APPENDIX No: 19 - St Ives Centre and Site Specific Submission Summary and Response Table

Item No: GB.1

Matter Related to specific Areas & Properties

THEME	ISSUE/ CONCERN	COMMENT	RECOMMENDATION
Character and amenity	Up-zoning to high density is undermining the character, amenity and charm of St Ives. There is no need for the overdevelopment given the failing infrastructure in St Ives.	Higher density around the centres helps to protect the character of the suburban areas of St Ives. The draft LEP seeks to improve the amenity of the centre. Character and amenity will be addressed through the DCP controls. Submissions on the DCP controls will be invited when the Draft goes to exhibition. The Ku-ring-gai Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) acknowledges that the planning for arterial roads and public transport (rail and bus) lies with the NSW Government, and therefore cannot be addressed directly by Council. In relation to key transport infrastructure, Council’s needs are articulated to higher levels of government and transport providers through the ITS. Several intersection upgrades for local intersections (such as the Mona Vale Stanley/Street intersection) are provided through Council’s Contributions Plan. Open space and public domain improvements are also provided through the Contributions Plan.	No action recommended.
Heritage	St Ives Village Green and William Cowan Oval should be heritage listed. Reasons given: · established as a living memorial to WW2 by local residents in 1945; and · recognised by the National Trust for its significance.	In a submission on the St Ives Village Green Masterplan the National Trust congratulated Council on the preparation of the plan and on the community consultation being undertaken. It acknowledged that although some reorganisation and formalisation of site uses was proposed, generally the masterplan would not impact on the important elements identified in the National Trust’s listing. The National Trust’s only area of concern was the possible long term removal of Council’s community hall off site, stating that the hall “… was an important element of the original vision of the community group which worked very hard volunteering in its construction.” The Community Hall has not undergone a heritage assessment to support its inclusion as a heritage item in schedule 5. As required by the NSW Heritage Branch, only those places with a supporting heritage assessment will be included in Schedule 5.	No amendment recommended. It is recommended that in future Council undertake an LGA wide community based heritage study to identify and assess places identified by the community.
Heritage	St Ives Progress Association supports these listings being retained: · 4 Collins Road, St Ives; · 89 Killeaton Street, St Ives; · 9 Porter’s Lane, St Ives; and · The former St Ives School site, Rosedale Road St Ives	Support noted.	No action recommended.
Heritage	St Ives progress Association suggests that the following places be added to Schedule 5 of the LEP: · 183 Mona Vale Road, St Ives; · Greenwood; · St Ives War Monument and Memorial Park, Mona Vale Road, St Ives; · St Ives Village Green; and · Dalrymple Hay /Browns Forest Nature Reserve.	As required by the NSW Heritage Branch, only those places with a supporting heritage assessment will be included in Schedule 5. St Ives Memorial - The park is zoned RE1. There is no immediate threat. Can be assessed in future as part of an LGA wide community based heritage study. Property: 183 Mona Vale Road – Shinfield house. This is a contentious site as the history relies on an unconfirmed oral history. It is recommended that the site be further investigated for possible listing. St Ives Village Green – please see comments above. Dalrymple Hay – is being assessed as part of the HCA peer review. Dalrymple Hay/Browns Forest is outside the boundaries of the Local Centres LEP.	No amendment recommended. It is recommended that in future Council undertake an LGA wide community based heritage study to identify and assess places identified by the community.
Heritage	Request that the Village Green be rezoned as National Trust to protect it from developers.	National Trust is not a zone. The Village Green is zoned RE1 – Public Recreation under the draft LEP. The land uses permitted are very limited. Council owns the site, so has ultimate control over the use of the site. Heritage listing requires a place to be assessed for its cultural significance not for it to be under threat from development.	No action recommended.
Open space	More open space/parks need to be provided around the centre to prevent loss of greenery and the dominating visual character of buildings and further development as this will contribute to social problems.	Greenery to soften the built form will be provided in the residential areas through the provision of generous setbacks which allow for tall landscaping. These issues will be addressed in the DCP. Within the commercial areas the public domain plan will provide guidance for landscaping. Council’s Contributions Plan provides for additional open space in the form of local parks and civic spaces to cater for the increased population. It is not essential to zone land for acquisition in order to achieve acquisition. Indeed specifically targeting too many sites might preclude council from acquiring another suitable site in the same area at an earlier date – by pre-allocating too much income in advance. New parks are currently being provided in Ku-ring-gai as part of a rolling works programme.	No action recommended.
Open space	Wildlife and bird species in St Ives have already been significantly reduced, further development will create more losses of green movement corridors, food stock, and safe habitat.	It is not disputed that wildlife in St Ives has been impacted by being forced to relocate due to urbanisation. For this reason the draft LEP includes provisions for biodiversity protection (including biodiversity corridors) that will need to be considered in affected areas regardless of development type.	No action recommended.
Open space	All existing parks and ovals should be retained and protected. Parks and ovals should not be overshadowed by new developments.	The Draft LEP provides appropriate zones for parks and ovals in St Ives and several are subject to proposed improvements supported partially by development contributions. Overshadowing of public spaces would be considered at DA stage.	No action recommended.
Open space	There is an undersupply of open space in the St Ives Town Centre with the addition of only one expanded park.	The draft LEP proposes a new RE1 zone on the properties 56, 58 and 60 Stanley Road. The total area is almost 3,000sqm and is an extension to an existing Council reserve named Bedes Forest. Together the new park will be 8,000sqm in size. The park will provide an alternative to the Village Green for residents in a more suburban setting These properties are identified for acquisition by Council. To date Council has acquired one of these properties. Council will continue to explore opportunities for new parks in St Ives. It is not essential to zone land for acquisition in order to achieve acquisition. Indeed specifically targeting too many sites might preclude council from acquiring another suitable site in the same area at an earlier date – by pre-allocating too much income in advance. New parks are currently being provided in Ku-ring-gai as part of a rolling works programme and the provision of a new consolidated park in St Ives is a high priority.	No action recommended.
Community facilities	Request Council provide a multi-purpose community facility on community land. Request Council provide underground parking for users of proposed community centre and users of the Village Green and William Cohen Oval.	Council has been planning for a multi-purpose community facility in this area since 2005. The current Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 provides full details. There is no funding available for basement parking. It is conceptually possible that additional underground parking could be integrated with the proposed multi-purpose community facilities. Both could be achieved as part of a join venture with the adjoining land owners however, this opportunity is dependent on reclassification of Council’s land holdings in the vicinity and that is not the subject of the draft LEP.	No action recommended.
Community Facilities	Advocates the development of a multi-purpose community centre in the vicinity of the Village Green Parade and Cowan Road car parks adjacent to the shopping centre to bring all community facilities together.	Essentially this is what is proposed as part of the renewal of this precinct.  It was incorporated within the DCP supporting the former LEP for the site and is to be retained in the DCP to support his Draft LEP.  It is financially supported by the current Contributions Plan 2010 and features in the Public Domain Plan 2010.	No action recommended.
Community land	Council has not been transparent in its intentions for community classified land. It is not clear whether Council intends to develop or use the lands otherwise.	The Local Centres LEP does not include any sites for reclassification to “operational land”. A reclassification process would be required, which has its own public consultation requirements including a public hearing. This LEP cannot pre-empt that process.	No action recommended.
Traffic and parking	Infrastructure is already strained through overuse. Traffic and parking problems will increase. Existing population already causes problems: Roads are already full of holes; Traffic is heavy and noisy; Parking is limited. Increase in shopping areas and lack of train line will result in more cars and traffic, further exacerbating the existing situation.	Traffic improvement measures are proposed along Mona Vale Road, Killeaton Street and on local roads, to improve access and circulation in the St Ives local centre. These proposals are subject to ongoing discussions with the Roads and Maritime Services. The Ku-ring-gai Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) acknowledges that the planning for arterial roads and public transport (rail and bus) lies with the NSW Government, and therefore cannot be addressed directly by Council. In relation to key transport infrastructure, Council’s needs are articulated to higher levels of government and transport providers through the ITS. Council staff will continue discussions with Roads and Maritime Services regarding road upgrades. Council will continue to lobby NSW and federal government for key transport infrastructure upgrades for Ku-ring-gai as per the Integrated Transport Strategy.	No action recommended.
Traffic – overdevelopment	General objection to level of development that is occurring in St Ives and resultant impacts on traffic and parking. Raises concern about the amount of traffic and condition of roads.	Council’s adopted Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 provides for a number of intersection and traffic and pedestrian upgrades in St Ives. The Ku-ring-gai Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) acknowledges that the planning for arterial roads and public transport (rail and bus) lies with the NSW Government, and therefore cannot be addressed directly by Council. In relation to key transport infrastructure, Council’s needs are articulated to higher levels of government and transport providers through the ITS. The NSW Government is preparing to release the draft NSW Long Term Transport Masterplan, which seeks to coordinate and integrate across all modes of transport to create a coordinated transport plan for NSW. New developments will be required to provide for their own parking needs on site. Council staff will continue discussions with Roads and Maritime Services regarding road upgrades. Council will continue to lobby NSW and federal government for key transport infrastructure upgrades for Ku-ring-gai as per the Integrated Transport Strategy.	No action recommended.
Overdevelopment	Submission attaches a series of out-dated documents dated Oct-2009, Nov-2009, Nov-2009 and Feb-2009. Attachments present commentary and calculations on the future population densities of St Ives. Submission concludes that the current and projected developments in central St Ives far exceeds what the other town centres in Ku-ring-gai are expected to have.	Planning in Ku-ring-gai has been a continuous process for some years. Council’s dwelling yield calculations for St Ives were exhibited as part of the Planning Proposal. The total dwelling yield of the proposed zonings (together with known approvals) has been assessed as part of the preparation of the current draft LEP.	No action recommended.
Traffic management works	Requests early implementation of traffic management works in St Ives on the basis of demand generated by recent development.	Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 indicates a Medium-Long time frame for these works however Council continues to monitor traffic conditions with a view to timely implementation. Staff will continue to monitor the traffic situation in St Ives be assessed following construction of the recently approved development in Porters Lane. Including an appropriate scheduling for the works valued by the Contributions Plan be devised and that the Long Term Financial Plan be adjusted in accordance with the conditions. Staff will continue prioritising monitoring of traffic situation in St Ives with a view to timing of works programme.	No action recommended.
