PLANNING COMMITEE Meeting
Supplementary BUSINESS PAPER
Tuesday 7 December 2010
Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031
Telephone: 02 9399 0999 or
1300 722 542 (for Sydney metropolitan area)
Fax:02 9319 1510
Planning Committee Meeting
7 December 2010
PLANNING COMMITTEE Meeting
Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 7 December 2010 at 6:00pm.
MM74/10 Possible future pedestrian access ways and shared drive ways - Randwick Boys and Girls High Schools
MM75/10 Outcome of meeting with Mr Paul Pearce, MP, Member for Coogee re Randwick Health and Education Specialised Centre Discussion Paper
7 December 2010
Mayoral Minute No. MM74/10
Subject: Possible future pedestrian access ways and shared drive ways - Randwick Boys and Girls High Schools
Folder No: F2008/00645
The Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre Discussion Paper is currently on public exhibition. It recommends long term planning strategies for this important employment centre, as well as implications for the Council’s current comprehensive LEP/DCP review.
Key long term strategies (20-25 years) include improving the permeability, walkability, safety and legibility in and around the major sites and institutions that comprise a large part of the Centre’s area.
The Discussion Paper includes nine investigation areas which look in more detail at how the long term strategies for the Centre (20-25 years) could be translated in specific locations.
One investigation area is centred on Barker Street, covering the southern part of the Randwick Hospitals Campus, Randwick Boys and Girls High Schools, the Inglis Newmarket site and Struggletown Conservation Area.
Two suggestions for this area relate to the High Schools:
1. Investigate the long term (the next 20-25 years) potential to improve pedestrian connections between Inglis Newmarket site and Avoca Street – through the High Schools’ properties should any changes in the long term happen within these sites. This would only occur in the instance where there is significant site re-planning by the High Schools, and where this becomes a possible and desirable outcome.
2. Investigate the potential for a shared access driveway to Barker Street at the existing roundabout opposite Easy Street, at the location of the existing High Schools’ driveway. This suggestion is intended to explore possible mutual benefits such as safe vehicular access to the Inglis Newmarket site (in the event of its future redevelopment), and improved, safer access to facilities on the western side of the High Schools properties.
While the NSW Department of Education has not yet formally responded to these matters, initial feedback from schools and community members does not support these suggestions, and has expressed concern that these recommendations are current rather than future proposals.
On this basis I recommend that these suggestions affecting the High Schools not be further developed, unless the NSW Department of Education initiates or requests investigation, and advises of any potential benefits that would be gained by the High Schools.
That the Council endorse that no further investigations be undertaken into the recommendations in the Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre Discussion Paper for shared pedestrian and shared drive ways on the Randwick Boys and Girls High School sites.
7 December 2010
Mayoral Minute No. MM75/10
Subject: Outcome of meeting with Mr Paul Pearce, MP, Member for Coogee re Randwick Health and Education Specialised Centre Discussion Paper
Folder No: F2008/00645
Mr, Paul Pearce, MP, Member for Coogee, recently made a statement on the Street corner web site that he considered the Randwick Health and Education Specialised Centre Discussion Paper to be “very flawed”.
I immediately suspended further Council work on the discussion paper and invited Mr Pearce to meet with me and clarify what he saw as flaws in this paper. We met on Monday 6 December, and Cr Tracey was also present. Later in the discussion I asked the General Manager in to participate as well.
Mr Pearce agreed with my view that parameters need to be put into place to clarify directions in the discussion paper to assist with further consultations.
Mr Pearce put the following issues forward.
• NSW Government Required Metro Strategy Dwelling Target. Mr Pearce confirmed that the Council should continue planning to accommodate Randwick’s assigned target of 8,400 new dwellings by 2031.
• Comprehensive LEP. Mr Pearce recognised the need for Council to continue with the Comprehensive LEP requirements of the State Government.
• Support for Vision and Strategy verse Key Planning Codes. He offered the view that Part A of the discussion paper could be separated from Part B of the paper, with which he had his concerns.
- Part A describes the Centre, its key attributes and drivers, growth trends and likely demands over the next 20 years, and identifies a vision and broad strategies for its long term future.
- Part B suggest design and planning principles for key precincts and sites, or “investigation area” within the Centre and discusses options for the key planning controls that could be included in the comprehensive LEP and DCP.
I confirm that Part A is intended as the broad strategy or ‘Precinct Plan’ for the Centre, as required by the Metro Strategy. This Part A then informs the detail proposed in Part B, which will eventually inform the draft LEP, DCP and a public domain strategy.
• Heights. Mr Pearce suggested that the discussion paper’s presentation of a range of possible heights (e.g. 15 metres to 24 metres) for various streets should be replaced with a single definitive value. This would allow for clearer community definition.
I note that Mr Pearce has quoted from a table which actually summarises the range of heights identified in each investigation area eg different heights are shown for different streets. Within each investigation area, a range of heights is also valid as it relates to issues such as required building setbacks or where incentives are proposed for affordable housing. The heights are proposed to be defined in the LEP and DCP.
