|
Item 9.4 - Attachment 1 |
Attachment 1 -
Detailed report on Planning Proposal, Draft DCP and Draft VPA for 2 Morton
Street, Parramatta |
Attachment 1 -
Detailed report
Planning Proposal,
Draft DCP and Draft VPA for
Background to the
Planning Proposal
On 1 October 2009, the landowner of
Council, on 19 October 2009, adopted the Planning Proposal for referral to the Department of Planning (DoP) for Gateway determination to allow the proposal to proceed to public exhibition, together with a draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) and draft Development Control Plan (DCP). In December 2009, the NSW Department of Planning (DoP) authorised the public exhibition and issued a Gateway determination. The authorisation was revised in February 2010 to clarify matters regarding mapping.
On 14 April 2010, Council endorsed a draft Voluntary Planning Agreement, provided certain conditions were part of that agreement. Once these conditions were negotiated, the draft VPA was placed on public exhibition, together with the Planning Proposal, draft site specific DCP and the traffic study submitted by the land owner. The public exhibition was held from 7 August 2010 to 10 September 2010.
Planning proposal and
its relationship to draft
The proposed rezoning of the land at
By submitting a Planning Proposal, the landowner is seeking
to have the rezoning proceed at a faster pace than Council’s new principal LEP.
The Planning Proposal will proceed independently of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. However,
ultimately, the outcomes of the planning controls for
Results of the public
exhibition
The exhibition involved a mail out 338 landowners within a
400-metre radius of
At the conclusion of the public exhibition, Council received
51 submissions. One of the submissions contained a petition with 117 signatures
objecting to the proposal. The signatures on the petition are from residents
within the immediate area of
Council as part of the NSW Department of Planning Gateway
determination was required to consult with particular State Government
Authorities; they were the Roads and Traffic Authority, NSW Transport and
Infrastructure, Sydney Metro, Department of Conservation, Environment and
Climate Change and the Catchment Management Authority. Council received three
submissions from these agencies. None of these agencies objected in principle
to the proposal. A summary of agency submissions is included in Attachment 3. The RTA’s submission
requests that Council consult with them with respect to the draft VPA. Council
during the public exhibition wrote to the RTA about this issue but no response
was received.
Key issues raised in public
submissions
The key issues raised in submissions are discussed below. Attachment 3 summarises all the submissions received.
1. Traffic,
road network and on street parking (34 submissions)
Issues and concerns raised
§ Concerned by the increased levels of traffic the proposed development will cause when the area already experiences traffic congestion during peak periods.
§ There are limited road access points in and out of the site. This restricts the ability for traffic to flow through the area.
§ The traffic study does not fully represent the traffic issues that affect the area.
§ A broader analysis of the long-term traffic conditions should be considered taking into account the up zoning of land surrounding 2 Morton Street, as proposed in draft Parramatta LEP 2010.
§ Proposed road extensions to New Zealand and Harvey Street are not feasible without land acquisition and proper consultation with affected landowners.
§ The increasing cost of parking in the CBD has resulted in local streets becoming dominated by parked cars.
Response
Council’s Traffic and Transport Unit has reviewed the proponent’s traffic study and provide the following comments:
The Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) “Guide to Traffic Generating Developments” (TGD) suggests a traffic
generation rate of 0.29 vehicle trips per unit for high density development during
peak time. Accordingly, the proposed traffic generation associated with the
proposed redevelopment of
The Traffic study also analysed the future operation of
Based on this information, Council’s Traffic and Transport Unit have
indicated that the traffic volumes across the road network are within
acceptable limits to support the rezoning of this land. However, traffic information
will be required at the development application stage addressing the following:
§ An assessment of the overall traffic impact and any improvements required at the Thomas Street/Morton Street & Thomas Street/Pemberton Street intersections.
§ Intersection improvements at Thomas Street/Morton Street & Thomas Street/Pemberton Street are considered in order to enhance traffic safety and provide traffic calming in the section of Thomas Street between James Ruse Drive & Macarthur Street.
