m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

27 October 2014

The meeting commences at 6.30pm. If members of the public are

not interested in any business recommended to be considered in

Closed Session or there is no such business, Council will ordinarily

  commence consideration of all other business at 7pm.

 


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Councillors

 

Notice is given of the Ordinary Council Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers, 48 Longueville Road Lane Cove on Monday 27 October 2014 commencing at 7:00pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

The Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor, Councillor David Brooks-Horn. Councillors are entitled to one vote on a matter. If votes are equal, the Chairperson has a second or casting vote. When a majority of Councillors vote in favour of a Motion it becomes a decision of the Council. Minutes of Council and Committee meetings are published on Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au by 5pm on the Thursday following the meeting.

 

The Meeting is conducted in accordance with Council's Code of Meeting Practice. The order of business is listed in the Agenda on the next page. That order will be followed unless Council resolves to modify the order at the meeting. This may occur for example where the members of the public in attendance are interested in specific items on the agenda.

 

Members of the public may address the Council Meeting on any issue for a maximum of 3 minutes during the public forum which is held at the beginning of the meeting. All persons addressing the Meeting must speak to the Chair. Speakers and Councillors will not enter into general debate or ask questions.

 

If you do not understand any part of the information given above; require assistance to participate in the meeting due to a disability; or wish to obtain information in relation to Council, please contact Council’s Manager Governance on 99113525.

 

Please note meetings held in the Council Chambers are recorded on tape for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of minutes and the tapes are not disclosed to any third party under the Government Information (Public Access)  Act 2009, except as allowed under section 18(1) or section 19(1) of the PPIP Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council 27 October 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

public forum

 

Members of the public may address the Council Meeting on any issue for 3 minutes.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 13 OCTOBER 2014

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

2.       Reform of Disability Parking ........................................................................... 4

 

Petitions

 

3.       Request for Outdoor Seating by Chargrill Charlies....................... 5

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

4.       Planning Proposal and Draft DCP for 472-520 Pacific Hwy, St Leonards - Post Exhibition.......................................................................................................... 6

 

5.       Results of Community Consultation on the Proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement for 472 - 520 Pacific Highway St Leonards. 218

 

6.       SEPP 65 Review - Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings  .. 222

 

7.       Lane Cove Traffic Committee Held on 21 October 2014................... 243

 

8.       Council's Lease with Lane Cove West Tennis Club Inc..................... 249

 

9.       Revised Plans for Little Lane Redevelopment - Reconfigured Residential Components................................................................................. 252  

 

 

        


Ordinary Council Meeting 27 October 2014

Reform of Disability Parking

 

 

Subject:          Reform of Disability Parking     

Record No:    SU1362 - 64164/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor David Brooks-Horn 

 

 

 

Discussion

 

Councillors will recall at our last meeting, that Council resolved to pursue greater penalties, including demerit points, for drivers who illegally park in a disabled persons parking space. Since moving this motion there has been considerable media coverage on the issue, and the Minister, The Hon Duncan Gay has come out in support of the reform. The Minister has formally asked Roads and Maritime Services to look at introducing demerit point penalties for people parking illegally in disabled car spaces.

 

I believe it appropriate that Council thank the Minister for his prompt action.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council write to the Minister, The Hon Duncan Gay, thanking him for his swift response in support of the reform on this very important community issue and indicating Council looks forward to it being included in the Demerit Points list.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 27 October 2014

Request for Outdoor Seating by Chargrill Charlies

 

 

Subject:          Request for Outdoor Seating by Chargrill Charlies    

Record No:    SU4579 - 63981/14

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

 

Background

 

Council is in receipt of a petition with 169 signatures stating:-

 

“THE LANE COVE COUNCIL HAS RENEGED ON IT PROMISE TO GIVE CHARGRILL CHARLIES LANE COVE ITS OWN TABLES ON COMPLETION OF THE PLAZA UPGRADE.

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETION URGING THE LANE CONE COUNCIL TO GIVE US OUR TABLES

AS PROMISSED”

 

Discussion

 

On the 16 August 2013 Council granted to the new owner of Chargrill Charlies an interim lease until May 2014. Council advised at the time that there would be no space available beyond that date, as Council could not provide space at that end of the Plaza, whilst balancing the private and public seating.

 

Following representations by the owner of Chargrill Charlies to the Councillor Plaza Working Party in April 2014, a report was submitted to Council on 22 April, 2014 agreeing to provide 10m2 of unsheltered space. During construction of the Plaza, however, Council was forced to redesign the western deck to accommodate the trees, resulting in the removal of proposed 10m2 of lease area (the area is no longer flat) and a reduction in the sheltered areas from 43m2 35m2. The redesign increased the amount of public seating, which included a picnic table adjacent to Chargrill Charlies on the deck.

 

A number of discussions have been held with the owner of Chargrill Charlies subsequently, and he has been advised that Council will review opportunities for seating upon completion of the Plaza.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council receive and note the petition; and

 

2.   Advise the owner of Chargrill Charlies that Council will review opportunities for seating upon completion of the Plaza upgrade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting 27 October 2014

Planning Proposal and Draft DCP for 472-520 Pacific Hwy, St Leonards - Post Exhibition

 

 

Subject:          Planning Proposal and Draft DCP for 472-520 Pacific Hwy, St Leonards - Post Exhibition    

Record No:    SU5245 - 63536/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report relates to a planning proposal recently exhibited for amendments to Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LEP) in relation to 472-520 Pacific Highway St Leonards, including Friedlander Place, in accordance with an approval by the NSW LEP Gateway, as follows:-

·    To rezone the site from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use for retail, commercial and residential purposes; and

·    To increase the maximum building height for 472486 Pacific Highway, St Leonards from 65 metres to 115 metres and 91 metres; and for 504520 Pacific Highway, St Leonards from 72 metres to 138 metres.

 

and, in addition, amendments to the planning proposal adopted by Council on 21 July 2014 and exhibited in accordance with a process approved by the Department:-

·    To increase the maximum building height for 500 Pacific Highway to 138 metres, subject to site consolidation with 504-520 Pacific Highway;

·    To require a minimum FSR of 1.5:1 of non-residential floor area on all properties; and

·    To require site amalgamation of each property’s lots, whether developed separately or with adjacent properties, prior to development.

 

A Draft Development Control Plan (DCP) supporting the draft LEP, adopted by Council on 21 July 2014, was exhibited with the LEP. In response to the exhibition a total of fifty-eight submissions were received, including three from government authorities.

 

Draft Voluntary Planning Agreements relating to the proposal were also exhibited and are the subject of a separate report to Council.

 

The issues raised in submissions ranged between:-

·    Support for the proposal in relation to the new Rail Plaza, Friedlander Place and Leighton plazas and other public domain improvements

·    Objections to the proposal regarding building height and traffic, the impact on views, sunlight and property values and the need for master planning of the centre and other matters.

 

The submissions have been considered together with the broader public benefits anticipated from the proposal. Issues relating to impacts on existing properties are acknowledged, in particular regarding view loss; however these are balanced within the context of State policies as a whole relating to growth around urban rail stations and the St Leonards Specialised Centre in particular.

 

It is recommended that the planning proposal be endorsed by Council and submitted to the Department of Planning & Environment for finalisation as exhibited, and that Council adopt the Draft DCP subject to amendments.

 

The draft LEP amendments and planning proposal as exhibited are attached to the report at AT-1. The draft DCP is attached to the report at AT-2.

 

Background

 

The planning proposal was submitted to Council on 25 October 2013 by planning consultancy Urbis on behalf of Leighton Properties and Charter Hall.

 

Council resolved on 16 December 2013 to submit the planning proposal to the NSW Department of Planning & Environment for approval by the LEP Gateway for exhibition. Gateway determination to exhibit was given on 5 March 2014, subject to conditions that a revised traffic, parking and access study be prepared for the exhibition and that specified government department be notified. A copy of the Gateway determination is attached at AT-3.

 

In the following months, the draft LEP was amended as described above including 500 Pacific Hwy. The Development Control Plan was drafted accordingly and reviewed by independent urban planning experts, Architectus. The amended LEP and Draft DCP were then adopted by Council on 21 July 2014 for exhibition with the planning proposal edited accordingly.

 

Public exhibition of the LEP amendments, planning proposal including supporting studies updated as required by the Gateway, Draft DCP and related draft Voluntary Planning Agreements was undertaken for six weeks from 15 August to 26 September 2014. (The Department’s required exhibition period was 28 days.) Letters of notification of the exhibition and information sheets were sent to Lane Cove residents in the vicinity of the precinct, to North Sydney and Willoughby Councils and to property owners in those local government areas to addresses identified by each council.

 

Notification was sent to the following authorities, as required by the Gateway:-

 

·    Department of Education and Communities, Energy Australia, NSW Health, Sydney Trains, Roads and Maritime Services and Sydney Water

 

and also to:-

 

·    Transport for NSW, Sydney Buses, Sydney Trains, Local Government and the local Members of Parliament: the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Resources and Energy and Special Minister of State.

 

An Information Display was held in St Leonards by the proponents and attended by Council staff on Wednesday 3 September, for residents of The Abode (apartments in North Sydney opposite the site), and on Thursday 4 and Saturday 6 September for the general public.

 

A total of 58 submissions was received, including those from North Sydney Council, NSW Roads & Maritime Services and an acknowledgement of notification from the Minister for Transport. A Councillor Workshop was held on 7 October to advise of the submissions received. Copies of the submissions in full, including addresses, have been circulated to Councillors, and a Submissions Summary is attached at AT-4. An online survey received twenty responses and these have been included in the Submissions Summary.

 

(Note: The terms describing locations used in this report in relation to Pacific Highway are, for consistency: East – meaning towards Crows Nest and West – towards Chatswood.)

 




Discussion

 

Key issues raised in public submissions related in particular to the following:-

 

Support for the Planning Proposal

 

Submissions supporting the proposal did so on the grounds that the public domain improvements would be welcome as contributing to the revitalisation of the St Leonards. Submissions included those made by owners in The Abode who do not have a view, that there are other significant factors in terms of:-

 

·    The benefits to the public domain

·    The proposed development will enhance capital value and capital growth for all apartments in The Abode

·    Location in St Leonards and apartment design are the  most important factors, regardless of whether an apartment has a pleasant view

·    The majority of owners in The Abode are not affected by or concerned about the proposal

·    Significant numbers of other apartment developments have occurred in the area before and since The Abode was built and it is predictable that it would occur here as well.

 

Views

 

Approximately 25 apartments in The Abode of 197 apartments have views potentially affected. A number of submissions expressed concern at loss of views from The Abode. These views, though varying according to each unit’s orientation, include distant views to the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Sydney Harbour, the CBD, Botany Bay and other landmarks further to the south and west to the Blue Mountains, and it is understood that these views are enjoyed by residents not only for the individual locations but also the panoramic effect viewed as a whole. The IBM commercial building on the north side of the Highway also benefits from similar aspects.

 

It is recognised that many of the apartments with views would be impacted due to the restrictions to their current views. The owners’ concerns are acknowledged, given that those properties have enjoyed the advantage of having significant under-development opposite them for the decade since The Abode’s construction.

 

A number of submissions refer to the Land & Environment Court “Tenacity” case, which graded views from iconic to minor among other criteria. The Tenacity judgment stated: “The notion of view-sharing is invoked when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking away some of it for its own enjoyment.”

 

In making the recommendations in this report for approval of the planning proposal, it is nevertheless appreciated that residents of The Abode went to certain effort to prepare detailed submissions with graphics (examples are included at AT 5) and inviting staff to visit their apartments.

 

View-sharing is just that: it does not mean that one half of a centre is to have total enjoyment of the views while the other half is unable to redevelop to benefit from the views. The images in AT 5 demonstrate this. In this context, it would be unreasonable and inequitable to expect that redevelopment would be prevented indefinitely for properties on the south side in order to preserve an unimpeded outlook held by apartments on the north side.

