals, levees, buildings
or structures in floodways or high hazard areas), roads or exempt development.
(7) A
planning proposal must not impose flood related development controls above the
residential flood planning level for residential development on land, unless a
relevant planning authority provides adequate justification for those controls
to the satisfaction of the Director General (or an officer of the Department
nominated by the Director General).
(8) For
the purposes of a planning proposal, a relevant planning authority must not
determine a flood planning level that is inconsistent with the Floodplain
Development Manual 2005 (including the guideline on development controls on low
flood risk areas) unless a relevant planning authority provides adequate
justification for the proposed departure from that Manual to the satisfaction
of the Director General (or an officer of the Department nominated by the
Director General)…….”.
Subsequent to the receipt of the comments of Bewsher Consulting, the proponents consulting engineer, HKMA provided additional advice to address some of the specific flooding issues raised by Bewsher Consulting.
The advice from HKMA dated 26 November 2010 indicates that:
· The proposed redevelopment of the subject site would increase the flood storage capacity of the site by 1086m3.
· Obstructions to the passage of floodwaters will be reduced
· The setback to Parramatta River will be significantly increased and appropriately graded. This will provide improved passage of flows along the River in large storm events.
· The option of providing a floodway slab at natural ground level to form the roof of the basement and the have the podium level constructed on columns entirely above the 100 year flood level could be explored.
The HKMA advice concludes by suggesting that the rezoning of the site should not be restricted by flooding of the area and that issues regarding development on flood prone land can be addressed at the DA stage.
Comment: It does not appear that the proponent’s supplementary advice addresses the fundamental issues raised in the Bewsher Consulting assessment in that inundation of the basement in floods which are bigger than 100 year plus 0.5 metres has not been satisfactorily addressed; the suggestion that the proponent consult with SES in formulating a Flood Response Plan has not occurred. It does not appear that the flood modelling has been undertaken.
Whilst consultation with SES could be undertaken as part of the exhibition of the planning proposal should it proceed, the potential for inundation of the basement areas and how this is to be addressed is still unresolved. Furthermore, the proponent’s solution to addressing the flooding aspects of the site raises significant implications in terms of the urban design of the mixed use development with high rise apartment towers at the site.
In the circumstances, it is considered that Council should not fully endorse the planning proposal involving the rezoning of the site to B4 – Mixed Use, unless and until the proponents have satisfactorily addressed the flooding and floodplain issues identified in the Bewsher Consulting report dated 22 November 2010 and they have demonstrated that the planning proposal will be consistent with the above stated Section 117(2) Direction 4.3 Flood Prone Land.
4.2 Heritage
A Heritage Report has been prepared by Archnex Designs dated 3 May 2010 in respect to the mixed use planning proposal.
The Heritage Report notes that the
site is located within the Harris Park Area of National Significance which was
identified in the Regional Planning Strategy associated with Sydney Regional
Environmental Plan 28 –
The Harris Park Area of National Significance and the historic view corridors identified in the Regional Planning Strategy for Sydney REP 28 have been included in the Draft Parramatta DCP 2010. The historic view corridors are indicated on the extract from SREP 28 at Figure 3.
The Heritage Report on the mixed use planning proposal prepared by Archnex Designs dated 3 May 2010 notes that:
· there is minimal archaeological potential in the land.
· The area of the riverbank to the north of the site is identified as a significant wetland.
The report recommends that should development of the subject site
extending above RL14.00 be intended, some degree of permeability of the built
form should be considered to allow what views of the hills to the north that
may be had from Elizabeth Farm House remain available. This may take the form
of substantial breaks (say 12 – 18 metres in width) in the volume of the
building to allow views to the north. These breaks should be oriented such that
view sectors from a station point in the reserve (as indicated on the Maximum
Building Height diagram, above) to the north of Elizabeth Farm House are
obtained.”
Council’s Heritage Advisor has
reviewed the Heritage Report on the mixed use planning proposal prepared by
Archnex Designs and considers that the
proposal should not be supported due to adverse impact on Elizabeth Farm and
its cartilage…as… the proposal would
allow for new development that would be visible above the crowns of trees, when
viewed from the Elizabeth Farm grounds (which) would present a major
detrimental impact on its heritage values, and on a critical level.