· Overall Excessive Density. Mr Pearce felt that simply too much was being proposed. We discussed the possibility of a maximum cap of 1,500 new dwellings. I put the point that the building envelopes could be scaled down in the draft Local Environment Plan (the next step after this discussion paper) to be contingent with a potential of 1,500 new dwellings by 2031. Mr Pearce expressed doubt that this could be done via a DCP or an LEP. I agreed to investigate. Mr Pearce favoured an LEP restriction if a cap was to adopted.
• Overall 15 Metre height limit. He did not support any residential development higher than 15 metres. His view is that provision to 15 metres is justifiable because that is the minimum height at which lifts become economically feasible for inclusion.
A 15m height equates to around 4-5 storeys depending on the uses, to which many of the areas suggested for change would no longer be viable (as many are already 3 -4 storeys). Land values rather than lifts are the key determinant of feasibility. Nevertheless, I consider that we should note in principle that 15m may be the most suitable maximum subject to feedback from the community, as per the expectations of a consultation period.
• Limited Open Space. Increased opportunity for open space was an issue with Mr Pearce.
• Light Rail/Metro/Heavy Rail. I advised Mr Pearce Council has received a letter from NSW Planning, supporting the formation of the Randwick Public Transport Working Group in order to advance the Metro Strategy and its draft East Subregional Strategy, which are both currently under review. Mr Pearce was of the view that current residential densities in the area were already high enough to justify either a light rail or metro facility but that he favoured metro.
I strongly recommend that Mr Pearce bring his views to the attention of the Minister for Transport and request that planning be commenced and prioritised for light/metro/heavy rail.
I note that the discussion paper indicates that the changes are reliant on significantly improved public transport, including rail.
• Residential Development on Racecourse. Mr Pearce expressed surprise that residential development was being put forward as an option for the South Western corner on High Street. He understood that UNSW had previously supported student accommodation on the South Eastern corner abutting Wansey Road.
The paper suggests a combination of uses, not just residential, on both the SE and SW corners of the racecourse. This includes research, biomedical facilities, education and accommodation supporting these facilities, as well as support uses such as recreation facilities and open space. The south-west corner is identified as a rail station site and any development must allow for this transport future.
• Future USW Student Accommodation Needs. Mr Pearce put the position that his involvement on the UNSW Council lead him to believe that UNSW wanted another 1,000 beds. Mr Pearce wants this to be accommodated on the UNSW site. I agreed to clarify whether UNSW whether this was possible on their site.
The UNSW DCP proposes to accommodate an additional 3000 students on or near the campus by 2020. To date, 1300 have been provided and were fully occupied within a week of opening. The university has 45,000 students enrolled and increases are expected, many of whom live not only on campus but also in the suburbs around the university. This paper recognises the need to provide housing options, for students and also for others who want to live close to the uni and hospital facilities.
This was intended only to be a long term possibility and for investigation only, should the configuration of the school’s buildings or road accesses change.
• Extending the Exhibition Period. The General Manager made the point that the current discussion paper on public exhibition was only the first of three planned exhibition processes. The next two being prepared is the draft Local Environment Plan and then a draft Development Control Plan. There is thus no particular reason why the exhibition process for the discussion paper could not be extended to next year.
This week’s discussions between the Mayor and Paul Pearce, MP, Member for Coogee, in reference to the Specialised Centre discussion paper went positively.
There was agreement that Council can continue with implementing State Government planning requirements under the eastern sub-regional strategy of the Metro Strategy if some additional parameters on Part B (the planning strategy) are imposed at the draft LEP stage.
That, in reference to the currently exhibited Randwick Health and Education Specialised Centre Discussion Paper, Council:
1) Lifts the suspension imposed by the Mayor in response to Coogee MP Paul Pearce’s stated view that it was flawed;
2) Notes Mr Pearce’s endorsement of Part A of the discussion paper and informs him that it is responding to his criticisms of Part B;
3) Extends the exhibition period for the Discussion Paper to March next year and will confirm to residents that all submissions received during this extended period will be taken into account in the generation of the draft Local Environment Plan (LEP);
4) Resolves that the draft Local Environment Plan that will be generated from community feedback to the exhibited Discussion Paper, shall:
a) adopt a general maximum height restriction of 15 metres for residential development;
b) explore the potential for increased open space and protection of currently unbuilt on open space;
c) have a restricted distribution of building envelopes allowing for the inclusion of a total of 1,500 or less additional dwellings in the Centre by 2031;
5) That prior to the final version of the Draft LEP going on public exhibition Council will consider the inclusion of further provisions including:
a) Restrictions on the sites for student accommodation following clarification with UNSW as to how much is required and the preferred site for its location including the options of using only UNSW land;
b) More explicit options for light rail or metro rail following any consideration and input by the Randwick Public Transport Working Group recently supported by NSW Planning; and
c) there should be a maximum height of 15 metres for residential development with concessions in carefully chosen locations for affordable housing incentives.