Overdevelopment	Submission protests against extra 1680 dwellings proposed for St Ives.	To date approximately 1468 new dwellings have already been approved in St Ives. The draft Plan on exhibition proposes to allow an additional 179 dwellings in St Ives – as well as appropriate zoning for existing development. The draft LEP as exhibited proposes an overall net dwelling yield of 9,930 dwellings which is 70 dwellings short of the 10,000 target. There is no capacity for further reductions in dwellings in St Ives.	No action recommended.
St Ives - over development	Object to proposed increase of 93 dwellings as a result of the draft LEP. Gordon is the main centre for Ku-ring-gai. St Ives does not have an efficient public transport system and can not support any more dwellings. The number of new dwellings has been under-estimated.	While it acknowledged that Gordon is on the North Shore railway line, and the main centre for Ku-ring-gai, St Ives has a large shopping centre with a range of services and lies on the main road, with access to several bus services which are expected to be improved. The number of prospective dwellings (together with known approved dwellings) has been estimated on a site by site basis based on current Ku-ring-gai-specific prevailing development trends. While it is not possible to foresee the future unit mix that might be applied for on any particular development site, any trending imbalance in housing choice can be addressed through the supporting DCP – including limiting developments which over-cater to any one particular type of housing. Council staff will continue discussions with Roads and Maritime Services regarding road upgrades. Council will continue to lobby NSW and federal government for key transport infrastructure upgrades for Ku-ring-gai.	No action recommended.
Overdevelopment	Requests Council send all residents information regrading any future development in St Ives.	Submission raises no particular issue that can be addressed by this Plan. All Development Applications are notified in accordance with Council’s adopted policies.	No action recommended.
Overdevelopment	Support for reduced building heights in St Ives.	Support noted.	No action recommended.
Overdevelopment	General objection to level of development that is occurring in St Ives.	The dwelling yield of the proposed zonings (together with known approvals) has been assessed as part of the preparation of the current draft LEP. To date approximately 1468 new dwellings have already been approved in St Ives. The draft Plan on exhibition proposes to allow an additional 179 dwellings in St Ives. The draft LEP as exhibited proposes an overall net dwelling yield of 9,930 dwellings which is 70 dwellings short of the 10,000 target. There is no capacity for further reductions in densities in St Ives.	No action recommended.
Building heights	Supports: - maximum building height of 3 storeys for Mona Vale Road shops.	Support noted.	No action recommended.
Overdevelopment	Submission objects to the following: - 4 storey height limit for the St Ives Shopping Village (too high – prefers 3 storey); - Council car parks with 4 storey height limit; - Additional 93 dwellings proposed for St Ives.	The proposed maximum building height for the Ives Shopping Village is 14.5 metres. This will allow a two storey commercial building (typical heights of 5-6 metres per level) To date approximately 1468 new dwellings have already been approved in St Ives. The draft Plan on exhibition proposes to allow an additional 179 dwellings in St Ives. The draft LEP as exhibited proposes an overall net dwelling yield of 9,930 dwellings which is 70 dwellings short of the 10,000 target. There is no capacity for further reductions in densities in St Ives.	No action recommended.
Land use zones - Stanley Close	Congratulate Council on classifying ‘Eden Brae’ as R3 with a minimum lot size of 1200m^2. Acknowledges ownership issues and need for housing choice.	Support noted.	No action recommended.
Traffic - Stanley Street	Traffic on Stanley Street has increased dramatically in the last few years. This area cannot take any more higher density development because of the impact of traffic and parking issues: · Ingress and egress from Eden Brae is often blocked by traffic queues down Stanley Street; · Cars U-turn into ‘Eden Brae’ every minute or so to park in Stanley Street, blocking ingress and egress; · Stanley Street used as a rat run to avoid link Rd · A further approved apartment building on Porters Lane will add to the impact · Successful commercial enterprises, such as Pattinsons, without adequate parking for the ‘dash in’ business, increase the impact. · Adding 60 odd new dwellings to 6-8 Stanley would choke this street; and · Public transport is not a solution for this resident demographic, who mostly go ‘cross country’.	Traffic improvement measures are proposed at the intersection of Mona Vale Road and Stanley Street, to improve access and circulation in the St Ives local centre. These proposals are subject to ongoing discussions with the Roads and Maritime Services. Council staff will continue discussions with Roads and Maritime Services regarding road upgrades. Staff will monitor the traffic situation in St Ives be assessed following construction of the recently approved development in Porters Lane, that an appropriate scheduling for the works valued by the Contributions Plan be devised and that the Long Term Financial Plan be adjusted in accordance with that decision. Council staff will prioritise monitoring of traffic situation in St Ives with a view to timing of works programme.	No action recommended.
Traffic - Stanley Street	Cumulative impact of traffic from cumulative development choking Stanley Street and threatening the viability of local businesses with limited parking.	Traffic improvement measures are proposed at the intersection of Mona Vale Road and Stanley Street, to improve access and circulation in the St Ives local centre. These proposals are subject to ongoing discussions with the Roads and Maritime Services. Shopper parking is available in Stanley Street, on Mona Vale Road in the Rosedale Road car park and in the car park off Mona Vale Road (opposite Stanley Street), which are signposted with time limits to increase turnover. Council staff will continue discussions with Roads and Maritime Services regarding road upgrades. Council staff will continue to enforce parking restrictions to maintain turnover.	No action recommended.
Traffic - Stanley Street	Concerned about the traffic congestion on Stanley Street if redevelopment occurs on 6-8 Stanley Street & 15-17 Stanley Street as per the draft LEP.	Traffic improvement measures are proposed at the intersection of Mona Vale Road and Stanley Street, to improve access and circulation in the St Ives local centre. These proposals are subject to ongoing discussions with the Roads and Maritime Services. Council staff will continue discussions with Roads and Maritime Services regarding road upgrades.	No action recommended.
Lane use - 24 Stanley Street	Seek to change R4 zoning of 24 Stanley Street to R3 at the highest: · Currently 9 villas – 1 and 2 storey, with 14 people – fairly consistent density over their 10 year life; · Site is unsuitable for R4/FSR 1.3 as it is long and narrow. It should be down-zoned to R3/FSR 0.5; · Setbacks will result in a long narrow building which will be out of keeping with area character and negatively impact on neighbouring amenity. High density will result of out of character built form; · Triangular site tapers to one dwelling wide for almost whole back half of block; · Area bounded by Link Road and Stanley Street already redeveloped to 5 storeys except for this site – all other neighbours and across the road are up to 2 storey with a maximum of R3; · FSR of 0.5:1 recommended; · Unlikely to be economically viable to redevelop; and · R4 will fail to provide a transition in scale and bulk between multi-unit development and low density development when viewed from street and surrounding areas.	The subject site was zoned 2(d3) in 2004 under LEP 194. No variation to the Ministerial Directions has been sought for this site, so any down zoning would require a further Planning Proposal. The site has been developed as a strata title town house type development and therefore will not redevelop under the proposed provisions in the draft LEP due to financial viability considerations. While it is recognised that zoning a site could cause unnecessary stress to residents it is emphasised that nothing will change. The property is currently zoned for 2(d3) therefore rates will not change, from the Valuer General’s point of view, under the new R4 zone.	No action recommended.
Land use - 24 Stanley Street	Submission from body corporate of 9-15 Newhaven Place. Objection to proposed R4 zone that adjoins the rear of 24 Stanley Street. Request property be zoned R3 i.e. down zoned from R4.	The subject site was zoned 2(d3) in 2004 under LEP 194. The site has been developed as a strata title town house type development and therefore will not redevelop under the proposed provisions in the draft LEP due to financial viability considerations While it is recognised that zoning a site could cause stress to residents it is emphasised that nothing will change.	No action recommended.
Traffic - 24 Stanley Street	R4 will increase traffic congestion.	As outlined above, no change is expected on this site, so there will be no increase in traffic anticipated from this site. Note that traffic improvement measures are proposed in St Ives, including at the intersection of Mona Vale Road and Stanley Street, to improve access and circulation in the St Ives local centre. These proposals are subject to ongoing discussions with the Roads and Maritime Services. Council staff will continue discussions with Roads and Maritime Services regarding road upgrades.	No action recommended.
Land use zones –8-10 Stanley Street	Request that the Ambulance Station at 8-10 Stanley Street remain or that the land be converted to a park.	Clause 47 (2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (infrastructure) 2007 permits development for the purpose of an emergency services facility to be carried out with consent by or on behalf of the Ambulance Service of New South Wales in the R4 zone. The matter of whether the ambulance station remains is not a matter for the draft LEP. The subject site was zoned 2(d3) in 2004 under LEP 194.The draft LEP as exhibited, proposes an overall net dwelling yield of 9,930 dwellings which is 70 dwellings short of the 10,000 target. The net additional dwellings proposed for St Ives under the draft LEP is 179 dwellings. There is no capacity for further reductions in densities in St Ives. In relation to the suitability of the site as a local park the submission raises a valid point. The subject site could be considered for a new local park as the site area is about 3000sqm and it is well located close to facilities and medium density housing. At this stage no change is recommended in terms of zoning as this matter does not need to be resolved as part of the draft LEP process as nothing precludes a council acquiring a property on the basis of its residential zoning. The subject site is noted as a potential site for detailed review as a future park Council staff will continue to monitor the levels of development in St Ives, levels of open space demand, and development contributions funds available for open space acquisition.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 8-10 Stanley Street	Request that the Ambulance Station at 8-10 Stanley Street not be zoned for 5 storeys claiming the site is of great historical significance. Objects to proposed R4 zone, request the subject sites be zoned R3.	The subject sites were zoned 2(d3) in 2004 under LEP 194. The site has not been previously identified in the heritage reviews of St Ives as a place of heritage significance and has undergone no assessment and no assessment was provided by the objectors. There is insufficient justification to request a variation to the Section 117 directions.	No action recommended.
Overdevelopment - 6-8 Stanley Street	Objects to proposed R4 zone on the subject site. Concerned over government sale of land and loss of essential service.	The subject sites were zoned 2(d3) in 2004 under LEP 194. There is insufficient justification to request a variation to the Section 117 directions. The matter of whether the ambulance station remains is beyond the scope of the draft LEP on exhibition.	No action recommended.