Council’s heritage adviser also commented on the potential for the development to impact on nearby significant trees and wetlands, impacts on archaeological deposits and impacts on Hambeldon Cottage.
Comment: It is critical that any mixed use redevelopment of the subject site take into account the heritage significance of the surrounding area. Not only are the heritage views to and from Elizabeth Farm important, there are also heritage items on and immediately adjacent to the site in the form of wetlands along the river frontage. Further, the site is located within an Area of National Significance and the Harris Park River Area as noted in SREP 28 and Draft Parramatta DCP 2010.
The heritage constraints which relate to the subject site are matters that can be dealt with as part of a site specific DCP and as part of any development application (DA) for a mixed use development should this planning proposal proceed.
Furthermore, should this planning proposal proceed to gateway and receive a gateway determination, the Heritage Branch and National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) as an agency of DECCW will be consulted.
4.3 Height of Buildings
As described above, the
proponent’s proposal provides for three building envelopes (ie – Buildings 1, 2
and 3) on
Based on the proponent’s proposal, the indicative building envelopes for the mixed use development of the site would comprise:
· Building 1 would be located approximately in the centre of the site. This building would comprise 14 storeys overall with a maximum height of 46 metres (RL51.76). The uppermost level would be setback from the principal building bulk of the apartment tower.
· Building 2 is proposed to be positioned west of Building 1 and would be separated from Building 1 by a distance of 26 metres. The concept proposal for Building 2 indicates this building would comprise 10 storeys to a height of 34 metres (RL39.68). Again, the topmost level of this building would be setback from the principal portion of the apartment tower building.
· Building 3 would be located at the western end of the site comprising 2-8 River Road West and the apartment tower component of Building 3 would be separated from the apartment tower component of Building 2 by a distance of 25 metres. The concept proposal for Building 3 provides for a building which is 8 storeys (RL 33.66) in height with the uppermost level setback from the principal part of the building.
· A two storey podium comprising ground floor retail/commercial development with serviced apartments above would be located between Buildings 2 and 3. The maximum RL of the podium level has not been indicated, however it appears that this would be less than the current maximum permissible RL on the subject site of RL14.
· Building 4 would be located on the property known as 10-12 River Road West. This building is proposed to have a maximum height of 14 storeys (RL51.76). The proponent has not provided concept plans for Building 4.
As indicated above, the current maximum permissible building height on the subject site is RL14 under Draft Parramatta LEP 2010. The mixed use planning proposal provides for development significantly greater than this maximum. (Building heights of between RL33.66 and RL51.76 are proposed) The proponent considers that the building heights are an appropriate response to the site having regard to historic view corridors and vistas to and from Elizabeth Farm. The proponent also indicates that:
“The
potential built form outcomes that may be achieved on the site …… provide positive
opportunities within its urban context. It also contemplates the context of the
subject site and how, with careful design solutions, a gateway element,
complementary to that desired within the
In terms of the relationship of
the subject site and the Morton Street Precinct, it is noted that the Morton
Street Precinct provides a significant “buffer” to be zoned RE1 – Public
Recreation, between the river and that part of the site to be developed with
high rise apartment buildings. Further, the
Morton Street Precinct is more regular in shape and with a large site
area. The development proposal for the
Comment: In principle, the rezoning of the subject site to enable a mixed use development does have merit and such a mixed use development is likely to be able to incorporate some building elements with a height of greater than RL14.
However, it is considered that the proponent’s submission does not provide sufficient detail or justification to enable a recommendation to be made to recommend a maximum height of buildings across this site to allow building heights ranging from 8 storeys to 14 storeys. Further, given the location of the site within an Area of National Significance, and based on the recommendation that additional information be provided in relation to flooding, it is considered the existing building height provisions should initially be maintained. Should this planning proposal be endorsed by Council it is recommended that further analysis and consultations with the proponents, consultants, Council and relevant public authorities should be undertaken to determine if maximum height and FSR controls are appropriate.
Should flooding issues be able to be addressed satisfactorily, and the planning proposal proceed to and through the gateway process, it is recommended that any redevelopment of the subject site for mixed use purposes be subject to a design competition to ensure the highest possible standards of architecture and urban design are achieved for the site and the development responds appropriately to its context having regard to its riverfront location and heritage provisions, particularly the heritage view corridors.
