Agenda of Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Meeting

Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Meeting - 18 March 2019	GB.1 / 8

Item GB.1	S12030

Planning Proposal for land at 62 (part) and 64 - 68 Pacific Highway, Roseville -
Roseville Memorial Club

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To refer the Planning Proposal for 62 (part) and 64-68 Pacific Highway, Roseville, to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for consideration of strategic merit with reference to strategic plans (Greater Sydney Region Plan and North District Plan) and advice to Council as required by the Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals issued by the Minister for Planning under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

background:	Council has engaged consultant Helena Miller of MG Planning Pty Ltd to conduct the assessment of this Planning Proposal and prepare a report for the Panel on the findings. The Planning Proposal was submitted to Council on 19 July 2018. Following review it was determined that the Planning Proposal was incomplete and the proponent was therefore requested to make amendments. An amended proposal was submitted on 1 August 2018, however this submission remained incomplete. Following further submission of revised documentation, review of the Planning Proposal formally commenced on 9 January 2019. The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 to change the zoning on part of the site, amend the height of building and floor space ratio standards applying to the site, and to enable residential apartments to occur in conjunction with the existing club use on the subject land at 62 (part) and 64-68 Pacific Highway, Roseville.

comments:	The site is currently occupied by the Roseville Memorial Club which is housed within an existing single storey building. The Planning Proposal seeks amendment to the KLEP Local Centres 2012 to amend the zoning to a small portion of the site; and, enable one additional floor level over that permitted under current planning controls, to a total of seven levels; and, to enable the provision of residential dwellings above the ground floor club use.

recommendation:	That the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel provides advice to Council that the Planning Proposal be amended in accordance with the recommendations of this Report and be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

Purpose of Report

To refer the Planning Proposal for 62 (part) and 64-68 Pacific Highway, Roseville, to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for consideration of strategic merit with reference to strategic plans (Greater Sydney Region Plan and North District Plan) and advice to Council as required by the Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals issued by the Minister for Planning under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Background

Council has engaged consultant MG Planning Pty Ltd (PO Box 197, Drummoyne NSW 1470) to conduct the assessment of this Planning Proposal and prepare a report for the Panel on the findings. Assessment of traffic and transport issues has been carried out by Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer and incorporated into the Table of Assessment which details the assessment of all Planning Proposal documents MG Planning. The Table of Assessment may be viewed at Attachment A1.

A Planning Proposal has a separate process and different matters of consideration to a Development Application. Whilst a Development Application considers built form outcomes on the site, a Planning Proposal considers the strategic aspects of an amendment to an LEP and the implications of that amendment to the local and wider context.

The Planning Proposal seeks amendment to the local strategic planning instrument (Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012); as such, any assessment must consider the strategic merit of the proposal as stipulated in the regional plan (Greater Sydney Region Plan) and the district plan (North District Plan), and the site specific merit relating to the local context.

The Planning Proposal was submitted to Council on 19 July 2018. Following review, it was determined that the Planning Proposal was incomplete and the proponent was therefore requested to make amendments. An amended proposal was submitted on 1 August 2018, however this submission remained incomplete. Following further submission of revised documentation, the review of the Planning Proposal formally commenced on 9 January 2019. A copy of the Planning Proposal and its appendices is included at Attachments A2-A12.

The proponent seeks to make the following amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012 (KLEP Local Centres 2012):

1. Amend the Land Use Zoning Map to rezone a small part of Lot 2 in DP 202148 from RE1 Public Recreation to B2 Local Centre.

2. Amend the Height of Buildings Map from part Q - 20.5m, part N - 14.5m and part zero height designation, to a new height of T1 - 28.5m.

3. Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map from part T1 - 2.0:1 and part U2 - 2.8:1, to V1 - 3.2:1.

4. Amend Schedule 1 of the Written Instrument to allow residential flat buildings on the site, as long as the residential flat building is wholly located above a ground floor registered club.

5. Amend Clause 1.8A of the Written Instrument so that proposed changes are applicable to development applications that are lodged prior to the formal gazettal of the amended instrument.

The proposed amendments to the KLEP Local Centres 2012 are intended to allow for an additional floor level above that permissible under current planning controls and to provide certainty regarding the permissibility of residential dwellings above the ground level where undertaken in association with the existing club use.

Site Description and Local Context

The site is located on the Pacific Highway at the southern entry to the Roseville Local Centre, directly adjacent to the Council owned Roseville Memorial Park. The site is rectangular in shape, with frontage to both the Pacific Highway (east) and Larkin Lane (west). The site also has frontage to the Park to the south.

The site has a combined area of 1,375.3sqm comprising:

· Lot 1 DP202148 – 966.9sqm

· Lot 2 DP505371 – 251.6sqm, and

· Part of Lot 2 DP202148 – 156.8sqm.

Located on a high point within the locality, the site has a slight fall from its highest point in the north-eastern corner towards the south-west. A steep hill then falls away to the west down to a natural valley through which Bluegum Creek flows.

The site is occupied by the existing Roseville Memorial Club (Roseville RSL) within a single storey building with main entrance to the Pacific Highway. To the rear, on Larkin Lane, the site accommodates a loading dock, car parking area, garbage and storage area. One large tree is located within the site adjacent to the loading bay.

Ku-ring-gai Council owns part of the site included in this Planning Proposal and described as 62 (part) Pacific Highway. This land is located to the rear of 64 Pacific Highway, adjacent to Larkin Lane and is currently utilised for public parking and a garden bed extending from the Memorial Park. Council reclassified this parcel of land in December 2016 and considered a report on 13 June 2017 for future divestment of a number of parcels of reclassified land including the land at the rear of 64 Pacific Highway. Council has been provided with a valuation and offer from the Roseville RSL to acquire the land. The matter is under consideration and will be reported to Council once negotiations progress.

To the north, the site is directly adjoined by a two-storey building with retail use on the ground floor. Further north the area accommodates the retail and commercial buildings of the Roseville Local Centre which are typically two storeys in height. The area to the north including the subject site, is zoned B2 Local Centre.

The Roseville Railway Station is located across the Pacific Highway approximately 130 metres to the north-east of the site.

To the south, the site is directly adjacent to the Roseville Memorial Garden which accommodates a formal garden, war memorial and a number of substantial trees on the perimeter including two large trees adjacent to the boundary nearest the subject site.

The surrounding area immediately to the south, east and west is zoned R4 High Density Residential and typically accommodates three-storey residential flat buildings along the Highway.

Directly to the west of the site, across Larkin Lane, is the heritage listed dwelling “Killiecrankie” with its main entry on the corner of Maclaurin Parade and Larkin Lane. Further west of Larkin Street is an area of R2 Low Density Residential characterised by a mix of one and two-storey detached dwellings.

Aerial photo, site outlined in red (Source:Nearmap 27/12/18)

Site lot boundaries, site outlined in red (Source:Sixmaps)

As noted above the site is currently zoned B2 Local Centre, with a small portion of the land adjacent to the Memorial Park zoned RE1 Public Recreation, under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan (Local Centres) 2012.

Zoning Map Extract KLEP Local Centres 2012

Permitted land uses in the B2 Local Centre zone include:

Boarding houses; Centre-based child care facilities; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Group homes (permanent); Hostels; Information and education facilities; Light industries; Medical centres; Passenger transport facilities; Recreation facilities (indoor); Registered clubs; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Roads; Seniors housing; Service stations; Shop top housing; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Water reticulation systems.

Permitted land uses in the RE1 Public Recreation zone include:

Animal boarding or training establishments; Bee keeping; Camping grounds; Car parks; Caravan parks; Centre-based child care facilities; Community facilities; Emergency services facilities; Flood mitigation works; Food and drink premises; Forestry; Information and education facilities; Kiosks; Markets; Plant nurseries; Recreation areas; Recreation facilities (indoor); Recreation facilities (major); Recreation facilities (outdoor); Registered clubs; Roadside stalls; Signage; Water recycling facilities; Water supply systems.

Development History

A Development Application (DA0134/18) was lodged with Council on 12 April 2018 seeking consent to demolish the existing structures on site (including Roseville RSL Club and retail tenancy) and construct a mixed-use building comprising new ground floor RSL Club, shop-top housing totalling 33 residential dwellings, basement parking and associated works. The DA is understood to generally comply with the existing height and floor space ratio controls applying to the site. However, an initial assessment made by Council’s assessment team in September 2018 identified issues with development on that part of the site currently zoned RE1 (Public Recreation), plus concerns regarding landscaping, relationship to the Roseville Memorial Park, engineering, access and service issues connected with incorporation of Council’s land and the associated lot subdivision and consolidation. As a result of the preliminary assessment, the subject DA has been suspended until relevant matters are resolved.

It is understood that the proponent is in the process of negotiating a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) as part of their development application to resolve issues regarding the incorporation of Council’s land into the development site and to ensure the provision of public benefit commensurate with any proposed future development of the site.

Comments

The Planning Proposal (Attachment A2 – A12) has been assessed against the provisions of the Department of Planning and Environment’s ‘A guide to preparing planning proposals’ and section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

A detailed evidence-based assessment of the Planning Proposal and its supporting studies has been conducted. The Planning Proposal provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal has strategic and site-specific merit. Accordingly, the Planning Proposal is supported subject to the incorporation of the recommended amendments stipulated in this report and in the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1.

The following is a summary assessment of the key planning issues associated with the Planning Proposal.

Strategic Merit

A Planning Proposal must demonstrate that the proposed amendments to the Local Environmental Plan have strategic and site specific merit. The following is an assessment of the relevant merits of the Planning Proposal.

Regional Plan

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan – A Metropolis of Three Cities, in particular:

· Objective 6 – Services and Infrastructure meet communities changing needs,

· Objective 7 – Communities are healthy, resilient and socially connected,

· Objective 10 – Greater housing supply, and

· Objective 14 – Integrated land use and transport creates walkable and 30 minute cities.

A Metropolis of Three Cities outlines that liveability incorporates access to housing, transport and employment as well as social, recreational, cultural and creative opportunities. Improved health, public transport and accessibility outcomes are achieved through the provision of schools, recreation, transport, arts and cultural, community and health facilities in walkable, mixed-use places co-located with social infrastructure and local services. Mixed-use neighbourhoods close to centres and public transport improve the opportunity for people to walk and cycle to local shops and services. Enhancing the safety, convenience and accessibility has many benefits, including healthier people, more successful businesses and centres. The proposal is consistent with these principles.

District Plan

The North District Plan highlights that the North District will continue to grow over the next 20 years with demand for an additional 92,000 dwellings. The five-year target (to 2021) for Ku-ring-gai is to provide an additional 4,000 dwellings. Additional housing is to be provided in locations which are linked to local infrastructure. The focus of growth is therefore on strategic centres and areas close to transport corridors.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following planning priorities of the North District Plan:

· Planning Priority N4 - Fostering healthy, creative, culturally rich and socially connected communities,

· Planning Priority N5 - Providing housing supply, choice and affordability, with access to jobs, services and public transport,

· Planning Priority N6 - Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the District’s heritage, and

· Planning Priority N12 – Delivering integrated land use and transport planning and a 30min city.

The Planning Proposal will allow for a mixed-use development providing additional dwellings in a well-located site within the Roseville Local Centre, in close proximity to public transport and a major transport route (Pacific Highway). The co-location of residential dwellings, social infrastructure and local services in centres provides for a more efficient use of land and enhances the viability of the centres and public transport. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the North District Plan strategy to focus growth in areas close to public transport and the concept of a 30-minute city.

In accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment’s ‘A guide to preparing planning proposals’, a Planning Proposal is deemed to have strategic merit if it is consistent with the relevant district plan. As outlined above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the objectives, priorities and strategies of both the Greater Sydney Region Plan and the North District Plan. It is therefore considered to have strategic merit.

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Ministerial Directions

The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the State Environmental Planning Polices (SEPPs) applicable to the site and generally consistent with the applicable Ministerial Directions (Section 9.1 Directions).

Site Specific Merit

The subject site is considered to be suitable for increased height and density, particularly given its location near to public transport, the Pacific Highway and the Roseville Local Centre. Notwithstanding this, the proposal does give rise to some potential impacts that should be addressed via amendments to the Planning Proposal prior to it being forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

The following comments and recommended amendments are made cognisant of the fact that a Planning Proposal is not a development application and does not consider the specific detailed matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A Planning Proposal only relates to an LEP amendment, and therefore needs to demonstrate that the proposed amendment itself is acceptable, with any future detailed design to be assessed at the later development application stage. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that a concept design has been put forward as part of the Planning Proposal to illustrate the potential future built form that could be permissible subject to approval of the LEP amendment.

Height and floor space ratio

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the applicable maximum height and floor space ratio (FSR) to allow for one additional storey over and above that allowed under the existing controls, that is, a total of 7 storeys. However, the proposed height (28.5m) and FSR (3.2:1) is not considered to be consistent with a 7 storey building.

Given the minimum floor height requirements under the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres Development Control Plan (Local Centres DCP), a height of 26.5m (existing height control ‘T’ under KLEP Local Centres 2012) would easily accommodate a 7 storey building with a ground floor height of 4.4m and six residential levels at 3.1m each (allowing 2.7m floor-to-ceiling height and 0.4m for slab, floor and ceiling thickness). This includes an allowance of 3.8m for roof structure(s) including lift overrun as required.

The proposed FSR also appears to be inconsistent with a 7 storey building. An estimated gross floor area of 4,040sqm (equating to an FSR of 2.94:1) has been calculated given the proposed indicative unit mix and using generous floor areas for each unit size, as follows:

· Ground Floor Club = 700sqm

· 11 x 1-bedroom units @ 55sqm = 605sqm

· 20 x 2-bedroom units @ 85sqm = 1,700sqm

· 9 x 3-bedroom units @ 115sqm = 1,035sqm

· Total = 4,040sqm / site area 1,375sqm = FSR 2.94:1

Allowing room for error it is therefore considered that an FSR of 3.0:1 (existing FSR control ‘V’ under KLEP Local Centres 2012) would sufficiently allow for a 7 storey building on the site.

In relation to the appropriateness of a 7 storey building in the subject location, it is acknowledged that the Local Centres DCP identifies the site as being suitable for a ‘landmark’ building being located at the ‘gateway’ to the Roseville Local Centre. Greater height than that provided for in the remainder of the local centre is therefore considered appropriate. The current height controls for the local centre allow for development at a scale of up to 14.5m (3-4 storeys) directly adjacent to the site and on the opposite side of the Pacific Highway adjacent to the railway station entrance, with other sites in the local centre having a maximum height control of 11.5m (2-3 storeys). Existing development adjacent to the site and to the west of the Pacific Highway (in the B2 zone) is however predominantly 2 storey.

Given that the current applicable height controls provide potential for a 3-4 storey building adjacent to the site, the transition of height to a 7 storey building is not considered to be excessive, particularly as the site is intended to accommodate a ‘landmark’ building. Potential amendments to the Local Centres DCP are proposed in the Planning Proposal including setbacks to the side boundary (north) of 5.5m above the fifth storey and a further 2.5m above the sixth storey to ensure an appropriate transition from any future development on the site to adjacent development to the north. Setbacks to the rear of 3m above the fourth storey and a further 6m above the sixth storey are also proposed. A setback to the east (Pacific Highway frontage) above the sixth storey is also shown (on the indicative section provided with the Planning Proposal) thereby providing for a 6 storey street wall height. It is considered that setbacks would ensure appropriate height transitions to the surrounding area and should be further considered and incorporated into site specific DCP provisions prepared by Council, with fees for this preparation being charged to the proponent in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges, following Gateway Determination. The proposed DCP provisions should be placed on public exhibition concurrent with the Planning Proposal.

It is acknowledged that a 7 storey building adjacent to the existing predominantly 2 storey development may appear out of context, at least in the short term. However, given the location of the Roseville Local Centre on the Highway and adjacent to the rail transport corridor with easy access to the Sydney CBD, it is an area appropriate for higher density (and height) transit-orientated development in accordance with the planning priorities outlined in the North District Plan. Given the strategic context, it is anticipated that the applicable heights and densities in the local centre will be increased in the future and that the proposed height on the site will therefore be in keeping with the future context.

It is therefore considered that it is appropriate to increase the applicable maximum height and FSR applying to the site; however, the Planning Proposal should be amended to include a maximum height of 26.5m and FSR of 3.0:1. In addition, site specific DCP provisions should also be prepared to guide the future built form and interface with surrounding development, heritage items, Memorial Park and public access to the rear at Larkin Lane.

Traffic and Parking

The Traffic Report provided with the Planning Proposal (Attachment A4) considers that the impacts of the additional dwellings, that would be provided for with the proposed increase in height and FSR, would be minimal in terms of traffic generation (one to two additional vehicles per hour two-way during weekday peak periods). This is based on an increase of 20% in the number of dwellings over that which would be achievable under a scheme that complies with the existing controls.

The report concludes that such a low increase in traffic generation would not have noticeable effects on the operation of the surrounding road network, and that intersections would continue to operate at their existing “satisfactory levels of service”, with similar average delays per vehicle. In relation to future development of the local centre, the report considers that the intersection of the Pacific Highway and Maclaurin Parade would continue to operate at level of service ‘A’ which is considered to be a ‘good level of service’.

The report does recognise that there are existing delays and queuing with vehicles attempting to turn right out of Maclaurin Parade being impacted by vehicles queued on the Pacific Highway travelling south, and traffic turning right into Maclaurin Parade from the Pacific Highway. The Traffic Report recommends the introduction of a short five second right turn phase from the Pacific Highway to address this existing situation. The report also recognises that future development in the local centre as a whole will result in additional delays and queuing.

Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer has reviewed the Planning Proposal and advises this existing situation has been an ongoing concern for Council and Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), and that further discussions with RMS are required to identify potential solutions. It is noted that previous requests by Council for a right turn phase from the Pacific Highway were refused by RMS on the basis that it would increase delays for northbound traffic on the Pacific Highway.

In relation to parking, the Traffic Report uses car parking rates from the residential flat building section of the Local Centres DCP (7B.1) whereas it should refer to the rates for a mixed use development (8B.2).

The DCP provisions for mixed use developments require that car parking provision for non-residential uses must also be addressed. The Traffic Report does not address parking required for the Club on the basis that this is an existing facility. The DCP (Part 22R) requires that, because club parking demand and usage is variable depending on the nature and operations of individual clubs, each situation should be treated on its merits, and therefore a traffic assessment report should assess the parking requirements based on the facilities to be provided and the parking demands of similar developments. The DCP (8B.2) also requires the provision of at least one car share space which has not been included in the parking requirement assessment.

Potential impacts on surrounding public car parking areas, including the Larkin Lane car park has also not been addressed in the Traffic Report to date.

In terms of the strategic context, whilst the location of the site in close proximity to public transport is recognised, further justification should also be provided within the Traffic Report in relation to the following strategic considerations:

· Integration of land use and transport:

mode splits for journeys to work based on the relevant travel zone, and

strategic centres accessible in 30 minutes by public transport, as an indicator of access to employment.

· Liveability:

extent of 15 minute walking and cycling catchment, and

analysis of extent of retail/supermarket, medical, educational, recreational, leisure and community facilities within the walking catchment.

· Capacity of public transport (rail, bus) to accommodate additional passengers resulting from the proposal:

rail station platform capacity,

bus stop capacity, and

bus stop and station platform accessibility.

The Traffic Report should also be amended to include details of bus and train routes, destinations, frequencies, distance to station/stops and access to other local infrastructure including schools, parks, playgrounds, retail, medical and the like.

While it is considered that the traffic and parking demand generated by the proposed LEP amendment is generally acceptable and can be accommodated, the Traffic Report should be amended to address the matters outlined above and provide evidential justifications prior to the Planning Proposal being forwarded to the Department for a Gateway Determination. Further, since any future development is able to provide retail or business uses on the ground floor in conjunction with shop top housing above under the KLEP Local Centres 2012, the Traffic Report should also consider the traffic and parking implications of the range of uses which may be permissible within the ground floor of any future development.

Heritage

The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) provided with the Planning Proposal (Attachment A6) identifies that anticipated impacts on heritage items in the vicinity will be minimal and that the proposal is acceptable from a heritage perspective.

In respect of 'Killikrankie’, the heritage item located adjacent to the site across Larkin Lane, the HIA notes that the proposal is deemed acceptable as:

· It will not alter how 'Killikrankie' is appreciated as the main view to the house is across Memorial Park and will not be affected by increased height on the subject site,

· An additional storey will alter the wider visual setting of the house, however will have an acceptable heritage impact, and

· Views from the Pacific Highway looking south towards the heritage item are not available due to existing setbacks, development and vegetation.

It is agreed that the Planning Proposal is unlikely to result in any significant impacts on heritage items in the vicinity. Specifically it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to impact upon views to ‘Killikrankie’ given that existing views from the Pacific Highway are limited even across the adjacent Memorial Park, with the substantial trees and shrubs to the north of the ‘Killikrankie’ site as well as within the Memorial Park itself restricting views. The proposal would not impact upon this view, being located to the north of the park. Further ‘Killikrankie’ is not currently visible from the Pacific Highway looking south. Views to ‘Killikrankie’ from Maclaurin Parade and Larkin Lane are also currently restricted due to the existing substantial shrubs located on the perimeter of the ‘Killikrankie’ site. This view would similarly not be affected given the location of the proposal outside of the viewshed of ‘Killikrankie’.

The proposed increase in height on the subject site will have some impact on the visual context of ‘Killikrankie’. However, it is recognised that existing controls allow for a landmark building on the site in the order of six storeys, and that any visual impacts associated with an additional storey will be mitigated by the separation of the site from the item across Larkin Lane and the extent of the substantial shrubs and trees which exists on the perimeter of the ‘Killikrankie’ site and within the adjacent Memorial Park. The Planning Proposal proposes amendments to the Local Centres DCP to, amongst other matters, reduce the visual impact of any future development on the site. The inclusion of setback controls would mitigate visual impacts and ensure an appropriate height transition from the future development to ‘Killikrankie’. Given the existing site conditions, site separation and the built form controls that will be included in site specific DCP provisions, it is therefore considered that the potential visual impacts of an additional storey on the subject site are acceptable from a heritage perspective and would not result in adverse impacts. It is however noted that this matter will be further addressed as part of any future development application(s).

Potential impacts related to overshadowing are addressed in the next section of this report, and it is recommended that amended shadow diagrams be provided. However, based on the shadow diagrams provided in the Planning Proposal’s Urban Design Report, it is evident that the proposal could result in minor additional overshadowing to the east and south of the ‘Killikrankie site’ until 1pm on the winter solstice (June 21). The detailed design of any future building on site will be required to address overshadowing impacts and provide detailed shadow diagrams as part of any future development application(s). The application will also be required to address potential impacts on the amenity of the dwelling and the long-term health of the mixed shrubs and mature trees which provide the garden setting and curtilage of ‘Killikrankie’ and which contribute to its heritage significance.