Interface planning - 6-8 Stanley Street	Objects to proposed R4 zone on the subject site. Submission made by a resident of “Kooyong” at 2 Stanley Street raising concerns about the impacts of a future 5 storey development on her dwelling.	The subject sites were zoned 2(d3) in 2004 under LEP 194. There is insufficient justification to request a variation to the Section 117 directions. Overshadowing of 2 Stanley Street will not be an issue as the subject sites are located to the south-east. Overlooking impacts would be addressed at the DA stage	No action recommended.
Interface planning – 6-8 Stanley Street	Object to proposed R4 zone. The proposed R4 zoning of the ambulance station and Masonic hall sites would have overshadowing, noise and traffic impacts on ‘Eden Brae’, The R4 zone would not provide an interface between the single storey villas at ‘Eden Brae’ and development across the road and would tower over the 2 storey townhouses which surround the proposed R4 zone. The ambulance station has heritage significance (donated by the Gillot family) and should be retained for commercial, not residential use. Rezoning to residential would result in the loss of vital health infrastructure. These 2 sites should be zoned no more than R3.	Stanley Street is a 20 metre wide right-of-way and is considered in planning terms to provide an adequate interface to properties on the western side of Stanley Street. This principle has been applied in interface planning for all centres. Clause 47 (2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (infrastructure) 2007 permits development for the purpose of an emergency services facility to be carried out with consent by or on behalf of the Ambulance Service of New South Wales in the R4 zone. The matter of whether the ambulance station remains is not a matter for the draft LEP. Please see above comments regarding heritage significance.	No action recommended.
Traffic – 6-8 Stanley Street	Stanley Street between Link and Mona Vale Roads already overcrowded with higher density and resulting pedestrian and motor traffic. Inadequate infrastructure –no rail - more buses only would only lead to more traffic on Mona Vale and Rosedale Roads. Area filled with parking so that even garbage collectors struggle to do their job.	Traffic improvement measures are proposed in St Ives, including at the intersection of Mona Vale Road and Stanley Street, to improve access and circulation in the St Ives local centre. These proposals are subject to ongoing discussions with the Roads and Maritime Services. The Ku-ring-gai Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) acknowledges that the planning for arterial roads and public transport (rail and bus) lies with the NSW Government, and therefore cannot be addressed directly by Council. In relation to key transport infrastructure, Council’s needs are articulated to higher levels of government and transport providers through the ITS. The NSW Government is preparing to release the draft NSW Long Term Transport Masterplan, which seeks to coordinate and integrate across all modes of transport to create a coordinated transport plan for NSW. Council staff will continue discussions with Roads and Maritime Services regarding road upgrades. Council staff will continue to lobby NSW and federal government for key transport infrastructure upgrades for Ku-ring-gai.	No action recommended.
Building height – 6-10 Stanley Street	Requests that the proposed maximum building height for the subject site be reduced from 17.5 metres to 11.5 metres.	Properties 8-10 Stanley Street were zoned 2(d3) in 2004 under LEP 194. It is a site which is over 2400sqm in size and can therefore potentially develop to the full scope of 5 storeys and 1.3:1. The argument for reducing the current development standards on this site relate to streetscape and interface impacts. Stanley Street is currently occupied by lower storey buildings so 5 storeys would be an anomaly. A five storey building on the subject site would also have a range of potential impacts on adjoining properties. These to some degree could be managed at the DCP and DA stage. Property 6 Stanley Street is currently zoned residential 2(e) under the KPSO which allows 2 storey apartment buildings. The subject site has an area of just under 2000sqm. The subject site has to some degree been isolated by the LEP 194 zone to the south and therefore requires a zone compatible with adjoining zones, however it is large enough to develop independently up to a height of 4 storeys under the draft LEP There is insufficient justification to request a variation to the Section 117 requirements.	No action recommended.
Interface planning - 6 Stanley Street (1 Gillot Way)	Propose to reduce height from 5 storeys to 3 storeys to potentially amalgamate and reduce impact on neighbouring properties. Objection on the grounds of: - dominate narrow lane way; - development will be out of scale with surroundings; - impact on adjoining dwellings; - cumulative impact on the Turpentine Forest; and - Traffic impacts on Stanley Street intersection. Request that the subject site be zoned R3.	6 Stanley Street is an isolated site in planning terms and therefore requires a zone compatible with adjoining zones. Stanley Street is a 20 metre wide right-of-way and is considered in planning terms to provide an adequate interface to properties on the western side of Stanley Street, while to the north east is a large bushland reserve. Gillot Way will also provide separation for properties to the north of subject site.	No action recommended.
Development viability – 15-17 Stanley Street	Requests upzoning as follows: - FSR 2.0:1; and - Building height 14. metres Objects to proposed FSR of 1.0:1 and building height of 11.5 metres. Submission by planning consultant on behalf of the owner. Submission claims this will not provide economic incentive for current or future redevelopment.	Development feasibility studies undertaken by Council’s consultant land economists in the past confirm the submission’s claims that development in the commercial areas is unlikely to be feasible under the draft LEP. In July 2012 Council’s consultant Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) has undertaken a review of the submission to determine whether the claims regarding financial feasibility are correct. JLL has assessed the viability of 3 storey mixed use building with an FSR of 1.0:1 on the subject site and has determined that it is not viable under current market conditions. The assessment shows that only a substantial uplift in height and FSR would make development viable due to the high in-use value of the property. Such an increase in height and density would have undesirable impacts on surrounding properties While it is acknowledged that this site may be well located and provide opportunities for additional housing, its redevelopment at this stage is not required to meet the state government’s sub-regional dwelling targets for the area. However, there is an opportunity for the owners of these sites to seek a future rezoning of their sites via a separate planning proposal/rezoning application to Council. The Council report and planning proposal contained a detailed yield analysis that demonstrates the proposed Draft LEP can satisfy Ku-ring-gai’s sub regional dwelling targets without the up zoning of the subject site. Also, as the proposed draft LEP does not represent a down zoning of this site/precinct, it is consistent with s117 direction requirements.	No action recommended
Building heights – 15-17 Stanley Street	Proposed B2 zoning with height to 11.5m, where the current height is only 7.3m, does not provide an interface with Eden Brae at 5.5m high. While the R3 zoning of ‘Eden Brae’ would appear to be consistent with the interface objectives, ‘Eden Brae’ will not redevelop, and will remain at 5.5m. The proposed 11.5m at 15-17 Stanley Street will result in overshadowing and overlooking. The narrowness of the site will also result in more bulk and height. Council, having worked with the state government to permit the prestige development at ‘Eden Brae’ has an obligation to protect its amenity in line with the spirit of many of the LEP clauses. Recommend a 2 storey height limit for the site. Property: 15-17 Stanley St is very small for 3 storeys and has already reduced its available parking. With the dance studio, and “Charcoal Charlie’s” parking is totally inadequate and bottlenecks are caused. We recommend that 15-17 Stanley St be required to remain at 2 storeys while ‘Eden Brae’ remains at one, and that council maintain a permanent record of their obligations to the residents resulting from the 1990s action to zone the ‘Eden Brae’ site 2(h).	As discussed above 15-17 Stanley Street is unlikely to redevelop at the proposed FSR and building height proposed in the draft LEP. The proposed height of 11.5 metres the low FSR of 1.0:1 will restrict future development on the subject site to a 2-3 storey building. Any proposal to redevelop to 3 storeys will be required to consider the impact on the neighbouring development as part of the DA. New developments will be required to provide for their own parking needs on site. Traffic improvement measures are proposed in St Ives, including at the intersection of Mona Vale Road and Stanley Street, to improve access and circulation in the St Ives local centre. These proposals are subject to ongoing discussions with the Roads and Maritime Services. Council staff will continue discussions with Roads and Maritime Services regarding road upgrades.	No action recommended.
Building height - 2 Stanley Street and 6 Gillot Way	Requests reduced height from 5 storeys to 3 storeys to potentially amalgamate and reduce impact on neighbouring properties.	The proposed building height for 2 Stanley Street is two storeys (9.5 metres) which reflects the current level of development on the site. The proposed building height for 6 Gillot Way is three storeys (11.5 metres) which reflects the current level of development on the site	No action recommended.
Building height – 6 Gillot Way	Propose to reduce height from 5 storeys to 3 storeys to reduce impact on turpentine forest and overshadowing on neighbouring properties.	The proposed building height for Gillot Way is three storeys (11.5 metres) which reflects the current level of development on the site.	No action recommended.
Traffic - Gillott Way	High density in this area will exacerbate existing traffic and parking problems, particularly around Stanley Street. Increasing housing and shopping in St Ives will substantially increase traffic along key roads like Mona Vale Road that are singular route links with northern and northern beaches suburbs.	Traffic improvement measures are proposed in St Ives, including at the intersection of Mona Vale Road and Stanley Street, to improve access and circulation in the St Ives local centre. These proposals are subject to ongoing discussions with the Roads and Maritime Services. Council staff will continue discussions with Roads and Maritime Services regarding road upgrades.	No action recommended.
Building heights - Gillott Way	There should be a 3 storey maximum to Gillott way, Kari Court Nursing Home, the Community Hall and Ambulance Station to avoid inappropriate scale and overshadowing of neighbours and protected vegetation.	The proposed building height for 2 Gillot Way is two storeys (9.5 metres) which reflects the current level of development on the site. The proposed building height for 6 Gillot Way is three storeys (11.5 metres) which reflects the current level of development on the site. Any future proposal for 5 storey development on the ambulance station site will need to consider the potential impacts of overshadowing both on any threatened ecological community and on neighbouring development. These matters require consideration at DA stage.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 238-240 Mona Vale Road (former Camellia Grove nursery)	Support for proposed R3 zone for subject site. Requests Council rejects any submissions to have the site re-zoned to a greater height and FSR. Congratulate Council on giving due consideration to local residents concern.	Support noted.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 238-240 Mona Vale Road (former Camellia Grove nursery)	Camellia Grove, St Ives is not suited for 5-storey development, it will compromise road and pedestrian safety, and be visually unappealing in the same way as other similar developments. Objects to any development on this site exceeding a height of 3 storeys and an FSR of 0.8:1. Request that the subject site be zoned R3. It needs to provide a transition to houses across the street, and include extensive garden areas. Needs to be set back so that traffic on Link Road can see what is coming on Mona Vale Road – and we don’t want a set of lights.	The proposed LEP provisions for the subject site are an R3 zoning, the maximum building height for the subject site is 11.5 metres or 3 storeys with an FSR of 0.8:1.	No action recommended.