4.4 Urban Design
Issues of urban design are related to the height and bulk of the proposed buildings and the context of the site having regard to its river front location, adjacent industrial development and nearby lower density residential development and heritage considerations of this Area of National Significance. Other relevant urban design considerations include the bulk and articulation of the buildings, building separation (in terms of retaining historic view corridors), retail/commercial activation of the river and street frontages and SEPP 65 Design Principles.
The site also has a potential gateway interface with the Morton Street Precinct in relation to its river front location and relationship to the Parramatta CBD.
The proponent has provided an
urban design analysis (see Attachment 2).
That analysis describes how, in the proponent’s opinion, the concept mixed use
development proposal responds to the heritage context and its interface with
The proponent’s assessment:
· Points out the benefits of the site including its northerly aspect and gateway location.
· Suggests that the concept proposal responds to the important view corridors within the vicinity of the site without encroaching on these significant corridors.
· Considers that the suggested floor space ratio of 2.95 may be appropriately modulated across the site.
· Considers
that the height and scale of the building
will not result in adverse impacts in terms of surrounding land uses, having
particular regard for solar access and scale.
Council’s Urban Designer commented on the original planning proposal and noted that the concept proposal as indicated in the original planning proposal had some significant shortcomings in terms of foreshore setback and building height and separation.
Comment: Some of the
Urban Designer’s comments have been addressed in the proponent’s amended
concept proposal for the mixed use development of the site. However, it is considered that the current concept
plan for the mixed use proposal does not provide for sufficient activation
along the
Of particular concern with respect to the subject site is the fact that it currently comprises 10 separate allotments. There is the potential that, should the planning proposal proceed, each of these allotments could be sold with the expectation that the land could be developed for mixed use purposes in accordance with the proposed B4 mixed use zoning and up to the maximum building height limit should such be implemented.
It is crucial that should the
subject site be rezoned to allow mixed use development, any redevelopment be
undertaken in a coordinated manner for the whole site. The proponent’s concept proposal indicates
that the site could be developed in two parcels – one parcel comprising
Rather than specify a minimum site area for any redevelopment of the subject site, it is considered more appropriate that any redevelopment proposal be subject to a design competition if the proponent’s are seeking a variation to the current building height limit of RL14, based on similar criteria as currently applies to any new development within the Parramatta City Centre and including any other relevant criteria specific to this site, such as retention and enhancement of historic view corridors.
Coordinated development of the land can also be reinforced by appropriate DCP controls.
In this regard, and as a separate matter for consideration, it appears that some of the proposed building envelopes for the Morton Street precinct may be of a located and be of a height and bulk that there will potentially result in significant interference to these historic view corridors should development of the Morton Street precinct proceed in the form as indicated in the relevant section of Draft DCP 2010. It is suggested that this issue be the subject of further investigation by Council and, if required, the building envelopes and envelopes be amended accordingly.
4.5 Traffic
A Traffic Impact Assessment report on the mixed use planning proposal at the site has been prepared by Traffic Solutions Pty Ltd dated May 2010. This Traffic Impact Assessment report examines the cumulative traffic implications of the proposed mixed use development including an assessment of the:
· proposed vehicular access location;
· review of pedestrian conditions/facilities;
· estimation of the traffic generation of each component of the total proposal; and
· assessment of the potential impacts of the estimated traffic generation on the existing road network.
The Traffic Impact Assessment report is based on a total site area of 18,300m2 and has assumed a proposed floor space ratio of 4:1 (not 2.95:1 as suggested in the current planning proposal) and also assumes the following estimated commercial floor area and apartment yield:
· Ground floor commercial/retail of approximately 5,000m2
· First floor commercial of approximately 5,000m2
· Approximately 600 residential units.
The Traffic Impact Assessment report
on the mixed use planning proposal prepared by Traffic Solutions Pty Ltd concludes
that the existing road network will cope with the potential traffic likely to
be generated by a mixed use development of the site but recommends that the
intersection of James Ruse Drive and River Road West be signalised.
Council’s Service Manager –
Traffic and Transport concurs with the findings and recommendations of the
traffic report.
