|
Previous Council Report |
|
Item 7.1 - Attachment 1 |
Previous Council Report |
ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT
ITEM NUMBER 9.4
SUBJECT Results of public
exhibition of Planning Proposal, Draft DCP and Draft Voluntary Planning
Agreement for 2 Morton Street Parramatta
REFERENCE F2010/01017 - D01724670
REPORT
OF Project Officer-Land Use.Land Use & Transport Planning
|
PURPOSE: To report to Council the results of the public
exhibition of the Planning Proposal, Draft DCP and Draft Voluntary Planning
Agreement at 2 Morton Street Parramatta and seek Council’s endorsement to
finalise these plans. |
|
(a) That Council consider
all submissions received and adopt the Planning Proposal for 2 Morton Street,
Parramatta subject to the following variations as enabled by Section 58 of
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979: 1) That
the Floor Space Ratio be increased from 1.2:1 to 1.3:1. 2) That the portion of the site to be zoned
Waterway be reduced to that area as shown in Attachment 4. 3) That
a clause be introduced into the Planning Proposal that for the purposes of calculating FSR, the
whole of the site area be included. (b) That Council adopt the draft VPA subject
to the finalisation of the legal drafting, including the matters raised in
this report. (c) That upon signing of the Voluntary Planning
Agreement, the Planning Proposal as amended be forwarded to the Department of
Planning in accordance with Section 59 of Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 and that the Director General make arrangements for the
legal drafting of the required LEP amendment. (d) That
subject to the signing of the Voluntary Planning Agreement, the draft
Parramatta Local Environmental Plan 2010 be amended, prior to its
finalisation to include the outcomes of the Planning Proposal. (e) That Council not carry out a public
hearing in respect of the Planning Proposal and the submitters requesting
this be notified accordingly. (f) That Council adopt the site
specific draft Development Control Plan (DCP) for 2 Morton Street, subject to
the following amendments, with the DCP to become effective at the date
corresponding to the making of the LEP amendment giving effect to the
proposal: 1. That the provision contained in draft
Parramatta DCP 2010 with respect to car sharing scheme also apply to this
site specific DCP. 2. That assessment criteria be included in the draft DCP to enable the proper
assessment of a development application which proposes development at or
adjoining the 1 in 100 year flood line. 3. 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. 4. Delete reference to clause 5.1. 5. That the depth of buildings be measured
from glass line to glass line. 6. Delete clause 5.4 (e). 7. 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. 8. That car parking requirements be amended
to be consistent with the draft Parramatta DCP 2010. 9. That reference to road widening requirement
for Morton Street be deleted. 10. That the specifications for width of the
road verge for Morton Street be a 3 metre footpath plus a 3 metre grassed
verge. g) Further, that all persons who made
submissions be notified of the outcome. |
BACKGROUND
1. On 1 October 2009, the landowner of
2. Council,
on 19 October 2009, adopted the Planning Proposal for public exhibition,
subject to it being exhibited concurrently with a draft Voluntary Planning
Agreement (VPA) and site specific draft Development Control Plan (DCP). As
required by the Act, the NSW Department of Planning (DoP) considered the
proposal and authorised the public exhibition by issuing ‘Gateway’
determination in December 2009 and updated that authorisation in February 2010.
3. On
14 April 2010 Council endorsed a draft Voluntary Planning Agreement, provided
certain conditions were part of that agreement, including an increase in the
financial contribution from the proponent to the construction of a pedestrian
bridge over the
4. Council received 51 written submissions in
response to the public exhibition. This included a submission containing a
petition containing 117 signatures objecting to the proposal. A summary of the
comments made in submissions are contained in Attachment 3. Council also received 2 submissions which requested
that it hold a public hearing on particular issues raised in those submissions.
5. 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.
6. The
issues raised in the submissions 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.
RELATIONSHIP TO DRAFT
7. The proposed rezoning of the
land at
8. The
proponent, as provided for by the Act, is seeking the rezoning separately as a
Planning Proposal to be considered independently of Council’s draft principal
LEP. However, ultimately, the outcomes of the planning controls for
ISSUES
9. The
main concerns expressed in submissions relate to:
a) Increased traffic caused by
the new development.
b) The proposal will change the
character of this area from a low/medium density area to high density.
c) The proposal will affect the
environmental and heritage values of the foreshore.
d) Will increase flood risks.
e) Existing infrastructure is
inadequate.
f) Lack of consultation.
g) The building heights are
excessive.