Potential overlooking and privacy issues related to ‘Killikrankie’ will also need to be addressed as part of any future development application(s) once the final design of the building is determined. The proposed increase in height and FSR in of itself will not result in any adverse impact and potential impacts can be ameliorated through design measures.

In relation to the heritage listed Former Commonwealth Bank Building and Former Station Master's Residence (near the railway station) to the east across the Pacific Highway, the HIA notes that the proposal is deemed acceptable as:

· the items are visually and physically separated from the site by the four lanes of Pacific Highway;

· no views of the items would be obscured or altered; and

· there are no changes to the streetscape setting of the items.

These heritage items are located approximately 100m from the subject site and across four lanes of the Pacific Highway and this separation means these Items would therefore not be viewed together with future built development on the site. Given site separation and the existing site context it is therefore considered that this Planning Proposal enabling one additional floor level would not adversely impact the setting of these heritage items. Similarly, with regards to the heritage listed Roseville Cinema, the distance separation and laneway interruptions along the Pacific Highway elevation reduces the potential impacts of the additional floor level that this proposal will facilitate.

For the reasons outlined above, it is therefore considered that the heritage impacts of the Planning Proposal are not likely to be significant and do not preclude further consideration of the Planning Proposal. Notwithstanding due to the proximity of the site to heritage items, a Heritage Impact Assessment would be required with any future development application(s). The heritage impact assessment would need to address in detail all relevant potential impacts on heritage items in the vicinity and particularly ‘Killikrankie’, and the Roseville Memorial Park which, while not heritage listed, is a registered war memorial on the NSW State Governments Register of War Memorials. Any future detailed design will be required to demonstrate that it responds to the site context and setting and the historic use of the park as well as matters such as the impact of basement excavation on mature trees within the park.

It is recommended that built form controls to address the interface of any future building on the site with the adjacent ‘Killikrankie’ heritage item and historic Memorial Park are included in site specific DCP provisions to be prepared in conjunction with the Planning Proposal (refer to ‘Other considerations’ below). These should include appropriate setbacks and controls on materials, finishes, colours and the like.

Overshadowing

Shadow diagrams have been provided in the Planning Proposal’s Urban Design Report. However, the shadow diagrams show a concept scheme and should be amended to refer to building envelopes only, rather than a specific built form. Further the existing compliant envelope should also be illustrated to allow a comparison and to determine the impact of the additional proposed height in terms of shadow impacts. Amended diagrams should be provided prior to the Planning Proposal being forwarded to the Department for a Gateway Determination.

The submitted shadow diagrams however do indicate that the overshadowing impacts associated with the increased height are not likely to be significant. Further, the detailed design of any future building will need to address overshadowing impacts and provide detailed shadow diagrams to support any future development application(s). This will include shadow impacts on the adjacent “Killikrankie” heritage item.

Social and Economic Impacts

The Planning Proposal identifies the potential social and economic impacts of the proposal at a high level, with reference to potential benefits of increased supply of housing, revitalisation of the existing development and wider local centre, provision of employment through construction and operation, and improved public domain interface (to the Memorial Park).

However, further specific detail should be provided regarding social infrastructure including the names, location and distance to schools, parks, facilities, bus numbers and route destinations, rail line and frequencies of all services and facilities that will serve the new population resulting from this development.

In relation to economic assessment, details should be included to quantify the increase in club floor space that will result from this proposal, the economic benefits of that additional space and the benefits of new populations utilising local services and facilities. Further, since any future development is able to provide retail or business uses on the ground floor, in conjunction with shop top housing above under the KLEP Local Centres 2012, consideration should also be given to the economic implications of the range of uses which may be permissible within the ground floor of any future development.

Amendment to the Written Instrument

Under the current KLEP Local Centres 2012 definitions, shop top housing can only be located over ground floor retail or business premises. The definitions of retail and business premises within the KLEP Local Centres 2012 do not include registered clubs. This means that if the registered club use was to continue on the site, no residential dwellings could be developed above that use.

It is therefore recommended that the proposed amendment to Schedule 1 ‘Additional Permitted Uses’ be modified to allow for a residential flat building on the site provided that the registered club use occupies the entirety of the ground level floorplate of the building footprint. This will ensure that any future development incorporates an active non-residential use on the whole ground floor and accommodates the range of uses that are currently permissible in the B2 zone and the additional registered club use. Should any retail or business uses seek to develop within the ground floor level of the site, they may continue to do so under the current KLEP Local Centres 2012 provisions which permit the development of shop top housing above retail and business uses.

Amendments required to Planning Proposal

As noted above, the Planning Proposal is supported in principle as it has demonstrated sufficient strategic and site specific merit to enable it to be forwarded to the Department for a Gateway Determination, subject to the recommended changes presented in this report and the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1.

The key changes required to the Planning Proposal prior to forwarding the proposal for a Gateway determination are as follows, with full details being stipulated in the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1:

1. Amend the Planning Proposal as stated in the Table of Assessment (Attachment A1).

This is to ensure that the content is clear, correct and consistent with Council’s approach to land use planning prior to being presented for Gateway Determination and subsequent public exhibition.

2. Amend Building Height map

As outlined in this report, the map is to be amended to include a maximum height control of 26.5m for the site as the proposed height is considered to be excessive for a 7 storey building.

3. Amend Floor Space Ratio map

As outlined in this report, the map is to be amended to include a maximum FSR of 3.0:1 for the site as the proposed FSR is considered to be excessive for a 7 storey building.

4. Amend Schedule 1 ‘Additional Permitted Uses’

As outlined in this report, the proposed Schedule 1 amendment is to be modified to allow for a residential flat building on the site provided it only occurs above the registered club use which must occupy the entire ground floor of the site. This will ensure that no residential uses can be applied to the ground floor and that a broader range of non-residential land uses are permissible within the ground floor of the development, consistent with the zoning and to provide for future flexibility.

5. Remove proposed amendment to Clause 1.8A of the KLEP Local Centres 2012

This proposed amendment seeks to use the Planning Proposal to facilitate early lodgement of a development application, that is, prior to gazettal of the subject LEP amendment. Clause 3.39 of the EP&A Act provides an existing statutory mechanism to enable the consideration of a draft LEP amendment (Planning Proposal) when assessing a development application, with final consent on that development application only being given when the LEP amendment is gazetted.

6. Amend the Traffic Report at Appendix 2 of the Planning Proposal

As outlined in this report, an amended traffic report is to be provided which includes:

· Further detail on proposed solutions, including discussion with RMS, to address existing traffic issues associated with:

vehicles attempting to turn right out of Maclaurin Parade being impacted by vehicles queued on Pacific Highway travelling south, and

delays to traffic turning right into Maclaurin Parade from the Pacific Highway.

· Car parking provision in accordance with DCP rates for a mixed use development (8B.2), including parking provision for the Club.

· Consideration of potential impacts on surrounding public car parking areas, including the Larkin Lane car park.

· Traffic and parking implications of the range of active retail / commercial uses which area permissible within the ground floor of any future development.

· Include strategic consideration of integration of land use and transport, liveability, and capacity of public transport to accommodate additional passengers.

· Include details of bus and train routes, destinations, frequencies, distance to station/stops and access to other local infrastructure including schools, parks, playgrounds, retail, medical and the like.

7. Amend the Urban Design Study at Appendix 1 of the Planning Proposal.

As outlined in this report, the shadow diagrams are to be amended to show building envelopes only for both the proposed and existing LEP and DCP controls to enable a comparison and to determine the extent of any potential impact resulting from the proposed LEP height amendment.

The proponent is to submit to Council two (2) hard copies of all documents (amended Planning Proposal and all attachments) and a USB with pdf versions of all documents and a Word version of the Planning Proposal.

Recommendations to Gateway Determination

It is recommended that changes to the Planning Proposal and supporting studies, as outlined in this report and the Table of Assessment at Appendix A1, be made prior to submitting the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

Other Considerations

Development Control Plan Amendments

Given the identification of the site as suitable for a ‘landmark’ building at the southern entrance to the Roseville Local Centre, and the need to ensure appropriate height transitions to the surrounding area including heritage items, and the interface with Memorial Park and Larkin Lane, and the unique corner aspect of the site, it is recommended that site specific provisions be prepared for inclusion in the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres DCP to guide any future development. These provisions would be prepared post Gateway Determination by Council and discussed with the landowner with costs paid by the landowner in accordance with Council’s fees and charges. The site specific amendments to the DCP would then be placed on public exhibition concurrent with the Planning Proposal.

It is noted that potential DCP controls are provided with the Planning Proposal, which will be considered by Council as part of the preparation of the DCP amendment. It is recommended that, in addition to the setbacks proposed to the north and west of the site, the DCP amendment incorporate a setback to the east (Pacific Highway frontage) above the sixth storey as shown on the indicative section provided with the Planning Proposal. This will ensure an appropriate street wall height and scale to the building on the highway frontage. Measures should specifically be considered in the context of addressing potential impacts on the adjacent “Killikrankie” heritage item and the historic Memorial Park. Further detailed provisions could also be included where identified as appropriate through the process.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3 - Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
P2.1 A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of Ku-ring-gai	P2.1.1 Land use strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development	Implement and monitor the Local Environmental Plans and supporting Development Control Plans.

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P2.1 A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of Ku-ring-gai

P2.1.1 Land use strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development

Implement and monitor the Local Environmental Plans and supporting Development Control Plans.

Governance Matters

The process for the preparation and implementation of Planning Proposals is governed by the provisions contained in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

If Council fails to make a decision within 90 days (from the commencement of the review of the application) or if Council makes a decision to not support the Planning Proposal, the proponent can make a request to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Rezoning Review.

Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals issued by the Minister for Planning under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to refer all Planning Proposals prepared after 1 June 2018 to the Local Planning Panel for advice, before it is forwarded to the Greater Sydney Commission (via the Department of Planning and Environment) for a Gateway Determination under Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Risk Management

This is a privately initiated Planning Proposal. Council should to determine its position on the matter specifically whether the Planning Proposal should be sent to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination and proceed to public exhibition.

Council risks damage to its reputation if it does not undertake strategic land use planning in an effective and timely manner.

Financial Considerations

The Planning Proposal was subject to the relevant application fee under Council’s 2017/2018 Fees and Charges Schedule. The cost of the review and assessment of the Planning Proposal is covered by this fee.

Social Considerations

Whilst the Roseville Memorial Club has submitted this Planning Proposal as a means of ensuring the future viability of the Club, by enabling a sufficient yield of residential dwellings, it is not deemed appropriate to restrict future use of the site to a Club only on the ground floor. Therefore, the deemed social benefits associated with the retention of the Club is not a key consideration when considering the strategic merit of the proposal.

Notwithstanding, the Planning Proposal is not anticipated to result in any adverse social impacts.

Environmental Considerations

The potential environmental impacts of the Planning Proposal have been considered in this assessment, and there are no known impacts that prevent the further consideration of the Planning Proposal. The impacts of any specific development that may occur on the site as a result of the proposal would be considered in detail at the development application stage.

Community Consultation

In the event that the Planning Proposal is granted a Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning and Environment, the Planning Proposal would be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination and the Department of Planning and Environment’s publication ‘A Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans’.

