Agenda of Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Meeting

Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Meeting - 5 December 2022	GB.1 / 0

Item GB.1	S13905

Planning Proposal for 4-10 Bridge Street, Pymble

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To refer the Planning Proposal for 4-10 Bridge Street, Pymble to the KLPP 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:	A formal pre-Planning Proposal meeting was held on 28 July 2021. A follow up pre-Planning Proposal meeting was held on 24 February 2022. The Planning Proposal was submitted in September 2022. The Planning Proposal was incomplete and additional information was required. Following the submission of revised documentation and payment of fees in October 2022, the assessment of the Planning Proposal formally commenced on 14 October 2022.

comments:	The Planning Proposal seeks to amend Schedule 1 of the KELP 2015 to include Specialised Retail Premises (Bulky Goods) as a site-specific additional permitted use; and specifically exclude the site from inclusion in Clause 6.7 Active Street Frontages.

recommendation:	That the KLPP make a recommendation to Council that the Planning Proposal, subject to the amendments outlined 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 4-10 Bridge Street, Pymble to the KLPP 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

Planning Proposal and the Proposed Amendments to the KLEP 2015

The Planning Proposal for 4-10 Bridge Street, Pymble that was submitted to Council for assessment seeks to:

· amend Schedule 1 of the KELP 2015 to include Specialised Retail Premises (Bulky Goods) as a site-specific additional permitted use; and

· specifically exclude the site from inclusion in Clause 6.7 Active Street Frontages as proposed by the Employment Zone Reforms for all land to be zoned E3 – Productivity Support.

A formal pre-Planning Proposal meeting was held on 28 July 2021. A follow up pre-Planning Proposal meeting was held on 24 February 2022.

The Planning Proposal was submitted in September 2022. The Planning Proposal was incomplete and additional information was required. Following the submission of revised documentation and payment of fees in October 2022, the assessment of the Planning Proposal formally commenced on 14 October 2022. The Planning Proposal is included at Attachment A1 and the appendices to the Planning Proposal are included at Attachment A2 – Attachment A16.

Site Description and Local Context

This Planning Proposal applies to land at 4-10 Bridge Street, Pymble and is legally described as Lot 41 in DP 630346. The site is located within the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area (LGA) in the southern half of the Pymble Business Park. The site has an area of 2,873sqm with a 50m frontage to Bridge Street and a 60m site depth. The site is situated 660m south-east of Pymble Train Station, 3.95km north-east of Macquarie Metro Station, 6.2km north-west of Chatswood CBD, and 14.3km north-west of the Sydney CBD

The site has a varying topography with an approximate 4.9m cross fall along the Bridge Street frontage from north-east to south-west. There is also a 7m slope towards the rear of the site from the north-west corner to the south-east corner. Mature perimeter trees are currently located on the site; however, the south-western boundary is dominated by at-grade parking and presents limited planting.

The site currently comprises a three-storey building comprising approximately 2,473sqm of low-grade commercial office floorspace with basement parking. Existing access to the subject site is via Bridge Street only. The driveway and at grade parking is located along the southern boundary and includes access to the basement parking. The site to the rear comprises the newly completed Bunnings Pymble Hardware Store (Bunnings). Access driveways to the new Bunnings from Bridge Street are located immediately adjacent to both side boundaries.

The site’s immediate local context is characterised primarily by office uses within the business park setting. Building heights along Bridge Street are typically 2-5 storeys but appear larger due to several of these buildings having exposed basement parking that is visible from the street. Residential uses are located to the north-west of the business park and are separated by a heritage conservation area. Residential uses are also located to the south and east, separated by Ryde Road and Pacific Highway, respectively.

Employment Zones Reform

As part of the broader planning reform program that is being undertaken by the Department of Planning and Environment, the Employment Zones Reform was announced in November 2020. The reforms apply to all Councils and seeks to:

• reduce the number of existing business and industrial zones;

• increase flexibility by expanding the land uses permitted; and

• support productivity and job creation.

A report detailing the Employment Zones Reform was received and noted by Council on 15 March 2022. Under the reform, the existing B7 Business Park zoning withing the Pymble Business Park will be translated to the E3 Productivity Support Zone. The proposed E3 Zone includes Specialised Retail Premises as a permissible use. The application of Clause 6.7 Active Street Frontage will be extend to apply to E3 Productivity Support street frontages.

The new employment zone amendments are scheduled to commence on 26 April 2023. Given the delayed commencement of the reform, the proponent considered it appropriate to submit the Planning Proposal which should be capable of being finalised in advance of the Employment Zone Reforms.

Comments

Merit

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 cannot be tied to a specific development. The proposed amendments need to be acceptable as an outcome on the site regardless of the subsequent approval or refusal of any future development application.

A Planning Proposal must demonstrate the site specific and strategic merit of the proposed amendments. The following is an assessment of the relevant merits of the Planning Proposal: The detailed Table of Assessment is included at Attachment A17

Site Specific Merit

Urban Design

Architectural Plans and an Urban Design Study have been submitted with the Planning Proposal and are included at Attachment A2 and Attachment A3.

· Bulk and scale

Section 9C.8 of the KDCP states that:

“5. Monolithic structures with repetitive elements are to be avoided by segmenting building facades into vertical elements with individual modulations.

6. Building elements are to be expressed through use of rhythm and patterns of windows, material, colour and texture to create dynamic facades.

7. The building layout or structure is to be expressed within the facade.”

The proposed development demonstrates inadequate articulation to mitigate the perception of building bulk. The excessive bulk and scale on the western elevation adjoining Bridge Street is overwhelming in scale due to the long façade with limited articulation and poor design quality.

Figure 1. Excerpt from Urban Design Study - Lower Bridge Street Perspective

The apparent size and scale of building must be modulated by stepping down a portion of the facade from the predominant building height. This will provide the opportunity to organize a long building into two sections which will reduce the visual bulk and scale and avoid the appearance of a “block-long building.”

Recommendation: It is recommended that the design of the proposed development be amended to comply with Building Form and Facade controls within Section 9C.8 of the Development Control Plan.

· Active street frontages

Section 9C.10 of the KDCP states that, “Ground floor frontages are to provide for active uses that contribute to the active street frontage”.

Section 14G.5 of the KDCP states that:

“Buildings are to be designed in accordance with Figure 14G.5-1.

1. Provide active street frontages along Pacific Highway, Bridge Street, Suakin Street and West Street in line with Part 9C.10 of this DCP.

2. Ground floor frontages are to provide for active uses that contribute to the active street frontage.

3. Building slabs are to be stepped on sloping sites to ensure ground floor level does not exceed 0.3m above or below finished footpath level. Note: Variations may be permitted on very steep streets.

4. Building entries to each individual commercial premises are to be level with adjoining footpaths, with openings (doors and windows) that allow a direct visual connection between the building and the street. Note: Variations may be permitted on very steep streets.”

Figure 2. Excerpt from the KDCP - Built Form Plan

The KDCP Controls require active street frontages within Pymble Business Park. Under the proposed Employment Zones Reforms the application of the KLEP 2015 Clause 6.7 Active Street Frontage will be extended to apply to E3 Productivity Support and will apply to the site. The proposal, however, does not appear to provide active frontage to 80% of the length of the building facade at street level. The submitted architectural plans indicate a split frontage whereby the northern half of the frontage is provided as a 5m landscaped setback fronting the car park on upper ground level. The southern half is provided as active frontage with level pedestrian entrance from the adjacent footpath and active uses (café) and public seating provided.

Figure 3. Excerpt from the Urban Design Study

Despite the non-compliance of the proposal with the DCP’s active frontage controls and proposed Employment Zones Reform, this variation is supported because of the following reasons:

1) Significant Level Changes across the Site

The site is subject to significant topographic variations ranging from RL116.5m in the northern boundary down to RL109.5 on the southern boundary which constitutes a level change of 7m. The steep topography of the site and the length of frontage to Bridge Street will pose a significant challenge in achieving a continuous active frontage along this street. In such a scenario, a split level approach to the ground plane treatment is an acceptable design solution for this site.

2) Surrounding Context

Based on the visual assessment of the existing character of the Bridge Street, it has been observed that there are limited active edges along the extent of this Street. Multiple pedestrian/vehicular access points and above ground parking areas further exacerbate the fragmentation of the active edges. The slope of the Bridge Street and existing local context warrants an alternative approach to be considered for the treatment of ground plane of buildings along this street, particularly on steeply sloping sites.

· Above ground car park

As per Section 9B.2 of the DCP, the Car Parking Design is to comply with the following controls:

“1. All car parking areas are to be provided within the basement of development.

2. Basement car parking areas are to be consolidated under building footprints. Note: Basements may be permitted to extend under the space between buildings on the same site.

3. The basement car park is not to project more than 1m above existing ground level to the floor level of the storey immediately above. See Figure 9B.2-1

5. Multi-storey car parking above ground level may be permitted where it is housed within the building and concealed behind office or other active uses, so that the parking structure is not visible from the street or adjacent properties. Refer to Figure 9B.2-1 and 9B.2-2”

Figure 4. Excerpt from KDCP – Figure 9B.2-1 Controls for basement car park to facilitate active street frontages

Figure 5. Excerpt from KDCP – Figure 9B.2-2: Multi-storey car park is housed within building projection above existing ground level.

The submitted architectural drawings indicate the provision of a car on the upper ground floor level, with access off Bridge Street. The proposed location of the carpark does not meet the requirements for car parking provision as stated in the KDCP. It has also been observed that the car parking area on UG Levels has not been included in the FSR Calculations.

Figure 6. Excerpt from Urban Design Study

Recommendation: It is recommended that the floor plans must be amended to comply with the requirement of Section 9B.2 of the DCP. If the location of the above ground car parking area is not amended, then the following requirements will have to be complied with:

1) Update FSR Calculations to reflect the inclusion of UG Level Car Park GFA.

2) Incorporate innovative screening methods to conceal the above ground car parking areas in an aesthetically pleasing way as shown below.

· Communal open space

Section 9C.7 of the DCP provides the controls related to the provision of a Communal Open Space Area as follows:

“1. An area of communal open space is to be provided for staff recreation, appropriate to the needs of the particular premises.

2. Communal open space is to be located at ground level behind the building line or on roof terraces and podiums.”

Recommendation: It has been observed the proposed architectural drawings do not indicate the provision of a separate communal open space area. It is recommended that the proposed design scheme be updated to reflect the same.

· Setbacks, landscape and existing trees

Section 14G.4 of the DCP provides the Setback controls for the Pymble Business Park

“1. All buildings within the Pymble Business Park must comply with the setback controls illustrated in Figure 14G.4-1.