10. Council’s
Residential Development Strategy has identified this site and the immediate
area for increased residential housing. The reasoning for this is that is more
sustainable in the long term to accommodate a growing population by
concentrating future residential housing in locations with good access to
public transport, open space, community services, open space and schools. 2
Morton Street is within close proximity to the Parramatta CBD and the
University of Western Sydney as well as access to bus services and an active
foreshore. This makes it a desirable location in comparison to other locations
that does not enjoy the same level of access.
11. The purpose of a Planning Proposal is to
determine the suitability of the site to be rezoned for a particular purpose.
To support the Planning Proposal and give an outline of what that the
development form may look like, additional controls have been prepared in the
form of a draft DCP and draft VPA that provides further public benefits to the
wider community.
12. The Planning Proposal identifies certain issues
and constraints that impact on the development of the site. These issues will
be further investigated and resolved at the time a development application is
lodged. This process involves much more precise details about the look, feel
and design of the development and will be measured against strict criteria.
This process will also involve its own consultation phase for which the
community will have further opportunity to voice their concerns.
CONCLUSION
13. It is recommended that Council adopt the Planning Proposal,
the draft DCP and draft VPA subject to modifications, as specified in the
detailed report found at Attachment 1. However, as a pre requisite, that the
draft VPA be signed by both parties prior to the Planning Proposal proceeding
to the NSW Department of Planning for finalisation.
Project
Officer
Senior Project Officer
Land Use
Planning
Land Use Planning
|
Attachment 1 - Detailed report on Planning
Proposal, Draft DCP and Draft VPA for 2 Morton Street, Parramatta |
16 Pages |
|
|
|
Attachment 2 - Planning proposal, Draft DCP
and VPA as exhibited |
72 Pages |
|
|
|
Attachment 3 - Summary of submissions |
19 Pages |
|
|
|
Attachment 4 - Variation to land to be zone
waterways |
1 Page |
|
|
|
Attachment 5 - Draft SMCMA Vegetation Map |
1 Page |
|
REFERENCE MATERIAL
|
Previous Council Report |
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 2 Morton
Street will be dedicated to Council, the proponent is seeking a clause to
ensure that the FSR is calculated using the whole site area prior to
dedication.
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.
|
Item 7.1 - Attachment 1 |
Previous Council Report |
|
Property Address |
Contents of submission |
|
|
1 |
|
§ Foreshore is sacred and should be
protected. § The foreshore has a heritage value. § Concerned that the development will
encroach the river and effect important wetlands. § There is a lack of public transport in the
area. § This proposal is penalising existing
residents. |
|
2 |
|
§ Development is out of character with the
area. § Concerned by the development and the likely
flooding impacts. § The area is already affected by traffic
congestion. Traffic from James Ruse Drive will be backed up creating serious
problems. This is also an issue in Thomas and Macarthur Street. § The size and height of the proposed
development is excessive. § Opening Harvey Street or New Zealand Street
will create further traffic problems. |
|
3 |
|
§ Lack of public consultation and the
available information supplied by Council is inadequate. A proposal of this
scale should incorporate a public display. § The proposal in its current form is out of
character with the adjoining area and will greatly impact on existing
residents. There is currently no high density development in this location. § Height of buildings proposed is excessive
causing significant visual impacts. Submitter provides details of the reduced
levels (RL’s) for the area and holds the view that the buildings will dwarf
everything in its surrounds. § Council should look to protect some parts
of the river from buildings. § This area is not a gateway to Parramatta.
The gateway begins further downstream. Beautifying this area is of more
importance. § Area contains a floodplain and should not
be filled as a consequence of the proposed development. § The staging of this development will effect
parking provisions. This has not been addressed. § Proposed road extension to New Zealand and
Harvey Street does not clarify issues of acquisition. Submitter assumes these
are long-term ideas that may never eventuate. § The traffic study has errors and therefore
its reliability should be questioned. § Proposal may affect Council’s depot activities. § The location of the footbridge with Noller
Parade is impractical. The clearance and excessive ramp required means it
will never be built. Council should reconsider the cost of this footbridge. § Concerned by the impacts on an area already
congested with traffic in peak periods. |
|
4 |
n/a |
The residents of the community have signed
a petition (containing 117 signatures) opposing the proposed development of § Scale of the proposed development will impact
negatively on the local community § The increased traffic and pedestrian
movement through local streets. § The current low-density skyline will be
dominated by the proposed height of the unit development. Two towers of 10-12
storeys will be part of this development with the other units consisting of
6-8 storeys. § The development is out of context and out
of character with the existing neighbourhood § The proposal to open up Harvey Street and
New Zealand Street to allow access to the site is inappropriate. |
|
5 |
|
§ Why is there a necessity to amend the
current Parramatta LEP 2001 when Council has prepared and is working on draft
Parramatta LEP 2010. The community should be provided with reason why the
Council has departed from the protocols of complying with the standard LEP.
