m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

20 April 2015

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 20 April 2015 commencing at 6:30pm. 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 20 April 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

MATTERS RECOMMENDED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED COMMITTEE

 

Confidential Items

 

1.      Update on the Feasibility Analysis of Proposed Redevelopment of Rosenthal Carpark Site

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing. 

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

2.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 16 MARCH 2015

 

Petitions

 

3.      Petition for Pram and Bike Access for Greenwich Baths

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

4.      Planning Proposal to rezone 75-79 Lithgow St & 84-90 Christie St, St Leonards to Mixed Use

 

5.      Planning Proposal to Amend Height Control for 1-13A Marshall Ave, St Leonards

 

6.      Planning Proposal to Rezone No.1 Sirius Road, Lane Cove West from IN2 Light Industry to B4 Mixed Use

 

7.      Rosenthal Avenue Design Ideas Competition

 

8.      Friedlander Place - Sale of Below Ground Stratum

 

9.      Aquisition of 296 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove

 

10.    Sustainability Small Grants Round 10 - Recommended Recipients

 

11.    Local Traffic Committee Meeting March 2015

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

12.    Lane Cove Bush Fire Prone Land Update

 

13.    Council Snapshot   

 

 

 

 

           


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 April 2015

Petition for Pram and Bike Access for Greenwich Baths

 

 

Subject:          Petition for Pram and Bike Access for Greenwich Baths    

Record No:     SU5775 - 20639/15

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):       Jane Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has received a petition with 241 signatures calling for Pram and Bike Access to Greenwich Baths. The letter from the head petitioner outlines the issues with parents attending the Baths with children in prams due to the steepness of the slope from the roadway to the Baths entry. It is recommended Council consider the matter as part of future upgrades to the Baths.

 

Background

 

Greenwich Baths is situated on the Lane Cove River at the bottom of a narrow and steep slope. As a natural asset, like many beaches there are access issues which are difficult to address without significantly changing the natural features of the area. The accessibility problem has not been ignored by Council, but rather has been examined on a number of occasions with improvements made where possible, including the most recent pathway.

Where new paths are built they have to conform to the relevant Australian Standard - in this case, AS1428 on Design for Access and Mobility.

This standard stipulates that paths must have a gradient of no more than 1:14 and that there must be a level platform every 9 metres. Due to the height difference between the road and the entrance to the Baths it is difficult to design a ramp or path that will meet those specifications. Any resulting path, if it could be built would mean that most of the slope adjacent to the paths would be a hard surface.

The matter is further complicated by the need to maintain access for the bulldozer that is used each year to reshape the beach. A bulldozer would not be able to transverse a series of switchback footpaths.

 

Discussion

 

The head petitioner has suggested two ways in which the situation could be remedied:-

1.   Council provide a ramp alongside the concrete steps, similar to the bike pathway ramp at the Milsons Point side of the Harbour Bridge, or a short concreted pathway alternative which will allow pram and bike access; and

2.   Council remove the steps on the new pathway from the Sailing Club to the Greenwich Baths and make this pathway pram, bike and child friendly instead of an obstacle course.

 

While the ramp would remove the concrete steps, the steepness of the slope and therefore the ramp would not be suitable to leave a child in a pram whilst using it. It would also require such effort to push prams up that it would be easier to fold and carry the pram. Whilst a bike would be easier, it is noted that the recently completed path provides access, albeit that it is not designed as a shared user path. Providing a ramp next to the stairs is not considered cost effective given its likely usage and the existence of the path.

 

In regards to the new pathway from the Sailing Club, the steps included in the path are “lazy steps” which are designed to facilitate an easy slope for pedestrian access and accommodate prams with a  large flat area between each step. The steps are partly to ensure easy access down a steep path and as well they help to reduce run off and prevent wash-out of the pathway.

 

As such, neither of the above listed remedies would be suitable for resolving the issue.

 

Council has recently appointed the architectural firm of Clive Lucas Stapleton to prepare preliminary plans for upgrading the Baths in time for the Centenary of the Baths in November 2016. One of the elements of the planning will be to examine if there are options for better access both to the Baths and within the Baths enclosure.

 

It is anticipated that these plans will be available for public comment towards the end of 2015.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.   Receive and note the petition;

2.   Considers further options for an accessible pathway to the Baths as part of the planning for the upgrade of the Baths for the 100th Centenary in late 2016; and

3.   Advise the head petitioner Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

           


Ordinary Council Meeting 20 April 2015

Planning Proposal to rezone 75-79 Lithgow St & 84-90 Christie St, St Leonards to Mixed Use

 

 

Subject:          Planning Proposal to rezone 75-79 Lithgow St & 84-90 Christie St, St Leonards to Mixed Use    

Record No:     SU5658 - 13814/15

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report supports a planning proposal to rezone a site in the St Leonards Specialised Centre for mixed use development and to increase the height and floor space ratio controls under Local Environmental Plan 2009. The proposal, submitted by Winten Property Group, relates to 75-79 Lithgow St and 84-90 Christie St, St Leonards (Site A). An additional option is to also include for amalgamation the eight properties at 546-564 Pacific Highway, opposite St Leonards station, for commercial redevelopment (Site B).

 

The principal site (Site A) currently has development approval for an eighteen-storey commercial building under the former NSW Part 3A system. The permissible FSR is 14:1 and height is 65 metres. The site area is 3,197m2 approximately.

 

This planning proposal aims to:-

·    rezone the site (Site A) from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use

·    rezone the part of Lithgow Street which lies adjacent to the site from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use

·    increase the maximum building height from 65m to 144m (RL 224)

·    provide incentive clauses to increase the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) where specific public benefits are provided and

·    retain a minimum FSR of between 1.5:1 and 2.5:1 non-commercial floor space, depending on amalgamation of the Highway properties (Site B).

The planning proposal proposes a range of options for a mixed use development to provide significant public benefits, subject to incremental FSR increases, as follows:-

 

Option 1: For FSR 14:1 with mixed use conversion from commercial – development contribution to the Rail Plaza

Option 2:  Additional FSR of 1.6:1 – for site amalgamation for commercial purposes of the block bounded by Pacific Hwy, Christie St. Christie Lane and Lithgow St

Option 3:  Additional FSR of 2:1– for providing a 200 space public car park, associated with a supermarket

Option 2:  Additional FSR of 1.0:1 – for undertaking a design excellence process.

 

The development proposed would comprise two building components, with buildings stepping in height up from approximately 20-27 (average 24) storeys, including plant, matching the Loftex tower at 1 Marshall Av on the west side of the Plaza opposite, up to the approximately 44-47 storeys, matching the Charter Hall at 504 Pacific Hwy (the Charter Hall site being situated around eight metres uphill of this site). The number of residential flats provided would range between 450 and 625 under FSR incentives. The non-residential floor space would range from 8,045m2 – 21,195m2, and the combined total floor space would range from 44,758m2 - 59,470m2.

 

As part of the planning proposal, Winten seeks to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with Council to contribute to the delivery of the future St Leonards Plaza (the Plaza) and associated works and transfer the 200 car space public car park to Council. The Plaza would also incorporate a bus interchange and pedestrian link to St Leonards Station.

 

The above planning proposal is made with the aim of achieving a significant contribution towards the revitalisation of St Leonards Centre, with improved public domain and amenity, pedestrian connectivity, supermarket/ retail and activation of the eastern side of the Rail Plaza to complement the western precinct and form a central point between the future Marshall Avenue and Charter Hall/ Leighton redevelopments.

 

A balancing of the residential, commercial and infrastructure components is seen as key to the revitalization of the St Leonards Centre.

 

The Plaza infrastructure is essential to achieving Council’s vision of economic activation and high residential amenity. for such vitality. This planning proposal would complete the set of three sites, clustered around Council’s plazas, targeted by Council for mixed use with height and/or FSR incentives to produce an integrated and revitalised precinct on the southern side of St Leonards. 

 

On the basis of the site amalgamation for the Pacific Highway block, and even with mixed use rezoning of the main site, this proposal would comprise approximately the 30% of current LEP capacity in satisfaction of Departmental policies.  Furthermore, the creation of an estimated 680 jobs on Site B alone would provide over one quarter of the employment target (estimated at 2,500) for the Lane Cove section of St Leonards under the Metropolitan Strategy

 

The planning proposal is consistent with the objectives of the NSW Plan for Growing Sydney for the future of the St Leonards Centre. It is recommended that Council approve the planning proposal for submission to the NSW LEP Gateway.

 

The application comprises the following documents:-

 

·    Planning Proposal by JBA urban planning consultants for Winten (AT 1)

Appendix A: Concept Design Report by Bates Smart, architects (AT 2)

Appendix B: Proposed Amendments to the LEP Maps by Bates Smart (AT3)

Appendix C: Transport Report by Colston Budd Hunt Kafes Pty/Ltd (AT 4).

Appendix D: Memorandum re costs, WT Partnership (AT 5).

 

Planning Proposal 20 for the Christie/ Lithgow Precinct is recommended for submission to the Department of Planning & Environment, subject to a number of amendments to strengthen the draft LEP provisions relating to floor space ratio bonuses.

 

Background

 

The Planning Proposal 20 site is occupied by a range of commercial buildings which are reaching the end of their economic lifespan. The five lots owned by Winten (Stuva Pty Limited) have 124 car spaces and 7 vehicle access points (with others in the optioned lot, 84 Christie St). The 3,197m2 site’s configuration and tenure are described in detail in Section 3.2 of the JBA planning proposal.

 

A Concept Approval was granted for the site (without 84 Christie St) in July 2011 by the NSW Planning Assessment Commission.  Subsequently a development application for an eighteen-storey retail/commercial building of approximately 31,000m2 with 205 car spaces was approved by the Joint Regional Planning Panel in August 2012.

 

Since that time Winten has attempted to attract a major tenant to pre-commit to lease the building. However, due to the lack of demands for A-Grade commercial floor space within St Leonards they have not been able to secure a tenant and therefore have not commenced the approved commercial development. It is understood that, despite St Leonards’ location approximately 6km from the Sydney CBD, a significant factor is the perceived lack of amenity in the centre currently.

 

 

 

Notes:-

(i)     The JBA planning proposal refers to the site as the St Leonards Plaza Precinct, but the term is not used in this report as that precinct would comprise the Plaza itself, 1 Marshall Avenue and other properties on the western side.

(ii)    References to the height of the tower proposal for 1-13A Marshall Avenue are indicative only, subject to that site planning processes.

 

Discussion

 

The following provides an overview of the planning proposal as described in the JBA Report.

 

Strategic Context

 

Changes in the character of the centre:-

 

The St Leonards Specialized Centre has been identified as a focus for health and education facilities growth since the Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney in 2005, as is confirmed in that strategy’s A Plan for Growing Sydney, December 2014. A shift in its character away from a traditional commercial centre has been occurring for some years, including the expansion of business parks in North Ryde, Macquarie Park and Gore Hill and the redevelopment of the Royal North Shore Hospital.

