urban projects
14 February 2014
Sutherland LEP Review, NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, PO Box 39, Sydney 2001. Attention: Marian Pate Via e-mail: [email protected]
Dear Marian,
Re: Submission to Sutherland draft LEP 2013
Please find attached a copy of submissions to Sutherland Shire Council in response to the public exhibition of the Draft Sutherland LEP 2013 (DLEP). The submissions were prepared on behalf of the owners of 10-14 Merton Street, Sutherland but made suggestions in relation to all land bounded by Merton Street, President Avenue, Flora Street and Belmont Street.
For clarity, an initial submission to the DLEP was submitted to Council directly by the land owners on 26 April 2013. A second comprehensive submission was lodged by DDC Urban Planning in July 2013. A third submission which was essentially a peer review of the second submission was prepared by Don Fox Planning and lodged to Council during the second exhibition period of the DLEP 2013.
Term of Reference No.2 requires consideration of the “appropriateness of the provisions contained within the second exhibited version of the draft plan”. This particular submission included a fully compliant planning proposal which considered all matter stipulated in A Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans and a Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals and Sutherland Shire Council’s: Guidelines for Planning Proposals. In addition to this, building envelope modelling was carried out and examined against other likely building forms in the Sutherland town centre. This work was prepared and peer-reviewed by experienced town planners, urban designers and architects working within well-established planning companies who understand processes around facilitating residential density in emerging centres. The context is that Sutherland is changing character and it will emerge as a Major Centre over the next few decades as the Sutherland Shire grapples to allow new housing to help assist with shortages in housing stock and diminishing affordability.
This approach gave Council staff and Councillors significant high-quality information within this changing context which allowed for the assessment of the proposed future planning controls on their merits. To this end it is considered that this proposal’s inclusion in the second exhibition period was indeed “appropriate”. It must also be remembered that this inclusion was not a gazettal but rather a process that allowed the site to be examined by the public and further examined by professional staff.
As this proposal was a part of the 75 changes made in the draft LEP by the Mayoral Minute it is captured by the scope of Term of Reference No. 3 which requires the panel to “examine” these changes. In support of the “appropriateness” of this proposal and its inclusion in the draft LEP, I would again point to the quantity and quality of professional information provided for this site in the
ddc urban projects unit 3, 112 russell street, emu plains, nsw. 2570. p 02 4728 6500
urban projects two most-recent submissions (attached). This was available to staff and Councillors and the assessment and impacts of likely building forms was well disclosed. Essentially, a full planning proposal along with three-dimensional building modelling was lodged for this site. With this information Council staff and Councillors had sufficient information to make an informed decision to include the proposal in an exhibition process relating to the draft LEP. It is not considered that such an inclusion was “inappropriate”.
In accordance with Term of Reference No. 5 a submission was made to the Hearing in respect of this submission. This was made by me on Wednesday 29th January 2014 at 10am.
Yours Sincerely,
Tim Stewart Town Planner BTP UNSW
Attached: Submission to DLEP 2013 by DDC Urban Planning Submission to DLEP 2013 by Don Fox Planning
ddc urban projects unit 3, 112 russell street, emu plains, nsw. 2570. p 02 4728 6500
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft Local Environmental Plan 2013
10-14 Merton Street, Sutherland
Prepared by
Tim Stewart (Town Planner, BTP UNSW) 12 July 2013
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 1
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
2. SITE AND CONTEXT
3. TOWN PLANNING CONTEXT
4. BUILDING ENVELOPE ANALYSIS
APPENDIX – CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO REZONING LAND – SUMMARY OF PLANNING PROPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS
PART 1 Objectives or Intended Outcomes
PART 2 Explanation of the Provisions
PART 3 Justification
Section A – Need for the Planning Proposal Section B – Relationship to Strategic Planning Framework Section C – Environmental, Social & Economic Impact Section D – State and Commonwealth Interests
PART 4 Community Consultation
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Relevant SSLEP 2006 Controls Table 2: Net Community Benefit Test Assessment Table 3: Relationships to Strategic Planning Framework Table 4: Assessment against Ministerial Directions
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Owners of 10 & 14 Merton Street Sutherland lodged a submission to Council‘s draft LEP dated 26th April 2013. Since that initial submission the owners have engaged DDC Urban Planning to lodge a follow up supplementary town planning submission in relation to land on the eastern side of Merton Street south of Flora Street Sutherland. Specifically the owner‘s property at 10-14 Merton Street is the main area of focus however this submission also promotes the inclusion of all land within this block to be reviewed for higher density.
