Agenda of Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Meeting

Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Meeting - 22 July 2024	GB.2 / 1

Item GB.2	S13985

Planning Proposal
51-53 Rohini St, Turramurra (Anglicare)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To refer the Planning Proposal for 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra (Anglicare Village) 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 26 September 2023. Following two adequacy checks, the proposal was updated by Anglicare and re-submitted with fees. The Planning Proposal seeks amendment to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 to enable the following: 1. increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 0.85:1 to 1.5:1 (the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final FSR of 1.725:1); 2. increase the maximum Height of Building from 11.5m to 17.5m (the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final Height of 21.3m); 3. include certain Local Provisions that allow the inclusion of a Café and a Wellness Centre with an indoor pool. The key objective of the Planning Proposal is to facilitate the site’s redevelopment as it no longer meets design standards for seniors housing, nor is it in line with current customer expectations.

comments:	The Planning Proposal is generally supported; however, a number of amendments are required to ensure its consistency with State and Local Environmental Planning Instruments, and to make the proposal transparent to the community on the outcomes it will deliver.

recommendation: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That the KLPP advise Council that it supports the Planning Proposal being submitted to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination subject to the amendments stated in this Report and in the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1.

Purpose of Report

To refer the Planning Proposal for 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra (Anglicare Village) 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

On 26 September 2023 Council received a Planning Proposal for land at 51–53 Rohini Street, Turramurra, known as the Anglicare Village (housing for seniors).

The site is owned by the Anglican Community Services and contains 110 existing senior’s independent living units, generally in a 2-3 storey unit and townhouse style development.

The proposal states that the existing facility has been in operation since the late 1960s and requires complete renewal as it no longer meets accessibility or design standards, nor is it in line with customer expectations and current market demand for larger sized units.

Adequacy checks on submitted documents

The Planning Proposal was formally submitted to Council for assessment on 26 September 2023. Two adequacy checks were conducted to ensure the proposal complied with the Department of Planning and Environment’s LEP Making Guideline August 2023, Council’s Meeting Notes from the two pre-lodgement meetings held with the proponent and to ensure the proposal provided sufficient justification to commence its assessment.

The adequacy checks were sent to the proponent on 10 October 2023 and 28 February 2024.

Updated versions of the Planning Proposal responding to the issues raised in the adequacy checks were submitted on 12 December 2023 and again on 2 May 2024.

A number of the issues raised in the adequacy checks remain outstanding and are now listed as part of the required amendments to enable the Planning Proposal to progress to Gateway Determination. These include:

Mapping

· Amendment of the KLEP Maps, not the Written Instrument, is required to deliver the proposed Height and FSR standards.

· The proposed approach is highly irregular and not consistent with LEP Practice note PN 08-001 - Height and floor space ratio. Where an LEP contains Clause 4.3 – Height of buildings and/or Clause 4.4 – Floor space ratio, then heights and FSRs are to be specified on the Height of Buildings Map and Floor Space Ratio Map respectively.

Shadow diagrams

· Remove the multiple colours that make it difficult to understand the diagrams and appear deceptive with lighter colours being used for the most impactful shadow extents.

· There is no hierarchy in shadow. People cannot differentiate between the shadow from an 11.5m height and shadow from a 21.3m height building. Shadow is homogenous. Use one colour to clearly show the extent and outline of the proposal’s shadow for the total built form. These diagrams need to be easily understood by the general public.

Planning Agreement

· The Letter of Offer is to be a stand-alone document. The attached draft Planning Agreement is to be removed. A draft cannot be created prior to Council agreeing to enter into the Planning Agreement based on the Letter of Offer.

· The items listed for consideration within the Letter must clearly explain the public benefit proposed and not include items for the sole benefit of the development site.

Formal assessment of the Planning Proposal commenced on 31 May 2024. To meet the timeframes stated in the LEP Making Guideline, this matter must be reported to Council for determination by 29 August 2024; with the next available meeting being the OMC 13 August 2024.

The Site

The land, subject of this Planning Proposal (the Site), is located at 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra at the end of a cul-de-sac. It is strategically located close to transport links, shops, services and local facilities including parks, library and gymnasiums.

The site is triangular/irregular in shape and adjoins the North Shore train line. The land is generally flat with a fall of 4-7m across the site. The land is elevated and slopes down towards the surrounding lands to the north, east and south.

Turramurra train station, bus interchange and local shops are located within walking distance, 100-200m, south-east of the Site along Rohini Street. Trains and buses connect to other key local centres such as Gordon, Lindfield, Chatswood and Hornsby. The Pacific Highway provides vehicular access to the M1 freeway to the north, Ryde Road connecting to the M2 and M4 freeways linking the western suburbs, and Mona Vale Road connecting to the Northern Beaches.

LOCATION MAP (PLUS Architecture)

The Site comprises three lots with a total area of 9,193sqm:

· Lot 2 DP 302942

· Lot 21 DP 533032

· Lot 26 DP 585038

Lot 2 DP 302942 and Lot 21 DP 533032 are not burdened nor benefited by any easements. Lot 26 DP 585038 is burdened by a right of way along the south-east boundary (45m length and 3m width), and contains a separate Lot 25 DP 585038 owned by Ausgrid (containing a sub-station). The Planning Proposal does not seek to discharge any of the existing easements; however, the Urban Design Report mentions this may occur at a later date.

The Site has a 100 m frontage to Rohini Street and a 100 m frontage to the Turramurra Station railway corridor. A public pathway on Council owned land abuts the north-western end of the Site and connects Cherry Street to King Street. A separate pedestrian pathway on the adjacent Transport for NSW (TfNSW) Railway lands (zoned SP2- Infrastructure) abuts the south-western boundary of the Site, connecting Cherry Street to the Rohini Street cul-de-sac.

The site is surrounded by residential development except along the Railway corridor. Adjacent development ranges from one to three storey houses and apartment buildings. Heritage Conservation Area C5 (Laurel Avenue/King Street Conservation Area) is located to the Site’s north and mainly comprises single dwellings.

SITE DETAILS – land ownership and use

ADJACENT TO THE SITE: 1-3 storey residential development on neighbouring land and HCA C5 to the north

The Planning Proposal

This Report presents the assessment of the Planning Proposal with full details provided in the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1.

A copy of the proponent’s Planning Proposal and its Appendices are included at Attachments A2-A14 and comprise the following:

· Planning Proposal Anglicare “Rohini Village” 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra

o Appendix A - Urban Design Report and Site Photo Panel

o Appendix B - Title Documents & Surveys

o Appendix C - Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report

o Appendix D - Heritage Impact Statement

o Appendix E - Traffic & Transport Assessment

o Appendix F - Utility and Infrastructure Plans

o Appendix G - Biodiversity Advice

o Appendix H - Landscape Concept & Drawing Schedule

o Appendix I - Feasibility Analysis

o Appendix J - Letter of Offer and Draft Planning Agreement - Rohini Village

o Appendix K - Rohini Village Study

o Appendix L - Pre-Consultation Minutes and Responses

Planning Standards

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

1. increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 0.85:1 to 1.5:1 (the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final FSR of 1.725:1);

2. increase the maximum Height of Building from 11.5m to 17.5m/5 storey (the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final Height of 21.3m/6 storey);

3. include certain Local Provisions that allow the inclusion of a café (Commercial use) and a wellness centre with an indoor pool (Recreational Facility (Indoor) use).

Concept Design Standards

The Planning Proposal is supported by an Urban Design Report prepared by Plus Architecture. This presents a concept design for the site.