§ Determine the feasibility of restricting traffic at the intersections of Harvey Street/Macarthur Street & New Zealand Street/Macarthur Street into left-in/left-out only thereby extending the right-turn bay at Macarthur Street into Thomas Street based on the analysis as per submitted Traffic Report.
§ On-site parking provision to be addressed in any further traffic study associated with a development application.
§ That the provisions for a car sharing scheme as documented in draft Parramatta DCP 2010 be considered as part of any future development application.
There was a level of concern raised in submissions that the
traffic study prepared for the proponent references a potential future
pedestrian and road connection between
2. Scale of development is out of character with the locality (32 submissions)
Issues and concerns raised
§ Concerned by the proposed height of buildings and relationship to the low scale development which surrounds.
§ Development is out of character with the predominant low density/medium density housing surrounding.
§ The development will dominate the skyline and affect existing views.
§ Building heights will reduce privacy of nearby residents.
§ Medium density development would be more suitable than high density.
Response
Council’s
Residential Development Strategy (RDS) identifies
In determining the
extent of residential development suitable for this site and the immediate
area, Council required that the land owner investigate suitable built form
outcomes and residential densities for a wider precinct, which resulted in the
preparation of the ‘Elizabeth Street Structure Plan’. This plan then underwent
an independent urban design review.
Given the policy
direction of the RDS, in the longer term, the character of this area will
change to take advantage of its location on the fringe of the Parramatta
Whilst the proposed building heights for this site are significantly
taller than the current buildings that surround the site, within the precinct,
increased development potential is proposed to accommodate residential flat
buildings and mixed use development at a range of increased heights under draft
Parramatta LEP 2010. The future character of the precinct will therefore change
over time to one of higher density. The proposal to include mixed-use
development will help activate
The maximum height proposed for
Other planning controls contained in the draft DCP have been introduced to minimise the impact of the height. Upper levels of all buildings (the upper 2 storeys) are required to be setback. Section 4.1 of the draft DCP provides an indicative arrangement for how buildings may be located on the site. The indicative building layout provides for the taller buildings (8 storeys) to be orientated in a north/south direction to reduce visual bulk, encourage more modulation, reduce overshadowing and encourage dual aspect apartments for enhanced access to sunlight and breezes. The lower 6 storey buildings orientated east/west, will optimise solar access to private and public open space and the separation of these buildings will provide some view corridors through to the river. It is also proposed that new buildings be slender with their depth being between 15 and 18 metres. All these controls are designed to reduce the bulk of buildings, enable view lines through the development site and provide a spatial variation in the height of buildings. Proposed developments will also be required to comply with SEPP 65 design requirements for residential flat buildings.
3. Foreshore protection and heritage values (7 submissions)
Issues and concerns raised
§ The proposed development will encroach on the foreshore and damage the historic and environmental quality of the foreshore, including existing wetlands.
§ Proposed development is not compatible with the natural landscape of the foreshore.
§ Development does not respect the indigenous and European heritage along the foreshore
§ Improvements to the wetlands/pedestrian links along the foreshore are worthy of consideration.
Response
Part of the
Some concerns have been raised that the environmental qualities of the foreshore are threatened because the development will be located adjacent to the river. However, the dedication of the foreshore land in conjunction with the redevelopment of the site will provide a substantial setback of approximately 30 – 40 metres. This will ensure that the development minimises impacts on the natural foreshore environment. These setbacks also help to protect the strong historical and heritage values of the foreshore and enable these heritage elements to be accessible to the public. The mangroves that align the foreshore are heritage listed. This listing provides further protection of the foreshore, particularly as the mangroves are important environmentally and as a significant natural landscape of the river.
There are other heritage items in the vicinity of the site
at
4. Flooding (5 submissions)
Issues and concerns raised
§ A significant part of the site is flood prone and therefore should be protected from development.