This submission is supported and justified by the following key features/ issues:
The subject site is supremely well located adjacent to Sutherland town centre commercial and administration precincts and was omitted from the recent town centre study which ultimately informed the draft LEP 2013.
The site is within 250m of the railway station which is significantly closer than other sites further to the south that were included in the town centre study.
Six (6) storey height limits within Sutherland have not been viable for many years. This has been proven by the poor take up of development in that zone. An improvement to site viability is required to activate development in Sutherland Town Centre.
Many of the earmarked sites for development are unlikely to ever be taken up as development sites due to extremely fragmented ownership and high existing commercial yields.
The rezoning of the overall block would create a strong urban design linkage from the council car park site to the north all the way down to President Avenue to the south.
This site is sufficiently large, appropriately located and ripe for development and these sites should be considered as part of Council‘s overall strategy which seeks to provide 10,100 new dwellings by 2036 to meet Sydney Metropolitan Strategy targets.
The site on the western side of Merton Street is a school with significant heritage issues. This whole block is also unlikely to be developed. It is also desirable in an urban context to have educational precincts within the town centres and in proximity to housing.
The proposal seeks to complement the State Government‘s and Council‘s initiative to stimulate jobs in town centres. It makes sense to also provide new higher density housing in town centres, thereby reducing reliance on motor vehicle transport.
Higher density housing in town centres will stimulate local business which in turn will create more jobs for Shire residents.
The Sydney Metropolitan Plan notes Sutherland as a key growth centre in the Shire over the next 25 years and even notes its potential to become a major centre.
This proposal will assist in providing a more affordable and smaller housing option than the more traditional large house which has underpinned much of the Shire for many decades.
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 3 1. INTRODUCTION
This submission seeks to gain approval for an amendment to Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2006 to allocate 10-14 Merton Street a building height of 40m and a maximum floor space ratio of 4:1. It also proposes increases to nearby lands within the block and these are outlined in this submission.
The owners of this site made formal submissions to Council‘s draft LEP on 26 April 2013 during its exhibition. This submission provides more detail to that submission. Having registered a desire to be considered for additional density, this report outlines how that could happen and seeks to justify such a proposal in more substantive terms.
This submission seeks to amend the provisions of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan (SSLEP) 2006 as they relate to 10-14 Merton Street, Sutherland and all surrounding land within the block bounded by Flora Street, Merton Street, President Avenue and Belmont Street.
Council is able consider this request as part of its broader implementation of the draft LEP or as a site-specific Planning Proposal. Whatever the case, this submission has been prepared in accordance with guidelines and information required around Planning Proposals which will allow Council to enact a rezoning in whichever way it deems appropriate. This submission addresses all the key considerations and justification for the rezoning which must be considered by Council.
This submission considers the Department of Planning and Infrastructure guidelines: A Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans and A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals and Sutherland Shire Council‘s: Guidelines for Planning Proposals.
Information relevant to a Planning Proposal is provided in the Appendix to this submission.
The need for the additional residential floor space sought by this submission arises from the incredible and urgent need for new housing around key identified town centres within Sydney. Sydney is growing and new housing is presently not being build to keep pace with demand. This need has been well documented in the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney.
Sutherland has been identified as a growth centre which can accommodate significant employment and even government services in the future and it therefore makes sense to locate higher density residential housing in Sutherland.
It is well established that demand for smaller affordable units within Sutherland is strong as young people continue to try and remain in the Shire. Sutherland‘s tremendous public transport access to the airport and Sydney means it is highly sought after by new residents to Australia and first-home buyers alike.
This site is ready to be developed and requires no further amalgamation in order to begin. Many of the higher density sites in Sutherland will require amalgamations and therefore may take many years to be ready for redevelopment.
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 4 2. SITE AND CONTEXT
This submission seeks Council‘s endorsement for the rezoning of a primary site at 10-14 Merton Street Sutherland. It is also the recommendation of this submission that all other land within the entire block should be reviewed for higher density. This is prime town centre land and has a strong connection to the 40m building controls which apply north of Flora Street.
In essence the proposed controls (if implemented) would apply to all land between Merton Street, Flora Street, President Avenue and Belmont Street.
Important Note: The other sites to the north, south and east of 10-14 Merton Street are not a party to this submission and have not made representation to be included in this submission. It is simply an independent planning opinion that a larger precinct could be looked at along with the specific proposal for 10-14 Merton Street.