Landuse zones – 238-240 Mona Vale Road (former Camellia Grove nursery)	Zoning should be reduced from R3 to R2 houses and townhouses with a maximum of two storeys.	R3 (medium density residential) on this site will not result in undue impacts on nearby sites, due to its isolation. The R3 zoning will add to the availability of town house development, varying the choice of housing in Ku-ring-gai.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 238-240 Mona Vale Road (former Camellia Grove nursery)	Support the decision not to have R4 on this site as this would exacerbate issues of traffic and development. Object to any proposal for an increase in building heights above 3 storeys.	Support noted.	No action recommended.
Interface planning – 240 Mona Vale Road	Site is proposed as R3. Request that site be zoned R4, consistent with similar sites in close proximity to subject site: · A transition zone is not required in this location as Killeaton Street provides an adequate transition- in the same way as other locations where R4 and R2 are separated by a road; · R3 would lead to poor urban design outcomes as: o It is isolated from surrounding development as it is bound by roads with high traffic volumes on all 3 sides, detracting from cohesiveness of local centre; o It would lead to a different building typology than surrounding development; o Will not allow a scale that addresses the dominance of the main roads; o Site configuration likely to lead to poor separation of buildings; o All buildings would be exposed to high levels of traffic; and o Low yield of likely maximum 16 townhouses likely to make redevelopment uneconomical. · R4 would: o Contribute to the definition of the area as a higher density centre, or a focal point o Clearly delineate Killeaton Street as the boundary of the centre, strengthening the identity of the centre; o Integrate with surrounding development; o Define the Mona Vale Road/Link Road intersection at a scale that addresses the dominance of these roads; o Provide the flexibility to provide a diverse variety of dwelling types – townhouses, apartments (concept provided); o Allow more dwellings with a northerly aspect; o Provide opportunities to exceed SEPP 65; o Provide opportunities to construct a more robust building with architectural treatment that address the amenity constraints of the site; o Will not overlook or overshadow R2 sites. o DCP could impose setbacks of 12m between the R4 and R2 zone as a transition; and o Increase dwelling yield from about 16 to about 52, consistent with location close to public transport links and retail centre. Accordingly seek R4 zoning, with FSR of 1.3:1 and maximum building height of 17.5m.	The development options for the subject site (site A) and site B (124-128 Killeaton Street) were discussed and put to residents at the St Ives Community workshop for voting, the results were as follows: - 69.3% or voting participants would prefer townhouses up to three storeys on both sites; - Only 3.9% selected density of up to five storeys on both sites; - 17.3% were in favour of a combination of townhouses up to three storeys at site A, the nursery site, and apartments; and - up to five storeys at site B. 9.4% were unsure. The results show that only a small percentage of people considered 5 storeys on the subject site to be acceptable. While it can be argued that 5 storeys is acceptable on the subject site as does the submission Council has chosen to proceed with the favoured option from the community workshop.	No action recommended.
Traffic - 238-240 Mona Vale Road (former Camellia Grove nursery)	It is already difficult and dangerous entering/exiting driveway at 8/95 and 10/95 Killeaton Street. Existing traffic to all roads surrounding Camellia Grove is very dense, especially during peak periods. Traffic has become more congested with new apartment developments in the vicinity, and will continue to worsen with further development on this site that is greater than 2-storey high. Killeaton Street adjacent to Camellia Grove is currently problematic with high frequency of accidents and dangerous conditions around the pedestrian crossing in that location.	Council continually monitors traffic conditions and accidents. Improvements have been investigated at the intersection of Killeaton Street and Link Road. However, any changes to the intersection of Killeaton Street and Mona Vale Road require the intersection of Mona Vale Road and Link Road to be upgraded. Mona Vale Road is an arterial road, and the Ku-ring-gai Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) acknowledges that the planning for arterial roads lies with the NSW Government, and therefore cannot be addressed directly by Council. In relation to key transport infrastructure, Council’s needs are articulated to higher levels of government and transport providers through the ITS. Council staff will continue discussions with Roads and Maritime Services regarding road upgrades.	No action recommended.
Parking - 238-240 Mona Vale Road (former Camellia Grove nursery)	There is no room for additional on-street parking which will be inevitable with any new development (as seen on Memorial Avenue with the Meriton development). Parking on the street will create further problems in an already problematic locality.	New developments will be required to provide for their parking needs on site.	No action recommended.
Traffic - 238-240 Mona Vale Road (former Camellia Grove nursery)	Traffic is being analysed on outdated studies (2005 KMC Traffic Analysis) that is not reflective of current traffic density conditions.	Data from Roads and Maritime Services indicates average annual daily traffic volumes (AADT) on Mona Vale Rd have been relatively stable from 1999-2008, therefore it was not considered necessary to revise the analysis.	No action recommended.
Traffic - 238-240 Mona Vale Road (former Camellia Grove nursery)	Submission requests Council close Killeaton Street at Mona Vale Road.	This option has been considered previously by Council however due to the Roads and Maritime Services requirements the proposal was not approved. Any changes to the intersection of Killeaton St and Mona Vale Road require the intersection of Mona Vale Road and Link Road to be upgraded. Mona Vale Road is an arterial road, and the Ku-ring-gai Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) acknowledges that the planning for arterial roads lies with the NSW Government, and therefore cannot be addressed directly by Council. In relation to key transport infrastructure, Council’s needs are articulated to higher levels of government and transport providers through the ITS. Council staff will continue discussions with Roads and Maritime Services regarding road upgrades.	No action recommended.
Suggested open space 238-240 Mona Vale Road (former Camellia Grove nursery)	Objects to any development on this site and request the land be zoned RE1 – Public Recreation. This land should be set aside as a green area. Provision of open space is not in proportion with the provision of built development.	The site is not considered appropriate for a local park due to user safety given its position adjacent to major roadways and associated pedestrian, particularly children, access into the site. Better sited parks are proposed for St Ives.	No action recommended.
Tree protection - 238-240 Mona Vale Road (former Camellia Grove nursery)	The building area would need to be reduced to ensure the protection of onsite established trees.	All development applications are required to consider the retention of established trees. Removal is only approved after assessment of the health and value of the trees.	No action recommended.
Heritage - 238-240 Mona Vale Road (former Camellia Grove nursery)	Nursery should be heritage listed as it has been such a local institution.	The Camellia Grove site was previously assessed for heritage significance in 2004 by Tropman and Tropman. As a result of this assessment the recommendation to Council was not to list the site as the original physical fabric within the site had either been lost, replaced with new structures or was in very poor condition. It was recommended to retain an appropriate extent of the presentation gardens along Killeaton Street and Mona Vale Road in their current location and to salvage and relocate other camellias and other in ground species to an alternate location. These objectives can be addressed through the DCP.	No action recommended.
Land use zones - 124, 125 &128 Killeaton Street	Submission objects to proposed R4 5 storey zone on the subject site. Objection on the grounds of: - visually prominent position - impact on dwellings across the street - overshadowing of school grounds. Request that the subject sites be zoned R3.	It is acknowledged that these properties are in a visually prominent location and that the R4 zone is not consistent with the surrounding zones. However the surrounding zones are not residential and the impacts on residents and adjoining sites will be addressed at DA stage. The properties are currently zoned residential 2(c2) and 2(c) and represent a suitable location for an R4 zone. The net additional dwellings proposed for St Ives under the draft LEP is 179 dwellings. There is no capacity for further reductions in densities in St Ives.	No action recommended.
Building heights – 124 – 128 Killeaton Street	Submission objects to the 5 storey development proposal at 124 – 128 Killeaton Street, St Ives. Submission generally supports down-zoning. The proposal will impact visually on the single dwellings on the opposite side of the street and affect the character of the locality. It is inconsistent with council principle of a transition zone to step down from the 5 storey development to 2 storeys. It will cause overshadowing on the grounds of the adjacent school grounds at Corpus Christi. A reduction in height would provide a better planning outcome without significant impact on the total dwelling numbers. An R3 zone would be more appropriate. The visual amenity of the whole St Ives area will be adversely affected if this plan proceeds.	It is acknowledged that these properties are in a visually prominent location and that the R4 zone is not consistent with the surrounding zones. However the surrounding zones are not residential and the impacts on residents and adjoining uses will be addressed during the DA stage. The properties are currently zoned residential 2(c2) and 2(c) and represent a suitable location for an R4 zone. The net additional dwellings proposed for St Ives under the draft LEP is 179 dwellings. There is no capacity for further reductions in densities in St Ives. Killeaton Street is a 20 metre wide right-of-way and is considered in planning terms to provide an adequate interface to properties on the northern side of Killeaton Street. This principle has been applied uniformly in interface planning for all centres. Any future proposal for 5 storey development on the subject site will need to consider the potential impacts of overshadowing and overlooking on neighbouring development. These matters require consideration at DA stage.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 124, 126 & 128 Killeaton Street	Objects to proposed R4 zone allowing up to 5 storey apartment buildings. Request R3 along Killeaton Street beyond monastery site to Mona Vale Road.	It is acknowledged that these properties are in a visually prominent location and that the R4 zone is not consistent with the surrounding zones. However the surrounding zones are not residential and therefore the impacts on residents will be minimal. The properties are currently zoned residential 2(c2) and 2(c) and represent a suitable location for an R4 zone. The net additional dwellings proposed for St Ives under the draft LEP is 179 dwellings. There is no capacity for further reductions in densities in St Ives. Killeaton Street is a 20 metre wide right-of-way and is considered in planning terms to provide an adequate interface to properties on the northern side of Killeaton Street. This principle has been applied uniformly in interface planning for all centres.	No action recommended.