Comment: The proponent’s submission demonstrates that any
additional traffic generated as a result of the redevelopment of the subject
site for mixed use purposes can be addressed although such would require the
installation of new traffic signals at the intersection of
4.6 Geotechnical,
Contamination and Acid Sulfate Soil Assessments
The proponents for the mixed use planning proposal have submitted a number of reports in respect to the assessment of geotechnical, contamination and acid sulphate soil issues with the site.
The reports conclude that there is evidence that sections of the site
are contaminated and whilst the findings and recommendations of the Stage 1
Preliminary Report are prescriptive and substantive, the precautionary
principle must be applied in recognition of the limitations of a Stage 1
preliminary assessment.
The findings of the Stage 1 Environmental Site Investigation should not
preclude the approval of the rezoning …however any future development
application for mixed use, including a residential component would require a
Stage 1 Environmental Site Investigation to fully assess the extent of
contamination and facilitate the development of comprehensive remediation
strategies to ensure the site does not pose any risk to human health or the
environment.
Council’s has commented on the report
and advised that no objection is raised
to the rezoning proposal provided that a Stage 2 Environmental Site
Investigation is submitted to Council for any future development application
involving commercial/residential mixed use on the subject premises.
With respect to the potential for
there to be acid sulfate soils on the site, Council’s Senior Environmental
Health Officer concludes that an ASS management plan will be required during
the development application stage.
Comment: Given the past uses of the subject site, the potential for the land to be contaminated is high. However, the information submitted by the proponents has demonstrated that issues of contamination and remediation can be appropriately managed and addressed at the DA stage. The site is also affected by acid sulfate soils and will require the preparation of an acid sulfate soil management plan at the DA stage. This approach is supported by Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer. In any event, should this planning proposal proceed, the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) will be consulted.
4.7 Loss of
In order to
address the potential loss of employment lands as a result of the potential
rezoning of the subject site from Light Industrial to B4 Mixed Use zone, the
proponents engaged Hill PDA to undertake an economic assessment of the planning
proposal. That assessment considered the provision and availability of
employment lands elsewhere and also assessed the residential property market and
the shortage of affordable rental housing.
The
proponent’s economic assessment concluded that given its location and
constraints in terms of size and configuration, the subject site is not well
suited for redevelopment for industrial purposes, particularly given the
availability of other more suitably located industrial land in the Parramatta
LGA and nearby areas.
The Hill PDA
assessment estimated that even if the subject site was redeveloped for
industrial purposes, it would only have the potential to generate around 100
jobs.
The concept
plan proposal submitted with the mixed use planning proposal indicates a mix of
commercial and retail development on the subject site which may include
restaurants and cafes, convenience retail, child care facility, hotel, gymnasium
and medical services. The Hill PDA report has estimated a total floor space of
10,500m2 for these uses, with the potential for around 300 full time
and part time workers to be employed on-site.
The Hill PDA
report also assessed the potential support for retail services to be provided
on-site and provided an estimate of the potential impact any redirection of
expenditure from existing centres may have. The assessment in terms of retail
demand assumes the restaurants and cafes that may be provided as part of any
retail offer on the site would have a significant drawing effect. Whilst we do
not necessarily agree with some of the methodology and conclusions reached in
the Hill PDA economic assessment, it is likely that the provision of such facilities
on-site could attract residents and workers from the wider area.
The Hill PDA
report does not provide any analysis as to the proportion of expenditure from
on-site residents likely to be captured by retail and commercial facilities
provided on-site and, therefore, there is no evidence within the Hill PDA
report to support the density of residential development proposed as part of
this mixed use planning proposal as a means of providing support for on-site
retail and commercial development.
Comments in
relation to the planning proposal were sought from Council’s Economic
Development Team of the City Strategy Unit. That section commented that the
site lends itself to residential development and conceded that light industrial
is perhaps not the best use of the land, nor does it offer the sort of
high-volume employment that the City of
The Economic
Development Team also acknowledged that there were benefits to be had if
foreshore access was secured and key precincts within the City and periphery
were connected.
Comment: For the purposes of addressing Section
117 Direction 1.1 Business and Industrial Zones it is considered that the Hill
PDA economic assessment demonstrates that this planning proposal which would
result in the loss of industrial land can be justified having regard to the
objectives of the Direction. However,
more detailed investigation will be required in order to demonstrated the
potential impacts of any commercial/retail development on the subject site and
in particular impacts on the Parramatta CBD and other nearby centres.