Photo 1: (below) shows the larger precinct with the smaller site within. Source: Google Earth
It must be understood that no specific urban design analysis has been undertaken on any other site within the town centre. A more detailed analysis has been carried out for 10-14 Merton Street and is detailed in this submission. All other massing models shown are indicative only and have been derived from Council‘s proposed height controls for the town centre.
The specific property is described as Lots 151 and 152 DP 1020267. It has a frontage of 46.94m to the Merton Street and a depth of 67.05m giving it a total area of 3,147m². The site is generally flat with no significant slope or features of significance. Currently the site is home to two small weatherboard cottages. The site was formerly amalgamated and so there is also a significant amount of vacant space between the two houses on the site.
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 5 Photo 2: (right) shows the 10-14 Merton Street development site on its own. Source: SSC Nearmap aerial photography.
A Council car park and the Council Administration Precinct is located on the northern side on Flora Street. On the western side of Merton Street is a public school and adjoining the site to the east is another school.
Adjoining the site immediately to the north is a single-storey commercial building on the corner and a house to its east. Further east along Flora Street is a block of residential apartments which is within Zone No. 12 - Seniors Housing. To the south of the subject site is a two storey row of town-houses with other residential apartment buildings further south.
Photos 3 and 4 (below right) show the subject site from street level. The white cottage is the northern-most building on the site.
The site is well serviced by local public transport networks and is approximately 250m from Sutherland Railway station which provides connectivity to Sydney suburbs and the City.
The site has very strong connections visually to the Council car park site and this is demonstrated in the urban form analysis which has been prepared for the entire town centre. This precinct is very centrally located and provides a strong linkage from the car park site to the north and the 20m building forms proposed for lands south of President Avenue.
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 6
Photo 5 (below) shows the site within the context of the Sutherland Town Centre and proximity to commercial centre and railway station to the west. Source: SSC Nearmap aerial photography
Site
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 7 The following series of pictures (6 – 8) show the adjoining properties to the south (in order moving away from the site.
16-18 Merton St
20 Merton St
22 Merton St
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 8 3. TOWN PLANNING CONTEXT
Existing controls (being replaced):
The subject site is almost completely surrounded by Zone No. 12 land most of which is nominated for Educational Establishments. Bounding this block to the north (on the north side of Flora St) is land within Zone No. 8 (refer to Council‘s zoning map below).
The current site presently has no height limit or floor space ratio limit allocated on the LEP maps and therefore the default positions within the SSLEP 2006 apply.
Proposed controls (Draft LEP currently being prepared):
The Sutherland Shire draft LEP sets out the proposed new planning controls for this area. These are detailed in this section. Below is the draft LEP zoning map and the site is zoned R4.
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 9 The Figures below shows the draft LEP 2013 FSR and Height of Buildings map as they were originally exhibited:
The draft LEP controls provide for a range of 30m and 40m buildings to the north, although the properties immediately to the north of the subject site (on the south side of Flora St) are proposed to be limited to 6 storey buildings or 20m.
It is considered quite an omission that this block or precinct was not considered within the overall town centre strategy and a reasonable case could be argued that it should have been, given its central location and proximity to services.
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 10 To that end this submission proposes a full review of this entire block and the subsequent amendment of the height and floor space maps within the LEP. A draft Height Map showing these changes is shown below:
This submission has prepared basic massing models for the block to illustrate their relationship to the other height controls proposed around the town centre. The massing models have been shown in the town centre to give an idea of the scale and height of development in the town centre. They are not the result of an urban form study and exist to give an indication of scale and height.
It must also be understood that sites with current strong commercial revenue are often not feasible for redevelopment. Furthermore these sites are often small and require significant amalgamation which is also problematic and results in many areas not seeing a full take-up of development potential. It is likely that this will be the case along Princes Highway on the eastern side of the railway line and also for the heritage school site on Merton Street.
The proposed building envelope for the site aims to provide a guide as to possible future form and have been prepared to help give an early indication around likely compliance with SEPP 65 design principles and building impacts. The building envelopes are examined in Section 4 of this submission.
FSR map: Proposed allocation – ―X‖ (4:1) Height map: Proposed allocation – ―W‖ (40m)
This allocation is also desirable to provide sufficient uplift for sites to the south to be able to possibly redevelop in the future, although it is acknowledged that fragmented ownership will make this more difficult.