 

St Leonards has consequently experienced a transition from smaller commercial buildings to multi-storey, mixed use development, in particular on the northern side of the Highway. The precinct currently ranges from ageing, low scale commercial buildings to the Forum (a 1990s Winten development) of approximately 35 storeys over the commercial/ retailing and rail/bus interchange on the northern side of the Highway.

 

Economic Changes:-

 

As stated in the JBA report:-

 

·    It is noted that Winten has not engaged an independent Economic Impact Assessment (EIA), on the grounds that extensive assessment has been undertaken as part of the Charter Hall/ Leighton Planning Proposal. This included an assessment prepared by Urbis for the proponent and an independent peer review engaged by Council which was undertaken by Hill PDA. The findings of these studies as they apply to the current Planning Proposal are summarised below:-

 

The decline in demand for commercial office space in the St Leonards Centre has been acknowledged in both economic assessments.

Other suburban centres such as Macquarie Park and North Ryde combine affordable rental rates with higher grade stocks and larger floor plates. These are better placed to attract traditional commercial/ office based industry sectors and tenants.

The St Leonards centre is a Tier 4 office location, which means that projects of the scale permissible under the LEP 2009 may not be viable. In this regard, Hill PDA acknowledged that the greater the quantum of commercial floor space insisted upon on a site, the less attractive the option becomes from a financial perspective, running the risk of redevelopment not being achieved. This is reflected by that fact that Winten has not been able to secure a pre-commitment for the existing commercial approval on the site.   

Notwithstanding the above, a smaller component of new, high quality office space has the potential to be attractive to the market, particularly in conjunction with other developments and public domain improvements that would reinvigorate the Precinct.

Hill PDA notes that this centre is more affordable and therefore attractive to smaller specialist medical uses and local professional firms. The existing C and D grade space meets a specific market need but would not support the growing demand for high quality commercial space.

 

The strategic vision for the St Leonards centre is currently under review, with Council noting that whilst Lane Cove has consistently worked to retain the commercial core within the St Leonards centre in accordance with the St Leonards Strategy 2006 and State policies, development has not occurred, despite the uplift in height and FSR provided in LEP 2009.

 

The site is in a central location adjacent to Council’s future St Leonards Plaza. An area over the rail plaza for the south side of the centre was proposed in the St Leonards Strategy 2006 to create open space and improve pedestrian connectivity and bus facilities within the centre.  

 

Since 2011, Council has pursued its plans for the above-rail plaza as part of its vision to create an attractive ‘sense of place’ in St Leonards and is well progressed in liaison with NSW transport agencies to prepare detailed designs for the project.

 

It is noted that the DA approved in 2012 for the site was designed, prior to the plaza plans being as advanced, to respond to the existing levels of Lithgow Street. If development were to go ahead in accordance with that DA, it would create a significant impediment to the design and functionality of the future Plaza.

 

The planning proposal is to be seen in the context also of other significant strategic planning changes in the St Leonards centre. The 472-504 Pacific Hwy Charter Hall/ Leighton Planning Proposal and the 1-13A Marshall Av Planning Proposal have both been proposed to permit mixed use development in conjunction with public domain and other infrastructure. Winten’s Christie/ Lithgow Planning Proposal 20 has the potential to complete this suite of public benefits directly related to the St Leonards Plaza-to-Friedlander Place precinct.

 

The St Leonards South Strategy Stage 2, currently being finalised, proposes higher densities in a precinct immediately west of the rail line, and the public domain improvements proposed in these three planning proposals would benefit this precinct. 

 

These increased densities in the St Leonards precinct are consistent with the NSW Government’s strategic planning objectives, and increased accessibility offered by the recently announced Sydney Rapid Transit project with a new rapid transit station to be built in St Leonards / Crows Nest, for transport to the CBD via a second Harbour crossing and to western Sydney.

 

In December 2014 the Department of Planning and Environment released A Plan for Growing Sydney. The Plan supersedes the former Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 and Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031, and presents a strategy for accommodating Sydney’s future population growth for the next 20 years.

 

The new plan identifies the following priorities for the St Leonards centre:-

 

·    Work with council to retain a commercial core in St Leonards for long-term employment growth

·    Work with council to provide capacity for additional mixed-use development in St Leonards including offices, health, retail, services and housing

·    Support health-related land uses and infrastructure around Royal North Shore Hospital and

·    Work with council to investigate potential future employment and housing opportunities associated with a Sydney Rapid Transit train station at St Leonards/ Crows Nest. 

The Planning Proposal is consistent with these priorities as it seeks to provide capacity of additional mixed use development in St Leonards to accommodate a range of residential, retail and offices uses. As stated above, the planning proposal including site amalgamation incentives would achieve the Department’s policy of providing 30% of the current LEP’s commercial floor space employment capacity.

 

The Planning Proposal

 

The planning proposal comprises two residential components referred to as the ‘plaza building’ at the interface of the future Plaza and ‘the tower’ located further to the east, with their heights ranging respectively from 20 to 44 storeys, or 27 to 47: It provides for a number of options, with differing land uses and increases in scale from the current base FSR of 14:1 up to 18.6:1 (i.e. totalling up to 4.6:1), subject to specific public benefits identified by Council (referred to by JBA as the “Public Benefits Incentives Scheme”):-

 

·    Scheme 1: Rezone the site (Site A) from commercial to mixed use with the existing FSR of 14:1– with a voluntary planning agreement for financial contributions to the St Leonards Plaza and associated works

·    Scheme 2: Increase the FSR by 2:1 – with the construction of a 200-space public car park to be transferred to Council and an associated large supermarket

·    Scheme 3: Increase the FSR by 1:1 – for providing “design excellence”

·    Scheme 4: Increase the FSR by 1.6:1 – for amalgamating the eight lots comprising the adjacent block bounded by Pacific Hwy, Christie St, Christie Lane and Lithgow St (Site B), to facilitate a 17,000m2 commercial development.

 

A diagram of this range of schemes is shown below (from page 23 of the JBA report).

 

 

The detailed design of these elements would form a future development application. An indicative photomontage of the scheme is provided further in this report (from page 15, JBA). A detailed description of the public amenity/ benefits is provided at page 45 of the JBA report.

 

Comments on Each Scheme

 

The proposed draft LEP clauses described below are at page 26 of the JBA report.

 

Scheme 1 – Rezoning from Commercial to Mixed Use

 

The rezoning to mixed use is supported as part of Council’s integrated strategy to revitalise the centre by rebalancing its proportions of residential and employment floor space and providing the public domain, transport and other infrastructure needed for both sectors.

 

The planning proposal provides an assurance that a voluntary planning agreement would be entered into with Council to provide a monetary contribution towards the St Leonards Plaza and associated works. It is recommended that the draft LEP require this as a condition of development approval.

 

Scheme 2 – Public car park/ Supermarket

 

The draft LEP proposes that:-

 

“(5) Development that includes provision of a 200 space public car park is eligible for an additional floor space ratio of 2:1”.

 

The planning proposal further states that, in addition to facilitating and maximising Plaza use, a public car park would be the catalyst for the incorporation for a “full line” supermarket within the proposed development.

 

Comment: This is not, however, reflected in the draft LEP. The supermarket would be, however, a very important contribution to the retail offering and amenity of the centre for its residents, workforce and visitors. The current provision is limited to a small mini-market at the Forum.   It is recommended that the Draft LEP clause be strengthened to ensure that provision of a supermarket in association with a 200-space public car park is a joint requirement to obtain the bonus.

 

Scheme 3 – Design excellence

 

At present the draft LEP (JBA, page 23) requires only that:

 

            “(7) Development that demonstrates an international standard of architecture at the eastern interface with the Plaza is eligible for an additional floor space ratio of 1:1. In considering whether development to which this clause applies exhibits an international standard of architecture, the consent authority must have regard to the following matters:   

(a) whether a high standard of architectural design, materials and detailing appropriate to the building type and location would be achieved for the interface with the St Leonards Plaza, and

(b) whether the form and external appearance of the proposed development at the interface with the St Leonards Plaza would improve the quality and amenity of the public domain, 

An architectural design competition is not required in order for a development to demonstrate that it is of an international standard.”

 

Comment: It is considered that the draft LEP should be strengthened to respond to the following concerns:-

 

·    To achieve such a bonus, design excellence considerations to apply to all of the site’s building components, not only the western facade.

·    The applicant to be required to satisfy an examplar standard rather than merely whether the design would improve the quality and amenity of the public domain, given the low starting-point of the current public domain.

·    Guidance is required as to how the consent authority is to have regard to these matters, and as a minimum it is considered appropriate that an internationally recognised independent architectural assessment to be undertaken.

 

In view of the strategic location and high visibility of the site from the future St Leonards Plaza (and other aspects) and the interface of the Plaza with the adjoining buildings, it is reasonable for Council to expect architecture of an international standard.  The JBA report notes that outstanding architecture in high-rise structures manifests in significant cost imposts, but that the economic justification for such expenditure cannot be supported in suburban locations where sales values are more limited.

 

 

 

 

        

 

On the basis of “an indicative artist impression” above, WT Partnership has provided an estimated “extra over” to normal construction costs (page 17, JBA) of $6.5 -7.5 million. A resulting FSR bonus of 1:1 has been calculated.  It is also observed that the Sydney City Council allows a bonus of up to 10% for design excellence, which would be up to 1.4:1 for this site (as FSR 14:1 is currently permissible). The image shows a heavily balconied western façade with timber effect, extending over Council land (Lithgow St). This indicates an architectural concept of “design excellence” and aspiration to an international design quality.

 

It is standard practice for the facades of apartment blocks to be repetitiously covered with balconies. This in itself would not constitute an interrelationship with the Plaza merely because the balconies extend over it.

 

Consequently, the aim is to ensure a design that produces irregular, random building elements to create the façade’s sense of openness, articulation and visual interaction with the Plaza.

 

This and other issues, in particular setbacks, would be the subject of a site-specific development control plan section. It would be Council’s purpose to clarify that the façade’s extension over the Plaza would be limited as follows: A 4 metre extension zone over the Plaza would be permitted to include a part of the building structure’s floor space but only to a maximum area of 36% of this air space (current estimate by Council - to be confirmed in the DCP); and in addition balconies would be permitted, with considerable air space remaining, the proportion to be set in the DCP.

 

It is recommended that JBA’s draft LEP clause be strengthened, in liaison with the Department before exhibition, to specify a design excellence process comparable with that of Sydney City Council or including, as a minimum, an independent architectural assessment.