4.8 Other Council
Internal Comments
The mixed use
planning proposal for the site was referred to a number of other sections
within Council for review and comment.
These comments are summarised below:
Council’s Manager
Environmental Outcomes has provided the following comments on the planning
proposal:
· NSW Fisheries, NSW Maritime and Sydney Ferries should be consulted in relation to potential navigation hazards, building over the river and mangroves.
· There is a need for a new seawall and bank restoration at the eastern end of the site where there is current severe and active erosion.
· Baludarri Wetland is
directly opposite the proposed development which has International migratory
birds and night lighting could be an issue.
Comment:
Comments noted. Relevant
authorities will be consulted should this proposal proceed to and through the
Gateway. Other matters can be dealt with
as part of the DCP to be prepared by the proponents for consideration by Council
should the planning proposal proceed to and through the gateway and,
subsequently at DA stage.
Council’s
Property Development Advisor, Strategic Asset Management has provided the
following comments on the mixed use planning proposal:
“Ideally,
removing the IN1 zone on the riverfront would have strong support however
retaining the IN1 zone to the south of
Comment:
A recommendation has been included suggesting a strategic planning
investigation of the Harris Park precinct and wider area is undertaken by
Council.
Council’s
Project Officer – Transport Planning supported the provision of a
pedestrian/cycleway along the river frontage and made a number of suggestions
regarding detailed design of this pathway.
Comment: The specific design issues can be
addressed as part of the VPA and at the DA stage should this planning proposal
proceed.
Council’s
Catchment Management Officer (Open Space and Natural Resources) has indicated
that issues of climate change and sea level rise will need to be addressed.
Comment:
DECCW will be consulted during the public exhibition phase should this
planning proposal proceed.
The matters
raised by Council’s Acting Manager – Environmental Outcomes, Open Space &
Recreation Planner, Catchment Management Officer, Open Space & Natural
Resources and Project Officer, Land Use & Transport Planning are relevant
should this planning proposal proceed.
Further, relevant public authorities will be consulted during the public
exhibition phase should this planning proposal proceed.
5. ASSESSMENT
OF PLANNING PROPOSAL AGAINST DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING GUIDELINES
Recent planning reforms regarding the
preparation of LEPs were introduced on 1 July 2009. These reforms, intended to simplify the
Plan-Making (LEP) process. Under this
process, Council, as the relevant planning authority (RPA) must resolve to
support a planning proposal before it can proceed to Gateway determination. Community consultation is undertaken after
Council and the Department of Planning (DoP) has considered and subsequently
approved to proceed with the rezoning.
The DoP will determine the level of community consultation required.
The ‘Planning Proposal’ document prepared by
the proponent, together with other supporting documentation, will be submitted
to DoP for initial Gateway determination should Council resolve to support mixed
use the proposal in principle.
The following issues are required to be addressed as
part of any planning proposal:
Objectives or Intended Outcomes
The objective of this planning proposal is to
rezone the subject site to allow for the provision of a public reserve along
the foreshore of the
Explanation
In order to achieve the above objective,
amendment of the current and proposed planning controls relating to the subject
site is required.
The subject site is currently zoned for light
industrial development under the provisions of Sydney Regional Environmental
Plan No. 28 –
Council has prepared and exhibited a draft
LEP, Draft Parramatta LEP 2010 which proposes an IN1 General Industrial zone on
the subject land.
To enable a mixed use development to be
undertaken on the site, rezoning to a B4 Mixed Use zone is sought. Any redevelopment options for this site would
also incorporate a foreshore public reserve which would be zoned RE1 Public
Recreation.
It is intended that the relevant plan to be
amended should this planning proposal proceed will be the Draft Parramatta LEP
2010 either upon gazettal or as a subsequent amendment.
The proponent has also sought amendment of the
height of buildings map (which accompanies Draft Parramatta LEP 2010) to allow
a maximum building height of up to 14 storeys (46 metres) on the subject site.
As discussed above, it is not considered that
the proponent’s indicative scheme is sufficiently refined to recommend a
maximum height at this stage of the assessment. Since
the preparation of the proponent’s initial request for rezoning, there have
been a number of machinations with respect to the mixed use development
proposal for the site. The most recent
indicative concept provides for a development ranging from 8 storeys up to 14
storeys.