Killeaton Street East - Traffic	Oppose R4 and request R3 along Killeaton Street beyond monastery site to Mona Vale Road. R4 will: § Create cumulative impact of additional traffic, given levels from the redevelopment of the Passionist site; § add to the traffic issues at the Mona Vale Junction; and § will force more back roads to be used to avoid the junction, therefore impacting on the amenity of surrounding streets.	The Ku-ring-gai Traffic Committee has recently considered traffic conditions in Yarrabung Road and Killeaton Street in light of future developments in Killeaton Street. The committee has recommended (amongst other things) that the ranking of Yarrabung Road be monitored in future reviews of Council’s 10 Year Traffic and Transport Plan, and that the Roads & Maritime Services be requested to consider the residents’ request for improved access onto Mona Vale Road from Killeaton Street. Council staff will monitor traffic conditions in Yarrabung Road as part of future reviews of Council’s 10 Year Traffic and Transport Plan.	No action recommended.
Interface planning – 142 -148 Killeaton Street	Submission proposes down-zoning. Planning proposal, if implemented will result in a considerable reduction in family’s amenity and enjoyment of 144 Killeaton Street as a result of a considerable increase in floor space ratio and permitted height of dwellings on our western boundary. Increased density will result in a considerable increase in traffic flow in what has been to date a quiet street. Submission suggests the following changes: 1. That medium density residential zone (R3) proposed for neighbour’s property to the west be changed to low density residential (R2) similar to ours. 2. Alternatively, that the R3 zone be extended to Yarrabung Road (the eastern boundary would become College Crescent, Yarrabung Road and Killeaton Street).	A range of options this area were canvassed in the St Ives Community Workshop. Based on these results Council made a decision to apply the R3 zone to 140 & 142 Killeaton Street. Given that it is Council’s responsibility to provide appropriate transitional zones between high density (R4) and low density (R2) applying an R2 zone to the whole area this was not considered reasonable. Any development proposed at 140-142 Killeaton St will also need to consider the impact on adjoining sites DA stage.	No action recommended.
Section 117 inconsistency – 126 Rosedale Road	Submission by land owner. Objection to proposed down zone from R4 to R3. Impacts of residential flat building on Rosedale could be addressed at DA stage. Pemberley Grove and Rosedale could be redeveloped in the life of the plan. High density development has been shown previously to be feasible on this site. The proposed down zoning can not be justified on planning grounds.	Council’s consultant Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) has undertaken a review of the submission to determine whether the claims regarding financial feasibility are correct. JLL has assessed the viability of 3 storey townhouse development on the subject site with an FSR of 0.8:1 and has determined that it is viable under current market conditions. It is therefore recommended that Council maintain the proposed R3 zone on the subject sites particularly in light of the reduced impacts such a development would have on the residents of ‘Rosedale’ 201 Mona Vale Road when compared to the impacts of an R4 5 storey development.	No action recommended.
Section 117 inconsistency – 1 Porters Lane (128 Rosedale Road)	Submission by owner of subject property. Objects to proposed down zoning of subject site from 2(d3) to R3. Recommends the block bounded by Rosedale Road, Mona Vale Road and Shinfield Avenue be zoned R4 to avoid interface issues.	Council’s consultant Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) has undertaken a review of the submission to determine whether the claims regarding financial feasibility are correct. JLL has assessed the viability of 3 storey townhouse development on the subject site with an FSR of 0.8:1 and has determined that it is viable under current market conditions. It is therefore likely the sites would redevelop under the plan It is therefore recommended that Council maintain the proposed R3 zone on 126 and 128 Rosedale Rd particularly in light of the reduced impacts such a development would have on the residents of ‘Rosedale’ 201 Mona Vale Road when compared to the impacts of an R4 5 storey development.	No action recommended.
Properties: 161-163 Rosedale Road	Appealing council to reconsider the down-zoning of the properties 161 and 163 Rosedale Road from R4 to R3: 1. DA0656/2010 was originally lodged in September 2012 for an R4 residential flat building prior to the repeal of the KLEP (Town Centres). That original recommendation is considered to be soundly based on a number of grounds and it therefore seems that the R4 development should be allowed to proceed. 2. Council’s assessments of DA0656/10 and 575/11 over the subject and adjoining lands have provided good design guidance to the expected performance of an RFB DA on the subject land. 3. That work has reinforced the footprint analysis previously undertaken by council for RFBs on the subject and adjoining lands, which clearly supports this submission’s recommendation for an R4 zoning. 4. Given the sun angles and topography, an R3 development at 161 – 163 Rosedale Road would be unduly impacted by R4 development of the immediately adjoining 165-167 Road. 5. Ultimately seeking the retention of the R4 zoning over the subject land (161 – 163 Rosedale Road).	Town Centres LEP 2010 found invalid by the Land and Environment Court therefore previous R4 zone has no status. The site is currently zoned 2(c2) and the proposed R3 zone therefore represents an up-zoning. The proposed R3 zone for the subject sites is proposed as a transitional zone between the R4 high density zone on the properties 165-167 Mona Vale Road and the R2 low density properties to the east.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 116-118 Rosedale Road and 18 Shinfield Avenue	Objects to proposed R4 zone allowing up to 5 storey buildings on these properties. Reasons given: - visual impact and overshadowing of properties on Shinfield Avenue and dwellings in ‘Rosedale’ town house complex; - traffic safety; and - isolation of 2 properties on the corner of Shinfield and Rosedale. Request sites be down-zoned from R4 to R3	The subject sites were zoned 2(d3) in 2004 under LEP 194. There is insufficient justification to request a variation to the Section 117 directions. The two properties on the corner of Shinfield Avenue and Rosedale Road need not be isolated as they also are proposed to have an R4 zone. The subject site is located to the south of ‘Rosedale’ and any future development will therefore not overshadow properties to the north.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 116-118 Rosedale Road and 18 Shinfield Avenue	Proposed R4 (5 storeys) is an inappropriate scale of development adjacent to “Rosedale” complex. Submission notes potential impacts of: - overshadowing properties on the other side of Shinfield Avenue; - overlooking of units in ‘Rosedale’; - blocking views; and - site isolation Request sites be down-zoned from 5 storeys to either R3 or R2 (preferred). · No impediment as DA for residential flat buildings refused on many grounds; · Original zoning proposed as 2(d2) – which became 2(d3); · Sites opposite on Shinfield Ave generally a mix of R2 and R3 following voting at consultation workshop, in keeping with modest footprints and size and gardens of surrounding development (2-3 storeys). 5 storeys out of character; · R4 bad planning – 5 storeys would result in building dominating sites (appearing as 7-9 storeys) across narrow Shinfield Avenue, isolating 20 and 22 Shinfield Avenue and overlook and affect amenity of 120-124 Rosedale Road; and · Participants at St Ives workshop supported down-zoning. Refers to Development Application refused by JRPP in November 2011.	The subject sites were zoned 2(d3) in 2004 under LEP 194. There is insufficient justification to request a variation to the Section 117 directions. Overlooking is a matter for consideration during the DA assessment process. The two properties on the corner of Shinfield Avenue and Rosedale Road need not be isolated as they also are proposed to have an R4 zone. The subject site is separated by the Shinfield Road right-of-way which is 20 metres wide. Overshadowing of properties on the southern side of Shinfield Avenue by a future development on the subject site will be minimal as a result. While this site was discussed by some participants at the St Ives Community Workshop, it was not voted on.	No action recommended.
Traffic – 116-118 Rosedale Road and 18 Shinfield Avenue	Seek down-zoning to R2, or at worst, R3: · Already congested and no parking available · Traffic report flawed: o Shinfield Avenue-Cowan Road described as minor collector road. Given access to site via Shinfield Avenue, should be described as local connector road, as for Rosedale Road/Memorial Avenue; o Fails to mention that first right hand turn travelling north from Pacific Highway is Rosedale Road (with exception of unlit Woodlands Avenue); o Description of Rosedale Road and Shinfield Avenue as straight and level with wide road reserves. This is inaccurate and fails to consider narrow carriageway, parking on both sides, rise, crest and bends – it is hazardous.	New developments will provide for their own parking needs on site. Recent traffic counts in Shinfield Avenue and Rosedale Road recorded volumes of less than 2,000 vehicles per day, which is consistent with a local road. The traffic report described Shinfield Avenue as a major local road, not a minor collector road. Additional R4 development at this site is unlikely to increase the daily traffic volumes in Shinfield Avenue significantly. The traffic generation impacts for the new growth in St Ives have been modelled and can be accommodated with proposed intersection improvements. The fact that the first right turn travelling north from Pacific Highway is Rosedale Road has been considered in the traffic study. Council staff will continue discussions with Roads and Maritime Services regarding intersection improvements on Mona Vale Road. Council staff will continue to lobby NSW and federal government for key transport infrastructure upgrades for Ku-ring-gai.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 116-118 Rosedale Road and 18 Shinfield Avenue	Disappointed that 116, 118 Rosedale Road and 18 Shinfield Avenue, which participants and the consultation workshop identified for potential down-zoning, was not included in the LEP, or discussed in the Council report, despite advice that sites discussed by participants would be considered.	The subject sites were zoned 2(d3) in 2004 under LEP 194. The site has been considered and there is insufficient justification to request a variation to the Section 117 directions.	No action recommended.