2. Setbacks on properties adjacent to the Heritage Item must comply with the controls in Part 19 of this DCP.

3. Building setbacks stipulated in Figure 14G.4-1 respond to the location within the business park. They are:

i) zero setbacks to sites that are constrained or where an urban frontage would benefit the location;

ii) landscaped setbacks to sites where a landscaping element within the setback is required to enhance the character of the streetscape.’

Figure 7. Excerpt from KDCP

As mentioned above, the KDCP requires 5m setbacks on front, rear and side boundaries. However, the Planning Proposal seeks a variation to the setback controls as follows:

§ Bridge Street (west): 5m

§ North: 2.5m

§ Rear (east): 7m

§ South: 1m

Figure 8. Excerpt from Urban Design Study

The following justification has been provided in the Planning Proposal for the proposed variation to the setbacks:

1. “By virtue of the adjoining use of land surrounding the site, these setbacks will serve little purpose other than to restrict development of the site, particularly given the proposal complies with the minimum building separation requirements and the side boundaries directly abut driveways associated with the Bunnings development. The location of the adjacent access driveways necessitates a site-specific response to thside setbacks given the change in urban context which enables the site to viewed as integrated into the Bunnings precinct rather than a separate, isolated site.

2. The design also requires variation to the lower-level side setbacks to achieve the required floor plates for specialised (large format) retail, basement carparking, building core, lobbies and internal circulation areas.”

It is acknowledged that “the setbacks prescribed by the KDCP 2021 were intended primarily for standard business park uses and are not suitable for larger format retail floor plates as sought by the Planning Proposal. The reduced setbacks do not result in amenity impacts to adjacent land given the use of the site and distance to the nearest buildings on Bridge Street to the north-east and south-west.” Details regarding tree retention will be subject to Ecological and Arboricultural assessment during the development assessment process and may result in a variation to setback controls.

Urban Design Review Summary

While a Planning Proposal only relates to an LEP amendment and cannot be tied to a specific development outcome, it is important that the urban design study supporting the Planning Proposal presents a concept development scheme that is compliant with Council’s DCP and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) as well as responds to any specific development constraints on the site. An analysis of the Concept Architectural Plans and Urban Design Study has been undertaken by Council’s Urban Design Project Officer and is included in Table of Assessment at Attachment A17. This analysis identifies the following required amendments to the concept plans and Urban Design Study:

· Amend the urban design of the proposed plan to comply with the controls for façade and articulation within Section 9C.8 of the Development Control Plan.

· Amend the floor plans to comply with the requirement of Section 9B.2 of the DCP. If the location of the above ground car parking area is not amended, then the following requirements will have to be complied with:

o Update FSR Calculations to reflect the inclusion of UG Level Car Park GFA.

o Incorporate innovative screening methods to conceal the above ground car parking areas in an aesthetically pleasing way as shown below.

· It has been observed the proposed architectural drawings do not indicate the provision of a separate communal open space area. It is recommended that the proposed design scheme be updated to reflect the same.

Draft Site Specific DCP

· Setbacks

The setbacks prescribed by the KDCP 2021 were intended primarily for standard business park uses and are not suitable for larger format retail floor plates as sought by the Planning Proposal. Given the context of the site which is constrained by the Bunnings access driveways immediately adjacent to north east and south west of the site, the only way to accommodate large format retail floor plates is through the reduction in the side setback requirements. Therefore, the proposed variation to the side setbacks is supported as it will facilitate the permissible land uses on the site without resulting in amenity impacts to adjacent land, given the use of the site and distance to the nearest buildings on Bridge Street to the north-east and south-west.

The proposed increase in rear setback is also supported as it will be beneficial in terms of tree protection. However, it should be noted that subject to the recommendations of the detailed Ecological and Arboricultural assessment at Development Assessment stage, larger site setbacks may be required.

· Active Frontage Requirements

The steep topography of the site and the length of frontage to Bridge Street will pose a significant challenge in achieving a continuous active frontage along this street. In such a scenario, a split level approach to the ground plane treatment, as sought by the Planning Proposal, is an acceptable design solution for this site.

However, it is important to ensure that blank walls are not provided along the Bridge Street Frontage and any above ground car parking areas are appropriately screened. Detailed controls regarding the acceptable screening methods/ materials will be prepared by Council staff as a part of the Site Specific DCP to be exhibited with the Planning Proposal.

Traffic and Transport

A Green Travel Plan and a Traffic Impact Assessment have been submitted with the Planning Proposal and are included at Attachment A6 and Attachment A8. Council’s Strategic Transport Engineer has revied the documents and provided the following key points. A more detailed traffic and transport analysis is included in the Table of Assessment at Attachment A17.

· Transport Infrastructure Capacity

No assessment of bus stops or bus service capacity was undertaken in the GTP or TIA, probably due to low current usage. For Council’s review, the four nearest/most practical bus stops were considered, which are on Ryde Road and Pacific Highway. Since it is anticipated that a modest number of workers from the proposal would use a bus for journeys to work during the peak period, even if the targeted mode shift in the Green Travel Plan is achieved it is unlikely that there would be insufficient capacity on buses or at the stops to accommodate additional demand from the proposal.

In the shorter term, Transport for NSW have advised that prior to the last State election the government made a commitment prior to 2023 to introduce new weekday peak hour express services between Mona Vale and Macquarie Park that bypass Gordon (known as the 197X Mona Vale – Macquarie Park service). These new services would save some travel time for passengers travelling between Macquarie Park and St Ives/Northern Beaches, as the service would not have to divert to Gordon station.

Improvements to bus services and new rapid bus services to Macquarie Park would improve public transport connectivity to the site for employees originating from Northern Beaches, St Ives or from the Macquarie Park/North Ryde area. The Future Transport Strategy identifies future rapid bus services between Mona Vale and Macquarie: At this stage, though, it is unclear from the Future Transport Strategy as to what form the public transport connection will take. Councils along the Mona Vale Road/Ryde Road/Lane Cove Road corridor are aligned in their support for improved services along the corridor, and are advocating to Transport for NSW to bring forward planning for the initiative.

From the Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS), Council has an action to advocate to Transport for NSW to increase the priority and accelerate the delivery of infrastructure improvements identified in Future Transport 2056 that connects Ku-ring-gai internally and with nearby centres, including improvements to bus connections from Mona Vale to Macquarie Park (followed by Bus Rapid Transit). In September 2022, the Greater Cities Commission released the Macquarie Park Strategic Infrastructure and Services Assessment ( SISA ) Final Report, which was prepared by the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) to inform the Macquarie Park Innovation Precinct Place Strategy (Place Strategy) and Macquarie Park Innovation Precinct Strategic Master Plan (Master Plan). This report provides some clarity around timeframes for some projects that have been identified in TfNSW's Future Transport Strategy that are relevant to Ku-ring-gai, and in particular mentions the Mona Vale to Macquarie Park public transport improvements for rapid services, with a delivery timeframe of 2027–2036.

Section 8 of the Traffic Impact Assessment considers traffic generations and impacts to the road network. The above analysis takes into account the effects of the Bunnings Development as forecast in the lodged development application, although the analysis does not apply any reductions from the existing site. The result of the assessment is that nearby intersections currently operate at good levels of service, based on average delay per vehicle on all approaches. However Pacific Highway and Ryde Road carry the majority of traffic so the average delay for those approaches is relatively low compared to the side roads. Sidra intersection analysis provided in the TIA shows minimal delays and queues on West Street and Bridge Street approaches during the weekday PM peak hour.

However, internal observations show that on weekdays from 5pm, there are significant queues and delays both on Bridge Street and West Street from office staff leaving their workplace between 4pm - 5pm. The traffic generation and assignment in Section 8.3 of the TIA indicates that 75% of vehicle trips (or additional 84 vehicles) are directed to the West Street approach during the peak hour, which is likely to extend queues further at this location.

Council had investigated the potential for traffic signals at the intersection of Ryde Road and West Street, but these were not supported by Transport for NSW at the time of the Bunnings Pymble development application. Also, in the RMS/TfNSW response to the Bunnings Pymble development application, while TfNSW specifically did not support new signals at West Street/Ryde Road at that point in time, they were also silent on the proposed pedestrian facilities across Pacific Highway at the intersection with Bridge Street (which is infrastructure/works identified in the Ku-ring-gai Contributions Plan 2010).

Section 4 of the TIA notes that Transport for NSW was contacted by the proponent in relation to any existing and future Transport for NSW road widening and pinch points program requirements that may affect the proposal, and that a response was not received. There was no evidence provided of discussion with Transport for NSW regarding any potential alteration/expansion of bus services along the corridor.

If the Planning Proposal proceeds to Gateway, Transport for NSW will be providing a response as part of consultation with state agencies. Therefore, any clarification regarding the potential for upgrades to the intersection of Ryde Road and West Street, as well alterations to the traffic signals at Pacific Highway at the intersection with Bridge Street to incorporate pedestrian facilities could be provided by Transport for NSW as part of that process.

Traffic and Transport Review Summary

The Planning Proposal has the following favourable transport aspects:

· It is likely that a good proportion of future workers of the proposal would originate from the Ku-ring-gai LGA;

· The site has good access to local and regional public transport, and has the capacity to take advantage of a future workforce that would be located with convenient public transport access.

· Given the relatively high number of future workers likely to be originating from the Ku-ring-gai LGA, the site is well placed to take advantage of encouraging walking as a mode of travel to work and increasing its share compared to other modes.

· Implementation of travel initiatives in a Green Travel Plan for the site would enhance walking, cycling and public transport access to the site, and potentially reduce traffic impacts particularly during the weekday pm peak

· It is anticipated that a modest number of workers from the proposal would use a bus for journeys to work during the peak period, and it is therefore unlikely that there would be insufficient capacity on buses or at the stops to accommodate additional demand from the proposal.

· Due to non-conflicting times of peak parking demand of the 2 proposed uses of the site (office, bulky goods), there is merit in considering reduced parking provision through the efficient shared use of the parking resource.

· The proposed bulky goods retail component has the potential to take advantage of future last mile freight operations, when/where available.

· Future improvements to bus services and new rapid bus services to Macquarie Park would improve public transport connectivity to the site for employees originating from Northern Beaches, St Ives or from the Macquarie Park/North Ryde area.

The following transport constraints were found with respect to the Planning Proposal:

· There are significant vehicle queues and delays in both on Bridge Street and West Street during the weekday pm peaks. Without any proposed upgrade of Bridge Street and West Street at their intersections with the surrounding arterial road network, the proposal is likely to extend queues and delays further at these locations.