Submitter recommends that a decision on this matter be deferred until after
the making of draft Parramatta LEP 2010. § If the Planning Proposal sets a maximum FSR
then the developer should adhere to this ratio. § The Planning Proposal is underpinned by the
intent to construct the West Metro. Now this link is cancelled, Council
should place more emphasis on transport solutions. § The predominance of 1-bedroom dwellings is
not the most efficient manner for Council achieving its planning targets. The
area needs to provide more housing for families and provide an adequate
social mix. The submitter recommends that Council impose controls requiring a
greater mix of 2 and 3 bedroom units § Development should be built to the highest
environmental standards § The impact of car usage is a concern.
Council should look to introduce through its DCP a car share scheme as part
of the development. § The traffic analysis does not take into
account any realistic traffic increase surrounding the study area. The draft
LEP foreshadows significant growth as described by the Elizabeth Street
structure plan. It is almost certain that this growth will be greater than
the 1.5% increase in traffic movements modelled in the traffic study § That because Thomas Street only has
marginal connection to James Ruse Drive then it should not be considered a
Collector Road but a local road. As a result, the traffic projections
proposed will result in this road being over used. § The traffic study should provide more
detail on the impacts on intersections such as at Macarthur and Thomas
Street. |
|
6 |
|
§ The rezoning is contrary to its immediate
surrounding which are mostly family homes. § High density living encourages more
transient (non-permanent residents).This has impacts on the neighbourhood. § The development will not
result in improvements to the urban environment. § Such development on the
edge of the river is unattractive for visitors coming to Parramatta by ferry. § Mixed-use development is
unnecessary due to the proximity of the Parramatta CBD. § The general area is
already choked with parked vehicles. Further traffic introduced by the new
development will create further problems. |
|
7 |
|
§ The rezoning is contrary to its immediate
surrounding which are mostly family homes. § High density living encourages more
transient (non-permanent residents).This has impacts on the neighbourhood. § The development will not
result in improvements to the urban environment. § Such development on the
edge of the river is unattractive for visitors coming to Parramatta by ferry. § Mixed-use development is
unnecessary due to the proximity of the Parramatta CBD. § The general area is
already choked with parked vehicles. Further traffic introduced by the new
development will create further problems. |
|
8 |
14 Noller Parade, |
§ Wants more assurances that the
redevelopment will result in the protection of the riverfront which has been neglected over a long period
of time. § Interested in high quality development.
Although the height of the development may be of concern, preference is for
good design. § Unsure how the extension of other local
roads will be achieved. § Would like the Council depot site cleaned up
and possibly returned as foreshore. § The development and details of a footbridge
should be approved before this development proceeds. Such a footbridge should
be funded by the developer. § More clarification is needed in terms of
how resident concerns will be alleviated. |
|
9 |
3 Noller Parade, |
§ The height of the proposed towers is
excessive. § Will be an intrusion of privacy. § Decreased sunlight to surrounding houses. § The footbridge is not wanted. |
|
10 |
|
§ The extent of residential development
(possibly 600 units) on this site is unreasonable given the increase in
vehicles it will generate. § The exiting of residents from this
development onto major roads, i.e. - Victoria Road is unsafe. § If this development is to proceed, the
developer should be required to fund a major improvement to vehicle access
between Thomas Street and James Ruse Drive. § The proposed 12-storey height limit in
relative terms is higher than all other buildings. |
|
11 |
|
§ The proposal would create overshadowing of
the public foreshore therefore damaging the natural wetland environment. § The height of the proposed buildings will
overshadow houses to the south who will lose access to solar energy. § There is insufficient traffic or public
transport infrastructure to cater for this increase in development. It will
create traffic problems on already inadequate roads. § The proposal will detract from heritage
sites in the immediate vicinity. The attractions to both tourists and locals
will be destroyed by an overpowering skyline. |
|
12 |
|
§ The probable height (10-12 storeys) is
totally out of character for this urban area. If they were to be there at
all, a reduction to six storeys would be a little more reasonable. § The increase in traffic and already heavy
flows may force traffic onto Gore Street and will affect the intersection of
Macarthur and Thomas Streets. § The traffic impacts could make living in
this area uncomfortable. |
|
13 |
1 Noller Parade, |
§ The proposal is an overdevelopment of the
site. § It will impact on the whole of Parramatta
City and its surrounds, particularly on its infrastructure, transport and
environment. § In comparison to the development proposed,