The site is subject to a number of constraints
including flooding, river front location (which is also considered to present
significant redevelopment opportunities), heritage (view corridors) and
contamination. All of these constraints
could impact significantly on the development potential of the subject site and
the configuration and footprint of any buildings that may be developed.
Therefore, it is considered that additional
information is required (particularly with respect to flooding issues). Further, given the heritage significance of
the location of the subject site (within an Area of National Significance) and
on the river and the historic view corridors, it is considered that
consultation with relevant authorities and agencies including the Heritage
Branch, Historic Houses Trust, DECCW and Office of Water is required before any
recommendations regarding changes to the Height of Buildings map can be
provided.
The subject site is not proposed to be
included on the Floor Space Ratio (FRS) map to Draft Parramatta LEP 2010 in
line with the proposed IN1 General Industrial zoning.
Should part of the site be rezoned to allow
mixed use development consideration to include a maximum FSR on the subject
site (and therefore include the subject site on the FSR map) could be given.
The proponent’s most recent concept proposal
provides for a development with a maximum FSR of 2.95:1. By way of comparison, the development site
known as the
Given the concept nature of the proponent’s mixed
use proposal it is not considered that the proposal is sufficiently refined to
include any recommendations with respect to a maximum permissible FSR.
Justification
A. Need for
the Planning Proposal
Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report?
The planning proposal is not the
result of a strategic study. It does however present an opportunity to
redevelop underutilised industrial land with a mixed use development which also
incorporates public access and usage of the river foreshore.
Notwithstanding, it is considered
that there is some merit in undertaking a strategic planning investigation for
the immediate precinct (being that area bounded by James Ruse Drive, Hassal
Street, Harris Street and the Parramatta River) and even extending that
investigation to include those areas within the Area of National Significance
and adjoining areas within Camellia.
Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or
intended outcomes, or is there a better way?
The proponent’s request for rezoning
of the subject site to allow mixed use development has been discussed with
Council officers and the specialist consultants engaged by the proponents on a
number of occasions including during the preparation of Draft Parramatta LEP
2010. The proponents’ also lodged
submissions during the exhibition phase of the Draft LEP seeking rezoning of
the subject site.
It was considered by Council that
additional strategic investigation was required in order to ascertain if the
site was suitable for redevelopment for mixed use purposes including addressing
the potential impacts of the loss of employment land. Therefore the industrial zoning is proposed
to be retained under the draft LEP.
The proponent’s have since provided
information in support of the rezoning of the subject site. The information provided indicates that,
subject to satisfactory resolution of issues relating to flooding, the
redevelopment of the subject site for mixed use purposes may be appropriate and
the most appropriate method of achieving this is by way of a planning proposal.
Is there a net community benefit?
Should this rezoning and
redevelopment proceed, a public recreation area will be created along the Parramatta River
The provision of retail and
commercial activities on the site as part of a mixed use development, including
a child care centre, hotel, restaurants and medical centre could also provide
benefits to the surrounding community.
The redevelopment of this site also
provides opportunities to create a pedestrian link across the River.
B. Relationship
to Strategic Planning Framework
Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions
contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy (including
the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and exhibited draft strategies)?
The draft West Central Sub Regional
Strategy 2007 (draft West Central SRS )
identifies the site as being located within the Sub Regional City of
Parramatta. Redevelopment of the site
will provide residential accommodation and local employment opportunities.
The loss of industrially zoned land
(and associated employment opportunities) has been assessed. The current development of the site for light
industrial purposes does not offer significant employment opportunities.
Further the size, location and configuration of the site does not make it
attractive to be redeveloped for industrial purposes, particularly given the
availability of other more suitably located industrial zoned land.
Is the planning proposal consistent with the local council’s Community
Strategic Plan, or other local strategic plan?
As part of the strategic
investigation of Draft Parramatta LEP 2010, Council undertook a Residential
Development Strategy (RDS). One of the
objectives of the RDS is to concentrate new residential development in areas
where there is existing infrastructure to support and sustain population
growth.
The subject site was not examined
under Council’s RDS for increased residential housing.
Notwithstanding, a mixed use
development on this site would satisfy a number of the criteria which have been
applied to these identified sites including:
· The size of the site at 1.8 ha (being the combined area of
Nos. 2 -12 River Road West) is large enough to ensure flexibility of design for
a mixed use development.