The purpose of the Urban Design Report concept design is to demonstrate that a scheme which represents the proposed maximum Height, FSR and Additional Uses can readily be accommodated on the site, and can comply with applicable controls and requirements without resulting in any unreasonable environmental impacts.

The key development parameters determining the concept design are indicated in the below Table:

	PROPOSED STANDARDS
Site Area	· 9,193 m²	EXISTING STANDARDS
Height	· 6 storey including the SEPP bonus	3 storey
FSR	· 1.725:1 including the SEPP bonus	0.85:1
Units	· 110 Independent Living Units 66 x 2 bedroom units 44 x 3 bedroom units	110 Independent Living Units 82 x 1 bedroom units 24 x 2 bedroom units 2 x 3 bedroom units
Other facilities	· 700sqm Internal Communal Space (including 100sqm café) Chapel, pool, clinic, salon, library, café, multi-purpose space, communal rooftop and ground level gardens. Communal open space 25% site area	Lounge areas, library, clinic, salon, dining area, communal gardens, communal laundry
Car parking	· 2-3 level basement parking · Total parking spaces – 199 Residential parking - 171 Emergency parking – 1 Visitor parking – 18 Staff parking – 8 Car share space - 1 Note – these standards are compliant with the SEPP (Housing) 2021 requirements	42 spaces
Gross Floor Area	· Total: 15,850 sqm
Solar access	· 77/110 units achieve 2 hour solar access – 70% · 22/110 units receive less than 2 hour solar access · 11/110 receive no solar access Note – these standards are compliant with the SEPP (Housing) 2021 requirements
Natural ventilation	· 86/110 units have natural ventilation – 78% · 24/110 units do not have natural ventilation Note – these standards are compliant with the SEPP (Housing) 2021 requirements

The proposed concept plan retains the same number of independent living units (110), replacing the existing 2-3 storey mainly townhouse style buildings with 6 storey apartment buildings.

The proposal augments the internal community facilities by including a new café and wellness centre with swimming pool which are proposed to be opened to the general public. A clearer through-site link will replace the existing informal access from Rohini Street to King Street and is also proposed to be made open to the public via a Planning Agreement between Council and the landowner.

EXISTING AND PROPSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PLUS Architecture)

EXISTING AND PROPSED DEVELOPMENT SECTIONS (PLUS Architecture)

Public Benefit

The Planning Proposal is accompanied by a draft Letter of Offer which seeks to negotiate the delivery of some items claiming public benefit. Whilst the Letter of Offer is unclear and includes items not relevant to the Letter but rather relevant in a subsequent agreement between parties, the following five items are noted as part of the offer:

· Public access across the site from Rohini Street to King Street via an 88m pathway labelled Rohini Walk.

· Upgrades to the turning circle at the end of Rohini Street directly adjacent to the Site.

· Upgrade to part of the footpath to the north-western side of Rohini Street (165m length).

· Upgrade to one section of Council’s dog-leg footpath connecting Cherry Street to King Street, the section from the end of the Site to King Street only.

· Creation of a pocket park on the Site adjacent to Rohini Street, comprising a strip of land 25m length x 7m wide.

The Letter of Offer is discussed in detail, including required amendments, at Attachment A1 to this Report. A summary of the issues are presented in the below Table:

Amendments to the Offer

Reason

Column 1 of the Works Table within the Letter are the key items indicating to Council what the subject of the Planning Agreement negotiations will be.

The following item is to be removed from the Letter of Offer as it conflicts with Council’s policy on provision of parks. The plans may still be included in the Proponent’s landscape plans for their front set-back area if they wish.

“Creation of new pocket park (25m x 7m) with seating, adjacent to Rohini Street.”

The following item should be extended to include the entirety of Council’s public footpath abutting the Site, not just one third of that footpath. The negotiation process can determine if it is feasible to upgrade the whole or part of the pathway.

”Upgrade the King Street pedestrian pathway from the ‘shared driveway’ to the northern end of Rohini Street”

The following item should be considered carefully given the complexities of upgrading road verges with crossovers into multiple residential properties and underground services and associated liabilities.

“Upgrade of Rohini Street footpath for the length of 165m, as shown in the Landscape Planning Proposal Concept dated 6 September 2023.”

Request must not conflict with Council’s policies and equitable consideration of provision of public facilities.

Progression of the Planning Proposal should not be construed as concurrence with the proposed works outlined in the letter of offer or the Draft Planning Agreement.

Comments

The aim of the Planning Proposal to increase height and FSR and enable additional uses on the site to allow for the renewal of the Seniors Housing on the site is supported; however, to make the Planning Proposal acceptable for progression to Gateway Determination, a number of revisions are required as stated in this Report and detailed at Attachment A1.

The Planning Proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s ‘Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline’ (August 2023) 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 demonstrates sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal has strategic and site-specific merit subject to recommended amendments. Accordingly, the Planning Proposal is 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 6: Services and Infrastructure Meet Communities’ Changing Needs

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

· Objective 10 – Greater housing supply

· Objective 11 – Housing supply is more diverse and affordable

· Objective 13 - Environmental heritage is identified, conserved and enhanced

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

· Objective 22 – Investment and business activity in centres

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

· Objective 30: Urban Tree Canopy Cover is Increased

· Objective 32: The Green Grid Links Parks, Open Spaces, Bushland and Walking and Cycling Paths

Whilst the Planning Proposal indicates alignment, additional information is required to fully justify the Planning Proposal against some of these Objectives. The required additional information is noted at Attachment A1.

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.

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 (immediately 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 N2 – Working through collaboration

· Planning Priority N3 – Providing services and social infrastructure to meet people’s changing needs

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

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

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

· Planning Priority N7 – Growing a stronger and more competitive harbour CBD

· Planning Priority N8 – Eastern Economic Corridor is better connected and more competitive

· Planning Priority N9 – Growing and investing in health and education precinct

· Planning Priority N10 – Growing investment, business opportunities and jobs in strategic centres

· Planning Priority N11 – Retaining and managing industrial and urban services land

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

· Planning Priority N16 – Protecting and enhancing bushland and biodiversity

· Planning Priority N17 – Protecting and enhancing cultural landscapes

· Planning Priority N19 – Increasing urban tree canopy cover and delivering green grid connections

· Planning Priority N20 – Delivering high quality open space

Whilst the Planning Proposal indicates alignment, additional information is required to fully justify the Planning Proposal against some of these Priorities. The required additional information is noted at Attachment A1.

The Planning Proposal will allow for the upgrade of the existing 110 independent living units within the residential Seniors housing including new commercial facilities (café and indoor swimming pool) open to the general public. providing a new park, retail and commercial development and approximately 180 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 within the concept of a 30-minute city.

The Government recently (mid 2024) committed to building 377,000 new homes across the State in the next 5 years to align with the National Housing Accord. As part of this it announced new housing targets by LGA. The housing target identified by the State Government for Ku-ring-gai is 7,600 dwellings to be completed by 2029. The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with this target and will maintain the existing 110 dwellings in close proximity to existing infrastructure and services.

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 relevant planning priorities of the LSPS including:

· 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

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

· K10. Promoting Turramurra as a family focused urban village

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

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

· K14. Providing a range of cultural, community and leisure facilities to foster a healthy, creative, culturally rich and socially connected Ku-ring-gai.

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

· K18. Ensuring recreational activities in natural areas are conducted within ecological limits and in harmony with no net impact on endangered ecological communities and endangered species or their habitats.