The public exhibition would include notification to the surrounding properties and advertisement within the North Shore Times and on Council’s website.

Internal Consultation

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has included consultation with Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer.

Summary

Council has engaged consultant MG Planning Pty Ltd (PO Box 197, Drummoyne NSW 1470) to conduct the assessment of this Planning Proposal. Assessment of traffic and transport issues has been carried out by Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer.

A Planning Proposal has been submitted for 62 (part) and 64-68 Pacific Highway, Roseville, which seeks to make the following amendments to the KLEP (Local Centres) 2012:

1. Amend land use zoning from RE1 Public Recreation to B2 Local Centre zone for part of the site (Part Lot 2 DP 202148),

2. Amend height of building controls from 14.5m, 20.5m and part no height designation, to 28.5m,

3. Amend the floor space ratio map control from 2.0:1 and 2.8:1 to 3.2:1,

4. Amend Schedule 1 to allow residential flat buildings on the site, provided the residential flat building is wholly located above a ground floor registered club, and

5. Amend Clause 1.8A ‘Savings provisions relating to development applications’ to ensure that proposed changes under the planning proposal are applicable to development applications that are lodged prior to the formal gazettal of the amended instrument, once the gazettal takes place.

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has resulted in the following recommendations:

A. That the Planning Proposal and its attached reports are amended in accordance with the requirements of this Report and the Table of Assessment (Attachment A1) prior to submission for Gateway determination.

B. That changes are made to the proposed amendments to the KLEP (Local Centres) 2012 as follows:

i. Amend land use zoning from RE1 Public Recreation to B2 Local Centre zone for part of the site (Part Lot 2 DP 202148),

ii. Amend height of building controls from 14.5m, 20.5m and part no height designation, to 26.5m,

iii. Amend the floor space ratio map control from 2.0:1 and 2.8:1 to 3.0:1, and

iv. Amend Schedule 1 to stipulate that development for the purpose of residential flat buildings is permitted with development consent if the consent authority is satisfied that the total ground floor of any such building will be used only for the purpose of a registered club.

C. That site specific DCP provisions be prepared for exhibition should a Gateway be issued for the Planning Proposal.

The Planning Proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Department of Planning and Environment’s ‘A guide to preparing planning proposals’ and section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

It is considered that there is sufficient merit to enable the Planning Proposal to be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination, subject to the incorporation of the recommended amendments stipulated in this report and in the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1.

Recommendation:

A. That the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel makes a recommendation to Council that the Planning Proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination, subject to the amendments detailed in this Report and Table of Assessment at Attachment A1.

B. Should a Gateway Determination be issued for public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, site specific amendments to the Local Centres DCP as outlined in this report to be prepared and placed on public exhibition concurrent with the Planning Proposal.

Helena Miller

Director, MG Planning Pty Ltd

Rathna Rana

Senior Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1 ⇩	Table of Assessment - Roseville RSL	2019/058845
	A2 ⇩	Planning Proposal - Roseville Memorial Club	2019/058519
	A3 ⇩	Appendix 1 – Urban Design Report – PBD Architects	2019/058518
	A4 ⇩	Appendix 2 – Traffic Report – Colston Budd Rogers & Kafes Pty Ltd	2019/058516
	A5 ⇩	Appendix 3 – Acoustic Report – Noise and Sound Services	2019/058515
	A6 ⇩	Appendix 4 – Heritage Impact Statement – NBRS Architecture	2019/058514
	A7 ⇩	Appendix 5 – Statement from Roseville Returned Servicemen’s Memorial Club	2019/058513
	A8 ⇩	Appendix 6 – Survey	2019/058512
	A9 ⇩	Appendix 7 – Existing Development Survey	2019/058510
	A10 ⇩	Appendix 8 – Community Consultation Report – Urban Concepts	2019/058509
	A11 ⇩	Appendix 9 – Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation – Network Geotechnics	2019/058508
	A12 ⇩	Appendix 10 – Local Environmental Plan Maps	2019/058507

Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Meeting - 18 March 2019	GB.2 / 353

Item GB.2	S12120

Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To refer the Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Road and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra on land currently operating as a plant nursey and service station to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for advice as required by the Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals issued by the Minister for Planning under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

background:	The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to: 1. rezone the land from R2 (Low Density Residential) to B1 (Neighbourhood Centre); and 2. amend schedule 1 of the KLEP 2015 to allow commercial premises on the land to have up to 1,540 square metres of gross floor area. The key objective of the proposal is to formalise the existing, long term commercial uses on the site that are adjacent to the existing Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre.

comments:	This report assesses of the Planning Proposal. It addresses the key issues regarding the Planning Proposal prepared by SJB Planning. Some changes to the Planning Proposal are recommended. It is acknowledged that the existing uses on the site complement other uses in the Centre. Expansion of the commercial function in the local neighbourhood needs to fit into the overall, broader strategic framework for Ku-ring-gai. It must also result in positive, safe and practical benefits for the centre, its surrounding neighbourhood and the community it serves.

recommendation:	That the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel makes a recommendation to Council that the Planning Proposal, as amended in this report, be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

Purpose of Report

To refer the Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Road and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra on land currently operating as a plant nursey and service station to the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel for advice as required by the Local Planning Panels Direction – Planning Proposals issued by the Minister for Planning under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) by rezoning the site from R2 (Low Density Residential) to B1 (Neighbourhood Centre).

See Attachment A4-A17 for detail.

Originally, SJB Planning presented an Amendment to Schedule 1 of KLEP 2015 to result in the following configuration:

· A 1,000 square metre building, possibly for an independent fresh food grocer (Note: Harris Farm is stated in the Supplementary Planning Statement (Attachment A6);

· A 235 square metre adjoining building (mainly along the Alice Street frontage), possibly for a florist, nursery and café; and

· A 305 square metre separate building on the corner of Eastern Road and Tennyson Avenue, which is proposed to accommodate one or two speciality shops.

In August 2018 the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) introduced the following new definitions that are relevant to this Planning Proposal i.e. garden centre, neighbourhood shops, and neighbourhood supermarkets. The proposed retention of the FSR standard of 0.3:1 will allow the desired maximum floor space of 1,540 square metres. Also, the new neighbourhood supermarket definition specifies a maximum floor area of 1000sq.m. It is important to note that this amount of floor space was separately specified in the Planning Proposal as submitted.

As a result of these DPE changes, the proposed amendment to Schedule 1 is considered unnecessary. By not limiting permissible land uses, or specifying a particular building size, the recommended approach will also allow greater flexibility regarding future (permissible) use and building configuration on the site.

Background

Previous Planning Proposal

The subject site was part of a previous Planning Proposal submitted by a different applicant. Discussions regarding the site and the previous Planning Proposal with Aldi as the proponent have dated back to 2015. The first pre- Planning Proposal meeting was held on 27 May 2015.

The Planning Proposal was submitted to Council on 12 August 2015, which sought to make the following amendments to the KLEP 2015:

· rezone the subject site from R2 Low Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre;

· amend the Floor Space Ratio applying to the subject sites from 0.3: 1 to 0.75 :1; and

· amendment to Schedule 1 – Additional Permitted Uses to allow a gross floor area of 1,955sqm for the purposes of an Aldi store and speciality shops on the subject sites.

This Planning Proposal could have resulted in a maximum of 3,850 square metres of new floor space on the site.

The Planning Proposal was the subject of a Council report on 8 December 2015. Council resolved not to support the Planning Proposal on the following grounds:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with directions and actions in the Metropolitan Strategy “A Plan for Growing Sydney” which seeks to undertake urban renewal and growth within transport corridors and strategic centres in order to create jobs that are closer to home. Specifically Directions 1.7, 2.2, 3.1 and Actions 1.7.1, 2.2.2, and 3.1.1.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with s.117 Directions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, specifically:

• 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport

• 6.3 Site Specific Provisions

• 7.1 Implementation of “A Plan for Growing Sydney”

3. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of Ku-ring-gai Council’s Community Strategic Plan 2030 relating to the revitalisation of local centres and managing the impacts of new development within centres.

4. The proposal is inconsistent with the local service role and functions of neighbourhood centres and will conflict with the hierarchy of commercial centres in Ku-ring-gai.

5. The proposal is inconsistent with the strategic directions and development principles within the Ku-ring-gai Retail Centres Study 2005 (Hill PDA) and Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby Subregional Employment Study 2008 (SGS Economics and Planning) which seek to retain of the local service role and function of the existing neighbourhood centres by limiting development capacity and encouraging larger retail within the higher order centres.

6. The proposal is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015, specifically aim 1.2(g), objective of Clause 6.9(1) and the objective of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone in that the proposal is of a scale that is inappropriate for a neighbourhood centre, will service a wider catchment than the surrounding residential area and will conflict with the commercial hierarchy in Ku-ring-gai.

The Planning Proposal was subsequently submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for a Gateway Review by the proponent. The DPE refused the Review application on 9 March 2016. This fact remains noted on the DPE rezoning review web page.

Planning Proposal

A summary of the Planning Proposal the subject of this report can be found in the Purpose of this Report section earlier. Further detail can also be found in the Planning Proposal section ahead. See Attachment A4-A17.

A Pre-Planning Proposal meeting was held at Council on 21 March 2018. See Attachment A7, for the Minutes of this meeting.

The new Planning Proposal was initially registered with Council on 27 August 2018. Council sent a letter outlining the additional information required to complete the Planning Proposal on 5 October 2018. The amended proposal was received and formally registered with Council on 31 October 2018.

The new Planning Proposal has not yet been publicly notified by Council.

Key differences between the previous and current planning proposals

The new Planning Proposal retains the existing FSR of 0.3:1 similar to the existing R2 (Low Density Residential) zone. The previous proposal increased the FSR on the site to 0.75:1, which is equal to the existing FSR in the existing, adjacent Eastern Road neighbourhood centre. The new Planning Proposal specifies a maximum gross floor area of 1,540 square metres, including a neighbourhood supermarket with a maximum gross floor area of 1,000 square metres. The previous Planning Proposal had a maximum gross floor area of 3,850 square metres, including a gross floor area for an Aldi supermarket of 1,955 square metres.

The new Planning Proposal has reduced the potential gross floor area on the site by 60% from the previous Planning Proposal. Further, the size of the supermarket component has been reduced by almost 100%. The new Planning Proposal will have significantly less impact than the previous proposal, particularly in terms of the bulk, scale and function of future development on the site.

The previous proposal specified Aldi as the main supermarket tenant on the site. The new Planning Proposal remains more general, and flexible, in terms of future uses and users of the site.

Site description and local context

The site is located in Turramurra, 17 kilometres north-west of the Sydney CBD and approximately 5 kilometres south-east of the Hornsby CBD. The site is approximately 1.3 kilometres north of Turramurra Railway Station and Turramurra Local Centre. It is 1.5 kilometres north of the Pacific Highway. See Map 1.

Map 1: Location of Site between Hornsby, Turramurra and St. Ives

There is a local bus service from Macquarie University via the Station to the site and on to Hornsby via Wahroonga. There are 14 services per day from approximately 7am until 8pm Mondays to Fridays. There is another, less frequent service to and from Wahroonga four times daily via the site on week days (576T). Night and weekend buses are less frequent, or non-existent, in the local neighbourhood.

The site consists of two lots, at 45-47 Tennyson Avenue (Lot 1 DP 4323 and Lot 2 DP515147) and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra, which is identified as Lot 1 DP 515147. It is an almost square and has the following frontages to 3 streets: Eastern Road (71.19m), Tennyson Avenue (71.81 m) and Alice Street (72.54m). The total area of the site is 5129 square metres (Council Geocortex map system estimates the site to be 5120 square metres).