· The ‘dual’ frontage of the site provides opportunities to
provide a development which benefits from both a river front and street front
location.
· The site is proximate to the Parramatta CBD and any
residential component of a mixed use development would provide a level of
support for existing and future businesses in the CBD.
· The site has access to public transport facilities.
· Redevelopment of site provides opportunities to continue
the pedestrian link along the river frontage.
Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable state environmental
planning policies?
The relevant State Environmental
Planning Policies (SEPPs) include:
· Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 28 – Parramatta
(SREP 28).
SREP 28 is now a deemed SEPP. The subject site is currently zoned under the
provisions of SREP 28.
SREP 28 identifies the land as being
within an Area of National Significance and within the Harris Park River Area.
These provisions have been incorporated into Draft DCP 2010 and will be
required to be taken into consideration should the site be redeveloped for
mixed use purposes.
· Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 2005 – Sydney Harbour
Catchment (SREP Sydney Harbour)
The aims and objectives of SREP Sydney Harbour seek to protect and enhance the foreshore
area of Parramatta
River
The planning proposal is considered
to be consistent with the relevant provisions of SREP Sydney
Harbour
· State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality
of Residential Flat Buildings (SEPP 65)
Any mixed use development of the
site incorporating residential flat buildings will be subject to the design
provisions and principles of SEPP 65.
As only an indicative concept
proposal has been provided at this stage an assessment against SEPP 65 has not
been undertaken however it appears that the building on 10-12 River Road West
Given the sensitivity of this site
in terms of heritage considerations and its river front location, should this
planning proposal proceed it is recommended that a local development clause be
included requiring any development proposal to be subject to a design
competition.
· State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007
(SEPP Infrastructure)
Should this planning proposal
proceed it is possible that any development proposal will result in more than
300 dwellings being provided in which case the development will be referred to
the RTA in accordance with the provisions for traffic generating development
contained in SEPP Infrastructure.
In any event, the RTA will be
consulted during the public exhibition phase of the planning proposal should it
proceed to and through the Gateway.
· State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development)
(Major Development SEPP)
Redevelopment of this site for mixed
use development with a Capital Investment Value (CIV) in excess of $100 million
is development identified in Schedule 1 of the Major Development SEPP. If this occurs any proposal would be assessed
in accordance with Part 3A of the EP&A Act.
· State Environmental Planning Policy No. 32 – Urban
Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land) SEPP 32.
SEPP 32 aims to promote the orderly and economic use and development of land by
enabling urban land which is no longer required for the purpose for which it is
currently zoned or used to be redeveloped for multi-unit housing and related
development
It has been demonstrated that use of
the site for industrial purposes may not be the most appropriate form of
development for this site given its size, location and configuration.
It has also been demonstrated that
the employment that may be generated by a mixed use development on the subject
site is likely to exceed the employment opportunities that would be provided by
any industrial activity on the site.
Therefore the redevelopment of the
site for mixed use purposes would be consistent with the provisions of SEPP 32.
C. Environmental,
Social and Economic Impact
Is there likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species,
populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely
affected as a result of the proposal?
The potential impacts of the
redevelopment of this site have been considered having particular regard to its
river front location and the presence of mangroves along the river frontage of
the site.
It is considered that the opportunity
to redevelop the site and provide a foreshore setback (which currently does not
exist) could result in significant environmental benefits.
Any redevelopment of the site for
mixed use development would be required to address environmental issues including
any potential impacts on the wetlands located directly opposite the site.
Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the
planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?
The site is flood affected. This issue is discussed in detail in section
4.1 of this report. It is considered
that until such time as the flooding and floodplain issues raised by Bewsher
Consulting have been addressed, only in principle support for this planning
proposal can be provided.
Given the previous uses of this site
for industrial purposes the likelihood of the land being contaminated is
high. Preliminary assessments have been
carried out and these demonstrate that the levels and extent of contamination are
unlikely to preclude development of the land for mixed use purposes however
more detailed investigation and site remediation will be required before any
development can proceed. The site is
also affected by ASS which will need to be addressed at the DA stage should
this planning proposal proceed.
How has the planning proposal addressed any social and economic
effects?
The site is affected by historic
view corridors to and from Elizabeth Farm.