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

· 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

· K29. Enhancing the biodiversity values and ecosystem function services of Ku-ring-gai’s natural assets

· K30. Improving the quality and diversity of Ku-ring-gai’s urban forest

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

· K32 Protecting and improving Green Grid connections

· K33. Providing a network of walking and cycling links for leisure and recreation

· K39. Reducing the vulnerability, and increasing resilience, to the impacts of climate change on Council, the community and the natural and built environment

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

Having regard to the above it is considered that the Planning Proposal is generally consistent with the LSPS as it provides for the redevelopment of a site proximate to the Turramurra centre at a scale that is consistent 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 respond 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 (Note: as outlined above this target has recently been updated to 7,600 new dwellings by 2029). 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 the District Plan dwelling target obligations.

The subject Planning Proposal seeks to amend the planning controls applying to the subject site to prevent the further loss in the number of on-site dwellings. The numbers on the site have declined over the past years due to amalgamation of vacant one-bedroom units into larger units to meet the demand for multiple bedroom accommodation allowing family to visit the residents. The prevention of loss of dwelling count on the site is consistent with the Housing Strategy.

Whilst the Planning Proposal indicates alignment, additional information is required to fully justify Priority H2 – Encourage diversity and choice of housing. The required additional information is noted at Attachment A1.

Community Strategic Plan – Our Ku-ring-gai 2032 (28-6-2022)

The Planning Proposal is consistent with the Ku-ring-gai Community Strategic Plan which is the long-term strategic plan for the future of the Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area. It reflects the vision and aspirations of the Ku-ring-gai community through long-term objectives that address environmental, social, economic and civic leadership issues.

State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) and Ministerial Directions

Whilst the Planning Proposal is generally consistent with the State Environmental Planning Polices (SEPPs) applicable to the site, additional information and amendments are required to clarify and ensure alignment with the following:

· SEPP (Biodiversity and Conservation) 2021

· SEPP (Housing) 2021 – Seniors Housing

· SEPP (Housing) 2021 -Design Quality of Residential Flat Development & Apartment Design Guide (ADG)

The required additional information is noted at Attachment A1.

Other studies

The Planning Proposal has demonstrated consistency with the following additional studies:

· Ku-ring-gai Public Domain Plan (March 2022) including Turramurra Public Domain Plan

· Ageing Well in NSW: Seniors Strategy 2021–2031 (2020)

Strategic Merit Assessment Summary

In accordance with the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’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.

Site Specific Merit

The key objective of the Planning Proposal is to facilitate the site’s redevelopment as it no longer meets design standards for seniors housing, nor is it in line with current customer expectations. As such the Planning Proposal seeks a significant uplift in standards as follows:

· increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 0.85:1 to 1.5:1 (the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final FSR of 1.725:1);

· increase the maximum Height of Building from 11.5m to 17.5m (the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final Height of 21.3m).

It also seeks to include certain Local Provisions to enable the operation of a Café and a Wellness Centre with an indoor pool.

To demonstrate that the proposed Height and FSR is appropriate having regard to the site’s specific opportunities and constraints, an Urban Design Report with a concept plan has been submitted with the Planning Proposal request. The concept plan intends to demonstrate site- specific merit. Other specialist Attachments to the Planning Proposal also provide discussion and evidence of merit reflected in the Planning Proposal. The Planning Proposal and its Attachments may be viewed at Attachments A2- A14.

In general, the concept plan and the other specialist reports demonstrate site specific merit; however, a number of clarifications and amendments are sought prior to any progression of the Planning Proposal. The required amendments to the Planning Proposal and its Attachments are described in this Report and within the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1.

Some of the key considerations requiring further detail and amendment include:

· Mechanism to deliver the new Building Height and FSR

As indicated in the below Table taken from the Planning Proposal, the Planning Proposal seeks to make the amendment to the Building Height, FSR and Additional Permitted Uses only through the KLEP Written Instrument with an Additional Permitted Uses Map:

Table 2: Proposed KLEP Amendments

Amendment to the KLEP2015 Schedule 1 - Additional Permitted Uses and Map to denote 51-53 Rohini Street as Area “#” and insert new clause that states the following;

(1) This clause applies to land described as 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra comprising Lot 21 DP533032, Lot 2 DP 302942 and Lot 26 DP585038 and identified as “Area #” on the Additional Permitted Uses Map.

(2) Development for the purposes of the following is permitted with development consent.

(a) Independent Living Units and

(b) Ancillary resident facilities, recreational facility (indoor) and commercial premises with a maximum gross floor area of 700m².

Proposed Additional Permitted Uses Map

Amend KLEP2015 Part 6 Additional Local Provisions and insert the following;

6.14 Rohini Village

(1) The objective of this clause is to facilitate the renewal of the existing seniors housing development and to provide ancillary community facilities which may be used by the wider community.

(2) This clause applies to land described as 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra comprising Lot 21 DP533032, Lot 2 DP 302942 and Lot 26 DP585038 and identified as “Area #” on the Additional Permitted Uses Map.

(3) Development for the purpose of Independent Living Units and ancillary community and commercial uses as described in Schedule 1 (“XX”) may have –

(a) a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 1.5:1, and

(b) a maximum building height of 17.5 m

The above proposed KLEP amendment would not require changes to the Building Height or Floor Space Ratio KLEP 2015 Maps. All other planning controls applying to the Site will remain unchanged.

There are a number of issues associated with this approach as described below:

a. Independent Living Units

The proposal lists “Independent Living Units” as an additional use. This must be removed as it duplicates a use permitted by the SEPP (Housing) in the R4 zone. LEP practice note, PN 11-002 - Preparing LEPs using the Standard Instrument: standard zones states that “where the permissibility of certain land uses is provided for under a relevant SEPP…, there is no need to include these types of development in Standard Instrument LEPs”.

b. Additional Uses

The words “Ancillary resident facilities” is not a defined use in the Standard instrument definitions and therefore must be removed. The relevant definitions to enable the required additional uses are as follows:

commercial premises means any of the following—

(a) business premises,

(b) office premises,

(c) retail premises.

recreation facility (indoor) means a building or place used predominantly for indoor recreation, whether or not operated for the purposes of gain, including a squash court, indoor swimming pool, gymnasium, table tennis centre, health studio, bowling alley, ice rink or any other building or place of a like character used for indoor recreation, but does not include an entertainment facility, a recreation facility (major) or a registered club.

Ø Recommendation:

Therefore, the wording requesting the additional uses should be corrected to the below recommendation.

KLEP 2015 Schedule 1 Additional permitted uses

Use of certain land at 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra

· This clause applies to land at 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra, being Lot 21 DP533032, Lot 2 DP 302942 and Lot 26 DP585038.

· Development for the following purposes is permitted with development consent.

- recreation facility (indoor)

- commercial premises

· Development consent must not be granted under this clause to development that results in the gross floor area of the combined recreation facility (indoor) and commercial premises exceeding 700m2.

c. Additional Permitted Uses map

The Planning Proposal does not require an Additional Permitted Uses map. The description of the site Lot and DP are sufficient to legally identify the land and a list of additional uses is sufficient to attach those uses to the site. A map is only useful for complex sites where further issues are required to be addressed in additional clauses within the KLEP.

Ø Recommendation:

Remove the Additional Permitted Uses map.

d. Additional Local Provisions

The Planning Proposal seeks to make amendment to the FSR and Height on the site via KLEP Part 6 Additional Local Provisions.

This approach is highly irregular and not consistent with LEP Practice note PN 08-001 - Height and floor space ratio. Where an LEP contains Clause 4.3 – Height of buildings and/or Clause 4.4 – Floor space ratio, then heights and FSRs are to be specified on the Height of Buildings Map and Floor Space Ratio Map respectively. Clause 4.4 does allow for a table to be used in conjunction with a map so that separate FSRs may be set out depending on the mix of land uses.