These southern properties will be impacted by any proposed new development as will the subject site by any development to the north. The proposed increase in densities and heights throughout Sutherland will have an impact on things like overshadowing however it is appropriate that this be understood and managed as best as possible. There is no doubt there will be an adjustment in mindset around building impacts as significant density increases are implemented.
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 11 BUILDING ENVELOPE ANALYSIS
As part of this submission a typical building envelope has been prepared in order to gain a preliminary understanding of impact, amenity and overall context within the town centre. The building envelope prepared for the site at 10-14 Merton Street is 40m or thirteen (13) storeys high and would result in a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of approximately 4:1.
This section will examine this possible building form within its broader context and also provides a preliminary appraisal in terms of SEPP 65 compliance. This analysis is considered important to ensure that a reasonably compliant building can actually be designed for this site. Obviously, a full design of the site has not yet been carried out and so it must be understood that this appraisal is indicative only and the final design may vary considerably. Furthermore, no building ever utilizes one hundred percent of its building envelope and so articulation and modulation would also be designed into the final form.
4.1 Streetscape Analysis in Town Centre Context
This section provides massing models which aims to examine the range of building forms permissible in under the draft LEP controls. These envelopes have not been subject to detailed design appraisal at this stage and are offered to provide a guide to overall context. It also shows the subject site‘s proximity to the town centre and railway station.
In the series of diagrams below, the massing models are colour-coded to illustrate the height differences around the town and show the strong connection of the proposed sites to the overall town centre.
Dark Pink 40m height Light Pink 30m height Yellow 20m height
The above diagram is an aerial view looking from the west looking over the railway station.
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 12
4.2 Locality-specific Building Envelope Analysis:
This section aims to look closer at the subject site at 10-14 Merton Street and start to examine the possible building envelopes which may arise after a preliminary design analysis. These envelopes still have no building detail or articulation however they do start to explore the block edge connection to the street, side and rear setbacks and separation distances between buildings. Careful consideration has been given to create a building form which does not sterilize the adjoining sites from appropriate and easy redevelopment.
Final setbacks and details will obviously emerge during any future DA stage.
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 13
4.3 Specific Building Form Analysis
The images below show a more detailed building form in its immediate setting. This clearly illustrates likely future building separation and widths. The west elevation below is the view from Merton Street.
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 14
4.4 SEPP 65 Analysis: Sunlight and Building Separation
A very preliminary analysis has been undertaken in respect to the building‘s ability to meet SEPP 65 guidelines in relation to solar access. The SEPP 65 Residential Design Guidelines‘ Rule of Thumb suggests that 70% of units should have at least three hours of direct sunlight into living rooms in mid winter. While compliance cannot possibly be known prior to a detailed design exercise being carried out, some typical likely floor plans were examined. These are shown below and it is considered that once the building form is designed and modulated that there is a good likelihood that this provision can be complied with.
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 15
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 16 4.5 Overshadowing Analysis
A brief assessment of the impacts of overshadowing on existing and possible future buildings has been carried out. It must be understood that this building envelope is the worst-case scenario in terms of overshadowing. In reality, once a building is articulated and modulated with setbacks and balconies there will be more light available to adjoining properties.
The lower level units to the south do struggle to achieve three hours of sunlight in midwinter although the separation between the two proposed building forms will allow for some sunlight into southern properties.
A key point to note is that even a six storey building on the subject site would provide the same level of overshadowing to the lower level units immediately to the south.
Furthermore, a large two storey home located 1m from the southern boundary would significantly overshadow ground floor units in the adjoining complex. The orientation of the sites on an east-west axis makes overshadowing a significant consideration in any form of development on this site.
Block-edged buildings in areas of higher density always struggle to avoid overshadowing. The main aspect of any good building in an urban centre is to ―foster a strong connection with the street‖ and from here design a form that access as much light as possible for itself and for neighbouring properties.
With overshadowing almost unable to be avoided in this context, it remains an issue to manage its impact within the context of increasing densities within the town centre. While direct sunlight may not always be possible, appropriate building separation distances will help in allowing ambient light and reflected light into these dwellings.
Midwinter analysis – building forms (hourly from 9am – 3pm):
9am
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 17 10am
11am
12 noon
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 18 1pm
2pm
3pm
Submission to Sutherland Shire Draft LEP 2013 19
APPENDIX
CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO REZONING LAND
SUMMARY OF PLANNING PROPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS
PART 1 - OBJECTIVES OR INTENDED OUTCOMES
The objective of this submission (Planning Proposal) is to allow for a 40m residential building comprising thirteen (13) residential floors of accommodation above basement car parking. This building form will result in a maximum floor space ratio of 4:1.
