Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 22 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 02 9399 0999 or

1300 722 542 (for Sydney metropolitan area)

Fax:02 9319 1510

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary Council Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the TOWN HALL, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 6pm.

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

We humbly beseech you to bestow your blessings upon this Council and to direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of your glory and the true welfare of the people of Randwick and Australia.

Amen”

 

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

I would like to acknowledge that we are here today on the land of the Bidjigal people of the Dharwahal Nation.  The Bidjigal people are the traditional owners and custodians of this land and form part of the wider aboriginal nations of the Sydney area.  On behalf of Randwick City Council I would also like to acknowledge and pay my respects to the Elders both past and present.”

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 24 April 2012

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Council by Members of the Public

Mayoral Minutes

MM40/12   Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park - Planning Proposal  

Urgent Business

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting required)

CP30/12    Post Exhibition - Draft Randwick LEP 2012

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 May 2012

 

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM40/12

 

 

Subject:                  Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park - Planning Proposal

Folder No:                   F2011/00522

Author:                   Councillor Nash, Mayor     

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this Mayoral Minute is to advise Councillors and members of the public that on 10 May 2012, the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park (ESMP) lodged a “Planning Proposal” in respect of part of the Crown Land located off Bunnerong Road, seeking to make cemetery uses permissible.

 

In particular, the proposal relates to land that is occupied by the Market Gardens. This land is zoned Residential 2(b) under the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation). The draft LEP 2012 proposes to rezone this land as RU4, primary production small lots, which prohibit cemetery uses on the Market Gardens site.

 

Issues

 

I note that during the preparation of the Open Space Discussion Paper and the draft LEP (for the purpose of public exhibition), Council endorsed the proposed RU4 zoning.

 

In February 2012 the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, in certifying the draft LEP to enable public exhibition, noted the proposed RU4 zoning for the Market Gardens site. To this end, the Department encouraged Council to work closely with the ESMP, the community and the State Government to address the cemetery’s needs. It further noted that if an extension to the cemetery is found to have merit, it should preferably be supported through a separate “Planning Proposal”.

 

On 9 May 2012 Cr Andrews, senior Council staff and I met with representatives of the ESMP. At the meeting, they advised me that they would be lodging a Planning Proposal with the Council. The ESMP Planning Proposal was duly lodged with Council on 10 May 2012 and seeks to rezone 60% of the Market Gardens site to permit cemetery uses and the remaining 40% to be protected as market gardens.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The ESMP’s Planning Proposal was lodged with the Council after the report had been prepared concerning the outcomes of the public exhibition of the draft LEP (being the report to Council on 22 May).  It is important that I table this Mayoral Minute so all Councillors and members of the public are fully aware of the context in which Council will consider the draft LEP on 22 May.

 

It should be noted that any expansion of the cemetery onto land currently occupied by the Market Gardens will be subject to:

 

1.     the Planning Proposal being successful (which includes a rigorous assessment of all planning and heritage issues);

2.     the owner of the Market Gardens site (the Department of Lands) agreeing to the lodgement of a development application for such an expansion; and

 

3.     Development consent being granted for any such expansion, following a further rigorous environmental assessment under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (or such other Act as may be in force at the relevant time).

 

My view (which I have already expressed publically) is that if the planning and heritage issues can be favourably resolved, there is significant merit in making cemetery uses permissible on part of the site of the Market Gardens (that is, that the “first step” identified above can be overcome). However, it should be noted that there are 2 “further steps” that need to be taken before any expansion.

 

Finally, there is another reason why I wish to table this Mayoral Minute. On 22 May, I will be voting to support the RU4 zone in the draft LEP for the Market Gardens site. In good conscience, I simply cannot give the community a guarantee at the present moment that I will support the RU4 zone for the entire Market Gardens site following the assessment of the ESMP’s Planning Proposal. Should the assessment of the Planning Proposal be favourable, I must now say publically that I would see significant merit in allowing cemeteries to be permissible on part of the Market Gardens site, which would allow a lawful development application to be made for such an expansion if the land owner (the Department of Lands) chose to make such an application.

 


Recommendation

 

That Council note the lodgement by the ESMP of a “Planning Proposal” seeking to make cemetery uses permissible over part of the Market Gardens site, which will now be assessed by Council Staff and reported to Councillors in due course.

 

 

Attachment/s:

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      22 May 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP30/12

 

Subject:                  Post Exhibition - Draft Randwick LEP 2012

Folder No:                   F2011/00522

Author:                   Stella Agagiotis, Co-ordinator, Strategic Planning; Colette Goodwin, Co-ordinator Strategic Planning; Joanna Hole, Co-ordinator-Strategic Planning; Grace Houw, Senior Strategic Planner; Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer; Victoria Gavan, PA to Manager Strategic Planning; Bronwyn Englaro, Senior Sustainability Officer; Asanthika Kappagoda, Senior Strategic Planner; Ting Xu, Environmental Planning Officer - Strategic Planning; Elena  Sliogeris, Senior Environmental Planning Officer - Strategic Planning; Karen Armstrong, Manager Strategic Planning; Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment; Zoran Curcic, Planning Research Officer; Lorraine Simpson, Senior Environmental Planning Officer - Heritage     

 

Executive Summary

 

The draft Randwick Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (draft LEP) was recently placed on public exhibition from 21 February to 2 April 2012, consistent with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation.

 

Almost 3,500 written submissions were received from residents, businesses, Precinct groups, Chambers of Commerce, interest groups and Federal, State and local government agencies. Key issues are detailed in this report and issues in all submissions are reviewed in Attachment 3.

 

This report also considers the oral presentations made to a Public Hearing held on the draft LEP on 2 and 3 April 2012, as contained in a separate report prepared by the independent planning consultant appointed to facilitate the hearing (see Attachment 5).  There were 22 speakers and 37 observers over the two hearing days, and opportunity was provided for all to participate in the discussions that followed the presentations.

 

A Public Hearing was also held on 26 April 2012 in relation to the proposed reclassification of Council owned land at 13-21 Rainbow Street, Kingsford from community to operational land. This hearing was also facilitated by an independent planning consultant and a separate report prepared (see Attachment 6). There were 3 speakers and 12 observers, and again all had the opportunity to participate in the discussions that followed the presentations.

 

As part of the exhibition and consultations, exhibition materials were available at council venues (administration centre and libraries) and online, with 3585 visits to the dedicated LEP web page. Five open days were held for people to speaking directly with staff. Presentations were made to the combined Precincts and Chambers group meetings. A brochure was distributed to the City’s 55,000 households and notification sent to all submitters to the previously exhibited discussion papers or in the vicinity of notable proposed zoning/development control changes (approximately 5,700).

 

Of the total of 3488 written submissions received, the majority focused on a single issue, whether support or objection, being the Chinese Market Gardens retention or cemetery expansion (3016 submissions), the 58-64 Carr Street proposed business rezoning (223 submissions) and the Maroubra Beach commercial centre proposed controls/height (117 submissions).  There were 18 government agency submissions and 9 submissions from Precinct Committees and Chambers of Commerce. The remaining submissions included rezoning requests (20), the Specialised Centre (9) and those covering a range of issues (76) such as density and development controls (including wall height and FSR), commercial centre zones, and timing of the LEP/DCP preparation. The key issues in submissions closely aligned with the key issues raised in the Public Hearing.

 

This report reviews the issues raised in submissions and the public hearings and recommends a number of minor amendments for finalising the draft LEP instrument and maps (see Attachments 1 and 2). The report recommends that Council resolve to forward the draft final LEP to the Director-General of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, requesting that the plan be finalised in order for the Minister for Planning to make the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

1.0      Background

 

The draft comprehensive LEP has been prepared and exhibited consistent with the statutory requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) (specifically sections 54-68) and accompanying Regulation, the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 and State government planning reforms. The preparation of the draft LEP is the result of five years of strategic planning work and public consultation, including non-statutory exhibitions of six land use discussion papers over 2010 and 2011.

 

On 6 December 2011, Council’s Planning Committee resolved to submit the draft LEP to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI) and request that the Director-General issue a certificate under Section 65 of the Act to exhibit the draft comprehensive LEP (Crs Nash, White). A copy of the Council resolution is at Attachment 4.

 

On 16 February 2012, Council received the Section 65 Certificate from the Department of Infrastructure & Planning (DoPI) enabling the draft LEP to be exhibited. The Certificate contained only one condition for exhibition, which required a zone map change to land owned by the Crown and located between the boundary of the Botany Bay National Park (high water mark) and the local government boundary (low water mark) to the E2 Environmental Conservation zone. This change was made to the draft LEP prior to public exhibition. A copy of the s65 Certificate and letter are at Attachment 4.

 

On 28 February 2012, Council considered a Mayoral Minute and resolved to hold a public hearing immediately following the public exhibition in respect of the draft comprehensive LEP. The public hearing was held on Monday 2 April and Tuesday 3 April, as detailed in section 4 of this report and in the independent consultant’s report at Attachment 5. A copy of the resolution is at Attachment 4.

 

The draft LEP was placed on formal public exhibition for 40 days from 21 February to the 2 April 2012 in accordance with statutory requirements (and beyond the minimum required 28 days).

 

A public hearing into the reclassification of Council owned land at 13-21 Rainbow Street, Kingsford was held, as addressed in section 5 of this report and in the independent consultant’s report at Attachment 6.

 

This report considers the submissions made, both in written form and from the oral presentations made to the public hearings.

 

The next steps are for Council’s consideration of the draft LEP in this report for referral to the DoPI for final review and referral to the Minister for Planning for gazettal. As part of finalising the LEP, the NSW Parliamentary Counsel must review the legal wording of the LEP which may change the final wording (but not the intent) of the LEP as a consequence. Given these steps, it is anticipated that the draft LEP will be finalised in late 2012/early 2013.

 

Council secured NSW Planning reform funding of $125,000 under the LEP Acceleration fund, for an additional staff position to assist in preparing the comprehensive LEP. The funding requirement is for the LEP to be completed and forwarded to the DoPI by June 2012.

 

Under the Act and Regulation, a new comprehensive DCP is required within 6 months of the gazettal of a comprehensive LEP. Preparation of the comprehensive DCP has commenced and a detailed summary of progress is in section 7 of this report addresses the Council resolution from the Mayoral Minute of 28 February 2012 that sought a report on the progress of the comprehensive DCP. It also addresses the Council resolution on a Notion of Motion, 27 March 2012 (Crs Matson, Smith) that if required, any relevant sections of the draft DCP will be adopted as interim policies to accompany any adopted comprehensive LEP until the DCP is also completed.  It is anticipated that the draft DCP will be reported and exhibited later this year for completion at or shortly after the draft LEP gazettal.

 

2.0  Exhibited draft LEP – key elements

 

While the draft LEP is a Standard Instrument LEP with a set template of zones, clauses and definitions, it delivers locally specific outcomes which support the key strategic directions and outcomes of the Randwick City Plan. Key changes in the exhibited draft LEP include:

 

·      New open space/environmental zoned land with a net increase of approximately 50 ha of open space/environmental land in the Randwick LGA. Some of the new sites include pocket parks such as Peace Park, Simeon Pearce Park, new national park land and conservation land and approximately 7 ha of agricultural area (Chinese Market Gardens).

·      A new Terrestrial Biodiversity map and clause which identifies areas containing endangered vegetation – Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS) and Acacia terminalis (42ha in total, located on local, State and Federal land).

·      New coastal protection, acid sulfate soils and flooding clauses.

·      A new design excellence clause which establishes consistent criteria to achieve a high level of architectural and urban design for significant development. This will apply to large sites of 10,000 sq m or greater; sites proposing development with a height of 15 m or greater, or sites where a DCP is required (identified as key sites).

·      Strengthened clauses for all areas but particularly residential e.g. essential services, storm water management and airspace operations.

·      Consistency of residential controls with the inclusion of height and floor space ratio in the LEP with the exception of areas where building envelopes and detailed master plans or DCPs apply.

·      Correction of zoning mismatches/rezonings (primarily based on assessed land owner requests).

·      Review of the built form controls for part of the Maroubra Beach commercial centre.

·      Recognition as business zones of several established neighbourhood centres, given the sustainability benefits of supporting walking catchments.

·      Rezoning of Kensington and Matraville as local rather than neighbourhood centres to reflect their diversity of services and catchment.

·      Review and update of heritage items, primarily adding landscape elements in the public domain, minor boundary adjustments to some Conservation Areas  and one new conservation area, Caerleon Crescent.

 

3.0      Exhibition and Consultations

 

The draft LEP was exhibited for an extended period from 21 February to 2 April 2012. To support the exhibition a wide ranging consultation program was undertaken. The purpose of the consultations was to inform the community and other stakeholders about the new draft LEP, and receive feedback on its contents including recommended zones and planning controls.

 

This follows the extensive program of consultations undertaken over 2010 and 2011 in consulting on a series of 6 discussion papers (as detailed in Attachment 4).

 

The consultations for this draft LEP exhibition were targeted at the Randwick City community and key stakeholder groups including:

 

·      Residential and business community, including formal groups such as precincts and chambers of commerce.

·      Other landholders.

·      Adjoining councils.

·      State departments and agencies, including Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI), the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) including Heritage NSW, State Transit Authority (STA), The Roads and Maritime Service (RMS – former RTA), Sydney Water, Energy Australia, Ministry of Transport.

·      Internal stakeholders including Councillors and staff.

·      Non-government organisations and interest groups.

 

The consultations comprised the following materials and activities:

 

·      Consultation material including a Frequently Asked Questions brochure detailing key elements of the draft LEP.

·      Advertisements and updates in the local newspaper at the commencement and throughout the exhibition

·      Hard copies of exhibition material at 4 Council locations: Administration Centre, Randwick Library, Bowen Library and Malabar Library The draft LEP and other exhibition material were placed on Council’s website. A dedicated computer at the Administration Centre, with all the material able to be viewed in detail, was well used.

·      A dedicated webpage on ‘Have Your Say’ website with the draft LEP and maps, and all exhibition material.

·      Flyers distributed to all 55,000 households across the City with information on the exhibition and drop in session dates.

·      A series of five drop in days at Council venues across the City providing the opportunity to speak directly with planners on any issue related to the draft LEP. These drop-in sessions were well attended with one-on-one advice provided similar to those who visited Council’s Administration Building, with Council’s Planning staff available throughout the exhibition period to speak to attendees.

·      Tailored notification letters to all Discussion Paper submitters, owners of properties affected by zoning changes, adjoining Councils and Government agencies (approximately 5,700).

·      Information packages to all Councillors, Precinct Committees and Business Chambers.

·      Briefings to Combined Precincts and Business Chambers.

·      Regular updates in the Mayoral Column and Council’s website.

·      Public Hearing on the draft LEP.

·      Public Hearing on the proposed Reclassification of a Council owned property (statutory requirement). 

 

3.1 Submissions Overview

 

A total of 3488 written submissions were received. Of these submissions, the majority related to a single issue or specific site, while the remainder covered a range of topics. A breakdown is shown in the table below:

 

KEY GROUPINGS

Number of submissions

Government  - State agencies/neighbouring councils  

18

Precinct Committees & Chambers of Commerce

9

Major topics – specific sites

 

Chinese Market Gardens/Cemetery zoning

3016

58-64 Carr St Coogee - rezoning

223

Maroubra Beach Commercial Area

117

Specialised Centre (including 4 rezoning requests)

9

Rezoning requests (various sites)

20

Others

 

Remainder (range of topics)

76

TOTAL

3488

 

This total includes a number of submissions received after the closing date, to account for delays in the post. Any submission received more than two weeks after the end of public exhibition may not have been considered in this report. As much as possible, duplicate submissions have been excluded from the above totals, while it is noted there may be instances of multiple different submissions from the same person or organisation.

 

3.2 Breakdown of submission for major issues

 

The figures below include submissions addressing a single issue or site, as well as submissions in which several different issues have been raised. Linking to the table above, the figures include instances where the issue has also been raised by the key groups (govt agencies, precincts) and ‘other’ submissions, including individuals and groups that raised a range of topics.

 

It is noted that significant numbers of submissions were received on a few topics, often via form letters. While all submissions are important, it is noted that it is the issues raised, not simply the numbers, which are the focus of the analysis that follows this breakdown of figures.

 

Chinese Market Gardens (including precincts, govt agencies and ‘others’)

·  Total submissions                   ­­­­­                       ­­­­­­­­­3024

·  Objection to RU4 /support cemetery zoning       2963

·  Support for RU4 (Rural) zoning                    61

 

Of the objections to RU4 (Rural) zoning, 2931 (approximately 97% of all submissions on this issue, and around 83% of total submissions on the draft LEP) were form letters seeking a zoning of the market gardens that permits cemetery purposes.

 

This total includes 1565 form letters received under cover of a letter from the Greek Orthodox Parish of south-east Sydney.

 

Detailed breakdown

 

 

Objection to RU4 /support cemetery zoning

Individual – single issue

31

 

Form letters

2931

 

Individual – multi issues

1

 

Govt agency

1

Support for RU4 (rural ) zoning

Individual – single issue

28

 

Form letters

26

 

Individual – multi issues

3

 

Precincts

2

 

Govt agency

1

Total

 

3024

 

Carr St rezoning (including precincts and ‘other’ various submissions)

·  Total submissions           232

·  Objections                    130

·  Support                        102

 

Of the submissions supporting rezoning, 99 were form letters representing 97% of supportive submissions. The remaining 3 supportive submissions were from consultants and the strata manager engaged on behalf of the owners’ corporation of 58-60 Carr Street. While many objection letters contained the same phrases and wording, these were not identical form letters.

 

Details

 

 

Object to rezoning

Individual – single issue

121

 

Other submissions

9

 

 

 

Support rezoning

Individual

4

 

Form letter

98

 

Other submissions

0

Total

 

232

 

Maroubra Beach Commercial Area (including ‘other’ submissions & precincts

·  Total submissions           121

·  Objections                     120

·  Support                            1

 

Of the objections noted above, the key issue was the proposed maximum height in the block bound by Marine Parade, McKeon Street, Mons Avenue and Fenton Avenue. Of this 123, 119 submissions were focused on this single issue. Many of the objections were supportive of change to and revitalisation of the Maroubra Beach commercial area in general, but were concerned about the specific changes in the height proposed. Once again, although these letters were not identical in content, they expressed the same sentiments regarding the height issue.

 

Details

 

 

Object to heights

Individual – single issue

116

 

‘Other’ submissions

4

 

 

 

Support heights

Individual – single issue

1

Total

 

121

 


Specialised Centre (including 1 ‘other’ submission)

·  Total submissions                   9

·  Rezoning requests                  4

·  Submissions from institutions    2

·  Comments/Queries                 3

 

Although a relatively small number of submissions were received about the Specialised Centre, it has been included here in recognition of the high level of interest in the previous Discussion Paper prepared for this Centre.