Traffic - Porters Lane	Porters Lane already has significant high density living. The submission raises concern over the traffic in such a narrow street. Shinfield Avenue and Cowan Road do not have width or capacity to accommodate increased traffic flow - not wide enough for two way traffic and parked cars and access for residents is already difficult - and Shopping Centre traffic is already congested. A solution would be to close off the direct access to Mona Vale Road which would force drivers to the traffic lights rather than the direct access and may then reduce traffic. R4 from Porters Lane to Shinfield Avenue along Mona Vale Road will create more traffic and impede driveway access from properties.	As part of the transport improvements for St Ives, it is proposed introduce one way traffic conditions (easterly) in Porters Lane, between Rosedale Road and Lynbara Avenue. Other traffic improvement measures are proposed in St Ives, to improve access and circulation in the St Ives local centre. These proposals are subject to ongoing discussions with the Roads and Maritime Services. Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 indicates a Medium-Long time frame for these works however Council continues to monitor traffic conditions with a view to timely implementation. New developments will be required to provide for their own parking needs on site. Council staff will continue discussions with Roads and Maritime Services regarding road upgrades. Council will continue to monitor the traffic situation in St Ives be monitored following construction of the recently approved development in Porters Lane and an appropriate scheduling for the works valued by the Contributions Plan be devised and that the LTFP be adjusted in accordance with that decision. Staff will continue to prioritise monitoring of traffic situation in St Ives with a view to timing of works programme.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 11-15 Porters Lane	Site zoned R2 low density in the draft LEP Local Centres. Seek R3 zoning: · Site is level; · Site size – at 2061sqm combined with a frontage of 54m; · Only constraint is appropriate setbacks to rear boundaries; · Close to public transport and services -shopping restaurant, car park, bus and transport from Mona Vale Road; · Consistent with stated objectives for a transition zone: o Sites have close interface with R4 at 3-7 Porter’s Lane with consent for 57 dwellings; o Completed apartments on corner of Porters Lane and Lynbara Avenue; o Detached dual occupancy at 17 Porters Lane; and o Approved attached dual occupancy at 11 Porters Lane. Proposed R2 zone is an effective downzone from an FSR of 0.4:1 to 0.3:1, in lieu of 0.8:1 if R3. R2 would isolate these sites – a poor planning outcome. R3 more appropriate.	It is acknowledged that no interface zone is provided at this location, there are a number of reasons for this. The main reason is the heritage item at 9 Porters Lane which is proposed to be zoned R2 to protect the item. The heritage item is a very large property which creates an effective transition from the R4 high density zoned properties fronting Rosedale Road and the R2 low density properties fronting Lynbara Avenue. The battle-axe handle of 9 Porters Lane will provide an additional 7 metre building separation between 11 Porters Lane and any future development on 7 Porters Lane. The other consideration is that zoning additional properties on Porters Lane and Lynbara Avenue as R3 would tend to surround the heritage item in new development which would be inequitable. There is no down zoning proposed. The site is zoned 2(c) under the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance. The R2-Low density residential zone is a direct translation of that zone. The current FSR is set by the relevant DCP and varies according to lot size from 0.3:1 to 0.4:1. The draft plan provides for similar FSRs through Clause 4.4 which provides a sliding scale for FSRs based on lot size, again varying between 0.3:1 and 0.4:1. As the R2 zone continues to Lynbara Avenue, the sites would not be isolated.	No action recommended.
Intersection: Mona Vale Road / Memorial Avenue / Rosedale Road - Traffic	Supports early implementation of proposed one-way flow (easterly) in Porters Lane. Current proposal shows deletion of right turn movement from Mona Vale Road into Rosedale Road, but this should be retained for access into the area.	Support noted. Right turns from Mona Vale Road to Rosedale Road will be maintained.	No action recommended.
Building heights –4 Yarrabung Avenue	Submission objects to proposed R2 and R3 zones in close proximity to 4 Yarrabung Avenue. Concerned that heights of 3 and 4 storeys are not consistent with surrounding character of homes.	4 Yarrabung Avenue is well outside the boundaries of the draft LEP. There is no proposed R3 within close proximity to the subject site. R2 is a low density residential zone allowing 2 storey houses and is equivalent to the current 2(c) zone. There are no 4 storey buildings proposed within close proximity to the subject site.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 213-237 Mona Vale Road and 15-17 Stanley Street	Supports a proposed maximum building height of 3 storeys and FSR of 1:1 for 213-237 Mona Vale Road and 15-17 Stanley Street St Ives. The redevelopment in High Street Willoughby illustrates this type of development.	Support noted.	No action recommended.
Building heights – 213-237 Mona Vale Road	Support proposed height (3 storeys) and FSR (1.0:1) for subject site.	Support noted.	No action recommended.
Building height - Mona Vale Road	Submission objects to proposed building heights of 5 storeys on the southern side of Mona Vale Road.	There are no new R4 zones proposed along the southern side of Mona Vale Road in the draft LEP, all sites are existing 2(d3) areas zoned in 2004. There is insufficient justification to request a variation to the s.117 directions.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 185 Mona Vale Road	Submission from land owner. Requests: - proposed additional permitted uses to include medical facilities such as dental and medical centres, imaging and the like; - proposed additional permitted uses to include commercial uses; - relaxation of minimum lot size and street frontage provisions.	The draft LEP Schedule 1 allows office premises up to 0.5:1. Medical facilities fall under the definition of ‘health services facilities’ in the LEP and includes, the following uses: - Day surgeries and medical centres - community health service facilities, - health consulting rooms, - facilities for the transport of patients, including helipads and ambulance facilities, - hospitals. Under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 health service facilities are permitted with consent in any R3 and R4 zone. As this overrides the LEP, it is not necessary to list them in the land use table within the LEP. The minimum lot sizes and street frontage provisions in the LEP relate to subdivision of land and the development of multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings. These development standards have been subject to considerable analysis and are considered appropriate for those forms of development. However, it should be noted that the lot size and dimension provisions would not apply to other forms of development e.g. ‘health services facilities’ being undertaken on existing lots. Schedule 1 permits office premises are permitted with consent on the ground floor.	No action recommended
Building height 251-257 Mona Vale Road (Kari Court Nursing Home)	Concerned that the subject site has been zoned R4 with a 5 storey building height. Concerned about overshadowing of their residence in the ‘Coppins’ no.14-20 Link Road.	The ‘Coppins buildings are located between 10 and 30 metres from the north-western boundary of the subject site. This will allow any future development on the subject site to address overshadowing impacts at the DA stage. The subject sites were zoned 2(d3) in 2004 under LEP 194. There is insufficient justification to request a variation to the Section 117 requirements.	No action recommended.
Property: 235 Mona Vale Rd - Viability	Submission by land owner, objecting to · proposed FSR of 1.0:1 and building height of 11.5 metres; and · the minimum 20m frontage requirement which is to encourage amalgamation but provides no additional FSR as incentive. Submission claims that the combination of FSR, building height and minimum frontage will undermine the objectives of the B2 zone, and this will not provide economic incentive for current or future redevelopment.	Submission noted. To ensure that the 20 metre minimum frontage requirement does not apply to alterations and additions it is recommended that Clause 6.3(2) be amended. In July 2012 Council’s consultant Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) undertook a review of the submission to determine whether the claims regarding financial feasibility are correct. JLL has assessed the viability of 3 storey mixed use building with an FSR of 1.0:1 on the subject site and has determined that it is not viable under current market conditions. The assessment shows that only a substantial uplift in height and FSR would make development viable due to the high in-use value of the property. In fact the required FSR and building height for viability would have undesirable built form impacts on surrounding properties While it is acknowledged that this site may be well located and provide opportunities for additional housing, its redevelopment at this stage is not required to meet the state government’s sub-regional dwelling targets for the area. However, there is an opportunity for the owners of these sites to seek a future rezoning of their sites via a separate planning proposal/rezoning application to Council. As the proposed draft LEP does not represent a down zoning of this site/precinct, it is consistent with s117 direction requirements. Council’s draft LEP has set the building height and FSR provisions for this precinct at a level which will allow the existing shops to undertake minor alterations and additions but not to fully redevelop.	Recommendation: Amend Clause 6.3(2) to read as follows: (2) Despite any other provision of this Plan, development consent must not be granted for the erection of a building of more than 2 storeys on land in Zone B2 Local Centre, Zone B4 Mixed Use or Zone B5 business Development if the land does not have a primary street frontage of at least 20 metres.
Properties: 167–177 Mona Vale Road - Development viability	Raises concerns over the proposed zoning, permissible land uses and development standards applying to the site as they will not permit the development of any meaningful retail premises. The development potential of the site has been reduced from KLEP 2010. The land comprises 4 shop style premises and 3 vacant lots with a total area of 3,918sqm, is held by one owner and these properties should be consolidated to achieve economic development. Submission provides calculations showing: - property investment value/estimated current market value; - potential land values as a development site. Suggested highest and best use for the site is a mixed use development with a mix of retail, business and office uses at street level and residential flat uses on the upper level. The site is suitable for the development of a supermarket and there is sufficient retail demand in St Ives to justify the use of the site for a supermarket. There are constraints on the expansion of St Ives Village due to surrounding land uses and fragmented ownership. Proposes that commercial premises be permitted across the whole site, not just 169 – 171. Submission requests following amendments to the draft LEP: - FSR 2.5:1 on property nos.167-171 Mona Vale Road. - FSR 1.6:1 on property nos.173-177 Mona Vale Road. Schedule 1 additional permitted uses – commercial uses up to 1.0:1. Another submission requests an FSR of 1.3:1 to apply to commercial uses.	The subject properties and adjoining lands have been shown previously by Council to be unsuitable for retail uses. This subject was discussed in a number of Council reports in 2005-2006 and in the Ku-ring-gai Retail Strategy. The expansion of retail into this precinct was not supported by the Retail Strategy as it would further fragment the centre. In addition there would be significant traffic issues to over come. The subject properties are currently zoned 2(d3) with an FSR of 1.3:1. The draft LEP proposes the same development potential as the KPSO with the additional allowance of office uses to a maximum FSR of 0.5:1. In July 2012 Council’s consultant Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) undertook a review of the submission to determine whether the claims regarding financial feasibility are correct. JLL has assessed the viability of 5 storey apartment building with an FSR of 1.3:1 on the subject site and has determined that it is not viable under current market conditions. The assessment shows that only a substantial uplift in height and FSR would make development viable. The main reason for this result relates to the existing “in-use value” of the shops at 167-171 Mona Vale Road Based on the recent JLL study and development feasibility studies previously undertaken by Council’s consultant land economists it can be confirmed that the submission’s claims are reasonable in respect to the claim for additional FSR. In relation to the claim for Schedule 1 additional permitted uses – commercial uses up to 1.0:1 the claim cannot be supported. The term ‘commercial premises’ includes business premises, office premises and retail premises. This would allow retail development of up to 1:1 across the entire site, including which would represent about 3800sqm of retail floor space and would be enough for a medium sized supermarket. This is contrary to the retail strategy for St Ives and previous traffic studies. It would also, in effect, create a pseudo B2 zone across the entire site. Under schedule 1 of the draft LEP commercial uses up to 0.5:1 FSR are permitted. This will address the existing use rights issues faced by the existing shops, allowing new tenancies to trade until such time as the site is redeveloped. It will also allow a small retail component to be included in any redevelopment of the existing shops, but not a supermarket.	That the maximum FSR of property 167-171 Mona Vale Road, St Ives be amended to 2.5:1 and the maximum building height to 20.5 metres. That the maximum FSR of property 173-185 Mona Vale Road, St Ives be amended to 1.6:1.