the existing industrial development could be considered low impact. § Will affect permanently all residents on
either side of the river. § The building height will affect people’s
privacy and impact on views and vistas. § The location of this development is
insensitive to heritage aspects of Queens Wharf and Noller Parade. § That a public hearing be held on the issues
raised in this submission. |
|
14 |
|
§ Such a large development is totally out of
keeping with the area, which is mostly one and two level detached houses,
with some slightly taller townhouses. § The development will generate increase in
noise, traffic and parking. § This proposed development is the equivalent
of several streets worth of occupants. § The proposed development does not consider
the heritage value of the area. § This area is not the Parramatta |
|
15 |
|
§ The proposed development will affect what
little area of historic foreshore is left along the Parramatta River. This
foreshore is integral to both Indigenous and European heritage. § The proposed development site must be
preserved as riverbank and left intact for thew future. § Such density should not be built on a
natural and sensitive site. § High-rise buildings are completely out of
character with the local suburban neighbourhood. § The site is a flood area with a history of
flooding. Buildings and hard surfaces will decrease the ability for land to
absorb rainfall and greatly increase runoff. § The proposed development and increased
population will place a great strain on the local road system. § The idea to extend Harvey Street is
impractical, particularly as the street is so narrow and would require the
demolition of the Aged Care Facility. Opening this road and New Zealand
Street will add further congestion to main arterial roads such as Macarthur
Street. § The building footprints and heights will
have a negative visual impact on the natural appearance of the foreshore. § Locating taller buildings near or along the
riverbank will interfere with river breezes from the east. |
|
16 |
|
This submission represents the views of 5
people who reside in these two properties. § The site is not within walking distance to
Parramatta Railways Station. Train travel is not a valid option. § The frequency of trains is too low. Major
infrastructure projects are long term and are unlikely to be funded. § The distance to bus stops is more than 10
minutes with bus travelling speeds to low to make it an attractive option. § Car travel is the most preferred and
convenient way to get to work. The proposed development is located within a
“pocket” with limited access point to major roads. These major roads are
already over their capacity. § New development does not integrate with
existing landscape character. This development conflicts with Council’s
design principles that new development must fit within the existing landscape
character and be sensitive to site attributes. § The development will impair the rights of
local residents. Views from Broughton Street will be destroyed. § If the site is to be redeveloped, it should
be houses, townhouses and 3-4 storey unit blocks. § The building setback in the draft DCP for
Morton Street of 3 metres conflicts with Council’s current DCP 2005 which
requires houses to be setback 5-9 metres. The DCP also limits development to
six storeys for which this proposal contravenes. § Unemployment will rise significantly after
the development. There are not enough jobs in the area to accommodate the new
population. § The University of Western Sydney will be
affected by immigration policies, which will see a drop in overseas students.
Therefore, the need for rental accommodation to take advantage of the close
proximity to the University is overstated. § This area is flood affected. We would like
to see more details on the possible affects on flooding as a result of this
proposal. |
|
17 |
|
§ Homes in surrounding streets with views
will be deprived of such views in the future. § Will create traffic problems in Thomas
Street and at the intersection of James Ruse Drive. § It is wrong that anyone can take over or
decide to widen local streets to allow access for noisy trucks going to and
from this building site. § The site could be made into a wonderful
park for local residents. § This project is much out of character with
the area. |
|
18 |
|
§ Scale of the proposed development will
impact negatively on the local community. § The proposal will increase the amount of
traffic and pedestrian movement in local streets. § The current low-density skyline will be
dominated by the proposed height of the unit development. Two towers of 10-12
storeys will be part of this development with the other units consisting of
6-8 storeys. § The development is out of context and out
of character with the existing neighbourhood. § Does not support the proposal to open up Harvey Street and
New Zealand Street to allow access to the site. |
|
19 |
|
§ The rezoning proposal is not consistent
with the zoning in the immediate and surrounding area. The predominant zoning
for this area is low-rise housing consisting of single and two storey
dwellings. § The proposal for development up to 34
metres is completely foreign to the area. This is an intrusion. This height
level contradicts the draft LEP and DCP because the proposed development
should enhance and reinforce the character of the locality. § The area is predominately a natural environment.