§ The development will reduce the floodplain and increase flooding risks
Response
The Planning Proposal acknowledges
that there are limitations on the development of some parts of the site related
to flooding potential and that any future development will need to mitigate
these flood impacts. Council, when considering a development application, will
need to assess whether the development proposed increases the potential flood
affectation on other development or property, or risk to human life and does
not adversely
affects the environment of the floodplain by causing avoidable erosion,
saltation or unnecessary destruction of river bank. Detailed plans and a flood
study will be required as part of any development application.
It is probable that some buildings closest to the
foreshore reserve will need to be located and designed in relation to flood
levels. It is recommended that an additional section be included in the draft
DCP in relation to the architectural quality of the development and design
outcomes in these instances. The basis of these controls will be:
§ to ensure the
foreshore is a safe and secure environment that Council seek passive
surveillance of foreshore area through buildings addressing and connecting to
the foreshore.
§ That any proposal
to elevate buildings be no greater than 1.2 metres at the foreshore interface
§ That no more than
50% of buildings along the foreshore be elevated
5. Lack of consultation and information provided (6 submissions)
Issues and concerns raised
§ That Council consider holding a public hearing due to the significance of the proposal (two submissions).
§ The material provided as part of the exhibition did not help people understand the full magnitude of the proposed development and there is insufficient information to enable Council to make a proper assessment.
Response
Section 57(5) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 states that if a person making a submission so requests, and Council considers that the issues raised in a submission are of such significance that they should be the subject of a hearing; the Council is to arrange a public hearing on the issues raised in the submission.
Two submissions have requested that Council hold a public hearing. The issues raised in each submission are summarised below:
a) Adequacy of the traffic study prepared in association with the Planning Proposal.
b) Concerns that there is a proposal to extend Harvey and New Zealand Street through to Morton Street.
c) The current road network is already strained. Additional units. (approximately 600) will overload the network and cause grid lock.
d) Proposal is out of character with the existing neighbourhood.
e) The location of a pedestrian footbridge across the river will be problematic and will detract from the current amenity of Queens Wharf.
f) There has been a lack of public consultation on this matter
The issues of concern are understood, are able to be fully addressed in this report and are of a type that Council generally receives in response to a proposal of this nature. The content of the submission is consistent with other submissions received and it is not recommended that a public hearing be held.
The purpose of a Planning Proposal is to explain the intended effect of a proposed LEP and provide justification for the making of that plan, in this case, to change the zoning of land to permit the types of land uses proposed. The exhibition material (Attachment 2) included information of this nature. It also provided, in the draft DCP the more detailed guidelines for the redevelopment of the site.
A separate process exists for assessing the merits of a development proposal (a development application). This involves much more precise details about the design of the development. Should the Planning Proposal be approved then the landowner is entitled to lodge a development application. If this occurs, then Council requires the lodgement of detailed architectural plans, and a statement of environmental effects demonstrating how the proposal is compliant and meets all Council guidelines. This process will also involve a public consultation phase.
6. Lack of infrastructure and public transport (8 submissions)
Issues and concerns raised
§ The area has insufficient public transport
§ The site is not within adequate walking distance of the Parramatta Railway Station
§ This
area is not part of the Parramatta
§ Existing infrastructure cannot cope with current population demand. Further development will only make this worse.
Response
This area has good public transport connections to
Parramatta railway station in the form of bus services along Victoria Road
(approx 700m from the site) and also pedestrian access to the CBD (approx 900 m
from the site). It also has bus services linking to other regional areas
including the Sydney
While it is acknowledged that car travel is still the
preferred travel option for most
This strategy is more sustainable but for it to succeed will
take time and commitment from all levels of government to ensure public
transport options continue to improve.
7. Other environmental Impacts (15 submissions)
Issues and concerns raised
§ Noise and air pollution will be a major problem during construction
§ Concerns of noise that will be generated by the additional number of units
Response
Any approval for development will include conditions to be complied with during construction. This will include protecting the site with adequate fencing to stop erosion and siltation and to ensure that construction is carried out at appropriate day time hours.