The site is currently zoned R2 (Low Density Residential) under the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP).

Image 1: Aerial photo of the site and surrounds. The site is outlined in red

Image 2: Current Zoning Extract from KLEP 2015 – R2 Low Density Residential (pink).

The site is outlined in red.

The Tennyson Avenue property is currently used for a garden centre (Honeysuckle Garden Centre), associated car parking and structures. There are 8 full time and 5-10 part time (seasonal) casual staff employed at the nursery (applicant’s advice January 2019). The Eastern Road property is used for a service station and associated vehicle mechanical workshop (GRD Automotive Services) Service Station. There are 5 full time and 1 casual staff employed by this business (pers. Comm. applicant January 2019). The existing floor area of both businesses is 824 square metres. These existing uses are long term, well established enterprises.

The garden centre property operated as an apple orchard and possible market garden from the early 1900s. From 1954 to 1968 it was owned by Ampol Petroleum Ltd., but it is likely to have been vacant by 1961. Between 1968-1978 it was used as a bus depot. From 1978 it has been used a nursery and landscaping supply shop, and as a café and nursery since 2002. The other property has been used as a service station and mechanical workshop since the 1950’s.

The site is generally level. There is a gentle fall from north to south of approximately 3 metres. See Attachment A5. The majority of the site is unvegetated, however there is significant vegetation on the eastern and southern edges of the site. This is discussed ahead in more detail.

The site is located immediately north (across Tennyson Avenue) of the existing Eastern Road shops. These shops and adjacent car parking areas are zoned B1 (Neighbourhood Centre) under KLEP. The floor area of the existing shops is approximately 1512 square metres. It is a well-established group of 7 shops that includes a small IGA supermarket (570 square metres), BWS Liquor Store, butcher, pharmacy, fruit and vegetable shop, café and drycleaner. All shops have remained occupied over time.

The total existing B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoned area is approximately 3,684 square metres. This includes angled street front parking and the car park (to the south and east of the existing shops) provide a total of 55 car parking spaces (internal transport referral response December 2018) in the following breakdown:

· Rear car park 37 spaces;

· angle parking along the Eastern Road frontage of 12 spaces;

· parallel parking on the Tennyson Road frontage of 2 spaces; and

· parallel parking on the Eastern Road frontage of 4 spaces.

The car park is accessed on the eastern side of the commercial buildings by Tennyson Lane, and on their western side by Eastern Road. The lane links Tennyson Avenue and Eastern Road in a reverse L configuration.

Immediately east of the laneway in Tennyson Avenue is a Kindergarten (Turramurra Beehive Child Care) and a privately operated Swimming School (Turramurra Learn to Swim).

The site is surrounded by a low density residential area that is zoned R2 (Low Density Residential) under the KLEP 2015. The area to its north and west is typical of low density residential areas in Ku-ring-gai, with high quality detached dwellings within large, established garden settings. Immediately east of the site is a small group of townhouses.

Reasons for the Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal outlines the following reasons for the proposed amendments to the KLEP 2015(p.5 Executive Summary):

· It responds to the historic use of the site for retail premises (noting the existing site contains a garden centre and service station);

· It will economically support surrounding development, namely the neighbourhood retail centre immediately to the south;

· It will be compatible with the surrounding development, namely the surrounding low density residential development, as well as the neighbourhood retail centre immediately to the south;

· It will provide the opportunity to expand and upgrade local employment opportunities for the site in a well serviced location;

· It will achieve urban design integration and renewal of the locality;

· Development consistent with the Planning Proposal will facilitate remediation of land contamination from present uses on the site;

· It will protect and enhance existing native vegetation (biodiversity) on the site;

· The proposal can be accommodated utilising the existing road network, which has been assessed as being capable of accommodating the additional traffic generation; and

· It is consistent with the local and regional strategic planning framework.

The following additional merit was identified in the Supplementary Planning Statement (Appendix 2 p.4) to further justify the Planning Proposal:

· It will provide services that will enhance choice and serve the needs of people living and/or working in the surrounding neighbourhood.

The Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal prepared by SJB Planning seeks amendment to the KLEP 2015 to rezone the 5,129 square metre site from R2 (Low Density Residential) zoning to B1 (Neighbourhood Centre).

Permissible uses in the B1 (Neighbourhood Centre) comprise: Bed and breakfast accommodation; Boarding houses; Business premises; Centre-based child care facilities; Community facilities; Health consulting rooms; Home-based child care; Light industries; Medical centres; Neighbourhood shops; Neighbourhood supermarkets; Respite day care centres; Roads; Shop top housing; Water reticulation systems; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

The existing Maximum Building Height of 9.5 metres and maximum FSR of 0.3:1 LEP development standards are proposed to be retained for the site. See Images ahead for details.

Image 3: Proposed zoning of the site to B1 Neighbourhood Centre as submitted by SJB Planning

Image 4: Existing 9.5 metre height development standard on the site.

This standard is proposed to be retained in the Planning Proposal.

Image 5: Existing 0.3:1 FSR development standard on the site.

This standard is proposed to be retained in the Planning Proposal.

It is important to note that the proposed FSR development standard is less on the site than for the adjacent existing Eastern Road shopping centre (to the south). The latter area has a maximum FSR of 0.75:1. See Image 5.

Schedule 1 Amendment

Clause 6.9(2) of KLEP 2015 states that Development consent must not be granted to development for the purposes of commercial premises on land in Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre if the development would result in the premises having a gross floor area of more than 1,000 square metres. There is ambiguity in the wording of this clause. To clarify the situation for future development, the applicant has proposed a Schedule 1 amendment to allow commercial premises maximum gross floor area (GFA) of 1,540 square metres on the site.

Supporting Studies

Several supporting studies form attachments to the Planning Proposal. They provide information and further justify the Planning Proposal. They are listed ahead and may be found at Attachment A5-A17 to this report:

· Survey Plan prepared by SurDevel

· Supplementary Planning Statement

· Pre-Planning Proposal Meeting Report prepared by Ku-ring-gai Council

· Architectural Plans prepared by Tandem Design Studio

· Urban Design Statement prepared by Oculus

· Traffic Report prepared by Colston Budd Rogers & Kafes

· Economic Impact Assessment prepared by Deep End Services

· Arboricultural Impact Statement prepared by Tree IQ

· Landscape Report prepared by Oculus

· Ecological Report prepared by GIS Environmental Consultants

· Combined Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Compaction & Soil Testing Services

· Engagement (Community) Report prepared by Straight Talk

The Architectural Plans and Urban Design Statement included with the Planning Proposal provide an indication of possible type and scale of built outcomes enabled by the Planning Proposal. Briefly, it comprises:

· a commercial premises with a GFA of 1,000 square metres to be used as an independent fresh food grocer (The Homestead);

· an adjoining tenancy of 235 square metres to be used as a florist, nursery and café along the Alice Street frontage (Conservatory/ Café Nursery); and

· a separate retail building on the corner of Eastern Road and Tennyson Avenue of 305 square metres to be used for 1 or 2 specialty shop tenancies (The Barn).

In considering the Planning Proposal, the building envelope across the entire site has to be considered as any future application on the site could potentially deliver alternative footprints and development of differing bulk and scale than indicated in this Planning Proposal.

It is important to note that a Planning Proposal is not a Development Application and does not consider the specific detailed matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (previously Section 79C). A Planning Proposal relates only to an LEP amendment. The proposed amendments need to be acceptable as a means for facilitating certain outcomes on the site, regardless of the subsequent approval or refusal of any future Development Application/s.

Key Points

If the Planning Proposal proceeds, the overall Eastern Road shopping centre commercial floor area will increase from 2,336 square metres (including 824 square metres for the existing service station and nursery), plus 1,512 square metres (for the existing Eastern Road shops), to approximately 3,052 square metres. The Planning Proposal will result in an overall increase in B1 Neighbourhood Centre Eastern Road land area from 3,684 square metres. to 8,813 square metres.

Information on fifteen (15) areas zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centres in the Ku-Ring-gai local government area has been complied and tabulated. These 15 centres have a total gross floor area of 22,800 square metres (approximate Dekho measurement). The Planning Proposal would result in a potential increase in gross floor area of 716 square metres. This is considered a very small increase of 3.1% in the overall Ku-ring-gai Neighbourhood Centre context.

In its independent review of the economic assessment report, Hill PDA state that the Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre will not change in terms of its position in the overall Ku-Ring-Gai Centre Hierarchy as a result of the Planning Proposal. Importantly, the identified strategic need to have a functional hierarchy of centres in Ku-ring-gai is maintained as a result of the Planning Proposal.

Comments

Planning Proposal Assessment

The Planning Proposal has been evaluated by Council’s Urban Design, Development Assessment, Transport, Natural Areas (Strategy and Environment) and Infrastructure teams. See Attachment A2 for detail.

Analysis of the Planning Proposal and its attachments has been conducted, and summarised in the Table of Assessment. See Attachment A1.

Internal Council Responses

The key issues raised in the Council officers’ assessments are as follows:

Natural Areas

The proposed building footprint needs to be designed to further reduce impacts on the remnant Blue Gum High Forest (BGHF). This could potentially be achieved through a reduction of areas of the site which are not considered as ecologically significant (i.e. the orchard in the current proposal), and the provision of greater buffers for the remnant BGHF trees. Additional buffers could be achieved through site specific DCP controls requiring a greater setback from the mapped BGHF located in the south-eastern corner of the site. These issues are addressed via proposed changes to the Planning Proposal, should it proceed to the Gateway, in the Summary section at the end of this report.

The impacts associated with the removal of 5 trees including 2 native species (T30 a young Eucalyptus saligna and T1 a large Melaleaca quinquenervia) through the current proposal is able to be offset onsite with appropriate plantings, which would need to be clearly identified in a vegetation management and replenishment plan.

A detailed survey and tree plan would be required to ensure all retained trees remain viable, with suitable monitoring, vegetation management and replenishment. Again, a better outcome could be achieved by providing a greater buffer to retained trees or through alternative construction methods.

The site is suitable for the proposed uses, and poses no unacceptable risk to human health or the surrounding environment. The issue of contamination will be addressed during the development process, and appropriate management and monitoring put in place if required.

Transport

The Planning Proposal states that approximately 20 employees would be working in the store at any one time. Based on the travel mode characteristics of the travel zone, it is likely that 15 employees would drive to work, 2 would be dropped off, 1 would arrive by train, 1 would walk and 1 would arrive by bus. While it is likely that around half of the employees would originate from the Ku-ring-gai LGA, the site is still likely to be a highly car-dependent site for journeys to work by employees.

It is unlikely that this additional demand for public transport would place significant additional burden on existing services. The existing public transport services would likely have the capacity to accommodate any additional demand. Given the small public transport catchment and unrestricted nature of on-street parking in the vicinity of the site, it is likely to be highly car dependent for journeys to work.

As the proposal to rezone the site would increase pedestrian demand across Eastern Road (to/from the western part of the walking catchment), consideration will need to be given (likely at DA stage) to improving crossing opportunities and additional pedestrian facilities on Eastern Road as well as across Tennyson Avenue and The Chase Road (where they meet Eastern Road), to facilitate and promote pedestrian access.