 

Rezoning requests (not including Specialised Centre requests)

·  Total requests                                                     20

·  New rezoning requests                                          12                   

·  Request relating to a previous rezoning submission     8

 

Note that the totals above are in addition to the 4 rezoning requests within the Specialised Centre, noted above. These requests are addressed in detail in Attachment 3.

 

Other submissions

Submissions in this category raised a range of issues, as reflected in the table below:

 

Issue/topic

 

Development standards/density/population

16

Rezonings/support from property owners

3

Heritage

6

Open space/biodiversity

4

Kingsford

3

Kensington

6

Submissions addressing a single specific issue (Various)

10

Submissions addressing multiple issues

24

Queries/clarifications

4

Total

76

 

A review of all submissions has identified additional key issues for detailed analysis, as noted below:

 

Population/Density and Development Standards

This issue primarily related to concerns about:

-   increased population and strain on infrastructure caused by residential density/height increases

-   development standards including wall height, FSR and landscaped area

 

Total submissions                              21   

·  Precincts                                     5     

·  Individuals/organisations                 16

 

Comprehensive DCP – concurrent exhibition

Comments under this issue comprised two main comments/concerns:

-   consideration that the DCP and LEP should be exhibited together

-   requests for specific development controls (usually residential) to be included/strengthened in the DCP

 

Total submissions                              16      

·  Precincts                                     3

·  Individuals/organisations         13

 

Business Centres

Submissions on this topic included:

-   Requests to zone Coogee or Kensington B1 (Neighbourhood Centre)

-   Objection to new B1 centres or specific controls within business centres

-   Queries/concerns about the range of permissible uses in certain business zones

 

Total submissions                              19

·  Precincts                                     3

·  Individuals/organisations                 16

 

3.3      Summary of website (yoursayrandwick) activity

 

A dedicated website was created for public exhibition of the draft LEP, at www.yoursayrandwick.com.au/lep. It contained key dates about consultation activities, downloadable copies of all exhibition material, as well as FAQs and additional background information. The website was well used by the community, and the key statistics below illustrate its valuable role in both providing information and being a channel for feedback. The majority of site visits were made via the link from Council’s website.

 

Key statistics

·  3585 total visits were made to the site

·  5375 documents were downloaded, with the draft instrument and maps being most popular

·  116 submissions made via the “yoursayrandwick” webpage

 

4.0 Public Hearing on all LEP matters

 

A public hearing on the draft LEP was conducted on 2nd and 3rd April 2012, immediately after the closing date of the public exhibition period. It was held in accordance with a Council resolution to a Mayoral Minute (MM1/12, 28 February 2012) as an additional forum for the community to express their views on any aspect of draft plan on exhibition and was conducted by an independent consultant appointed by Council.

 

Notification of the public hearing was advertised as follows:

-     Local paper over 3 weeks prior to 2 April 2012 (closing date of the exhibition)

-     Council’s web site

-     Local resident precinct groups

-     Individual notifications to those who made submissions requesting a hearing

-     Mayoral Column (Randwick News) in the local paper on 20 March 2012

 

This hearing followed the principles and intent of a Public Hearing under S68 of the Act, but was not held under that section of the Act. For all statutory requirements in preparation of the draft LEP, see further detail in section 8 of this report.

 

Independent Planning Consultant

Ms Tina Spiegel was appointed by Council to run the public hearing, given her combined expertise as a lawyer, town planner and mediator specialising in development, town planning and environmental law. Ms Spiegel confirmed that she had no conflict of interest in matters concerning Council in general and in particular matters relevant to the draft LEP.

 

Number of Speakers:        Total 22

16 (Day 1) and 6 (Day 2)

 


Number of Observers:      Total 33

26 (Day 1) and 7 (Day 2)

 

Of the total 59 people in attendance, 4 people attended on both days.

 

Process/protocols

Ms Spiegel established protocols for the hearing (see Attachment 5) that were intended to provided an opportunity for interested people to make oral presentations before an independent person. The process also included an opportunity to ask questions and Council staff clarified facts and explained the planning process and timeframe relating to the draft LEP. Time was allocated for discussion of issues raised, at the conclusion of the speakers.  This was followed by an extensive discussion period on both days. The independent consultant facilitated the discussions, which also allowed opportunity for all to speak including those who attended as observers. Most people who spoke at the hearing also made written submissions and these were provided to Ms Spiegel along with all relevant background planning documents.

 

Summary of Issues
The independent consultant’s report on the Public Hearing is at Attachment 5. Speakers raised issues both in support and against the following key issues, which were similar to those raised in the written submissions, being:

 

Chinese Market Gardens, Phillip Bay – retention vs expansion

58-64 Carr Street rezoning

Coogee Commercial Centre zoning

Maroubra Beach Town Centre study

Increased Commercial Development in Kensington and Kingsford

Spot rezoning sites

Planning Standards

 

Recommendations:

The Public Hearing report addresses these issues presented and discussed at the hearing, and comments and recommendations are addressed in the analysis of the specific issues in section 6 of this report.

 

5.0  Reclassification Public Hearing for Council owned land at 13-21 Rainbow St Kingsford

 

The public hearing for the Council owned site at 13-21 Rainbow Street Kingsford was held on 26th April 2012.  It was held in accordance with s.29 of the Local Government Act (LG Act) and s.68 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EPA Act).

 

Under the draft LEP, the site is proposed to be zoned B2 Local Centre consistent with the proposed zoning of the Kingsford Town Centre. In accordance with the legislative requirements, a public hearing is required for Council owned land that is proposed to be reclassified as operational (currently classified as ‘community’ land). This site, in conjunction with the adjacent STA site, has been used for a variety of community and commercial uses including a fruit market, weekend market and car parking.

 

Statutory Requirements

Under the Act and the Local Government Act, the proposed reclassification of public land has complied with the following requirements:

-     Formally notify the DoPI of the Council decision to prepare a draft LEP to rezone and reclassify council owned land

-     Consult various public agencies

-     Exhibit the draft LEP for a minimum of 28 days

-     Hold a public hearing

-     Give notice of the public hearing in a local newspaper at least 21 days before the start of the hearing

-     Give notice of the hearing to all persons who requested a public hearing in a submission

-     The public hearing must be chaired by an independent person (must not be a councillor or employee of the council)

-     Council must make the report of the independent chairperson available to the community no later than 4 days after it has received it.


In addition to the legislative requirements, Council prepared a detailed explanatory document which was part of the LEP exhibited material, included details of the hearing on the Council’s web site and whilst there were no submissions requesting a public hearing for this site, Council notified 132 properties surrounding the sites as well as the City of Botany Bay Council (given the proximity to the Council’s boundary) of the hearing.

 

Independent Planning Consultant

Mr Stuart McDonald was appointed to undertake the hearing for the Council owned land given his expertise and experience as a town planner and mediator in local and state government and private practice. Mr McDonald declared that he had no conflict of interest in conducting the hearing.

 

Number of Speakers: 3
Number of Observers: 12

 

Process/protocols

Mr McDonald established protocols for the hearing (see Attachment 6). The process also included an opportunity to ask questions and Council staff clarified any facts relating to the draft LEP. Time was allocated for discussion of issues raised, at the conclusion of the speakers. The independent consultant facilitated the discussions, which allowed opportunity for all to speak including those who attended as observers. 

Most people who spoke at the hearing also made written submissions and these were provided to Mr McDonald along with all relevant background planning documents.

 

Summary of Issues
The independent consultant’s report on the Public Hearing is at Attachment 6. In summary, the key issues were:

 

-     Support for the proposed reclassification (STA representation)

-     Overdevelopment of Kingsford generally and impact on local infrastructure

-     Site’s potential for transport interchange should be protected

-     Impact on commercial activity of Kingsford Town Centre

-     Future development on the site is unresolved

-     Absence of detailed DCP controls for the sites


Recommendation:

 

The Reclassification Public Hearing report recommendations are supported, being as follows:

 

-  That the Council proceed with the reclassification of the Council owned land at 13-21 Rainbow Street Kingsford as proposed in the exhibited DRLEP.

-   That in doing so, the Council also resolve to retain the status of the combined Council/STA site as a “key site” under the DRELP, and require the preparation of a site specific DCP prior to the consideration of any development application

-   That the Council reaffirm its past decision(s) regarding desired community outcomes for the site.

6.0 Submissions Analysis

 

This section reviews the key issues raised in submissions under the following headings:

 

§  Issues that may raise a Councillor conflict/pecuniary interest

§  Government agencies

§  Major issues

Chinese Market gardens

58-64 Carr Street rezoning

Maroubra Beach commercial centre review

§  Other key issues 

Commercial centre zones – Kensington and Coogee

Density and development standards

Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre

Other issues e.g. LEP aims, heritage etc

Rezoning requests

LEP/DCP timing

 

6.1 Issues that may raise a Councillor conflict/pecuniary interest

As noted in the December 2011 Council report, Councillors are required to follow the NSW legislation and guidance in relation to identifying any conflicts of interest or pecuniary interests in considering this final reporting on the draft LEP.

 

The following sites have been included upfront, given that these may require Councillor consideration of these legislative requirements, and inclusion/exclusion from voting on the recommendations for these sites.

 

Sites owned by the Labor Club

The Labor Club owns the two sites that are proposed for rezonings in the draft LEP, being the Randwick Bowling Club and the Labor Club, Randwick.

 

Randwick Bowling Club

The Randwick Bowling Club, located at 2-4 The Avenue, on the corner with Cowper Street, Randwick is currently zoned for 6A Public Open Space. The exhibited draft LEP proposes to rezone this site to RE2 Private Recreation, as requested by the own and considered suitable, in recognising that the land is privately owned. No submissions were received in relation to this site during the exhibition.

 

Recommendation:

-That this recommendation be referred for specific resolution at the conclusion of this report.

 

Randwick Labor Club

The Labor Club, located on Alison Road, Randwick, is part of a block bounded by Alison Road, Botany St, Elizabeth St and Elizabeth Lane, at the northern western end and adjacent to Randwick commercial centre. The eastern part of this block was investigated in the Business Centres Discussion Paper in response from a rezoning request from the Labor Club (which owns all these sites including 131-147 Alison Road, 1 Elizabeth St and 11 Elizabeth Lane – See Figure 1). To reflect the range of business uses already operating on these properties, these sites were proposed for rezoning to B2 Local Centre (with a FSR of 2:1 and height limit of 12m) in the exhibited draft LEP.

 

A further submission was received from Smyth Planning consultants on behalf of the Labor Club during the public exhibition of the draft LEP in relation to the adjacent residential sites at 119 -129 Alison Road (extending along the remainder of this Alison Road frontage to the corner at Botany Road – See Figure 1). Within this section of the block, the Labor Club owns 125 Alison Rd and partly owns 123 Alison Rd (units within the strata). These sites, currently zoned 2C zone, were translated to the equivalent zone, being R3 Medium Density Residential, in the exhibited draft LEP (maximum height 9.5m, FSR 0.9:1).

 

Figure 1 - Labor Club owned sites, Alison Road, Randwick

 

The submission requested that the FSR for these sites at 119-129 Alison Road, Randwick be increased from 0.9:1 to 1.6:1 on the basis that the current maximum FSR restricts the viability of future redevelopment. It was also stated that the 12m height limit would not be achieved with a FSR control of 0.9:1, and will result in a 2-storey building. The submission suggested that the proposed controls will result in a building that will be underwhelming in relation to the site’s location along a prominent road and at the entry of a local business centre.

 

The subject sites are predominantly used for residential buildings, comprising of attached dwellings and multi unit housing. While the site’s strategic location in terms of accessibility to a town centre and public transport is acknowledged, the proposed FSR increase in this location considered to be inconsistent in the context of most surrounding uses and built form (apart from the Labor club building). By increasing the FSR within the same height, this may have adverse design impacts for new development in relation to bulk and scale, and potentially adverse amenity impacts on surrounding residences. As such, it is recommended that there is no change to the FSR for these residential zoned properties. There were no submissions received in relation to these sites, apart from this FSR request on behalf of the owner.  

 

Recommendation:

-    That this recommendation be referred for specific resolution at the conclusion of this report.

 

6.2 Government agencies

 

In finalising the draft LEP, Council must address all State government agency requirements or objections, or otherwise provide adequate justification to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI) that a different approach to that of the State agency is warranted. In some instances, the State agencies themselves will have differing opinions on planning issues which must be negotiated and if not resolved, then determined by DoPI in finalising the LEP. The majority of matters raised by the State agencies (listed below) can be accommodated and there are minimal outstanding matters as outlined below and detailed in Attachment 3.

 

·      Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH)

·      Department of Defence (Australian Government)

·      Department of Primary Industries (DPI) Catchments & Lands (Crown Lands)

·      Roads & Maritime Services (RMS)

·      Department of Education and Communities

·      Transport for NSW

·      State Transit Authority (STA)

·      Ausgrid

·      Justice Health & Forensic Mental Health Network

·      Land & Housing Corporation

·      OEH Heritage Branch/Heritage Council

·      Family & Community Services (Housing NSW)

·      Sydney Water

 

Sydney City Council and Botany Bay Council also provided comment and were supportive of the draft LEP.

 

Key changes required by Government Agencies

Attachment 3 details the State agency requested changes in the draft final LEP. These primarily relate to support for various zonings and clauses, particularly relating to strengthening the zones and clauses for biodiversity protection, coastal protection and infrastructure/essential services requirements. The key changes required relate to specific State owned properties, and primarily to minor mapping or address corrections for specific sites. While also considered minor, the most notable changes recommended are summarised as follows: 

 

Recommendations:

-    For the Bunnerong Road sites, Chifley, retain the E2 Environment Conservation zone, with minor adjustment to the zone boundary and the adjacent residential land (where there is no ESBS present) equivalent to two residential lots. (This follows initial objections to this zoning by the State agencies land owners, with agreement subsequently gained in recognition from discussions of the importance of the vegetation in this location);

 -   rezone all 8 scout halls in the LGA to the RE1 Public Recreation zone to reflect their recreation use;

-    rezone the War Lee market gardens site, Wassell St, Matraville, from RE1 Public Recreation to RU4 Primary Production Small Lots zone, to reflect their market gardens use;

-    rezone the Crown land owned site at Macquarie St, Matraville, used by the South Sydney Amateur Fishing Association, from RE2 Private Recreation to RE1 Public Recreation to reflect State ownership of the site;

-    rezone the Sydney Water owned site at Perry Street, Matraville from proposed Special Purposes (Water Supply System) to R2 (low density) Residential, consistent with the surrounding land and as suitable and intended future use.

-    Rezone a social housing property at Elphinstone Road from R2 Low Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential to correct a mismatch with the zoning for the adjoining housing estate zone and consistent with the built form.

 


Outstanding Government agency issues

Attachment 3 also details Government agency matters requiring final determination and agreement by DoPI in finalising the LEP. These matters have been discussed with DoPI and the proposed recommendations are generally supported by DoPI.

 

·      STA site rezoning at 31R Prince Street, Randwick.

The STA has objected to the proposed RE1 Public Recreation zone for this 700 sqm site and has requested an R3 Medium Density Residential zone consistent with the current permissibility and adjoining land, noting that they would provide affordable housing on the site given its proximity to the University and Hospitals.

 

Both a Residential zone or Recreation zone would be suitable for the site and the change to the equivalent and adjacent zone (R3 zone) would simply retain the current permissible uses (the land is unzoned, former roadway). The STA has however advised that it would possibly need to fence off the land to prevent motor vehicles “trespassing” on the land with attendant liability issues, if the site was left unzoned or zoned as open space.

 

Currently the land is used for informal car parking and would represent a positive albeit a small change to the open space provisions in the LGA if zoned RE1 Public Recreation. Conversely, the rezoning to R3 Medium Density Residential would also provide a benefit for affordable housing.

 

This report recommends retaining the RE1 Public Recreation zone as exhibited and for Council to enter into negotiations with STA and DoPI over the purchase or dedication of the land. In this instance, it is noted that DoPI may not support Council’s approach and may in making the draft LEP determine that the R3 zone be applied as the most suitable zone given the high level of open space in the vicinity of this site.

 

·      OEH request to rezone all ESBS to E2 zone

While OEH has supported all the areas exhibited with an E2 Environmental Conservation zone, it has requested that all areas of ESBS identified by OEH be zoned under the E2 zone. These sites include the redevelopment site at 1408 & 1412R Anzac Pde, Little Bay (boundary adjustment), Telstra land at Jennifer St, former Aboriginal Land Council land at Jennifer St, a strip of ESBS in the centre of Anzac Pde and patches within Malabar Headland.

 

These areas of ESBS are already proposed for a high level of protection through their mapping under the new Terrestrial Biodiversity LEP map. However, a future LEP amendment could consider rezoning these parcels following consultation with the land owners as well as clarifying the exact locations of the proposed zone and boundaries.

 

Australian Government, Department of Defence - Randwick Barracks

The Department of Defence has requested that the majority of its remaining land at Bundock Street, currently zoned Residential but undeveloped, be zoned SP1 Defence given their defence needs.

 

Council has commenced liaison with Defence to explore a suitable boundary between the defence uses, the existing and approved residential uses and the Council community facilities/park.  This report recommends retaining the existing R1 General Residential zone given the significance of the requested change; and that this be further discussed with Defence and considered in a future LEP review to ensure Defence objectives are achieved while consolidating the suburb and ensuring that residential areas and community facilities are not isolated, suitable access is provided and good public domain outcomes are achieved. Defence has verbally noted this as a suitable approach.

·      Department of Education and Communities and the zoning of schools

The Department of Education and Communities has noted its preference for the zoning of schools to follow the DoPI Practice Note PN 10-001 of an adjoining zone being applied where that zone permits educational establishments.

 

Council previously considered in the 6 December 2011 report, the importance of retaining school sites within the LGA within the SP2 Educational Establishments zone, to ensure that this essential community infrastructure is maintained and assists the Department in managing capacity. Community submissions noted support for the exhibited SP zones. It is proposed to retain these sites in an SP2 zone for the final LEP which was supported by DoPI in exhibiting the draft LEP and will again be sought in the finalisation of the LEP.

 

·      Land & Housing Corporation & Housing NSW – zoning mismatches and rezoning of social housing estates

Both Land and Housing Corporation and the Department of Family and Community Services (Housing NSW) have requested that Council rezone their social housing estates across the Randwick LGA to the R1 General Residential zone, to reflect that some existing buildings within these estates exceed the R3 (Medium density) height and FSR controls.