The proposal will increase the number of residents in this area. However, Council has design considerations to minimise noise. These may include the use of screens, landscaping or building setbacks. Furthermore, noise pollution occurring in residential locations is subject to the Noise Control Act, enforced by the NSW Police.
Proponent’s submission
During the exhibition, the proponent lodged a submission addressing some aspects of the Planning Proposal. The key points of the proponent’s submission are outlined below:
a) That the proposed open space zone be consistent with the extent of land to be dedicated as part of the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA).
b) That Council revise the extent of the Waterways zone applying to the site (also indicated in draft Parramatta LEP 2010). Council is able to apply an environmental protection clause to protect any riparian corridor or ecological communities.
c) That the Floor Space Ratio is more accurately represented as 1.4:1 rather than 1.2:1.
d) That a clause be introduced to enable the whole site area to be used to calculate FSR.
e) That potential amendment to the draft DCP be considered. These relate to the use of the word storey, the location of tower elements, roof design, building depth, balconies and modulation of building adjoining the foreshore.
Responses to the matters raised by the proponent are detailed below:
a) Open space zone
The Planning Proposal includes a set of land use maps as required by the DoP. Zoning maps for the site will be prepared at the stage when the Planning Proposal proceeds to the Department of Planning for legal drafting. The draft VPA sets out the extent of land to be dedicated to Council as open space should the Planning Proposal be approved. The area to be dedicated for open space purposes should be used as the basis for the open space zoning.
b) Removal of
Waterway zone and other conditions
The proponent argues that the land which may be zoned as Waterway should be reduced and that the area subject to an environment protection clause should also be removed. The proponent has submitted further ecological information to support this argument. The response to this information, including comments from Council’s Open Space and Natural Resources Unit is as follows:
· The Baludarri Wetland (a Council reserve immediately east of the site) is an Ecological Endangered Community under the Threatened Species and Conservation Act 1995. It contains both an endangered Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest community of the Sydney Basin freshwater wetland as well as a continuous stretch of Endangered Coastal Saltmarsh in Sydney Basin saltmarsh. The site is an important fish nursery on the Parramatta River and is also used by many species of birds. The Draft Native Vegetation map prepared by the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority, shows evidence of saltmarsh communities on the eastern corner of the site (where one of the proposed tower buildings is indicatively shown to be located in the draft DCP), and near at the channel outlet. This map can be seen at Attachment 5. It is therefore important to retain an environmental protection clause in the LEP amendment to ensure proper consideration is given to these communities at DA stage. The area of the site proposed to be covered by an environmental protection clause is shown in Attachment 2.
· Water land as defined by the Fisheries Management Act 1994 is any land submerged by water, whether permanently or intermittently, or whether forming an artificial or natural body of water.
· Although
a low berm (a level space, shelf, or raised barrier separating two areas)
appears to exist between the edge of Councils Endangered Ecological Community (
· Irrespective of the provisions contained
in the Planning Proposal, Council cannot give permission to allow any
reclamation of water land according to the Fisheries Management Act 1994.
Approval to reclaim land must be granted by the Minister. It is recommended
that the Environmental Protection layer be retained over the south eastern
corner to reinforce this requirement.
· To preserve the existing hydrologic
flows within these
· To
protect the existing
c) Floor Space Ratio
(FSR)
When Council first considered draft planning controls for
this site it did not include a
A floor space ratio of 1.2:1 was extrapolated from the net floor space yields of building envelopes as proposed in the Morton Street Structure Plan 2006. The structure plan assumed that 75% of the total building envelope for residential development and 90% of the building envelope for commercial development would be calculated as floor space. The proponent argues that this FSR does not accurately reflect the yields achievable on the gross floor area (GFA) represented in the structure plan.