Biodiversity

A Landscape Plan, an Arboricultural Development Impact Assessment Report and an Ecological Constraints Assessment were submitted with the Planning Proposal. They are included as Attachment A4, Attachment A10 and Attachment A13. Council’s Natural Areas Program Leader has reviewed the documents and provided the following key points.

· Arboricultural Development Impact Assessment Report

A review of the supporting documents has indicated that there is some discrepancy between the Retention Value ratings giving in Section 5.2 of the Arboricultural Development Impact Assessment Report and the Landscape Plan.

Tree ID	Arboricultural Development Impact Assessment Report - Section 5.2 RV rating	Landscape Plane - Appendix C RV rating
Tree 4	Medium	High
Tree 5	Medium	High
Tree 6	Medium	High
Tree 7	Medium	High
Tree 8	Medium	High
Tree 9	Medium	High
Tree 10	Medium	Low
Tree 25	Medium	Low
Tree 31	High	Medium

Table 1. Comparison of RV ratings in supporting documentation

Recommendation: It is recommended that the reports be revised to correct any inaccuracies and ensure consistency across the documents.

Should the required revisions to the Flora and Fauna report lead to the identification of any Threatened Species or Threatened Ecological Communities on the site, the threatened status of any trees comprising these species/communities should be noted in the Arborist Report and Retention Value ratings should be revised against this new information.

The Arborist Report identifies 48 trees within the subject Lot. The Report finds that retention of 35 trees is not viable under the proposed development. In most cases this is due to the footprint of the proposed development encroaching on trees’ TPZs beyond 10%. An increase in setbacks to 5 m on the north-eastern, north-western, and south-western boundaries (as per Standard DCP controls) would likely facilitate retention of an additional 14 trees.

The proposed development is likely to result in net loss of tree canopy cover within the subject Lot. The proposal retains an area of deep soil on the south-eastern boundary, facilitating the retention of thirteen large trees. Additionally, the proposed development retains an area of deep soil on the north-western boundary, facilitating replacement of two large trees in this area. However, replacement of all trees proposed for removal with vegetation of similar size is not feasible due to limited available soil volumes.

It is noted that net loss of tree canopy is a likely outcome of redevelopment of the site within existing development controls and the amendments to the KLEP that the Planning Proposal seeks are not likely to result in additional losses. Details regarding tree retention will be subject to Ecological and Arboricultural assessment during the development assessment process and may result in a variation to setback controls.

· Ecological Constraints Assessment

Recommendation: The Ecological Constraint Assessment should be revised to include the following:

· Identification of all ecological communities occurring within the subject Lot, including addressing the potential for Blue Gum High Forest to occur. If any vegetation is determined to be characteristic of a community listed as an EEC, determine whether it meets the legal definition including condition class criteria of that EEC(s) in the relevant listings

· Identification of any/all threatened flora and fauna species and/or migratory species likely to occur on the site, taking into account potential habitat within the subject Lot.

· Any potential impacts to threatened species/communities or their habitats resulting from the proposed development should be detailed and assessment pathways identified.

· Recommendations for the avoidance, mitigation, and/or offsetting of biodiversity impacts likely to result from the proposed development.

If Blue Gum High Forest is determined to occur on the site, Greenweb and Terrestrial Biodiversity mapping should be updated to capture the local extent. This will facilitate accurate environmental assessment when and if a development application is submitted to Council for the site. The maps will ensure that Clause 6.3 Biodiversity protection of the KLEP 2015 applies to the site and that any future development must be consistent with the provisions of this clause. It is noted that potential impacts to biodiversity arising from redevelopment of the site is unlikely to be exacerbated by the amendments to the KLEP that the Planning Proposal seeks.

· Heritage

A Heritage Impact Assessment has been submitted with the Planning Proposal and is included as Attachment A11. Council’s Heritage Specialist Planner has reviewed the document and provided the following key points.

The heritage impact statement by Design 5 Architects is considered an adequate assessment of heritage issues. The conclusions of this statement are supported. There are no current heritage issues for this site. The listing for the adjacent site of the “3M Building (former)”, at 950 Pacific Highway, is proposed for removal because the building has been demolished. It is agreed this listing is no longer a relevant heritage consideration for development in the vicinity.

The nearby Gordon Fire Station, at 966 Pacific Highway, Pymble, is listed on the NSW Fire and Rescue Section 170 register of state-owned heritage assets. Note this is erroneously entered in this register under the suburb of Gordon, like the building name, when it is located in Pymble. It is not currently listed a local heritage item on KLEP 2015, but is considered a potential local heritage item. This listed fire station has not been addressed in the submitted heritage statement. However, further assessment of the impacts on this building are not considered necessary as the fire station is situated on a corner site shares little visual relationship to the subject site that is located on the opposite side and further down the street.

The proposal does not alter building envelopes in a way that could potentially have more widespread impacts to extend into the view corridor of the fire station.

Strategic Merit Assessment

· Greater Sydney Region Plan and North District Plan

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

o Objective 4. Infrastructure use is optimised;

o Objective 7: Communities are healthy, resilient and socially connected

o Objective 13. Environmental Heritage is identified, conserved and enhanced

o Objective 14. Integrated land use and transport creates walkable and 30-minute cities;

o Objective 22: Investment and business activity in centres

o Objective 24: Economic sectors are targeted for success

o Objective 27. Biodiversity is protected, urban bushland and remnant vegetation is enhanced.

o Objective 34: Energy and water flows are captured, used and re-used

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the planning priorities of the North District Plan, in particular:

o Planning Priority N1. Planning for a city supported by infrastructure;

o Planning Priority N6. Creating and renewing great places and local centres, and respecting the districts heritage;

o Planning Priority N12. Delivering integrated land use and transport planning and a 30-minute city;

o Planning Priority N21. Reducing carbon emissions and managing energy, water and waste efficiently.

· Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement

The Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) came into effect on 17 March 2020 and provides a 20 year vision and local planning priorities and associated actions for land use planning in Ku-ring-gai. The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following local planning priorities:

o K13. Identifying and conserving Ku-ring-gai’s environmental heritage

o K25. Providing for the retail and commercial needs of the local community within Ku-ring-gai’s centres.

o K26. Fostering a strong local economy that provides future employment opportunities for both residents and workers within key industries

o K36. Enhancing the liveability of Ku-ring-gai’s urban environment through integrated water infrastructure and landscaping solutions

o K37. Enabling water resource recovery through the capture, storage and reuse of water, alternative water supplies and increased water efficiency

o K41. Reducing the generation of waste

The current provision of large format retail floorspace across Pymble is approximately 25,000sqm, indicating an undersupply of around 51,000sqm. The proposal will provide for almost 7% of the current undersupply, contributing to the strong need for large format retail floorspace. The proposal is estimated to generate 313 ongoing jobs and 166 jobs during the construction phase, directly creating a total of 479 jobs. Overall, the development will directly and indirectly result in a total of approximately 1,043 jobs from multiplier effects flowing through the local economy.

· Section 9.1 Ministerial Directions and State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

The Planning Proposal is not inconsistent with the State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) applicable to the site. Many of these SEPPs contain detailed provisions and controls which would only apply at the Development Application stage.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the applicable s9.1 Ministerial Direction, specifically those relating to:

- 5.1 Integrating Land Use & Transport

- 7.1 Business and Industrial Zones

· Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy

The ‘Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy’ (AEC,2020) was received and noted by Council in December 2020. The Strategy identifies a significant undersupply of large format retail floor space within Ku-ring-gai. Even taking into consideration the approx. 15 000 sqm of floorspace in the recent Bunnings development, there is projected to be an undersupply of approx. 91 600 sqm large format retail floorspace by 2036. However, it is also noted that, while locating large format retail facilities in Pymble Business Park would add destinational appeal for cross-shopping purposes, it may be at odds with the employment uses within this precinct and there is limited other significant commercial and related employment lands across the Ku-ring-gai LGA.

The ‘Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy’ also notes that, whilst Council’s current planning controls for the Pymble Business Park align to the North District’s Plan to retain and protect employment lands from more financially attractive uses, the lack of development, low take-up rates and deteriorating quality of buildings within the Park indicates that a change in the land use should be considered to better accommodate growth in the LGA. The Strategy recommends to allow ‘Specialised Retail Premises’ as a specific land use within the B7 Business Park Zone as it would allow for Bulky Good Retailing to occur to complement the approved Bunnings Warehouse. However, it also recommends that Council should undertake further investigations into Pymble Business Park to determine the opportunities, trade-offs and ultimate impacts of allowing specialised, large-format retail and/or mixed-use residential developments for this precinct.

Based on the findings of the proponents Retail and Economic Impact Assessment (Attachment A9) and he ‘Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy, the proposal to permit Specialised Retail Premises (Bulky Goods) as a site-specific additional permitted use is supported. It is noted that the proposed use will be permissible in the new E3 Productivity Support Zone that will apply to the site under the state government’s employment zones reforms. The new employment zone amendments are scheduled to commence on 26 April 2023.

Amendments required to be made to the Planning Proposal and the supporting documentation

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has found that there are a number of inconsistencies and elements that do not comply with Ku-ring-gai’s Development Control Plan, that require adjustment. The Table of Assessment included at Attachment A17 details the required amendments to be made to the Planning Proposal if Council is to support it being submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination and proceed to public exhibition.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3: Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective	Delivery Program Term Achievement	Operational Plan Task
P1.1 Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual character and identity is maintained	P1.1.1 Strategies, plans and processes are in place to protect and enhance Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character	P1.1.1.1 Continue to review the effectiveness of existing strategies, plans and processes across all programs.
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 managed the impact of new development	P2.1.1.2 Continue to review the effectiveness of existing strategies, local environmental plans, development control plans and processes across all programs

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

P1.1 Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual character and identity is maintained

P1.1.1 Strategies, plans and processes are in place to protect and enhance Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character

P1.1.1.1 Continue to review the effectiveness of existing strategies, plans and processes across all programs.

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 managed the impact of new development

P2.1.1.2 Continue to review the effectiveness of existing strategies, local environmental plans, development control plans and processes across all programs

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 request 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 the Planning Proposal is forwarded to the Minister 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 needs to determine its position on the matter as to 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 2021/2022 Schedule of Fees and Charges. The cost of the review and assessment of the Planning Proposal is covered by this fee.

Social Considerations

The Planning Proposal will not result in any adverse social impacts.

Environmental Considerations

The site is not mapped as containing land identified as Biodiversity Significance or Riparian Lands under the KLEP 2015.