The site is currently used for two dwelling houses and is within Zone No. 6 – Multiple Dwelling B. Residential Flat Buildings are permissible with consent
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 1
PART 2 – EXPLANATION OF PROVISIONS
The Sutherland Shire Council Local Environmental Plan (SSLEP) 2006 contains town planning controls for all development in the Sutherland Shire. Supporting the written document, there are seven (7) maps referred to by the SSLEP that identify specific environmental aspects that control development. The relevant maps for this proposal include zoning, height and density control.
Pursuant to SSLEP 2006 the site is currently within Zone 6 – Multiple Dwelling B.
Site
The key controls in SSLEP 2006 and their relevance to the Planning Proposal are summarised in Table 1 below. (Source: Sutherland Council LEP 2006)
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 2 Table 1 – Relevant SSLEP 2006 Controls SSLEP 2006 Provisions Relevance to Planning Proposal
Clause 11 Zoning Table
Objectives of zone (Zone 6) The entire Shire is subject to a new draft LEP which would be the likely mechanism to The objectives of this zone are as follows: implement this Planning Proposal if it is (a) to allow residential flat buildings in a form that supported. For clarity the subject site is complements the predominantly urban landscape currently within Zone 6 which is proposed to setting of the zone, become Zone B4 under the draft LEP. Zone 8 (b) to allow development that is of a scale and to the north and west is proposed to become nature that reflects its position as part of an urban Zone B3 under the proposed draft LEP. centre, (c) to permit development on land at a density that This Planning Proposal would not seek to is appropriate in terms of the land‘s proximity to the change the zone of the land from what is retail/commercial centre, public transport, services proposed but rather allocate different height and employment opportunities, and floor space provisions. (d) to provide a range of housing choices in accessible locations. Residential Flat Buildings are permitted within the zone subject to the approval of council.
Objective (b) is important in the overall consideration of the planning proposal. It is contended that a new scale and nature is being established for Sutherland Town Centre and this locality is appropriate for substantial density increases should council endorse the vision of greater densities around the edge of the centre.
This planning proposal will support all of these objectives within the context of larger buildings within the town centre.
Clause 33 Building Height
(2) Objectives
The objectives of this clause are as follows: All objectives relating to Building Height (a) to ensure the scale of buildings: remain relevant. (i) is consistent with the desired scale and character of the street and locality in which The Height and Density Control Map in the buildings are located, and SSLEP 2006 does not allocate a specific (ii) complements any natural landscape setting height control for the subject site and so is of the buildings, limited to three (3) storeys pursuant to Clause (b) to allow reasonable daylight access to all 33(14)(b) which is a catch-all clause for buildings and the public domain, residential flat buildings. No specific height (c) to minimise the impacts of new buildings on controls apply to Zone No. 6. adjoining or nearby properties from loss of views, loss of privacy, overshadowing or visual intrusion, Under the draft LEP however a height control (d) to ensure that the visual impact of buildings is of 20m or six (6) storeys is proposed for this minimised when viewed from adjoining properties, zone (Zone R4 – High Density Residential). the street, waterways and public reserves, (e) to ensure, where possible, that the height of This proposal is clearly responding to a new non-residential buildings in residential zones is vision being established for the town centres compatible with the scale of residential buildings on within Sutherland Shire. Of these centres, land in those zones. Sutherland has been particularly identified as a future employment-generating centre by (3) The consent authority must not consent to NSW Government and by Council as development for the purpose of a building unless it appropriate for much greater building heights. has considered the objectives of this clause. To that end, this proposed building will be appropriate to the desired scale and character (14) Residential flat buildings of this area which is essentially bounded by Despite anything to the contrary in this clause, a schools and other high density zones. residential flat building must not comprise more
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 3 than: This submission therefore proposes to amend (a) the maximum number of storeys specified on the draft LEP which is implementing the the Height and Density Controls Map in relation to recommendations of the Housing Strategy. the land concerned, or (b) if that map does not specify a maximum number In summary this submission concludes that of storeys in relation to the land concerned—3 the site can remain zoned B4 but is capable of storeys. accommodating a 40m building. This would involve amending the draft LEP ―Height of Building‖ maps accordingly.