 

The R1 zone applies to comprehensive redevelopment sites, generally based on detailed master/concept planning to determine the Heights/FSR controls. It is not considered suitable to apply this zone to existing housing estates and their existing built form/scale as this may not be desirable for future redevelopment. The R1 zone should most suitably be considered when urban renewal is being planned by Housing authorities and they undertake the required master planning to determine suitable FSRs and heights. Land & Housing has not, in any event, provided height or FSR figures applicable to existing estates, to apply the R1 zone. It is noted that some private properties exist in estate areas (e.g. Coral Sea) and all land owners should be given the opportunity to review and comment on any such zoning changes. It is thus recommended that the proposed residential zones as exhibited be retained for social housing estates in the final LEP. 

 

Land and Housing also requested Council reconsider a previous request to change the proposed zoning of two holdings, at 10-12 Woomera Road, Little Bay and 1557 Anzac Parade, Phillip Bay. While these are not supported, it is proposed to support the rezoning of Elphinstone Road properties from R2 Low Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential to reflect a zoning mismatch (See Attachment 3 & data sheets).

 

Recommendation:

That these State agency differences be noted and that the Director, City Planning will participate in negotiations on these matters for future reporting to Council.

 

6.3 Chinese Market Gardens site

 

Context and current LEP controls

The Chinese Market Gardens site covers an area of 7 hectares located off Bunnerong Road, Phillip Bay. It contains operating market gardens on either side of the watercourse running through the site. It adjoins the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park Cemetery to the north, Yarra Bay Bicentennial Park to the west, and undeveloped Land Council owned land (Hill 60) to the south (See Figure 2).

 

The site is currently zoned 2B (medium density) Residential under RLEP, reflecting the zoning introduced in the 1950s State County of Cumberland Plan.

 

The site is listed on the State Heritage Register, as also reflected in Council’s RLEP Schedule of heritage items, given its historical, agricultural and social significance to NSW and the Sydney Metropolitan area in particular, for its long term use as market gardens, firstly by Europeans and then by Chinese. Based on a preliminary heritage assessment by Council in 1998, the NSW Government further investigated and listed the site on the State Register in 1999.

 

The site is owned by the NSW Department of Primary Industries (Crown Lands).

 

Figure 2 – Chinese market gardens site.

 

Draft Comprehensive LEP controls

The exhibited draft LEP proposes to rezone the site to RU4 – Primary Production Small Lots zone to reflect its current agricultural use and the State heritage listing.

 

The zone objectives are to enable sustainable primary industry and other compatible land uses, encourage and promote diversity and employment opportunities in relation to the primary industries, minimise conflicts between land uses within this zone and adjoining zones, and specifically, to ‘protect the Phillip Bay Chinese Market Gardens and its significant heritage, cultural, ecological, aesthetic and agricultural values as a valuable community resource’.

 

The State Heritage listing is recognised, as required, in the draft LEP heritage list. Council cannot change or remove a state heritage listing from its LEP unless approved by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).

 

The draft LEP introduces a minimum lot size of 7 ha for the RU4 zone via clause 4.1 (Minimum Subdivision Lot Size) and map, to minimise impacts of subdivision, ensure lot size protects natural or cultural features, and ensure sufficient minimum area for development suitable to its purpose.

 

The draft LEP identifies Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) on the site, via clause 6.5 (ASS) and map (reflecting existing State mapping). The clause objective is to ensure that development does not disturb, expose or drain acid sulphate soils and cause environmental damage. The site primarily contains Class 2 ASS along the drainage line and surrounds (where development consent is required for any works below the natural ground surface) and peripheral areas of Class 4 (consent required if more than 2m below ground surface).

 

Background

To inform preparation of the draft LEP, Council exhibited a Discussion Paper for Open Space/Environment land uses in 2011. This outlined the background research, available information and proposed LEP zone and controls for the Chinese market gardens site.

 

Reference was made to a 2008 Land Assessment report prepared by Crown Lands as land owner, in response to a request by the adjacent Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park (ESMP) to expand the cemetery into the market gardens site. This report indicated the most suitable uses for the site as environmental protection, nature conservation or agriculture. It noted that a cemetery use was not suitable given current environmental constraints such as the high water table, flooding and given the heritage, cultural and ecological significance of the site.

 

The Discussion Paper also noted the ESMP Trust’s request to the NSW Government in October 2010 to lodge a Part 3A Concept Plan for cemetery expansion. However, a Concept Plan could not be lodged for a State heritage item. Following the NSW Government’s repeal of Part 3A of the Act in 2011, it confirmed that any cemetery permissibility needs to be submitted to Council.

 

In response to the Discussion Paper exhibition, 24 submissions were received in support of the RU4 zone and continued heritage recognition of the Chinese market gardens, including a submission from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).  However submissions from the Crown Lands and ESMP Trust noted that the Trust is continuing to investigate the suitability of part of the market gardens site for cemetery expansion and requested to permit the use of ‘cemeteries’  in the zone. Crown Lands also advised that their Land Assessment Report had been updated in July 2010, noting community and public uses such as a cemetery also as potentially suitable uses.

 

Given these differing State agency views, the Council was required to seek advice from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI). It advised that the way forward was to exhibit the draft LEP with the RU4 zoning and to refer the ESMP’s investigations (when completed) to the OEH for advice on any implications for the heritage values of the site and suitable zones/uses.

 

The subsequent DoPI letter of Section 65 Certification, allowing Council to exhibit the draft LEP, reiterated this advice and encouraged Council to work closely with DoPI, the ESMP, the community and other government agencies to address this issue. It was also noted that ‘if an extension to the Botany cemetery is found to have merit, it should preferably be supported through a separate Planning (rezoning) Proposal’.

 

Accordingly, Council has now undertaken a wide ranging exhibition process seeking community feedback on the draft LEP, including a public hearing. Submissions are assessed below and are detailed in Attachment 3.

 

In addition, Council officers have met on several occasions with the ESMP and relevant government agencies, including:

 

§  Onsite meeting with Councillors, Council officers and ESMP – February 2012

§  Meetings with Council officers, CLD and ESMP on 16 December 2011 and 24 January 2012

§  Meeting with the Director-General of DoPI and Council’s General Manager and Director, City Planning and ESMP on 9 March 2012

§  Meeting with Mayor, Director of City Planning, other Council officers, ESMP and local parish representatives on 22 March 2012

§  Meetings regularly held with DoPI and Council officers on the draft LEP, Feb/March/April/May 2012

 

It was noted to the ESMP at these meetings, that any further documentation available from the ESMP would assist Council in addressing the S65 Certification requirement to consider the merits of any proposed cemetery expansion and in particular, to enable Council to seek feedback from the OEH on implications for the State heritage listing.

 

ESMP has confirmed that a number of background studies have been prepared in support of the cemetery use and that a heritage study is nearing finalisation and would be provided to Council when completed.

 

The ESMP’s submission to the draft LEP exhibition (see Attachment 3) noted that ‘no less than 10 site specific specialist studies have been conducted’. However, at the time of writing this report none of these studies have been provided to Council. Its submission also notes that the ESMP has informed Council about various ‘facts’ about the site condition however, again, does not provide any supporting background studies from which these statements can be assessed.

 

A letter to the ESMP on 19 April 2012 sought an update on the availability of any studies/research completed that would assist to fully report this matter back to Council. Alternatively, advice on preparing a separate Planning Proposal, including the necessary background studies, was also sought. ESMP has yet to send any further documentation.

 

Submissions/Consultations

Council received a total of 3,024 submissions on this matter, by far the most on any issue and on all other issues combined in the draft LEP. This included 3016 submissions specifically about this matter and 6 other submissions that raised this among other issues.

 

Of these submissions, there were 2,962 submissions opposing the RU4 zone and supporting the expansion of the cemetery either via a Special Purposes (SP) Cemetery zoning or adding cemetery as a use in the RU4 zone. Of these, 32 were individual letters and 2931 were form letters from the St Spyridon Greek Orthodox Parish of South East Sydney, its related organisations and parishioners. Of those form letters providing an address, 818 were from Randwick and 945 from other Sydney suburbs. Other submissions included the adjacent Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park (ESMP), residents of Randwick and other Sydney suburbs, and religious and cultural organisations representing the Jewish, Greek and Indonesian communities.

 

There were 61 submissions supporting the Chinese Market Gardens RU4 zoning and heritage protection. Of these, 31 were individual submissions and 26 were form letters noting full support of the proposed rezoning of the whole heritage listed site to the RU4 zone. These submissions in support included 2 Precincts, Matraville and La Perouse, residents of Randwick and the greater Sydney Metropolitan Region, and representatives of the Chinese heritage, cultural and research institutions.

 

Submissions were also received from two State agencies, OEH (Heritage Branch) and Crown Lands.

 

The OEH reiterated the site’s State Heritage listing, noting support for the RU4 zone consistent with the site’s heritage values and predominant use of the land for market gardens (for 150 years). It is aware of the ESMP desire to expand into the market gardens site and noted that such proposal would need to be addressed through a formal Planning Proposal in future.

 

Crown Lands noted its earlier position that the RU4 zoning on the southern section of the market gardens site is suitable, and that the ESMP is investigating the cemetery expansion. ESMP notes that this would involve a transition over 25 years into the market gardens site to use 60% for the cemetery and retain 40% for market gardens, with restoration of the creek and wetlands.

 

Key Issues

The key issues in submissions opposing the RU4 zoning and supporting the cemetery expansion, in summary, are:

 

§  Oppose the RU4 zoning in favour of cemetery use

§  Rezone the site to SP – Special Purposes (Cemetery)

§  Rezone to permit cemeteries as an additional use on the site to deal with increasing shortage of burial space in the area/eastern suburbs/Sydney

§  Randwick does not provide sufficient land for cemeteries/need to allow Botany cemetery to expand/this is the only direction it can expand

§  Planning should facilitate strategic outcomes not just recognise existing uses

§  Botany/Rookwood/Sutherland cemeteries will have inadequate space within 8 years/a decade

§  Need to ensure locals can be buried locally/no nearby alternatives

§  This will address long term burial needs

§  The gardens site is ideal given its current use/mainly vacant/located adjacent to the existing cemetery

§  Many religions do not allow cremation – Moslem, Jewish, Greek Orthodox – or have a burial preference, and some do not allow renewable tenure as part of respecting the deceased

§  Many local populations are growing and need burial space e.g. Indonesian, Jewish communities (esp. older single women)

§  Burial should have priority over farming

§  Use part of gardens only and respect historical and practical importance/could enhance the heritage outcome/allow gradual transition with 40% to stay as gardens 

§  Markets not suitable for ongoing agriculture given contamination, poor groundwater, marginal economic feasibility

§  Level of agricultural produce is insignificant, especially given poor soil/water quality

§  Markets are neglected/poor land management

§  Use of groundwater for irrigation from Botany aquifer is unsuitable

§  Potential breach of State and local government health, occupational and environmental guidelines

§  NSW Heritage Office has previously noted heritage is not to freeze in time but to manage heritage

§  Heritage listing was based on flawed research/other gardens exist e.g. Wassell St.

§  Heritage significance cannot be appreciated, as no public access

§  Cemetery use can reinstate the original landform and rehabilitate the wetland/riparian areas

§  Convenient location for visitors/close to families/good public transport

§  Living relatives can access easily (cost, difficulty with age)

§  Burials outside Sydney is daunting and costly

§  Expansion of cemetery supported by owner (Crown Lands)

 

The key issues in submissions supporting the RU4 zone and market gardens protection, in summary, are: 

 

§  Support for the RU4 zone to retain the market gardens and recognise its agricultural use

§  Recognition of the State heritage listing  - its significant history (150 years) and continued use today, link to the past, agricultural significance, social and cultural significance, importance to the area and the Chinese community

§  Listed by the National Trust

§  Value of locally grown fresh food, sustainability/low food miles, food security and close to a growing urban population

§  Consistency with Council’s policies  on sustainability, living locally, and climate change statements

§  Land suitable for producing food should not be used for burials

§  Importance of the site’s visual amenity and tourism attraction

§  Provides valuable open space , wetlands, flora, fauna

§  Educational value especially to local children and schools

§  Retains a diversity/richness of land uses and the environment – many other gardens in Sydney have gone

§  Flood plains are not suitable for a cemetery; would need significant engineering; better suited to primary production

§  Consider other sites nearby e.g. within the Ports precinct

§  Requires a Sydney wide approach e.g. consider sites elsewhere in Sydney, beyond the City

§  Consider other options e.g. redesign/re-use cemeteries

§  Suggested 40%/60% split would acquire/remove the gardens by stealth

 

Public Hearing

The Chinese Market Gardens site was addressed in the draft LEP Public Hearing, with speakers both in support for retaining the market gardens or for the cemetery expansion. Key issues raised and the independent planning consultant’s response is contained in the Public Hearing report at Attachment 5.

 

In summary, the hearing report notes the concerns stated by speakers over the growing urban population and need for cemetery space and also those in support of maintaining urban agricultural space and recognising heritage significance. The report notes that to understand any compromise 60/40% split of cemetery/garden uses, consideration and comparison should be given to the viability issues including the location of aquifers (ground water) and via an ecological report, to determine viability of burials in this location. Conversely, noting the value of perishable produce accessible to markets, if reduced parcels of land for the market gardens would render these unviable. While noting that convincing representations were made for cemetery needs, the report also notes that the value of urban agricultural lands cannot be underestimated and use of part of the land for cemetery purposes may only be a short term solution. Given this, the report notes that the proposed RU4 zone may be supported because it is a long term sustainable solution. 

 

Consideration

The key issues raised in the written submissions for consideration are outlined and assessed below.

 

Demands of population growth and cultural needs for cemetery space

Many submissions noted the growing demand for burial space given current and expected population growth locally and across Sydney, the ageing population and capacity being reached at other cemeteries. Submissions also highlighted the importance of burial space, rather than cremation, to meet a range of the community’s religious and cultural beliefs that are well represented in the local demographics and likely to continue. Similarly, there is an interest in locating burial space close to home for many, for the ease and cost of travel to visit cemeteries, especially for an ageing community.

 

The ESMP site, comprising 34 ha of land along Military Road and Bunnerong Road, serves both the local area and the wider eastern suburbs. In recognition of this community need, Randwick Council previously supported expansion of the cemetery across the western side of Military Road (formerly part of the Bunnerong Power station site) in 1996, which added 5 ha and with a then estimated burial capacity of 50 years. The ESMP has now advised that it has less than 8 years remaining burial supply.

 

The proposed expansion of the cemetery into part of the adjacent 7 ha market gardens site was noted in the Public Hearing report as likely to be a short term rather than long term solution. It is also noted that (in addition to acknowledging heritage values of the site – as discussed below), the physical limitations of the market garden site location on flood prone land may further reduce or potentially eliminate any appreciable additional land suitable for burials. As some submissions noted, solutions on other sites within and outside Randwick and across metropolitan Sydney in addition to innovative approaches (e.g. Rookwood is considering shared use of the adjacent golf course) may need to be investigated for long term solutions to this recognised need for burial space. The regional/metropolitan needs for burial space is reflected in the interest shown in the submissions, with about 55% of the form letters seeking the cemetery expansion coming from residents outside Randwick. Given that Crown land owns significant holdings within the eastern suburbs, this issue could be investigated with Crown Lands in terms of its land holdings in Randwick and also as part of a broader metropolitan investigation.   

 

State heritage listing of the Chinese Market Gardens

Submissions made various comments recognising the heritage significance and values of the site, while some queried such value when based on a land use. The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) reiterated the State heritage listing and significance of the Chinese market gardens in its submission, noting also that any change in use or development of the site requires the NSW Heritage Council approval. This also reflects its advice that any proposed cemetery expansion (and change of use) should be based on a formal Planning Proposal.

 

As noted above, given the heritage significance of the site lies in its use as a market garden, any change in use (in full or part) requires suitable investigation of the impact on the heritage significance and a decision from the OEH. The ESMP has indicated that it is preparing a heritage study and this will need to be considered by OEH upon receipt.

 

Values of operating urban market gardens

Submissions also noted the importance of the market gardens for food production in the urban environment within proximity of fresh food to markets, and the associated educational, open space/visual, tourism, sustainability and cultural benefits. This is also a declining land use within Sydney’s urban environment and particularly this inner city location.

 

Physical Conditions within the market gardens site

Submissions noted the suitability of market gardens site for its use, given its location on a drainage line/flood way. The site does have a natural watercourse which is subject to flooding and this creates ideal conditions for agriculture, hence its historical use as market gardens. The open channel flows through the site, with evidence of changes to the channel flow over time across the low lying parts of the site. Best practice planning approaches are generally to avoid development within watercourse and adjacent riparian corridors. The ESMP submission notes that engineering solutions will be required to provide for burial space, while noting this could also enable community benefits such as a public walkway through the site.

 

Council at various meetings with the ESMP has advised that the resolution of drainage issues for burial space together with t eh costing provisions would entirely be a matter for the ESMP.

 

The ESMP submission and other submissions queried the current gardens operations, citing health, environmental and safety issues. Council has investigated and confirmation has been received from the NSW Government that the water quality in the watercourse/creek satisfies ANZECC guidelines for irrigation purposes.

 

Conclusion

The merits of retaining the State significant market gardens and of also addressing the needs for burial space are both recognised as important, while acknowledging the complexity of issues arising with the potential use of the market gardens site to achieve a mutually acceptable solution. 

 

The DOPI S65 Certification noted that if the cemetery expansion is found to have merit, is should preferably be supported through a Planning Proposal.

 

As requested by the DoPI Certification, Council has continued to liaise on this matter and sought with ESMP the necessary background studies that they would need to provide to enable proper assessment of the issues by Council and referral and the necessary heritage assessment by the OEH. As also noted by DoPI and OEH, this should preferably be undertaken through a formal Planning Proposal. Given that the essential background studies have yet to be provided by ESMP in order to fully understand and examine the complexity of issues, it is recommended that a Planning Proposal be sought prior to any consideration of permitting cemeteries on the site. It is recommended that the RU4 - Primary Production Small Lots zone, as exhibited, be retained for the site. Should the use for cemetery purpose be found to be suitable on part of the site in future, then this RU4 zone is considered to remain the preferable zone for the site, with the cemetery use then permitted where suitable. The alternative suggestion is some submissions for an SP Special Purpose zone is not considered suitable as this must identify one primary/special use for the site.

 

Recommendation

-   that for the Chinese market Gardens site, the exhibited RU4 Primary Production Small Lots zone be retained in the draft final LEP.

-   Any cemetery use should be subject to a formal Planning Proposal with suitable background studies, and particularly the required heritage assessments.

 

6.4 Maroubra Beach commercial centre

 

Context and current LEP controls

The Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre consists of the block bounded by McKeon Street, Marine Parade, Mons Avenue and Fenton Avenue, Maroubra.

There are currently two different zonings across the area under RLEP 1998 being a Residential 2C zone along Fenton Avenue and the rest being zone 3B Local Business. It is proposed to zone all these properties B1 Neighbourhood Centre under LEP 2012.