The effect of the proposed local provision stipulated in the Planning Proposal would be to allow only development for the purpose of Independent Living Units, and ancillary community and commercial uses to achieve the proposed maximum FSR of 1.5:1 and maximum Height of buildings of 17.5m. All other permitted uses on the site would be restricted to the existing FSR of L: 0.85:1 and height of building of K:11.5m.

There is no justification in the Planning Proposal for the proposed variation of the development standards to differentiate between the use of the site for Independent Living Units plus ancillary community/commercial uses, and all other potential uses on the site.

It would be assumed that the potential bulk, scale and environmental impact of a seniors housing development would be similar to that of an alternate use such as a residential flat building. Therefore, if it is deemed that the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed FSR and height for a seniors housing use, then those standards should apply to all permissible uses on the site.

Ø Recommendation:

Therefore, the proposed amendment to the Height and FSR must be shown on the following KLEP maps:

1. Height of Building Map

2. Floor Space Ratio Map

All references to their inclusion within Part 6 Additional Local Provisions are to be removed from the Planning Proposal and all its Attachments.

· Building Height and FSR – resultant development outcomes

The Planning Proposal seeks to make the following amendments to the Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015 (KLEP 2015) mapped standards:

1. increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 0.85:1 to 1.5:1 (the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final FSR of 1.725:1);

2. increase the maximum Height of Building from 11.5m to 17.5m/5 storey (the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final Height of 21.3m/6 storey);

The planning proposal claims the increased standards will achieve the required compliance with the below policy and guidance:

· SEPP (Housing) 2021

· Seniors Housing Design Guide 2023

· Apartment Design Guide (ADG)

However, some of the claims are questioned and further justifications, amendments, clarifications and considerations must be addressed prior to the proposal being progressed towards any Gateway Determination, and they are to demonstrate both the said compliance and the integration of the development outcomes on a Site located within Ku-ring-gai with its unique high quality environment and housing provision.

Key to the majority of the required amendments and considerations stated in Attachment A1 is whether the proposed significant increase in FSR will enable development on the site to be reflective of residential flat buildings within Ku-ring-gai locality.

FSR Considerations

The proposed FSR of 1.5:1, which will be increased to 1.725:1 with the SEPP (Housing) bonus, is inconsistent with the FSR that is generally applied to R4 (High Density Residential) development in Ku-ring-gai - which has an FSR of 1.3:1 associated with the 17.5m Height.

Similar sites zoned R4 (High Density Residential) in this locality applying the FSR of 1.3:1 and Height of 17.5m standards have delivered buildings which demonstrate cohesion with the Ku-ring-gai character of buildings within high quality landscaped settings including tall canopy trees. The standards have been calculated to ensure achievement of appropriate on and off site amenity, including managing overlooking and over shadowing impacts to neighbouring properties.

Given there is the possibility that the site may be sold prior to development, if the new landowner is not an aged housing provider, the site will be able to be redeveloped as residential flat buildings consistent with the R4 (High Density Residential) zoning. Having an FSR of 1.3:1, consistent with other R4 zoned land in the area, will ensure any future non-Senior’s housing development proposed for the site can achieve the same standards as other Residential Flat Buildings within Ku-ring-gai.

The high FSR sought by this Planning Proposal may be the reason the proposal appears to:

· not achieve the clear (without paths) 6m dimensioned deep soil as required by the ADG, and the associated delivery of tall canopy trees not identified for delivery,

· provides landscaped areas that again are dissected into small portions by multiple paths and hardstands limiting the ability to provide large/ mass planting, and the ability to provide communal garden areas and outdoor recreation/barbeque areas for its Senior residents,

· delivers units with no solar access and no natural ventilation,

· has overshadowing impacts on the 2-3 storey properties to the south.

The Planning Proposal states minimum compliance with the SEPP (Housing) 2021 requirements but does not sufficiently consider the Ku-ring-gai locality and character, the elevated position of the site exacerbating overlooking and overshadowing impacts, and importantly, the nature of its residents that will increasingly remain on the Site and in their apartments as they move into age related frailty. These issues are required to be satisfied in accordance with the ADG (including its sections on streetscape, local and neighbourhood character and impacts) and the Seniors Housing Design Guide 2023.

The proposal must demonstrate why the application of a 1.3:1 FSR with the added SEPP bonus will not deliver the same number of units and commercial space whilst providing improved outcomes on the site and to its neighbours.

According to the ADG the minimum unit sizes required in this proposal would equate to:

· 2 bedroom units with 2 bathrooms: 75sqm

· 3 bedroom units with 3 bathrooms: 100sqm

The proposal seeks to deliver 66 x 2 bedroom units and 44 x 3 bedroom units.

Council has calculated 2 and 3 bedroom units in the current scheme range in size from 115m2 to 145m2 which is significantly larger than standard unit sizes in an RFB and much larger than the minimum requirements of the ADG.

As such, Council’s calculations of the amendments to the height and FSR across the total site plus the bonus provisions under the Housing SEPP identify there is potential for the scheme to yield an average of:

· 211 units as per the ADG, based on an average unit size of 75m2; and

· 176 units based on an average apartment size of 90m2.

Whilst there is no requirement to justify the provision of larger apartments, the issue is that a future DA based on the amended standards will have the right to deliver minimum sized apartments in line with the ADG. The consequences of increased units will then impact the traffic, parking and other on-site and neighbouring amenity considerations determined by unit numbers, and therefore alter the basis of this assessment which considers whether the proposed standards can manage negative impacts.

This issue must be addressed in the Planning Proposal to provide certainty on the site outcomes. The unit size and numbers might be the result of the multiple requirements on the site, such as landscape and deep soil. The reasoning should be provided to avoid question during the exhibition of the proposal.

Ø Recommendation:

Unless sufficiently demonstrated, the FSR for the site should be reduced to 1.3:1 which amounts to an FSR of 1.495:1 with the added 15% SEPP bonus. The final proposed FSR is to be discussed and confirmed with Council prior to finalisation of the amended Planning Proposal prepared for Gateway Determination.

· Provision of housing choice and ageing in place.

The proposal comprises seeks to delive110 independent living units as:

o 66 x 2 bedroom units

o 44 x 3 bedroom units.

The proposal does not offer housing choice through a provision of apartment mix. It does not include serviced apartments to enable residents to transition into partial care and further downsizing, nor for high care services.

The concept of “ageing in place” is one where people move into these types of facilities as a last home. Requiring elderly and frail people to be relocated off this site as they deteriorate does not constitute ageing in place.

Ø Recommendation:

Include housing choice and options to address ageing in place, or fully justify why housing choice and ageing in place is not supported on this site.

· Landscaped area and deep soil area

The proposal states compliance with the Landscape and Deep Soil requirements of the SEPP (Housing) 2021.

It is noted that the SEPP (Housing) definitions do not exclude the pathways from the calculation of landscaped area. The proposal has extensive hard surfaces/pathway systems all around the buildings, including in the boundary setbacks, with landscaping fitting into the remnant spaces. The ability for large and significant planting, typical of the Ku-ring-gai area, within these relatively small spaces is questionable.

Similarly, while the SEPP (Housing) 2021 speaks of 3m dimensions for deep soil provision, the SEPP (Housing) 2021 shows a clear policy intent that apartment buildings are to align with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) to ensure good outcomes.

This pathway is demonstrated in the Seniors Housing Design Guideline, related to the SEPP, which includes a table at Part 4 -18.0 Alignment with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), directing designers to the ADG standards. Therefore, the ADG definition, which requires a 6m minimum dimension for effective deep soil around RFBs must be applied to this development. It is unclear if this has been done in the Urban Design calculations.