Clause 35 Building Density
(2) Objectives
The objectives of this clause are as follows: All objectives relating to Building Density (a) to ensure that development is in keeping with the remain relevant. characteristics of the site and the local area, (b) to provide a degree of consistency in the bulk The Height and Density Control Map in and scale of new buildings that relates to the SSLEP 2006 does not allocate a specific floor context and environmental qualities of the locality, space ratio for the subject site and so is (c) to minimise the impact of buildings on the limited pursuant to Clause 35(9). amenity of adjoining residential properties, (d) to ensure, where possible, that non-residential FSR is an extremely ‗blunt instrument‘ in buildings in residential zones are compatible with terms of creating desirable urban form. the scale and character of residential buildings on Consistent and appropriate building envelope land in those zones. controls will produce different FSR controls for a larger square site than it may for a narrow smaller site. It is the urban form which (9) The maximum floor space ratio applying to establishes the character of a town centre. development for the purpose of a building on a site in Notwithstanding this they are more relevant in Zone 6—Multiple Dwelling B is as follows: a residential context rather than a commercial (a) in the case of a dwelling house—0.45:1, centre situation. In this case FSR controls do (b) in the case of a residential flat building: work together with setbacks etc to create an (i) if the area of the site is 1,200 square metres or overall amenity. less—0.7:1, or (ii) if the area of the site is more than 1,200 square In summary this submission concludes that metres and less than 1,800 square metres—the the site can remain zoned B4 but is capable of ratio calculated as follows: accommodating a floor space ratio of up to 4:1. This would involve amending the draft
or LEP ―FSR‖ maps accordingly. (iii) if a floor space ratio is specified on the Height and Density Controls Map in relation to the site concerned—the floor space ratio specified on that map,
Clause 48 Urban design—general The consent authority must not consent to All matters relating to Urban Design - General development unless it has considered the following remain relevant. matters that are of relevance to the development: (a) the extent to which high quality design and development outcomes for the urban environment of Sutherland Shire have been attained, or will be attained by the proposed development, (b) the extent to which any proposed buildings are designed and will be constructed to: (i) strengthen, enhance or integrate into the existing character of distinctive locations, neighbourhoods and streetscapes, and (ii) contribute to the desired future character of the locality concerned, (c) the extent to which recognition has been given to the public domain in the design of the proposed development and the extent to which that design will facilitate improvements to the public domain, (d) the extent to which the natural environment will
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 4 be retained or enhanced by the proposed development, (e) the extent to which the proposed development will respond to the natural landform of the site of the development, (f) the extent to which the proposed development will preserve, enhance or reinforce specific areas of high visual quality, ridgelines and landmark locations, including gateways, nodes, views and vistas, (g) the principles for minimising crime risk set out in Part B of the Crime Prevention Guidelines and the extent to which the design of the proposed development applies those principles.
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 5 PART 3 – JUSTIFICATION
The NSW Department of Planning has a publication entitled ―Guidelines for Preparing Planning Proposals‖. It outlines a range of questions which will be answered as part of the Justification process. Prior to dealing with these questions it is appropriate to provide an urban design justification for this proposal.
Section A – Need for the planning proposal
1. Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report?
The direct answer to this question is no, however indirectly it has arisen from the proposed rezoning of all the land around Sutherland Town Centre to accommodate increased densities.
It should also be noted that its need is generally supported by the Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney 2036 which clearly identifies Sutherland as a potential major centre and seeks to allocate growth targets for key growth areas. More on this later in the report:
In conjunction with the South Subregion local councils, the Department of Planning has applied a centre typology to identify the mix and range of existing centres within the South Subregion. This has identified three Strategic Centres. The Specialised Centre at Sydney Airport and Environs (including Cooks Cove) is partly located in the subregion and there are Major Centres at Hurstville and Kogarah.
There is also a Potential Major Centre, Sutherland, which may grow over the life of the strategy to become a Major Centre. Centres and Corridors South – Key Directions (p58).
2. Is the planning proposal the best means of achieving the objectives or intended outcomes, or is there a better way?
The planning proposal is considered to be an appropriate means of achieving the stated objectives and intended outcomes. Sutherland is undergoing much change as new zones and densities are identified across the Shire.
In this current situation the best means would be to include the land in the consolidated Shire-wide LEP. If this method is selected it is still appropriate that the justification work has been undertaken in any case.
3. Is there a net community benefit?
A net community benefit arises where the sum of all the benefits of a development or rezoning outweighs the sum of all costs. The justification to proceed with the planning proposal has taken into consideration the public interest and the consequence of not proceeding with the change in height and FSR.