This natural area will change if the proposed development proceeds. It will
have a visual impact and change the aesthetics of the area. § The proposed development will change the
noise and pollution levels in the area. § Morton Street and other local streets are
classified local roads. These streets should carry only low volumes of
traffic (less than 2000 vehicles per day). The proposed development will
cause traffic congestion decreasing the safety and property value of home
owners. § There is not enough space or infrastructure
to cope with the influx of people and traffic. § The extension of the bike path and over
pass to the river should be issues that Parramatta Council deal with
regardless of this development. § This proposal will affect local businesses
in the area. § The proposed development will remove
industrial land which is needed for employment purposes. |
|
20 |
|
§ The rezoning proposal is not consistent
with the zoning in its immediate and surrounding area. The predominant zoning
for this area is low-rise housing consisting of single and two storey
dwellings. § The proposal for development up to 34
metres is foreign to the area. This is an intrusion. This height level
contradicts the draft LEP and DCP because the proposed development should
enhance and reinforce the character of the locality. § The area is predominately a natural
environment. This natural area will change if the proposed development
proceeds. It will have a visual impact and change the aesthetics of the area. § The proposed development will change the
noise and pollution levels in the area. § Morton Street and other local streets are
classified local roads. These streets should carry only low volumes of
traffic (less than 2000 vehicles per day). The proposed development will
cause traffic congestion decreasing the safety and property value of home
owners. § There is not enough space or infrastructure
to cope with the influx of people and traffic. § The extension of the bike path and over
pass to the river should be issues that Parramatta Council deal with
regardless of this development. § This proposal will affect local businesses
in the area. § The proposed development will remove
industrial land which is needed for employment purposes. |
|
21 |
|
§ Significant development at 2 Morton Street,
Parramatta would result in unacceptable levels of vehicular traffic on local
narrow roads, given the area is poorly serviced by public transport. § Completion of the cycleway/walkway along
the Parramatta River should be a high priority in addition to reducing
traffic hazards. § The area surrounding 2 Morton Street is
flood prone. No development should take place below the 1 in 100-year flood
level due to the risks to people and property. Further, the area designated
as prone to high risk flooding related to the site is significantly reduced. § The proposal for 2 Morton Street is a
massive overdevelopment. Past surveys reveal residents' interest in
preserving the look and feel of the neighbourhood. Residents would like to
maintain the amenity of the area by restricting zoning to medium density.
This restriction in zone should also apply to the industrial area, including
Council's depot. § The DCP's depiction of traffic pathways to
and from 2 Morton Street, Parramatta are misleading. There is no requirement
for the developer or Council to provide these means of access. All this does
is provide evidence that the current roads and access are inadequate. |
|
22 |
|
This submission represents the views of 2
people who reside in these two properties. § Was not notified about the proposed
development. § When purchasing their house the submitter
was told this area was low density. § Does not want high density across the
street, because it would create noisy crowds. § This development will tower over their
property. This makes the submitter uncomfortable. § It will create more traffic in the area
which is hazardous and dangerous. |
|
23 |
|
§ The area only consists of low-density
housing. It was only meant to have this type of housing. § Not pleased that they were not notified
earlier about this proposal. § The submitter likes living in this area
because of the peace and quiet. The submitter will lose their views of the
river and foreshore. § This proposed development will make this
area very busy, loud and increase traffic. § This proposed development is not right for
any community living here and will not be supported by the community. |
|
24 |
|
§ The proposed development will increase
traffic and pedestrian movements through local streets. With more than 600
units proposed, the traffic turning onto Macarthur Street from Thomas Street
already takes a few minutes. The proposed development, especially in peak
times will make this worse. § The current low density skyline will be
dominated by the proposed buildings. § The development is out of context and
character with the existing neighbourhood. |
|
25 |
|
§ The proposed development will adversely
impact on the local community, which the proposal fails to consider. § Our local community is a low/medium density
area with dwellings no more than 2 storeys. High-rise development is totally
out of character with the existing neighbourhood. § The proposed development will result in a
large increase in the number of people and vehicles. This will make it more
dangerous for pedestrians, especially young children and elderly people. § The submitters house, which is across the
road from the proposed development will be overshadowed and overlooked on. It
will affect their access to sunlight and their privacy will be violated. It
will change the lifestyle they currently enjoy. § It is unfair to the community who did not
choose to live in a high-density area. § This location provides the community with
a nice and quiet living environment with easy access to the CBD. § This proposal may put at risk the
environment and waterways especially from the affects of pollution and
rubbish. |
|
26 |
|
§ High-density residential development is
totally out of character with the surrounding suburban precinct. § Surrounding streets are already suffering
adversely from increased traffic flows and demand for parking. § Oppose the 10-12 storey height limits. Land
to the west and south west of the Parramatta CBD already allow for this style
of development. Believe that east Parramatta should be preserved as a more
traditional suburban precinct. |
|
27 |
|
§ The 40-metre building height limit will
have a negative visual impact over the surrounding residential area which are
a maximum of two storeys. These proposed buildings will be visible from
Victoria Road and are considered out of character with the location. § It is not possible to extend Harvey Street
through to Morton Street. There is no consideration given to property
acquisition to deal with this issue and nor should Council compulsorily
acquire any land. § The surrounding streets are not capable of
carrying more traffic. While the traffic study relies on RTA standards, they
have not applied those standards consistently. The traffic study does not
consider the congestion in Thomas Street caused by parents and students of
the local high school. It also doesn’t consider the 40km speed limit in peak
periods. § Other local roads are not designed for
higher levels of traffic. The study also relies on the sites proximity to the
West Metro Station which is no longer a priority. § The only public transport is the Parramatta
Railway hub. For this to be within easy walking distance will require the
proposed pedestrian bridge to be built. § A more realistic limit needs to be placed
on the development than what is proposed. The proposed 640 units will place
an onerous strain on all residents of the surrounding areas and unfairly
burden them with visual affects. |
|
28 |
|
§ Concerned by the lack of notification given
to residents about this development proposal. There is a lack of information
and each resident should have been notified in writing. § The submitter bought in this area because
it contained low-density housing. Does not support any changes to it,
especially the extent of change proposed with this development. § This site will be 4 times taller than any
other building in the vicinity. It would dominate the skyline and detract
from the quality of the foreshore. § The independent study makes an error by
stating that Morton Street is open from Victoria Road. This is not the case.