 

A range of possible considerations may include the massing of building components, modulation in scale between the podiums and towers, articulation, proportions of the retail arcade entries and other key features, compatibility of the plaza building’s western façade with its others and those of the eastern tower, relationship with the site’s visual context, internal amenity, sustainability and other urban design factors. Retail activation of Christie Lane, which was a feature of discussions for the former Concept Plan but was not produced in the 2012 DA, would be central to the quality of the broader pedestrian network, and must be ensured regardless of the short-term future of the Site B block.

 

Examples of such design excellence processes are shown as AT 6.

 

A number of the concept design’s features are commended, including the transitioning from the Charter Hall scale at the east towards the Loftex tower’s scale at the west (the exact is to be confirmed in that site’s current planning processes), to provide compatible building scales facing across the Plaza, the north-south orientation providing view lines towards the city and the building separation of 24 metres with retail courtyard between. The JBA report comments that, because of the Plaza interface, a large quantum of the future GFA (approximately 3,150m2 / 1:1) is subterranean and therefore does not contribute to the bulk and scale of the development.

 

Bates Smart has undertaken a preliminary analysis of the key provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65) to state that their indicative residential towers are capable of achieving a high level of internal residential amenity.

 

·    Solar access: During mid-winter on the 22 June, more than 70% of apartments will receive a minimum of 2 hours of direct sunlight to living rooms and private open spaces between 9am and 3pm.

·    Cross-ventilation: The floor plates of the proposed residential towers are able to be planned to ensure that a minimum of 60% of apartments are capable of achieving natural cross flow.

·    Building separation: A separation distance of 24m is provided between the plaza building and tower component, with a greater separation of than required under the RFDC at the lower levels and a minor variation of 1.5m at the upper levels (Levels 9-24).

·    Privacy: Apartments in the plaza building are laid out to ensure that living areas do not face the courtyard or residential tower opposite. A minimum separation distance of 24m is provided to the Telstra site. The buildings would have distant views to residential developments in the surrounding area, such as the Forum; however the considerable separation would ensure there are no adverse privacy impacts on those dwellings.

·    View-sharing: The north-south orientation of the proposed residential towers, together with the 4m setback to the eastern boundary, aims to ensure that the slenderest possible form is presented to existing apartments in The Forum to the north. The separation of 24m between the two residential elements seeks to maintain a key view corridor from The Forum buildings towards the Sydney CBD, as shown in the photo-montages in the JBA report  (pages 42). A view corridor to the city is provided to all levels, by contrast with the current approval for a bulky eighteen-storey commercial building.

 

·    Overshadowing: As stated in the JBA report:-

 

Between 9am and 11am the proposed development casts some additional shadow on the existing low density residential precinct to the south-west of the site; however the slender nature of the tower results in this effect being fast moving, and passes by 11am. The shadows cast by the building would not impact the ability of these surrounding dwellings to achieve a minimum of 3 hours of direct solar access.

Between 11am and 12:30pm, the majority of shadows cast would fall into the railway line.

“In the afternoon period the shadows predominantly fall on the commercial buildings in the precinct.”

 

Comment: The report lacks comment, however, on the impact on the residential flats “Northmark” and “Shoremark” 90 metres south of the site. The shadow diagrams by Bates Smart are also of poor legibility. It is recommended that clearer shadow diagrams be required from Bates Smart before exhibition, and that analysis be provided of the shadow impacts on these properties.

 

Scheme 4 - Site Amalgamation

 

The quantum of non-residential floor space proposed in the base scheme (14:1) is 8,045m2. However an FSR incentive of up to 1.6:1 is provided on the site if the development application also includes amalgamation of the ageing shop sites to the north along the Pacific Highway between Lithgow and Christie Streets. If this were to occur, retail would still be provided on Site A but much of the commercial shown in the podium under the base scheme would be relocated to Site B remaining B3 Commercial Core. This would result in 4,195m2 of non-residential floor space on Site A, with a total of 21,195m2 of non-residential floor space including Site B.

 

The two Sites A (3,197m2) and B (over 1,700m2) comprise a total area of 4,897m2. As a conservative estimate under their respective FSRs (14:1 and 10:1), their total commercial potential floor area is 61,758m2.The provision of 17,000m2 commercial floor space on Site B would comprise 28% of this total employment capacity of the combined sites, i.e. approximately the 30% of current LEP capacity in satisfaction of Departmental policies, with the Site A retail floor space added.

 

The Metropolitan Strategy has to date set an employment target for St Leonards (as a total all three council areas) of 8,000 jobs. The amalgamated Site B’s 17,000m2 commercial floor space would (based on a conservative standard of 1 worker/ 25m2) provide 680 jobs. The RNS Hospital is to provide 3,000 jobs in the Willoughby LGA. Assuming the balance of 5,000 were split between Lane Cove and North Sydney Councils, each would provide 2,500 jobs. The 680 jobs on Site B alone would provide over one quarter of this target for the Lane Cove section of St Leonards.

 

Comment: The site amalgamation is supported, as it is anticipated to generate an overall floor space of 17,000m2, having the potential to provide the additional commercial floor space that would not otherwise be likely to be delivered due to Pacific Highway sites’ fragmented ownership.

 

Sites A and B Car Parking

 

It is noted, in relation to the proposed amalgamation of Site B, that the draft LEP proposes:-

 

“(4)…The consent authority may grant consent to development within Site B or Christie Lane for basement car parking that is ancillary to a residential use within Site A even though development for that purpose would otherwise not be allowed by this Plan.”

 

Should Council endorse that policy, the Department would be consulted as to the technical aspects of the draft clause.

 

Mixed Use Zone Land Uses

 

The LEP’s B4 Mixed Use Zone permits residential flat buildings to be developed without retail, commercial or other uses. It is recommended that a site-specific clause be added to the draft LEP to prohibit this outcome for the site, given its strategic significance in relation to the public St Leonards centre and adjacent Plaza.

 

Traffic and Transport

 

The JBA report states that the Transport Report prepared by Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes Pty Ltd is focussed on the base scheme, as the extent of additional FSR (if any) is not yet known. Further analysis would be undertaken if the bonus provisions are adopted as part of a future development application. It is noted, however, that the consultant’s report does give some indicative assessments.

 

·    Due to factors including access to public transport, traffic generation would be at the lower end of the typical ranges.

·    Based on the areas in the indicative base scheme, the total traffic generation would be as follows:-

210 vehicles per hour two-way during weekday morning peak hours; and

350 vehicles per hour two-way during weekday afternoon peak hours.

·    This represents an increase of some 70 and 240 vehicles per hour two-way during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours respectively, compared with the approved commercial scheme.

·    In determining appropriate parking rates for the site, CBH&K has considered the rates provided by both Lane Cove Council and RMS (for both sub-regional centres and CBDs).

·    Prior to exhibition, Council would seek confirmation of the appropriate rates having regard to recent policy shifts, under the DCP’s Part R and the draft State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.  Draft SEPP 65 provides that residential developments within 400m of a railway station or light rail stop, in nominated inner and middle ring metropolitan Sydney areas (such as Lane Cove), are not required to provide any parking.

 

The subject Planning Proposal would form an input into Council’s traffic modelling for the subregion. Exhibition material supporting the planning proposal would include comments from Council’s Traffic Section based on the latest available data at that time.

 


Section 117 Directions & SEPPs

 

The planning proposal is considered satisfactory in relation to Section 117 Directions and State Environmental Planning Polices as detailed in the JBA Report. 

 

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to allow public comment on Planning Proposal 20 subject to NSW Gateway requirements.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the proposal.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Surrounding land owners

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter

 

Notification Letters

Public Exhibition,

Website Exhibition

Indicative Timing

6 weeks

6 weeks

6 weeks

 

 

Conclusion

 

The planning proposal submitted by Winten Property Group for rezoning of the site from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use comprises a range of options for providing substantial public benefits subject to incremental floor space ratio bonuses. These benefits comprise a contribution to the Rail Plaza, supermarket, design excellence and amalgamation of the commercial block adjacent on Pacific Highway.

 

The technical mechanisms in the LEP would be undertaken in accordance with the Department’s requirements after Gateway approval for exhibition. These may relate to such matters as the controls for FSR options expressed in text and maps, clarification of the design excellence process and a means of ensuring a non-residential component FSR under any option. Comparable approaches are in use in Sydney City and other councils.

 

The built form is appropriate in terms of its transitional scale stepping from the height of the tower at 504 Pacific Hwy to the east down towards the Loftex tower on the opposite side of the plaza to the west, and having regard to the visual context of the Forum to the north, with view lines to be provided between the buildings. Draft DCP controls would be prepared for public exhibition with the planning proposal.

 

The planning proposal is consistent with the objectives of the NSW Government’s A Plan for Growing Sydney for the future of the St Leonards Centre and with the Section 117 Directions and relevant State Environmental Planning Polices.

 

The proposal would complement the suite of developments clustered near the Rail Plaza, designed to contribute to Council’s vision for the revitalisation of the St Leonards Centre through public domain, retail, commercial and other improvements. Specifically this development would activate the eastern side of the new plaza, provide pedestrian connectivity between the station via the plaza and Christie St and to the new supermarket, and complement the mixed use tower on the western side of the plaza.

 

Planning Proposal 20 is recommended for submission to the Department to seek Gateway approval for exhibition.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council approve Planning Proposal 20 for 75-79 Lithgow and 84-90 Christie Sts, St Leonards for submission to the NSW Department of Planning & Environment seeking Gateway approval for exhibition to rezone subject lands from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use with associated height and FSR controls, as defined in the Draft Planning Proposal.

 

2.   The draft LEP clause be strengthened before exhibition, in liaison with the Department, as follows:-

Require as a condition of development approval that a voluntary planning agreement be entered into with Council to provide a monetary contribution towards the St Leonards Plaza and associated works.

Require the provision of a supermarket in association with a 200-space public car park - as a joint requirement to obtain a bonus of FSR 2:1.

Require a design excellence process comparable with that of Sydney City Council or including, as a minimum, an independent architectural assessment of any future development application for the site, to obtain a further bonus of FSR 1:1.

Prohibit “residential flat buildings” as a stand-alone land use for the site.

3.   Council request the Department to authorise the General Manager to exercise delegation for this planning proposal.

 

4.   A draft Voluntary Planning Agreement is to be prepared by Council with the proponent for exhibition with the planning proposal.

 

5.   A draft Development Control Plan is to be prepared by the proponent and reviewed by Council for exhibition with the planning proposal.