Building height – 166-172 Mona Vale Road (St Ives Shopping Village)	Object to the proposed LEP provisions for subject site of building height 14.5 metres and FSR 1.6:1. Reasons given are the results of the consultation workshops where over 70% of participants requested that the Shopping Village remain at the existing height. Request Council amend LEP to reduce maximum allowable building height on subject site to two storeys (9.5 metres).	The height of retail floor levels is between 5 and 6 metres, so a two storey retail centre will require a building height of 10-12 metres. A height of 9.5 metres is not practicable.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 166-172 Mona Vale Road (St Ives Shopping Village)	Support for the proposed LEP provisions for subject site of building height 14.5 metres and FSR 1.6:1.	Support noted.	No action recommended.
Building height - 166-172 Mona Vale Road (St Ives Shopping Village)	Submission objects to proposed 4 storey building height proposed for the subject site. Object to plan to allow St Ives Shopping Village to redevelop into a multi-storey regional centre such as Top Ryde with 4 storey car parks along the edge of the Village Green.	The height of retail floor levels is between 5 and 6 metres, so a two storey retail centre will require a building height of 10-12 metres. A height of less than 14.5 metres is not practicable. Council has received no development application for a multi-storey shopping centre with 4 storey car parks along the edge of the Village Green.	No action recommended.
Building height - 166-172 Mona Vale Road (St Ives Shopping Village)	The shopping village should be a maximum of four storeys and set back to 2 storeys along the Village Green, Mona Vale Road, Memorial Road and Cowan Road – like Mosman, not like Ryde. It should be both aesthetically pleasing as well as functional.	Noted. Council’s DCP will address the built form controls for the subject site.	No action recommended.
Building height - 166-172 Mona Vale Road (St Ives Shopping Village)	Like the smallness and isolation of St Ives – even the lack of public transport. To retain this identity, and to protect the amenity and appearance of the park/oval, the shopping centre should be no more than 3 storeys high. While more parking is required, it should be built underground, not as an above ground multi-storey carpark to keep the spot pretty.	The draft LEP allows a maximum building height of 14.5metres. The height of retail floor levels is between 5-6 metres, so a two storey retail centre will have a building height of 10-12 metres.	No action recommended.
Building height - 166-172 Mona Vale Road (St Ives Shopping Village)	Submission objects to proposed R4 5 storey zone on the subject site. Request mall stays at two storeys.	The draft LEP allows a maximum building height of 14.5metres. The height of retail floor levels is between 5-6 metres, so a two storey retail centre will have a building height of 10-12 metres. The proposed zone is B2 Local Centre.	No action recommended.
Overdevelopment - 166-172 Mona Vale Road (St Ives Shopping Village)	Objection to the proposed development on the subject site. The St Ives Shopping Village should be limited in its expansion.	The Shopping Village has been limited in its expansion with a height of 14.5 metres and FSR of 1.6:1. The provisions in draft LEP will not provide enough incentive for redevelopment of the centre. Development feasibility studies undertaken by Council’s consultant land economist in the past confirm that development in the commercial areas is unlikely to be feasible under the draft LEP and that it is likely that it will stay as it is with some minor extensions and refurbishment.	No action recommended.
Building height - 166-172 Mona Vale Road (St Ives Shopping Village)	St Ives shopping Village should be restricted to a maximum building height of 3 storeys.	The draft LEP allows a maximum building height of 14.5metres. The height of retail floor levels is between 5-6 metres, so a two storey retail centre will have a building height of 10-12 metres.	No action recommended.
Building height - 166-172 Mona Vale Road (St Ives Shopping Village)	There is no justification for exceeding the Ku-ring-gai Retail Strategy recommendations regarding retail and commercial floor space.	The Shopping Village has been limited in its expansion with a height of 14.5 metres and FSR of 1.6:1. The provisions in draft LEP will not provide enough incentive for redevelopment of the centre. Development feasibility studies undertaken by Council’s consultant land economist in the past confirm that development in the commercial areas is unlikely to be feasible under the draft LEP and that it is likely that it will stay as it is with some minor extensions and refurbishment.	No action recommended.
Land use zones - 166-172 Mona Vale Road (St Ives Shopping Village)	Support for proposed height and FSR provisions for the St Ives Shopping Village.	Support noted.	No action recommended.
Land use zones - 166-172 Mona Vale Road (St Ives Shopping Village)	Object to rezoning of community owned land between the shopping Village and the Village Green. Request height reduced to 2 storeys.	All lands in the LEP boundary must be given an appropriate land use zone. The height of retail floor levels is between 5 and 6 metres, so a two storey retail centre will require a building height of 10-12 metres. A height of 2 storeys (9.5 metres) is not practicable.	No action recommended.
Land use zones - 166-172 Mona Vale Road (St Ives Shopping Village)	Object to resumption of any green space or community area. All off-street and on-street parking must be retained. Support construction of a new shopping centre.	There is no resumption of any of the Village Green contemplated. While the total quantum of car parking will need either maintaining or increasing into the future, there are many ways to achieve this – including as part of any future redevelopment of the Shopping Village which could provide for better and safer pedestrian links to the park. The provisions in draft LEP will not provide enough incentive for redevelopment of the centre. Development feasibility studies undertaken by Council’s consultant land economist in the past confirm that development in the commercial areas is unlikely to be feasible under the draft LEP and that it is likely that it will stay as it is with some minor extensions and refurbishment.	No action recommended.
St Ives Village shopping centre and Village Green	Submission on behalf of St Ives Village Shopping Centre owner - by four consultants: SJB Planning; GM Urban Design and Architecture; Rice Daubney; Candalepas Associates. Submission objects to the limitations placed on the St Ives shopping centre site as redevelopment under the proposed height and FSR is not viable. Request building heights of 29.5m and FSR of up to 2.3:1 be allowed (as was the case in the previous Town Centres LEP). Site is constrained by roads and car parks which prevent meaningful expansion and prevents integration with adjoining public open spaces and other town centre sites and streets. Therefore there is no opportunity to improve the poor pedestrian circulation, nor to create a centre-wide integration that links and revitalises street businesses as well as the shopping centre unless there is major redevelopment that enables the centre to be reconfigured. The Plan § with maximum height limit of 14.5m and FSR of 1.6:1 removes any incentive for the redevelopment of the shopping Centre and hence any urban design improvements to the locality; § provides no incentive provisions for design excellence or public domain improvements; § essentially reflects the existing shopping centre with no development potential to facilitate redevelopment or upgrade to this centre which, given its age, no longer represents best practice in urban design; § entrenches continuance of existing older 1960s style shopping centre with public domain shortfalls, removing possibility of enhancing pedestrian links and street frontages (submission by Rice Daubney details design history and current trends); § precludes any opportunity for contemporary and revitalised mixed use centre with underground parking making spaces for community use; § has no regard to how redevelopment can deliver public domain and community benefit including improved vehicle and pedestrian traffic management; § removes opportunity for improvements to streets and lanes through unlikely redevelopment reducing s94 contributions to finance works; § does not realistically provide opportunity for housing delivery close to services which will continue to create the unsustainable trend of private vehicle dependence to access services, and in time result in infrastructure and traffic issues that will need substantial overhauls to remedy (submission by Candalepas Associates details sustainability issues); and § With a building height of 14.5m, does not accommodate a 3 level centre given the height clearances required for delivery vehicles and clearances for retail development, a 6m floor to floor clearance is more realistic (submission by Rice Daubney details limitations) Plan fails to § provide appropriate services and facilities consistent with the underlying intent of the Metropolitan Strategy; § be consistent with its Public Domain Plan 2009 (submission by GMU details inconsistencies); § deliver on its strategic aims as stated in LEP cl 1.2(2)c, d, g, h, i, j in the following ways: o height and FSR controls serve only to maintain current form of development; o do not facilitate any significant redevelopment of the centre which would trigger provision of a broader range of services, employment and housing; o no opportunity to develop the centre to a contemporary best practice design; o provide no means to create car parking solutions, public domain enhancements and street front activation; o does not facilitate any social benefits or infrastructure improvements due to lack of redevelopment incentive; o will maintain current status quo which only serves current retail need but will not cater for growth and future retail needs of this locality; o lacks any incentive for significant redevelopment required to create the mixed use centre that the zoning allows, and hence will not create a centre that retains vibrancy and supervision outside core hours; o the role of the centre will not change, it will not encourage any diversity of employment due to only cosmetic enhancements being viable under this Plan; o height and FSR limitations provide no scope or opportunity to provide housing through redevelopment into a mixed use centre; and o does not enable provision of housing close to services, employment and transport.	Provisions in draft LEP do not provide enough incentive for land owners to redevelop. This statement is supported by development feasibility studies undertaken by Council’s consultant land economists in the past which confirm it is likely that it will stay as it is with some minor extensions and refurbishment. The LEP will not facilitate the proposals contained within Councils adopted Town Centre Public Domain Plan 2010 and Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010 including: - a new pedestrian link from Mona Vale Road to the Village Green through a retail arcade - reconstruction of Council carpark and Village Green Parade to create a new pedestrian promenade and new public street - a new St Ives town square/civic space - closure of Clipsham Lane to create a new public space - A new leisure precinct along the edge of the village green with shops, cafes and restaurants, and night time activities - A new multi purpose community facility incorporating youth facilities, seniors facilities and neighbourhood centre - A new multi-purpose child care centre incorporating long day care, occasional care and others - A new St Ives public library The LEP will not facilitate the proposals in the St Ives Traffic Management Plan including: - Increased retail shopper parking to meet current and future demands (currently under supply of parking - new vehicle access arrangements off Mona Vale Road to trafic circulation around the centre - new pedestrian arrangements around the centre to improve access and safety The proposed building height limit will allow a two storey retail centre but will not allow any additional commercial or residential levels Council’s consultant Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) has undertaken a review of the submission to determine whether the claims regarding financial feasibility are correct. JLL has assessed the viability of 2 storey retail centre with an FSR of 1.6:1 on the subject site and has determined that it is not viable under current market conditions. This result is largely due to the current in use value of the centre. The assessment shows that only a substantial uplift in height and FSR would make redevelopment viable While it is acknowledged that this site may be well located and provide opportunities for additional housing, its redevelopment at this stage is not required to meet the state government’s sub-regional dwelling targets for the area. The proposed LEP provisions will allow some expansion of the existing shopping centre, but not a full scale redevelopment. However, should the owners of these sites seek a full redevelopment, including a residential component, there is the opportunity for them to initiate a formal planning proposal with Council outside of the local centre LEP process. This would allow for a full and comprehensive planning assessment of the proposal at a level of detail that is beyond the scope of what is achievable within the context of preparing a broader local centres plan.	No action recommended
St Ives Village shopping centre and Village Green	Supports, in general, the preclusion parking and housing at ground level, however considers there may be circumstances where the provision of parking outside ground floor shops may offer a better design solution, and should therefore be dealt with in the DCP controls.	The LEP does not seek to address the quantum and location of car parking. Such matter will be dealt with through DCP controls.	No action recommended.