It was closed because it was dangerous for vehicles to enter Victoria Road on
a blind corner. § How are existing residents going to benefit
from high density living, increased traffic and pressures on already
stretched infrastructure. |
|
29 |
|
§ The area is made up of single dwellings and
some townhouses. The proposed development with between 580- 673 dwellings
would have a major impact on this community. § The proposal will cause major problems
during construction with the amount of equipment and transportation needed. § The local streets are not wide enough to
cope with the increased traffic generated. § Parking will be difficult for local
residents because of CBD workers parking in the area. It is unlikely that
each of the proposed dwellings will have provision for one or more parking
space within a car park. § The possible opening up of Harvey Street
and New Zealand Street through to Morton Street could be a hazard. These
streets are narrow and will increase the risk of accidents. § Traffic cutting through to and from
Victoria Road will affect traffic flow along Gore, Pemberton and Wandsworth
Street. § Daily noise levels will increase due to the
proposed development. § Parramatta’s heritage and historical
significance would not benefit from 10-12 storey towers. § There could be social impacts and problems
caused by 1000 new people being introduced to this small area. § There is no community services and public
transport to serve the area. § Local residents buy and rent in this area
in good faith that the character will not change dramatically. The proposed development will adversely
affect the value of homes. |
|
30 |
n/a |
§ Surprised by the scale of the buildings
proposed. § There is abundant housing currently
available in the area (Harris Park, Granville, Westmead, inner City
Parramatta). § The proposed development will devalue the
current neighbourhood. § It would be only reasonable to have a
maximum of four storey buildings across this area. This will help reduce the
negative impacts from increased traffic and noise. |
|
31 |
|
§ Does not support Harvey Street being opened
because most people in this street are seniors. There is light traffic and we
feel safe because of this. § Opposite Harvey Street is Macarthur Girls
High School. Heavy traffic will have negative effects on students at the
school. § Gasworks bridge is a heritage item, No
reason to increase traffic over this bridge. It may be better to build a new
bridge to cope with this traffic. |
|
32 |
|
§ The proposal to open Harvey Street to allow
access to the site is a problem. Harvey Street is only 7 metres wide; two
cars cannot pass each other without one pulling over to stop. Garbage trucks
cannot turn in this street. § During construction the traffic from
cranes, cars, work trucks will be dangerous to residents and school children. § If Harvey Street is opened, then it will be
used as a thoroughfare on a permanent basis. § The proposed development is out of context
and character with the surrounding neighbourhood. It will have a negative
impact on the history of this City. |
|
33 |
|
§ The proposal to open Harvey Street to allow
access to the site is a problem. Harvey Street is only 7 metres wide; two
cars cannot pass each other without one pulling over to stop. Garbage trucks
cannot turn in this street. § During construction the traffic from
cranes, cars, work trucks will be dangerous to residents and school children. § If Harvey Street is opened, then it will be
used as a thoroughfare on a permanent basis. The proposed development is out
of context and character with the surrounding neighbourhood. It will have a
negative impact on the history of this City.