Table 2 below provides an evaluation of the Planning Proposal against the key criteria for a Net Community Benefit Test set out in the Department of Planning‘s draft Centres Policy. The level of detail and analysis is proportionate to the size and likely impact of the proposed LEP amendment.
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 6 Sutherland Council, in the ―Cronulla Centre Review – January 2011‖, noted that ―recently completed prestige developments, both commercial and residential, have provided the public benefit of improved streetscapes and contributed to a revitalisation of those parts of Cronulla‖. Obviously Sutherland is not Cronulla however within its own context this principle stands true in a general sense.
Based on the responses to the key evaluation criteria in Table 2, it is considered that the proposed changes to the Sutherland Shire LEP will produce a net community benefit. There are very few costs to the community in a broad sense, however it is also acknowledged that massive benefits are also difficult to claim for a residential building. The benefit while positive would also be reasonably modest.
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 7 Table 2 – Net Community Benefit Test Assessment
Evaluation Criteria Assessment /x
Will the LEP be compatible with More detailed assessment of the proposal‘s agreed State and regional strategic compatibility with State and regional strategic direction for development in the area direction is provided in Section B4 of this proposal. (e.g. land release, strategic corridors, development within 800 metres of a State strategic direction is clear in the Metropolitan transit node)? Strategy where it earmarks the possibility that Sutherland ―may grow over the life of the strategy to become a Major Centre.‖ It also notes that Sutherland LGA is forecast to provide over 10,000 new homes over the life of the Strategy. This needs a serious commitment by government because only a proportion of rezoned land is ever actually developed. Some sites remain undeveloped for many reasons and any appropriate site for added density will be required to meet these targets.
The Planning Proposal is also about 250m of Sutherland railway station and a 1 minute walk to shops and major services. The centre is also well serviced by local and regional bus services.
Strategic Direction B – Growing and Renewing Centres is relevant to this proposal. This Direction notes that “concentrating a greater range of activities near one another in centres well served by public transport makes it easier for people to go about their daily activities and helps to create lively, functional places in which to live, work, socialise and invest.”
Direction B goes on to note: Focusing new housing in and around centres helps to make efficient use of existing infrastructure, increases the diversity of housing supply, allows more trips to be made by public transport and helps strengthen the customer base for local businesses.
The proposed amendment is compatible with Objective B1 – To Focus Activity in Accessible Centres:
Plan for centres to grow over time (Action B1.1); Aim to locate 80 per cent of all new housing within the walking catchments of existing and planned centres of all sizes with good public transport (Action B1.3);
The proposed amendment is compatible with Objective B3 – To plan for new centres and instigate a program for high quality urban renewal in existing centres serviced by public transport:
Plan for urban renewal in identified centres (Action B3.2);
Is the LEP located in a global/regional The proposed amendment is located in a Town city, strategic centre or corridor Centre as identified in the Centres and Corridors nominated within the Metropolitan South – Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (p59). Page Strategy or other regional or sub 58 however notes: ―There is also a Potential Major regional strategy? Centre, Sutherland, which may grow over the life of the strategy to become a Major Centre.‖
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 8
Evaluation Criteria Assessment /x
Is the LEP likely to create a precedent The proposed LEP is supported by the notion that or create or change the expectations this site is within a block of residential land which is of the landowner or other extremely close to the town centre and nearby land N landholders? earmarked for 40m apartments. The site is surrounded by Special Use land comprising schools and churches and it would appropriate to include this land in the 30m - 40m area – as is earmarked for the Council car park site and south along the railway line. Indeed much of the earmarked land for taller building is further away from the town centre than this site.
It is contended that the entire block could easily be rezoned if Council were of a mind, however the land to the south is already developed as medium density housing. The council car park property to the north of Flora Street is earmarked for 40m development and many sites west of the site near the railway line are also noted for 40m development.
For this reason the subject site is ripe for inclusion to match the controls in the vicinity and is therefore unlikely to create a strong precedent.
Subsequently, the expectations of some select landowners in the locality will generally remain the same, although they may be inclined to wonder if their site could mount similar arguments. Impact is therefore considered neutral.
Have the cumulative effects of other The effects of all rezoning are being monitored in spot rezoning proposals in the locality general terms for the amount of new dwellings they been considered? What was the can provide to a centre. This is being monitored via outcome of these considerations? the Housing Strategy. The overall outcome is a clear desire to build a framework to attract new housing and jobs to the town centres within Sutherland.