 

Some submissions have said that North Sydney Council assured prospective purchasers that their views would never be affected by buildings on the southern side. North Sydney Council would not, however, have had the power to make such a statement.

 

North Sydney’s DCP has required “view slots” between developments in its area, with only 6 metre separation between mixed use buildings. By contrast, the DCP for this proposal far exceeds this objective in providing generous setbacks with 18-24 metre building separation to enable view lines to south and east. The most important “iconic” views from The Abode `are to the south-east rather than the south-west, and these would be maximised by the DCP for the Leighton triangular towers. To the west, the DCP for Charter Hall reduces the tower length by 17 metres less than the current buildings.  These are significantly larger setbacks than would apply if the current 18-storey commercial potential were developed on those sites to the same height as The Abode and IBM as would be permissible currently.

 

It is acknowledged that, for many current owners on the north side, there would be an impact on current panoramic views. For the centre’s users generally though, including the majority of Abode residents, the improvement to the amenity, functioning and economic stimulus of St Leonards resulting from the proposal would be expected to be positive. The new plazas would provide areas to socialise and relax in urban open space which is otherwise very limited for the existing unit-dwellers in St Leonards.

 

The desire to stimulate economic activity throughout the broader St Leonards CBD leads to the conclusion that delaying an inevitable intensification of St Leonards would not prevent change or be in the best interests of the majority of the centre’s users from north and south.

 

Urban intensification is occurring in all three council areas throughout the St Leonards Centre on both sides of Pacific Highway and within 400 metres of the rail station in accordance with State policies for residential and employment growth and the integration of land use and transport.

 

Height, FSR and Design

 

Even if the planning proposal does not proceed, the current planning controls (65 metres east of Friedlander Place and 72 metres west of it) would permit buildings of comparable height with The Abode and IBM. This would have a potentially greater impact than the new planning envelope about which submissions express concerns.

 

The alternative would be for no change at all for the ageing buildings on the south side (e.g. Charter Hall is a 1960s building, reclad with a glass front in the 1990s) and this is not consistent with the objectives for the Specialised Centre and its sites within 400 metres of the rail station.

 

Submissions from The Abode refer to North Sydney’s DCP Character Statement for St Leonards and Crows Nest that height should step down from the Forum’s 35 storeys: “Buildings are scaled down significantly from the Forum towards surrounding areas and the lower scale on Chandos Street...” The Forum as a starting-point would still be double the height of The Abode. The 1990s building is not considered to be the final benchmark for all 21st Century development.

 

It is understood that North Sydney Council recently approved 545 Pacific Highway at around 16 storeys, i.e. double its otherwise-permissible height, an example of a departure by North Sydney from Strategy 2006 on acceptable grounds of providing voluntary planning agreement funds towards open space in Crows Nest. By contrast, North Sydney had objected to a proposal for only 10 storeys on the opposite corner at 448 Pacific Hwy on the Lane Cove side in 2012, which then did not proceed. It is not considered reasonable to continue to suppress building heights to the detriment of south-side owners for the benefit of north-side owners.

 

The Charter Hall site is a linear one extending along the Highway and site amalgamation with the 6-7 storey commercial strata building to the rear is not a realistic option.

 

North Sydney Council’s submission states that the tower floorplates of 850m2 and 1,075m2 (excluding balconies) are excessive. For comparison, however, with what is proposed by Lane Cove, it is noted that in North Sydney the floorplate of The Abode appears to be around 950m2 (western tower) or 1,700m2 (east and west total) and the IBM oval tower 1,230m2 (approximations based on GIS data). It is also noted that The Abode’s 18 storey height was approved as a variation from LEP 2001’s height limit of 40 metres (13 storeys), establishing a precedent of a 38% increase above an existing height limit.

 

It should be noted, nevertheless, that the planning proposal and DCP provide the maximum building envelopes within which future DA plans could be designed. The DA stage would allow for development to be considerate of concerns raised in submissions and based on responsive innovative building configurations, as the Leighton proposal has shown.

 

Sunlight

 

A number of submissions from The Abode expressed concern at the loss of sunlight currently reaching them late afternoon to early evening in Spring and Summer.  The NSW Residential Flat Design Code guideline of 2 hours solar access between 9am and 3pm for at least 70% of apartments in an urban area is to be complied with in future DA for the site. However it is already unachievable for The Abode’s south-facing units, as confirmed in submissions. To the extent that late-day Spring and Summer sun may be provided between buildings, this would be relevant at the DA stage, but lack of solar access to these units is not a reasonable grounds to refuse the planning proposal.

 

Staff have prepared sunlight diagrams which indicate, nevertheless, that sunlight will to some extent be preserved under the planning proposal, below.

 

Figure1: Sunlight reaching the Abode at 3pm mid-September shown with proposed buildings

 

 

             Figure 2: Sunlight at 2pm mid-December                              Figure 3: Sunlight at 8pm mid-December

                             along Pacific Hwy                                                             through Friedlander Place

A submission was also received from the Northmark/ Shoremark apartments in Christie Street that their unit would no longer receive sunlight before 11am and that, although this unit would still receive more than 3 hours daily mid-winter, others in the complex may not. The DCP would, however, require DAs to provide the minimum 2 hours existing sunlight to the other units in the complex and to residential areas in the precinct generally. This is acceptable under the Residential Flats Code. The tower setbacks are designed to result in fast-moving, slim-line shadows for this objective. The developments would be required to meet that guideline which applies for at least 70% of apartments on the site itself.

 

Privacy

 

Some submissions expressed concern at loss of privacy/ overlooking from the Leighton and Charter Hall apartments.

 

The substantial separation distance between the proposed buildings, of 22-24 metres (18 metres on the western side of 504), is at the upper level in satisfying State Environmental Planning Policy 65 and the Residential Flats Code, and The Abode is located across a six-lane Highway. In an urban setting it is not reasonable to expect that total privacy to balconies and rooms is possible and this is not a reason to refuse the proposal. It is noted that the south-western curved facade of The Abode appears to have zero boundary setbacks and that North Sydney requires separation of only 6 metres.

Property Values

 

New apartments on the north side of the Highway are being built presumably on the basis that they will be able to be sold and leased regardless of the lack of views for many of them, given the locational advantages of St Leonards, although it is understood that this is not an identical situation to that of units bought with existing views.

 

To the extent that property values are said to depend on those views, and although Council cannot quantify that issue, the southern properties should have an opportunity to share the values relating to views as well.

 

It is noted that the Sydney CBD is approximately six kilometres from this centre, not close to the units, and the iconic items are distant, so that it is unreasonable to expect that no development would occur between these properties and the city.

 

Public Domain Benefits

 

A submission from NSW Health - Northern Sydney Local health District relating to the St Leonards Public Domain Master Plan states: “NSW Health commends Council's intent to revitalise the centre of St Leonards. The plan to meet the present and future space needs of the community by providing appropriate public domain spaces, facilities and services will lead to a safer and healthier St Leonards to live, work and play.” The Pacific Highway planning proposal will contribute considerably to that project.

 

The public benefit, nevertheless, is considered to be positive for the substantial majority of the public (including users from The Abode), weighed against this aspect of the individual private units, in relation to the proposal.

 

Rail Plaza: The proposal, to provide 4,900m2 (6,600m2 with Friedlander Place and the Leighton Plaza) of new and enhanced urban open space, improved connectivity, transport hub functions and upgrades of lanes and tunnel under the Highway, would be the first major public domain benefit to occur in St Leonards since the Forum in the 1990s. The south (Lane Cove) side and north (Willoughby) side will then have complementary public domain and transport infrastructure of high amenity and significant benefit to the Centre.

 

Friedlander Place: The north-south orientation would result in a reasonable proportion of sunlight for much of the year for a plaza in an urban high-rise environment. The 70 metre distance which Friedlander Plaza extends away from the Highway would encourage cafes, seating etc and have amenity and protection from noise. Wind tunnel effects would be minimised by a community structure at the rear as a windbreak. The Leighton plaza is angled away from the Highway and similarly reduces wind effects by having a podium at the south-eastern end.  When combined with the reconfigured Friedlander Place, it will provide more than double the useable public open space currently available.  Mitchell Plaza, on North Sydney’s side, would have increased visual connectivity with public space on the south side with the opening out of view lines through this site.

 

Traffic and Transport

 

The Traffic, Transport and Accessibility Report by Brown consultancy was revised in accordance with the Gateway requirement for exhibition (AT 6).

 

NSW Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) provided a submission (AT 7) indicating that it has undertaken a review of the proposal’s traffic modelling and does not object to the proposal proceeding to gazettal, subject to an updated traffic study being provided prior to gazettal. The RMS’  submissions are  summarised below, and are followed by staff comments:-

 

·    A number of key issues are identified that require further clarification/ analysis by the applicant prior to gazettal of the LEP, to be addressed in an addendum study:

 

This study would be provided to the Department with the LEP documentation for consideration prior to gazettal.

 

·    Traffic generation should be based on a worst-case of a supermarket tenant:

 

The proposal is for a U-shaped design surrounding three sides of an open-air public plaza. This configuration would not accommodate a supermarket. Traffic would be considered at DA stage.

 

·    The DCP has been updated since the traffic study was prepared and the proposed parking rates do not appear to meet the current DCP:

 

DAs would be required to meet requirements under the DCP amendment in force from 26 September and these parking rates would not increase vehicle generation affecting traffic capacity in the area. It is also noted that the proposed changes to SEPP 65 would impact on the parking rates, as it prevails Council’s DCP.

 

·    The traffic modelling should have regard to: bus movements, grades, pedestrian numbers post-development, pedestrian crossing delay times and changes to vehicle arrival types:

 

These guidelines would be addressed by the proponents in their updated traffic study to be considered by the Department.

 

·    The LEP should support the objectives of NSW plans relating to reduction in car dependency and increased sustainable travel modes:

 

The planning proposal’s location of high density close to the rail station, and the new DCP Part R: Traffic and Transport’s parking rates and sustainability objectives, support and implement these State principles: Section 5.1 has as part of its objectives:

To promote initiatives to reduce car-based travel and

To ensure large developments provide alternatives to car-based travel.

 

The broad purpose, as stated in Section 5.2, is to: “improve health through active transport choices while reducing car travel and associated greenhouse gas emissions and traffic congestion.”

 

Any DA would be required under the DCP to reference the Lane Cove Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Access & Mobility Plan (PAMP). The Bicycle Plan route passes directly adjacent to this site along Nicholson St to Christie St and the Pacific Hwy i.e. the Rail Plaza.  In DAs bike infrastructure e.g. end-of-journey facilities etc would be required.

 

·    The planning proposal should be referred to Transport for NSW: 

 

Council wrote to TfNSW on 14 August 2014; however no submission has been received separately from the RMS.

 

·    Council should ensure that a funding mechanism is in place for developer contributions towards appropriate road/ transport infrastructure improvements required as a result of the cumulative impact of additional development in the Lane Cove Local Government Area:

 

The RMS has flagged the potential need for road and transport infrastructure improvements that may be required as a result of the cumulative impact of growth.

 

Council has already invested considerable funds in developing a strategic Paramics model for St Leonards in order to assess the cumulative traffic impacts of new development. This model was approved by RMS’ Land Use Planning & Assessment Team on 11 April 2014 as “suitable for the testing of traffic impacts of developments”. Council has already used this model to carry out preliminary analysis of the mixed use planning proposals east of the Railway line. The modelling has revealed that congestion and queuing issues are likely to arise in St Leonards if all the planned development occurs without any supporting infrastructure upgrades.