|
|
34 |
|
§ Requests that this proposal not be
approved. § The parking of cars in front of houses and
driveways during weekdays is a problem. This proposed development will affect
our community life. |
|
35 |
|
§ There has been very little advertising of
this development and a limited timeframe in wish residents can voice their
opinions. § While it is understood the need to increase
housing in Parramatta, we do not understand why the proposed development has
to include so many apartments and be so high. § Were advised 10 years ago that this area of
Parramatta was restricted to low-density housing. § Will result in increased traffic in the
surrounding streets, particularly those with access to Victoria Road. It will
also increase the amount of cars parked in residential streets. § Would be interested in participating in a
meeting where we can voice our concerns. |
|
36 |
|
§ This proposed development of 600 units is a
lot for a small area. The roads cannot match the increased needs to cope with
this additional traffic. § Proposal will impact on the riverfront
environment. § The proposal does not match the appearance
of the current buildings. § The proposed development will result in
more noise. |
|
37 |
|
§ Proposal is totally out of character with
the existing neighbourhood. § The proposal will negatively affect
property values. § When townhouses in the area were built,
residents were assured that most parking for that development will be
available on site. This is not the case. The increase number of cars is a
direct result of these townhouses which are two storeys. The proposed 10
storeys will be far worse. § Extending New Zealand and Harvey Street
will affect this quiet neighbourhood. It will increase traffic to a level for
which it cannot cope with. As it is cars cannot travel along these streets as
they are narrow. § Surrounding dwellings will have their
privacy taken away. § The size and concentration as proposed is
out of character. Two storeys would be more appropriate. |
|
38 |
Not provided |
§ Concerned with the proposed size and height
of the proposed development § The proposal will increase traffic and
noise and affect people’s safety. It will also cause pollution. § This development will place strain on
existing infrastructure such as local health, community and education
services. § There are no buses servicing this street. § Any proposal above two/three storeys is out
of character with the neighbourhood. |
|
39 |
Not provided |
§ Concerned with the proposed size and height
of the potential development. § The proposal will increase traffic and
noise and affect people’s safety. It will also cause pollution. § This development will place strain on
existing infrastructure such as local health, community and education
services. § A redevelopment like this should be
accompanied by submissions from all appropriate government departments,
outlining how they will provide services for the increased number of
residents. |
|
40 |
|
§ Proposal will have a detrimental impact on
the community living in surrounding areas. § This type of development is not required in
those areas where only small dwellings exist. § Infrastructure is not capable of handling
this development. |
|
41 |
|
§ Buildings of high-density accommodation
being built as opposed to low or medium density accommodation will change the
character of the area. § This proposed development will lead to
increased traffic. It will disrupt the peace and quiet of the area and make
the streets less safe for children and the elderly. |
|
42 |
|
§ The Department of Planning’s assessment is
not correct in saying that this proposal is low impact. The proposal is for
high-density development which is out of character with existing development
and presents significant issues with regard to public transport and public
transport. § The traffic assessment does not accurately
describe the current situation. Morton Street does not have access to
Victoria Road, Bus Route 547 is a limited service and route 524 provides only
one service after 5:30pm, § The traffic study fails to take traffic
counts for two streets (Wandsworth and Gore) and therefore underestimates
existing peak volumes. § Photographic evidence in the traffic study
was taken outside of peak periods. § The traffic study only provides traffic counts
over one day. § Peak times start before 7am and restart at
3pm and not 4pm. § The recommendation that Harvey and New
Zealand Street be opened to accommodate additional vehicles is misconceived.
These streets are narrow with only enough room for one lane. § It is requested that a public hearing be
held on the above issues. |
|
43 |
8 Noller Parade, |
§ The proposal at 2 Morton Street is
considered to be completely outside existing development in the area. It will
result in high-rise development dominating the area and adding to the
deterioration of the area in general. § High-rise development often leads to a loss
of community spirit and general pride in ones surroundings. § The proposal contains errors of fact or
omission that questions the resources that have and will be devoted to any
implementation. § There are a number of major road changes
(extension of Harvey and New Zealand Streets). What has not been clarified is
the issue of who is responsible to fund acquisition of properties required to
implement this. § Morton Street does not have vehicular
access to Victoria Road as described by the traffic study. § Thomas Street is a not a Collector road. It
is restricted to a 50km speed limit. It appears to change in classification
which reverses previous experience. § The statement in the traffic study about
the direction and alignment of Pemberton and Broughton Street is incorrect. § The site is on or close to the Parramatta
floodplain. It ought to include a reference to the adopted PMF in this location.