Community Consultation

In the event that the Planning Proposal is issued a Gateway determination by the Department of Planning and Environment, the Planning Proposal would be placed on statutory public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway determination and Council’s Community Participation Plan.

Internal Consultation

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has included internal consultation with Council’s staff with expertise in planning, urban design, traffic and transport and biodiversity and has informed the recommendations of this Report.

Summary

The Planning Proposal has been assessed and found to have sufficient strategic and site specific merit to enable it to proceed to Gateway Determination and public exhibition, subject to the amendments outlined in Attachment A10 including the following:

Architectural Plans and Urban Design Report (Attachment A2 and A3).

· Amend the design of the proposed development to comply with the controls for façade and articulation within Section 9C.8 of the Development Control Plan.

o Update FSR Calculations to reflect the inclusion of UG Level Car Park GFA.

o Incorporate innovative screening methods to conceal the above ground car parking areas in an aesthetically pleasing way as shown below.

· Amend the proposed design scheme to be consistent with the architectural drawings regarding the provision of a separate communal open space area.

Landscape Plan, Arboricultural Development Impact Assessment Report and Ecological Constraints Assessment (Attachment A4, A10 and A13).

· Revise the reports to correct any inaccuracies regarding RV ratings and ensure consistency across the documents.

· Revise the Ecological Constraint Assessment to include the following:

o Identification of all ecological communities occurring within the subject Lot, including addressing the potential for Blue Gum High Forest to occur. If any vegetation is determined to be characteristic of a community listed as an EEC, determine whether it meets the legal definition including condition class criteria of that EEC(s) in the relevant listings

o Identification of any/all threatened flora and fauna species and/or migratory species likely to occur on the site, taking into account potential habitat within the subject Lot.

o Any potential impacts to threatened species/communities or their habitats resulting from the proposed development should be detailed and assessment pathways identified.

o Recommendations for the avoidance, mitigation, and/or offsetting of biodiversity impacts likely to result from the proposed development.

Recommendation:

That the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel advises Council that the Planning Proposal, amended as per the Table of Assessment at Attachment A17, be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

Angela Smidmore

Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Antony Fabbro

Manager Urban & Heritage Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1 ⇩	Planning Proposal	2022/336579
	A2 ⇩	Appendix A - Architectural Plans	2022/336581
	A3 ⇩	Appendix B - Urban Design Report	2022/336583
	A4 ⇩	Appendix C - Landscape Plan	2022/336584
	A5 ⇩	Appendix D - Environmentally Sustainable Development Report	2022/336587
	A6 ⇩	Appendix E - Green Travel Plan	2022/336588
	A7 ⇩	Appendix F - Draft Site Specific DCP	2022/336589
	A8 ⇩	Appendix G - Updated Traffic Report	2022/336591
	A9 ⇩	Appendix H - Economic Report	2022/336593
	A10 ⇩	Appendix I - Arborist Report	2022/336596
	A11 ⇩	Appendix J - Heritage Impact Statement	2022/336597
	A12 ⇩	Appendix K - Geotechnical Report	2022/336599
	A13 ⇩	Appendix L - Fauna and Flora Report	2022/336602
	A14 ⇩	Appendix M - Noise Report	2022/336605
	A15 ⇩	Appendix N - Survey Plan	2022/336606
	A16 ⇩	Appendix O - Water Servicing Requirements	2022/336607
	A17 ⇩	Table of Assessment	2022/352152

Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Meeting - 5 December 2022	GB.2 / 0

Item GB.2	S13626

Planning Proposal for 1364-1392 Pacific Highway and 1, 1A and 3A Kissing Point Road, Turramurra

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To refer the Planning Proposal for 1364-1392 Pacific Highway and 1, 1A and 3A Kissing Point Road, Turramurra (Turramurra Plaza site) to the KLPP 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 was formally submitted to Council for assessment on 2 May 2022 following an adequacy test and the payment of fees. The Planning Proposal has been assessed by an independent planning consultant and urban design consultant due to part of the site being in Council ownership.

comments:	The Planning Proposal seeks to: · Amend the maximum permissible height applying to the site on the on the Height of Buildings map from 17.5m (approx. 5 storeys) to 50m (approx. 15 storeys) · Amend the maximum permissible Floor Space Ratio applying to the site on the Floor Space Ratio map from 2:1 to 4.2:1 · Impose a minimum commercial/retail FSR of 1:1. · Remove the maximum commercial FSR standard of 1.2:1 (Area 4 in clause 4.4 (2E)), and · Reclassify the Council owned part of the site from community to operational land.

recommendation:	That the KLPP advise Council that it does not support the Planning Proposal being submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination for the reasons outlined in this report.

Purpose of Report

To refer the Planning Proposal for 1364-1392 Pacific Highway and 1, 1A and 3A Kissing Point Road, Turramurra (Turramurra Plaza site) to the KLPP 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

Council has engaged consultant MG Planning Pty Ltd (PO Box 197, Drummoyne NSW 1470) to conduct the assessment of the subject Planning Proposal as Council is the landowner of part of the site (car park site). An independent urban design assessment has also been prepared by Dr Michael Zanardo of Studio Zanardo. Other assessments including biodiversity, heritage and traffic and transport have been carried out internally by Council’s specialists.

The Planning Proposal was formally submitted to Council on 2 May 2022 following an adequacy test and the payment of fees. Following review by the independent planning and urban design consultants, issues were identified, and a meeting was held with the Proponent on 26 October 2022 to advise that the Planning Proposal was not supported due primarily to excessive height, bulk and scale particularly given:

· the status of Turramurra in the established Ku-Ring-Gai centres hierarchy

· the relationship of the proposed development with the surrounding context and its environmental impacts, and

· the location of the site outside of the core redevelopment priority sites of the Turramurra Local Centre.

The Proponent was given the opportunity to amend the Planning Proposal request to address issues raised but requested that the application be reported to the LPP as submitted. Accordingly, this assessment report assesses the Planning Proposal as originally submitted.

A copy of the Planning Proposal and appendices is included at Attachments A2-A13.

The Proponent seeks to make the following amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015):

· Amend the maximum permissible height applying to the site on the Height of Buildings map from 17.5m (approx. 5 storeys) to 50m (approx. 15 storeys)

· Amend the maximum permissible Floor Space Ratio applying to the site on the Floor Space Ratio map from 2:1 to 4.2:1

· Impose a minimum commercial/retail FSR of 1:1

· Remove the maximum commercial FSR standard of 1.2:1 (Area 4 in clause 4.4 (2E)), and

· Reclassify the Council owned part of the subject site from community to operational land via an amendment to Schedule 4 of KLEP 2015.

As outlined in the Planning Proposal request report prepared for the Proponent by Mecone Pty Ltd, the proposed amendments to the KLEP 2015 are intended to “embrace the opportunity to provide a contemporary ‘signature’ to the Turramurra Local Centre and will provide the impetus for its revitalisation.” The proposal seeks to

facilitate a mixed use development on the landmark site within Turramurra Local Centre that reinvigorates the public amenity of the centre and aligns with key State, regional and local strategic planning priorities.

The Planning Proposal report claims that the proposal will deliver a number of key benefits including:

· Revitalise the site into a lively mixed use precinct which will provide a supermarket, a medical centre and retail, restaurant and café offerings that spill out onto the through site links.

· Create a village atmosphere through the provision of public open spaces (a new park and through site link) which promote social interaction between community members.

· Amalgamate a number of sites to allow for a consolidated planning approach for the precinct.

· Protection of the Granny Springs Reserve and ensure the development addresses the Reserve.

· Facilitate an appropriate massing which will create a landmark building whilst respecting the context of the site with respect to the surrounding neighbours, heritage items and heritage conservation areas.

· Improve pedestrian permeability within and around the precinct by creating a new through site link and upgrading Stonex Lane.

· Provision of additional employment opportunities and residential accommodation within a Local Centre and close to public transport.

· Improve traffic flow around the site with a new road (Stonex Street), proposed road widenings and road upgrades.

Reference Scheme

The Planning Proposal is supported by a reference scheme prepared by DKO Architecture which as described in the Planning Proposal request report comprises:

· Demolition of all existing buildings

· Construction of a new 14 storey (Note: notwithstanding PP illustrates 15 storeys) mixed use development comprising a maximum height of 48.8m (RL222.5) comprising 4 storey podium and two towers equal height above

· 34,822m2 of GFA (Note: Urban Design report refers to 34,876m2) with retail and commercial floor space in the podium and 248 residential apartments above

· 5 basement levels accommodating parking for up to 650 cars, bicycle and motorbike parking and loading (Note: 4 basement levels accommodate parking with supermarket on basement level B1)

· Construction and dedication of a new public road (Stonex Street) connecting Kissing Point Road and Duff Street

· Dedication of land for a new public park, and

· Dedication of land for road widening including widening of the Pacific Highway to 8 lanes and new dedicated left turning lane from Kissing Point Road.

The purpose of the reference scheme is not to accurately represent the final development but rather to demonstrate that a scheme which represents the proposed maximum height and FSR can readily be accommodated on the site and can comply with applicable controls and requirements without resulting in any unreasonable environmental impacts.

Image 1 – Reference Scheme Masterplan (Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, July 2021)

Image 2 – Reference Scheme artists impression from Pacific Highway (Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, July 2021)

A picture containing schematic

Description automatically generated

Image 3 – Reference Scheme E-W section (Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, July 2021)

Image 4 – Design response proposed use diagram(Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, July 2021)

The proposed public benefits of the Planning Proposal as identified by the Proponent are as outlined below:

Proposed Public Benefits of Planning Proposal
Public Benefit	Amount (approx.)
Land Dedication (new road, new park, road widening)	2,915m²
New Community Park	850m²
New Road (Stonex Street)	2,900m²
Kissing Point Rd Upgrades	1,300m²
Pavement Upgrades	1,250m²
Pacific Highway Fence Upgrade	96m length
Public Parking	30 Council car spaces in basement (Offsets Council car park spaces to be acquired)
New through-site link	575m²
Stonex Lane Upgrade	250m²
Supplementary Street Trees	As per Public Domain Plan
Upgraded Bus Stop	1
New Bicycle Racks (on-street)	2 areas
Upgraded Street Lighting	Pacific Highway and Kissing Point Road

Site Description and Local Context

The site is located in the Turramurra Local Centre to the south of the Pacific Highway and on the corner of the Highway and Kissing Point Road. It is approximately 130m to the south west of Turramurra Station and has frontage to the Pacific Highway.