 

Recently, Council commenced discussions with both North Sydney and Willoughby City Councils with a view to joint ownership of the model and potential expansion of the modelled area to capture future development at the Royal North Shore Hospital, Chandos Street and Crows Nest. The aim is to use the strategic modelling to develop and test major traffic management mitigation measures. Subject to the agreement of the respective Councils and input from RMS, these measures would form the basis of a joint developer contribution plan for St Leonards. Developers within the St Leonards study area would be required to pay a pro rata contribution for necessary infrastructure works calculated on the basis of dwelling size or commercial floor space.

 

It is recommended that Council write to RMS to seek formal concurrence with this process. RMS endorsement would ensure that all three Councils and developers buy into the concept of independent, rigorous assessment of major development applications and an evidence based approach to transport infrastructure provision for St Leonards.

 

The above comments have been provided by Council’s Traffic Section.

 

It is emphasised that the proposal does not increase the floor space already permissible under the LEP. In rezoning to mixed use the commercial vehicles resultant from that floor space would be replaced by residential vehicle movements.

 

Submissions have raised concerns that future traffic measures need to be provided in response to any change of land use, but it is fair to say that `Lane Cove is starting from a low base, with the existing congestion they describe resulting in part from the vehicles generated by the denser development on the north side over many years. The Lane Cove vehicle generation will be lower relative to the north side, given that the 900+ residential units in this proposal would be matched by the estimated 800+ already in the pipeline north of the Highway, with further proposals also under consideration for a potential 1,300 units again immediately north of the rail station, as well as the eventual RNS Hospital redevelopments.

 

The State policy to increase densities around rail stations has inherent, but necessary, challenges to meet in regard to traffic and the desired modal shift towards other forms of transport. One way to facilitate this would be improved public transport infrastructure, and the Rail Plaza/ Bus Interchange would be a significant contribution in this regard.

 

Strategic Context

 

Master planning: Submissions raised the potential for a strategic master planning approach between the three councils.

 

It is agreed that a joint strategy would be beneficial to the continuing evolution of the centre. Lane Cove has sought to initiate this on a number of occasions. Between June and December 2013, meetings were held, at Lane Cove’s request, between the Department and the three councils to discuss the planning proposal and the appropriate balance between employment and residential floor space. Although North Sydney’s submission states that there was no agreement for mixed use rather than commercial-only on the south side, the four-storey commercial component referred to in their submission did in fact come directly from North Sydney’s suggestion in those meetings that four storeys would be appropriately consistent with the commercial levels in the podiums below residential existing on the North Sydney side.

 

Lane Cove organised for a meeting nine months ago at the Department with North Sydney and Willoughby Councils to request that a joint working group be established. This proposal was, however, not supported by the Department on the grounds that the councils should wait for the subregional structure being developed in accordance with the NSW Planning Reforms. North Sydney was aware of that response, having been present at that meeting. 

 

In September this year, with the Department’s new subregional structure still awaited, Council invited the other two councils to a meeting at Lane Cove with the purpose to develop a shared approach to strategic planning, traffic and other infrastructure planning including for St Leonards.

 

In short, it is surprising that North Sydney Council’s submission fails to acknowledge Lane Cove’s initiatives towards a joint strategic approach.

 

North Sydney’s submission that Lane Cove should maintain the commercial-only policy for the south side as in the St Leonards Strategy, finalised in December 2006 (with funding and project coordination by Lane Cove Council), does not reflect the substantial changes in NSW planning system over the eight years since then. Firstly, the Draft Inner North Subregional Strategy was issued in July 2007, and provided specific residential and employment targets that councils have subsequently been required to incorporate into comprehensive local environmental plans, considerably changing the scale of development in this and other local government areas across Sydney. Secondly, the NSW Gateway in March this year permitted the planning to proceed for mixed use zoning. Whilst North Sydney have retained the commercial core in the North Sydney CBD, it is noted that due to the delay in them finalising their Comprehensive LEP until 2013, 3 mixed use developments were approved in the North Sydney section of St Leonards that under the 2006 St Leonards Strategy was to be Commercial Core. Thirdly, Minister Goward has clearly stated the policy that significant residential and employment growth is to be a priority around rail stations in Sydney’s urban centres.  In short, North Sydney’s comments are not up-to-date with the current planning context. Furthermore, North Sydney’s  commencement in 2010 of a review of its plans for St Leonards-Crows Nest indicate its recognition that the 2006 Strategy should be subject to review, as are strategies generally.

 

Additionally, the revised Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney drafted in 2012 has not yet been finalised by the Department. The Department acknowledged in the above meetings that property owners need to make decisions in the interim, and subsequently gave its agreement that this planning proposal could go to exhibition. Further uncertainty regarding the St Leonards Specialised Centre results from the indefinite deferral in 2011 of the Royal North Shore Hospital Concept Plan, which had proposed additional its commercial and residential floor space within the Willoughby LGA. The effect of these policy delays is that Lane Cove Council is in the position that its revitalisation of the southern side of the centre, encouraged by North Sydney Council and others over some years, has to proceed without further indefinite delay.

 

A further factor relevant to the southern side is the NSW Gateway process. Once a planning proposal has been lodged, a council must comply with the legal timeframe to determine the proposal. North Sydney’s statement that “it is Council’s long-held position that the strategic planning framework for an area should not be dictated or determined by applications relating to an individual site that set a precedent” is inconsistent with the Gateway legislation requirements. The Gateway approval for this exhibition clears the way for mixed use on the south side of the Highway as part of the centre’s strategic planning.

 

This redevelopment is consistent with the State Government policies for urban growth and intensification around rail stations in proximity to the Sydney CBD. The strategic framework is not static or set in the St Leonards Strategy 2006, as demonstrated by the other councils’ variations from that eight year old plan. Since 2006, the State Government issued residential and employment targets under the Metropolitan Strategy and Inner North Subregional Strategy in 2007, the RNS Hospital Concept Plan was progressed then deferred in 2011, the draft Metropolitan Strategy and subregional plan review have been delayed and other factors have intervened including the LEP Gateway process being introduced enabling planning proposals to be lodged ahead of strategic plans being completed, with adjacent councils plans varying from the 2006 Strategy.

 

As a result the strategic planning context has been shifting over the past several years. None of these plans provides the clarity necessary to prevent the south side from stagnating to the detriment of the centre as a whole.

 

In short, submissions seeking the deferral of this planning proposal while a local council master plan is prepared need to recognise that, pending the State’s awaited subregional strategic framework, the Gateway requirements provide a principal framework within which Council has to make its plans. Local councils are not permitted to produce subregional plans pending the lengthy but uncertain timeframe of the State’s strategic reviews.

 

Notwithstanding the concerns raised by North Sydney Council, the subregional approach has been approved. There would be no long-term benefit for existing property owners to defer the proposal, given that redevelopment, whether commercial or mixed use, is inevitable on the southern side having regard to its role within the Specialised Centre, and approving the proposal offers the opportunity to ensure that substantial public benefit results from that redevelopment.

 


Employment & Residential Floor Space

 

The grounds for proposing a mixed use proposal in this traditionally commercial centre relate to the economic transition evidenced in St Leonards and the subregion, as indicated in the economic study provided to the December 2013 meeting and exhibited with the planning proposal:-

 

·    Market analysis has shown that there is a consistent long term trend for lack of tenant and investor demand in St Leonards. This includes a lack of demand for newly approved A grade office space such as the Planning Assessment Commission approval in 2011 for the  Winton commercial development at 88 Christie Street which has not commenced construction.

·    Tenants are specifically choosing to locate in other centres rather than St Leonards, including advice received that IBM will be partially relocating its operations out of their building at 601 Pacific Highway.

·    The location, pricing and quality of commercial floor space in St Leonards is currently not able to compete with Macquarie Park and North Sydney. Macquarie Park is able to provide purpose built commercial and larger floorplates to meet individual tenant needs at generally lower rents than St Leonards. North Sydney is identified as part of Global Sydney and holds a higher esteem in terms of a commercial head office location.

·    There has been a long term declining tenant and investor market demand for occupation and development of new high rise commercial office space in St Leonards, in the scale contemplated under the Lane Cove LEP 2009.

·    Small site configurations, fragmented ownership and stratification of office stock within St Leonards presents a barrier to redevelopment of lower grade office stock to provide the market with the floor plate/size of product being sought in other centres.

·    St Leonards lacks the large sties in St Leonards to compete with Gore Hill, North Ryde and Macquarie Park for major employment growth. The building floor plates under this proposal are only 850m2 and 1,075m2, not large enough for the major commercial firms attracted to those areas.

·    Health is one of the fastest growing employment sectors in NSW, and it is considered that St Leonards will continue to support employment in this sector through the utilisation of space for health and allied purposes. The ongoing redevelopment of RNSH earmarks land on this site for the purpose of health related employment. Approximately 73,000sqm of specialised commercial space has been approved in principle for health related employment on the RNSH campus.

 

The Department has acknowledged the changing strategic context in its Gateway approval for the proposal to proceed.

 

The Department’s approval stated: “It is considered that the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 and Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031 in that the St Leonards centre is identified as an important location for employment growth and the rezoning will provide for significant residential expansion and a loss of commercial floor space and job opportunities. It is acknowledged that development of the site may act as a catalyst for further growth however the impact of this on commercial floor space should be further considered during the rezoning process.

 

Planning and Infrastructure indicated a general preference (not in the determination however) for a higher percentage of commercial floor space, by suggesting further height could be provided to retain the residential component. Council staff have explored the provision of additional commercial space within the proposed height controls. The final proposal would provide 11,196m2 of commercial, an increase of 73% compared with the original planning proposal.

 

It is also noted that the Gateway letter states: “I have also agreed the planning proposal's inconsistencies with S117 Directions 1.1 Business and Industrial Zones and 7.1 Implementation of the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 are of minor significance. No further approval is required in relation to these Directions.” (Section 117 Directions require the Director-General’s approval to alter the amount of a location’s floor space.)

 

Sydney Airport Requirements

 

All processes at the DA stage, including Obstacle Limitation Surface investigation and others, are required to be complied with by the proponents. The Department’s attention should be drawn to this legislation to consider its implications for an LEP prior to gazettal.

 

Development Control Plan

 

The Draft DCP was prepared by Council following a review of planning controls undertaken by independent urban planning consultancy, Architectus, and was adopted by Council on 21 July 2014 for public exhibition. A copy of the Draft DCP as exhibitied is attached at AT-8.

 

The draft DCP is a site-specific plan designed to address the types of design issues raised in submissions such as view loss and building scale. At the stage of a future DA stage, issues of site relationships such as view lines and privacy would be further considered at the public notification stage.

 

It is proposed that a number of editing/ clarification/ compliance amendments should be made to the DCP, based on staff comments during exhibition, comprising those shown in AT-9.

 

Conclusion

 

The planning proposal to amend Local Environmental Plan 2009 in relation to 472-520 Pacific Highway St Leonards has been exhibited in accordance with the NSW Gateway determination, including notification of government authorities and exhibition of a revised traffic study. The RMS has reviewed the study and endorses the planning proposal proceeding subject to considerations by the Department prior to gazettal.

 

A supporting Draft Development Control Plan and draft Voluntary Planning Agreements were exhibited with the planning proposal. 

 

A total of fifty-eight submissions was received. The key issues raised in submissions included:-

 

·    support by many submissions for the proposal in particular its public benefits, in particular the new Rail Plaza, Friedlander Place and Leighton plazas and potential capital gain as a result of enhancements to the centre

·    objections regarding building height and traffic, the impact on views, sunlight and property values and the need for master planning of the centre and other matters.

 

The submissions have been considered within the context of the St Leonards Specialised Centre as a whole. Issues relating to impacts on existing properties are acknowledged and balanced with the broader public benefits anticipated from the proposal.

 

Having regard to the centre’s continued poor commercial activity and prospects, it is appropriate that the economic stimulus proposed by this Planning Proposal be supported by Council, and it is recommended that the planning proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning & Environment for finalisation and that Council adopt the Draft DCP subject to minor amendments.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.    The LEP planning proposal for 472-520 Pacific Hwy, St Leonards be adopted and submitted to the NSW Department of Planning & Environment for finalisation.