Figure 3 -  Existing and Proposed Zoning

 

Draft Comprehensive LEP controls

The exhibited draft LEP proposed to rezone all land within the block to B1 Neighbourhood Centre and incorporated the recommended heights of buildings of the Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre study (see Figure 3).

 

Background

In 2007, Council embarked on a review of the study area with the aim of providing planning controls that would improve the visual quality of buildings and enhance the functioning, economic viability and amenity of the town centre.

 

The Maroubra Beach Working Group was established in 2008 to discuss ways to regenerate the Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre. The working group comprised local residents, property owners, The Maroubra Beach Precinct Committee and the Maroubra Chamber of Commerce. The Working Group process drew to a close in March 2011 with the formulation of a preferred master plan for the redevelopment of the study area.

 

Urban design consultants Allen Jack & Cottier subsequently finalised a report describing the outcomes of the study process including a preferred master plan for the site and recommendations for suitable development controls. This report was placed on public exhibition and the outcomes reported to Council in 6 December 2011. On 6 December 2011 Council endorsed the Maroubra Beach Design Study and the incorporation of the built form controls in the Master Plan into the draft LEP.

 

The master plan is the final result of a process which involved extensive consultation at all stages between the Working Group and Council’s professional consultants. This has been a consensus based process which has sought to balance and integrate the views and interests of all stakeholders.

 

The master plan has been formulated as a three dimensional envelope which has been determined by urban design requirements to balance both public and private amenity including new public open space, streetscape appearance, solar access, retention of water views, flood safety, traffic generation, and economic feasibility. The building heights, which range from two to six storeys, consequently vary across the development but generally provide for lower heights (two to four storeys) at the street frontages with the higher elements kept to a minimum and located to the centre of the site where they have less impact.

 

A key objective of the master plan has been to provide significant public benefits in respect of the provision of high quality public space which is clearly lacking on the site as it currently exists. This is principally in the form of a well sized, accessible and sunny plaza to the north east of the site fronting McKeon Street. The master plan also provides for through site pedestrian link, large areas of internal open space and elements of deep soil planting, all of which are currently lacking. Other public domain benefits include improved streetscape presentation, and activation of ground floor frontages.

 

Council engaged GTA consultants to undertake a traffic and parking impact assessment for the proposed changes. The assessment found that there is adequate capacity in the surrounding road network to cater for the traffic generated by the proposed development and that any new development could accommodate its parking demand on site.

 

The outcomes of Council’s flood study necessitated that the main ground floor level of any redevelopment be located approximately 1 metre above the natural ground level to minimise risk of inundation of ground floor properties and safe egress of occupants. It also determined that only specific locations were available for vehicular access to the site to minimise risk of basement flooding. This factor determined that the site could only accommodate vehicular entries in extremely limited locations and, consequently, that it could have no more than two basement car parks. This in turn has meant that any major redevelopment would necessitate amalgamation of lots and having regard to the concentration of land ownership in the area the redevelopment programme could occur in two stages.

 

While the exhibited draft LEP implemented the provisions of the master plan, it is noted that the limitations on mapping under the Standard Instrument meant the detail needed to explain the different heights was not evident. In consultation with DoPI a more detailed map (as an insert) has been prepared which clarifies the different heights (now amended) across the site. Further, as a result of submissions the height controls are proposed to be amended in the final LEP. Response to submissions received is at Attachment 3.

 

Submissions/Consultations

Of the 117 submissions specifically on this subject, Council received 116 submissions opposing principally the height controls proposed for the area and in some cases the business zone (where it replaced the residential zone along Fenton Ave). While several submissions were based on a common template, there were no form letters. Many submissions received through the internet where brief and opposed the height without detailing the reason for it, while for many being out of character and changing the community as they know it was a primary concern. Overdevelopment, view loss, traffic, parking, environmental and social impacts were also commonly raised concerns.

 

One submission supported the proposed changes, while the Maroubra Seals sought a greater floor space ratio for redevelopment and supported the proposed B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.

 

 

Key Issues

The key issues raised in submissions were to the proposed height (19m) and the local clause supporting an increased 22m height (for parts of the site) to encourage amalgamation of the land to obtain through site links and public open space as detailed in the recently endorsed master plan for the area.

 

Concern was also expressed at the lack of a floor space ratio for the area which instead has detailed design envelopes. Despite the concerns expressed there was also the recognition that the area needed revitalising but the scale of the development proposed was out of character with the area. A number of submissions noted that the redeveloped hotel site (not the Seals Club) was a potentially suitable height for redevelopment.

 

Public Hearing

These matters (both for and against) were also the subject of verbal submissions during the public hearing on the draft Comprehensive LEP conducted on 2nd and 3rd April 2012. The public hearing report is at Attachment 5.

 

In summary, the public hearing report on the public hearing notes the conflicting opinions expressed by speakers regarding community participation in the creation of the Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre Study and that considerable consultation did occur through that process. In summary the report notes that the aim of the Study is to revitalise the commercial centre and proposes controls designed to capitalise on land amalgamation to provide commercial development and open space. If amalgamation is not achieved the development may be lower in height and have less floor space. The report notes the difficulties in understanding the planning controls may contribute to the concerns expressed by speakers.

 

Considerations – Height and views

The exhibited draft LEP incorporated the recommended heights of buildings of the Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre study that was endorsed by Council on 6 December 2011. The purpose of Clause 4.3B of the draft LEP 2012 was to allow greater height over two parts of the subject area resulting in two six storey sections of building. The increase in height would only be allowed under clause 4.3B if there is an amalgamation of lots consistent with the stages identified in the Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre study in order to provide for the new public plaza and through site link.

In response to concerns with the proposed increase in the maximum height to 22m, it is proposed to delete the six storey elements from the draft LEP so that the maximum height associated with the consolidated scheme (that amalgamates lots consistent with the stages identified in the master plan) is no greater than 5 storeys and 19m. This is higher than the 15m and 5 storeys allowed under the existing controls due to the need to address flooding constraints, roof, parapet zone and minimum floor to ceiling heights for each storey.

Notwithstanding this, the building heights fronting the street is either 3 or 4 storeys in height in order to minimise the apparent scale of any new development and to produce an appropriate scale. The street wall heights of buildings are necessarily constrained by their relationship to the street width and contribute to the public domain by setting the proportions of the street.

The width of the road reserves around the subject area would comfortably allow for a 4 storey scale at the street edge with a setback to 5 storeys in strategic sections.  The street wall heights have also been designed to limit overshadowing of the public domain and promote a coherent building scale consistent with the recent developments in the northern part of the town centre.

The concern raised in the submissions that the maximum height stipulated in Clause 4.3B of the draft LEP 2012 and in the height maps will allow a prospective applicant to submit an application that proposes the maximum height over the entire subject area can be addressed by providing for a larger scale map (Map 008A (2)) that clearly defines the maximum height for each allotment within the subject area. The additional map would also give greater weight to the new LEP especially as the built form controls contained in the  Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre study (whilst still adopted) are yet to be incorporated into a Development Control Plan (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 - Map 008A (2)

It is also recommended that Clause 4.3B be amended as follows:

4.3B  Height of buildings on land in Maroubra Beach town centre

                                                                                     

(1)       The objective of this clause is to allow greater building heights as shown on 008A(2) but only where lot consolidation is achieved within Area 4 and Area 5 within Maroubra Beach town centre and the public open space and through site links are provided.

 

(2)        Despite subclause 4.3, the maximum height for a building on land with a minimum area of 4,900 square metres (Area 4) and 5,500 square metres (Area 5) is as shown on the Height of Buildings Map 008A(2).

Should amalgamation not be able to be achieved consistent with Clause 4.3B, then it is necessary to have controls in place to allow for limited and incremental changes to the built form whilst not creating a disincentive to provide for the planning outcome envisaged under the Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre study and realisation of the new public plaza.

In this regard it is recommended that the height be distributed in accordance with the following map that clearly defines the range of maximum heights in the subject area should amalgamation not be achieved under Clause 4.3B. The development potential of this base scheme would be reduced to a level that is consistent with the current planning controls under the current RLEP 1998 and Maroubra Beach DCP (see Figure 5).

Figure 5     - Map 008A(1)

The reduction in building height will also lessen the impact on views from properties to the north and west of the study area with most of the properties still retaining views beyond and to the sides of the study area. It is important to note that the concept of view sharing relies on a reasonable distribution of views throughout a local area and must be balanced against the overall public interest and the collective economic and social benefits that would result from the urban renewal of the town centre.

 

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The area will be included in a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under draft LEP 2012. With the reduction in maximum height the resultant built form will have minimal impact on views to and from Malabar Headland. The proposed heights respond to the context of the town centre and topographic character of the locality. The heights have been modulated to provided visual relief when viewed from the surrounding public open space and will not be imposing or unsympathetic to the landscape and scenic qualities of the foreshore area. A public domain plan that provides for enhanced street tree planting will also be prepared to better integrate the commercial centre with the neighbouring beach and reserves and soften the new built form.  A number of provisions will also be included in the Comprehensive DCP to ensure that building façades are sympathetic to the aesthetics of the coastal setting.

 

Zoning

The incorporation of the Fenton Ave properties into the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone allows for greater opportunities for consolidation of lots and redevelopment. The properties along Fenton Ave in the study area are integral to the functioning of the commercial centre due to the subdivision pattern and the fact they adjoin a disused service lane that dissects the study area. However, their location at the zone interface creates a potential conflict with new development in the commercial zone and as a consequence reduced amenity, due to the density and built form of development that is provided for under the current controls in the commercial centre.

 

The integration of these properties with neighbouring lots in the commercial centres provides the potential for suitably sized and configured new mixed use development lots and allows removal of the rear lane (subject to the agreement of owners with rights of access over the lane) that currently poses a significant safety and security risk for properties that adjoin the lane.

 

Lanes and basement parking

The use of an enlarged laneway network as suggested in a submission would not be appropriate given the conflict between commercial and residential uses as well as their use being primarily a servicing role for the commercial premises. The use of the lanes for access to basement car parks is also not feasible given the flood levels and the required ramp grades. Further, additional land would have to be acquired for road widening and the lanes purchased from the current owner.

 

Floor Space Ratio

The draft LEP provides the maximum height over various parts of the Town Centre with the three dimensional building envelopes providing for the floor space controls. The floor space of any new development will be controlled under the Comprehensive DCP via an envelope approach that has been developed as part of the Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre study. This will limit building bulk and scale consistent with building envelope identified in study. This approach is consistent with the other town centres that have place-based DCPs that incorporate a building envelope. Under the Comprehensive DCP, the scheme that allows for amalgamation would have an approximate FSR of 2.4:1 whilst the base scheme (without amalgamation) would be approximately 2:1 depending on the required percentage of envelope.

A number of submissions have requested that the FSR and height for the Coogee Town Centre be applied to Maroubra Beach. The built form controls associated with each Centre are dependent on the urban character that exists in the particular town centre and the role of business centres within Randwick. Hence, each town centre must be considered on its own particular economic circumstances and have specific built form controls that respond to the needs, opportunities and constraints of the local context.

Urban Character

The character of an area is defined by the combination of the particular characteristics or qualities of a place. Buildings in the subject area have varying setbacks to the street, generally attributed by the building’s use. This lack of consistency results in poor streetscapes and a lack of spatial definition of the street.

The existing buildings within the area are also inconsistent in height, bulk and scale. This is primarily due to building use, zoning and the era of development. Building heights range from single storey residential up to 5 commercial storeys. There is some consistency along McKeon Street (south side) which is mainly 1-2 storey strip retail with shop-top housing. There are 2 storey inter-war walk-up apartments along Fenton Avenue and the single-storey Ambulance Station in Mons Avenue. Marine Parade is dominated by the bulky 5 storey Seals Club and also contains a mechanical repair workshop and 60’s residential flat building. A building like the Seals Club with its lack of an active street frontage, blank walls and dark windows reduce the passive surveillance of the public domain and so reduces safety and security.

The overall urban form in the subject area does not contribute to the legibility and hierarchy of its streets and places. It is largely characterised by poor streetscapes, limited services and a lack of active street frontages. The draft LEP 2012 in conjunction with Comprehensive DCP will provide an appropriate planning framework to reinvigorate the centre resulting in a diverse range of uses, active street frontages, quality streetscapes and well designed public spaces. In particular, the public open space on McKeon St offers the opportunity to create a new well defined space that can become a meaningful place, allowing the various residents and visitors to the beach to engage on a number of different levels and contribute to the wellbeing of the community.

Social planning

The draft controls are aimed at reinvigorating the centre by providing a diverse range of services and active street frontages. The public open space on McKeon St also offers the opportunity to create a new well defined space that can become a meaningful place, allowing the various residents and visitors to the beach to engage on a number of different levels and contribute to the wellbeing of the community. The residential uses above the retail premises that would front the plaza would provide for many eyes on this space making it inherently safer.

It is likely that there will be a mix of incomes amongst residents with some units being owner occupied and others being rented. The added population will generate additional needs for businesses, employees and patrons. The increase in density is not considered to generate an unreasonable demand on the availability of infrastructure services. The revitalisation of this area and the resultant increased activity would promote vibrant public and semi public areas and provide a high degree of casual surveillance thereby reducing opportunities for anti social behaviour and reinforcing the community’s sense of security.

Recommendations

 

1. That the maximum heights identified in Maps 008A (01) and 008A (02) replace the exhibited height of buildings map for the final LEP 2012.

2.That Clause 4.3B be amended as follows:

4.3B   Height of buildings on land in Maroubra Beach town centre

                                                                                     

(1) The objective of this clause is to allow greater building heights as shown on 008A(2) but only where lot consolidation is achieved within Area 4 and Area 5 within Maroubra Beach town centre and the public open space and through site links are provided.

 

(2) Despite subclause 4.3, the maximum height for a building on land with a minimum area of 4,900 square metres (Area 4) and 5,500 square metres (Area 5) is as shown on the Height of Buildings Map 008A(2).

 

3. That the Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre study be amended to reflect the maximum heights stipulated in the heights maps above and that its built form controls be used as interim guidelines should the Comprehensive DCP not be adopted prior to the gazettal of Randwick LEP 2012.

 

6.5 Carr Street, Coogee

 

Context and current LEP controls
The land at 58-64 Carr Street Coogee (see Figure 6) comprises three separate lots located between Kurrawa Street and Beach Street Coogee. The sites are currently developed with the following uses:

 

58-60 Carr St:  8 storey residential flat building, strata titled (with ground level parking)

62 Carr Street: 2 storey shop top building with café at ground floor and yoga studio on 1st floor

64 Carr Street: Private hotel (heritage listed)

 

To the south of the site along Kurrawa Ave is a mix of multi unit housing and single dwellings zoned 2C Residential (medium density). To the west of the site on the next block (52-56 Carr Street/corner Arden Street) is a multi storey serviced apartment tower with podium retail zoned 3A General Business consistent with the remainder of the Coogee Town Centre.  The current 3A (General Business) zone permits a maximum 12m height limit and a 1.5:1 FSR limit.

 

The existing 2C Residential zone across the three lots permits a building height of up to 12m and an FSR of 0.9:1.

 

Figure 6:   58 - 64 Carr street sites, Coogee

 

Draft Comprehensive LEP controls

The exhibited draft LEP proposes to rezones all three sites to B2 Local Centre Zone consistent with the zoning proposed for the Coogee Town Centre. The draft plan permits a maximum building height of 12m and a maximum FSR of 1.5:1 for land within the B2 Local Centre Zone.

 

Background

A rezoning application was received for the property at 58-60 Carr Street, Coogee (known as Windsor Towers) on behalf of the owners of the site and this request was considered in the Business Centres Discussion Paper (exhibited for public comment August- October 2011). The applicant requested that the property be rezoned from 2C Residential (medium density) to permit business/retail uses at lower levels.

 

 

During the Discussion Paper public exhibition another rezoning request was received from the adjoining owner of the property at 62 Carr Street, Coogee also seeking a B2 Zoning for their property, consistent with the current use.

 

A significant number of submissions, both for and against the proposal, were received during the public exhibition of the Business Centres Discussion Paper.  In November 2011, the submissions received on all Discussion Papers were reported to Council. The report recommended that the two rezoning requests (for 58-60 and 62 Carr Street) be further considered in a more detailed and comprehensive analysis addressing the merits of the proposal.

 

Previous Council Resolution

In December 2011, the draft LEP was reported to Council for public exhibition. This report included separate data sheets on the rezoning requests from landowners.  Council adopted the report’s recommendation to support the rezoning of the entire block fronting Carr Street (being 58-60, 62 and 64 Carr Street) to allow commercial uses and for a B2 Local Centre consistent (with the remainder of the Coogee Town Centre, with a maximum of 1.5:1 and a height of 12m).  In response to the issues raised, Council also endorsed the following for exhibition:

 

·      an amendment to add the following objective for the B1 and B2 zones:  ‘'to minimise the impact of development on, and protect the amenity of, residents in the zone and in adjoining and nearby residential zones'.

·      the report’s recommendation to extend the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area boundary (cl.6.3) to the remainder of the Coogee Town Centre (including these sites) and to prepare more detailed development/design guidelines to be included in the draft Comprehensive DCP, to ensure that any new development minimises impacts on the adjoining residential areas.

·      the prohibition of brothels in the Coogee, Kensington and Matraville Town Centres

 

At the December 2011 meeting, Council also considered but did not resolve to retain the current (2C Residential) or equivalent zone (Matson/Hughes).

 

Submissions/Consultations

Council received 102 submissions in support of the proposed commercial zone and 121 submissions against this rezoning.  Of the submissions in support, there were two different types of form letters (48 of one type and 48 of another type) and 6 individual submissions. Those objecting to the proposal, while raising similar issues and points, were not identical responses.

 

Key Issues

Key issues raised in the submissions supporting the proposed rezoning stated that the proposed B2 Zone will allow for/ recognise the active street frontage, will complement the existing B2 Zoning of the Coogee Town Centre and is an appropriate planning outcome. Submissions also stated that the rezoning would:

·      represent positive, practical and progressive development

·      the proposal will add to the amenity of the south end of the Beach

·      there is no intention to convert the site at 58-60 Carr St to backpackers accommodation

·      will facilitate a modest development of the ground floor frontage

·      upgrade of the building

·      provide additional services to residents

·      create a higher level of amenity to local residents and  visitors and sound economic base

·      provide surveillance of the park

·      opportunity to provide built edge active frontages

·      will not lead to

·      rezoning from B2 Local Centre to B1 Neighbourhood Centre not supported as it will lead to economic decline and decline in services

 

Key issues raised in the submissions opposing the proposed rezoning were similar to the issues raised during the exhibition of the Discussion Paper. The issues were predominantly:

·      the impacts on residential amenity in the locality resulting from increased intensity of commercial activities such as traffic and access to the site (and Kurrawa Ave), congestion,  parking pressure, increased noise from customers, loss of privacy, delivery vans and garbage trucks, additional rubbish. This is the quiet part of Coogee.