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Planning Proposal - Lithgow/ Christie Precinct, JBA urban consultants

54 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Appendix A: Concept Design Report,  Bates Smart

57 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Appendix B - Proposed LEP Maps, Bates Smart

3 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Appendix C: Transport Report, Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes P/L

27 Pages

 

AT‑5 View

Appendix D: Memorandum re costs, WT Partnership

2 Pages

 

AT‑6 View

Design Excellence Examples

11 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 April 2015

Planning Proposal to Amend Height Control for 1-13A Marshall Ave, St Leonards

 

 

Subject:          Planning Proposal to Amend Height Control for 1-13A Marshall Ave, St Leonards    

Record No:     SU5763 - 19333/15

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council is requested to endorse the preparation of a planning proposal for 1-13A Marshall Avenue in order to provide planning certainty and clarity in relation to the height controls for the site.

 

The planning proposal would include the following amendments to Local Environmental Plan 2009:-

 

(i)   To amend the site’s height from 65 metres to 94 metres – the purpose is to permit a building form with improved outcomes for the most properties, in particular in terms of overshadowing; and

 

(ii)  To amend the LEP’s objectives relating to height control - to refer to such wording as optimising rather than minimising impacts, on the grounds that the latter may be inconsistent with the objectives of clause 4.6 of the Act of permitting design flexibility in appropriate circumstances. The wording would be determined in liaison with the Department.

 

The proposal aims to support the revitalisation of the St Leonards Specialised Centre in accordance with the Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney by supporting growth and public amenity in proximity to the St Leonards rail station. The planning proposal is consistent with this strategic context in that the St Leonards Specialised Centre is experiencing significant change in character and increase in scale across its three local government areas in proximity to the rail station. 

 

Council and the Department have supported substantial height on the site over some years. This site’s planning proposal was first approved by the Department for exhibition in 2012 at 78 metres, without nominated public benefits, and in the interim developments of over 30-50 storeys on the northern (North Sydney and Willoughby Councils) side of Pacific Highway have been submitted to the Department.

 

A development application for 1-13A Marshall Avenue was lodged by Loftex in September 2014 for a twenty-nine storey tower (94 metres), with a voluntary planning proposal for the public domain works for the proposed Rail Plaza. This application was, however, refused by the Joint Regional Planning Panel on 19 March this year as the mechanism of seeking a variation above the existing LEP height standard through a DA under clause 4.6 to vary the height from 65 metres was not supported.

 

This process issue would not apply provided that the LEP height standard is amended via a Planning Proposal to accord with the scale of 94 metres relating to the VPA exhibited and endorsed by Council in late-2014.

 

The LEP planning proposal would clarify Council’s intentions to implement a voluntary planning agreement to provide significant public benefits which was endorsed by Council in November 2014.

 

Advice was received in a letter dated 2 April 2015 that Loftex wishes to lodge a planning proposal, on the following grounds:-

 

·    The height increase would not result in any increase in the floor space ratio (FSR) applying to the site, but would permit the redistribution of the FSR across the site for improved outcomes in terms of overshadowing, view-sharing and urban design generally;

·    The planning proposal would be accompanied by a Voluntary Planning Agreement for monetary contributions to Council to contribute to the construction of the St Leonards Rail Plaza, on substantially the same terms as negotiated, exhibited and endorsed by Council in late 2014;

·    Council has already considered the impacts of building height of 94 metres and found them acceptable, including in terms of SEPP 65 considerations;

·    The JRPP’s refusal of the recent development application (DA 14/143) is considered to be focussed on a technicality relating to a clause 4.6 application to vary from the development standard which would not apply to a planning proposal;

·    The Department has already indicated its willingness in 2011 to agree to greater height i.e. 78 metres was permitted, without accompanying public benefits being specified under a VPA; and

·    The Department approved a planning proposal in April 2012 for exhibition of a height standard of 78 metres for the site, without an associated public benefits scheme (other than the standard Section 94 contributions).

 

The Department had already approved a planning proposal in April 2012 for exhibition of a height standard of 78 metres for the site, without an associated public benefits scheme (other than the standard Section 94 contributions).

 

It is considered appropriate for Council to endorse the preparation of a planning proposal for the LEP height to be amended to 94 metres to align with the associated public benefits scheme under the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) which was exhibited and endorsed in 2014.

 

The planning proposal would provide detailed information relating to expected design outcomes and consistency with planning policies in accordance with the formats under the NSW documents: “A Guide to preparing Planning Proposals” and “A Guide to preparing Local Environmental Plans”.

 

 

Background

 

On 17 April 2012 the NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure’s LEP Gateway approved the exhibition of Planning Proposal 11 for the site’s height to be increased to 78 metres. This height was a justifiable planning approach, in that it matched the level under a Part 3A approval given in 2011 to 88 Christie St (the Winten site), directly opposite across the rail line (approximately 69 metres). The purpose was to enable the distribution of the floor space in a tower at the eastern end of the site, in return for a low residential flats building adjacent to the west, with the aim of reducing the overshadowing on properties to the south while achieving the residential growth planned close to the St Leonards rail station.

 

Following exhibition of the proposal, Council resolved on 15 April 2013 to reduce the tower’s height to 65 metres. This height was also a justifiable alternative planning approach, in that it matched the development standard applying to 88 Christie St, under the LEP (65 metres).  Council, however, retained the potential for future height increases provided that public domain benefits were to be related to redevelopment: “Council indicate it will only consider any further height increase if the applicant enters into a suitable Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) to enhance the public domain in the vicinity of the site.”

 

At that time of the 2012 exhibition, there had been no voluntary planning agreement proposed to contribute to the adjacent public domain works because the new Rail Plaza was still in only the preliminary stages of Council seeking State Government approval for the project.

 

Subsequently that situation changed significantly from 2013 onwards, to the point where Council has recently issued tenders and engaged an authorized engineering organization to undertake preliminary design stage in liaison with the State rail agencies.

 

Council consequently considered a report at its meeting of 21 July 2014 relating to an offer of a voluntary planning agreement by Loftex. As part of the development, Loftex proposed a variation under clause 4.6 of Local Environmental Plan 2009 to the building height development standard applying to the land so that the tower building would be approximately 94m above ground level.

 

A development application for 1-13A Marshall Avenue was formally lodged with Council on 15 September 2014 by Loftex, in accordance with the above report, for a mixed use development comprising a tower of 29 storeys and lower building of 5-6 storeys, principally of residential units with a small commercial component. An application under clause 4.6 of the Act sought a variation to the LEP height control from 65 metres to 94 metres.

 

On 17 November 2014, Council considered a report following exhibition of the draft VPA. The report summarized the proposal as follows:-

 

“The VPA offers an opportunity to revitalise an ageing precinct, improve public domain activation and circulation space and provide considerable public benefit. The funds would be utilised for the construction of a new public plaza over the railway line at St Leonards. 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 within the section of St Leonards within the Lane Cove Local Government Area. The VPA is in addition to s94 Developer contributions…

 

It is considered that the community and future residents of the proposed development would benefit from the improvements to public infrastructure, in particular the plaza and bus rail interchange which the proposed VPA will contribute to. Approval of this VPA would achieve a better planning outcome by allowing height flexibility while maintaining the same GFA for this site and overall by improving shadow impacts for a greater number of properties than could be expected if both buildings were to be built to the maximum height permitted.”

 

A formula was adopted for calculation of the VPA which had regard to the additional floor space over the existing height control. Council resolved at that meeting to proceed with the Voluntary Planning Agreement in respect of the proposed development for the site.

 

The application was accompanied by the VPA subsequently approved by Council on 17 November.

 

The application was referred to the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel as having a capital investment value of greater than $20 million.


Discussion

 

SEPP 65 / Design Outcomes

 

It is important to note that the site’s floor space ratio (FSR) and zoning are to remain unchanged by the planning proposal.

 

Although the recent development application has not proceeded, the DA process has provided confidence in the feasibility of a design within the parameters of the planning proposal now being put forward.

 

The design prepared in the development application was assessed and endorsed by the SEPP 65 consultant and recommended for support by Council’s DA staff. The architect reviewing SEPP 65 design matters found that such a proposal would meet the objectives of the principles of good design. A development design with acceptable impacts was demonstrated and would provide a valuable addition to a future public square over the railway line.

 

In regards to the nine additional floors above the current height limit would add to visual impact, in close proximity to the building there would only be a marginal perception of difference to the 94m height level. A number of residential and commercial properties on the northern side of Pacific Highway have distant panoramic views including the city skyline, the Harbour Bridge and Sydney Opera House (approximately 5-6 kilometres away) and the proposed development would be assessed against view-sharing principles at the DA stage if the planning proposal proceeds. The aim of the proposal is also to redistribute the building’s floor space so that buildings along Pacific Highway’s south side would achieve improved views to the south than would be the case if the tower is lowered.

 

The proposal is supported on the basis that a taller, narrower tower is a preferred outcome to a lower, broader building, where both meet the FSR requirement. This is viewed as a positive trade-off in terms of sunlight impacts on the existing residents in the St Leonards South precinct:-

 

·    A longer shadow would impact more residents further to the south, but only briefly; and

·    A narrower shadow would impact nearby residents for a shorter period of time.

 

These matters would be the subject of further assessment upon lodgment of a subsequent DA if the planning proposal proceeds.

 

Strategic Context

 

Since 2011 when this site was first proposed for redevelopment in one ownership, Council has been exploring the opportunity for this site’s redevelopment to meet those objectives. The site is considered to be of strategic significance in view of its location adjacent to the proposed Rail Plaza and proximity to St Leonards Station.

 

Specifically these processes have evolved through several stages:-

 

·    On 17 April 2012, the NSW LEP Gateway approved exhibition of a planning proposal to increase the height from 36 metres to 78 metres - the proposal did not at that stage include a voluntary planning agreement for public benefits;

 

As stated in the Gateway determination of 17 April 2012: “The height and FSR for the majority of the site [i.e. the western two-thirds towards Berry Rd] has been reduced, with the exception of the eastern portion of the site which has been increased to allow a tower development and reduce overshadowing... It is noted that the planning proposal may potentially facilitate development which may include a tower component of some 78 metres in height.”;

 

·    On 15 April 2013, Council’s resolution (see Background) to approve 65 metres introduced the concept for the site’s height to be further increased subject to public benefits being provided;

 

·    The new Rail Plaza plans were being developed and have become increasingly firm during this period from 2013 onwards, a consideration which had not been available when the earlier recommendations as to scale had been made by staff. Investigations into the appropriate scale were then able to be undertaken in relation to the future design’s integration with the public domain;

 

·    On 17 November 2014, the Voluntary Planning Agreement was finalised following exhibition, relating to a proposed height of 94 metres; and

 

·    Also reflecting of the changing character and scale of the St Leonards Specialised Centre during this recent period:-

On 27 October 2014, Council adopted after exhibition a planning proposal to rezone 472-504 Pacific Hwy for mixed use with significant height increases for towers of 27-43 storeys and an associated VPA to contribute to the Rail Plaza construction and other public benefits. This has provided a model for the planning proposal and VPA mechanism now being put forward for 1-13A Marshall Avenue;

Willoughby Council endorsed a proposal for towers up to around 50 storeys to be submitted to the Department; and

North Sydney Council exhibited a planning study to include four key sites with unspecified heights, and other sites already under construction include 6-16 Atchison St at a comparable height to the 29 storeys proposed for 1-13A Marshall Avenue.