2.    The Draft Development Control Plan be approved for finalisation, subject to amendments listed in AT 9.

3.    The traffic, transport and access study is to be updated in accordance with RMS recommendations of 17 October 2014 for the Department’s consideration prior to gazettal.

4.    Council write to NSW Roads & Maritime Services and to North Sydney and Willoughby Councils seeking their endorsement for a joint traffic modelling study relating to traffic measures and development contributions.

5.    All processes at the DA stage, including Obstacle Limitation Surface investigation and others under Federal legislation and Regulation, are required to be complied with by the proponents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Planning Proposal Report as on Exhibition Final 15 August 2014

80 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Draft Development Control Plan for 472-520 Pacific Hwy - Adopted 21 July 2014

4 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

NSW Gateway Determination - 5 March 2014

4 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Submissions Summary - 472-520 Pacific Hwy - October 2014

Available Electronically

AT‑5 View

Examples of View Loss to The Abode - From Submissions

2 Pages

 

AT‑6 View

Revised Traffic Study by Brown Consultants for Exhibition

98 Pages

 

AT‑7 View

NSW RMS Submission - Planning Proposal 472-520 Pacific Highway St Leonards 17 October 2014

3 Pages

 

AT‑8 View

Draft Development Control Plan - 472-520 Pacific Hwy - Adopted  21 JUly 2014 for Public Exhibition

5 Pages

 

AT‑9 View

Draft DCP Editing/Clarification Amendments Proposed Post-Exhibition

1 Page

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Planning Proposal Report as on Exhibition Final 15 August 2014

 

















































































ATTACHMENT 2

Draft Development Control Plan for 472-520 Pacific Hwy - Adopted 21 July 2014

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 – DRAFT Amendment 21 July 2014

 

Part D – Commercial Development and Mixed Use Localities

·      472-520 Pacific Highway, St Leonards

Number 500 Pacific Highway refers to SP 82937.

Numbers 472-494 Pacific Highway refers to Lot 1 DP 628513 and SP 73071.

Numbers 504-520 Pacific Highway refers to Lots 2-6 DP 3175.

 

This precinct is located in the precinct area bound by Pacific Highway on the north and east, Nicholson

Street to the south, the eastern boundary of 472 Pacific Highway and the western boundary of 504-520 Pacific Hwy.

 

Note: This DCP section prevails over the remainder of DCP 2010 where inconsistency occurs.

 


Objectives

 

1.     Create a landmark precinct including taller and slender towers, of triangular form on 472-494 Pacific Hwy and rounded on 500 Pacific Hwy fronting Friedlander Place, at this prominent corner of the Pacific Highway to provide visual interest upon approach from all directions.

 

2.     Achieve design excellence and iconic new development in the centre of St Leonards.

 

3.     Create a distinctive architectural character to the Pacific Highway frontage with engaging and legible ‘entrance’ points to reinforce St Leonards as a key location as an activity centre.

 

4.     Provide a new public space integrated with Friedlander Place to create a distinctive sense of place for residents, workers and visitors.

 

5.     Activate and integrate existing and new public spaces with appropriate ground floor retail and other uses, specifically Friedlander Place and the new retail plaza on 472-4994 Pacific Hwy and the colonnade fronting No.500.

 

6.     Increase the amenity of Nicholson Street and the adjoining public access ways, maximising casual surveillance and activation.

 

7.     Provide viewlines through Friedlander Place, the new plaza on 472-494 Pacific Hwy and the new towers on that site.

 

8.     Promote site amalgamation to avoid the creation of isolated sites within the precinct.

 

 

Tables

 

Notes:

·      Controls in all tables below are to be applied to the relevant properties.

·      Setbacks are to apply to the outer edge of balconies.

·      “Friedlander Place” refers to Lot 1DP 1179636.

·      GFA: The GFA / building floor plates being referenced include cores ie all area contained by external walls but excluding balconies.  (*)

 

 

Numbers 504 and 500 Pacific Hwy (regardless of amalgamation)         

 

CONTROL

PROVISION

NOTES

Floor Space Ratio

1.5:1   min. (non-residential)

15.5:1 max (residential)

17:1    max (total)

 

Setbacks – Ground  Level Retail

4.0 m min.

Colonnade form to Pacific Hwy and Friedlander Place

Setbacks – Non-Residential Podium

0 m from all boundaries

All commercial, except where retail colonnade provided

Setbacks – Residential Tower

4.0 m min. from Pacific Hwy

 

Setbacks – All Levels

0 m

Along common boundary between 500 & 504

Levels – Non-Residential (Including Retail)

4 levels min.

To be floorplates above Pacific Hwy extending across the entire site area for buildings fronting Pacific Hwy

Floor to Floor Height

      - Non-Residential - Ground Level

      - Non-Residential - Each Level,

        Other Than Retail           

     

 

4.8 m min.

3.6 m min.

 

Above ground level Pacific Hwy

Balcony Area

10.0 m2 min.

 

Balcony Articulation Zone

2.0 m min.

Behind all building setbacks

Building Separation

24 m min.

To residential towers east of Friedlander Place.

Vehicle Access

From Nicholson St/ rear lane/ Friedlander Place

Via rights of way as necessary

Pedestrian  Link

Within private property at rear of site. Rear lane to be redesigned to provide clear line of sight.

 

From rear lane to Friedlander Place

 

No. 504 (Charter  Hall) – not amalgamated       

 

CONTROL

PROVISION

NOTES

Site Area Approx.

1,834 m2

 

Height

138 m

Above ground level Pacific Hwy

Building Floor Plate

800 m2 max. (*)

Excluding  balconies

Setbacks –Residential Tower

9.0 m min.

From western boundary with No.530 (Telstra) - to edge of balconies

Setbacks – Residential Tower

4.0 m min.

From rear lane

Building Length

40.0 m max.

 

 

No.500 Pacific Hwy – not amalgamated           

 

CONTROL

PROVISION

NOTES

Site Area Approx.

435m2

From SP

Height

72 metres max.

Above ground level Pacific Hwy

Setbacks – All Levels

0 m

All boundaries

 

 

Numbers 504-520 and 500 Pacific Hwy - if amalgamated

 

These two sites must be amalgamated as a condition of development consent in order for the controls below to apply.

 

CONTROL

PROVISION

NOTES

Site Area Approx.

2,268 m2

 

Height

138 metres max.

Above ground level Pacific Hwy

Building Floor Plate

1,075 m2 max. GFA (*)

Excluding  balconies

Setbacks – All Levels

0 m min. from rear lane

 

Setbacks - Residential

4.0 m min from Pacific Hwy

7.0 m min. from western   

   boundary with No.530

 

Building Length

51 m max. measured along the central east-west axis of the amalgamated site.

To a max. of 10 m from eastern boundary of 504. Rounded or stepped building form required – see diagrams.

 


 

Numbers 472-494 (Leighton)

 

These two sites must be amalgamated as a condition of development consent in order for the controls below to apply.

 

CONTROL

PROVISION

NOTES

Floor Space Ratio

1.5:1   min. (non-residential)

10.5:1 max (residential)

12:1    max (total)

 

Building Height

91m max. – building at front (Pacific Hwy)

115 m max. – building at rear (Nicholson St)

Above ground level Pacific Hwy

Floor to Floor Height

      - Non-Residential - Ground Level

      - Non-Residential - Each Level,

        Other Than Retail            

     

 

4.8 m min.

3.6 m min.

 

Above ground level Pacific Hwy

Building Floorplate of Each Residential Tower

850 m2 max. GFA (*)

Excluding  balconies

Levels – Non-Residential

4 levels min.- front building

 

To be entire levels of the building fronting Pacific Highway

Setbacks – Ground  Level

4.0 m min. from Pacific Hwy

2m min. elsewhere in site

Colonnade form

Setbacks – Non-Residential Podium

0 m from all boundaries, except:-

20 m min from Friedlander

   Place – front building

All commercial, except where retail colonnade provided

Setbacks – Residential Tower

4.0 m min. from Pacific Hwy -

    front building

0 m min. from Nicholson St –

    rear building

7.0 m min. from side

   boundary with No.470

0 m from side boundary with

   Friedlander Place

 

Balcony Area

10.0 m2 min.

 

Balcony Articulation Zone

2.0 m min.

Behind all building setbacks

Building Separation

22 m min. between balconies

 

Retail Plaza Width

22 m min.

 

Vehicle Access

From Nicholson St/ Friedlander Place

Via rights of way as necessary

New Public Open Space

The proposed new public

open space at the northern

end of the site is to have a

minimum area of 325sqm.

To ensure that the new public open

space is provided at that location and

contributes a desirable quality of public amenity.

Pedestrian  Link

2.0. m min. within the property

To boundary with No.470 Pacific Hwy

 


 

All Developments

 

CONTROL

PROVISION

NOTES

Uses

Encourage uses which operate during evening and early morning hours, such as local retail convenience stores, cafes and restaurants, community facilities, gymnasiums and other facilities, to encourage activity and safety outside of office hours.

Provide active uses at street level, and flanking public spaces.

In the tower form, provide a range of housing options,

including more affordable housing with less required

parking.

Ground level floor heights must allow for commercial or

retail uses.

 

Upper level non-residential

uses may include gymnasium and child care.

Podium Form

Podium height to be expressed through external façade

material  changes to reinforce

commercial land use character

 

Car Parking

 

Parking rates to comply with applicable rates in Table 2 of Part R, Draft DCP amendment, as at 31 August 2014.

 

Landscaping/

Open Space

New street trees, paving

and verge upgrades to be

incorporated into the site

development.

Tree species and paving design upgrades and

specifications to be agreed on with Council.

Pedestrian Network/ Mid-Block

Connections

Future development to satisfy the precinct plan to provide new and enhanced connections in the precinct

 

Public Domain

A public domain plan is required to be submitted ensuring that development contribute positively to the overall precinct wide public domain outcome.

The plan is to include details of materials and the like in consultation with Council.

 

Façade Colours

and Materials

A mixture of non-reflective façade materials and colours are required to emphasis the podium level non-residential form and residential towers as separate elements.

External materials to be durable with a high quality

finish.

Façade detailing to also address shading, wind protection and solar access considerations.

 

Facade

Articulation

Articulation of façades is to be designed to express a

base and top, with layering of levels of the building

complemented by the composition of rhythm, texture, and materials. Roof form should be integrated with the overall design of the building.

The elements comprise  balconies, sun-shading devices, bay windows and other similar elements, depending on internal programme and orientation

The intent of the building wall

articulation control is to incorporate sufficient

modulation in the architectural façade to reduce the scale

and massing of the building form, adding visual interest and diversity to the overall design.

Balconies Floor Space

An LEP cl.4.6 objection may be favourably considered for balconies with potential to be fully enclosed as noise control, to increase floor space for balconies of apartments in a direct line of sight of Pacific Hwy. These should have fully enclosable balconies, double glazed/thick glass windows and acoustic treatment measures for internal amenity. 

 

Solar Access

The guideline that new developments should achieve 2 hours direct sunlight for at least 70% of apartments, under the NSW Residential Flat Design Code, should be applied as a rule of thumb with discretion in Major Centres/ Specialised Centres where densities are high.