Provision of effective deep soil and landscaped areas will enable the proposal to comply with the ADG requirements on integration with neighbourhood and area character, and meet the Ku-ring-gai local character of buildings within high quality garden settings including tall canopy trees.

Ø Recommendation:

Demonstrate the landscape and deep soil standards can deliver the Ku-ring-gai landscape character, including a count and location of tall canopy trees with specified height and canopy spread, noting the ground/deep soil areas provided to sustain their growth and long term health.

· Tree removal

The documentation of tree removal to the boundaries of the site is not supported. Only trees clearly identified as weed or having a significant safety concern may be cited for removal at this Planning Proposal stage.

Regardless of trees being identified as having low, medium or high retention value, all trees are to be retained and removal can be documented as part of a future DA application. The Planning Proposal can identify the trees and their value, but removal can only be considered and agreed when a final DA design and detail is developed.

The removal of 4 trees to the centre of the development is agreed as part of this Planning Proposal to facilitate the concept plan as those trees are also identified in the Arborist Report as having limited value. However, all other trees on all boundaries are not to be cited for removal at this stage. Reference to the transplanting of the Magnolia is equally to be removed as this is not a DA and the proper investigations conducted through a DA cannot be done at this strategic planning proposal stage.

Specific tree removal around the boundary can be nominated at DA stage when detailed investigation into their value and impacts of removal within retained tree TPZs can be explored.

This Planning Proposal is not to fetter investigation nor prematurely influence the tree removal outcomes at the DA assessment stage.

In addition, some inconsistent comment is made regarding the biodiversity mapped land (remnant Blue Gum High Forest) and the impacts on the associated Blackbutt tree. These must be corrected to stress the importance of protecting that single remnant tree.

Ø Recommendation:

Tree removal references are to be limited to the stipulated 4 trees. All other references to tree removal is to be removed to avoid fettering of the DA process and ability to influence tree removal following proper analysis.

· Canopy provision

The proposal claims an increase of canopy from the existing 3,656 sqm to the proposed 3,897sqm. However, there is no documentation on the tree species that will contribute to that canopy, nor on the heights of the canopy trees.

Canopy in Ku-ring-gai is delivered through significant numbers of tall trees. The proposal gives no indication on whether this key feature of the locality will be delivered on this site. Many of the new trees shown in the diagram are located on top of the basement parking areas or in between the multitudes of path systems which do not provide the dimensions of garden beds able to sustain healthy large specimen trees to contribute to Canopy.

Ø Recommendation:

The proposal and its Arborist Report requires details of the location and species of trees and demonstrate the expected tree height and canopy spread. This way the canopy that is claimed to be delivered on the site can be verified.

· Solar access and natural ventilation

70% of units or 77/110 units achieve the required ADG 2 hour solar access – therefore 33/110 units achieve less than 2 hours solar access of which 11/110 receive no direct sunlight.

Solar access into units designed for ageing in place is vital. Units with no solar access highly compromise the amenity for the 11 elderly people living in the units with zero sunlight especially as they will spend increasing amounts of time within their homes as they age.

78% of units or 86/110 units achieve the required ADG natural ventilation standards - therefore 24 units fail to achieve natural ventilation.

Whilst the provision may comply with the baseline requirements of the SEPP Housing, natural ventilation is important in units designed for an ageing population who will spend increasing amounts of time within their homes as they age.

Ø Recommendation:

Given the type of population this Site will house (elderly and vulnerable frail people), consideration should be given to modify the design and building orientation to increase numbers of units with the solar access and ventilation.

· Heritage assessment

The Heritage Impact Statement, attached to the planning proposal, makes recommendation to retain the pillars as mentioned in the response to Ministerial 3.2. This is supported.

It is noted that the Rohini House gates located on the site are currently listed in Schedule 5 of the KLEP 2015 (Item 161). However, the listing identifies the previous location of the gates (Railway lands; Part Lot 1, DP 1129573) prior to their relocation onto the grounds of Rohini Village.

It is noted that the original pair for No. 2 is different to that photographed in Figure 23 in the Heritage Impact Statement.

The second set of pillars shown in Figure 23 of the Statement have three rather than two pillars, with the original post and gate now in the garden bed to the side framing a vehicular entrance, not shown in the photograph, and the third pillar a replica to form a new pedestrian entrance.

The significance is with the original pairs of pillars and associated gates, rather than the replica.

The Chery Kemp Heritage Impact Statemen concludes the three sets of pillars meet at least one Heritage Council criterion of heritage significance. This meets the threshold for local heritage listing.

As there are no planning provisions proposed to support retention in the Planning Proposal, the proposal should make provision for conservation of these significant features by inclusion of heritage listing in the subject planning proposal. As such, the description of the locational description of the heritage item in Schedule 5 of Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan should be amended to reflect the current location of the Rohini House Gates.

The proponent’s heritage consultant is to recommend an appropriate curtilage map, as adjusted for the No. 2 set to capture the original pillars.

Ø Recommendation:

The Planning Proposal is to amend Schedule 5 of Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan and the Heritage Map within the KLEP 2015 to reflect the current location of the Rohini House Gates. The proponent’s heritage consultant is to recommend an appropriate curtilage map, as adjusted for the No. 2 set to capture the original pillars. The curtilage will inform the required amendment to the KLEP Heritage Map.

· Overshadowing of neighbouring properties

The Planning Proposal’s Urban Design Report includes investigation into overshadowing impacts on adjacent properties. The diagrams indicate significant impact on properties to the south of the proposal’s site.

The provided shadow diagrams present the overshadowing in multiple colours which reduces the clarity of the actual shadow cast by the proposed buildings. The use of lighter colours for the extreme extents of the shadow diminish and disguise the shadows on the adjacent development.

The proponent has been asked at both adequacy checks to provide a simple single colour shadow diagram that will be legible to the general public. The Department of Planning and Environment’s LEP Making Guideline August 2023 states “The planning proposal should be drafted to ensure that a wide audience including departmental staff, authorities and government agencies, councils, stakeholders and the community, can clearly understand the scope and impacts of the proposal.” The shadow diagrams are required to be revised to show only the predominant blue colour to all shadow cast by the proposed development.

The redevelopment of the site provides opportunity to deliver improved overshadowing results both on the site and to neighbouring residences by orienteering building footprints and considering building bulk across the site to avoid replicating any poor standards of the existing development.

There is lengthy justification on the solar impacts to the neighbouring properties to the south. The diagrams again utilise the multiple shade shadowing which again visually diminish the shadow impacts and the reach of shading on those neighbouring buildings.

Shadow diagram (PLUS Architecture)

The issue of overshadowing will be dealt with at DA stage, however it is noted that the impacts to those neighbours are likely to be high and consideration should be given at DA stage to minimising the impacts by reducing building footprints and altering building orientation to enable solar access to the south- eastern boundary properties

Ø Recommendation:

Amend the shadow diagrams to improve legibility for the general public. At this strategic Planning Proposal stage, consideration should be given to the cumulative issues of provision of landscaped areas, deep soil, units with greater numbers of with 2 hours or more solar access, ventilation and the overshadowing impacts, and the likely improvement of the scheme with a reduction in the FSR that is consistent with that of surrounding R4(High Density Residential) zoned areas in this location.

· Car Parking

A parking assessment was undertaken and found that if car parking for the proposal were to be provided in accordance with SEPP Housing 2021, only 22 car parking spaces would need to be provided as Anglicare is deemed to be a ‘social housing provider’.

However, the proponent is suggesting that the target market for the new development would be downsizers approaching or in retirement, and is seeking to provide car parking at the equivalent rate to residential flat buildings to cater for this market.

This would result in the provision of 199 parking (171 resident parking spaces, 18 visitor spaces, 8 staff spaces, 1 ambulance space and 1 car share space).

