Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Meeting

7 May 2019, 5:00pm

 

 

LC_WebBanner


Lane Cove Local Planning Panel 7 May 2019

Minutes

 

 

 

PRESENT:                              Hon David Lloyd, Chairman, Mr Eugene Sarich, Planning Expert, Ms Lindsey Dey, Planning Expert and Jane Blackmore, Community Representative

 

ALSO PRESENT:                  Mr Michael Mason, Executive Manager, Environmental Services, Mr Rajiv Shankar, Manager, Development Assessment, Mr Christopher Pelcz, Co-ordinator Strategic Planning, Mr Terry Tredrea, Strategic Planner, Mr Anthony Crichton, Strategic Planner and Ms Angela Panich, Panel Secretariat

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST:   Nil

 

WEBCASTING OF COUNCIL MEETING

The Chairperson advised those present that the Meeting was being webcast.

 

Lane Cove Local Planning Panel Reports

 

Planning Proposal 34 - Sites in Canberra Avenue and Holdsworth Avenue, St Leonards

 

LANE COVE LOCAL PLANNING PANEL ADVICE

 

Pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Lane Cove Planning Panel at its meeting of 7 May 2019 advises against forwarding Planning Proposal No. 34 to the Minister of Planning for a Gateway Determination as it:

 

1)   Fails strategic merit test

 

Reason

 

Not consistent with the findings of the Draft 2036 Plan which recommends that the St Leonards South Planning Proposal be referred to the Independent Planning Commission for review. Further, Council’s Planning Proposal and its supporting documents already responds to a change in circumstances.

 

2)   Fails site-specific merit test

 

Reason

 

Council’s Planning Proposal 25 has been done on a precinct-wide basis and the proponent’s Planning Proposal does not consider the potential impacts (i.e. relocating the central east-west connection) it will have on the proposed future uses of Areas 5 & 6.  

 

3)   Council’s legal advice confirms that Planning Proposal 25 has the status of a ‘proposed instrument’ and has been the subject of public consultation under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act. The proponent also uses Council’s Planning Proposal as justification yet fails to comply with Planning Proposal 25.

 

4)   The proposed relocation of the 15m wide east-west pedestrian link fails to satisfy the planning reasons for the original location being:

 

a)   a contiguous straight line of travel from Newlands Park to the new park between Berry & Park Roads;

b)   a connected accessible link, including people with a disability, involving ramps and lifts which connect in with other community facilities and infrastructure (in Areas 5 and 17);

c)   a coherent east-west visual corridor and central ‘pedestrian boulevard’.

 

The bonus FSR and Height is an incentive for Areas 7 & 8 to provide the 15m wide east-west pedestrian link in that location, as justified by points above. The applicant seeks the bonuses without seeking to satisfy the intent.

 

5)   Based on Council’s Urban Design advice, the proponent’s re-design of Areas 7 & 8 would not only have an adverse impact on its adjoining sites (i.e. Areas 5 & 6) but also adversely affect Areas 9, 10 & 11 in terms of potential solar access to units, and compliance with ADG requirements.

 

In addition, by reducing Areas 7 & 8, the building on Area 7 has been rotated 90 degrees, adversely affecting sunlight to the already narrowed Green Spine in Areas 9 & 10.

 

6)   In particular, Planning Proposal 34 is inconsistent with the following objectives of Planning Proposal 25:

 

·    Amalgamations patterns

 

Reason

 

These were designed and based on achieving specific urban design & planning outcomes while the proposed variations are designed to suit the proponent’s landholdings.

 

·    Green Spines

 

Reason

 

These are to be generally 24m wide, but are shown as between 12m and 24m. The planning reason for requiring a generally uniform 24m width is to facilitate the creation of integrated “communal” open space with extensive (50+%) deep soil zones, consistent throughout the precinct.

 

·    Landscape Master Plan

 

Reason

 

The intent of the Landscape Master Plan is to ensure a consistently high level of landscaping is provided throughout the precinct.

 

While the proponent provides some elements the missing elements (a continuous north-south and east-west accessibility link, children’s play areas, much formal seating for gathering) are essential to the vision of a communal open space that welcomes users of all ages and abilities.

 

·    Bonus Heights and Floor Space Ratios

 

Reason

 

The intent of Council’s site-specific incentive heights and FSRs is to prevent development in areas identified for public parks, communal open spaces (Green Spines), walkways and roads and provide bonus heights and FSRs in return for identified outcomes. Most of the proponent’s proposed changes are not consistent with overall amenity outcomes.

 

7)   All other matters raised in the proponent’s Planning Proposal are relatively minor in nature and can be addressed at the Development Application stage. However, Council’s urban design advice makes the following comments:

 

·    Proposed parking basements are inconsistent with Council’s Draft Development Control Plan which requires deep soil as a minimum of 50% of the Green Spine. Council’s Urban Design advice states that proponent’s basements are too extensive and intrude into deep soil and Green Spine areas.

·    It is noted that the proposed park extension on Holdsworth Avenue (in Area 11) could be acceptable subject to other considerations.

 

The Panel also adopted the following additional reasons:

 

1.     The Panel has assessed both Planning Proposals, both on their individual merits and against the provisions of the Council’s Planning Proposal 25 which, under the Act, is required to be taken into account.