 

 


ATTACHMENT 3

NSW Gateway Determination - 5 March 2014

 





ATTACHMENT 5

Examples of View Loss to The Abode - From Submissions

 

AT 5

 

 

Examples of view loss to apartments in The Abode West - from submissions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Staff photo from south side of The Abode Level 18 (top) and view line photomontage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

Figure 2: Staff photo from south-west side of The Abode            Figure 3: Existing buildings to boundaries: Nos 500-520 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: Photomontages in a submission from The Abode

 

 

 

64131/14

 


ATTACHMENT 6

Revised Traffic Study by Brown Consultants for Exhibition

 



































































































ATTACHMENT 7

NSW RMS Submission - Planning Proposal 472-520 Pacific Highway St Leonards 17 October 2014

 




ATTACHMENT 8

Draft Development Control Plan - 472-520 Pacific Hwy - Adopted  21 JUly 2014 for Public Exhibition

 






ATTACHMENT 9

Draft DCP Editing/Clarification Amendments Proposed Post-Exhibition

 

AT 9

to Report for 27 10 14

 

Draft DCP – editing/ clarification/ compliance amendments proposed post-exhibition

 

·    Add Objective 9: “Reinforce the LEP’s requirements for a minimum FSR 1.5:1 non-residential floor space for each site.”

·    In the Tables:-

In relation to 500/ 504 Pacific Hwy  (the Charter Hall site), state: “Full 4 storeys of non-residential floor space are to be provided - horizontal from Pacific Hwy to the rear of the site above Pacific Hwy existing ground level.”

Replace the words: “Building length... to a max.10m from eastern boundary of 504” with “Building length... to a max.10m east of the eastern boundary of 504 Pacific Hwy”.

Delete “GFA” in the table relating to the “building floor plate” as technically inconsistent.

In the Table for All Developments, state: “Development is to be committed to for each site in full as a pre-requisite to approval.”

Public Domain: “The lane to the rear of 504 Pacific Hwy and on-site pedestrian link are to be redesigned to provide a clear line of sight to promote visual connectivity and safety.”

·    Add a provision: “Serviced apartments are not to be developed”.

·    Add a provision: “Federal legislation requirements relating to Sydney Airport are to be investigated and complied with by the applicant for any development.”

 

 

 

 

 

63922/14

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 27 October 2014

Results of Community Consultation on the Proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement for 472 - 520 Pacific Highway St Leonards

 

 

Subject:          Results of Community Consultation on the Proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement for 472 - 520 Pacific Highway St Leonards    

Record No:    SU571 - 59879/14

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The report outlines the results of the consultation on the proposed Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPA’s) for the properties 472 – 520 Pacific Highway, St Leonards. Overall a majority of respondents were in favour, with the key issues being ensuring the public domain is well planned and the agreements provide certainty. Arguments against the proposed agreements related to timing, the principle of VPA’s and the impact of the developments.  It is recommended that subject to Council deciding to proceed with the Planning Proposal for the subject sites, Council enter into the proposed VPAs. 

 

Background

 

On 16 December 2013, Council adopted the above LEP Planning Proposal to rezone the site from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use and increased height for submission to the Department of Planning & Environment’s LEP Gateway. The Gateway approved the proposal on 5 March 2014 for exhibition, subject to the proponents’ traffic study being revised.

A report in relation to the Planning Proposal and DCP is included as a separate report to this meeting.

The Planning Proposal offers an opportunity to revitalise an ageing precinct, improve public domain activation and circulation space and provide considerable public benefits. To realise the public benefit, a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) is a requirement of the Planning Proposal. The VPA is in addition to s94 Developer contributions and the contribution would be used for the following purposes:-

a.       Construction of the St Leonards Rail Plaza and Bus Interchange

b.       Tenant Attraction Scheme

c.       Affordable/Key Worker Housing

d.       Enhancement of the public domain for 498 Pacific Highway, St Leonards, Friedlander Place and its surrounds

 

In the event that the St Leonards Rail Plaza and Bus Interchange does not proceed, the funds may also be utilised by Council for the provision of public infrastructure generally within the Lane Cove Local Government Area.

 

The formula recommended for the calculation of the amount payable under the VPAs for the St Leonard precinct is follows:

·    $/Rate (value of bonus FSR) x 50% x bonus GFA

Hill PDA established through valuation that the $/Rate is $2,600per sqm of GFA.

 

Based on the planning proposals, three VPAs would be executed, with the estimated yield to be approximately as follows:-

 

·    VPA Offer 504 Pacific Highway, Charter Hall (The Trust Company Pty Ltd as custodian and agent for Charter Hall Direct Pty Ltd as trustee for the 504 Direct Trust) in combination with 500 Pacific Highway, BMAX Advisory Pty Ltd, $23.88M.

·    VPA Offer 472 - 486 Pacific Highway, Leightons (Leighton Properties Pty Ltd, Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd and the owners of SP73071, $21.15M.

Council considered a report at its meeting of 21 July, 2014 and resolved to proceed with community consultation on the proposed Voluntary Planning Agreements with the developers of the subject sites and receive a further report on the outcomes. 

 

Discussion

 

The consultation was carried out concurrently with the Planning Proposal, which is the subject of a separate report. It was undertaken as per the consultation strategy included in the original report, and included Newspaper Advertisement, eNewsletter, Notification Letters, Public Exhibition,

Website Exhibition and Online Survey. In addition two community drop in sessions were held onsite at 504 Pacific Highway on 4 September and 6 September.  The applicants prepared a video presentation,  providing a fly through of their interpretation of the renewed urban domain to assist the community to understand the vision. Submissions closed Friday 26 September 2014.

 

Online Survey Results

 

Eighteen surveys were received, with 15 providing responses in relation to the VPA section of the survey. 10 respondents were in favour, and 5 respondents were against the proposed VPA. The results are summarized below.

 

Position

No. of Surveys

Comment

Against on principle, “council should not be selling out to developers.”

3

The VPA framework is a legitimate process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment in order for community to receive benefit from developments.

Against further planning required “contributions should be on needs based upon impact”.

1

The infrastructure proposed by the VPAs is consistent with the St Leonards Strategy which was designed to meet the future needs of the precinct. There has been a lack of investment in the Lane Cove component of St Leonards since the 1990s.

Against Overdevelopment

1

The merits of the impact are covered in the Planning Proposal report.

In Favour – “St Leonards badly needs these improvements to be an attractive place in which to live and work.”

9

The infrastructure proposed by the VPAs is consistent with the St Leonards Strategy to stimulate renewal of the area. Without the VPA process Council does not have sufficient funding to deliver the proposed public domain improvements.

In Favour – Qualified - “they should be evaluated on the basis of a benefit/cost assessment in consideration of the impact on affordability”

1

The State Government has capped infrastructure levies including s94 developer contributions, however, the impact on affordability is questionable as the market does not necessarily pass on input savings.

 


Submissions

 

Nine submissions were received that provided responses in relation to the VPA. 5 respondents were in favour, and 4 respondents were against the proposed VPA. The results are summarised as follows.

 

Position

No. of Surveys

Comment

Against not practical, “A Rail Plaza Bus Interchange over a railway is not practical.”

1

The infrastructure proposed by the VPA is consistent with the St Leonards Strategy. Retrofitting open space into developed areas always involves compromise, however the deck is buildable and Council has agreement from TfNSW to prepare a more detailed design to establish feasibility and better cost estimates.

Against premature without Rail Plaza/Bus Interchange and improved pedestrian space.

1

Without the VPA arrangements Council would have insufficient funding to construct the improvements.

Against further planning required, 50% of contributions are not in cash, insufficient funding to guarantee the plaza, and will have poor amenity

1

These VPA’s are a significant part of the funding package. As proposed, combined with s94 Developer contributions, they will provide a substantial amount of the funding based on initial estimates. Detail design of the public space will be undertaken in line with the St Leonards Public Domain Masterplan currently on exhibition and involve detailed consultation when designs are developed. The early concepts envisage more of a park/open space form capitalising on its northern aspect.

Against on principle, “The VPA legislation itself is poor”.

1

The VPA framework is a legitimate process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment in order for community to receive benefit from developments.

In Favour – “ensure... businesses commercially successful” and planned properly to provide amenity.

Need to ensure water tight funding and no impact from mix of key worker rentals and owners.

5

The infrastructure proposed by the VPA is consistent with the St Leonards Strategy to stimulate renewal of the area. St Leonards is lacking in a retail offering which will be encourages and sustainable through the increased residential component. Detail design of the public space will be undertaken in line with the St Leonards Public Domain Masterplan currently on exhibition and involve detailed consultation when designs are developed. The amount of key worker housing will be manageable given, the scale of developments, less than 5% are likely to be affordable/key worker. VPA’s are registered on the title of the property and are legally enforceable.

 

Many of the comments raising concerns about the VPA relate to the principle. The VPA framework is a legitimate process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment in order for community to receive benefit from developments. In this case it will provide significant urban renewal in the precinct which would not otherwise be achievable from Council’s available financial resources. The process is transparent and robust in that the VPA’s are specific purpose, legally enforceable and registered on the title of the properties.

 

Detail design of the public space will be undertaken in line with the St Leonards Public Domain Masterplan currently on exhibition and will involve further detailed consultation when designs are developed. The infrastructure proposed by the VPA is consistent with the St Leonards Strategy, and Council is working with TfNSW to bring it to reality, within the timeframe of the proposed developments. The final element for the success of the Plaza will be the inclusion of a significant retail and component and in this regard Winten Property Group, owners off 88 Christie Street have advised they intend to lodge a Planning Proposal for the site which will include a full line supermarket and retail component with that interfaces with the plaza, with a residential component above.

 

Conclusion

It is considered that the community and future residents of the proposed development will benefit from the improvements to public infrastructure, in particular the plaza and bus rail interchange. The commercial role that St Leonards currently plays will also be boosted through the tenancy attraction scheme to be funded under the VPA. Subject to Council deciding to proceed with the Planning Proposal, it is recommended that Council endorse the proposed VPA’s for the subject properties.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.       Receive and note the report; and

2.       Proceed with the Voluntary Planning Agreements in respect of the Planning Proposal at 472 – 520 Pacific Highway, St Leonards as follows:-

·    VPA Offer 504 Pacific Highway - The Trust Company Pty Ltd as custodian and agent for Charter Hall Direct Pty Ltd as trustee for the 504 Direct Trust, in combination with 500 Pacific Highway, BMAX Advisory Pty Ltd.

·    VPA Offer 472 - 486 Pacific Highway- Leighton Properties Pty Ltd, Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd and the Owners of SP73071.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 27 October 2014

SEPP 65 Review - Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings 

 

 

Subject:          SEPP 65 Review - Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings      

Record No:    SU1802 - 63596/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Michael Mason 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings (SEPP 65) by the NSW State Government are currently on public exhibition until 31 October 2014.

 

The main changes proposed to the SEPP are:-

·     The replacement of the Residential Flat Design Code with a new Apartment Design Guide;

·     A new requirement has been included that carparking is nominated in the list of matters that Council cannot refuse a DA on; and

·     A Development Control Plan cannot be inconsistent with the Apartment Design Guide.

 

The report recommends that Council make a submission to Planning & Environment on the SEPP Amendment and the Apartment Design Guide that highlights the need for an amended SEPP to recognise local measures and Councils that deliver State aims while having regard to local constraints, innovation and circumstance.  The submission would also call for the Apartment Design Code to be a best practice reference rather than a statement and justification of minimum standards.

 

Background

 

SEPP No. 65 was introduced in 2002 with the aim to improve the design quality of residential flat development in NSW.  The current SEPP applies to the development of residential flat buildings; substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing residential flat buildings; and the conversion of an existing building to a residential flat building. A residential flat building is defined as a multi-unit development with three or more storeys and four (4) or more self-contained dwellings.

 

The SEPP was accompanied by the Residential Flat Design Code which provided tools for improving the design of residential flat buildings and guidance on how the design quality principles provided under the SEPP can be applied to developments.

 


Outline of Changes

 

The draft documents comprise the SEPP Instrument and the design guidelines.  In respect of the SEPP Instrument, the changes proposed are as follows:-

 

1.         Changes to SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings

 

Table 1 – Summary of Changes to the SEPP

Proposed Amendment

Comment

Clause 2 – Aims, Objectives etc.: Insert additional aims

(f)    to contribute to the provision of a variety of dwelling types to meet housing and population targets, and

(g)   to contribute to the provision of affordable housing options, and

(h)   to facilitate the timely and efficient assessment of applications for residential flat development.