 

In overview, an increasingly integrated vision for St Leonards’ revitalisation is being established as a result of the range of proposals above, with increased scale interrelated with public domain improvements being a key emerging approach. The current LEP control of 65 metres for this site is no longer recommended as the benchmark for the desired future character of the area and, indeed, to retain it would constrain opportunities for enhanced public domain of capacity for the growing population and workforce of St Leonards in accordance with the NSW Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney.

 

The recommended planning process to be undertaken in order to confirm the new character of the site within the St Leonards Specialised Centre is that of a Planning Proposal to amend the LEP. This aims to provide planning certainty and clarity, as distinct from reliance on approval of a clause 4.6 variation within a development application.

 


The LEP amendments recommended to be made in the planning proposal would be as follows:-

 

·    Amend the LEP’s height objectives under clause 4.3 to remove the wording relating to minimising impacts – this term is inconsistent with clause 4.6’s aim to allow variations to a development standard as being inconsistnet

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform the community and seek comments on Planning Proposal 22 – 1-13A Marshall Avenue, St Leoanrds.  Any comments received would be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the proposal.

 

Method – Formal Exhibition after Gateway Notification

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Target Audience

Lane Cove community and general public

Local properties,

North Sydney & Willoughby Councils, other owners in those areas.

Proposed Medium

Advertisement, Public exhibition, Website exhibition, eNewsletter

Notification letters

Indicative Timing:

6 weeks following preparation of a draft DCP and VPA

Commencement of exhibition

 

Summary

·    The planning proposal’s purpose is to provide planning controls consist with Council’s endorsed objective of a VPA for public works;

·    The proposal is consistent with Council’s policies relating to the revitalisation of the St Leonards Specialised Centre;

·    It supports the evolving character of the St Leonards Specialised Centre, and is complementary with proposed developments for the Rail Plaza on the opposite (Winten) site, as discussed in a separate report to Council at this meeting;

·    The Department had already approved the exhibition in 2012 of a height increase to 78 metres, without a public benefits scheme;

·    The JRPP decision indicates that an LEP planning proposal is the most appropriate method to achieve development integrated with a VPA for public benefits, rather than relying on a DA’s clause 4.6 variation to the development standard;

·    The proposal allows for redistribution of height but no change is to be made to the FSR or, therefore, traffic impacts;

·    A substantial public benefits scheme would be provided under the VPA endorsed in 2014; and

·    The height’s design feasibility under SEPP 65 has been demonstrated, including through shadow diagrams.

 

Conclusion

 

The recent refusal by the Joint Regional Planning Panel of a DA for the site indicates a technical issue that the use of clause 4.6 to seek a variation to the current height standard lacks the legal strength which a planning proposal to amend the LEP would provide.  The SEPP 65 advisory architect’s assessment of the DA demonstrated, however, that a design within the proposed 94 metre height limit and associated controls would be feasible and acceptable in terms of impacts and would contribute positively to the public domain.

 

This Planning Proposal would confirm the LEP planning controls required to enable this site to contribute to Council’s long-standing vision for the revitalization of the St Leonards Specialised Centre. The proposed height would be consistent with the evolving character of the St Leonards Specialised Centre and would facilitate a development design able to contribute to the adjacent St Leonards Rail Plaza. A voluntary planning proposal would be required to accompany a subsequent development application in the terms approved already by Council in 2014 to contribute to the significant public domain improvements currently in train.

 

The site’s extensive planning process over time has taken the concept of a tower integrating with, and contributing to, the new Rail Plaza to the level of detailed design feasibility and the VPA has been endorsed by Council after exhibition. This process now provides a clearly-defined basis for the planning proposal and VPA.Council is requested to support the preparation of the planning proposal on the basis indicated in this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   Council approve the preparation and lodgement of a planning proposal for submission to the NSW LEP Gateway seeking approval for exhibition, to:-

(i)         Amend the LEP height applying to 1-13A Marshall Avenue, St Leonards from 65 metres to 94 metres; and

(ii)        Amend the wording of the LEP objectives relating to height, in liaison with the Department, to refer to optimising or similar wording rather than minimising impacts, on the grounds that the latter may be inconsistent with the objectives of clause 4.6 of the Act of permitting design flexibility in appropriate circumstances;

2.   The Department be requested to issue delegation to Council’s General Manager to undertake the planning proposal process;

3.   Draft amendments to Development Control Plan 2010 relating to this planning proposal be prepared and exhibited with the planning proposal; and

4.   The planning proposal’s exhibition include the Voluntary Planning Agreement for the site endorsed in 2014.

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Letter from Loftex re Planning Proposal 2 April 2015

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 20 April 2015

Planning Proposal to Rezone No.1 Sirius Road, Lane Cove West from IN2 Light Industry to B4 Mixed Use

 

 

Subject:          Planning Proposal to Rezone No.1 Sirius Road, Lane Cove West from IN2 Light Industry to B4 Mixed Use    

Record No:     SU5559 - 11626/15

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has received a planning proposal from Statewide Planning on 6 February, 2015, seeking Council’s support to rezone 1 Sirius Road, Lane Cove West from IN2 to B4. In addition, three discrete bushland sites at No.1 Sirius Road are proposed for rezoning to RE1 from IN2.

 

The proponent submits that the rezoning proposal is justified on the grounds that:-

1.   The subject site is unsuitable for the current Light Industry IN2 zoning;

2.   The current IN2 zoning of Lane Cove West is an economically and strategically unjustifiable zone, at least in relation to this site;

3.   A Mixed Use B4 zoning is a suitable zoning for the site; and

4.   The site configuration itself is suitable for the proposed B4 zoning.

 

It is recommended that Council not support the Planning Proposal as:-

·    The proposal is inconsistent with State and Council strategic planning documents;

·    The site is a valuable local contribution to the Global Economic Corridor;

·    Rezoning to permit residential use would compromise future IN2 uses in the precinct, with likely landuse conflicts with industrial neighbours;

·    Residential development is not needed to meet Council’s housing target;

·    It is not near a commercial/retail centre or community facilities;

·    The site is not near public transport  (900m walk through industrial precinct);

·    Only one entry/egress is possible, which is a risk to emergency vehicles, under Rural Fire Service policies;

·    Commercial (B4) use of the site would not provide more employment than IN2;

·    It reduces “employment land” in the area;

·    Environmental conflicts exist between remnant bushland and proposed work; and

·    The proposed residential buildings would be visually intrusive from most viewing points.

 

Background

 

This application to amend the Lane Cove LEP 2009 with respect to 1 Sirius Road, Lane Cove West was made by Statewide Planning under authority from the owners Rove Estate on 6 February, 2015.

 

The Site

 

As shown on the maps below, the site is approximately 3.8ha, located on the north-west corner of the Lane Cove West Business Park. The lot consists of both degraded and remnant bushland in good condition. It slopes east to west from approx. RL 30 to approx. RL4, beyond which the land tapers down to the Lane Cove River. Topographically, it is a steep spur, surrounded by light industry to the east and bushland on the other three sides. The western edge is separated from the Lane Cove River by public land containing the bushwalking track from Blackman Park to Epping Road. The topography is well illustrated by the attached Survey (AT-3).

 

 

 

 



Previous Approvals History

 

On page 49 of the Planning Proposal, it is stated that:-

 

“A Development Application [DA2007/334] to redevelop the site for industrial uses was approved; however this consent has never been taken up and for the past 7 years the site has remained vacant and unused. This is a well located site and a large site on the periphery of the industrial estate that would better cater for a well designed integrated development. Left in its current form, it adds no economic, social or environmental benefit to the area or region.”

 

The history of the last 10 years of the site is summarised below:-

 

DA No.

Date

Proposal

Decision

DA05/101 and DA2005/228

10/1/2006 and

5/12/2005

Erection of an industrial building comprising warehouse facilities and auxiliary office space, following application to subdivided into 13 torrens title allotments serviced by a new public road. This included the current Harley-Davidson building.

Refused. The DA was the subject of an appeal to the Land & Environment Court brought by the owner and dismissed in May, 2007.

DA07/145

25/7/2007

To include the use of the site for Harley Davidson for office, assembly and warehouse

Approved

DA2007/334

19/11/2008

Construction of three more buildings on site, plus subdivision of the Harley-Davidson site (Lot 1). This is the consent referred to on page 49 of the Planning Proposal. There were outstanding issues at the time of consent relating to proximity of one building to bushland, a retaining wall for the road also encroaching towards bushland, and contamination issues to be addressed.

Approved

DA09/221

2/08/2010

Torrens subdivision to create separate lot for Harley Davison.

Approved

 

 

The Proposal

 

Zonings (Current & Proposed)

 

As the following maps show, the proposal is to rezone most of the Lot from IN2 to B4, with three bushland areas rezoned from IN2 to RE1.

Current Zoning (IN2)

 

Proposed Zonings (B4 and RE1)

 

In addition, as shown on pages 6 to 10 of the Planning Proposal (AT-2), it is proposed to amend the FSR from 1:1 to 2.5:1, and the height of building from 18m to 56m apart from a small area in the south to 32m.

 

Discussion

 

The rezoning proposal is assessed in terms of issues raised by the proponent and other matters raised by Council. The proponent seeks to justify the proposal on a range of issues, which are summarised under the four headings below. Further detail is given in AT-1.

1.   The site is unsuitable for the current Light Industry IN2 zoning;

2.   The current IN2 zoning of Lane Cove West is an economically and strategically unjustifiable zone;

3.   A Mixed Use B4 zoning is a suitable zoning for the site; and

4.   The site is suitable for the proposed B4 zoning.

 

In more detail:-

 

1.   Proposal: The subject site is unsuitable for the current Light Industry IN2 zoning because it is too steep for industrial-scale floor plates and for truck access/egress. Also, that the site has poor connectivity, with only one access point, which connects to a local road, and only one entry/exit from the precinct.

 

Response: The statement that the site is topographically unsuited to light industry is not proven. Smaller-scale floor plates more suited to high-tech. industrial uses (1,000sqm) are physically possible over much of the site currently proposed for residential footprints. High-tech. industrial uses are best suited to Lane Cove West, as addressed below.

 

Also, it is understood that industrial as well as residential vehicles could access the site, even though this may require basement access for several lots on the steepest east-central part of the site. Furthermore, the restricted connectivity of the precinct in general has not prevented industrial development of Lane Cove West Business Park.