 

2.     Planning Proposal 25 is at an advanced stage and should be given appropriate weight.

 

3.     That the Panel accepts and understands that the proponent’s of these Planning Proposals have had difficulty in amalgamating all the required lots to achieve the proposed amalgamated patterns.

 

4.     Nevertheless, Planning Proposal 25 should be allowed to run it’s course and these Planning Proposals 34 and 35 do not conform with such, in a number of respects, as identified in the assessment reports.

 

5.     The submissions of the residents go to the acceptability of Planning Proposal 25 rather than to these individual Planning Proposals.

 

6.     The Panel supports the findings contained in the assessment reports in each case and endorses the reasons for the recommendations in those reports.

 

 

The decision of the Panel was unanimous

 

 

Planning Proposal 35 - Sites within St Leonards South Residential Precinct Area

 

LANE COVE LOCAL PLANNING PANEL ADVICE

 

Pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel at its meeting of 7 May 2019 advises against forwarding Planning Proposal No. 35 to the Minister of Planning for a Gateway Determination as it:

 

1)   Fails strategic merit test

 

Reason

 

Not consistent with the findings of the Draft 2036 Plan which recommends that the St Leonards South Planning Proposal be referred to the Independent Planning Commission for review. Further, Council’s Planning Proposal and its supporting documents already responds to a change in circumstances.

 

2)   Fails site-specific merit test

 

Reason

 

The proponent’s Planning Proposal does not consider the potential impacts (i.e. relocating the east-west connection) it will have on the proposed future uses of Areas 18 & 19. It will also significantly disadvantage the owners of properties in Park Road. 

 

3)   Council’s legal advice confirms that Planning Proposal 25 has the status of a ‘proposed instrument’ and has been the subject of public consultation under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act. The proponent also uses Council’s Planning Proposal as justification yet fails to comply with Planning Proposal 25.

 

4)   The proposed relocation of the 6m wide east-west connection in the East Quarter is not appropriate.

 

Reason

 

The original location of Council’s 6m wide east-west pedestrian pathway is intended to provide a contiguous straight-line pedestrian link and a safe, legible and coherent east-west corridor from Newlands Park to Canberra Avenue and Berry Road.

 

The bonus FSR and Height is an incentive for Areas 18-20 & 22 to provide site amalgamation and provide the 6m wide east-west pedestrian link in that location. The applicant seeks the bonuses without seeking to satisfy the intent.

 

5)   In particular, Planning Proposal 35 is inconsistent with the following objectives of Planning Proposal 25:

 

·    Amalgamation patterns

 

Reason

 

These were designed and based on achieving specific urban design & planning outcomes while the proposed variations are designed to suit the proponent’s landholdings.

 

·    Proposes to use a site protected from development (i.e. proposed new road between Park and Berry Roads) in order to achieve its development potential in the West Quarter.

 

·    Green Spines

 

Reason

 

These are to be 24m wide, but are 18m wide in the West Quarter.  The 24m width is to facilitate the creation of integrated “communal” open space with extensive (50+%) deep soil zones, consistent throughout the precinct.  The resultant Green Spines in the West Quarter are inadequate.

 

·    Landscape Master Plan

 

Reason

 

The intent of the Landscape Master Plan is to ensure a consistently high level of landscaping is provided throughout the precinct. While the proponent does provide some elements the missing elements (a continuous north-south and east-west link, children’s play areas, adequate formal seating, BBQ/shelter area and Kickabout lawn) are essential to the vision of a communal open space that welcomes users of all ages and abilities.

 

·    Bonus Heights and Floor Space Ratios

 

Reason

 

The intent of Council’s site-specific incentive heights and FSRs is to prevent development in areas identified for public parks, communal open spaces (Green Spines), walkways and roads and provide bonus heights and FSRs in return for identified outcomes. Most of the proponent’s proposed changes are not consistent with overall amenity outcomes.

 

6)   All other matters raised in the proponent’s Planning Proposal are relatively minor in nature and can be addressed at the Development Application stage. However, Council’s urban design advice makes the following comments:

 

·    Proposed parking basements are inconsistent with Council’s Draft Development Control Plan which requires deep soil as a minimum of 50% of the Green Spine. Council’s Urban Design advice states that proponent’s basements are too extensive and intrude into deep soil and Green Spine areas, particularly in the East Quarter.

 

The Panel also adopted the following additional reasons:

 

1.     The Panel has assessed both Planning Proposals, both on their individual merits and against the provisions of the Council’s Planning Proposal 25 which, under the Act, is required to be taken into account.

 

2.     Planning Proposal 25 is at an advanced stage and should be given appropriate weight.

 

3.     That the Panel accepts and understands that the proponent’s of these Planning Proposals have had difficulty in amalgamating all the required lots to achieve the proposed amalgamated patterns.

 

4.     Nevertheless, Planning Proposal 25 should be allowed to run it’s course and these Planning Proposals 34 and 35 do not conform with such, in a number of respects, as identified in the assessment reports.

 

5.     The submissions of the residents go to the acceptability of Planning Proposal 25 rather than to these individual Planning Proposals.

 

6.   The Panel supports the findings contained in the assessment reports in each case and endorses the reasons for the recommendations in those reports.

 

The decision of the Panel was unanimous

 

The meeting closed at 6.45pm.

********* END OF MINUTES *********