While the site has the capacity to accommodate this level of car parking (across 2-3 basement levels), a study of current residents conducted by Anglicare (Appendix K: Anglicare Village Study – Rohini Village) indicates over half the residents at Rohini Anglicare do not drive.

Parking should be provided to closer align with this characteristic from Anglicare’s records, which would substantially reduce excavation, material costs and environmental impacts, and improve affordability.

The Anglicare Village Study also indicates that 30% of current residents drive infrequently, so provision of car share vehicles could be increased to further reduce parking provision.

Reduced parking provision over that shown in this Planning Proposal was also supported by Transport for NSW in its early correspondence with the proponent.

Ø Recommendation:

Consideration should be given to parking space reduction given the population profile and the location adjacent to excellent public transport links.

Notwithstanding the above issues requiring further consideration, confirmation and amendment, and others noted within Attachment A1 of this Report, the Planning Proposal is generally considered to have Site Specific Merit contingent on the amendments required in this Report and within Attachment A1.

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 supports the Planning Proposal and recommends that Council submit the matter to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination subject to the Planning Proposal and its Attachments being amended as stated in this Report and within the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1, and including:

a. provision of three new KLEP maps showing the proposed amendments:

i. Height of Buildings Map

ii. Floor Space Ration Map

iii. Heritage Map

b. amendment of the proposed FSR for the site to 1.3:1 (which amounts to an FSR of 1.495:1 with the added 15% SEPP bonus) unless further justification to address the multiple issues arising from the proposed intensification of the site is agreed with Council staff.

c. inclusion of updated amendment to the Written Instrument

i. to allow Additional Permitted Uses enabling a café and swimming pool on the site – Schedule 1.

ii. to amend the heritage listing of the sets of pillars on the site – Schedule 5.

2. it recommends that the Proponent be advised of the above and directed to submit the required amended Planning Proposal and its Appendices in accordance with the recommendations above prior to the matter being referred to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination.

integrated planning and reporting

Theme 3 - Places, Spaces and Infrastructure

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

Community Strategic Plan Long Term Objective

Delivery Program

Term Achievement

Operational Plan

Task

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

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

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

Governance Matters

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

If Council fails to make a decision within 90 days (from the commencement of the review of the application) or if Council makes a decision to not support the Planning Proposal, the Proponent can make a request to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure 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, Housing and Infrastructure 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. Council should, to determine its position on the matter, specifically consider whether the Planning Proposal should be sent to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure 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 2024/2025 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 replacement of dated housing for Seniors that no longer meets accessibility standards and current market demand. A Letter of Offer accompanies the Planning Proposal seeking to enter agreement on the provision of a new through site link and upgrades to the public domain.

Environmental Considerations

The potential environmental impacts of the Planning Proposal have been considered in this assessment and it has been determined that the Planning Proposal should be supported as it will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts and is suitable for the site, particularly when the required amendments are included. 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 and granted a Gateway Determination by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, the Planning Proposal would be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of the Gateway Determination and the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’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. In addition, independent advice was provided in respect to economic impacts and urban design as outlined herein. Council officers attended the site inspection with the independent planning and urban design consultants to provide a briefing. Specialist referrals are addressed within the body of this report.

Summary

A Planning Proposal has been submitted for land at 51-53 Rohini St, Turramurra, also known as Anglicare Village. The proposal seeks to make the following amendments to the KLEP 2015:

1. increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 0.85:1 to 1.5:1 (the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final FSR of 1.725:1);

2. increase the maximum Height of Building from 11.5m to 17.5m (the Housing SEPP bonus provisions will result in a final Height of 21.3m);

3. include certain Local Provisions that allow the inclusion of a Café and a Wellness Centre with an indoor pool.

Assessment of traffic and transport, urban design, heritage and biodiversity issues have been carried out by Council’s Strategic Traffic Engineer, Urban Design, Heritage and Biodiversity Officers respectively.

The assessment of the Planning Proposal, presented at Attachment A1, has resulted in a number of required revisions.

All amendments noted in this Report and in Attachment 1 – Table of Assessment are to be made and returned to Council.

The key amendments to the Planning Proposal include:

· delivery of the increased Height and FSR standards through mapping amendments consistent with PN 11-002 - Preparing LEPs using the Standard Instrument: standard zones and PN 08-001 - Height and floor space ratio, with amendment to the Height and the FSR maps;

· unless further justification to address the multiple issues arising from the proposed intensification of the site is agreed with Council staff, replace the proposed FSR 1.5:1 with FSR 1.3:1 (resulting in FSR 1.495:1 with the added 15% SEPP bonus);

· amend the heritage listing for the pillars on the site and include their location and curtilage in an amendment to the KLEP 2015 Heritage Map;

· amend the KLEP written Instrument to make provision for additional permitted uses in Schedule 1 and to describe the heritage listing in Schedule 5.

The assessment of the Planning Proposal finds the proposal has sufficient strategic merit. The proposal indicates it has site specific merit much of which is contingent on the required amendments presented in this Report and in Attachment 1 – Table of Assessment

It is therefore recommended that the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel advise Council that:

a. provision of KLEP maps indicating the proposed amendments:

i. Height of Buildings Map with maximum Height 17.5m.

ii. Floor Space Ratio Map with maximum FSR 1.3:1 contingent on further detailed information from the proponent.

iii. Heritage Map listing of pillars and their curtilage.

b. inclusion of updated amendment to the KLEP 2015 Written Instrument

i. to allow Additional Permitted Uses enabling a café and swimming pool on the site via amendment to Schedule 1;

ii. to amend Heritage listing of the pillars via amendment to Schedule 5.

2. it recommends that the Proponent be advised of the above and directed to submit the amended Planning Proposal and its Appendices in accordance with the recommendations of this Report and in Attachment 1 – Table of Assessment, prior to the matter being referred to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination.

The Planning Proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’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 demonstrates sufficient strategic and site specific merit such that it should be submitted to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination following amendments as outlined above and in the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1.

Recommendation:

A. That the Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel advises Council that, following amendments to the Planning Proposal as outlined in this Report and the Table of Assessment at Attachment A1, the Planning Proposal be submitted to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination.

Rathna Rana

Senior Urban Planner

Craige Wyse

Team Leader Urban Planning

Andrew Watson

Director Strategy & Environment

Attachments:	A1⇩	Table of Assessment - Planning Proposal - 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra (Anglicare)		2024/171923
	A2⇩	Planning Proposal Anglicare “Rohini Village” 51-53 Rohini Street, Turramurra		2024/174688
	A3	Appendix A - Urban Design Report and Site Photo Panel	Excluded	\\kmc\data\Apps\Infocouncil\Documents\2902\15769\2. Appendix A - Urban Design Report and Site Photo Panel_1_Saved.pdf
	A4⇩	Appendix B - Title Documents & Surveys		2024/174686
	A5⇩	Appendix C - Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report		\\kmc\data\Apps\Infocouncil\Documents\2902\15769\4. Appendix C - Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report_1.pdf
	A6⇩	Appendix D - Heritage Impact Statement		2024/174684
	A7 ⇩	Appendix E - Traffic & Transport Assessment		2024/174683
	A8 ⇩	Appendix F - Utility and Infrastructure Plans		2024/174681
	A9 ⇩	Appendix G - Biodiversity Advice		2024/174680
	A10 ⇩	Appendix H - Landscape Concept & Drawing Schedule		\\kmc\data\Apps\Infocouncil\Documents\2902\15769\9. Appendix H - Landscape Concept & Drawing Schedule_1.pdf
	A11 ⇩	Appendix I - Feasibility Analysis		2024/174677
	A12 ⇩	Appendix J - Letter of Offer and Draft Planning Agreement - Rohini Village		2024/174674
	A13 ⇩	Appendix K - Rohini Village Study		2024/174673
	A14 ⇩	Appendix L - Pre-Consultation Minutes and Responses		2024/174672