FSR is a crude measurement for determining the total floor
area of a development relative to the site area. The standard LEP template determines
Advice from Council’s Urban Design unit and industry standards
support 80% of the total building envelope for residential development as a more
appropriate assumption to use for calculating net floor space. Based on this
revision a
d) Clause for
calculating
Under both the Parramatta
LEP 2001 and draft Parramatta LEP 2010, floor space ratio means the ratio of the
floor space area of the building to the area of the allotment on which the
building is or is proposed to be erected. As part of the site at
This is the basis
for the quantum of floor space reflected in the Morton St Structure Plan 2006 for
the site and the subsequent urban design work. It is therefore appropriate that
a clause be included in the LEP amendment following the Planning Proposal.
e) Proponent submission about the site
specific draft DCP
The proponent’s
submission relating to the draft DCP includes the following suggested changes.
A response to each suggestion is outlined immediately below each suggestion:
a) That as some parts of the proposed
development may protrude above natural ground level, they may be considered a
storey. Therefore reference in the draft DCP should only relate to habitable
storeys.
Response: Current controls state that any wall protruding more than 1.2
metres above existing ground level constitutes a storey. The purpose of this
control is to manage bulk and to prevent a building appearing to be higher than
the controls allow. This is a standard control and is important in this case
because any development fronting the foreshore should seek to provide passive
surveillance and a relationship with passive open space. Therefore, the control
of 1.2 metres storey control is appropriate to maintain those principles. This
control should be incorporated into the site specific DCP.
b) That clause 3.2 be more flexible by
saying that the tower elements will generally be located closer to the
foreshore.
Response: While it is a preference from a urban design perspective that
the taller elements of the building be down the slope closer to the area to be
dedicated as foreshore, it is acknowledged that there maybe justifiable merits
for an alternative design. Therefore, it is agreed that clause 3.1 be amended
to say that it is Council preference for taller buildings to be located closer
to the interface with the foreshore.
c) The building typologies generally require
upper level setbacks. Therefore, the additional requirement of setbacks which
have a common boundary with a lower height limit is already suitably covered.
Response: Setbacks with common boundaries of a lower height have been
compensated for by the requirement of upper level setbacks and variation to the
articulation of buildings. Therefore it is agreed that clause 5.1 be deleted.
d) That building depth for typologies A,
D,E be defined as glass line to glass line.
Response: A building depth control in general terms is a reference to
the internal layout of buildings whereby that internal depth will determine the
extent of solar access and natural ventilation. Given the importance of this
outcome and its relationship to the internal layout, it is appropriate that a
reference be made that it is measured glass line to glass line.
e) That clause 5.4(d) be re-worded to
take into account that not all buildings will front the public domain.
Response: It is considered that a merit assessment of this issue is more
appropriate. It is a desirable outcome that new development front the public
domain to improve passive surveillance and for buildings to provide a visual
and physical connection to the public domain.
Clause 5.4(e) requires all balconies to be a combination of projected
and enclosed forms whereas this is not a requirement of SEPP 65.
Response: Part 3 of SEPP 65 provides great detail on the design and
incorporation of balconies with apartments. It is therefore reasonable to delete
this provision and rely on SEPP 65 controls.
f) Clause 5.5 be deleted as this is a provision
for which DCPs should not mandate uses. Furthermore, the ability to achieve
mixed use on parts of the site is affected by flood levels.
Response: Clause 5.5 of the draft DCP does not mandate Mixed Use
development. It provides controls for which are matters for consideration where
mixed use is zoned for and provided for in a development application. The
consideration in the DCP is to
ensure that where mixed use can occur, that it be done with active street
frontages, provide adequate access for residents of apartments and is designed
with intention to facilitate pedestrian movement and access.
g) That the landscape requirement for
the mixed use zone be reconsidered as a 40% area may not be achieved given the
area is narrow.
Response: The key control which is of most importance relates to deep
soil zones to ensure some substantial plantings and growth. The draft DCP for
h) That visitor or limited street
parking be provided at grade in recognition that the land slopes.
Response: Council’s draft Parramatta DCP does not mandate basement car
parking although in development like this, it is preferable. The site specific
DCP for
i) Delete reference to the requirement that as
part of this development, Morton Street will be widened to be consistent with
Broughton Street.