Turramurra Local Centre is largely characterised by its early 20th Century federation houses, significant private gardens and established large canopy trees, shop top housing in the retail heart of the centre and prominent elevated topography. Turramurra’s topography features two prominent ridges, with its urban centre focused along the higher points. The elevated ridge-line topography creates opportunities for views into and beyond the suburb, while dense tree canopies and deep valleys screen lower density development. The main ridge rises from the south-east and runs north-west, parallel to the Pacific Highway. The landscape falls steeply to the west of this ridge. Falls to the north and east are relatively gentle.

The Pacific Highway and the North Shore rail line intersect at Turramurra. The impact of the road and rail upon the locality is the division of its centre into four constituent parts. The amenity and accessibility of the centre is significant affected by the Pacific Highway, which carries almost 65,000 vehicles per day, and the rail corridor line which both act as significant physical barriers whilst providing good transport accessibility.

Image 5 – Turramurra Local Centre segment parts (Source: LSPS)

For pedestrians and cyclists, the approach from the southern catchment to the centre is met by a steep climb up to the ridge. There are only 3 pedestrian crossings within the Local Centre. They are at the Pacific Highway’s intersection with Ray Street, Kissing Point Road and Rohini Street. The result is that the railway and highway form a physical and psychological barrier for pedestrians approaching the Local Centre from the south. A pedestrian bridge across the Pacific Highway to improve connectivity does not form part of the Planning Proposal. It is however understood that Council has previously advised against such a proposal due to issues with identifying an appropriate landing site on the northern side of the Highway.

The subject site is located in the southern quadrant of the Local Centre and is irregular in shape with frontages to the Pacific Highway and Kissing Pont Road (refer Image 6 below). A car park access road (Stonex Drive) enters the site from the south east to the car parking area at the rear of the north facing retail shops. The site is also connected via Stonex Drive to Duff Street to the west.

Image 6 – Aerial photo, site outlined in red (Source: Planning Proposal report, Mecone, April 2022)

The site is generally known as the Turramurra Plaza shopping centre (and adjacent land) and has a combined area of approximately 8,485m². It comprises the following landholdings:

· 1396 Pacific Highway (Lot 1 DP 629520) – private land

· 1392 Pacific Highway (Lot 2 DP 16463) – private land

· 1390 Pacific Highway (Lot 1 DP 550866) – private land

· 1380-1388 Pacific Highway (Lot 101 DP 714988) – private land

· 1370-1378 Pacific Highway (Lot 1 DP 500077) – private land

· 1364 Pacific Highway (Lot 1 DP 656233) – private land

· 1A Kissing Point Road (Lot 2 DP 500077, Lot 2 DP 502388 and Lot 2 DP500761) – Council land

· 1 Kissing Point Road (Lot 1 DP500761) – private land

· 3 Kissing Point Road (Lot B DP 435272) – Council land, and

· 3A Kissing Point Road (Lot A DP 391538) – Council land.

The Planning Proposal identifies that 6,116m² of the site is in private ownership with the remaining 2,271m² in Council ownership however this cannot be verified from the survey information provided. The application seeks to amend Schedule 4 of KLEP 2015 to reclassify the Council owned land (1A, 3 and 3A Kissing Point Road being Lot 2, DP 500077; Lot 2, DP 502388; Lot 2, DP 500761; Lot B, DP 435272; Lot A, DP 391538) from community to operational land in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993.

Surrounding development is as follows:

· North: Directly to the north of the site is the Pacific Highway and across the highway are a range of 1-3 storey buildings with retail, commercial and food & beverage uses;

· East: Directly to the east of the site is Kissing Point Road and across the road are range of 2 storey commercial properties and 1-2 storey residential buildings which form a heritage conservation area, and which also includes a number of individual listed heritage items;

· West: Directly to the west of the site is Stonex Lane with a petrol station further to the west; and

· South: Directly to the south is the Granny Springs Reserve which is a bushland that contains some of the largest Blue Gum trees in the district and is home to the threatened Powerful Owl. The Reserve is listed as an endangered ecological community under the provisions of the NSW Threatened Species Act 1995 and is critically endangered under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999. The site is also adjoined to the south by 5 Kissing Point Road which is a small 3 storey residential flat building.

Map

Description automatically generated

Image 7 – Site context (Source: Urban Design Report, DKO Architecture, July 2021)

As noted above the site is zoned B2 Local Centre under Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

Image 8 – Zoning map extract KLEP 2015

The objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone are:

· To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

· To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

· To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

· To provide for residential housing close to public transport, services and employment opportunities.

· To encourage mixed use buildings that effectively integrate suitable commercial, permitted residential development and other development.

Permitted land uses in the B2 Local Centre zone (with development consent) include:

Boarding houses; Centre-based child care facilities; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Educational establishments; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Group homes (permanent); Hostels; Home-based child care; Information and education facilities; Light industries; Medical centres; Oyster aquaculture; Passenger transport facilities; Recreation facilities (indoor); Registered clubs; Respite day care centres; Restricted premises; Roads; Seniors housing; Service stations; Shop top housing; Tank-based aquaculture; Tourist and visitor accommodation; Water reticulation systems; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

Notably residential accommodation is prohibited in the B2 Local Centre zone however ‘Shop top housing’ which is defined as “one or more dwellings located above the ground floor of a building, where at least the ground floor is used for commercial premises or health services facilities” is permitted with consent. The reference scheme which comprises a mixed use development of commercial / retail with residential above would therefore be permissible with consent.

Comments

The Planning Proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Department of Planning and Environment’s ‘Local Plan Making Guideline’ and section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

A Planning Proposal must demonstrate that the proposed amendments to a local environmental plan have strategic and site specific merit. A detailed evidence-based assessment of the Planning Proposal and its supporting studies has been conducted. In summary it has been concluded that the Planning Proposal does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal has strategic and site-specific merit in its current form. Accordingly, the Planning Proposal is not supported in this instance.

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

Strategic Merit

Regional Plan

The Planning Proposal is generally consistent with a number of objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan – A Metropolis of Three Cities, including:

· Objective 4 – Infrastructure use is optimised

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

· Objective 10 – Greater housing supply

· Objective 11 – Housing supply is more diverse and affordable

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

· Objective 22 – Investment and business activity in centres, and

· Objective 27 – Biodiversity is protected, urban bushland and remnant vegetation is enhanced.

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 therefore consistent with these principles.

Turramurra is located within the Eastern Harbour City and is identified as a local centre. The Plan sets the principles for Housing Strategies to be prepared by councils for a local government area or district and to be given effect through amendments to local environmental plans. The principles note that among other matters housing strategies should respond to amenity i.e. opportunities that improve amenity including recreation, the public realm, increase walkable and cycle friendly connections to centres. Further the Plan notes that the District Plans guide housing strategies in particular in ensuring key aspects of development are addressed, that is: capacity, viability, good design, environment, mix, supply, affordable rental housing, local character, etc. As discussed in further detail below it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the capacity of the site and the local character and has not demonstrated the achievement of good design.

Objective 12 of the Plan – “Great Places that Bring People Together” provides that place based planning should be adopted to provide:

· Well-designed built environment: great places are enjoyable and attractive, they are safe, clean and flexible with a mix of sizes and functions.

· Social infrastructure and opportunity: great places are inclusive of people of all ages and abilities, with a range of authentic local experiences and opportunities for social interaction and connections.

· Fine grain urban form: great places are walkable of human scale, with a mix of land uses including social infrastructure and local services at the heart of communities.

As outlined in detail below it is considered that the proposal is not consistent with this objective or the strategies which underpin it as the reference scheme does not provide for a well-designed built environment that is attractive and high amenity (refer below for further detail).

Objective 22 - Investment and business activity in centres also points to the importance of local centres and a centres hierarchy. It notes that:

The management of local centres is best considered at a local level. Developing a hierarchy within the classification of local centres should be informed by a place-based strategic planning process at a council level including an assessment of how, broadly, the proposed hierarchy influences decision-making for commercial, retail and other uses.

As detailed below the proposed height and FSR is inconsistent with the Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy. This Strategy identifies Gordon as the Ku-ring-gai LGA’s major centre with Turramurra forming one of three lower order primary local centres (St Ives, Lindfield and Turramurra). The proposed 50m (approx. 15 storeys) height limit exceeds the height allowed in Gordon (38.5m or approx. 10-11 storeys) which is intended, going forward, to be the major centre. Further the maximum permitted height allowed elsewhere in the other primary local centres is 32.5m (approximately 9 storeys) as incorporated into KLEP 2015 by the recent Lindfield Village Hub Planning Proposal. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with Objective 22.

Having regard to the above it is considered that whilst the Planning Proposal is consistent with a number of objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan it is also inconsistent with a number of key objectives and the overall intent of the plan to provide for high-quality development in appropriate locations consistent with the capacity of the site and whilst ensuring a high level of design quality and amenity both within the development and for existing neighbourhoods.

North District Plan

The North District Plan made in March 2018 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. Whilst the subject site is not within a strategic centre it is in an area close to transport corridors including the Pacific Highway (adjacent) and the North Shore Railway Line.

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

· Planning Priority N1 – Planning for a city supported by infrastructure

· 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 N12 – Delivering integrated land use and transport planning and a 30-minute city, and

· Planning Priority N21 – Reducing carbon emissions and managing energy, water and waste efficiently.

The Planning Proposal will allow for a mixed-use development providing a new park, retail and commercial development and approximately 248 new dwellings in a well-located site within the Turramurra 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 which is to focus growth in areas close to public transport as well as with the concept of a 30-minute city.

However, the North District Plan also includes Planning Priority N6 which seeks to create and renew great places and local centres, and to respect the District’s heritage and local character. The Planning Proposal as presented seeks to provide for new planning controls (height and FSR) that would result in an overdevelopment of the site and that would be inconsistent with the site’s capacity, the role of the Turramurra Local Centre in the Retail and Commercial Centres hierarchy, and that would not deliver a development that is compatible with the existing character of the area. Further as represented in the submitted reference scheme, the scale of the proposal would not demonstrate a high-quality development resulting in poor amenity to units and proposed public space (plaza and new park).

Further Planning Priority N20 – Delivering high quality open space would not be achieved by the proposal. The reference scheme submitted with the application illustrates that the proposed massing and built form would substantially overshadow the proposed plaza area and new public park which are identified as key public benefits of the proposal. This matter is discussed in further detail below.

Local Strategic Planning Statement

Council adopted its Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) on 17 March 2020. The LSPS draws together the priorities and actions for future land use planning from Council’s existing land use plans and policies and presents an overall land use vision for Ku-ring-gai.