·      the commercial zone should not be extended as it will change the village atmosphere and beachside character and charm.  It currently provides a buffer zone for the residential area. There is enough development in this village.

·      The existing mix of business, tourism and community uses should be retained. There are enough shops and too many pubs, cafes and drinking places. A massive pub will have associated problems.

·      The existing use rights provisions applying to these properties are effective in limiting commercial development. The hotel and café can operate under ‘existing use rights’.

·      Unknown future development may result in increased anti social behaviour if new licensed premises are established. The existing problems of overcrowding, alcohol-related violence, noise and other street problems within Coogee Town Centre will be extended.

·      the site is within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and should be protected from further commercial development and additional height along the foreshore

·      there should be no further high rise development at the southern end of Coogee

·      the rezoning will open the way for overdevelopment and additional bulk and scale

·      the rezoning proposal is inconsistent with the objectives in the Randwick City Plan, Council’s Economic Activity Study and the Sydney Metropolitan Plan

·      Council has not adequately justified the proposal

·      The rezoning should not proceed unless there is an impact study or traffic study. Traffic increases around the children’s play area should be considered.

·      Windsor Towers at 58 Carr St should not turn into a bulky and featureless building like 56 Carr St. It might be converted to commercial uses and add noise, violence, additional demand for parking and traffic obstructions during construction.

·      Grateful for RCC's successful planning for Coogee Beach to date

·      The existing residential zone is appropriate

 

Public Hearing

These matters (both for and against) were also the subject of verbal submissions during the public hearing on the draft Comprehensive LEP conducted on 2nd -3rd April 2012.  The separate report on the public hearing conducted by the independent consultant supports the B2 Local Centre zone for the subject properties (Attachment 5).  The person conducting the Hearing, Ms Spiegel, is of the view that the proposed rezoning will not have a significant adverse impact on the quality of residential life and will remove the ‘existing use’ anomalies that exist in this part of Carr Street. The Hearing report further notes that the issue of anti social behaviour should be addressed by management measures in all of Coogee and that this is unlikely to increase from this small rezoning.  In relation to Coogee generally, the Hearing report recommends an additional objective that commercial uses manage their patrons both on the premises and within a given radius of those premises (to ensure premises serving alcohol and have late night trading are responsible for the orderly behaviour of their patrons).

 

Consideration

The submissions in support noted that the proposed B2 Local Centre Zone would enable a consistency of uses and enhanced street frontage along this end of Carr Street.  Submissions opposing the rezoning consistently raised concern about this rezoning leading to overdevelopment in Coogee, changing the nature of this part of Coogee affecting Coogee’s village feel, extending anti-social behaviour across the Coogee Centre and creating unacceptable operational impacts, with traffic, parking and noise as likely outcomes. 

 

The proposed rezoning to B2 Local Centre will reflect the existing commercial/accommodation already in operation for 50% of this street frontage (no.62 and 64 Carr Street).  For the remaining site, 58-60 Carr St, the existing 8 storey residential flat building already exceeds the proposed B2 zone controls (height and FSR) and has little scope for significantly extending commercial related uses.  The previous report to Council (December 2011) noted that any commercial uses should focus on Carr Street with minimal impact on Kurrawa Avenue.

 

It is considered that the proposed B2 zone will enable business uses including offices, shops, restaurants and cafes similar to uses already currently located along the Carr Street frontage and complementing the adjoining business zone.  The draft Comprehensive LEP incorporates objectives which must be considered with all future development applications which address the key issues raised in submissions, including urban design, pedestrian amenity, sense of place for the local community and protection of the amenity of adjoining residents.  While acknowledging the concerns raised about potential amenity impacts on residents, issues such as noise, deliveries, rubbish removal, trading hours, parking and traffic matters can vary according to particular development proposals and are appropriately dealt with at development application stage when the specific details of a proposal are known and can be thoroughly assessed addressing both LEP and more detailed DCP controls.

 

In relation to the existing commercial uses retaining their ‘existing use rights’ under the current residential zone, it is appropriate that the zoning be reflective of these existing long term land uses and clarified through the comprehensive LEP.

 

In relation to development intensity, the proposed zone will allow limited increase in floor space (max 1.5:1 permitted, currently 0.9:1) and maximum 12m height.  The proposed maximum 12m height control is the same as the existing control for the site under the residential zone.  These controls are suitable for the subject sites and are consistent with the controls for the B2 Local Centre Zone.

 

It is also noted and addressed in the previous Council report that the additional business zoned land would be a minor (0.03%) addition to the total amount of business zoned land in the Coogee Town centre, recognising that two of the three lots are existing commercial, with the third being the additional lot to the Centre.

 

In relation to the possibility that the whole 8 storey strata titled residential building (58-60 Carr St) could theoretically be commercial development, it has been noted that in local centres generally, commercial development is generally limited to the ground floor and perhaps the first floors of buildings.

 

The previous recommendations (December 2011 report), in relation to urban amenity, recommended the draft DCP require new development to enhance the street frontage of buildings and the amenity of adjoining residents as well as the pedestrian environment/connections complementing its prominent foreshore location.

 

However, given the continuing level of community concern about the potential impacts on adjoining residents and amenity, it is suggested that provisions previously suggested in the December 2011 Council report, be extended and strengthened in the draft Comprehensive DCP to limit business uses primarily to the ground and first floor only and along the Carr Street frontages and corners of buildings and not permitting extension into Kurrawa Avenue, and address other amenity issues raised e.g. signage, lighting, waste. 

 

The DCP should also further provide that this location is suitable for corner stores, cafes and small scale shops such as home wares/clothes, rather than take away food shops, pubs or hotels and other high traffic generating development which generate higher levels of activity and generally require longer hours of operation.  It is also suggested that the draft DCP incorporate measures that do not provide for late night activities by specifying hours of operation for non residential uses (including hours for deliveries) to protect residential amenity.

 

Recommendations

·      That for 58-64 Carr Street, Coogee, the exhibited B2 Local Centre Zone be retained;

·      That detailed development design guidance in the draft Comprehensive DCP include provisions which:

-  address matters such as streetscape elements (e.g. awnings), design criteria for upgrades e.g. scale of any podium, access, balconies size/location, setbacks and other related development/design criteria;
- limit business/retail uses to the ground and first floors of these buildings and have a primary address/frontage to Carr Street
- limit outdoor seating to the Carr Street frontage
- provide for limited hours of operation for all non residential uses

- address activation of the street frontages to enhance the pedestrian environment;

-  ensure any outdoor lighting and signage does not adversely affect residential amenity
- include appropriate design criteria for any upgrading of buildings

·      That an additional objective be included in the B2 Local Centre Zone relating to the management of patrons by commercial premises serving alcohol and have late night trading hours:
“To facilitate a safe public domain by encouraging responsible management of late night licensed premises and in the vicinity of such premises”

 

6.6 Commercial Centres - Coogee Town Centre zone

 

Context, Controls and Background

The Coogee commercial centre is currently zoned 3A General Business under Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation). The equivalent zoning under the Standard Instrument is the B2 Local Centre. Coogee centre was thus exhibited as B2 Local Centre, with the same height and floor space controls as the current LEP.

 

In response to the Business Centres Discussion Paper exhibition in 2011, 19 submissions raised issues with the Coogee centre or requested  its rezoning from the B2 Local Centre to B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone, based on concerns that the 3A zone has brought unacceptable levels of violence to the area, major traffic and parking problems and businesses that impact on residents. Council resolved in November 2011 to make representations to the DoPI on why a B1 zoning is not acceptable. As further reported to Council in December 2011, the DoPI confirmed that the B2 Local Centre zone is supported as it reflects the diverse range of facilities and services in Coogee centre that serve the local residents and also a wider catchment than a typical neighbourhood (B1 zoned) centre, and accordingly that a B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone was not a suitable zone. In recognising the resident concerns, nevertheless, Council endorsed an additional objective in the B2 Local zone to require amenity of surrounding residents to be maintained by new development and prohibited sex services premises in Coogee. It was also noted that the draft comprehensive DCP would further address resident amenity concerns (for example, provisions on late night trading premises).

 

Submissions/Consultation/Key Issues

A total of 19 submissions raised issues about business centre zonings in general, including the range of permissible uses and the zoning of particular centres. While only a few submissions requested to rezone Coogee to a B1 Neighbourhood Centre, this matter was raised in the Public Hearing and many of the Carr Street rezoning submissions (as discussed earlier in this report) also raised issues relating more broadly to the Coogee centre.

 

Key issues raised:

§  The centre is a village/village atmosphere/seaside village character should be maintained

§  The centre serves the local resident day to day needs, not a wider population, apart from the two major pubs and uses associated with the beach

§  Disproportionate presence of hospitality uses does contradict neighbourhood role

§  Concerns over impacts of traffic, parking, late night activity on resident amenity.

 

Public Hearing

The Coogee commercial centre zoning was addressed in the Public Hearing, with speakers requesting the centre is rezoned to B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone. Key issues raised and the independent planning consultant’s view that the B2 Local Centre zone is appropriate is contained in the Public Hearing report at Attachment 5.

 

In summary, the Hearing report notes the grounds for the change in zone were to deal with issues also raised for the proposed Carr Street rezoning, that it may result in decreased violence related to anti-social behaviour, reduced traffic congestion and maintenance of a village atmosphere. The Hearing Report noted that the B2 zoning is still only a local centre zoning and that Coogee does not fit the description of a neighbourhood centre given the uses already existing. It was noted that Council has added an objective to the B2 zone relating to amenity of surrounding residents with any new development and prohibited sex services premises in Coogee.

 

The Hearing Report considers the B2 zone appropriate given a downgrade is not likely to be acceptable to DoPI and could raise existing uses right issues. To help address issues of late night trading premises to better manage their patrons, both on-site and in radius of premises, the Hearing report notes that an objective could be included in the B2 zone, as noted in the earlier section in this report on Carr Street.  

 

Consideration

The proposed B2 Local Centre zoning for Coogee commercial centre is the equivalent to its existing 3A business zoning, and best reflects its centre role and functions.  The B1 Neighbourhood centre zone is intended to apply to small clusters of around 5 or more shops/corner stores, providing a limited range of convenience type goods and serving a radius walking catchment of approximately 200m, encouraging sustainable living through the convenience of walking to buy daily needs such as milk and papers. The B2 Local Centre zone recognises centres with a larger group of shops and services, including centres such as Coogee that provide for a wider range of goods/services such as a small supermarket, shops such as a butcher and chemists, restaurants, take-aways and beach oriented speciality shops, and that provide local employment and a wider walking catchment of around 400-600m radius. This zone also covers larger local centres such as Randwick and Maroubra Junction, which have a number of supermarkets, shops and speciality stores, and community facilities/libraries and serve walking catchments up to 800m.

 

The proposed B2 Local Centre zone is thus recommended to be retained as suitable for the centre. Given also the continuing level of community concern about the potential impacts of late night trading premises, an additional B2 zone objective as suggested in the Public Hearing report, is considered appropriate to assist in the assessing future applications for development within the Coogee Centre (and other B2 zoned centres). It is noted also other provisions e.g. late-night trading, are also being drafted in the comprehensive DCP.

 

Recommendation:

·      That for Coogee commercial centre, the B2 Local Centre zone be retained in the draft final LEP;

·      As also noted above under the Carr Street rezoning matter, that an additional objective be included in the B2 Local Centre Zone relating to the management of patrons by commercial premises serving alcohol and with late night trading hours:
“To facilitate a safe public domain by encouraging responsible management of late night licensed premises and in the vicinity of such premises”

 

6.7 Commercial Centre - Kensington Town Centre zoning

 

Context, Controls and Background

The Kensington commercial centre is currently zoned 3B Local Business under Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) (equivalent to the new B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone). The B2 Local Centre zone is proposed in the exhibited draft LEP, to better reflect the current functions and future vision for this centre. The height controls remain the same (although a different definition and figures are now used).

 

In response to the Business Centres Discussion Paper exhibition in 2011, 16 submissions raised issues with the Kensington centre or requested that it be zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre rather than B2 Local Centre zone. Key issues raised were that the Kensington centre has not witnessed an expanding commercial role, has limited business diversity is a poor configuration, is dominated by mixed residential/commercial development and growth would exacerbate overcrowding, traffic and parking. As was noted in the above section on Coogee centre, Council considered these matters and resolved in December 2011 to exhibit the draft LEP recognising Kensington centre as a B2 Local Centre zone, while requiring an additional B2 zone objective for maintaining the amenity of surrounding residents and also prohibiting sex services premises in Kensington. It was also noted that the draft comprehensive DCP would further address resident amenity concerns.

 

Submissions/Consultation/Key Issues

A total of 19 submissions raised issues about business centre zonings in general, including the range of permissible uses and the zoning of particular centres. A total of 9 submissions raised the Kensington centre zoning, with one supporting the B2 Local Centre and 8 opposing it and requesting the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone (including both the Kensington and Kingsford South Precincts). This matter was also raised in the Public Hearing.

 

Key Issues raised:

§  Heights will increase from 12 to 25m next to residents

§  Traffic congestion rules against commercial expansion

§  Apply the B1 Neighbourhood zone until light rail is provided

§  This is more a corridor suburb on either side of an arterial road, than a centre

§  Viability issues - no supermarket just a mini-market

§  Expanding role is in residential not commercial

§  Resident amenity affected by high rise towers being approved

 

Public Hearing

The Kensington commercial centre zoning was addressed in the Public Hearing, with speakers requesting the centre be rezoned to B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone. Key issues raised and the independent planning consultant’s comments are contained in the Public Hearing report at Attachment 5.

 

In summary, the Hearing report notes that speakers raised issues similar to those on Coogee centre, and of Kensington centre’s linear form, inadequate/lack of infrastructure to cope with commercial development, presence of aquifers impacting on excavation and surround residences, and tall buildings overshadowing parks/schools. The Hearing report noted that these concerns can be dealt with at the DA stage.

 

Consideration

The key issues in submissions and the hearing related to the centre’s current and future functions and thus the most suitable zoning, the scale of development and limits of infrastructure.

 

Kensington centre’s planning controls have been in place since 2002, following a major planning/design review. These recognise the opportunities and constraints of this long strip shopping centre and provide solutions to enhance the centre functions and amenity. This includes extending the building envelopes along the quieter side streets up to Kokoda Park and the public school, with the envelopes designed to address amenity impacts such as overshadowing.

 

As noted with Coogee centre, Kensington’s commercial centre functions and future desired character equates to a B2 Local Centre zoning, in that it provides a range of goods and services, including a small supermarket, a bank, local shops such as a chemist, specialty shops such as Peters of Kensington, other home ware/clothes stores, as well as restaurants, cafes and a hotel. These functions are beyond the scale of a neighbourhood scale centre, generally applying to 5 or more shops/corner shops that primarily serve daily needs of residents for convenience purchases such as milk and bread, and within a walking catchment of around 200m.

 

Some concerns have been expressed about building heights in the centre. These were established in the 2002 planning review and have not been changed in the draft LEP, although the measures now differ. (The current height measure is to the ‘underside of the top floor ceiling’, with no height limit on the roof in order to encourage interesting roof forms. The Standard Instrument requires a ‘maximum height’ measure, which includes the roof and all servicing/lift over-runs, and thus all height figures have been corrected accordingly e.g. 21.6m to the underside of the top floor now equates to 25m to the top of the roof/services).

 

Some submissions express concern that the exhibited draft LEP is expanding the commercial centre. To clarify, the 2002 review identified a town centre boundary within which commercial development was permitted, applying to both business and residential zoned land. This enabled existing residential uses to continue and to redevelop/upgrade solely for residential if desired. The Standard Instrument format has required a different approach in the draft LEP, to zone all land within the town centre boundary to a business zone and a new clause 6.14 – ‘Certain residential accommodation in business zones’ provides for the residential uses to continue.

 

Nevertheless, the town centre boundaries have been reviewed and a correction is proposed to the height map for those properties extending from Anzac Parade into Boronia Street. For the land fronting Boronia St (currently a car park), the exhibited draft LEP height of 25m is proposed to be corrected to match the current LEP/DCP controls, being a maximum of 12m or if redeveloped in conjunction with the adjacent land fronting Anzac Pde for a supermarket or specialty store, a maximum of 17m.

 

Recommendation

·      That for the Kensington commercial centre, the B2 Local Centre zone be retained in the draft final LEP;

·      That for the business zoned sites fronting Boronia Street, Kensington, that a  proposed new subclause 4.3(3) be included in the draft final LEP and the zoning map be amended as follows

 

(3)   Despite subclause 4.3, development consent may be granted to a building having a height greater than 12 metres in the Kensington Town Centre on land edged by a thick burgundy line and marked “Area 6” on the Height of Buildings Map subject to the following:

(a)    17m height incorporating a supermarket or speciality retail and pedestrian connections as part of the comprehensive redevelopment of “Area 7”.

 

6.8 Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre

 

Context, Controls and Background

The Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre comprises the precinct containing the University of NSW, The Randwick Hospital Complex and Royal Randwick Racecourse, being a precinct of significant employment and growth expected in the interrelated fields of education, health and medical research.

 

The institutional sites are primarily zoned for special uses and the equivalent Special Purpose (SP) zone is proposed in the exhibited draft LEP. Following and extended exhibition of the a Specialised Centre Discussion Paper, only 3 notable rezonings were included in the exhibited draft LEP, applying to 3 residential zoned locations, with 2 location on parts of High Street, with one part opposite and the other adjacent to the hospital, and the third area fronting part of Belmore Road. These provide for increased height from either 9.5m or 12m to 15m, to provide for some redevelopment potential, subject to detailed building envelopes being prepared.

 

Submissions/Consultations/Key Issues

While only 9 submissions were received specifically relating to this Centre, given the previous interest in this Centre, issues raised in submissions are included here as well as in Attachment 3. Of these, 2 were from the institutions UNSW and NIDA. They raised some common points, including:

 

·  Objection to introduction of a maximum height limit to the perimeter of the Kensington Campus, and preference that heights be retained in the DCP, informed by a campus master-planning process.

·  Request for a broader definition of “educational establishment” in the LEP, and a concern that NIDA may need to rely on existing use rights under the current definition.

 

Three submissions were rezoning requests from owners of properties adjacent to the site in the Eurimbla Avenue/Botany Street/High Street area that is proposed to be rezoned in the draft LEP (from 2A to R3, and height from 9.5m to 15m). These requests all sought to be included in the sites to be rezoned. Detailed datasheets have been prepared for these (Attachment 3) noting that the exhibited LEP zones and controls should be retained in finalising the LEP and that these requests may have merit for consideration in a future review, with further analysis, consideration of impacts on adjacent land owners and appropriate opportunities for community consultation.