Response: This road widening requirement is an error. Any widening of
the road is dependent only on the Council depot site being redeveloped. Any
redevelopment of
j) Clause 5.7 implies that all entrances to
development need to front the foreshore road. Planning for flooding may affect
this.
Response: It is considered that a merit assessment of this issue is more
appropriate. It is a desirable outcome that new development front the public
domain to improve passive surveillance and for buildings to provide a visual
and physical connection to the public domain.
k) Clarify the specifications relating
to the width of the verge for Morton Street.
Response: This provision should be clear by stating that a 3 metre
footpath plus a 3 metre grass verge is required.
Draft Voluntary
Planning Agreement
Issues raised by submissions
The majority of submissions received to the public
exhibition relate to the Planning Proposal and draft DCP controls for
§ There is no need for a pedestrian bridge.
§ The proposed location of the pedestrian bridge is impractical.
§ The costs of the proposed pedestrian bridge are insufficient.
Response
Under the draft VPA, the proponent proposes to make a
financial contribution towards a pedestrian bridge across the
The detailed design and exact location of the pedestrian bridge will be determined at a future date corresponding to the staged development of the site. The construction of the bridge will require a separate approval. The purpose of the draft VPA sets out the commitment of both the proponent and Council to deliver it. The contribution from the proponent ($1.75 million) will not pay for the full construction cost of approximately $3 million and Council will need to fund part of the work itself. However, Council has determined that it is willing to enter into the VPA on this basis.
Other comments
relating to the draft VPA
The draft VPA as exhibited reflects a negotiated outcome based on principles endorsed by Council and generally agreed by the proponent. However, there are several matters that need to addressed in the final drafting. These are indicated below:
§ The security from the proponent in respect of commitments.
§ The calculation formula used for indexation of cash payments.
§ Details of the transfer of a section of road in Morton Street.
§ Negotiating a Section 94A payment for floor space if achieved in excess of the maximum FSR.
These aspects will addressed by Council’s Legal Counsel and the proponents to finalise the VPA.
Summary and
conclusion
Council has received a number of public submissions concerned about the proposal and the extent of development proposed. Most submissions are concerned that the proposal will change the character of the area and does not complement the existing character. Concerns about traffic management and design of buildings will require full assessment at development application stage, based on detailed plans and information provided by the applicant and with further community consultation.
It is recommended that Council adopt the proposal in support
of its long-term strategy to increase residential housing on the edge of the
Parramatta
a) The finalisation of the draft VPA as described in this report.
b) That Council amend the Planning Proposal to allow a maximum FSR of 1.3:1 as discussed in this report.
c) That the portion of land for Waterway purposes be reduced as shown in Attachment 4.
d) That a clause be introduced into the LEP amendment(s) for the Planning Proposal that enables the whole of the site to be considered when calculating FSR.
e) That the extent of area set aside for open space correlate to the area of land to be dedicated under the VPA.
f) That a more detailed traffic study be prepared for any future development application as outlined by Council’s Traffic and Transport unit.
g) That Council make a series of amendments to
the draft DCP for
§ introduce a control in the
draft DCP to address
design requirements in relation flood prone areas as discussed in this report.
§ require car sharing schemes to apply to this
development.
§ That the wording of clause 3.2 be amended to
reiterate Council’s preference for tower elements to be located closer to the
interface of the foreshore land.
§ Delete the reference to clause 5.1 which
require requires a certain roof pitch where there are buildings with varying
height limits.
§ That the depth of building be measured from
glass line to glass line.
§ Delete clause 5.4 (e) relating to enclosed
and projected balconies.
§ Remove the 40% landscape requirement and
allow for landscaping controls to be a merit assessment with an emphasis on
deep soil planting within the Mixed Use zone.
§ That car parking requirements be amended to
be consistent with the draft Parramatta DCP 2010.
§ That reference to road widening requirement
for Morton Street be deleted.
§ That the specifications for width of the
road verge for Morton Street be a 3 metre footpath plus a 3 metre grassed
verge.