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the following planning priorities of the LSPS:

· K1 Providing well planned and sustainable infrastructure to support growth and change

· K2 Collaborating with State Government Agencies and the community to deliver infrastructure projects

· K3 Providing housing close to transport, services and facilities to meet the existing and future requirements of a growing and changing community

· K4 Providing a range of diverse housing to accommodate the changing structure of families and households and enable ageing in place

· K5 Providing affordable housing that retains and strengthens the local residential and business community

· K6 Revitalising and growing a network of centres that offer unique character and lifestyle for local residents

· K10 Promoting Turramurra as a family focussed urban village

· K17 Providing a broad range of open spaces, sporting and leisure facilities to meet the community’s diverse and changing needs

· K21 Prioritising new development and housing in locations that enable 30 minute access to key strategic centres

· K22 Providing improved and expanded district and regional connection through a range of integrated transport and infrastructure to enable effective movement to, from and within Ku-ring-gai

· K23 Providing safe and convenient walking and cycling networks within Ku-ring-gai

· K25 Providing for the retail and commercial needs of the local community within Ku-ring-gai’s centres

· K26 Fostering a strong local economy that provided future employment opportunities for both residents and workers within key industries

· K27 Ensuring the provision of sufficient open space to meet the need of a growing and changing community

· K34 Improving connections with natural areas including river and creek corridors, bushland reserves and National Parks

However, the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the following planning priorities:

· K7 Facilitating mixed-use developments within centres that achieve design excellence

· K12 Managing change and growth in a way that conserves and enhances Ku-ring-gai’s unique visual and landscape character

· K31 Increasing, managing and protecting Ku-ring-gai’s urban tree canopy

· K32 Protecting and improving Green Grid connections

· K40 Increasing urban tree canopy and water in the landscape to mitigate the urban heat island effect and create greener, cooler places

These matters are discussed in further detail below.

The LSPS identifies the Planning Priority for Turramurra as K10 - Promoting Turramurra as a family-focused urban village. The priority is intended to support the growth and revitalisation of Turramurra Local Centre as a community hub for local residents living in the north of Ku-ring-gai. Turramurra is to become a well-connected and attractive place to live, work and shop. The centre’s village atmosphere will be enhanced through the provision of new parks and public spaces, as well as a new library and community centre, where local families can meet and spend leisure time.

A key principle for the Centre (relevant to the subject Planning Proposal) is to “Retain the low scale, fine grained character of the main street shops on the Pacific Highway and Rohini Street. Encourage infill developments with fine grained commercial and retail street frontages.”

Further it identifies the priority for development as below:

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

Image 9 – Local Centre consolidation priority (Source: LSPS)

The LSPS therefore clearly identifies the need to consolidate the Turramurra Local Centre on the northern side of the Pacific Highway by prioritising expansion of uses in this location. It is therefore considered that the highest density of development should be located in this area with adjacent developments being of a lower scale and intensity. This is inconsistent with the Planning Proposal which seeks to rezone land to the south of the Pacific Highway to a height and FSR significantly greater than allowed to the north of the Highway.

The Turramurra Local Centre Structure Plan (refer Image 10 below) identifies the site as suitable for mixed use development with a key landmark site identified in the centre of the site frontage to the north adjacent to the bend in the Highway. A new road is also identified connecting Kissing Point Road and Duff Street. The Planning Proposal is generally considered to be consistent with the Structure Plan however the proposal does not recognise the priority for development to the north of the Highway as outlined above. Further the reference scheme provides for two landmark towers (equal height) which is inconsistent with the identification of the key landmark in the central north of the site only. It is however noted that there is some inconsistency in Council documents as to where the landmark should be located with the DCP identifying it on the corner of Kissing Point Road and the Pacific Highway (refer below for further discussion).

Image 10– Turramurra Local Centre Structure Plan (Source: LSPS)

Having regard to the above it is considered that the Planning Proposal is partly consistent with the LSPS as it provides for the redevelopment of a significant site within the Local Centre however the scale proposed is inconsistent with the priorities identified for the Turramurra Local Centre.

Local Housing Strategy

The revised Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy to 2036 was adopted by Council in December 2020. The purpose of the Strategy is to identify how Council intends to response to the Greater Sydney Region Plan and District Plan and how it plans to deliver on housing targets. The Strategy identities that the District Plan sets a target of 4,000 new dwelling in Ku-ring-gai for the 5 year period from 2016 to 2021. It notes that more than half of the required housing supply quota has been met, with the remaining amount fully deliverable through current development approvals and existing capacity within the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plans. It further states that “this means that the 0 - 5 year housing supply target of 4,000 dwellings is achievable under Council’s existing planning policies and no amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan is necessary”. It goes on to state:

The Greater Sydney Commission ‘Letter of Support’ issued March 2020 for the Ku-ring-gai LSPS outlined that the Housing Strategy is to show how Ku-ring-gai can meet an indicative draft range of 3,000 – 3,600 dwellings for the 6-10 year housing target. Correspondence from the Minister of Planning dated 8 September 2020 states ‘Ultimately, Council is responsible for deciding the number of dwellings in its local housing supply target’ and ‘the target discussed with the Greater Sydney Commission is not a legal requirement upon Council by the Government.’

Ultimately the Housing Strategy then proposes to achieve an increase in dwellings within the LGA to meet demand as required by the Greater Sydney Region Plan and North District Plan through existing residual capacity supplemented by seniors housing and alternative dwellings where permissible. Council has not identified land for development uplift and does not consider this necessary to meet its dwelling target obligations.

Accordingly, the subject Planning Proposal which seeks to amend the planning controls applying to the subject site to create additional capacity is inconsistent with the Housing Strategy which adopts a status quo approach.

Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy – Stage 2 Housing Delivery Plan (2021 – 26)

The Stage 2 Housing Delivery Plan (2021-26) was prepared to support the Draft Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy to 2036. This Draft Strategy which proposed significant development uplift to meet State government housing targets was ultimately amended by Council prior to adoption as outlined above. The revised Strategy provides for additional housing capacity within the existing capacity allowable under KLEP 2015. Accordingly, it is understood that the Stage 2 Housing Delivery Plan (2021-26) is no longer a relevant consideration and does not form part of the strategic context within which the subject Planning Proposal is to be assessed.

Notwithstanding it is noted that the Stage 2 Housing Delivery Plan (2021-26) included a Turramurra Local Centre Structure Plan which provided three growth scenarios for the centre exploring different building heights, typologies and extents of intensification as follows:

· Scenario 1 (“minimise height – maximise spread”) - proposes to minimise building heights across the centre by spreading new housing where constraints allow;

· Scenario 2 (“balanced option”) proposes an approach between the two extremes represented by Scenarios 1 & 3; and

· Scenario 3 (“maximise heights – minimise spread”) proposes to concentrate new dwellings as much as possible around the train station and main roads and seeks to minimise the spread of new housing into existing residential areas.

Scenario 3 provided for the subject land to be an Investigation Area: Mixed Use site with a potential height of 10-15 storeys. Land to the north of the Highway and adjacent to the railway station was similarly identified.

It is assumed that the Proponent’s proposed height of 15 storeys reflects the potential maximum height identified in this document. However, for clarity it should be noted that the Plan has no status and is not a current strategic document that can be relied upon for the purposes of the subject assessment.

Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy

The Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy was received and noted by Council in December 2020. The Strategy notes that the population of Ku-ring-gai is estimated to increase to 154,500 by 2036 which will result in demand for an additional 37,100 sqm of retail floorspace. Further it notes an existing undersupply of 35,000 sqm potentially increasing to 58,000 sqm. The undersupply is noted to be mainly due to the undersupply of supermarkets, and lack of regional and sub-regional shopping centres in the LGA. The Planning Proposal provides for an additional 6,210m² of retail floor space including a new supermarket (as detailed in the reference scheme) which is consistent with the Strategy and will assist to meet the existing and future retail demand in the LGA.

The Strategy identifies Gordon as the LGA’s major centre with Turramurra forming one of three lower order primary local centres (St Ives, Lindfield and Turramurra). The proposed 50m height limit exceeds the height allowed in Gordon (38.5m) which is intended to be the major centre for the LGA going forward. Further the maximum permitted height allowed in the other primary local centres is 32.5m (approximately 9 storeys) as amended by the recent Lindfield Village Hub Planning Proposal (Amendment 28 to KLEP 2015 made on 22 March 2022). Further it is noted that clause 4.3 Height of buildings of KLEP 2015 includes the following objective:

(a) to ensure that the height of buildings is appropriate for the scale of the different centres within the hierarchy of Ku-ring-gai centres,

Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed height is inconsistent with the scale of development envisaged under the Ku-ring-gai centres hierarchy and is also inconsistent with a key objective of the Height of buildings development control under KLEP 2015.

While it is noted that the Centres Strategy recommends that Council investigate increases in FSR and Building Heights within the B2 Local Centre zones to assist in meeting housing targets and to increase the viability of development, best practice planning dictates that this should be undertaken in response to site circumstances and opportunities and constraints. As currently proposed, it is considered that the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the site capability and position of Turramurra in the Centres hierarchy. Further the Strategy recommends that Council prioritise unlocking major developments of Gordon Centre and St Ives Shopping Centre. Accordingly, Turramurra is not identified as a major focus for development and is clearly lower in the Centre’s hierarchy than these centres.

The Strategy also includes specific recommendations and actions for each centre. For Turramurra it recommends:

· Improvement to the attractiveness of the retail offering

· Address the issues of deteriorating quality and escape expenditure

· Attract new retailers with diversified offering to capture escape expenditure.

Redevelopment of the subject site has the potential to be consistent with these recommendations however the Strategy goes on the identify key actions for the centre as:

· Provide orientation of mixed use towards the Turramurra Hub and away from the Highway

· Investigate opportunity for Council owned land in Gilroy Lane in conjunction with adjoining landowners to deliver a new and revitalised retail precinct

· Council to invest in infrastructure, streetscape, security and amenity.

In summary the recommendations include:

· Investigate increases of FSR within the B2 Local Centre zone to facilitate redevelopment of sites

· Investigate 9.5m Height of Building Control on Rohini Street, Turramurra to facilitate additional development

· Gilroy road prime for café/retail space - planning controls are restrictive

· Potential for outdoor cinema in summer in the new park to foster entertainment in centre

· IGA area - underdeveloped - restriction on commercial floorspace existing for adjoining corner site

· Hub area has restriction on commercial existing: Recommendation of deleting commercial restriction

· Encourage redevelopment of Pacific Highway shops northern side to face/activate the laneway to the north.