It is critical that any mixed use
redevelopment of the subject site take into account the heritage significance
of the surrounding area including these view corridors.
In order to address the potential loss
of employment lands as a result of the rezoning of the subject site from Light
Industrial to B4 Mixed Use zone, the proponents submitted an economic
assessment of the planning proposal.
The proponent’s economic assessment
concluded that given its location and constraints in terms of size and
configuration, the subject site is not well suited for redevelopment for
industrial purposes, particularly given the availability of other more suitably
located industrial zoned land in the Parramatta LGA and nearby areas.
The assessment estimated that even if
the subject site was redeveloped for industrial purposes, it would only have
the potential to generate around 100 jobs whereas the concept plan proposal
would provide employment for around 300 full time and part time workers.
The proposal will also create
significant job opportunities during the construction phase.
The opportunity to continue the
foreshore pedestrian and cycleway link will have significant social and
recreational benefits.
D. State and
Commonwealth Interests
Is there adequate infrastructure for the planning proposal?
The land is serviced however some
upgrade of infrastructure may be required.
This can be addressed as part of the detailed planning considerations
during the DA stage.
What are the views of Stage and Commonwealth Public Authorities
consulted in accordance with the Gateway determination, and have they resulted
in any variations to the planning proposal?
No formal consultation has taken
place to date. Views of relevant
authorities and agencies will be sought during the public exhibition period
should this planning proposal proceed.
The Department of Planning may also seek to consult with certain public
authorities as part of the Gateway process.
Community Consultation
It is considered that the following public
authorities will be consulted during the public exhibition phase of this
planning proposal:
· Heritage Branch
& Historic Houses Trust of NSW
· Sydney Ferries
· Department of Environment
Climate Change and Water (including NPWS and Office of Water)
· NSW Maritime
· NSW Industry and
Investment
· Sydney Harbour
Foreshore Authority
· Roads and Traffic
Authority
In addition, Council has consulted with
property owners within the precinct bounded by
6. CONCLUSION
In terms of being productive industrial land, the
subject site is constrained having regard to its size, configuration and
location. Unless the zoning of the site
is altered to allow an alternative form of development, the existing limited
industrial use of the site is likely to continue.
A rezoning of the land to incorporate a B4 Mixed Use
and RE1 Public Recreation zone will allow for the provision of a public reserve
area along the
The site is also flood affected and this constraint
could place significant restrictions on the capacity of the land to be
developed for mixed use purposes.
Therefore,
whilst the rezoning of the subject land for mixed use purposes is, in
principle, considered appropriate, until such time as the flooding and
floodplain issues raised by Bewsher Consulting in their advice to Council’s
Design Engineers are satisfactorily addressed only in principle support can be given to the planning proposal.
The proponent’s mixed use proposal provides for 4
building envelopes on the subject land.
The indicative concept proposal provides for separation between
buildings in an effort to retain critical historic view corridors to and from
Elizabeth Farm.
It is considered that the proponent’s submission does not provide
sufficient detail or justification to enable a recommendation to be made to propose
a maximum height of buildings across this site to allow building heights
ranging from 8 storeys to 14 storeys to be provided. Further, given the location
of the site within an Area of National Significance, and based on the
recommendation that additional information be provided in relation to flooding,
it is considered the existing building height provisions should initially be
maintained. Should this planning
proposal proceed further analysis would be required to be undertaken to consider
maximum height and FSR provisions for the site. Iit is considered that a
requirement for any development proposal to be subject to a design competition
would be appropriate.
Furthermore, if a maximum height for buildings and FSR was specified, there is the potential that, should the planning proposal proceed, each of the 10 allotments which comprise the subject site could be sold with the expectation that the land could be developed for mixed use purposes in accordance with the proposed B4 mixed use zoning and buildings up to the maximum 14 storey height limit and 2.95: 1 FSR approved by Council.
It is crucial that should the subject site be rezoned to allow mixed use development, any redevelopment be undertaken in an orderly and coordinated manner. However, rather than specify a minimum site area for any redevelopment of the subject site, it is considered more appropriate that a design competition (based on similar criteria as currently applies to any new development within the Parramatta City Centre and including any other relevant criteria specific to this site) would ensure that any future mixed use development of the site occurs in an orderly and coordinated manner. This can also be reinforced by appropriate DCP controls.