Ku-ring-gai Local Planning Panel Meeting - 22 July 2024	GB.3 / 1

Item GB.3	S14408

Planning Proposal for 1364-1396 Pacific Highway and 1,1A and 3 Kissing Point Road, Turramurra

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

purpose of report:	To refer the Planning Proposal for 1364-1396 Pacific Highway and 1, 1A, 3 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 25 March 2024 following an adequacy test and the payment of fees. The Planning Proposal has been assessed by an independent planning consultant with advice from an independent urban design consultant due to part of the site being in Council ownership. The Planning Proposal is an amended scheme following refusal of a previous application by Council on 14 February 2023. The Proponent has indicated that the proposal has been amended to have regard to comments made on the previous scheme and a new planning proposal request submitted accordingly.

comments:	The revised Planning Proposal seeks to: · Amend the maximum permissible height applying to the site on the Height of Buildings map from 17.5m to 34.5m; · Amend the maximum permissible Floor Space Ratio applying to the site on the Floor Space Ratio map from 2:1 to 3:1; · Impose a minimum commercial/retail FSR of 0.85:1; · 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: (Refer to the full Recommendation at the end of this report)	That the KLPP advise Council that it supports the Planning Proposal being submitted to the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure for a Gateway Determination for the reasons outlined in this report subject to amendments to the Height of Buildings map, supporting Reference Scheme and Draft DCP amendment.

Purpose of Report

To refer the Planning Proposal for 1364-1396 Pacific Highway and 1, 1A, 3 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 and independent economic and retail assessment prepared by Hill PDA. Other assessments including biodiversity, natural areas, heritage, traffic and transport, survey and infrastructure and have been carried out internally by Council’s specialists.

A previous Planning Proposal request for the subject site was submitted to Council by the same Proponent in May 2022. The request sought 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.

The matter was reported to Council in February 2023 with a recommendation that the Council resolve not to submit the Planning Proposal to the Minister for a Gateway Determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the independent planning assessment concluded that the Planning Proposal did not meet the established strategic or site specific merit tests primarily as it was determined that:

a. the proposed height and scale was 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 did not provide for a high quality development on site, and

c. the proposed height and scale was 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.

Further the KLPP provided advice to Council recommending that the Planning Proposal not be submitted to the Minister for a Gateway Determination. On 14 February 2023 Council resolved to:

A. note the advice of the KLPP in respect of the subject Planning Proposal

B. resolve not to submit the Planning Proposal to the Minister for a Gateway Determination in accordance with section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and

C. advise the Proponent accordingly.

Following refusal of the original Planning Proposal request the Proponent advised that it has amended the proposal to address matters raised in the assessment report. A new Planning Proposal was formally submitted to Council on 25 March 2024 following test of adequacy and the payment of fees. Following an initial review by the independent planning and urban design consultants, issues were identified and a request for information letter issued on 26 April 2024. Issues raised in the letter in respect of the Planning Proposal include:

· Reference Scheme non-compliance with:

o Apartment Design Guide (ADG) requirements in respect of solar access to living rooms and private open space, natural cross ventilation, number of units off a circulation core, solar access to the lower plaza area and deep soil area

o Canopy cover requirements

o Requirements for loading / unloading

· Solar impact to neigbourbouring properties (residential flat building (RFB) at 5 Kissing Point Road)

· Lack of a draft site-specific Development Control Plan (DCP)

· Loading arrangements and lack of updated SIDRA analysis, and

· Lack of Letter of Offer in respect of public benefits albeit that the Planning Proposal identified proposed dedications.

The Proponent submitted amended documentation to address the issues raised in the RFI letter on 30 May 2024. The amended information included:

· Revised Planning Proposal Report

· Stand-alone site-specific Development Control Plan

· Revised Design Report (including Reference Scheme), and

· Transport Impact Assessment.

Accordingly, a copy of the updated Planning Proposal and relevant appendices is included at Attachments A2-A12.

The Planning Proposal request 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 to 34.5m (9 storeys where the original PP request proposed 50m/15 storeys);

· Amend the maximum permissible Floor Space Ratio applying to the site on the Floor Space Ratio map from 2:1 to 3:1 (where the original PP request proposed 4.2:1);

· Impose a minimum commercial/retail FSR of 0.85:1 (where the original PP request proposed 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.

As outlined in the Planning Proposal request report prepared for the Proponent by The Planning Studio, the proposed amendments to the KLEP 2015 are intended to “facilitate the development of the site for a mixed-use development including commercial premises, retail premises and shop-top housing.”

The Planning Proposal report claims that the proposal will facilitate an exemplar mixed use commercial/residential development within a Local Centre context that aligns with, supports, and promotes key strategic planning priorities of State and local government. It identifies that the objectives of the Planning Proposal are:

· To facilitate the redevelopment of the site in accordance with the relevant principles of A Metropolis of Three Cities, the North District Plan, Ku-ring-gai Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS), Ku-ring-gai Housing Strategy, Turramurra Public Domain Plan and Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan.

· To amend the KLEP 2015 to provide for the urban renewal of the subject site into a lively mixed use precinct which will provide opportunities for supermarkets, retail shops, commercial space, food and beverage offerings and residential accommodation. This will be achieved through the implementation of new built form controls including height and FSR, and a range of site specific provisions.

· To provide additional retail floor space in Turramurra Local Centre in response to a large undersupply within the Ku-ring-gai LGA as identified in the Ku-ring-gai LSPS and Preliminary Need and Impact Assessment.

· To facilitate the provision of a full-line supermarket in the Turramurra main trade area, and one that is underserviced in supermarket floor space provision in comparison to the Sydney metropolitan average.

· To provide site specific controls which will ensure an appropriate massing for the site which reflects the strategic context of the site, while respecting the immediate context and minimising potential amenity impacts on adjoining neighbours, heritage items and conservation areas.

· To assist in achieving State and local government’s housing targets and address the lack of housing availability within the locality, including the provision of affordable housing.

The intended outcomes are stated as follows:

· To provide additional employment in close proximity to public transport.

· To provide higher density residential accommodation in a centre location in close proximity to public transport, jobs and services.

· To improve pedestrian permeability within and around the site with two through site links.

· To improve traffic flow within and around the site with a new road within the southern boundary.

· To create a village atmosphere through the provision of public open spaces which promote social interaction within the community.

· To protect the adjoining Granny Springs Reserve and ensure a well managed interface to the Reserve.

· Be respectful and exist harmoniously with the prevailing character of the area.

Reclassification of public land

Among other matters the Planning Proposal seeks to reclassify the Council owned part of the site from community to operational land via an amendment to Schedule 4 of KLEP 2015. Council resolved to reclassify the subject land by resolution on 16 March 2021. The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s Practice Note PN 16-001 (date 5 October 2016) sets out requirements for the classification and reclassification of public land. Accordingly this Practice Note should be address in the Planning Proposal prior to the matter being submitted for a Gateway Determination.