Accordingly, it is clear that the proposal is partly consistent with the Strategy as it will provide 6,210m² of additional retail floor space (including a new supermarket) which will assist to meet the existing and future shortfall. The Strategy recognises the need to potentially increase FSR’s in the Turramurra Local Centre (and in particularly on the subject site which includes the IGA) to facilitate the redevelopment of sites however is not clear on the scale of such an increase and further places the focus for development on land to the north of the Pacific Highway. This is particularly in relation to mixed use development and is consistent with the LSPS (refer above). In the context of this strategic framework the Planning Proposal proposed increase is considered to be excessive and unjustified.

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Ministerial Directions

The Planning Proposal is generally consistent with the State Environmental Planning Polices (SEPPs) applicable to the site however is inconsistent with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development by virtue of its inconsistency with the Apartment Design Guide which underpins the SEPP. The Planning Proposal is generally consistent with the applicable Ministerial Directions (Section 9.1 Directions).

Strategic Merit Assessment Summary

In accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment’s ‘Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline’, a Planning Proposal is deemed to have strategic merit if it:

· Gives effect to the relevant regional plan outside of the Greater Sydney Region, the relevant district plan within the Greater Sydney Region, and/or corridor/precinct plans applying to the site. This includes any draft regional, district or corridor/precinct plans released for public comment or a place strategy for a strategic precinct including any draft place strategy; or

· Demonstrates consistency with the relevant LSPS or strategy that has been endorsed by the Department or required as part of a regional or district plan; or

· Responds to a change in circumstances that has not been recognised by the existing planning framework

As outlined above it is considered that the Planning Proposal is consistent with some of the objectives, priorities and strategies of both the Greater Sydney Region Plan and the North District Plan however not with others. Further while the Planning Proposal is consistent with the broad intent for Turramurra outlined in the LSPS and its supporting Centres Strategy, the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the Centres Hierarchy and the scale of development envisaged in the subject location in both the LSPS and the Centres Strategy. Further the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the Council’s adopted Housing Strategy. It is therefore considered that as currently proposed the Planning Proposal does not demonstrate strategic merit.

Site Specific Merit

The Planning Proposal seeks a substantial uplift in height (17.5 m to 50m) and FSR (2:1 to 4.2:1). While it is agreed that the site is suitable for redevelopment, and that some uplift is potentially justifiable, it is considered that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed height and FSR is appropriate having regard to the site’s strategic context (outlined above) and its site specific opportunities and constraints.

As part of this independent assessment Dr Michael Zanardo of Studio Zanardo was engaged to provide an urban design assessment of the proposal. The Studio Zanardo’s advice is provided in full at Attachment A1. In summary it concludes that the Planning Proposal is not currently supportable from an urban design perspective. In addition to matters of detail with the Planning Proposal documentation, the urban design advice raises key concerns as follows:

· Zoning and Context

· Proposed Height of Buildings

· Proposed Floor Space Ratio

· Compliance with Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14 Urban Precinct and Sites 14B Turramurra Local Centre

· Urban Design Considerations, and

· Compliance with the Apartment Design Guide

The advice provided by Studio Zanardo has informed the below assessment.

The following comments 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 reference scheme 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. It is also noted that a DCP amendment is not proposed as part of the subject Planning Proposal. Assessment has therefore also been undertaken of compliance with the existing relevant DCP controls which apply to the site.

Height

The Planning Proposal seeks to increase the permissible maximum height across the site from 17.5m (approx. 5 storeys) to 50m (approx. 15 storeys). As noted above the proposed height limit if agreed would be the greatest height limit allowed within any of the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres and would exceed the permissible height in Gordon, the LGA’s major centre, by some 11.5m or 4 storeys. Further the site would exceed the height for the second greatest height limit in the LGA local centres being the recently amended height of the Lindfield Village Hub site at a maximum of 34.5m (approx. 9 storey). Notably Lindfield is identified as being equivalent in the centres hierarchy to Turramurra, similarly being a primary local centre. No convincing justification has been put forward that clearly justifies the proposed greater height limit on the subject site.

Studio Zanardo has provided advice that an alternative 34.5m (approx. 9 storey) height limit on the subject site as recently adopted for the Lindfield Village Hub site would allow for a compatible transition to surrounding 5 to 3 storey development (compared to 15 storeys). Further the advice indicates that Turramurra should not be taller than, or as tall as Gordon. This is illustrated in Image 11 below extracted from the Urban Design Report submitted with the Planning proposal by DKO Archgitecture.

Chart

Description automatically generated

Image 11 Local Centres Extents Diagram – (Source: Urban Design Report, DKO Architecture, July 2021)

The Planning Proposal seeks to increase the height on the site to result in a convex local centre profile as shown in Image 12 below. This approach relies on adjacent sites also achieving an increase in height as shown dotted however this is not currently proposed. If this were not to occur an abrupt transition would result from 15 storeys to the existing allowable 5 storeys. No clear rationale is provided as to why the subject site has been selected as the ultimate highpoint in the centre particularly in light of Council’s articulated strategy, outlined in both the LSPS and the Centres Strategy, that the priority and focus for the most intense development in the Turramurra Local Centre is to be to the north of the Pacific Highway.

Image 12 Proposed Turramurra Skyline – (Source: Urban Design Report, DKO Architecture, July 2021)

In addition to the lack of justification for the proposed height limit, it is also noted that the reference scheme submitted with the application fails to demonstrate that a scheme of this scale can readily be accommodated on site without resulting in unreasonable environmental impacts and whilst achieving high amenity for the public domain, neighbouring properties and the proposed residential apartments. Notably the reference scheme results in:

· significant visual bulk and scale with the proposal reading as one large imposing building with:

o large floor plate towers

o no podium separation

o inadequate tower separation and variation in building height to ameliorate massing and view / visual impact and / or provide a single landmark building, and

o inadequate separation to Stonex Lane and sites to the west etc.

· significant overshadowing of the proposed new public park and through site link and plaza area with (most significantly) the plaza being entirely in shadow between 9am and 3pm in midwinter

· an inadequate number of the proposed units achieving the minimum 2 hours of sunlight to living rooms and principal private open space between 9am and 3pm in midwinter as required by the ADG

· a significant number of apartments with no direct sun to living rooms and principal private open space between 9am and 3pm in midwinter, and

· overshadowing of units within the adjacent RFB at 5 Kissing Point Road.

Floor Space Ratio

In terms of FSR a maximum FSR of 4.2:1 is proposed across the site where a maximum FSR of 2:1 currently applies. An estimated gross floor area of approximately 34,822m² (equating to an FSR of 4.1:1) has been calculated given the proposed land use mix illustrated in the reference scheme, as follows:

· GFA Residential = 24,869 m²

· GFA Retail = 6,210 m²

· GFA Commercial = 3,743m²

· Total = 34,822m2 / site area approx. 8,485m2 = approx. FSR 4.1:1

The Proponent appears to have ‘rounded up’ from the reference scheme in seeking a maximum FSR of 4.2:1.

Consistent with the discussion above in relation to height, the proposed FSR would be significantly greater than any other site within the Ku-ring-gai Local Centres including Gordon (at max. FSR 3.5:1) which is identified as the major centre. Further the reference scheme does not demonstrate that a scheme of this scale can be readily accommodated on site without resulting in adverse environmental impacts and whilst achieving high amenity for both the public domain and the proposed residential apartments.

Studio Zanardo has advised that from an urban design perspective the maximum height and FSR permissible on the subject site should be equivalent to the maximum allowable in Lindfield which is the equivalent local centre in the centres hierarchy. In terms of height this equates to approximately 9 storeys and in FSR terms between 2:1 and 3:1 noting that the tallest site of the Lindfield Village Hub is mapped at an FSR of 2.31:1. The advice suggests that:

… the maximum floor space should be set as result of a revised reference scheme, which given a lower maximum building height, will likely be in the same range as those in Lindfield. Such a floor space ratio would be considered to have recent precedent within the Ku-ring-gai LGA, and recognise the strategic potential of the site for greater density, however is still capable of aligning with the relevant KLEP 2015 maximum floor space ratio development standard objectives to ‘enable development with a built form and density that is compatible with the size of the land to be developed, its environmental constraints and its contextual relationship’ and to ‘ ensure that development density is appropriate for the scale of the difference centres within Ku-ring-gai’.

The Planning Proposal also seeks to require a minimum commercial floor space of 1.0:1 where at present a maximum FSR of 1.2:1 applies to commercial development. It is considered that were the Planning Proposal to be supported a minimum commercial FSR would be appropriate but that the minimum should be established based on the reference scheme. The submitted reference scheme provides for 9,953m² GFA of retail and commercial uses. This would equate to an FSR of approximately 1.2:1. Setting the minimum commercial floor space at this level would avoid pressure for floor space which is justified as retail / commercial under a reference scheme to later be replaced at DA stage with residential floor space which potentially has poor amenity.

Compliance with Ku-ring-gai DCP

Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14B Turramurra Local Centre applies to the subject site noting that the Planning Proposal does not seek to amend the DCP provisions. The site is located within Precinct T3 under the DCP (refer Image 13 below) where pedestrian through site links and road dedications and upgrades are required.

Image 13 Turramurra Local Centre Precinct Plan (Source: Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14B Turramurra Local Centre)

The reference scheme appears to be generally in accordance with the DCP provisions providing for the required through site links, pedestrian and road upgrades and dedications, new park and new Stonex Drive. However, it does not appear that the proposed design of the new Stonex Drive complies with the DCP requirement of 15m width with two-way traffic, on street parking (one side) and footpaths both sides. Other inconsistencies with the DCP include:

· Land dedication – does not appear consistent – to be confirmed

· Rear alignment of Stonex Drive inconsistent

· Location of two landmark buildings equal height on site (Note: DCP provides for one landmark building only on the corner or Kissing Point Road and the Pacific Highway – refer Image 14 below)

· Proposal does not provide for public domain areas which are ‘an ideal location for outdoor dining and cafes overlooking the forest (KDCP 14B,10(1)(iv) given that the plaza area will be fully in shadow throughout the day in mid-winter

· Proposal is not consistent with KDCP 14B.5 Objective 4 which is to ‘encourage new infill development along the Pacific Highway which respects the existing characteristics of the street including finer-grained character of the original subdivision, setback, height and rhythm of facades and is sympathetic to the materials and detailing of the earlier facades.

· Proposal is not consistent with KDCP 8C.9.4 for the continuous length of the residential component of a building any elevation not to exceed 36m.