It is unlikely that the additional demand generated by the proposal would create platform capacity issues at Turramurra Station. The number of shoppers/visitors to the site arriving by rail is also expected to be low, based on the mode share characteristics of the travel zone. There is a bus stop directly outside the site and opposite the site. Services provide connectivity to Turramurra railway station.

The estimated traffic generation of the Planning Proposal is derived from the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments for supermarkets and specialty shops. The net increase in traffic generation (allowing for the existing use) is estimated at additional 150 vehicle trips per hour (two-way) during the weekday afternoon peak hour and 130 vehicle trips per hour (two-way) during the Saturday peak hour. In terms of impacts to nearby intersections, the Planning Proposal would result in a Level of Service A/B (good operation/acceptable delays and spare capacity) for both the intersection of Eastern Road and Tennyson Avenue and the intersection of Eastern Road and Alice Street. Council’s Traffic Assessment section concurs with these figures and level of service estimates.

Tennyson Road has a relatively narrow road pavement varying from approximately 7.5m to 10m, and the question of the desirability of carrying additional traffic in Tennyson Avenue, and whether traffic management measures would need to be considered, would be a matter for a future development application.

Any traffic management measures that reduce traffic movements in Tennyson Avenue are likely to result in corresponding increases in traffic movements along The Chase Road. The Chase Road is a collector road and is already operating at around the maximum environmental traffic flows suggested for a collector road (as outlined in the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments).

While not a consideration at this stage, the potential for 82 car spaces would be lower than required by the DCP but higher (per square metre) than the parking provided for the existing shops. The slightly-lower-than-DCP provision could be supported though, if a management system was implemented to encourage turnover of the on-site spaces (e.g. electronic parking management system or enforcement by Council’s rangers). There are also 3-4 time-restricted parallel parking directly opposite (on the western side of Eastern Road) which contribute to short stay parking supply for public use.

The Traffic Assessment report that forms part of the Planning Proposal indicates that the existing road infrastructure has capacity to cater for the proposal. Council’s Traffic Assessment section concurs with this conclusion.

Urban Design

The Planning Proposal is supported in principle. A site specific DCP is required to provide Council’s detailed requirements. Outcomes of the Planning Proposal include: increased public amenity; better safety and surveillance; as well as an activation of the street front (flexible parking and forecourt to Eastern Road) along the site.

Development Assessment

A DCP is required to guide development on the site, particularly in regard to protecting significant vegetation. See Image 6 ahead.

Image 6 Existing Terrestrial Biodiversity mapping will remain unchanged as a result of the Planning Proposal.

Infrastructure

The imposition of the appropriate Development Contributions would occur at the DA approval stage. Significant vegetation on the site needs to be protected.

Conclusion on Internal Council Responses

There are no internal objections to the Planning Proposal. With the provision of additional information, including more detailed development information becoming available. Most of the issues that have been raised will be addressed at the DA stage/s.

External Response to Deep End Services Economic Justification Analysis

The following table identifies key issues raised in the external review of the economic impact assessment (Attachment A3) submitted as part of the Planning Proposal was undertaken by Hill PDA (engaged by Council). It also identifies where review of the Deep End Services report is needed. This review needs to occur if it is to go to the Gateway for a Determination:

Hill PDA review consideration (Page references are included in brackets).	RESPONSE by Hill PDA -recommended change to Deep End Services report
The Deep End Services Report provides a fair representation of the existing and proposed competitive hierarchy surrounding the site.	Nil
The defined trade areas are considered to be reasonable. However, the likely trade area is considered a little optimistic (p.7).	1. Contract the trade area to the north and south (as suggested in Hill PDA report) and rework the supply and demand assessment; or 2. Leave the trade area as it is (contract slightly to exclude the area south of the railway line) but existing retailers in the PTA must be included in the supply demand forecasting
The population projections and identified socio economic trends in the Deep End Services report are considered reasonable (p.8).	There was a double counting error which needs to be corrected.
The estimated expenditure per capita has been estimated as lower that the Deep End Services report (p.8).	The expected growth in retail sales per capita needs to be adjusted to less than 1% per annum to be more accurate.
The proposed Turramurra Community hub improvements would increase the amount of trade directed away from the site (particularly within the secondary trade areas). This would reduce the estimated capture rates (p.10).	The figures needs to be reviewed to include existing retailers in the PTA in the supply demand modelling and also to revise likely capture rates following the opening of the Turramurra Community Hub.
With the exception of Eastern Road (-9% shift in turnover between 2017 and 2020) and Hornsby Westfield (-4.1%), all centres would experience trade loss impacts as a result of the rezoning of less than 3.5%. It is important to note that the impact on the whole centre will be net positive as total retail sales is expected to increase by more than 80%. Consumers will have a larger and wider retail offer at Eastern Road. It is agreed that this would not change the Centre’s overall status in the Ku-ring-gai’s commercial centre hierarchy.	Nil
Existing retailers on Eastern Road may experience some initial loss (estimated 10-15%) depending on how they adapt, but the total expanded centre as a whole will be positive since the centre will double its retail offering and likely double its turnover. The Deep End Services report doesn’t address the cumulative impacts from both the Planning Proposal and the Turramurra Community Hub) (p.12).	The cumulative impacts of both the planning proposal and the Turramurra Hub on existing retail centres needs to be addressed.
In response to comments expressed in the Deep End Services report, Coles and Woolworths do have supermarkets below 1,500 square metres. The proposed controls would not prevent these operators from introducing smaller format models (p.13).	Nil
The Deep End Services report estimates 50 full time and part time staff in the supermarket. Hill PDA estimates 40 staff, based on major operator figure of 1 worker per 25 square metre. The specialties could employ up to 30 staff. Hill PDA estimates 20 staff, so the overall jobs on site estimate is revised to 70 (p.14).	Nil, however, this could have implications for the number of car parking spaces required in the future at the DA/s stage.

Regional, District and Local strategic merit

The Planning Proposal demonstrates consistency with the relevant strategic local, district and regional principles.

Key points are outlined below with details included in the Attachment A1 Table of Assessment attached to this Report.

1. Greater Sydney Region Plan – “A Metropolis of Three Cities” March 2018

The subject site is located north of the Eastern Economic Corridor and the strategic centre of Macquarie Park, within the Eastern Harbour City, as identified in the Greater Sydney Region Plan – ‘A Metropolis of Three Cities’ (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Extract from Eastern Harbour City Vision A Metropolis of Three Cities

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the broad directions of ‘A Metropolis of Three Cities’ through (Direction = D and Objective = O):

· Encouraging and fostering healthy and socially connected communities by providing additional and improved commercial premises within walking distance of the surrounding residential area (D3, O6, O7 and O8; D6, O14);

· Potential for the enhancement of an existing neighbourhood centre (D3, O6 and O7);

· Facilitating the upgrading and development of land adjacent to an existing neighbourhood centre (D1, O3 and O4; D3, O6 and O7; D7, O22);

· Acknowledgement of the purposes for which the land has been used for decades (D1; D3 O6, O7; D5, O12; D7 O22);

· Rationalisation of use on land which is well serviced by existing infrastructure, including public transport (train and bus) (D1, O3 and O4; D3, O6 and O7);

· Increasing opportunities for employment in the local area (D7, O22);

· Potential provision of a wider range of goods and services on land adjacent to an existing neighbourhood shopping centre (D3, O6 and O7; D7, O22);

· An opportunity to protect local biodiversity that includes an identified Endangered Ecological Community (D5, O13; D8 O27,O30; D10, O36 and O38);

· Preserving and increasing vital urban tree canopy via the retention, protection and embellishment of remnant vegetation on-site (D8, O27 and O30; D10, O36 and O38);

· An opportunity to create improved green spaces and shade on the land that will reduce the impact of increased heat because of climate change (D5, O12; D8, O27, O28 and O30; D10, O36 and 38); and

· The prospect of an enriched local urban outcome, both from within and without the land (D3 O7; D5, O12; D7, O22; D8, O27 and O30; D10, O36 and O38).

Further detail on the Planning Proposal in relation to its consistency with the Directions and Objectives can be found at Attachment A1.

The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the Directions and Objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan ‘A Metropolis of Three Cities’.

2. North District Plan

The Ku-ring-gai LGA is located within the North District identified under the District Plans prepared by the Greater Sydney Commission. The North District Plan has been prepared to give effect to A Metropolis of Three Cities, the Region Plan that applies to the five districts that make up the Greater Sydney Region.

The North District Plan has been prepared in accordance with section 3.4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. As well as providing a basis for strategic planning, it includes a number of Planning Priorities that are to be considered by planning authorities in making strategic planning decisions. The relevant Planning Priorities to the Planning Proposal are addressed in the Attachment A1 of this Report.

The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with the following key Planning Priorities of the North District Plan (Planning Priority = N):

· The site is well supported by existing infrastructure and services (N1and N12);

· An increased range of goods and services for the local community, for many within an easy walking distance (N3, N4, N6 and N10);

· Significant vegetation will be conserved, protected and enhanced on the site (N16, N17, N19); and

· Tree canopy will be increased (N23).

3. Our Ku-ring-gai - Community Strategic Plan 2038

Council’s Community Strategic Plan (CSP) 2038 was adopted in June 2018. It reflects the aspirations and priorities of our community into the future. It contains the community’s long term vision for Ku-ring-gai along with long term objectives to achieve that vision.

The Strategic Plan 2038 includes the following six (6) key themes:

1. Community, People and Culture;

2. Natural Environment;

3. Places, Spaces and Infrastructure;

4. Access, Traffic and Transport;

5. Local Economy and Employment; and

6. Leadership and Governance.

The relevant and/or applicable themes/objectives of the Strategic Plan 2038 are discussed in Attachment A1 of this Report.

The Planning Proposal is considered consistent with the Themes and Objectives of the CSP 2038, and, in particular, the following:

· although not required in the early stage, the applicant conducted its own community engagement in March 2018 to determine and discuss issues (positive and negative) (Themes 1 and 6);

· significant vegetation will be conserved, augmented and enhanced (Themes 2 and 3);

· easy access is available via a variety of means, including cycling and walking (Theme 4);

· additional employment opportunities would be provided (Theme 5); and

· there would be strengthening of the local business economy (Theme 5).

4. Our Ku-ring-gai - Community Strategic Plan 2038 Delivery Program 2018-2021 and Operational Plan 2018-2019

The Delivery Program outlines what Council intends to do during its term of office, and acts as a point of reference for all principle activities undertaken by Council. The Operational Plan details the specific projects, programs and services for a 12 month period.

Council’s s.7.12 (previously S94A) Plan identifies $300,000 for improvement works to Eastern Road shops (page 31 – works program). There may also be money available in Council’s Capital Works Program. Ideally, these could be coordinated so the work is done at the same time as future development on the site. It is likely that a cash contribution to top up Council’s project funds would be required to do the design/consultation work. Additional Development Contribution levies would also be conditioned in future development consents.

5. Ku-ring-gai Integrated Transport Strategy July 2011

The site, nor the existing Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre, are not specifically discussed in this Strategy. However, the Planning Proposal meets the applicable key objectives of the Strategy, particularly:

· Reducing the need to travel and the length of trips;

· Providing a choice of travel options for people and goods, and promoting sustainable choices;

· Making it safe and easy for people to access goods, services and destinations, particularly by public transport; and

· Increasing the share of trips by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing car dependency

An increase in the size of the existing Eastern Road neighbourhood centre will result in a greater range of goods and services being offered within the existing catchment. Potentially, this will mean local people can shop more locally more often; reducing the need for numerous “external” car trips. Given the travel distance is reduced, the possibility of walking and/ or cycling safely from home to the neighbourhood centre is also increased. These factors are key net community benefits resulting from the Planning Proposal.