 

2.   Proposal: The current IN2 zoning of Lane Cove West is an economically and strategically unjustifiable zone.  Demand for “traditional industrial uses” is low in the Inner North Subregion. Such uses (mostly large-plate warehousing and transport, some factories), have relocated to western Sydney near the M5 and M7 and intermodal facilities, where land is cheaper and lots are bigger.

 

It is further argued that a “lack of supply” has lead to rents on average “$60 higher than the face rent for the remaining Greater Sydney Region.”  This is magnified by tenants relocating (west) “closer to major transport networks such as the M4, M5 and M7 and intermodal hubs”, where rents are lower. In short, local demand for “traditional industrial uses” is low, partly because of high rents.

 

Response: It is agreed that demand for “traditional industrial uses” in the North Subregion is low because such demand is moving west. However, the 2014 Employment Lands Development Program Update Report (ELDP) states that in general, the major undersupply in Sydney is for serviced IN2 undeveloped land. This latter includes more expensive, small lot high-tech. industries. The subject site may be well-suited to such uses. 

 

That is, the subject site is suitably placed to meet an emerging industrial demand, for smaller, high-tech, serviced IN2 lots. This takes into account the demographic profile of the inner northern suburbs of an educational/professional workforce. Moreover, the Lane Cove West precinct is of strategic importance in the Inner North Region in meeting this demand for IN2 land. Only 6ha of IN2 land is available for development in the Inner North Region, 5ha of which is in Lane cove West, and 1ha in Willoughby.

 

A survey of development applications  in Lane Cove West Business Park for the period 2012-2014, shows 21 approvals, including 8 warehouses (mostly small-lot), 3 small factories, 2 laboratories, 2 shops, a child care centre, a depot and various renovations. This is evidence that demand for small-lot, light industrial lots is relatively robust. This continues a trend identified in Council’s study of the area in 2002, showing almost 50% of its firms to be high-tech.

 

The sacrifice of valuable employment land is disproportionate to the relatively small gain for Council of meeting a residential target it is already well ahead of time in meeting elsewhere.

 

Supply, as reflected in the 13 vacant sites in LCW, is described by the proponent as “oversupplied”. However, it is more accurate to describe the current oversupply as being for the cheap, large-lot, “traditional” land better found in Western Sydney.

 

Note: that rezoning of existing industrial land to other uses is not supported by assessment under the Industrial Lands Strategic Checklist. Refer to Attachment AT-1.

 

3.   Proposal: A Mixed Use B4 zoning is a suitable zoning for the site. It proposes 800 dwellings, which would provide housing said to be near employment and good public transport, residential amenity and adequate community services.   

 

Furthermore, it provides an opportunity to include approximately 4,500sqm of commercial floor-space. This is estimated, when constructed, to provide approximately 280 jobs, an improvement on possible jobs created under an IN2 zoning.

 

Response: Firstly, in terms of residential amenity, given the current use of the zone for light industry, the absence of cultural attractors such as shops or community facilities, and the need for a car to access most cultural facilities, it is unlikely that rezoning to permit residences would activate the streets of the precinct during the weekend or at night. The precinct of Lane Cove West Business Park and surrounds does not provide adequate accessible social infrastructure, including health services, library and community hub, due to the isolated nature of the subject site, its steepness and lack of direct road access from the LCW Business Park. This would be a particular issue for an older retiree demographic.

 

Secondly, the strategic intent of zoning the precinct to IN2 Employment Lands specifically prohibits commercial premises such as B4 permits, in favour of light industrial uses. IN2 employment potential is at least comparable with the B4 employment projection. The introduction of commercial would skew the rental levels above industrial rates, putting upward pressure on industrial costs. It is not accepted that replacement of light industrial use with commercial use on this site is in the best interests of future employment opportunities in the Global Economic Corridor. The Department of Planning & Environment states:

 

“Ensuring the State has an adequate and appropriately located supply of land for industrial developments is one of the Department of Planning and Environment’s most important land management roles.”  (Planning NSW website >  Planning your Region > Employment lands)

 

Thirdly, it is noted that once 150 Epping Road had approval for mixed use development, an amended application was approved to substantially reduce the commercial component.

 

4.   Proposal: The site is suitable for the proposed B4 zoning because:-

 

·    The subject site is surrounded by valuable remnant bushland, and proposed development is set back from the boundary including a road buffer. In addition, two remnant areas and a riparian area are excluded from development and proposed for RE1 rezoning;

·    Several alternative vehicular links to the north and south of the site are proposed;

·    Air and soil quality and ambient noise are capable of adequate remediation;

·    It is close to public transport;

·    More affordable housing is possible on the site owing to the subject site being possibly less desirable as a residential destination in terms of alleged closeness to services and shops;

·    A proposed Boatshed/Café would add to the bushland amenity of bushwalking and rowing;

·    Its visual impact is not intrusive as viewed from the west.

 

Response: For the most part, the subject site at 1 Sirius Road, Lane Cove West is not suitable for the proposed B4 zoning:-

 

·    The proposed development would be inconsistent with requirements for both asset protection from bush fire, and protection of significant remnant bushland;

·    Only one access/egress route is possible for the site, and that as a consequence the site does not fulfill access requirements for emergency services, as stated in Rural Fire Service policy;

·    There is no justification for assuming that new roads could be created either through steep bushland to the south or across private property to the north;

·    The proposed RE1 land is more appropriately zoned E2;

·    In terms of air quality, residential proposals would need to consider height impacts of the Lane Cove Tunnel Air Vent Stack at 5 Sirius Road, 70m from the first proposed building. This would affect building locations, heights and private/communal/public open space provisions;

·    The site is not conveniently located for public transport, with buses on Epping Road 900m away. Therefore, affordable housing would not be well located on the current site;

·    The boatshed requires access across at least 60m of public land that contains riparian vegetation. The café is supported for joint use by bushwalkers and workers, but these uses could equally be provided for the general public with the site remaining IN2;

·    The visual impact of the proposed buildings would be intrusive, including from the Lane Cove National Park on the opposite, Ryde, side of Lane Cove River. The 18-storey proposal would be significantly out of scale with the surrounding development. The 12-storey industrial-commercial building at 18-20 Orion Road is not a precedent, as it was a unique trade-off for loss of its land for the creation of Sam Johnson Way. Nor is 150 Epping Road’s 20 storeys a precedent, as it was approved under the NSW Government’s former Part 3A Process. The general height in the precinct is only 5 storeys;

·    Given the history of industrial use, the site requires remediation to a level suitable for residential use. 1 Sirius Road has been for many years the only site in the industrial area with an Environmental Protection Authority contamination management order on it. Noise may also be an impediment to rezoning to permit residential use as the interface of residential with industrial would create pressure on nearby industries to limit their activities to be compatible with residential amenity; and

·    Transmission lines along the site’s southern edge pose a further constraint.

 

Finally, reference is made to the mixed use development at 150 Epping Road, approved under the now repealed Part 3A of the EP&A Act 1979. It is asserted that the proximity of approx. 400 dwellings to industrial neighbours supports residential development on a similar site.

 

In response, the land at 150 Epping Road, unlike this site, is located on a major road with nearby public transport. It is separated from the industrial estate by a deep valley of natural bushland and a water course. It is therefore, by contrast, a far more suitable site for residential development that 1 Sirius Road. However, Council did not support the approval of residential development at 150 Epping Road, in part because IN2 Light Industrial land is valued in Lane Cove West.

 

Conclusion

 

In conclusion, the subject site at 1 Sirius Road, Lane Cove West is not suitable for the proposed rezoning of IN2 Light Industrial land at 1 Sirius Road, Lane Cove West to a B4 Mixed Use zone.

 

The application by Statewide Planning to amend the Lane Cove LEP 2009 to rezone IN2 Light Industrial land at 1 Sirius Road, in the Lane Cove West to B4 Mixed Use, and in addition three discrete bushland sites at No.1 Sirius Road proposed for rezoning to RE1 Public Recreation from IN2, is not supported. It is recommended that Council not support forwarding this Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning for Gateway Determination.

 

The site has constraints for light industry, but the statement that the site is topographically unsuited to light industry is not proven. Smaller-scale floor plates more suited to high-tech. industrial uses are physically possible over much of the site. These are uses for which Lane Cove West is best suited. Also, there is every likelihood that much of the site can accommodate commercial/industrial traffic. Nor has the connectivity of the precinct in general prevented industrial development of Lane Cove West Business Park.

 

Note: Council is required to determine the matter by the meeting of 20 April to meet the Department of Planning & Environment’s 90 day time frame.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council not support the Planning Proposal to rezone 1 Sirius Road, Lane Cove West from IN2 Light Industrial to B4 Mixed Use, plus not rezoning three discrete areas of on-site bushland from IN2 Light Industrial to RE1Public Recreation.

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Council Assessment in Detail_ Lane Cove West from IN2 Light Industry to B4 Mixed Use.doc

17 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Planning Proposal - 1 Sirius Road

58 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Detailed Survey Plan - 1 Sirius Road

1 Page

 

AT‑4 View

Proponent's Strategic Report - Urban Design Report - Economic Impact Assessment - Transport Report

160 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑5 View

CAMM Final Report - Lane Cove Tunnel Ventilation Stacks

35 Pages

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 April 2015

Rosenthal Avenue Design Ideas Competition

 

 

Subject:          Rosenthal Avenue Design Ideas Competition    

Record No:     SU5525 - 20376/15

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):       Geoff Douglas 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the design ideas competition and community consultation held in relation to the redevelopment of the Rosenthal Carpark site in Lane Cove Village.  This report recommends that Council endorse the outcomes of the Community Consultation Engagement Report and authorise the General Manager to (i) proceed with preparation of a final design brief for the project, and (ii) to call tenders for the project consultants to prepare and submit a development application for the project.

 

Background

 

To further develop the public domain component of the proposed Rosenthal Ave Carpark redevelopment, a design ideas competition was conducted to translate the design principles developed through the consultation process undertaken in 2013 into concepts that the community could consider. The process for the design ideas competition as endorsed by Council at it’s meeting of 2 December 2013 was as follows:-

1. A design was developed in consultation with the Rosenthal Avenue Carpark Working Party and referred to Council for endorsement;

2. An advertisement for Expressions of Interest was placed to attract suitably qualified and experienced designers to each produce a Design Concept for the site;

3. Five (5) designers were selected in consultation with the Working Party with one designer subsequently withdrawing from the competition;

4. The successful respondents were each paid a fee of $20,000 to participate;

5. The Design Concepts were then the subject of community consultation through static displays, workshops, promotional material and surveys;

6. Following extensive community consultation, the Design Concepts were reviewed by the Working Party and Council at the 2015 Corporate Planning Weekend; and

7.  A public domain design brief for the project to be developed that takes account of the community feedback received during the consultation process.