The amendment will reference the housing targets set by the NSW State Government. Council should note that new targets will shortly be set for Councils.

 

 

Clause 3 – Definitions: Replace all definitions with new definitions

·    Apartment Design Guide means the document titled ―Apartment Design Guide‖ published by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure on the day on which State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (Amendment No 3) commenced.

·    Note. A copy of the Guide is available on the website of the Department.

·    design quality principles means the principles set out in Schedule 1.

·    design review panel means a panel constituted under Part 3.

·    relevant design review panel, in relation to an application for development consent or the modification of development consent, means the design review panel for the local government area or areas in which the development concerned is being (or is proposed to be) carried out.

·    residential flat development means development to which this Policy applies because of clause 4.

·    the Act means the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The Residential Flat Design Code will be replaced with the Apartment Design Guide. Refer to the discussion below which outlines the new Guide.

 

 

Clause 4 – Application of the Policy:  Replace the clause with a new clause

This Policy applies to development for the purpose of a residential flat building, shop top housing or mixed use development with a residential accommodation component if:

(a)     the development consists of any of the following:

(i)    the erection of a new building,

(ii)   the substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing building,

(iii)  the conversion of an existing building for use as a residential flat building, shop top housing or mixed development with a residential accommodation component, and

(b)     the building concerned is at least 3 or more storeys (not including levels below the ground level (existing) providing for car parking, and (c) the building concerned contains at least 4 or more dwellings.

The amended SEPP will be extended to include mixed use development and shop top housing of three or more storeys and four or more dwellings in addition to residential flat buildings.

 

 

This clarifies the application of the SEPP and is supported.

 

Clause 6 – Relationship with other Environmental Planning Instruments

Insert at the end of the clause:

(2) Subclause (1) does not apply in relation to State Environmental Planning

Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

The amendment to the SEPP will clarify that apartment buildings being assessed under SEPP 65 will also need to comply with BASIX (the building sustainability index) SEPP.

 

Clause 6A – DCPs Cannot be Inconsistent with Apartment Design Guide:  New Clause

The provisions of a development control plan under Division 6 of Part 3 of the Act, whenever made, are of no effect to the extent to which they aim to establish standards with respect to any of the following matters in relation to residential flat development that are inconsistent with the standards set out in the Apartment Design Guide:

(a)   visual privacy,

(b)   solar and daylight access,

(c)   common circulation and spaces,

(d)   apartment layout,

(e)   ceiling heights,

(f)    balconies and private open space,

(g)   natural ventilation,

(h)   storage.

The amendment to the SEPP will require that the design criteria in the Apartment Design Guide will prevail over Council’s comprehensive DCP.  A comparison of where council’s DCP exceeds the new standard is outlined later in the report.

Part 2 – Design Quality Principles

Delete Part 2, including the 10 Design Quality Principles.

The 10 Design Quality principles are proposed to be replaced with the following 9 design quality principles:

·    Context and Neighbourhood Character;

·    Built Form and Scale;

·    Density;

·    Sustainability;

·    Landscape;

·    Amenity;

·    Safety;

·    Housing Diversity and Social Interaction; and

·    Architectural Expression

Design Quality Principles are now proposed to be contained in Schedule 1 to the SEPP (instead of the main instrument).

The existing principles are:

·    Context

·    Scale

·    Built form

·    Density

·    Resource, energy and water efficiency

·    Landscape

·    Amenity

·    Safety & security

·    Social dimensions and housing affordability

·    Aesthetics

Clauses 19 to 27 Relating to the Constitution of Design Review Panels, Functions, etc.

The SEPP makes various changes to provisions relating to the appointment of a Design Review Panel.

 

Whilst the Frequently Asked Questions Fact Sheet published by the Department states that the SEPP amendment will give councils the ability to appoint design review panels and to determine who is on the panel (previously, the Minister appointed panels), the wording in the public consultation draft indicates that it is still the Minister who may constitute a panel or abolish a panel.

While Lane Cove Council does not have a Design Review Panel at present it has resolved to investigate and call for a report on a likely model that would consider the Lane Cove context.

Clauses 28 to 30A – Relating to preparation of LEPs, DCPs, Masterplans, DAs, S96s, issue of construction and occupation certificate, and standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse development consent

The SEPP amendment reduces Part 4 to three provisions:

·    Determination of DAs;

·    Determination of Section 96 Applications; and

·    Standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse development consent or modification of development consent.

 

For Councils who have a formal SEPP 65 Panel the major changes are:

·    The 31 day period for obtaining the Design Review Panel’s advice on a DA is reduced to 14 days. After 14 days the consent authority may determine the DA. Same for Section 96 modifications to consent.

·    If an architectural design competition that is consistent with the Design Excellence Guidelines has been held for the proposed development, the consent authority is not required to obtain the advice of a Design Review Panel.

·    A consent authority cannot refuse a DA on any of the following grounds: ceiling height, apartment area and carparking. Carparking is the new item. A DA cannot be refused on the basis of inadequate car parking if carparking for the building is equal to, or greater than, that recommended as the minimum amount of car parking set out in Part 3 of the Apartment Design Guide.

Schedule 1 – Design Quality Principles

The Design Quality Principles have been reworded and updated.  (Refer to the discussions in more details below.)

 

Design Quality Principles

 

The current principles are outlined in AT-1 and the new draft principles are in AT-2.  The wording between the current and the proposed principles has been amended, but the intent remains the same.  There is however a conflict between new Principle 8 (previously called “Principle 9 - Social Directions and Housing Affordability”) and the Council Policy Considerations of dwelling sizes, car parking rates and unit mix.

 

Principle 9 - Social Dimensions and Housing Affordability states:-

 

“Good design responds to the social context and needs of the local community in terms of lifestyles, affordability, and access to social facilities.

 

New developments should optimise the provision of housing to suit the social mix and needs in the neighbourhood or, in the case of precincts undergoing transition, provide for the desired future community.

 

New developments should address housing affordability by optimising the provision of economic housing choices.”

 

The proposed new Principle 8 – Housing Diversity and Social Interaction states:-

 

“Good design achieves a mix of apartment sizes, providing housing choice for different demographics, living needs and household budgets. Well-designed developments respond to social context by providing housing and facilities to suit the existing and future social mix. Good design involves practical and flexible features, including different types of communal spaces for a broad range of people, providing opportunities for social interaction amongst residents.”

 

The previous principle (being Principle 9 – Social and Housing Affordability) did not specifically mention apartment sizes nor requiring good design to achieve a mix of apartment sizes etc. This is of particular concern in the Lane Cove context as Council’s DCP requires a 10% mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments with a 70% mix determined by the developer (market). This local principle will be included in Council’s submission.

 

2.         Replacement of Residential Flat Design Code with Apartment Design Guide

 

The Apartment Design Code will replace the 2002 Residential Flat Design Code. The new Apartment Design Code has been described in the exhibition material as moving towards greater flexibility in the design of buildings and encouraging design innovation. In reality the new Apartment Design Code provides developers and other stakeholders greater certainty at the expense of less flexibility and innovation. It is more prescriptive than the Residential Flat Design Code and Council’s DCP.

 

The Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) contains three (3) parts as follows:-

·      Part 1 – Local Context:

Contains guidelines on relating to the local context, residential flat building types, amalgamation and subdivision of sites, building envelopes and primary development controls such as: height, depth, separation, setbacks and FSR.

·      Part 2 – Site Design:

Contains guidelines on site analysis, site configuration (deep soil zones, fences, walls, landscape design, open space, orientation, planting on structures and stormwater management), site amenity (safety & visual privacy) and site access (building entry, parking, and pedestrian access and vehicle access).

·      Part 3 – Building Design:

Building configuration, including apartment layout & mix, balconies, ceiling heights. Internal circulation, mixed use and storage); building amenity (acoustic privacy, daylight access, and natural ventilation), building form (awnings and signage, facades and roof designs), and building performance (energy efficiency, maintenance, water management and water conservation).

 

The Apartment Design Guide is more comprehensive than the RFDC. It contains the above matters for consideration as well as the following new matters, which seek to accommodate life cycle and demographic change.

·      Part 4G - Universal Design:

The Guide states that:-

Universal design is an international design philosophy that enables people to carry on living in the same home by ensuring that apartments are able to change with the needs of the occupants. Universally designed apartments are safer and easier to enter, move around and live in. They are of benefit to all members of the community, from young families to older people, their visitors, as well as those with permanent or temporary disabilities.

Incorporating universal design principles in apartment design is a step towards producing a robust, flexible housing stock. It ensures that simple and practical design features are incorporated into new buildings that would be difficult and costly to retrofit at a later date. Universal design is different to adaptable housing which is governed by Australian Standard 4299 and is specifically designed to allow for the future adaptation of a dwelling to accommodate the occupant’s needs.

In addition to the specific aims of universal design and adaptable housing, flexible apartment design is desirable to allow buildings to accommodate a diverse range of lifestyle needs such as different household structures, live/work housing arrangements and future changes in use.”

 

The Guide states that the following universal design features should be incorporated into a proportion (20%) of all new apartments:

Safe and continuous levelled paths to all entrances;

Accessible entry door with a minimum 820mm clear opening width and a step for threshold;

Level landing area of 1200mm by 1200mm at entrance door;

Internal doors with a minimum 820mm clear opening width and a step fee transition between surfaces;

Internal corridors with a minimum of 1000mm clear width;

o     Step free shower recess;

o     Bathroom wall is reinforced for grab rails around the toilet, shower and basin; and

o     A toilet is provided on the ground or entry level in multi-unit apartments.

 

·        Part 4H – Adaptive Reuse:

The Guide states:-

Buildings adapted for reuse as apartments can be of any shape or size from large houses, redundant industrial buildings, major institutional buildings and groups of buildings or commercial office towers. There are many benefits of retaining existing buildings. Adaptation of an existing building for a new residential use provides for the evolution of that place and should be approached in a way that acknowledges the past. Modifications should ensure the building’s continued relevance in the future. Residential adaptive reuse projects should be well designed contemporary layers that respect existing elements.

Non-residential buildings often have dimensions, layouts and orientations that are not designed for residential use. A balance must be achieved between the benefits of retaining the building versus the quality of residential amenity that can be achieved.”

 

Adaptive Reuse applications can follow the rezoning industrial uses to high density residential purposes. While Lane Cove is yet to experience this type of development.

 

·        Part 4T – Noise & Pollution:

This Part deals with design responses on sites that are affected by external noise and pollution sources. This Part is applicable to areas along major roads such as Epping Road, Pacific Highway and Burns Bay Road.

The Guide states:-

Properties located near major roads, rail lines and beneath flight paths can be subject to noise and poor air quality. Similarly, hostile and noisy environments such as industrial areas, substations or sports stadiums can have impacts on residential amenity. Careful design solutions can help to improve quality of life in affected apartments by minimising potential noise and pollution impacts.”

 

·        Part 5 – Design Review Panels: This Part of the Guide contains information on the function, membership, establishment, roles & responsibilities, meeting procedures and templates for a Design Review Panel. This is the first comprehensive guide to a SEPP 65 Design Review Panel. The SEPP Amendment does not indicate if the panels will be made compulsory.

 

Implications for Council

 

1.         Development Control Plans Cannot be inconsistent with Apartment Design Guide

 

The proposed amendment to the SEPP proposes a new clause 6A which states:-

 

“The provisions of a development control plan under Division 6 of Part 3 of the Act, whenever made, are of no effect to the extent to which they aim to establish standards with respect to any of the following matters in relation to residential flat development that are inconsistent with the standards set out in the Apartment Design Guide:

 

(a)          visual privacy,

(b)          solar and daylight access,

(c)          common circulation and spaces,

(d)          apartment layout,

(e)          ceiling heights,

(f)           balconies and private open space,

(g)          natural ventilation,

(h)          storage.”