The relevant, applicable themes and objectives of the Strategy, are discussed in detail in Attachment A1.

6. Ku-ring-gai Sustainability Vision 2008-2033

One of the identified key resident findings of the Ku-ring-gai Sustainability Vision was the need to improve infrastructure in neighbourhood shopping centres in the LGA. The Planning Proposal could act as a catalyst for the upgrade of infrastructure in the Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre. Funds are available for this upgrade in Council’s Development Contributions Plan as discussed earlier in this report.

The four (4) themes that emerged from the consultation process include the themes of social, environmental, economic and governance. The Planning Proposal is compliant with these themes. They are discussed in more detail in Attachment A1 of this report.

7. State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs), including draft SEPPs.

The Planning Proposal has been assessed against the following relevant SEPP’s, and draft SEPPs:

· SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land;

· SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007;

· SREP – Hawkesbury- Nepean River; and

· Draft Environment SEPP.

Further detail can be found in Attachment A1 of this Report. The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the relevant SEPPs, and draft SEPP.

8. s.9.1 Ministerial Directions

The following relevant Directions have been considered as part of the Planning Proposal:

· Business and Industrial Zones;

· 3.1 Residential Zones;

· 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport;

· 5.10 Implementation of Regional Plans;

· 6.3 Site specific Provisions; and

· 7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney

Further detail can be found in Attachment A1 of this Report. The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the following relevant s.9.1 Ministerial Directions: 1.1 Business and Industrial Zones; 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport; 5.10 Implementation of Regional Plans; 6.3 Site specific Provisions; and 7.1 Implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney.

The Planning Proposal is justifiably inconsistent with Direction 3.1 Residential Zones for a number of reasons:

· the land has never been used for residential purposes;

· it will utilise existing, available infrastructure; and is adjacent to the existing Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre;

· it provides an opportunity for the enhancement of the existing, adjacent centre; as well as significant vegetation on the site: and

· the proposed scale of development is compatible with surrounding residential uses. Importantly, it will better service the goods and services needs of the local community.

9. Ku-ring-gai Retail Centres Study 2005

In 2005 this Study recommended keeping the Eastern Road neighbourhood centre as a “local” centre i.e. the smallest category in the Study’s hierarchy. It also recommended “containing” retailing (as opposed to dispersing or spreading it) to minimise travel times, improve convenience and improve competition within existing retail centres. The Study also identified a need to increase floor area to meet growth in demand. This increase was to be based on the need to maintain a functional hierarchy of centres and to balance the retail offer, competitiveness and accessibility for consumers.

It recommended Turramurra as a district centre (20,000sq.m). In the retail hierarchy (Attachment A11) it recommended that Turramurra could have an expansion of up to 4,000 square metres. This was incorporated in KLEP (Local Centres) 2012. It was intended that some of this would be for the expansion of the 2 existing supermarkets, which were considered too small for modern supermarkets. At this time, no additional development has occurred in Turramurra following the Local Centres LEP.

In the Hill PDA’s independent review of the Planning Proposal’s economic analysis (Deep End Services report), it is confirmed that Turramurra’s status in the overall Ku-ring-gai commercial hierarchy would be maintained. Although the Planning Proposal would cause some impacts, the overall viability of the nearby Turramurra Community Hub would not be threatened by the Planning Proposal.

The Hill PDA report does state that, post Planning Proposal, the Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre would remain in its current place below Turramurra Local Centre.

The Ku-Ring-Gai Retail Centres Study also recommended:

7. Identify site suitable for large scale development, by accommodating more efficient use of land and building within or surrounding existing centres.

Although the Planning Proposal is not “large scale” in terms of overall retail development (just 3.1% increase in neighbourhood centre floor space in the Ku-ring-gai LGA), it will still result in an increase the amount of gross floor area in the existing centre. In line with the Study’s recommendation, it would result in the more efficient use of land adjacent to an existing Centre.

The previous Planning Proposal (2015) provided a total of 3,850 square metres of additional floor area. The new Planning Proposal the subject of this report provides for 1,540 square metres which is significantly less. The maximum size of the neighbourhood supermarket is 1,000 square metres, around half the size of the previous proposal.

The Planning Proposal conforms with the Recommendations of the Study.

10. Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015)

Although the site is zoned R2 (Low Density Residential) it has been used for nursery and service station purposes (commercial) for decades. The R2 zone objectives include:

· To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

· To provide for housing that is compatible with the existing environmental and built character of Ku-ring-gai.

These objectives are not appropriate for or relevant to ongoing commercial land uses on the site.

In contrast, the objective of the B1 (Neighbourhood Centre) is:

To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

The objective of this zone far more accurately reflects the current and intended future uses of the land. If it proceeds as recommended in this report, the rezoning will better inform all stakeholders of land uses at the site. It will also facilitate greatly increased opportunity for improvement and renewal over time.

There are likely to be multiplier effects for the neighbourhood centre as a whole in the medium and longer term. In the Hill PDA review of the economic assessment in the Planning Proposal, it is stated that the existing retailers in the Eastern Road shops will experience some loss depending on how they adapt or change but the expanded centre as a whole will be strongly positive since the centre will double its retail offering and likely double its turnover.

The Planning Proposal would provide significant net benefits to the overall neighbourhood centre, as well as the surrounding community.

It is proposed to retain the existing Maximum Building Height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standards that apply to the site. This will ensure that future development will be no higher than that permissible in the adjacent, existing shopping centre. The site has a lesser FSR than the existing shopping centre. As indicated in the development concept plans provided in the Planning Proposal, the urban outcome on the site will not be a traditional strip in style. There will be fewer but larger building footprints, mostly underground vehicle and parking/ loading, a flexible parking/forecourt area at Eastern Road level, and several open space areas.

If constructed in the future, the development concept plan would result in a more contemporary outcome (including mostly underground parking and good pedestrian circulation within the site) than the more traditional strip style shops to the south.

The Planning Proposal demonstrates integration of the objectives of the proposed B1 zone and development standards. The necessity for the proposed amendment to Schedule 1 to allow a maximum 1540 square metres of commercial floor space is discussed ahead in this report.

11. New definitions of neighbourhood shop, neighbourhood supermarket and garden centre in the B1 (Neighbourhood Centre) zone.

On 31 August, 2018 the Department of Planning and Environment introduced the following new definitions that are relevant to the Planning Proposal. These definitions are now included in KLEP:

garden centre means a building or place the principal purpose of which is the retail sale of plants and landscaping and gardening supplies and equipment. It may include a restaurant or cafe and the sale of any of the following:

(a) outdoor furniture and furnishings, barbecues, shading and awnings, pools, spas and associated supplies, and items associated with the construction and maintenance of outdoor areas,

(b) pets and pet supplies,

(c) fresh produce.

Note. Garden centres are a type of retail premises—see the definition of that term in this Dictionary.

(7) Neighbourhood shops If development for the purposes of a neighbourhood shop is permitted under this Plan, the retail floor area must not exceed 100 square metres.

Note: This use has a maximum retail floor area of 100 square metres.

(7AA) Neighbourhood supermarkets If development for the purposes of a neighbourhood supermarket is permitted under this Plan, the gross floor area must not exceed 1,000 square metres.

Note: This use has a maximum gross floor area of 1000 square metres.

The introduction of these new definitions does not have any implications for the Planning Proposal i.e. there is no need to make any changes to it. The new definitions will ensure that any neighbourhood supermarket on the site is limited to a maximum of 1,000 square metres of floor space.

It will result in/ allow the following “possible” outcomes. It is important to note that other land uses and development configurations would be possible under the rezoning:

· a neighbourhood supermarket with a gross floor area of 1,000sq.m. This meets the terms of the new definition;

· a garden centre with an unspecified gross floor area (the planning proposal estimates this use will occupy a gross floor area of 235 square metres).This use meets the terms of the new definition; and

· 1 or 2 specialty shops with a total gross floor area of 305 square metres.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

“Competition” is not a Town Planning Consideration

Often an excessive amount of consideration is given to economic assessment in environmental planning matters involving commercial land use. The following information provides a counter view to this. It is based on previous Land Environment Court cases that have shaped ongoing best practice in the planning profession. The legal approach outlined here has influenced the recommendations of this report.

In the assessment of planning matters in any assessment is not about solving economic competition problems between retailers, or undermining the operation of a free market economy. Further, Section 4.15 Evaluation (previously s.79C in relation to DA’s) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 does not include the consideration of loss of trade that might occur by any planned or existing businesses. These matters are more appropriately dealt with via other legislation such as The Trades Practices Act, and market forces (Extracted from a public submission to Australian Consumer and Competition Grocery Inquiry by Urban Taskforce Australia on 11 March 2008 by Urban Taskforce Australia).

This is well established in NSW case law. It is appropriate to include Justice Stephen’s most quoted comment from Kentucky Fried Chicken v Gantidis (1979) 140 CLR 675 at page 687:

“If the shopping facilities presently enjoyed by a community or planned for it in the future are put in jeopardy by some proposed development, whether that jeopardy be due to physical or financial causes, and if the resultant community detriment will not be made good by the proposed development itself, that appears to me to be a consideration proper to be taken into account as a matter of town planning. It does not cease to be so because the profitability of individual existing businesses are at one and the same time also threatened by the new competition afforded by that new development. However, the mere threat of competition to existing businesses if not accompanied by a prospect of a resultant overall adverse effect upon the extent and adequacy of facilities available to the local community if the development be proceeded with, will not be a relevant town planning consideration.”

The Planning Proposal includes an economic assessment which Council has had independently reviewed. The Hill PDA review of the economic assessment confirms the Planning Proposal’s (Deep End report) findings that, while there will be a negative economic change for some retailers in the existing Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre, the expanded centre as a whole will be strongly positive since the Centre will double its retail offer and likely double its turnover.

The economic impact of the Planning Proposal on the existing Eastern Road neighbourhood centre needs to be considered within the context outlined in this section of the report.

Draft Development Control Plan (DCP)

It is recommended that a site specific draft Development Control Plan (DCP) be prepared and publicly exhibited with the Planning Proposal. The draft DCP would be prepared by Council in line with current best practice. It needs to include the following controls to maximise positive environmental outcomes for the site:

· Building form and design;

· setbacks;

· scale;

· roof Form;

· building footprint, including separation from tree driplines;

· building envelopes;

· building materials and finishes;

· open space;

· provision of outdoor sun and shade areas to maximise comfort for all stakeholders;

· linkages and internal - external circulation;

· protection and enhancement of identified EEC vegetation, retention of tree canopy and green space;

· vegetation protection buffers;

· Vegetation Management and Replenishment Plan;

· landscaping;

· sustainability, re use and recycling;

· safety and access for all modes;

· activation and multi-use of the Eastern Road forecourt; and

· parking – motor vehicle and bicycle.

Civic Improvement

As previously discussed, Council’s Development Contributions Plan identifies funds for improvement works to Eastern Road shops. There may also be funds available in Council’s capital works program, subject to prioritisation. It is likely that a cash contribution to top up Council’s project funds would be required to do the design/consultation work. Additional Development Contribution levies would also be conditioned in future development consent/s on the site.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE PLANNING PROPOSAL

On the assumption that the site is to be consolidated into one lot, it is proposed to make some changes to KLEP 2015 not sought via the SJB Planning Proposal. They are discussed below.