 

The brief provided to the designers was informed by the following:-

·    The endorsed design principles developed through the community consultation for the public domain; and

·    The schematic design development plans for the carpark and retail space as endorsed by the Working Party.

 

The endorsed core design principles include:-

·    Cultural – Ownership, Self Expression, Community Events, and Welcoming;

·    Social - Attractive to All, Social Spaces, Peaceful Places, Places for Youth, and Places for Children;

·    Environmental - Green Space,-Climate Comfort, Use of Level Changes, Hierarchy of Users, and Interactive Edges; and

·    Economic - Village Connections, Built Form, Types of Business, Future Development, and Evening Economy.

 

The brief also included the following objectives and strategies having regard to the Lane Cove Village Structure Plan adopted by Council in 2008:-

 

1. Objectives for the Site

·    Creating an outdoor public domain space on top of the proposed Rosenthal Carpark redevelopment;

·    Encourage a mix of uses (e.g. cafes, amenities, outdoor recreation) on this site;

·    Integrate the precinct with retail areas to the east and south;

·    Improve and enhance the public domain and outdoor public amenity of Lane Cove;

·    Redevelop the site for community uses;

·    Provide for a possible multi-storey building at the northern end of the site;

·    Provide space for major retailers (below the public domain – this area is not part of the design ideas competition); and

·    Target a 500 public car park spaces (below the public domain, this area is not part of the design ideas competition).

 

2. Strategies

·    Activate the roof / surface of the Rosenthal Ave carpark redevelopment through the design of an innovative outdoor public domain space;

·    Identify design ideas that:-

Are inclusive of and reflect the diversity of the Lane Cove community;

Recognise and celebrate the unique Lane Cove village atmosphere;

Reflective of the bush land setting and the local flora / fauna;

Anticipate and encourage a variety of patterns of community use;

Preserve the opportunity for a building at the northern end of the site; and

Strengthen the pedestrian link between the existing Lane Cove Plaza and the proposed Rosenthal outdoor public domain space

·    Provide active retail edges along to Birdwood Lane / Rosenthal Lane that:-

Encourage active uses in the laneways;

Include pedestrian zones in the laneways; and

Recognise existing cross links and pedestrian desire lines from existing retail arcades that feed onto Longueville Road and Lane Cove Plaza.

 

Following the determination of the preferred Design Concepts and the feasibility analysis a specification would be developed and tenders invited for project consultants to develop the schematic design plans, incorporating the preferred design ideas for the public domain, to the development application stage.

 


3. The Design Ideas process and Community Consultation

 

The four designers produced their Design Concepts for the site between 15 September 2014 and 17 October 2014.

Place Partners were engaged to run the community consultation process which ran from 7 November 2014 to 12 December 2014.

 

The consultation included an online survey, Feedback forms and an exhibition of the design ideas display boards in Lane Cove Plaza and Lane Cove Council Customer Service area during and after the consultation period.  A public meeting was held on Saturday 15 November 2014 in the Cove Room at Council Chambers where each of the designers presented their ideas to the Community and answered questions.

 

Details of the engagement methods are as per the following table:-

 

The results of the community response to the four designs are set out in detail in Place Partners Engagement Report at AT-1.

 

In preparing their designs, each designer was asked to identify several ‘design ideas’ in their proposal. These design ideas were identified by numbers and a legend on each plan.

 

A key objective of the engagement process was not to select a ‘winning’ design for the Rosenthal redevelopment, but to identify community preferences for which of the design ideas should be included in the final public domain design brief.

 


The survey then identified the Communities response to each of those design ideas, and the results are set out in the summary table below.

 

 

These results will assist designers in the next stage by providing an understanding of the community’s preference in each of the categories. The design ideas which had the highest percentage of total respondents selecting them across all Concepts were (i) Flexible Open Space / Green Space and (ii) Water Elements.  These are identified in the report as ‘Priority Design Ideas’.  The attached report provides more detailed commentary and analysis on the other design themes, and these are grouped into ‘Desired Design Ideas’ and ‘Other Design Considerations’.  Taken together and in order of priority, these groupings of design ideas will form a key part of the final public domain design brief.

 

The last section of the report addresses the seven Community Submissions received.  Three of these submissions relate to the Lane Cove Theatre Company request to incorporate a permanent performance space for them on the site.  Council addressed the issues raised in those submissions at its meeting of 16 February 2015.  A submission from Council’s Open Space and Urban Services division was generally positive, and the other three submissions canvassed issues generally already covered in the community survey feedback, including concerns regarding increased traffic, sustainable building practices, and the need for a natural look and feel.

 


Conclusion

 

Planning for the redevelopment of the Rosenthal Carpark site is progressing in a timely manner. It is recommended that the project continue to progress with the next key stages being  preparation of a final design brief , submission of the final commercial terms by retailers, development of a business case and calling of tenders for a Project Architect and relevant consultants .

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse the Rosenthal Design Ideas Exhibition Engagement Report and the priority of design ideas that it contains, shown as AT–1 to guide the design of the public domain for the

Rosenthal Carpark Redevelopment Project.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 April 2015

Friedlander Place - Sale of Below Ground Stratum

 

 

Subject:          Friedlander Place - Sale of Below Ground Stratum     

Record No:     SU3378 - 20012/15

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):       John  Lee 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report sets out future opportunities for the Council owned land formerly public road known as Friedlander Place, 500 Pacific Highway.  Following the lodgement of Planning Proposal in the precinct, the future use of the site is interrelated with the future redevelopments proposed on adjacent lands to the east (Leighton) and west (Charter Hall/BMax) of Friedlander Place. Discussions have been held with both adjoining owners in relation to incorporating Council’s land into their development below ground via a stratum subdivision, whilst delivering an expanded public open space podium above ground. It is recommended Council enter to an option to sell a below podium stratum to Charter Hall/BMax on a commercial basis.

 

Background

 

The closure of Friedlander Place as public road concluded on 10 January 2013, the land vesting in Council in fee simple and burdened by a number of easements for services and public rights of carriageway and footway.

 

At its meeting dated 18 February 2013 Council authorised the General Manager to enter into negotiations with interested parties to dispose of the property having regard to the valuations received and to report back to Council on the result of such negotiations.

 

At its meeting on 2 December 2013 Council noted advice that as negotiations to sell the property did not result in a satisfactory offer being received, it was “in Council’s interest to continue to hold title to Lot 1 DP 1179636 at this time, whilst remaining amenable to future options for the site.”

 

Subsequently Council received Planning Proposals affecting 472-504 Pacific Highway St Leonards located either side of Council’s land which planned for an expanded public open space on Council’s land.

 

To the east of the Council’s land is 472-486 Pacific Highway which is owned by Leighton Properties which when redeveloped will have twin residential towers over commercial/retail which includes an extensive public space which is designed to interface with Council’s land.  To the west of Friedlander Place is 502-504 Pacific Highway which is owned by Charter Hall and BMax Properties which when redeveloped will have a residential tower over commercial with retail at Pacific Highway level that will also interface with Council’s land.   In addition along Nicholson Street and to the west of Friedlander Place is an existing commercial strata unit known as 69 Christie Street.  A number of easements / rights of carriageway exist along the rear of 69 Christie Street, one of which provides an access point into the Charter Hall site.

 

Discussion

 

The Planning Proposals have contemplated a public open space podium within Council’s land being retained and expanded at the level of the Pacific Highway linking with view corridors from Albany Street and Mitchell Street to the north and with retail on either side.

 

Landscape concept plans for the public open space podium developed by Arcadia are included as AT-1.

 

On completion, the public open space podium will among other things:-

·     Provide a public space generally consistent with the landscaping plans prepared by Arcadia;

·     Extend the retail walkway beyond the colonnade along the Leighton Boundary;

·     Extend the retail walkway beyond the colonnade along the boundary of the Charter Hall/BMax  site;

·     Provide opportunity for a café type building to assist in managing comfort levels from wind effects of the adjacent towers; and

·     Provide alternate linkages between St Leonards Station and the Leighton site.

 

It is unlikely that both sites will be completed simultaneously, however the new public open space podium is important to all parties as it is significant in terms of the amenity for the developments. 

 

Discussions have been held with both adjoining owners in relation to incorporating Council’s land into their development below ground via a stratum subdivision, whilst delivering the expanded public open space podium above ground. This has the following advantages:-

·     Timing of completion of the public open space podium will be better aligned to completion of the developments;

·     As Council’s land is sloping, to provide the enlarged public open space podium above ground otherwise will involve a structure being built at Council’s cost (funded from the VPA under the Planning Proposals);

·     It unlocks part of the value of Council’s land; and

·     Whilst the Leighton site has capacity for its own parking needs with access off Nicholson Street, the Charter Hall/BMax site is dependent on Friedlander Place for access and existing easements are unlikely to be adequate to cater for the traffic generation and the required parking for their proposed commercial and residential redevelopment will require a deep expensive excavation.

 

Prior to selling any Council Asset, it is important Council be satisfied it is achieving value for money. Council’s land only being 20m wide has limited development potential in isolation in the context of the planning proposals due to setback requirements between tall residential towers under SEPP65.  Its best value has always been considered as being achieved in conjunction with an adjacent development. 

 

As Council was previously (prior to Planning Proposals) unable to attract a purchaser for the entire lot the value of the Council Land is best considered in terms of the public benefit of the public open space at ground level and commercial value of the podium substratum.

 

Leighton’s have indicated as they are able to accommodate their development within their existing site the value of a stratum lot is of minimal value and therefore the lot is of greater value to Charter Hall/BMax.

 

Charter Hall/BMax have indicated an interest in obtaining an Option to acquire a stratum below the public open space podium to improve constructability and reduce the depth of construction on commercial terms. 

 

Negotiations have progressed on the basis that Council would retain ownership of the above ground open space podium lot and the value of the below ground lot to be sold would be calculated as the difference in the estimate for the cost of construction (assessed by Quantity Surveyors) of the car parking if it were wholly on the Charter Hall/BMax site versus the cost if Council’s below ground stratum lot is also utilised for car parking.

 

The price differential would then be reduced by the Quantity Surveyors estimated construction cost of the slab for the public open space podium and completion of the landscaping elements of the public space. The Quantity Surveyor Assessment will be based on constructible schemes meeting all relevant codes and in particular meeting al RMS requirements in respect of deep excavations adjacent to a Main Road.

 

An estimate of the quantum of this calculation has been included in a Confidential Memorandum circulated separately to Councillors. In summary, the amount payable to Council will exceed the cost of the construction of the concrete slab for the public open space podium.