 

This means that Council’s DCP be amended to delete the standards relating to the matters listed above for residential flat buildings.  This includes Council’s policy considerations of car parking rates, minimum dwelling sizes, etc. It should be noted that the Design Quality Principles in the SEPP (an environmental planning instrument) have more formal statutory weight at present than Council’s comprehensive DCP.

 

The following table (Table 2) provides a comparison of the numerical standards in the Guide and Council’s DCP 2013:

 

·     

·      1 bedroom – 8m2 minimum area and 2m depth;

·      2 bedroom – 10m2 and 2m; and

·      3+ bedrooms – 12m2 and 2.5m.

Table 2 – Comparison between Council’s DCP 2013 & Apartment Design Guide

Numerical Standard

Lane Cove DCP

Apartment Design Guide

Comment

Communal Open Space

25% of site area

25% of the site area

Guide requires same communal open space as Council’s DCP.

Solar Access to Communal Open Space

Minimum 3 hours in mid winter and reasonable application

50% of the principal useable portion of the communal open space for a minimum of 2 hours between 9am and 3pm in mid winter.

Guide provides less solar access than Council’s DCP.

Deep Soil Zones

A minimum of 25% of the landscape area must comprise a deep soil planting area of which:

·      A minimum of 50% should be located at the rear of the site. For sites with dual or rear lane frontages, this area may be relocated to allow buildings to address the secondary frontage or provide for rear lane carparking access;

·      A minimum of 30% should be located within the front setback;

·      A minimum 2 metre wide strip of landscaping is to be located along and rear side boundaries; and

·      Where building height is greater than 7 metres, a minimum 3 metres wide landscape planter bed for the purposes of dense, layered landscape screening is to be located on both the side and rear boundaries. If it is attached to private open space of ground floor apartments then a 2 meter buffer is sufficient.

Based on site area:

·      Less than 650m2 – 7% consolidated of site area

·      650-1500m2 – 10% of site area with minimum 3m width.

·      Greater than 1500m2 – 15% of site area with minimum 6m width

·      Greater than 1,500m2 and significant tree cover – 20% of site area with minimum 6m width.

·      Pathways and paving is a maximum of 10% of the deep soil zone.

Guide provides less deep soil landscaping than the Council’s DCP.

 

Separation Distances

 

Requires compliance with the Residential Flat Design Code:

·      Up to 12m (4 storeys) – 12m for habitable rooms and balconies, 12m between habitable and non-habitable and 6m for non-habitable;

·      Up to 25m (5-8 storeys) – 18m, 13m & 9m; and

·      Over 25m (9+ storeys) – 24m, 18m & 12m

 

Depending on building height:

·      Up to 12m (4 storeys) – 12m for habitable rooms and balconies, 9m between habitable and non-habitable and 6m for non-habitable;

·      Up to 25m (5-8 storeys) – 18m, 12m & 9m; and

·      Over 25m (9+ storeys) – 24m, 18m & 12m

The separation distances are the same.

 

Apartment buildings should have an increased separation distance of 3m (in addition to the above) when adjacent to a zone permitting lower density residential development.

The 3m increase in separation when adjacent to a zone permitting lower density residential is new and has merit.

 

The Guide also contains lower separation distances for infill development where privacy separation distances cannot be achieved.

Lower separation distances for infill development is new and allows for a merit based assessment.

 

Car Parking

 

 

Sites within 400m of a railway station or light rail stop there is no specific minimum requirement.

Guide is less restrictive than the Council’s DCP – in fact for residential flat development within 400m of the St Leonards and Wollstonecraft Railway Stations there is no minimum carparking requirement.

Sites within 400m to 800m of a railway station or light rail the minimum requirement is the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments or the car parking prescribed by the Council’s DCP – whatever is the less.

This means that for sites within this radius Council will not be able to require any car parking at all under the SEPP.

This is of major concern as this could provide an outcome where the cost of private parking is transferred to the public.  Despite the presence of heavy rail, it will not meet all the transport needs of residents particularly on weekends

Number of visitor’s car parking is limited to 1 in 10 apartments.

Car share spaces may be provided in lieu of the required number of car parking – subject to a council policy.

Solar and Daylight Access

 

Development must demonstrate that living rooms and private open spaces for at least 70% of apartments in a development should receive a minimum of three hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.

Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid winter.

Similar controls in Council’s DCP and the Guide.

Neighbouring developments will obtain at least three hours of direct sunlight to 50% of the primary private open space and all windows to living rooms; and 30% of any common open space will obtain at least two hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building have no direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid winter.

Apartments that receive direct sunlight in accordance with the acceptable solution 4L-1.4 (first point above) need to demonstrate that a person is able to sit in the sun in a habitable room or on a balcony of an apartment in mid-winter between 9am and 3pm.

Apartment Layout

 

Minimum unit size of 40m2 exclusive of balconies, common corridors and lobbies, car spaces, storage areas outside dwelling, and open space.

Council requires 10% mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units with 70% determined by the market.

 

Apartment sizes are in accordance with:

·      Studio – 35m2

·      1 bedroom – 50m2

·      2 bedroom – 70m2

·      3 bedroom – 95m2

Minimum of 2.7m for floor to ceiling heights for habitable rooms. There other reduced requirements for 2 level apartments – 2.4m for the second floor where its area does not exceed 50% of the apartment area.

For open plan layouts, combining the living room, dining room and kitchen, the back of the kitchen is a maximum of 8 metres from a window

Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2

and other bedrooms 9m2 (excluding wardrobe space)

Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space)

All bedrooms allow a minimum length of 1.5m for robes

Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms

have a minimum width of:

• 3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom apartments

• 4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

The Guide contains smaller apartment sizes than the Council’s minimum standards.

Council provides flexibility to developers in the size of units and mix outside the 10% 1, 2 and 3 bedroom mix.

It is noted the Code used to provide optimal sizes for good amenity in addition to minimum sizes for affordability.  Optimal configuration should be encouraged by the continued inclusions.

 

Private Open Space and Balconies

 

·      Minimum depth of 2m and area of 10m2 for all units above ground

·      Ground floor – minimum depth 4m and area 16m2

Primary private open space at ground level or similar space on a structure has a minimum area of 16m2 and a minimum dimension in one direction of 3m

 

 

Balconies to be provided as follows:

The minimum private open space requirements and the balconies sizes under the Guide are less than those contained in Council’s DCP for 1 bedroom units.

Cross Ventilation

 

The Council’s DCP referenced the SEPP and the Residential Flat Design Code. The Code’s Rule of Thumb required that 60% of residential units should be naturally cross ventilated.

At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross Ventilated.

Same between the Guide and the Council’s DCP.

Storage

 

Accessible and adequate storage facilities are to be provided at the following rates:

Studios:                       6m³

1 bedroom dwelling:    6m³

2 bedroom dwellings: 8m³

3+ bedroom dwellings: 10m³

Studios - 6m3

1 bedroom – 6m3

2 bedroom – 8m3

3+ bedrooms – 10m3

Guide is the same as the Council’s DCP.

 

Basements

Merit based assessment with objective to minimise impacts

Protrusion of car parks does not exceed 1m above ground level, design solutions may include stepping car park levels or using split levels on sloping sites

 

Site Coverage

Development for a residential flat building must not exceed a maximum site coverage of 45%.

Can be up to 100% - it depends on the locality characteristics.

Lane Cove to date have not assessed refurbishment of buildings for residential use.  Any assessment would be on merit.

 

2.         Standards that Cannot be Used as Grounds for Refusal

 

The SEPP amendment states that a consent authority cannot refuse a DA on the grounds of ceiling height, apartment area and car parking. Car parking is the new item. A DA cannot be refused if car parking for the building is equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum amount of car parking set out in Part 3 of the Apartment Design Guide which is outlined in Table 3 below.

 

The following table (Table 3) compares the car parking requirements in the recently adopted Chapter R – Traffic, Transport & Parking of the DCP to those in the Guide and Roads and Maritime Services Guide to Traffic Generating Developments.

 

Table 3 – Comparison of car parking between the Council’s DCP and the Guide

Lane Cove Council Chapter – R DCP adopted 26 September 2014

Apartment Design Guide

Comment

Any residential development within 400m of St Leonards Railway Station is subject to the following:-

For sites within 400m of a railway station or light rail stop there is no specific minimum requirement.

While Council parking standard has recently changed they are greater than that nominated in the Apartment Design Guide.

·   Studio – 0.6 spaces

·   1 bedroom unit – 0.5 spaces

·   2 bedroom unit – 1 space

·   3 bedroom units – 2 spaces

(Table 2, p.35, Chapter R – Traffic, Transport & Parking

For sites within 400m to 800m of a railway station or light rail the minimum requirement is the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments or the carparking prescribed by the Council’s DCP – whatever is the less.

Number of visitors is limited to 1 in 10 apartments.

Car share spaces may be provided in lieu of the required number of car parking – subject to a council policy

 

 

The main point of the car parking inclusion in the SEPP as a reason for not refusing a DA is to have fewer cars and to ensure that the expectation is that the people buying units will not need or want a car and therefore the unit would be more affordable.

 

Car parking is not required to be provided for residential flat development (RFB) and development involving a RFB within 400m of a Railway Station. Within 400-800m of a railway station the minimum requirement is the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments or Council’s DCP – whichever is the less. The carparking provisions in the RMS Guide are less than Council’s DCP. This affects development around the St Leonards Station.

 

The new SEPP prevents Council from using its DCP to require developers to provide a minimum number of cars.  The draft SEPP states that Council cannot mandate that a certain number of car spaces be provided in a development. If the Amendment to the SEPP proceeds and the Guide is adopted, then the result would be more pressure for on street parking, as it is likely that unit owners may still have cars to meet demands, particularly on weekends, for trips to areas which don’t have public transport. 

 

3.         Apartment Size

 

Minimum apartment sizes and ceiling heights were introduced as an amendment to SEPP 65 in 2008 to address housing affordability by reducing the impact of building construction costs which were being passed onto purchasers.

 

The inclusion of minimum apartment sizes in the SEPP infers that all Council’s across NSW are subject to the same economic, environmental and social factors. When a minimum standard is set that cannot be used as grounds for refusal it affects what is essentially a merit based assessment of residential flat buildings in compliance with design principles contained within a State planning policy.

 


Discussion

 

The proposal to review both SEPP 65 and the Residential Flat Code (RFC) is welcomed and timely given the focus by the State Government on residential development at and near major communication nodes (Rail and Light Rail).  SEPP 65 and RFC have served the State, local Councils and their communities well by providing clear policy direction (SEPP 65) and a credible planning reference of best practice and innovation that promoted better livability and amenity standards in residential unit development.

 

Notwithstanding the acceptance and support of these documents they are in need of review and updating to better reflect changes in construction methods, residential unit design and community expectations.

 

The proposed amendments to SEPP 65 and the new Apartment Design Guide are a move in the right direction and aspects are supported.  However, the proposed SEPP amendments fail to recognise and engage local communities and Councils in a way that encourages local solutions to  problems while keeping true to the overall policy direction of the State.

 

The aspects of the SEPP that are supported include:

·      The SEPP would now apply to mixed use developments and shop top housing that include a residential component.

·      The SEPP would give Councils the choice and ability to appoint a design review panel.

·      The SEPP would clarify that apartment buildings need to comply with the Building Sustainability Index (BASIX).

 

Aspects of the Apartment Design Code appear to move away from a reference document of best and innovative practice to a document of minimum acceptable standards.

·   Setting a minimum size (35m2) for a studio apartment is welcomed as a reference point yet it fails to state the basis for the minimum and explain the design context where a deviation should be considered.  The RFC articulated examples for consideration of design layout that would justify a range of sizes, while maximising internal amenity.