 

The remaining submissions included a request from one owner to increase the height controls for properties in Belmore Road (from 15m to 18M), one generally supportive of the controls now proposed for the Centre, and two queries/concerns about the impact of the proposed changes in the area.

 

Consideration

It is noted that main issues raised were relating to the proposed rezonings, with mostly support or requests to extend these. The notable rezoning changes in the Specialised Centre are now limited to three locations, and while limited in area, these are important to assist in meeting demands for health and medical related services in the Specialised Centre while also improving the public domain in these locations. The Specialised Centre was not specifically raised in the Public hearing presentations or discussions.

 

Recommendation

·  For the UNSW Kensington Campus (including NIDA), retain the exhibited perimeter height controls in the draft final LEP

·  Support the request to broaden the definition of “educational establishment” in the LEP to better recognise non-government institutions such as NIDA, and to write to DOPI seeking an amendment to the Standard Instrument definition.

·  For the 2 rezoning requests, retain the current zones and note that these may have merit on further assessment, which would need to be considered in a future LEP review in conjunction with the required community consultation..

·  For the properties at 149 to 155 Belmore Road, not support the height increase and retain the exhibited draft LEP height control.

 

6.9 Population, Density and Development Standards

 

Context, Controls and Background

The draft comprehensive LEP was prepared following the discussion papers analysis of projected population growth and needs, as required by the NSW Metropolitan Plan and sub-regional strategies. As Randwick City is on track to meet expected housing and employment needs, the draft LEP makes only minor changes to the development potential across the City, notably through support for a limited number of rezoning requests, through the Maroubra Beach town centre review work and through minor alterations to floor space ratios (FSR) for residential areas which primarily reflect current patterns and scale of development. 

 

Submissions/Consultation/Key issues

A total of 20 submissions raised issues primarily related to concerns about increased population and strain on infrastructure caused by residential density increases arising from the proposed changes to development standards such as height and FSR. There were individual 15 submissions on this and 5 Precincts raised these matters among a range of issued covered. Some submissions requested reductions or zero dwelling growth given existing densities, others requested that the draft LEP make provision for infrastructure upgrades for expected growth, and some noted State/local infrastructure commitments should be required (e.g. public transport) prior to further housing/density.

 

The removal of the wall height control from the draft LEP (currently in the RLEP) generated many concerns, with the majority if these submissions objecting to the omission of wall height controls from the draft LEP, on the grounds that it would lead to the cumulative loss of amenity for residents (e.g. solar access, view loss etc).

 

Many of these submissions objected to the exhibited FSR changes, with concern that this would provide for greater bulk and scale of buildings, additional dwellings and higher population growth. Where alternative FSRs were requested, submissions generally sought to retain the current FSRs; with some saying these should be further reduced. 

 

The merging of the 2B/2C zones into the proposed R3 (medium density) zone was also cited as likely to increase densities/building bulk.

 

Public Hearing

These issues were raised in the Public Hearing, with speakers noting population and infrastructure concerns, particularly noting these for Kensington town centre, and specifically noting concerns over height controls. Key issues raised and the independent planning consultant’s responses are contained in the Public Hearing report under ‘Planning Standards’ at Attachment 5.

 

In summary, the Hearing report notes that the main concern was the proposed single measure of maximum building height in the draft LEP with no wall height measure, leading to flat rather than pitched roofs and overbearing/bulky buildings. The Hearing report notes that Council has the right to refuse DAs if the bulk is excessive. The report notes that the comprehensive DCP may address these issues and that DAs will be monitored to ensure these do not result in detrimental impacts as mentioned.

 

Consideration

In relation to linking densities and infrastructure provision, while Council has no authority to control State/Federal government infrastructure commitments, Council works closely with all levels of government to plan and coordinate infrastructure provision throughout the City for the range of community infrastructure needs and demands and ongoing programs of new infrastructure, upgrades and enhancements. The draft LEP also contains new and strengthened clauses requiring development proposals to address their infrastructure needs. Under the NSW planning legislation, Council must assess all development applications on their merits and thus cannot reduce or require a zero dwelling target. Nevertheless, in relation to these issues raised in submissions and in recognition that these should be addressed at all levels of planning, the following Section 5.10 of this report discusses additional LEP ‘aims’ that should address population and infrastructure.

 

In relation to development standards and particularly wall height, the Standard Instrument allows for only 3 (optional) standards being minimum lot size, height and FSR. Other current LEP controls such as wall height, minimum frontage and landscaping are thus proposed to be included in the comprehensive DCP. For dwelling houses, height and FSR controls are currently DCP (not LEP) provisions and are ‘preferred solutions’ only. These are now proposed in the exhibited draft LEP.

 

The NSW Government's legislation and Planning Circulars are clear that all other development standards such as wall heights are to be transferred into Comprehensive DCPs (DoPI Practice Notes 09-001). The DoPI also provided written advice in February 2012, confirming this requirement.

 

Given community concerns on this matter, the Council further considered wall heights via a Mayoral Minute of 28 February 2012, which included confirmation from the DOPI that a wall height in the draft LEP would not be supported as it would be inconsistent with NSW legislation and policy advice, and would in effect, equate to a request to amend the Standard Instrument.

 

Following on, Council further resolved on 27 March 2012 (Cr Matson, Cr Smith) to urge the DOPI to review the Standard Instrument to include wall height limits in LEPs as part of the State Government planning review. Pending any change in DoPI’s position, consideration will be given to including wall heights (or a similar control e.g. storey controls) in the Comprehensive DCP and to review and strengthen other key controls to provide for good design and to address amenity considerations (e.g. overshadowing, privacy, solar access etc).

 

In relation to FSRs, the proposed FSR controls comprise the revision and inclusion of the dwelling house/semis FSR sliding scale (currently in the DCP) in the draft LEP together with adjustments to the FSRs for the 2B and 2C zones. These changes have been undertaken to address:

 

·      Implications of the NSW Housing Code which allows for dwelling houses to have a higher FSR than Council’s current controls, thus encouraging proponents to gain approval as Complying Development, rather than via the DA process and the level of scrutiny and public input required.

 

·      That development in the Residential 2B and 2C zones often exceeds the current controls (generally older building stock).

 

The proposed FSR controls in the draft LEP are considered suitable for the R2 Low Density and R3 Medium Density zones, reflecting an analysis of the existing development patterns, approved developments, character of areas, industry best practice, relationship to the allowances in the NSW Housing Code; and comparisons with other Councils which share similar characteristics to Randwick City. 

 

By ensuring the FSR controls are a better ‘fit’ and thus reflect prevailing development patterns and character, it is expected that the controls will better guide applicants and variations will be more difficult to justify. The proposed FSR controls are not anticipated to generate significant changes to density or result in overdevelopment as they will still have to work with a range of other controls to control bulk and scale and create the building envelope (e.g. heights, setbacks, landscaped area etc).

 

In relation to the proposed R3 zone being a merge of the 2B/2C zones, their different standards (height/FSR) will continue to be recognised in the draft LEP height and FSR maps.

 

Recommendation

- that the Height and FSRs in the exhibited draft LEP be retained.

 

6.10 Other Key Issues - Aims of the draft LEP

In preparing the draft LEP, DoPI provided advice that the aims were to be succinct, should be limited in number and should not repeat the objects of the Act, conflict with it or refer to other documents. The aims have been drafted therefore to reflect the local strategic planning underlying the LEP. Several submissions raised valid points for potential inclusion of additional aims in the draft LEP as follows:

 

Aboriginal culture and heritage

Several submissions, including the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council (LPLALC) suggested, amongst other things, that an additional aim be included which specifically recognises the Aboriginal people’s connection to the land and to protect, promote and facilitate their participation in planning decisions which impact upon their Country.

 

While certain aims in the draft LEP already relate to this suggestion, including protecting the ‘environmental heritage’ (which includes Aboriginal heritage), and inclusive social environment, an additional aim which more specifically acknowledges the traditional custodians of the land is supported. It is on this basis that the following additional objective is recommended be included within the higher order aims of the plan:

 

·      ‘To acknowledge, and recognise the Aboriginal People’s connection to the area, and to protect, promote and facilitate Aboriginal culture and heritage of the City’.

 

Managing public assets & protecting character and amenity

Several submissions suggested that aims relating to the management of public assets and enabling population and housing growth without having an adverse impact on the character and amenity of Randwick should be included. These have been evaluated to ensure there is no overlap with existing aims and are proposed as follows:

 

·      ‘To facilitate population and housing growth without having adverse effects on the character and amenity of Randwick’;

·      ‘To ensure good management of public assets and promote opportunities for social, cultural and community activities’.

 

Recommendation:

- that 3 additional objectives be included, as noted above, in the draft final LEP.

 

6.11 Other key issues - Heritage

Of the 8 submissions received specifically in relation to heritage, these were generally from land owners, including government bodies.

 

3 submissions supported the proposed new heritage items and new heritage conservation areas (John Mewburn Reserve Malabar, Tramways building fronting Govett Street Randwick, and Caerleon Crescent heritage conservation area).

One of these submissions, supporting the proposed Caerleon Crescent conservation area, included a petition signed by 5 householders.

 

3 submissions (including 2 from one property owner) objected to this proposed new conservation area at Caerleon Crescent and an enlargement of an existing heritage conservation area (Dudley Street Coogee).

 

The new or adjusted boundaries of heritage conservation areas were based on detailed consultant heritage investigations. A Conservation Area status requires specific consideration of heritage values in assessment of future development applications, but would not prevent sympathetic alterations and additions. Studies show listing has no effect on property value in most cases, and sometimes improves resale value, and Council has no feedback to suggest that property values within the extensive North Randwick and West Kensington Conservation Areas have been reduced as a result of their heritage status.

 

One submission requested clarification of planning and heritage issues relating to a particular property. 1 submission requested consideration of a further new heritage conservation area, for Beach Street Coogee, between Battery Street and Neptune Street. Expert heritage investigation would need to be undertaken and if it supports a new heritage conservation area, this could be considered in a future LEP amendment, in conjunction with required community consultation.

 

Recommendation:

- That the proposed new heritage conservation area for Caerleon Crescent be retained in the draft final LEP.

 

6.12 Rezoning requests

 

A total of 20 rezoning submissions for residential and business zoned lands were received from land owners, members of the community and/or their representatives during the draft LEP exhibition period. (This is in addition to 4 received within the Specialised Centre, as noted earlier in this report) A number (8) of these 20 comprised requests for the re assessment of previously considered submissions, based on a number of issues raised and/or following the provision of additional supporting information. The rezoning requests and accompanying datasheets are included in Attachment 3.

 

The rezoning requests have been considered in the context of whole blocks or street frontages and in line with established criteria including proximity to centres and public transport and compatibility with the surrounding urban form and character.

 

Of these, one is supported for a minor FSR amendment, a further 13 are not supported and 6 are considered to have merit but should be further assessed for consideration in future LEP reviews (following the gazettal of the Comprehensive LEP), which would require all statutory processes to be undertaken including community consultation and feedback.

 

Recommendation:

- That the proposed FSR amendment for the site at Lot 65, Harvey St, Little Bay be supported, changing from 1.1:1 to 1.3:1 in the draft final LEP;

- That for 6 of rezoning requests, retain the current zones and note that these may have merit on further assessment, which would need to  be considered in a future LEP review in conjunction with the required community consultation;

- That for13 of the rezoning requests, not support the rezoning and retain the exhibited draft LEP zone.

 

7.0 Update on Comprehensive DCP

 

Council formally resolved, on 6 December 2011 (Cr Nash, White), to commence preparation of a comprehensive DCP. It further resolved on 28 February 2012 to seek an update on progress of the comprehensive DCP preparation. 

 

Timeframes

Councils are required to finalise their comprehensive DCPs within 6 months of the gazettal of their comprehensive LEP. Notwithstanding this, to enable the new comprehensive DCP to commence at the same time or shortly after gazettal of the LEP, Council is undertaking a review of the DCPs as a priority to ensure suitable controls are in place to support the new LEP.

 

It is anticipated that the draft comprehensive DCP will be reported to Council in October/November for public exhibition, and for completion in late 2012/early 2013, similar to the expected timing of completion of the comprehensive LEP.

 

As the preparation of the comprehensive DCP is a major project in its own right, an extensive community consultation process will be undertaken. As also suggested in the Public Hearing report, it is proposed include consultation in the form of a hearing or workshop/s with professionals in design/infrastructure matters such as architects, engineers, ecologists and others where these specialists areas affect land use, conservation and development.

 

As recently reported to Council and resolved on 27 March 2012 (Crs Matson, Smith), should the comprehensive LEP be gazetted prior to completion of the draft DCP, and should this raise any gaps in any Council policy position, any relevant section of the draft comprehensive DCP will be adopted by Council as interim policies until the draft DCP is also completed.

 

Approach

The comprehensive DCP is being informed by the recommendations of the 6 Discussion Papers exhibited over 2010 and 2011. It is also being informed by submissions made during public exhibition of this draft Comprehensive LEP. In addition, it will reflect the key directions and outcomes of the Randwick City Plan, and relevant Council approved policies and resolutions.

 

Structure and format

Most sections of the Comprehensive DCP will be based on existing DCPs, with these forming chapters in the one document. Most existing DCP require minor editing updates, as the content and intentions remain suitable, while revision for clear objectives and controls/standards and guidance will be a priority, to assist applicants to understand the intent and best practice outcomes of the objectives. Some new sections will be added, primarily as noted in discussion papers, with the key area being sustainability measures (where consistent with State BASIX policy).

 

The Comprehensive DCP will have a new, consistent format, presentation and graphics, and while a single document, it will be published in individual sections on Council’s website to enable ease of download.

 

As noted, the majority of the content in the Comprehensive DCP will result from a review and edit of existing DCPs, without fundamental re-investigation, to bring them into line with the Standard Instrument definitions and wording e.g. new zone names. 

 

In particular, the town centre planning /design reviews are extensive projects leading to new LEP/DCP controls including detailed building envelopes and these will essentially be translated into the new DCP. This applies to Kensington, Maroubra Junction and Matraville, and the current Maroubra Beach centre study recommendations in this report.

 

Similarly, the extensive master planning for key redevelopment sites will be essentially translated, including the Prince Henry site and Bundock Street sites, as well as institutional sites with existing detailed DCPs, including UNSW and Randwick Racecourse. Given that the Randwick Hospitals Complex has no existing DCP, master planning principles prepared by NSW Health for the site will be extended into DCP provisions.

 

Significant reviews will focus on controls for residential development and particularly alterations and additions, which comprise over 80% of all development applications received. Key areas of focus will be the design controls e.g. wall height, landscaping.

 

New sections are being prepared for issues previously raised by Council or in the discussion papers or from this exhibition process, including late night trading, best practice in sustainability matters such as tree management, ESD, flooding and storm water and waste management, and Aboriginal people’s cultural recognition and participation in planning processes.

 

A new section on B1 Neighbourhood Centres zones will also be included, given there are no current broad principles, objectives and guidelines applying across these small centres/corner store locations.

 

A new heritage section will consolidate all existing DCPs and guidance on heritage, improving advice and information for applicants.

 

Minor reviews of existing DCP information will involve:

-   updating to be consistent with standard instrument LEP definitions, and content of the draft Comprehensive LEP

-   updating to cross reference to current relevant Australian standards and codes

-   updating to cross reference to relevant Council codes, polices (e.g.: significant tree register, stormwater code)

-   general edit to provide consistent format, graphics, structure, language and terminology within each section.

8.0 Statutory requirements of the draft LEP

 

The draft LEP has been prepared and exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Act and Regulation and with the Standard Instrument. In particular, the S65 Certification from the DoPI has been complied with for exhibiting the draft LEP. All provisions of Section 66 and 67 of the Act in relation to public exhibition and receipt of submissions have been met. All relevant planning instruments and S117 Directions have been taken into consideration and any inconsistency was justified as required, and as was confirmed in the S65 Certification. The final reporting to the DoPI will need to include justification of the remaining inconsistency with the S117 Directions in relation to the proposed zoning of schools in the SP2 Special Purpose zone rather than an adjacent zone e.g. residential, as is the Department of Education and Communities’ preference, to ensure retention of schools as essential infrastructure in the LGA, as noted in section 6.2. This and all other public agency requirements have been addressed, as required (see section 6.2 and Attachment 3).

 

A number of submissions queried or suggested that certain processes required under the Act or Regulation do not appear to have been followed, such as preparing an environmental study or providing resolutions specifically for each proposed site rezoning/development change. To clarify, the draft LEP was prepared on the basis of the extensive background research provided in the discussion papers (and supporting studies), for which the DoPI has confirmed to Council as suitable background research and thus that a separate environmental study was not required. Additionally, as this is a comprehensive LEP, the reporting does not require identification of the specific zoning/standard changes for each and every property, as would occur with a spot rezoning, and instead the requirement is to show changes via the city wide mapping. For example, a height control has been introduced to every low density residential zoned site within the City, as shown in the height maps.

 

The DoPI S65 Certification confirmed that all requirements had been met to enable the formal LEP public exhibition and it also confirmed the requirements to be met during and after exhibition, for which all processes have been fully compliant.

 

In relation to Council owned land, as Council owns various properties (primarily depots/administrative buildings, roads, access ways and open space) within the LGA, the draft LEP was exhibited in accordance with the NSW Government’s Best Practice Guidelines for LEPs involving Council owned land, to ensure Council’s proper actions in regards to its land holdings. A public hearing was held, as required, for the proposed reclassification of one Council property at 13-21 Rainbow Street, Kingsford, and the hearing report noted that this reclassification is appropriate.

 

All submissions have been reviewed as required under S68 of the Act (Consideration of Submissions), with any recommended changes included in this report and in the draft final LEP (Attachments 1 and 2).

 

These proposed changes are considered to be minor amendments, improvements and corrections to the draft instrument and maps that do not warrant re-exhibition of the draft LEP. The DoPI has noted that it generally does not support changes being made to draft comprehensive LEPs that would require re-exhibition and would thus delay gazettal of a standard instrument LEP; it would prefer that such changes be properly reviewed and considered in a future amendment to the gazetted comprehensive LEP. It is noted that Council’s required timeframe under the DoPI Comprehensive LEP Acceleration fund program is to report the draft final to DoPI by June.

 

Under s.68 of the Act (Consideration of Submissions), Council is now required to consider whether the issues raised in a submission are of such significance that they should be the subject of a hearing before the Council decides whether and, if so, what alterations should be made to the draft final LEP.