The effects on the flood level could have impacts for properties upstream and
opposite the right bank. § There is no mention in the document of the
proposed height of the various structures proposed. Some indication would
give an idea as to the visual impact on the environment. § The proposal will have a major visual
impact on the landscape and as such will be of concern to present residents
over a wide area. § The developer will be required to undertake
some road work on the left bank between the proposed development and the
river. The description of this road is vague and does not specify the affect
on the existing river and the mangrove stand that protects the bank. § The proposed location of a footbridge
across the river cannot be implemented. It would require an extensive access
ramp to enable erection of the footbridge with sufficient clearance to
conform with existing structures. § Reference to the proposal for the provision
of a road, bike and walking path located between the development site and the
river makes no reference to their possible effect on flooding. These
structures will have to extend above the natural surface thereby decreasing
the available channel. § Ignoring flood level data would be a
dereliction of responsibility of all parties. Building structures in a flood
plain must consider the effect that such structures will have by way of
afflux on existing structures pre-existing on the flood plain. |
|
44 |
|
§ High-rise development together with mixed
use will be an attractive addition to this area. We believe this whole part
of the City would benefit greatly by increasing the density. The foreshore
open space will be a welcome addition to the riverbank and enhance the
amenity of the area. |
|
45 |
|
§ This area is subject to flooding. Submitter
recalls flooding that has occurred in the past that had major impacts. § The size of the proposed development will
create an adverse situation. § The increase in traffic will cause problems
in Thomas Street and Macarthur Street which already has traffic jams. § Opening Harvey Street and New Zealand
Street will impact on the flow of traffic again onto Macarthur Street. § The increase in the number of people will
affect the peace and quiet feel of this neighbourhood. § The residential towers to be built are too
high for this area. The skyline will be dominated by high-rise. This is out
of keeping with the neighbourhood. The existing character of the area has not
been considered. § Traffic will be congested to James Ruse
Drive creating significant problems. Traffic along Grandview Street will also
be affected. § This proposal should be given a lot more
thought especially regarding flooding, increased traffic, suitability to
surrounding area and appearance. |
|
46 |
86 |
§ The area around Morton Street contains
mostly homes. High-density living will change this quiet area that families
have lived in for over 30 years. § The adjacent streets are busying during the
working week. § Shops, commercial businesses would further
congest the area. § The surrounding houses would be subjected
to increased noise with shops bringing unnecessary weekend and late night
noise and traffic. § Thomas Street is a popular cycle route.
High-density housing and more traffic will make cycling on Thomas Street less
safe. § During the working week, streets are
clogged with cars. These cars block access to driveways and make it difficult
to enter and leave properties. More development will make this problem worse. |
|
47 |
|
§ There are currently only two roads leading
to Pemberton Street and Morton Street. These streets are very small and will
not be able to hold the extra hundreds of cars belonging to new residence. § The influx of new residence means
congestion is inevitable. There is also a school close by. These small
streets are used to pick up young children. More vehicles around will
increase the chance of more accidents. § High-rise will affect people’s privacy.
Concerned that residence in the high rise buildings will be able to look
straight down onto houses, backyards and through any open windows. § The high rise will cast a shadow on houses
for half the day. § The Parramatta River is beautiful, but if
the high-rise plan goes ahead, it will not only result in damage to the
natural fauna and flora in the area. It will also affect any views to the
river. § When the home in Broughton Street was
purchased, there have were no plans of development on that land. § It would be a good idea for some
development but it would be more suitable for houses, duplex’s or townhouses. |
|
48 |
|
§ For information on the content of the
proponent’s submission refer to Attachment 1. |
|
59 |
NSW Roads and Traffic Authority |
§ No objection is raised to the Planning
Proposal subject to the following requirements: a) The
RTA be consulted during the preparation of the VPA. b) Any
future development applications (DA’s) provide a masterplan, which identifies
the development impacts on the surrounding network. c) The
masterplan will require the submission of a full traffic impact assessment. |
|
50 |
Department of Environment, Climate Change
and Water |
§ The site contains salt marsh vegetation.
This is an endangered ecological community. The salt marsh are appears to be
located where the tower elements are proposed. § The environment protection layer is
supported, as it will require the consent authority to demonstrate how
environmental impacts have been considered and ameliorated. |
|
51 |
NSW Transport and Infrastructure |
§ The proposal is generally consistent with
the intentions of the draft West Central Subregional strategy. § The site is close to both the Parramatta
CBD and Strategic Bus Corridor 10 (Parramatta to City, via Ryde) on Victoria
Road. § Given the sites significant development
potential, a holistic transport assessment be undertaken. § Appropriate development controls including
minimal car parking rates to maximise walking and cycling should be
considered. § Specific opportunities to provide and improve
pedestrian and cycling links to the Parramatta CBD and to bus services on
both sides of Victoria Road be explored. § The proposal should achieve consistency
with the objectives and targets of the NSW State Plan 2010. |
|
Previous Council Report |
Attachment 4 – Variation to land to be zoned for Waterways