Reference Scheme

The Planning Proposal is supported by a Reference Scheme prepared by DKO Architecture (Rev 4, May 2024) which comprises:

· Site area of 8,459.7m²

· Height maximum of 9 storeys

· 181 apartments (including min. 5% affordable housing)

o 1 bedroom apartments – 31.5%

o 2 bedroom apartments – 50.8%

o 3 bedroom apartments – 17.7%

· GFA:

o Retail / commercial – 7,190m²

o Residential – 18,189m²

o Total – 25,379m²

· Maximum FSR – 3:1

· Solar access – 132 apartments (74%) achieve 2 hours direct sunlight in midwinter (21 June)

· Cross ventilation – 108 apartments (60.8%) achieve

· Communal Open Space – 3,400m² on ground, Level 1, 2,7 and 9 (44% of site area)

· Car parking – 414 spaces (including 179 x residential spaces, 168 x retail spaces, 37 x commercial spaces and 30 x public spaces (in lieu of existing Council parking spaces on site)

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, May 2024. Note: amendments shown in response to preliminary RFI comments)

Image 2 – Reference Scheme artists impression from Pacific Highway (Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, May 2024)

Image 3 – Reference Scheme artists impression from Stonex Drive (Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, May 2024)

Image 4 – Reference Scheme sections (Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, May 2024)

Image 5 – Design response proposed use diagram(Source: Urban Design Study, DKO Architecture, May 2024)

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

Proposed Public Benefits of Planning Proposal
Item	Description
Land Dedication (new road, new park, road widening)	2,915m²
New Community Park	708m²
New Road (Stonex Street)	1,434m²
Kissing Point Rd Upgrades	255m²
Pavement Upgrades	1,255m²
Pacific Highway land dedication	405m²
Pacific Highway Fence Upgrade	96m length
Public Parking	30 Council car spaces in basement (Offsets existing Council car park spaces)
New through-site link	907m²
Stonex Lane Upgrade	245m²
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 and Kissing Point Road.

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 significantly 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 6 – 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 southwestern quadrant of the Local Centre and is irregular in shape with frontages to the Pacific Highway and Kissing Pont Road (refer Image 7 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 7 – Aerial photo, site outlined in red (Source: Nearmap, image capture 7 April 2024)

The site is generally known as the Turramurra Plaza shopping centre (and adjacent land) and has a combined area of approximately 8,397.94m². 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.

as shown below:

Image 8 – Subject site (Source: DKO Urban Design Report, May 2024. Note: Council owned land shown red) (Note: survey shows H as having an area by DP of 847.5m²and 909.3m²by calculation)

As noted in Image 8 above the Proponent has calculated the site area according to the submitted survey plan via a mixed area calculation, that is, primarily by title but in the case of Area H by measured calculation. The survey states that Area H has an area of 847.5m²by title but an area of 909.3m²by calculation, that is, a discrepancy of 61.8m². This means that the site is stated by the Proponent as having a total area of 8,459.64m² whereas by title the area is actually 8,397.94m².

Council has received advice in this respect from Pinnacle Land Surveyors who has advised that it is a risk to accept a mixed area calculation (especially in this application) and that the conservative approach would be to accept the area by title for all parcels. Further they have advised that calculating all the areas by title gives Council reliable legal grounds for determining the site area and shifts risk to the ORG (Office of the Registrar General) under the Torrens Assurance Fund. The advice states that the foundational legal principle is that the title area is the point of truth for the property area however, due to the old measurement and calculation methods, that the title area often needs to be updated or corrected in older plans, and the post-developed area can differ. The advice goes on to indicate that there are certain circumstances where it might be more appropriate to assess the application based on the calculated or surveyed area, but in order to do this Council would require better certainty, and the developer needs to weigh up the cost of this against the value gained. Having regard to the advice it is considered that at this stage of the process Council should not accept the area by calculation and accordingly the site area stated in the Reference Scheme is overstated by 61.8m².

Having regard to the above advice it is considered that the site area should be taken to be 8,397.94m² in accordance with title details. Notwithstanding this discrepancy can be resolved at a later stage of the process. Notably the Reference Scheme proposes a 3:1 FSR on the site with an additional area of 61.8m². This therefore equates to an additional GFA of not more than 185.4m² which in the context of a development totalling in the order of 25,000m² GFA is considered to be unlikely to affect site suitability.

Of the total site area of 8,397.94m² a total of 6,134m² is in private ownership with the remaining 2,263.94m² being public land owned by Council. 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.

Image 9 – Site context (Source: Urban Design Report, DKO Architecture, May 2024)

The site is zoned E1 Local Centre under Ku-ring-gai Local Environmental Plan 2015.

Image 10 – Zoning map extract KLEP 2015

The objectives of the E1 Local Centre zone are:

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

· To encourage investment in local commercial development that generates employment opportunities and economic growth.

· To enable residential development that contributes to a vibrant and active local centre and is consistent with the Council’s strategic planning for residential development in the area.

· To encourage business, retail, community and other non-residential land uses on the ground floor of buildings.

Permitted land uses in the E1 Local Centre zone (with development consent) include:

Amusement centres; Bed and breakfast accommodation; Boarding houses; Centre-based child care facilities; Commercial premises; Community facilities; Entertainment facilities; Function centres; Group homes (permanent); Hotel or motel accommodation; Information and education facilities; Light industries; Local distribution premises; Medical centres; Oyster aquaculture; Places of public worship; Public administration buildings; Recreation facilities (indoor); Respite day care centres; Service stations; Shop top housing; Tank-based aquaculture; Veterinary hospitals; Water reticulation systems; Any other development not specified in item 2 or 4

Notably residential accommodation is prohibited in the E1 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 development with residential above would therefore be permissible with consent.

Comments

The Planning Proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure’s ‘Local Environmental Plan Making Guideline’ (August 2023) and section 3.33 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

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.

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 consistent with the capacity of the site and the local character and has demonstrated the achievement of good design subject to recommended amendments.

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 consistent with this objective and the strategies which underpin it as the Reference Scheme (subject to recommended amendments, which can be addressed prior to the planning proposal being forwarded for a Gateway approval) provides for a well-designed built environment that is attractive and high amenity.

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 discussed in detail below, the proposed height and FSR is generally consistent with the Ku-ring-gai Retail and Commercial Centres Strategy which was noted (although not formally adopted) by Council in December 2020. 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 34.5m (maximum 9 storey) height limit is less than 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 approximately 9 storeys as incorporated into KLEP 2015 by the recent Lindfield Village Hub Planning Proposal (ranging from 29.5 to 36.5m but with an average of 34.5m). An allowance of an additional 2.0m in height is considered appropriate in this instance given the steepness of site slope. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with Objective 22.

Having regard to the above it is considered that the Planning Proposal is consistent with a number of objectives of the Greater Sydney Region Plan and with the overall intent of the plan which is 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.

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 180 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.

In addition, 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 seeks to provide for new planning controls (height and FSR) that would result in development of the site consistent with the site’s capacity, the role of the Turramurra Local Centre in the Retail and Commercial Centres hierarchy, and in a manner that is considered to be compatible with the existing and emerging character of the area. As represented in the submitted Reference Scheme, the scale of the proposal generally demonstrates a high quality development that provides for appropriate amenity to proposed residential units and the proposed public space (plaza and new park).

Further Planning Priority N20 – Delivering high quality open space would be achieved by the proposal. The Reference Scheme submitted with the application illustrates that the proposed massing and built form provides for a new plaza area and new public park which are identified as key public benefits, and which will provide a high level of amenity. This matter is discussed in further detail below. It is therefore considered that the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of the North District Plan.

The Government recently (mid 2024) committed to building 377,000 new homes across the State in the next 5 years to align with the National Housing Accord. As part of this it announced new housing targets by LGA. The housing target identified by the State Government for Ku-Ring-Gai is 7,600 dwellings to be completed by 2029. The Planning Proposal is considered to be consistent with this target and will deliver 180 new dwellings in close proximity to existing infrastructure and services.

Local Strategic Planning Statement