 

The Council resolution to hold a public hearing was made by Council on 28 February 2012 in response to several queries made to Councillors at the early stage of the exhibition period of the draft Comprehensive LEP. These had raised or sought clarification of a number of issues including wall height provisions, the process and timing of the draft LEP and draft DCP, relationship of the NSW Government review of the Act and the weight given to the draft LEP in the assessment of development applications. The Councillors considered at that time that these issues warranted a hearing and that it should be held immediately following the exhibition period, as an extension of the consultations and to assist in the community’s involvement in a major Council decision. During the exhibition a number of submissions requested a public hearing and these submitters were notified of the hearing details.

 

The hearing was held under the same principles and processes as would a hearing resolved to be held under S68 of the Act. The issues raised at the public hearing reflect those raised in written submissions to the exhibition and accordingly, it is considered that all significant issues have been identified through the consultations, including the public hearing and have been thoroughly considered, and that a further public hearing is not required.

 

Following the public exhibition and public hearing, five letters were received (one from Kensington/ West Kensington Precinct and four from Kensington residents) requesting a public hearing to be conducted under s.68 of the Act, given that:

·      The hearing on 2-3rd April  is a “facilitation” and does not comply with the objective of the Act under s.5c

·      The hearing was held on the last day of the public exhibition period and Councillors would not have given fair consideration to the significance of issues raised

·      The 5 minute time limit placed on speakers was inadequate

·      Inadequate notice was given – the legislation requires at least 21 days notice before the start of the hearing.

 

It is noted that these concerns primarily relate to processes and that the S68 statutory processes for a hearing have effectively been followed for the public hearing held; that is, the Councillors considered whether the issues were of such significance to warrant a hearing (and resolved that this was the case on 28 February 2012), notification of more than 21 days was provided in a local newspaper/web sites and letters/emails and Precincts/Chambers were specifically notified, the public hearing report has been made public (Attachment 5) and its comments have been taken into consideration in the final LEP recommendations. Speakers were given up to 5 minutes to speak and the opportunity was provided by the independent consultant for all issues to be adequately discussed by both speakers and observers, following the presentations by speakers.

 

The public hearing was part of an effective and comprehensive public consultation process aimed at increasing the opportunity for public involvement in the planning process and is therefore consistent with section 5(c) of the Act. 

 

Accordingly, it is considered that there would be no additional benefit in conducting another public hearing on the draft LEP and it is recommended that a further hearing, under Section 68 of the Act is not required. 

 

9.0 Summary of proposed changes to the draft LEP

 

Changes to the draft LEP following exhibition, consideration of submissions and internal review, as proposed in this report are minor and reflect existing circumstances or are a lesser control or zone than currently proposed. The following changes are proposed in the draft final LEP:

Aims

A number of submissions requested additional aims, and while DoPI was reluctant during preparation of the draft LEP to permit too many aims it is proposed to add the following (noted as aims f, j and m in the final draft LEP):

 

§  ‘To acknowledge, and recognise the Aboriginal People’s connection to the area, and to protect, promote and facilitate Aboriginal culture and heritage of the City’.

 

§  ‘To facilitate population and housing growth without having adverse effects on the character and amenity of Randwick’;

 

§  ‘To ensure good management of public assets and promote opportunities for social, cultural and community activities’.

 

Zones

R1 Residential

In recognition that this is included in all other residential zones, add the following zone objective to the R1 General Residential zone:

 

§  ‘To protect the amenity of residents’

 

B2 Local Business 

In response to submissions regarding Coogee town centre zoning and anti-social behaviour issues, and at the suggestion of the Public Hearing report, add the following zone objective to the B2 Local Business centre zone:

 

§  ‘To facilitate a safe public domain by encouraging responsible management of late night licensed premises and in the vicinity of such premises’

 

Zone changes on State owned land

In response to requests from State agencies, the following rezonings clarify the use and ownership of these sites:

- For the Bunnerong Road sites, Chifley, retain the E2 Environment Conservation zone, with minor adjustment to the zone boundary and the adjacent residential land (where there is no ESBS present) equivalent to two residential lots. (This follows initial objections to this zoning by the State agencies land owners, with agreement subsequently gained given the importance of the vegetation in this location);

 - rezone all 8 scout halls in the LGA to the RE1 Public Recreation zone to reflect their recreation use;

- rezone the War Lee market gardens site, Wassell St, Matraville, from RE1 Public Recreation to RU4 Primary Production Small Lots zone, to reflect their market gardens use;

- rezone the Crown land owned site at Macquarie St, Matraville, used by the South Sydney Amateur Fishing Association, from RE2 Private Recreation to RE1 Public Recreation to reflect State ownership of the site;

- rezone the Sydney Water owned site at Perry Street, Matraville from proposed Special Purposes (Water Supply System) to R2 (low density) Residential, consistent with the surrounding land and as suitable and intended future use.

- Rezone a social housing property at Elphinstone Road from R2 Low Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential to correct a mismatch with the zoning for the adjoining housing estate zone and consistent with the built form.

 

Zones - Land use tables

As requested by Crown lands:

§  Require consent for the use of “horticulture” in the RE1 Public Recreation zone (currently permitted without consent even though it is a commercial use).

 


Changes to Clauses

Clause 5.3 - the relative distance of a boundary between 2 zones has changed from 2m to 4m and applied to road reserves in residential and business zones to enable footpath dining (subject to consent).

Replace ‘for’ with ‘incorporating’ to improve clarity in clause 4.3A(2)(c) to read 22m with a street frontage greater than 12m on land marked “Area 2” incorporating a supermarket and “Area 3” incorporating a pedestrian connection.

Amend Clause 4.3B Height of Buildings on land in Maroubra Beach town centre to refer to a specific height of buildings map and provision of open space and through site links with any amalgamation.

Introduce a new subclause to 4.3A – ‘Height Of Buildings in certain town centres’ to correct an existing height within Kensington town centre, along Boronia Street.

 

LEP map changes

Map amendments to address the above noted changes

Minor map corrections identified in submissions or in the final internal map review

Change the FSR at Lot 65 Harvey St, Little bay based on a submission request and review, from 1.1:1 to 1.3:1

Correct the Spot conservation area mapping, by deleting from the site at 57-63 St Pauls Street site, as requested by the site owner (mapping error).

 

Changes to Schedules

Additional use schedule – minor corrections to property descriptions; Exempt and complying development Schedules  - minor changes to ensure consistency with current Council exempt/complying provisions, such as including current signage controls, and to clarify the wording of conditions;

Heritage schedules – minor changes in format consistent with the Standard Instrument and specific mapping requirements and correct some property details.

 

Other minor changes to correct wording or clarify wording

Minor corrections to the wording of clauses following internal review e.g. inclusion of word ‘subdivision’ to the heading and clause 4.1B (2) to clarify its purpose.

The instrument and map have been edited for any wording or mapping errors, which do not change the intent of the draft LEP. Further minor changes may be identified in finalising the LEP and as required by the NSW Parliamentary Counsel in its required legal review of the LEP.

 

10.0 Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:

Excellence in Urban Design and Development

Direction 4a:  

Improved design and sustainability across all development

Direction 4b:    

New and existing development is managed by a robust framework

Outcome 5:

Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

Direction 5a:  

Maximise opportunities for residents and visitors to enjoy both active and passive open space uses.

Direction 5b:    

A range of sporting and leisure activities.

Direction 5c:    

New open space is created as opportunities arise.

Outcome 6:    

A Liveable City

Direction 6b:

Our town centres, beaches, public places and streets are safe, inviting, and clean and support a recognizable image of our City.

Direction 6d:

A strategic land use framework provides for our lifestyle changes and for a continuing, yet low rate of growth across our City

Direction 6e:

Housing diversity, accessibility and adaptability to support our diverse community is enhanced

Outcome 7:      

Heritage that is Protected and Celebrated

Direction 7a:   

Our heritage is recognized, protected and celebrated

Outcome 9:      

Integrated and accessible transport.

Direction 9a:   

A network of safe and convenient walking paths and cycle ways linking major land uses and recreation opportunities.

 

11.0 Financial impact statement

 

The draft comprehensive LEP has been prepared principally in-house with staff resources across Strategic planning, the GIS team and other specialists as required. Preparation has been funded in the Strategic Planning budget, with $60,000 over 2010/11 and 2011/12) for preparation, exhibition, consultations, expert heritage advice and finalisation of the draft plan and maps. Preparation of the draft LEP was also funded by the DoPI LEP Acceleration Fund with $125,000 provided for an additional staff position to complete the LEP by June 2012.

 

12.0 Conclusion

 

The draft LEP exhibition and consultations provided an extensive process for the community to provide feedback on the draft comprehensive LEP, which was also informed by the previous extensive consultations undertaken on the series of 6 discussion papers. The preparation of a comprehensive LEP in the format of the Standard Instrument is a requirement of the NSW Government and will provide for consistent terminology in planning instruments across Sydney and NSW. The comprehensive LEP is intended to establish the broad controls for land uses and development, complemented by the comprehensive DCP which provides more detailed planning and design controls and guidance.

 

This report recommends that the draft LEP, as amended from matters arising in submissions and the public hearing report and as included in the draft final instrument (Attachment 1) and maps (Attachment 2), be forwarded to the DoPI and Minister for Planning requesting its making. This is anticipated in late 2012/early 2013. It is considered that the amendments are suitable while not considered of such significance to warrant re-exhibition.

 

In the meantime, the draft DCP will be prepared based on the research of the discussion paper and also from feedback from these consultations, for exhibition in late 2012 and completion at the same or similar timing as the comprehensive LEP. This will provide for an updated and streamlined framework of planning controls, contained in the two key documents, the comprehensive LEP and DCP, for easier reference for all users, including government agencies, applicants and the community.

 

In relation to development applications currently lodged, the draft LEP is a ‘matter for consideration’ in assessments but must always be given lesser weight than the current LEP 1998 (Consolidation). This continues to be the case until the draft LEP is gazetted.  In relation to DAs that have been lodged and are under assessment when the comprehensive LEP is gazetted, these must continued to be assessed in accordance with the current LEP 1998 (Consolidation) as required by the standard savings provisions in all LEPs.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

A)     Note the issues raised in submissions to the public exhibition and public hearing undertaken for the draft LEP and that, in accordance with Section 68 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, these issues have been thoroughly considered and are not of such significance as to warrant a further public hearing before Council considers what alterations should be made to the draft LEP;

 

B)     Endorse the Randwick Local Environmental Plan for finalisation in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation and agree to forward the Plan to the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, together with a report prepared in accordance with section 68 (4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and a request that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure make the Plan, subject to the following resolutions:

 

C)     Endorse in relation to land owned by the Labor Club:

 

i)    for the Randwick Bowling Club site, that the exhibited RE2 Private Recreation zone be retained in the final LEP;

ii)   for the Labor Club owned sites at 131-147 Alison Road, 1 Elizabeth Street and 11 Elizabeth Lane, Randwick, that the exhibited B2 Local Business Zone be retained in the final LEP;

iii)   that the requested change in the Floor Space Ratio for the residential sites at 119-129 Alison Road (including sites owned by the Labor Club and others) from the exhibited FSR of 0.9:1 to 1.5:1 not be supported;

 

D)     Endorse in relation to the Chinese Market Gardens site, Phillip Bay:

 

i)    that the exhibited RU4 Primary Production Small Lots zone be retained in the final LEP;

ii)   that any use for cemetery purposes should be subject to a formal Planning Proposal with suitable background studies, and particularly the required heritage assessments;

 

E)     Endorse in relation to the Maroubra beach commercial centre:

 

i)    That the maximum heights identified in Maps 008A (01) and 008A (02) replace the exhibited height of buildings map for the final LEP 2012.

ii)   That Clause 4.3B be amended as follows:

4.3B   Height of buildings on land in Maroubra Beach town centre

                                                                                     

(1)   The objective of this clause is to allow greater building heights as shown on 008A(2) but only where lot consolidation is achieved within Area 4 and Area 5 within Maroubra Beach town centre and the public open space and through site links are provided.

 

(3)   Despite subclause 4.3, the maximum height for a building on land with a minimum area of 4,900 square metres (Area 4) and 5,500 square metres (Area 5) is as shown on the Height of Buildings Map 008A(2).

 

iii)   That the Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre study be amended to reflect the maximum heights stipulated in the heights maps above and that its built form controls be used as interim guidelines should the Comprehensive DCP not be adopted prior to the gazettal of Randwick LEP 2012.

 

F)     Endorse in relation to 58-64 Carr Street, Coogee:

 

i)    that the exhibited B2 Local Centre Zone be retained in the final LEP;

ii)   that detailed development design guidance in the draft Comprehensive DCP should include provisions which:

iii)   address matters such as streetscape elements (e.g. awnings), design criteria for upgrades e.g. scale of any podium, access, balconies; size/location, setbacks and other related development/design criteria;

iv)  limit business/retail uses to the ground and first floors of these buildings and have a primary address/frontage to Carr Street;

v)   limit outdoor seating to the Carr Street frontage;

vi)  provide for limited hours of operation for all non residential uses;

Vii)  address activation of the street frontages to enhance the pedestrian environment;

viii) ensure any outdoor lighting and signage does not adversely affect residential amenity;

ix)   include appropriate design criteria for any upgrading of buildings;

G)     Endorse in relation to 58-64 Carr Street site  and the Coogee commercial centre and applicable to all land zoned in the B2 Local Centre zone:

 

i)    That an additional objective be included in the B2 Local Centre Zone relating to the management of patrons by commercial premises serving alcohol and have late night trading hours:


“To facilitate a safe public domain by encouraging responsible management of late night licensed premises and in the vicinity of such premises”

 

H)     In relation to city wide matters:

 

i)    to include the following additional aims in the final LEP:

 

§  ‘To acknowledge, and recognise the Aboriginal People’s connection to the area, and to protect, promote and facilitate Aboriginal culture and heritage of the City’.

 

§  ‘To facilitate population and housing growth without having adverse effects on the character and amenity of Randwick’;

 

§  ‘To ensure good management of public assets and promote opportunities for social, cultural and community activities’.

 

ii)   to make other minor amendments to the final LEP as detailed in Schedule 1 below.

 

I)     Agree that the Director, City Planning may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors if required, and make minor changes as required by Parliamentary Counsel in finalising and printing the Plan.

 

Schedule 1:

Other detailed amendments recommended in the final LEP are as follows:

 

a) include the following additional objective for the R1 Residential Zone:

 

i)    ‘To protect the amenity of residents’

 

 

b) Rezone State owned land, consistent with State agency request, as follows:

 

i)  for the Bunnerong Road sites, Chifley, retain the E2 Environment Conservation zone, with minor adjustment to the zone boundary and the adjacent residential land (where there is no ESBS present) equivalent to two residential lots. (This follows initial objections to this zoning by the State agencies land owners, with agreement subsequently gained given the importance of the vegetation in this location);

 

ii) rezone all 8 scout halls in the LGA to the RE1 Public Recreation zone to reflect their recreation use;

 

iii) rezone the War Lee market gardens site, Wassell St, Matraville, from RE1 Public Recreation to RU4 Primary Production Small Lots zone, to reflect their market gardens use;

 

iv) rezone the Crown land owned site at Macquarie St, Matraville, used by the South Sydney Amateur Fishing Association, from RE2 Private Recreation to RE1 Public Recreation to reflect State ownership of the site;

 

v) rezone the Sydney Water owned site at Perry Street, Matraville from proposed Special Purposes (Water Supply System) to R2 (low density) Residential, consistent with the surrounding land and as suitable and intended future use;

 

vi)Rezone a social housing property at Elphinstone Road from R2 Low Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential to correct a mismatch with the zoning for the adjoining housing estate zone and consistent with the built form;

 

c) Amend the RE1 Public Recreation Zone Land Use Table as follows:

 

i)  Require consent for the use of “horticulture” in the RE1 Public Recreation zone (currently permitted without consent even though it is a commercial use);

 

d) Amend the following Clauses:

 

i)  Clause 5.3  ‘Development near zone boundaries’ to change the relative distance of a boundary between two zones from 2m to 4m and apply to roads in residential and business zones to enable footpath dining (subject to consent);

 

ii) Clause 4.3A ‘Height of buildings in certain town centres’ and the zoning map in relation to land within Kensington centre and zoned B2 Local Centre fronting Boronia Street, to correct (and reduce) a height limit for one site fronting Boronia Street, as follows:

 

“Despite subclause 4.3, development consent may be granted to a building having a height greater than 12 metres in the Kensington Town Centre on land edged by a thick burgundy line and marked “Area 6” on the Height of Buildings Map subject to the following:

 

(a)    17m height incorporating a supermarket or speciality retail and pedestrian connections as part of the comprehensive redevelopment of “Area 7”.

 

e) Amend the LEP Schedules as follows:

 

i)     Additional Use Schedule – minor corrections to property descriptions;

ii)     Exempt and Complying Development Schedules - minor changes for consistency with current Council exempt/complying provisions and to clarify the wording of conditions;

iii)     Heritage Schedules – minor changes in format consistent with the Standard Instrument and the NSW Heritage Branch requirements and minor corrections to property details.

 

f) Amend the LEP maps as follows:

 

i)      Change the FSR at Lot 65 Harvey St, Little Bay based on a submission request and review, from 1.1:1 to 1.3:1

ii)     Correct the Spot conservation area mapping, by deleting the site at 57-63 St Pauls Street, Randwick;

iii)     Update the maps are per all Council resolutions and corrections identified in the final map checking.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Randwick LEP 2012 - Instrument - Post Exhibition Final

Included under separate cover

2.

Randwick LEP 2012 - Maps - Post Exhibition Final

Included under separate cover

3.

Submissions Tables and Rezoning Requests

Included under separate cover

4.View

DOPI Advice and Council Resolutions

 

5.View

Draft Randwick Comprehensive LEP - Public Hearing Report

 

6.View

Reclassification of Council Land - Public Hearing Report

 

 

 

 


DOPI Advice and Council Resolutions

Attachment 4

 

 

























Draft Randwick Comprehensive LEP - Public Hearing Report

Attachment 5

 

 

Text Box: Attachment 5

Logo
 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Tina Spiegel

Mediation, Planning & Environmental Law

 

 

 

 

DRAFT RANDWICK COMPREHENSIVE LEP

Public Hearing Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAY 2012


CONTENTS

 

 

Introduction.............................................................................................. 2

Background............................................................................................... 3

Observations............................................................................................. 5

Overview.................................................................................................. 7

Summary of key points made and comments on the following areas........... 9

i)      Heritage Market Gardens and cemetery expansion...................... 9

ii)     Carr Street rezoning for Nos 58-64 to B2 Local Centre............. 10

iii)    Coogee Commercial Centre...................................................... 12

iv)    Maroubra Beach town centre.................................................... 13

v)    Commercial centres in Kensington and Kingsford....................... 14

vi)    Spot rezoning sites.................................................................. 15

vii)   Planning standard..................................................................... 16

APPENDIX............................................................................................... 17

       

       

 


INTRODUCTION

This is a report on the Public Hearing held on 2nd and 3rd of April at Randwick City Council at the conclusion of the time for submissions on the Draft Randwick Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (Draft LEP). This report is based on oral submissions made at that hearing. The hearing was part of the community consultation program conducted by Randwick Council into the Draft LEP.