It is proposed to remove the existing, applicable subdivision minimum lot size provision of 1unit per 930 square metres. This will make the site consistent with the existing, adjacent Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre. See Images 7and 8 ahead for detail.

Image 7 Existing minimum lot size of 930 square metres for the site is consistent with the surrounding R2 Low Density Residential zoned neighbourhood.

Image 8 It is proposed to remove the minimum lot size control on the site because of the proposed change in zoning. This is consistent with the B1 zoned Eastern Road Shopping Centre to the south.

Image 9 Proposed B1 zoning extended across Tennyson Avenue to link the proposed and existing Neighbourhood Centre zoning. This zoning approach is consistent with best practice, required and is similar to other comparable situations in Ku-ring-gai.

The proposed SJB Planning amendment to Schedule 1 constrains both the size and the type of development on the site i.e. the maximum gross floor space of “commercial premises” (only) on the land is 1,540 square metres.

The proposed amendment to Schedule 1 is considered inappropriate and unnecessary. Permissible uses on the site do not need to be constrained to commercial premises only. There are many other permissible uses that may be appropriate for the site; if not now, then in the future. To increase flexibility for future land use and development options i.e. to allow a broader range of possible future land uses, it is considered better planning to let the full range of permissible uses under the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoning apply to the site.

Further, the FSR development standard of 0.3:1 that already applies to the site (and is proposed to be retained), will limit floor space to 1540 square metres. It is therefore unnecessary to replicate this limit via a Schedule 1 amendment.

The DPE introduced new definitions of garden centre, neighbourhood shops, and neighbourhood supermarket (with a maximum gross floor area of 1000 square metres) in August 2018. The garden centre and neighbourhood supermarket uses are proposed to form part of the future development of the site, as per the Planning Proposal presented by SJB Planning. These uses remain permissible uses if there is no change to Schedule 1, as recommended in this report.

integrated planning and reporting

Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
P2.1 A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of Ku-ring-gai	Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development	Implement and monitor the Local Environmental Plans and supporting Development Control Plans

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P2.1 A robust planning framework is in place to deliver quality design outcomes and maintain the identity and character of Ku-ring-gai

Strategies, plans and processes are in place to effectively manage the impact of new development

Implement and monitor the Local Environmental Plans and supporting Development Control Plans

Governance Matters

Risk Management

This is a privately initiated Planning Proposal. After the comments from the Local Planning Panel have been received, Council will determine its position on this Planning Proposal i.e. whether or not to send it to the DPE for a Gateway Determination to proceed to public exhibition.

Financial Considerations

This is a private Planning Proposal and Council’s Fees and Charges have been applied to cover the Departmental costs of processing the Planning Proposal. Should the proposal proceed to exhibition, advertising fees will be sought from the applicant as per Council’s Fees and Charges.

Costs to develop the recommended site specific DCP upon a favourable Gateway Determination will be sought from the applicant in accordance with Council’s Fees and Charges.

Social Considerations

The applicant has submitted a Planning Proposal to rezone the site to reflect its long term business uses, and to provide an opportunity for urban renewal. This will expand the existing, adjacent Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre, and offer local residents a greater range of shops and services close to home. Limits have been placed on the size and scale of future development on the site. It is important to note that the site will have a significantly less FSR than the existing shops to the south. Detailed controls will be introduced via a site specific DCP if the Planning Proposal proceeds to the Gateway and receives a favourable determination.

The provision of sufficient land to provide the services required by the community needs to remain a top priority for Council. The wording of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone objective reflects this appropriately i.e. To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

The Planning Proposal will also act as a catalyst for enhancing the urban quality and outcomes of a larger Neighbourhood Centre. As previously discussed, Council’s Development Contributions Plan identifies funds for improvement works to the Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre. There may also be funds available in Council’s capital works program. It is likely that a cash contribution to top up Council’s project funds would be required to do the design/consultation work. Additional Development Contributions levies would also be conditioned in future development consents.

Environmental Considerations

All aspects of the proposal with potential environmental impacts have been considered in the preparation of this Local Planning Panel Report. The assessment has included the analysis of the specialist reports included in the Planning Proposal.

Any specific development that occurs on the site as a result of the proposal will be considered in detail at the Development Application/s stage.

Community Consultation

Should the Planning Proposal proceed to the Gateway and be approved for public exhibition, the DPE will issue a list of agencies and stakeholders for consultation during the exhibition period. Further local community consultation would be set out in the Gateway Determination, and in accordance with the legislative requirements.

Internal Consultation

Internal consultation has taken place for the preparation of this report. Council’s development assessment, urban design, s.94, transport and natural areas staff have assessed the Planning Proposal which has been addressed in this Report.

Summary

The existing uses on the site do not represent the most “orderly and economic development on the land” in the current conditions of 2019.

While both existing enterprises provide important goods and services to the local community; they do not contribute aesthetically in a positive way to the site, or the neighbourhood. There is little architectural merit in any of the buildings. The existing vegetation on the site that is identified in the biodiversity mapping layer in KLEP 2015 has significant environmental merit. This vegetation is recommended for conservation and augmentation.

There is a contamination issue based on the historical use of part of the site. Council’s Natural Areas specialist does not have objections to the Planning Proposal on these grounds. It is considered this issue has solutions, either at the Planning Proposal (post Gateway Determination) and/or development application stage. There are no Council specialist objections to the Planning Proposal.

This Planning Proposal presents Council with the opportunity to formalise and rationalise business uses on the land, and to guide future development in a proactive, efficient and positive way. The site is adjacent to the existing, well established and successful Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre. The Planning Proposal would result in the expansion of the adjacent neighbourhood centre that is immediately to the south. There would be positive economic benefits for existing and future enterprises, and the centre as a whole. An increased offering of goods and services would have benefits for the local community, including the opportunity to shop close to home in an improved environment. It will also provide a number of jobs, both in the construction and operation phases.

These net community benefits are all in line with State Government and Council’s strategic framework.

It is well established in NSW case law that economic competition issues between retailers is not a town planning issue. The economic analysis of the Planning Proposal (and its independent Hill PDA review commissioned by Council) has concluded that the change in zoning would not alter the neighbourhood centre’s status in the overall Ku-ring-gai retail hierarchy. The Planning Proposal would not affect the overall viability of the Turramurra Community Hub. While existing retailers in the Eastern Road shops may experience some loss following the Planning Proposal, individual outcomes will depend on how they adapt to this local change. The expanded centre as a whole will be strongly positive as the neighbourhood centre will double its retail offering, and likely double its turnover.

The rezoning could potentially result in a much improved neighbourhood centre; including better opportunities for a wider, complimentary range of goods and services; greater pedestrian and cyclist links to the surrounding neighbourhood; as well as the community benefits from the preservation of significant vegetation and enhancement of the existing green space orchard area.

The Planning Proposal could also become a catalyst for the provision of civic improvements that have been previously identified by Council and the community. Council’s Development Contributions Plan identifies funds for improvement works to the Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre. There may also be money available in Council’s capital works program. Additional Development Contribution levies would also be conditioned in future development consents.

The table ahead compares the existing and proposed development standards and controls for the site:

KLEP 2015 Zoning, Development Standards and Schedule 1
	KLEP 2015 - Existing	KLEP 2015 - Proposed
Zoning	R2 (Low Density Residential)	B1 (Neighbourhood Centre), B1 zone boundary extended across Tennyson Avenue to be consistent with current best practice. See Image 9 for detail.
Floor Space Ratio	0.3:1	0.3:1
Height of Building	9.5metres	9.5 metres
Minimum Lot Size	940sqm	Removed to be consistent with the existing B1 zoned Eastern Road Neighbourhood Centre shops
Biodiversity mapping	Part area has biodiversity significance	No change
Schedule 1	Not applicable	No change

The following points identify the changes that need to be made to the SJB Planning Proposal before it is sent to the DPE for a Gateway Determination, should Council resolve to do so after it has been considered by the Local Planning Panel:

1. Continue the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoning across the roadway of Tennyson Avenue, Turramurra in line with current best practice of covering the roadway with the adjacent zoning;

2. remove the minimum lot size provision from KLEP 2015 to enable lot consolidation and increase options for flexible and innovative future development;

3. make no changes to Schedule 1 i.e. allow all Neighbourhood Centre zone permissible uses and allow the FSR of 0.3:1 to determine 1540 square metres of GFA;

4. acknowledge that the new definitions introduced by the State government in 2018 to the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone create opportunities for uses such as neighbourhood supermarkets and garden centres;

5. confirm that the concept plans in terms of scale, location on the site and uses are indicative, and by no means final. Further, the indicative development plans, and related plans and documentation, need to have the proposed building footprints changed to conserve EEC vegetation on the site. Some consideration needs to be given to providing a suitable distance of buildings from tree driplines. Documentation such as the urban design statement needs to be updated to reflect this;

6. amendment of the following aspects of the Economic Analysis prepared by Deep End Services:

A. contract the trade area to the north and south (as suggested in Hill PDA report) and rework the supply and demand assessment; or, leave the trade area as it is (contract slightly to exclude the area south of the railway line) but existing retailers in the PTA must be included in the supply demand forecasting;

B. there was a double counting error in the population growth which needs to be corrected;

C. the expected growth in retail sales per capita needs to be adjusted to less than 1% per annum to be more accurate;

D. the figures needs to be reviewed to include existing retailers in the PTA in the supply demand modelling, and also to revise likely capture rates following the opening of the Turramurra Community Hub; and

E. the cumulative impacts of both the planning proposal and the Turramurra Hub on existing retail centres needs to be addressed; and

7. Any other editorial or content changes in the SJB Planning Proposal that may arise as a result of the identified changes, or this report.

If Council subsequently agrees with the recommendations of this report, and the DPE subsequently issues a favourable Gateway Determination, it will be necessary for a draft DCP to be prepared and processed by Council. This will provide detail, as well as guiding the scale and form of new development, protecting adjacent neighbours and so on. Consideration would need to be given to an improved street presentation, retention of significant vegetation, better integration of the 2 areas currently separated by Tennyson Avenue, safe and efficient circulation for all users, and so on. The local community would be actively engaged to ensure the success of the DCP. Future DA’s would allow opportunity for further community engagement.

The rezoning of the site to a B1 Neighbourhood Business zone would uphold the objects of the EPA Act, particularly in relation to promoting the “social and economic welfare of the community” and the “orderly and economic use and development of land” It also reflects Council’s strategic aspirations for the Ku-ring-gai local government area.

Importantly, the Planning Proposal represents an opportunity to fulfil one of the DPE’ s primary contemporary retail outcomes i.e. to cluster retail services to provide easy, multi purpose and frequent shopping adjacent to an existing Neighbourhood Centre.

The Planning Proposal has been assessed against the Section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the Department of Planning and Environments A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals (August 2016). It is considered that there is sufficient merit to enable the Planning Proposal to be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

This report recommends that the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel makes a recommendation to Council that the Planning Proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

Recommendation:

A. That the Local Planning Panel endorse the contents of this report, including the proposed amendments to the SJB Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road, Turramurra.

B. That the Deep End Services Economic Assessment report needs to be reviewed in line with this report if the Planning Proposal is to go to the Gateway for a Determination.

C. That the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel makes a recommendation to Council that the Planning Proposal for 45-47 Tennyson Avenue and 105 Eastern Road Turramurra be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination, subject to the amendments to detailed in this report, and any other resultant editorial changes.

Lindsey Dey

Urban Planner - Specialist