·   The reduction and removal of the need for on site car parking spaces near major rail nodes appear to be a step too far too soon.  Council has recently included a new chapter in the DCP centralising traffic issues.  To remove the need for on site car parking is not supported given the likely impacts of on street parking in local streets in these areas.  In Lane Cove the residential streets in and around St Leonards and Wollstonecraft would bear the unacceptable impacts of such a move.

The demographics of car ownership is changing, whether that change continues and at what rate needs to be monitored and considered in a rational manner that maintains certainty for all stakeholders, including residents.

The reference to the RMS guidelines would be seen as a preferred model and benchmark for Councils for the adoption of minimum on site car parking numbers rather than making such optional.

 

The above examples and issues highlight both support and concern with the proposed amendments to SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Code.

 

Council has taken a measured and realistic approach to achieving the State policy of increasing meaningful residential development.  We were among the first Councils to adopt the new comprehensive LEP and DCP.  We consulted with our community and listened to their concerns and expectations.  We researched and adopted residential standards that increased the livability of unit living in a manner that encourage development and maintained diversity and choice.

 

A case in point is the long term view adopted of unit make-up for residential development contained in our DCP which considers lifecycle change, long term housing diversity and the shorter term needs of developers.  Council’s requirement for a 10% allocation of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments is a well considered and measured local response to housing diversity.

 

This is an example of local innovation and context that supports the State policy.

 

Conclusion

 

The review of the SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Code are timely and in part welcomed.  However, there is an opportunity to significantly improve the fundamental premise and approach to achieving changes that improve all aspects of multi unit development in our towns and cities.  These changes should be based on best practice, consideration of local circumstances, have broad community support and, at every opportunity, improve livability.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.       Receive and note the report; and

2.       Make a submission to the Department of  Planning & Environment for their consideration and response.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Existing Design Quality Principles from SEPP 65

3 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

SEPP 65 - Draft Amendment

2 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Existing Design Quality Principles from SEPP 65

 




ATTACHMENT 2

SEPP 65 - Draft Amendment

 



Ordinary Council Meeting 27 October 2014

Lane Cove Traffic Committee Held on 21 October 2014

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Traffic Committee Held on 21 October 2014    

Record No:    SU1326 - 63953/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Sashika Young 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 21 October 2014.  The Agenda and Minute for Item Y9 – Little Street, Lane Cove are included as AT-1 and AT-2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday, 21 October 2014 in relation to Item Y9 – Little Street, Lane Cove.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

AGENDA - Traffic Committee - October 2014 - Item Y9

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

MINUTES - Traffic Committee - October 2014 - Item Y9

3 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

AGENDA - Traffic Committee - October 2014 - Item Y9

 



ATTACHMENT 2

MINUTES - Traffic Committee - October 2014 - Item Y9

 




Ordinary Council Meeting 27 October 2014

Council's Lease with Lane Cove West Tennis Club Inc.

 

 

Subject:          Council's Lease with Lane Cove West Tennis Club Inc.    

Record No:    SU2056 - 63428/14

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Kirsty Fleming 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council’s lease agreement with the Lane Cove West Tennis Club Inc. expired on 30 June 2014.  Council has been in discussions with the Club regarding implementing a new lease for a further five (5) year termHowever, as the land that the Club occupies is classified as Community Land under the Local Government Act 1993, Council was required to advertise its intention to grant a lease and consider any submission it receives during the consultation period. 

 

Council received one (1) submission during the notification period from Sydney Tennis Group.  The nature of the submission was not an objection to the lease but rather raised concerns regarding the current coaching arrangements at the facility and proposed alternative arrangements that may help to develop the game of tennis and the facility, specifically the implementation of exclusive coaching rights. 

 

At the Councillor Workshop of 10 June 2014, Councillors heard from the Lane Cove West Tennis Club Inc regarding their vision and plans for the ongoing growth and development of the facility, in particular plans on how they are seeking to increase patronage, and renew and upgrade the facilities. 

 

Given that at the Workshop Council indicated satisfaction with the operational model being utilised by the club, including coaching arrangements, it is recommended that Council enter into a lease arrangement with Lane Cove West Tennis Club Inc and continue to investigate initatives that may be implemented to maximise community access, usage and sustainability of the facility in the long term. 

 

Background

 

Council’s lease agreement with the Lane Cove West Tennis Club Inc. expired on 30 June 2014. 

Prior to this Councillors received a presentation from the Club at the Councillor Workshop of 10 June 2014 regarding their vision and plans for the ongoing growth and development of the facility, in particular plans on how they are seeking to increase patronage, and renew and upgrade the facilities. 

 

Council has since been working with the Club towards implementing a new lease for a further five (5) year termHowever, as the land the Club occupies is classified as Community Land under the Local Government Act 1993, Council was required to advertise its intention to grant a lease and consider any submission it receives during the consultation period. 

 

An advertisement was published in the North Shore Times on 8 August 2014 and notices were affixed to the club house.   The closing date for submissions was Friday, 5 September 2014.  Council received one (1) submission during the notification period from Sydney Tennis Group (this has been circulated to Councillors separately). The nature of the submission was not an objection to the lease but rather raised concerns regarding the current coaching arrangements at the facility and proposed alternative arrangements that may help to develop the game of tennis and the facility, specifically the implementation of exclusive coaching rights. 

 

Sydney Tennis Group took over from the previous coaching operator at the facility in 2012.  They have a similar coaching agreement in place at nearby Hallam Avenue Tennis Club.  Additionally, they have been managing the Killara Lawn Tennis Club for the past three (3) years and currently operate the Hot Shots in Schools Program for Lane Cove West Public School.  

 

The Club was asked to provide a response to the submission which has also been circulated to Councillors separately. 

 

Discussion

 

The main points raised in the submission relate to the Club’s refusal to award exclusive coaching rights to Sydney Tennis Group.

 

The Lane Cove West Tennis Club is available for public hire and as such a number of coaching providers regularly hire courts to conduct their training sessions.  The Club has never granted exclusive coaching rights to any one provider maintaining the view that awarding exclusive coaching rights would be detrimental to other coaches and others currently using the facilities. The Club has noted that Sydney Tennis Group has been, and continues to receive, support including preferential booking of courts for after school tennis coaching three (3) days per week (Monday, Tuesday and Thursday), discounted court hire, and free exclusive use of onsite storage.  The Club has also made efforts to rearrange Friday afternoon bookings to ensure accessibility to all courts for the current school sport program. 

 

The Club has further supported Sydney Tennis Groups operations by demonstrating considerable flexibility in relation to the contract with World Wide Tennis Group.  Whilst this contract initially committed Sydney Tennis Group to 35 hours court hire per week, the Club has allowed reduced hours and a positive relationship exists with the Club’s booking officer that allows the courts to be made available to other players when not required by Sydney Tennis Group.

 

Whilst it is appreciated that commercial tennis operations can be quite competitive and the suggested model has proven successful at other facilities and would offer an opportunity for Sydney Tennis Group to expand their business interests in Lane Cove, it is the Club’s opinion that awarding exclusive coaching rights at this particular facility would be detrimental to the current operations.  It is both the aim of Council and the Club to provide high quality, accessible, highly utilised tennis facilities for Club members and members of our community.  

 

Conclusion

 

At present the courts are well partonised and the Council is satisfied with the current levels of utlisation and the management systems the Club has in place.  Tennis coaching is an important aspect of learning and enjoying tennis and whilst the club values Sydney Tennis Groups programs, awarding exclusive coaching rights would be to the detriment of several other coaches (some long standing, high volume users of the facility) and to other users such as parents who often book the courts and employ their own coaches.  As such, it will be recommended that Council support a continuation of the existing coaching arrangements with regards to this facility and enter into a lease for a further five (5) year term and continue to investigate initiatives that may be implemented to maximise community access, usage and sustainability of the facility in the long term. 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.    Receive and note the report;

2.    Enter into a lease arrangement with Lane Cove West Tennis Club Inc for a further five (5) year term; and

3.    Authorise the General Manager to finalise and execute to lease agreement on Council’s behalf.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 27 October 2014

Revised Plans for Little Lane Redevelopment - Reconfigured Residential Components

 

 

Subject:          Revised Plans for Little Lane Redevelopment - Reconfigured Residential Components    

Record No:    SU5484 - 63754/14

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      John  Lee 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

WN Developments P/L (the Developer) is carrying out the Little Lane Car Park redevelopment under a Project Delivery Agreement (PDA).  The PDA makes provision for changes to the development as approved under DA 90/12, subject to a number of conditions, including Council's consent as owner.  This report seeks Council’s authority as landowner (not as consent authority) for lodgment by the Developer of an application which reconfigures the residential components. 

 

Background

 

DA 90/12 was approved in November 2012 and provided for 50 residential apartments above the ground floor retail and community spaces.  The Developer has separately lodged an application to modify the basement level layout to include an additional public car park lift as required by Council and to provide flat car park slabs with ramps in lieu of a continuously sloping “helical” carpark design and a number of consequential changes.

 

The PDA recognises a level of flexibility in delivering the residential components by way of layout, BCA compliance and current market trends to deliver a quality product.  The Developer had identified the potential to reconfigure layouts within the approved envelope to achieve an additional eight (8) units. Elevations are included as AT1 together with apartment schedule as AT2. Copies of the internal layouts have been circulated separately to Councillors.

 

Discussion

 

The relevant provisions of the PDA in relation to subsequent consents relative to the residential component are set out in AT-3.  A meeting with the Steering committee was held on Friday 17 October 2014 to consider the draft plans prepared by Woods Baggot, Architects.  The proposed changes are summarises as follows:-

 

1.    Reduced the number of residential levels from 8 to 7;

2.    Increased floor to ceiling height within units;

3.    Scissor stairs introduced to provide dual fire stairs;

4.    Increase in the base floor plate by extending the building toward the Little Street / Little Lane intersection and associated change in architectural merit;

5.    Extended internal corridors to receive natural light from the north and south facades;

6.    Increase in the number of units to 59, with an associated change in the mix of 1-4 bedroom units; and

7.    Generally smaller balconies for 2-3 bedroom units.

 

Comment

 

The external changes to the building form are considered acceptable, noting that the envelope is generally within the setbacks identified in the DCP. The redesign whilst being lower overall, is not able to provide 3 hours sunlight access to one of the neighbouring units between 9am and 3pm. However, the 3 hours is available by 3.45pm. The DCP generally requires 2 hours minimum, and allows some flexibility due to site constraints. On this basis it is considered acceptable for assessment.

 

The Developer and Architect have responded to most of the issues raised by staff in arriving at the current draft set of plans.  Should Council as landowner endorse the plans as being in an acceptable form and consistent with the provisions of the PDA, the Developer will complete the necessary planning documentation to support the associated application.

 

As with the previous application, the proposed application (whether accepted as a modification or considered as a new application) will be independently assessed and referred to the JRPP for approval. 

 

Steering Committee

 

The Steering Committee for the Little Lane Car Park Redevelopment met on Friday 17 October to consider the draft plans and have endorsed the draft plans as being satisfactory for lodgment of a development application subject to provision of additional measures to improve privacy to the balconies to the lower three floors fronting Little Lane.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.   Advise WN Developments P/L that the Council, as land owner, authorises the lodgment of  an application to reconfigure the residential components of the Little Lane Car Park Redevelopment; and

2.   Advise WN Developments P/L that this authority to lodge an application must not be construed, as prejudging or indicating any pre determination of the application to which the authority relates, by Council or the relevant Joint Regional Planning Panel as a consent authority under the environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Revised impressions and elevations

7 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Relevant provisions of the PDA in relation to consents for the residential components - Little Lane Redevelopment

2 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Extract from PDA - Little Lane Redevelopment

3 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Revised impressions and elevations

 




 





ATTACHMENT 2

Relevant provisions of the PDA in relation to consents for the residential components - Little Lane Redevelopment

 



ATTACHMENT 3

Extract from PDA - Little Lane Redevelopment