Image 14 Precinct T3 Built form plan (Source: Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14B Turramurra Local Centre)

Image 15 Precinct T3 Key Community Infrastructure plan (Source: Ku-ring-gai DCP Part 14B Turramurra Local Centre)

In relation to the location of the landmark building, Studio Zanardo has advised that the built form should emphasise the corner of Kissing Point Road and the Pacific Highway with potentially a 9 storey building in this location with a second tower to the north west having a lower form of potentially 7 storeys. This variation in height would serve to accentuate the fall in the land along the Pacific Highway and would also relieve the monotony of the same tower heights on the skyline, particularly if the sites to the north west on the opposite side of Stonex Lane were to be redeveloped in a similar manner

Compliance with Apartment Design Guide

An assessment of the reference scheme undertaken by Studio Zanardo has concluded that although the documentation claims that 195 of 248 apartments (79%) comply with the ADG minimum 2 hours of solar access requirement only 112 of 248 apartments (45%) appear to be capable of receiving the required 2 hours to living rooms and private open space between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter. This does not meet the required 70%. Similarly, the number of units stated as having no solar access is 42 of 248 apartments (17%) where the ADG allows for a maximum of 15%. However, the Studio Zanardo assessment concludes that 116 of 248 (47%) units will receive no solar access to either living rooms or private open space. Further the minimum solar access required to be maintained to adjacent development (5 Kissing Point Road) similarly does not appear to comply.

Setbacks to Stonex Lane do not comply with the ADG separation distances to ensure visual privacy to both the development and any future adjacent development. Concern has also been raised regarding the potential for compliance with ADG natural ventilation requirements given the frontage of many units to the Pacific Highway and the associated noise.

Specialist referrals

Specialist referrals have been received from Council offficers in relation to heritage, biodiversity and traffic. These referrals indicate that the proposal is satisfactory although the traffic advice confirms that there is a need for further consultation with TfNSW in relation to traffic arrangements and land dedications. These matters could readily be addressed at a later stage of the process.

Miscellaneous Issues

A number of further issues have been identified with the proposal which are not considered to be determinative, but which would need to be rectified if the Planning Proposal was recommended for a Gateway Determination. These matters include:

· Site definition and area

· Required land dedications

· Variety of architectural expression

· Consideration of the remainder of the T3 Precinct as part of the Planning Proposal

· Need for views from the sun analysis

· Access arrangement from / to Kissing Point Road

· Tree planting, canopy coverage and deep soil areas

· View analysis, and

· Tree survey.

Site Specific Merit Assessment Summary

In accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment’s ‘Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline’, a Planning Proposal is deemed to have site specific merit if it demonstrates that the proposal is suitable for the site and the site is (or can be made) suitable for the resultant development. It is to be assessed against the following criteria:

Does the proposal give regard and assess impacts to:

· the natural environment on the site to which the proposal relates and other affected land (including known significant environmental areas, resources or hazards)

· existing uses, approved uses, and likely future uses of land in the vicinity of the land to which the proposal relates

· services and infrastructure that are or will be available to meet the demands arising from the proposal and any proposed financial arrangements for infrastructure provision:

As outlined above it is considered that the documentation submitted does not demonstrate that the site is suitable for the Planning Proposal proposed controls as the reference scheme submitted with the Planning Proposal will result in significant adverse impacts and does not demonstrate that it is able to comply with relevant controls and/or achieve a high quality, high amenity development. Accordingly, it is considered that as currently proposed the Planning Proposal does not demonstrate site specific merit.

Recommendations to Gateway Determination

Having regard to the above assessment it is recommended that the Ku-ring-Gai Local Planning Panel advise Council that:

1. it does not support the Planning Proposal and therefore recommends that Council does not submit the matter to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination

2. the Proponent should be advised that it is considered that the site does not meet the strategic or site specific merit tests primarily as:

a. the proposed height and scale is inconsistent with the status of Turramurra in the established Ku-Ring-Gai centres hierarchy

b. the proposal would have an adverse impact on the environment, adjacent development and the surrounding context and does not provide for a high quality development on site, and

c. the proposed height and scale is inconsistent with the site location which is outside of the core redevelopment priority sites of the Turramurra local centre (to the north of the Highway) and which is where the most intense development in the centre is appropriately located.

3. It should advise the Proponent however that it considers that the site has the potential to demonstrate strategic and site specific merit, that could warrant amendment to the existing planning controls. It should therefore invite the Proponent to withdraw the subject application and continue to work with Council officers to identify an appropriate scale and massing for future development on site that is consistent with the centres hierarchy and site specific considerations with a view to resubmitting a revised proposal for assessment.

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

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 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 Planning Proposal initiated by a private landowner however affects land owned by Council and accordingly has been assessed by an independent planner. Council should, to determine its position on the matter, specifically consider whether the Planning Proposal should be sent to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination having regard to the Local Planning Panel’s advice and decide whether to 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 2021/2022 Fees and Charges Schedule. The cost of the review and assessment of the Planning Proposal is covered by this fee.

Social Considerations

The Planning Proposal is considered to have positive social benefits including the delivery of a new public park, land dedications, pedestrian footpath and road upgrades, new roadway and additional housing choice.

Environmental Considerations

The potential environmental impacts of the Planning Proposal have been considered in this assessment and it has been determined that as currently presented the Planning Proposal should not be supported as it would result in significant adverse environmental impacts. 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 forwarded for a Gateway Determination, contrary to the recommendation in this report, and 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 also be in accordance with the Ku-ring-gai Community Participation Plan 2020.

Internal Consultation

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has included consultation with Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer, Heritage and Biodiversity Officers. Further, Council officers attended the site inspection with the independent planning and urban design consultants to provide a briefing.

Summary

Council has engaged consultant MG Planning Pty Ltd (PO Box 197, Drummoyne NSW 1470) to conduct an independent assessment of this Planning Proposal. Dr Michael Zanardo of Studio Zanardo was also engaged to provide an independent urban design advice. Assessment of traffic and transport, heritage and biodiversity issues have been carried out by Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer, Heritage and Biodiversity Officers respectively.

A Planning Proposal has been submitted for the Turramurra Plaza site (and adjacent land) which seeks to make the following amendments to the KLEP 2015:

· Amend the maximum permissible height applying to the site on the Height of Buildings map from 17.5m (approx. 5 storeys) to 50m (approx. 15 storeys)

· Amend the maximum permissible Floor Space Ratio applying to the site on the Floor Space Ratio map from 2:1 to 4.2:1

· Impose a minimum commercial/retail FSR of 1:1

· Remove the maximum commercial FSR standard of 1.2:1 (Area 4 in clause 4.4 (2E)), and

· Reclassify the Council owned part of the subject site from community to operational land via an amendment to Schedule 4 of KLEP 2015.

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has resulted in the recommendation that the Ku-ring-Gai Local Planning Panel advise Council that:

1. it not does not support the Planning Proposal and therefore recommends that Council does not submit the matter to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination

2. the Proponent should be advised that it is considered that the site does not meet the strategic or site specific merit tests primarily as:

a. the proposed height and scale is inconsistent with the status of Turramurra in the established Ku-Ring-Gai centres hierarchy

b. the proposal would have an adverse impact on the environment, adjacent development and the surrounding context and does not provide for a high quality development on site, and

The Planning Proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Department of Planning and Environment’s ‘Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline’ and section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

It is considered that the Planning Proposal does not demonstrate sufficient merit to enable the Planning Proposal to be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination as currently presented.

Recommendation:

A. That the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel makes a recommendation to Council that the Planning Proposal not be submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

B. That the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel makes a recommendation to Council that it advise the Proponent that it considers that the site has the potential to demonstrate strategic and site specific merit, that could warrant amendment to the existing planning controls. It therefore further invite the Proponent to withdraw the subject application and continue to work with Council officers to identify an appropriate scale and massing for future development on site that is consistent with the centres hierarchy and site specific considerations with a view to resubmitting a revised proposal for assessment.

Helena Miller

Director, MG Planning Pty Ltd

Attachments:	A1⇩	Urban Design Review prepared by Studio Zanardo - 16 October 2022	2022/348192
	A2⇩	Planning Proposal prepared by Mecone (April 2022)	2022/345261
	A3⇩	Appendix 1 - Urban Design Study	2022/345265
	A4⇩	Appendix 2 - Transport Impact Assessment	2022/345266
	A5⇩	Appendix 3 - Survey Plan	2022/345268
	A6⇩	Appendix 4 - Preliminary Need and Impact Assessment (Economic)	2022/345274
	A7⇩	Appendix 5 - Phase 1 Preliminary Investigation (Contamination)	2022/345290
	A8⇩	Appendix 6 - Arborist Report	2022/345295
	A9⇩	Appendix 7 - Bushfire Advice	2022/345298
	A10⇩	Appendix 8 - Statement of Heritage Impact	2022/345299
	A11⇩	Appendix 9 - Flora and Fauna Report	2022/345302
	A12⇩	Appendix 10 – Community Engagement Report	2022/345312
	A13⇩	Appendix 11 - Letter of Process (Local Infrastructure Delivery and Council’s Car Park)	2022/345314

Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Meeting - 5 December 2022	GB.3 / 0

Item GB.3	DA0190/22

Report title:	31 Chilton Parade, Wahroonga - Torrens title subdivision of one lot into four lots, earthworks, vegetation removal and provision of stormwater and driveway infrastructure, construction of dwelling house with basement, tennis court, swimming pool, cabana, gazebo and associated works on proposed Lot 1
ITEM/AGENDA NO:	GB.3

Application No:	DA0190/22
ADDRESS:	31 Chilton Parade, Wahroonga
Ward:	Wahroonga
description of proposal:	Torrens title subdivision of one lot into four lots, earthworks, vegetation removal and provision of stormwater and driveway infrastructure, construction of dwelling house with basement, tennis court, swimming pool, cabana, gazebo and associated works on proposed Lot 1
Applicant:	Redhall International Group Pty Ltd
Owner:	H Yu, M Zou
Date Lodged:	16 May 2022
submissions:	17
assessment officer:	Luke Donovan
Recommendation:	Approval

Attachments:	A1⇩	Development Assessment Report	2022/205927
	A2⇩	Location Sketch	2022/344813
	A3⇩	Zoning Sketch	2022/344815
	A4⇩	Architectural Plans	2022/304733
	A5⇩	Landscape Plans	2022/304730
	A6⇩	Subdivision Plans	2022/304726
	A7⇩	Civil Plans	2022/304718
	A8⇩	Stormwater Plans	2022/304717