People who wanted to make oral submissions were asked to register prior to the public hearing as speakers and indicate the topics they were interested in raising in their submission.  People who did not want to make oral submissions were able to attend as observers.  The majority of speakers had also made written submissions.  Observers were given an opportunity to comment on the oral submissions during the discussion which followed.

Notes were taken during the meeting, in the form of points raised by the speakers. These points were displayed and adjustments made at the request of the speakers. The purpose of the notes was to assist during discussions and to confirm that the speakers had been fully understood.

The Council’s Manager of Strategic Planning was present to inform the meeting and clarify some of the more complex planning standards and concepts.

Although this is a Public Hearing (hearing) and is part of the Consultation process, it is not a statutory public hearing which is required for the purpose of reclassification of certain lands within the local government area. This Public Hearing was a meeting where all members of the community may participate and be heard on issues which are of concern to them. The basis of the hearing was informative and advisory.

This report is a commentary on the hearing and the concerns raised by the speakers. It is not a transcription of statements made by speakers and or of the following discussions.

 

 


BACKGROUND

As part of the LEP process, Council resolved to follow an extensive community consultation program.  In order to provide the community with an additional consultation process and use an independent facilitator with expertise in town planning matters, Council resolved to add this hearing at the end of the statutory exhibition period. It formed a small part of a much larger comprehensive strategy of community consultation.

The hearing provided a further opportunity for the community to be heard and allowed the community to emphasis concerns which may have been raised in their written submissions. It also provided;

An opportunity for speakers and observers to clarify and present their views publicly,

Council had an opportunity to clarify any questions about the proposed changes to zones and planning standards; and

An independent facilitator to provide an additional comment on the proposed zoning changes.

Certain areas, such as Maroubra, had a longer community participation process because the community was involved in development of the Master Plan of the Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre Study, undertaken by consultants Allen Jack & Cottier.

The numbers of people who participated as speakers and observers were relatively small compared to the written submissions received.  I have been informed that approximately 3,500 written submissions were received and 59 people attended the hearing which included 22 registered speakers, one unregistered speaker and the remainder observers.

 

Senior Council staff attended these meetings.  They were available to provide information, but did not offer opinions or interpretation. The intention was to give assistance to the participants to understand the operation of the planning controls more fully and the planning processes in general. Most of the clarification information revolved around the planning controls proposed in the draft LEP. For example, the planning controls, using building envelopes and the building heights, caused concerns to be raised about the potential to increase densities and cause an overbearing impact on existing development. Some of these concerns appeared to be founded on a lack of understanding of how the proposed controls will operate in conjunction with the objectives of the zone and the DA process which would apply to any future applications for development. 

 

Prior to the hearing as facilitator, I perused all the written submissions made by the speakers, relevant planning reports and draft planning documents and visited most of the contentious areas in the Randwick Local Government Area.

 

A protocol was adopted by the hearing. All people were made aware of the protocol at the beginning of the meeting. It is attached to this report.


OBSERVATIONS

 

1.    Information and Knowledge

 

It is essential to consider the difference between information and knowledge (which provides the context for the information) in relation to public participation or consultation processes.

 

Information in this type of process is abundant. Knowledge evolves as the information is transformed, through its use in a particular process and placed in context. Knowledge about the information varies from one individual to another.

 

Consequently, when senior Council staff provided information about planning standards and zones at the hearing, some community members frequently disagreed with the senior staff member on a matter of fact. The difference between the professional and lay knowledge became evident.

 

The concerns and issues raised by the community members were based largely on information and the personal experience of the speaker. The speakers in many instances did not have an understanding of the context in which to place the information. It appeared that a lack of experience with the processes by those attending resulted in the interpretation of some information as uncertain and inconsistent and added to the concerns of the community.

 

This hearing open to all to attend is an invaluable part of the process. It is the community who live in the area who can provide the town planners with a more comprehensive understanding of the area.

 

It is suggested that in addition to the public hearing, a hearing made up of professionals, such as, architects, engineers, ecologists and other related professionals, who work in Randwick Local Government Area may be of benefit. Their specialist and local knowledge has proved to be a valuable input when used in other local government areas.  This form of hearing is also of value at the DCP development stage.


 

2.    Expectation

 

It became apparent that people who made submissions either oral and/or written had expectations that their views would be reflected in amendments to the Draft LEP.  If their view was not reflected in the draft LEP, then the perception was that they had not been heard or that the contents of the Draft LEP were already set and would not be changed. Participants generally had difficulty appreciating that their opinions are part of a diverse group of views to be taken in to consideration by the decision makers.

 

 

3.    Validity of the draft LEP

 

A few speakers raised questions about the validity of the Draft LEP. References were made in their submissions, to the inclusion of spot rezoning, which they considered not valid; inappropriate adherence to section 117 directions and a failure to make people aware of the consequences of any change in planning standards and rezoning. 

 

This report does not deal with the impact of the above mentioned and similar issues which challenge the validity of the draft LEP. The Director General of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DOPI) has issued a section 65 certificate which permits exhibition of the Draft LEP and provided appropriate guidance.  It is beyond the terms of reference of a hearing such as this one, to deal with the validity of the draft LEP.

 


OVERVIEW

The following is my commentary on the issues raised by the speakers.

The oral submissions made at the hearing related mainly to the following areas:

Retention of Chinese Market Gardens v  Cemetery expansion

Carr Street Coogee - Rezoning of 3 sites from residential to Commercial

Coogee commercial area having B2 zoning

Maroubra Beach Town Centre Study

Increased Commercial development in Kensington/Kingsford area

Rezoning at 153-157 Anzac Parade Kensington, 54 Oberon Street Randwick, 33-45 Willis Street Kensington

Planning Controls

Most of the proposed changes in the draft LEP follow the existing pattern of development. The rezoning appears to be rationalising the current uses and to correct anomalies in the usage patterns of the area, for example, Carr Street. The zoning B2, in Coogee, Kensington and Kingsford areas, reflect the type of uses which already exist in these commercial areas.

Some speakers voiced opposition to the B2 zoning in Coogee and Kensington as they were of the view that it will result in an increased density not capable of being supported by the existing infrastructure, exacerbate the current anti-social behaviour and safety problems and change the existing character of the area.  It is difficult to understand how the character will change if the B2 zone is merely reflecting what already exists and any expansion of the commercial areas is limited.

In relation to the planning controls, especially the one referring to the height of the building, it is part of the required standardisation process. Some of the controls are complex to attain design results which will benefit the public and provide commercially viable outcomes, as in the Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre Study.

Although there was concern that a significant increase in density and activity will be experienced in the Commercial areas and that the current infrastructure will not support the increase, it appears that the planned increases will be minor.  The impact of any increased density will need to be monitored and controlled at the Development Application stage.

Many of the issues raised reflect the current situation and need to be addressed regardless of the Draft LEP changes. One of these issues is the anti-social behaviour by the patrons of the clubs and hotels which affects the peaceful enjoyment the residents of Coogee. Another issue is the concern about ageing and possibly inadequate infrastructure.

In summary the proposed changes in the Draft LEP are more a ” tidying up” of the existing situation and introduction of required standards rather than a significant change to the type or intensity of uses.


SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS MADE AND COMMENTS ON THE FOLLOWING AREAS

1.    Heritage Market Gardens and cemetery expansion

The Draft LEP proposes to rezone the Crown Land currently used for the production of perishable foods and vegetables, known as the Chinese Market Gardens, to RU4 Primary Production Small Lots.

The Gardens are listed on the State Heritage List which recognises their heritage significance.  It has cultural and historical value. Of course, this is only one aspect of the value of this particular urban agriculture in the Randwick Area. There is considerable literature on the value of producing perishable vegetables close to where they will be consumed, ensuring a sustainable and secure source of fresh food for a growing urban population.  The continuing concern is that the growth of the urban areas is reducing the quality and quantity of land available for growing the city’s food.

The some speakers emphasised another need of a growing urban population, that is, a place to bury the dead which is proximate to the places of worship and the community where the deceased lived. The religious, social and cultural traditions of many religions to bury rather than cremate the dead have led to a shortage of land for cemetery or burial uses.

In this negotiation, a balance is being sought between the need to maintain urban agricultural spaces to sustain a growing population in the Sydney area and the historical aspect of urban agriculture and knowledge of our history and need to support the religious and cultural tenants of many religions to bury the dead.

It has been suggested that part of the land, approximately 60% be used for cemetery purposes and 40% retained for urban agriculture.

To understand the consequences of this proposal, consideration and comparison may be given to:

A.     the location of aquifers (ground water).  An ecological report establishing the location of groundwater and its proximity to proposed graves will determine the viability of burying the dead in this location.

B.     the need for local perishable produce to be easily accessible to the market for the wellbeing of the community.

The 60%/40% land split compromise situation proposed may not be effective if the ground water proves to be a hindrance to a cemetery use and if the resulting parcels of land are so small that the Chinese Market Garden is not viable.

Although there was a convincing and valuable representation by some speakers that the land should be used as a cemetery, the valuable contribution of urban agricultural lands should not be underestimated.   The use of part of the land for cemetery purposes may only be a very short term solution for the problem of where to bury the dead.

Under these circumstances it is considered that the proposed rezoning of the land to RU4 may be supported because it is a long term sustainable solution.

 

2.    Carr Street rezoning for Nos 58-64 to B2 Local Centre

It is proposed to rezone the sites on Carr Street from residential to commercial B2 Local Centre. This B2 zoning will be in keeping with the zone for the rest of Coogee Commercial area.

It is a minor rezoning especially considering that the existing uses at 62 Carr Street are commercial, a restaurant and a large yoga studio with other rooms for meditation and health and wellbeing practitioners.

The speakers were very concerned that the increase in commercial area in Coogee, no matter how relatively small would exacerbate the existing adverse impacts on the amenity of the residential portion of the precinct. Speakers spent a considerable length of time on the existing impacts of anti-social behaviour. Currently, speakers believe the anti-social behaviour is exhibited by patrons of the licensed premises in the Coogee area and would increase if the commercial zoning expanded, even to a minor extent. The hotel and club patrons cause disturbance, violence, noise and generally unacceptable behaviour in or near the residential area.

Speakers also claimed that the amenity is further disrupted by the lack of parking available for visitors and residents of the area. There is competition for parking spaces. They believed this will be increased if there is any increase in the commercial area to attract more visitors.  The village community characteristics will dissipate with an increase in commercial uses. Currently the existing uses act as a buffer between Coogee commercial centre and the residential areas.

The speakers exhibited a distrust of the type of commercial development that may result and asked for a development application to be provided with the proposed rezoning. These submissions exhibited a lack of understanding of the LEP, DCP and DA processes. The Senior Council staff provided clarifications of the processes and some applicable planning standards.

The speakers appeared to project their current experience with the activity of the licensed premises onto the proposed commercial rezoning and were therefore concerned that residential amenity may be further eroded by the increased area of commercial zoning. 

Upon examination of the area, it appears that proposed zoning will legitimize existing commercial uses and allow No 58-60 to incorporate commercial uses. In the assessment of this proposal the suggested increase of vehicular trips may be examined to evaluate whether there would be any significant increase. The anti-social behaviour requires better management in all of Coogee and it is unlikely to be increased from this small rezoning.

One of the speakers claimed that the current uses on the 3 sites for rezoning act as a buffer between the commercial and residential uses.  This portion of Carr Street is not located well to fulfil a role as a buffer. Subject to assessment, it appears that the proposed rezoning will not have a significant adverse impact on the quality of residential life in Coogee and will remove the anomalies that exist in that part of Carr Street.


 

3.    Coogee Commercial Centre

The proposed zoning of Coogee as B2 Local Centre will act as a transfer of the current 3A Commercial zone to the equivalent B2 Commercial zone.

Some speakers were heard on this matter.  They wanted to downgrade the Coogee business centre to BI Neighbourhood Centre.  The grounds for the downgrade were to deal with all the issues raised in the Carr Street rezoning. It was considered that a downgrading of the zoning may result in a decrease in violence associated with anti-social behaviour, a reduction of traffic congestion and assist in the maintenance of a village type atmosphere.

It should be noted that the B2 zoning is still only a local centre. Coogee Commercial Centre could not fit the description of a neighbourhood centre due to the uses which already exist.

The development standards of building height and FSR will remain the same. In keeping with the request made in written submissions, Council have added an objective contained in the B1 zone to the B2 zone, to require the amenity of surrounding residents to be maintained by any new development. Also sex industry uses will be prohibited in Coogee which is contrary to most other B2 zones.

The proposed transfer to the B2 zone is considered appropriate on the grounds that a downgrading of the zone to B1 may not be accepted by DOPI and could cause many issues to arise relating to the continuation of the existing uses.  Consideration may be given to the addition of another objective that all commercial uses are capable of managing their patrons both on the commercial premises and within a given radius of those premises. This objective would assist in making the premises that are serving alcohol and have late night trading hours responsible for the orderly behaviour of their patrons in the immediate Coogee commercial area.


 

4.    Maroubra Beach town centre

Conflicting opinions were expressed by speakers regarding community participation in the creation of the Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre Study.  There appears to have been considerable consultation through a community forum which met regularly with the consultants throughout the Study.

In addition, there were comments made about the advertising and exhibition of the draft LEP. Some of the speakers claimed that many people are unaware that changes were proposed and what those changes are.

The aim of the Maroubra Beach Commercial Centre Study is to revitalise the commercial centre of Maroubra. The controls proposed are designed to capitalise on land amalgamation to provide sufficient commercial development and usable public space. If the amalgamations are not achieved the development may be lower in height and have a lesser FSR. The tallest parts of the Commercial Centre will be located in the middle of the site where it has least impact on the surrounding areas.

It appears to be a well considered design, full of possibilities to provide public benefit with limited adverse impact. Some of the concerns of the speakers may result from a difficulty in interpreting the planning controls and visualising the resulting permissible structures. The people who spoke against the proposal had not been involved in the development of the Study. The speaker whose submission supported the study outcome was involved in the consultation program.


 

5.    Commercial centres in Kensington and Kingsford

The same concerns were raised as in Coogee, that Kensington Centre should be zoned B1 not B2 as it is a strip of commercial activity and not a centre; It appears that the speakers believed that a centre could not be achieved in part because of its linear form; the lack of infrastructure to cope with increased commercial development; and an additional concern was the existence of aquifers which would be impacted by excavation and have a flow on effect to the surrounding residential area.

An additional observation made by a speaker was that the expanded commercial area would allow tall buildings near Kokoda Park and thus cause overshadowing of a public space.  Kokoda Park is used by nearby schools as an outdoor area for students.

The perceived increased density for some residential areas will place greater strain on services and infrastructure which are already inadequate.

Many of the concerns raised may be dealt with in the Development Application stage, where the impact on overshadowing and ground water table may be assessed as part of the assessment process. In other words the grounds for refusal of a development application may be the overshadowing of public places and /or the impact of excavation on the water table.


 

6.    Spot rezoning sites

There was a request for the rezoning of three sites. The first was at 54 Oberon Street Randwick to rezone to allow medium density residential.  The second at 153-157 Anzac Parade Kensington sought a review of the planning controls of height, building width and compliance with front building envelope in a draft DCP and the third was for 33-45 Willis Street Kensington, to be rezoned to medium density residential.

The submission made in support was on the grounds that the rezoning and amendment of planning controls will allow development on these sites to be in keeping with the surrounding structures. The rezoning amendment of controls is sought largely on the basis that it would be an anomaly to retain the existing zonings.

Although it may be possible to accommodate these rezonings, they may need to be accompanied with clear planning controls to ensure that there is no adverse impact on the residential area adjacent to the sites.


 

7.    Planning standards

The main concern was expressed by speakers about the use of a single measure of building height and not a measure for wall heights. The current controls contained in either the LEP or the DCP included wall heights. This ensured that the type of design favoured by the current controls was a pitched roof. In the circumstances where there is only one control for the height of the building the concern is that it will favour flat roofs and this will result in bulky overbearing building which prevent light and sunlight penetration to neighbouring properties.

 Again if the bulk of a building does cause an overbearing impact or excessive overshadowing Council has the right to refuse the development application before it.

In general the speakers were concerned that the change in planning standards would result in bulkier structures not in keeping with the existing character of the area and allow an increase of density which has its own detrimental impact, already discussed in this report, i.e., on infrastructure and quality of life generally.

The interpretation of the planning standards proposed and how these standards will operate in the process will be further monitored through the development application stage to ensure that any development which results will not cause the detrimental impacts suggested by the speakers.

Some of the concerns raised by the speakers may be further addressed during the preparation of the DCP. This will facilitate the assessment of future development applications by Council and provide more guidance for any future development in Randwick.


APPENDIX

 

 

 

PROTOCOL/CODE OF CONDUCT

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING AT RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

on 2 and 3 APRIL 2012

 

1.    Introduction

The introduction will consist of a statement made by the General Manager, Facilitator and the Manager of Strategic Planning

The Facilitator will make an introductory statement outlining the process, the role of the facilitator, the role of council staff attending the hearing and the code of conduct for the hearing.

The Manager for Strategic Planning will make a statement informing the hearing of the status of the Draft LEP and providing important background information.

 

INTENTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING

The Public Hearing is intended to provide an opportunity for interested people to have

1.     An independently facilitated forum in which to present their views orally and to have an opportunity for

Discussion of the issues and views raised in these oral submissions and

Council staff to provide any clarification requested or required.

2.     To enable the facilitator to provide Council with a report commenting on the hearing.


 

CONDUCT OF HEARING

The hearing is facilitated by an independent person with appropriate qualifications in urban planning and facilitation.

In order to speak at the hearing, people will need to register prior to the hearing.

Each person will be permitted to speak for up to 5minutes.

Issues raised will be shown on a screen in the meeting room.

After the people who have registered to speak have completed making oral submissions, there will be a 15 minute break for the facilitator and Council staff to group the issues raised before the discussion time commences.

During discussion time comments and questions will be limited to issues raised by the speakers

All people attending the hearing are asked to listen respectfully to all the speakers and if they wish to make any relevant comments to wait for discussion time.

All mobile phones and cameras will be turned off for the duration of the hearing.

There will be no recordings made during the hearing.

 

OUTCOME

A report will be provided to Council based on the issues raised at the public hearing.

 

 

 

 

 


Reclassification of Council Land - Public Hearing Report

Attachment 6