Land use zones –153, 155 Mona Vale Road, 27, 29, 31, 37 Pentecost Avenue, 1, 3, 5 Putarri Avenue	Submissions seek R3 zoning as the owner supports the request, the property is free of constraints, and infrastructure required to support higher density is available (bus stop, shopping centre, medical and recreation facilities), consistent with state government policies. The site could be aged care accommodation under SEPP seniors living, but multi-unit dwellings would be a better option.	Each submission was prepared as a form letter representing a group of owners requesting R3 in area proposed to be zoned R2 under the draft LEP. At this stage there is no requirement for Council to zone additional lands in St Ives. While it is acknowledged that this site may be well located and provide opportunities for additional housing, its redevelopment at this stage is not required to meet the state government’s sub-regional dwelling targets for the area. To date approximately 1468 new dwellings have already been approved in St Ives. The draft Plan on exhibition proposes to allow an additional 179 dwellings in St Ives. The draft LEP as exhibited proposes an overall net dwelling yield of 9,930 dwellings for Ku-ring-gai which is just 70 dwellings short of the 10,000 target.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 2 Memorial Avenue, 2 Durham Avenue	Seek increase in FSR to 2.5:1: · Under the 2010 plan it had an FSR of 2.5:1, now reduced to 1.6:1; · Site is essentially an “island” with 4 street frontages giving excellent access; · Has been used for commercial purposes for over 50 years, one of the focal points of the St Ives shopping centres and commercial activities. It is proposed to continue commercial activities with opportunities for not only retail, but also for a variety of professional and commercial service uses; · Would allow aggregation and convenient access for local community (without the need for a car for those in new residential areas in St Ives) and efficient use of site and infrastructure; · Would increase employment opportunities for local residents; and · Site is relatively small in comparison to the shopping centre itself, so will not give rise to overdevelopment.	The subject site currently has an FSR of 1.0:1 under the KPSO. The proposed FSR represents a 60% increase in development potential.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 2 Newhaven Place	Support by owner for proposed R4 zone with an FSR of 1.3:1 and a building height of 5 storeys.	Support noted.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 2-10 Newhaven Place	Request these properties be zoned R2 or R3 (down zoned from R4).	The subject site was zoned 2(d3) in 2004 under LEP 194. There is insufficient justification to request a variation to the Section 117 requirements i.e. a down zoning.	No action recommended.
LEP provisions –2 & 4 Newhaven Place	Supports decrease of lot size for R4 – 5 storey from 2400 sqm minimum to 1200 sqm minimum. Previous requirement of a 2400 sqm minimum lot size prevented R4 development on combined lots 2 & 4 Newhaven Pl even though they are zoned R4. This resulted in the 2 homeowners being offered low prices for their property by developers due to the limited financial returns possible on the combined site. The decrease in lot size will allow landowners to sell properties at an acceptable price and allow the land to develop to fit in with the surrounding high density development.	There has been no change to the minimum lot size provisions in the LEP, they are as follows: Less than 1,800sqm = FSR 0.8:1; Between 1,800sqm & 2,400sqm = FSR 1.0:1; and Greater than 2,400sqm = FSR 1.3:1.	No action recommended.
Overdevelopment – 2-12 Newhaven Place	Submission from body corporate of 9-15 Newhaven Place. Objection to proposed R4 zone with an FSR of 1.3:1 and a building height of 5 storeys on the subject site. Request subject sites be zoned R2.	The subject site was zoned 2(d3) in 2004 under LEP 194. There is insufficient justification to request a variation to the Section 117 requirements i.e. a down zoning.	No action recommended.
Open Space - 21 Newhaven Place	Submission and (separate) petition for the purchase for open space of an isolated site surrounded by apartments and recently vacated by the elderly owner. The only proposed or existing recreation areas are the corner of Yarrabung Road and Stanley Street (some time in the future), an existing area by Rosedale Road, the large area adjacent to the shopping village and a tiny almost unusable area on the corner of Link Road and Mona Vale Road. The latter should be zoned for conservation not recreation – it has remnant vegetation and would be unsafe for children. Under the present plans children would need to cross Link Road or Mona Vale Road (now 29,000 vehicles per day and increasing) to reach a public play area. We request that Council rezone 21 Newhaven Place, in a quiet cul-de-sac, from R4 to RE1 as a pocket park (named Dulcie Quinn reserve) to benefit existing nearby 167 units (with a further 200 odd likely in the future) – for older residents to sit and meet, for mothers with young children during the day and school children in the afternoons. It would be better suited, more highly used, cheaper (only 1 lot required) and provide safer access for children to a small recreation area than the end of Stanley Street (we have nothing against the enlargement of the Yarrabung Avenue park. We do not believe an arbitrary size determination should stop this request. Further, no additional linkages are required as access is available to all residents in Newhaven Place, the Ivy apartments in Stanley Street (with access through the garden) and the adjacent apartments. Section 94 contributions have been collected towards open space, and the funds should be spent on open space so the benefits flow back to residents in Newhaven Place. While the site is not on the market at present, its former owner died recently and it is likely that the current owner, who lives interstate, will consider selling. Of four options, namely: 1) public recreation reserve; 2) remain privately owned house; 3) child care centre (not necessarily opposed, but will create parking issues); or 4) sold to a developer (the worst outcome, as density already high, site small with low returns for the developer, and units would overlook each other). Option 1 would be the best outcome.	The R4 High Density Residential zone proposed permits a range of land uses, including residential flat buildings, multi dwelling housing, child care centres, community facilities, recreation areas, and neighbourhood shops. The subject property is 930sqm and, being surrounded by recent development, there is no prospect of future enlargement or pedestrian linkages to other streets.  As such it fails to meet key criteria in the Open Space Acquisition Strategy which targets an absolute minimum of 2,500sqm with 3,000sqm preferred.  Small parks are relatively costly for ratepayers to maintain compared to larger parks and provide for a limited range of recreation options. The site does have geographic nexus to new development but access is limited to that immediately surrounding development in practical terms as it is sited at the end of a cul-de-sac.  Contributions from all of St Ives should not be used to provide virtually private space (by virtue of its inaccessibility and lack of pedestrian linkages) to a relatively limited number of developments. With respect to the Stanley Street / Yarrabung Avenue, one of the three properties zoned RE1 has already been acquired.	No action recommended.
Land use zones – 27 College Crescent	Submission supports R3 zone.	Support noted.	No action recommended.
Land use zones - 23-25 & 27 Link Road	Submission objects to proposed R4 zone & 5 storey building height on the subject site. Suggest 2-3 storeys.	The draft LEP as exhibited proposes an overall net dwelling yield of 9,930 dwellings which is 70 dwellings short of the 10,000 target. The net additional dwellings proposed for St Ives under the draft LEP is 179 dwellings. The subject sites were zoned 2(d3) in 2004 under LEP 194. There is insufficient justification to request a variation to the Section 117 requirements.	No action recommended.
Building heights – 1 & 3 Cowan Road	Propose to reduce height from 5 storeys to 3 storeys to reduce impact on neighbouring properties.	The subject sites were zoned 2(d3) in 2004 under LEP 194. There is insufficient justification to request a variation to the Section 117 requirements. The only adjoining residential properties are the town houses at 5-9 Cowan Road which are to the north and thereby protected from overshadowing Other amenity impacts will be assessed at the DA stage.	No action recommended.
Building heights - 11-19 Cowan Road (Council owned Carpark)	Propose to reduce height from 4 storeys to 3 storeys to provide transition with adjacent townhouses.	The draft LEP proposes a two storey height transition from 14.5 metres to 9.5 metres this is considered an acceptable transition within an urban area.	No action recommended.
Land use zones - 11-19 Cowan Road (Council owned Carpark)	Object to Council owned car parks along the village green and Cowan Road being zoned 4 storeys with an FSR of 1.6:1. Submission claims that the shopping centre owners and Council have indicated a desire to integrate Council’s community owned car parks into a future redevelopment of the shopping centre. Request 2 storey zoning of subject land.	Council’s vision for the car parking areas between the Shopping Village and the Village Green has been consistently stated over the last 6 years. The vision is clearly articulated in Council’s Town Centre Public Domain Plan. In part 2a.4.1 on page 2-34 of the document Section A-A shows an 18 metre building setback from the edge of the Village Green to the new building line. Within the setback is proposed a broad 8 metre wide pedestrian promenade and a new one way street with on-street parking. The existing car parking is proposed to be relocated to create this new pedestrian area. As this proposal allows some encroachment (up to 12 metres) of private development onto Council’s car park area it is necessary to rezone the whole lot as zone boundaries must be set to lot boundaries. This vision will be further stated in Council’s draft Local Centres DCP (due for completion by December 2012) and public submissions will be received once it is placed on public exhibition. The issue of future use of Council land is subject of a reclassification process, public exhibition and public hearing. The subject of Council’s car parking being incorporated into a future redevelopment of the Shopping Village is not a relevant LEP matter.	No action recommended.