 

The following summarises the terms of the Sale Offer which is documented under an Irrevocable Offer Deed:-

a)    Lodgement of a Development Application for the development of the Friedlander Place car park works by the Offeree within 12 months of the Date of the Deed;

b)    The determination of the price payable for the Podium Substratum based on the methodology outlined and commencement of the Podium Works within 12 months of the Development Approval;

c)    Completion of the Podium within 2 years after commencement of the Podium Works;

d)    The Sale Offer being made upon notification by the Council to the Offeree that the Subdivision plans (for the substratum lot) have been registered and terminating the earlier of, 30 business days after the Sale Offer is made and 4 years after the Development Approval is granted; and immediately upon notification by the Offeree that it does not intend to proceed with the Development Application;

e)    Council having the right to approve the aesthetics of the podium works to the Nicholson Street frontage; and

f)     Where the finalisation of the sale of the Podium Substratum is subject to the satisfactory completion of the Podium.

 

The proposed Sale Offer arrangements provides the flexibility to Charter Hall/BMax to determine the commercial benefits that avail in incorporating the Podium Substratum into its development site within a 12 month period, with lodgement of a Development Application being a key milestone. Should this or other milestones not be met, Council will be able to explore alternative arrangements to deliver the public open space podium.

 

Should Development Approval be obtained, and construction commence, in terms of security for completion of the project, Council has the right under the VPA in respect of the Planning Proposal for this site to call up the Bank Guarantee if “Council forms the reasonable opinion that construction work has ceased and no construction activity has taken place for a period exceeding 90 days.”

 

Conclusion

 

The Sale Offer is expected to realise to Council the best use value of the Council land whilst retaining in Council ownership and control the Podium Stratum and airspace above providing a significantly larger improved public open space, level with the Pacific Highway.  As noted above the estimated cost of constructing the Podium is a cost to Council funded either from the Sale Offer Price or in the event of termination from the Planning Proposal VPA bank guarantee. 

 

Objectively, the assessed risk of the Sale Offer being terminated without the Podium being built is low having regard to the commercial value inherent in the planning proposal, the significant cost in lodging a development application and significant limitations during construction on Charter Hall/BMax site once the Podium is constructed. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Mayor and General Manager be authorised to execute the Irrevocable Offer Deed, subsequent Sale Contract and all documents creating the stratum subdivision of Council’s land Lot 1 DP1179636 and affix Council’s Seal as required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Friedlander Place - Arcadia Landscape Plan - November 2014

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 20 April 2015

Aquisition of 296 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          Aquisition of 296 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove    

Record No:     SU5440 - 15877/15

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):       John  Lee 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has now compulsorily acquired 296 Burns Bay Road following publication of the Acquisition Notice in the Government Gazette on Friday 21 November 2014. The report makes recommendations in respect of amendments to the 2014/15 Budget in respect of the funding compensation payable.

 

Background

 

Pursuant to the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation Act 1991) Council has compulsorily acquired 296 Burns Bay Road following publication of the Acquisition Notice in the NSW Government Gazette on Friday 21 November 2014.

 

The property is required for public road purposes, requiring demolition of the existing commercial building. The remnant part not required for public road will ultimately be amalgamated with adjacent R4 zoned land for inclusion in a future residential development.

 

Valuation

 

The property was acquired through the compulsory acquisition process as the parties could not agree on a purchase price. As required, the Valuer General has determined the amount of compensation payable being $2.75M. The owners have a period of 90 days in which they can appeal the Valuer General’s Valuation, which expires on 16 April, 2015.

 

At the date of this report, Council is not aware of any claim being lodged by the Former Owner in the Land and Environment Court nor has it received any acceptance advice in respect of the Valuer General’s determination.  In the circumstance therefore, payment will be made into the trust account kept under Part 3 of the Act of not less than 90 per cent of the amount of compensation offered by Council.

 

Pursuant to Section 34 of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation Act 1991) the former owner’s right to occupy land until compensation paid are:

 

(1)       A person who was in lawful occupation of land immediately before it was compulsorily acquired under this Act and to whom compensation is payable under this Act is entitled to remain in occupation until:-

 

(a)   The compensation is duly paid to the person; or

 

(b)  The authority of the State makes (in accordance with any other provision of this Act) an advance payment of not less than 90 per cent of the amount of compensation offered by the authority; or

 

(c)  The authority of the State makes (in accordance with any other provision of this Act) a payment into the trust account kept under Part 3 of not less than 90 per cent of the amount of compensation offered by the authority, whichever first occurs.

 

(2)       Any such person is entitled to remain in occupation of any building that is the person’s principal place of residence, or the person’s place of business, for 3 months after it is compulsorily acquired, even though the person has ceased to be entitled to remain in occupation under subsection (1).

 

The property was tenanted by two firms, one of which has now vacated. It is not intended to require the remaining lessee to vacate the premises at least until the lease expiry date mid 2015.

 

 

Funding

 

It is recommended that the compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition comprise S94 contributions fund (road improvements and traffic management) proportional to area of the site proposed to be used for public road being 60% of the total area of Lot 31 DP 540796, with the remainder being funded from Council’s Unrestricted Reserves.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Note that Council has now acquired Lot 31 DP540796; and

2.   Approve funding in the 2014/15 Budget of the compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition of Lot 31 DP 540796, as determined by the Valuer General, be funded from Section 94 contributions and funds allocated as set out in the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 20 April 2015

Sustainability Small Grants Round 10 - Recommended Recipients

 

 

Subject:          Sustainability Small Grants Round 10 - Recommended Recipients    

Record No:     SU5487 - 18535/15

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Katy Christian 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report advises of organisations seeking funds under Round 10 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program. Council received five (5) applications and recommends providing funding for three (3) of the five (5) applications to the total of $3,456.

 

Background

 

Council, under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993, may grant financial assistance to organisations. This report discusses the application process for Round 9 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program and recommends Council provide the grants nominated.  

 

Under the Sustainability Small Grants Program Council calls for applications for financial assistance from organisations either based in Lane Cove Local Government Area (LGA), or if not based in the LGA, whose assistance addresses identified needs of people within the LGA. 

 

Community Organisations on Council’s Community Directory were notified of the Sustainability Small Grants Program, with the program also being promoted on Council’s website, through the Sustainability E-Newsletter and advertised in The Village Observer. Applications closed on Friday 20 March 2015.

 

Discussion

 

All applications (5) were assessed against the criteria provided in AT-1 by a panel comprising the Chair of the Sustainability Advisory Committee, Council’s Sustainability Coordinator and Waste Contract Coordinator.  Applicants were requested to show how their application would meet the needs of the Lane Cove community and promote and enhance our vision for sustainability in all its forms. Included in AT-2 is a summary of the applications, Small Grants Assessment Panel comments and recommendations.

 

The budget for the Sustainability Small Grants Program includes a provision of $10,000 in funding for this financial year (Round 9 and Round 10). Round 9 awarded $6,000 to local community organisations. 

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Sustainability Small Grants Program assists the development of a broad range of initiatives that are of direct and practical benefit to a sustainable Lane Cove community. Furthermore Council’s Sustainability Action Plan provides guidance to assist in identifying priority projects for funding.

 

Applications for Round 10 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program closed on Friday 20 March 2015. It is recommended Council approve funding for three (3) of the five (5) applications being:-

 

·    Lane Cove Occasional Child Care Inc;

·    Chatswood South Perma Patch Inc; and

·    Lane Cove West Public School.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.    Approve  funds under Round 10 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program for the following projects:-

·    $ 990 – Lane Cove Occasional Child Care Inc;

·    $1,070 – Chatswood South Perma Patch Inc (Perma Patch); and

·    $1,396 – Lane Cove West Public School.

2.    Give Public Notice of the proposed funding under Round 10 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program, grant the funds as outlined above; and

3.    Thank all participants for their nomination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Selection Criteria for Round 10 of Sustainability Small Grants Program

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Recommendation of the panel - Sustainability Small Grants Round 10

3 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 20 April 2015

Local Traffic Committee Meeting March 2015

 

 

Subject:          Local Traffic Committee Meeting March 2015    

Record No:     SU1326 - 18825/15

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):       Sashika Young 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 17 March 2015.  The Agenda is included as AT-1.  The Traffic Committee recommendations are shown in the Minutes of the Meeting, included as AT-2.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 17 March 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

AGENDA - Traffic Committee - March 2015

15 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

MINUTES - Traffic Committee - March 2015

10 Pages

 

 

  


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 April 2015

Lane Cove Bush Fire Prone Land Update

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Bush Fire Prone Land Update    

Record No:     SU1281 - 19500/15

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):       Kirsten Mawby 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council’s Bush Fire Prone Land maps have been updated in response to changes in the mapping guidelines set by the Rural Fire Service (RFS) and Council’s investigations with respect to bushfire prone land. This report provides an update on the changes to the maps.

Background

In 2014 the NSW State Government and the Rural Fire Service introduced legislative changes to Tree Preservation Laws including a 10/50 Clearing Code of Practice. This new legislation allows residents within set distances of mapped bushfire prone land to remove trees within 10m of property and vegetation within 50m without formal permission from Council.

 

On 30 September 2014 the RFS announced a review of the new legislation and changed the guidelines for bushfire prone land mapping to provide greater flexibility for categorisation, effectively providing the opportunity for councils to reduce the amount of bushfire prone land based on local knowledge. Council subsequently applied to remove or downgrade the fire ranking of most of the smaller sites in the Lane Cove LGA based on the new guidelines.

 

Council also applied to downgrade some of the larger reserves (Tennyson Park, Lane Cove Bushland Park, Gore Creek Reserve and Warraroon Reserve) from Category 1 (High Risk) to Category 2 (lower risk) vegetation based on the vegetative make-up of the sites and previous bushfire history.

 

Council officers attended a joint site visit with the Rural Fire Service to ground-truth the sites as part of the application submitted.

 

Discussion

Council has been advised that the RFS have accepted the removal of several smaller sites that previously fell under bushfire prone categories. The removal of these sites reduces both the 10/50 exclusion zones and APZs to property.

 

In relation to the larger sites where Council applied to have the Category reduced (Tennyson Park, Lane Cove Bushland Park, Gore Creek Reserve and Warraroon Reserve), the RFS have rejected the application for downgrading in the first instance, but have indicated they will review the request if Council submits further evidence that supports the request. Staff are now working on a further submission.

 

Under Section 146 of the EP&A Act, councils are required to make the maps available for public inspection. This information is now available on Council’s website and is included as AT-1.  The previous Map is included as AT-2 for comparison.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council note the changes made to the Bushfire Prone Land mapping in AT-1 as certified by the Rural Fire Service in March 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

BFPL Revised and Certified Map

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Original Map - Pre March 2015 - Bush Fire Prone Land Map

1 Page

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 April 2015

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot     

Record No:     SU220 - 20053/15

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):       Millie Stephen 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Attached for the information of Councillors is a review of Council’s recent activities, entitled Council Snapshot. This report provides a summary of the operations of each Division

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Council Snapshot

47 Pages