Will the LEP facilitate a permanent One could argue that population increase is an employment generating activity or employment generating activity although no new result in a loss of employment lands? commercial activity is proposed in a traditional sense. There will be no loss of employment lands.
Will the LEP impact upon the supply There will only be a positive impact on the supply of of residential land and therefore residential land and the increase in small housing housing supply and affordability? products near to railway lines increases the supply of affordable housing.
Is the existing public infrastructure All existing services are capable of taking additional (roads, rail, utilities) capable of accommodation proposed around the town centre.. servicing the proposed site? Pedestrian access is very good and public transport is outstanding both locally and regionally.
Is there good pedestrian and cycling The site is about 250 metres (or 3 minute walking access? distance) to Sutherland Station and bus services exist from the centre. Is public transport currently available or is there infrastructure capacity to support future public transport.
Will the proposal result in changes to Having more residents locate near transport reduces the car distances travelled by car distances travelled and allow for more sustainable customers, employees and suppliers? housing.
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 9
Evaluation Criteria Assessment /x
If so, what are the likely impacts in The likely impact of reduced travel distances local terms of greenhouse gas emissions, residents will be a decrease in greenhouse gas operating costs and road safety? emissions, reduced air pollution, reduced operating costs for vehicles, more time with family and friends, and for some, a more peaceful demeanour after not having navigated Sydney traffic for several hours. Road safety will also be improved.
Are there significant Government No negative impact. The site is near to Sutherland investments in infrastructure or hospital and so again, this is seen to be a positive services in the area whose patronage impact as people are allowed to locate around will be affected by the proposal? government services.
If so, what is the expected impact?
Will the proposal impact on land that No. the Government has identified a need to protect (e.g. land with high biodiversity values) or have other environmental impacts?
Is the land constrained by No environmental factors such as flooding?
Will the LEP be compatible or The LEP will be compatible with existing residential complementary with surrounding land uses adjoining the site. It also considered that high uses? density residential housing is consistent with schools. This is a well-established tradition to locate people close to schools if possible
What is the impact on amenity in the The proposal will have a negative impact on amenity location and wider community? to southern sites. This is mainly due to loss of sunlight. Many people do not support higher density x development and this is understood. Careful design of the building will aim to minimize impacts however issues like overshadowing will always cause impact when densities increase. Section 4 of this submission addresses this in greater detail.
Will the public domain improve? Well designed apartments are attractive and I consider improve the public domain of a strong centre. In this case the two houses on site are very modest and so the area will improve. This is also a subjective issue and one really which is reliant on context. The context here is a growing vibrant centre which seeks to try and reduce the trend of people needing to drive out of the shire to work and be wed to their motor car.
Will the proposal increase choice and No. competition by increasing the number of retail and commercial premises operating in the area?
If a stand-alone proposal and not a This proposal is on a site which is part of a town centre, does the proposal have the centre. potential to develop into a centre in the future?
What are the public interest reasons The public interest for preparing the draft plan will be for preparing the draft plan? a number of economic and social benefits including:
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 10
Evaluation Criteria Assessment /x
. It will bring more people in proximity to local commercial businesses and therefore stimulate and consolidate employment in the centre; . A new mix of more affordable housing which hasn‘t typically underpinned development in Sutherland Shire over recent decades; . The location of smaller housing units near to good public transport. . It will improve sustainability indicators due to the site‘s proximity to public transport and business services.
What are the implications of not No immediate implications at this time, except for lost proceeding at this time? opportunity to move towards meeting Council‘s vision. N
Section B – Relationship to strategic planning framework.
4. Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy (including the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and exhibited draft strategies)?
It has already been noted that Sutherland is noted within Sydney Metropolitan Plan – Centres and Corridors South as a ―Town Centre‖ and also noted that it has the potential to grow into Major Centre during the life of the Plan. Such a move would put it along side Hurstville and Kogarah in this region. This is noted under the ―Strategic Centres‖ discussion on page 58.
The Strategy also notes:
“A key direction of this Strategy is to resolve the role of Caringbah, Miranda and Sutherland in their growth over the next 25 years. Careful strategic planning will need to be undertaken to ensure the growth of each centre is complementary.”
“Sutherland Town Centre is identified in the Metropolitan Strategy as a Potential Major Centre. While this centre provides local administration services, Caringbah– Miranda provides more retail, health and employment services. It is well situated and serviced by road and rail infrastructure and has the capability and potential for further growth. The recent implementation of Miranda to Hurstville Bus Corridor as well as the duplication of the Cronulla Line will further strengthen Caringbah–Miranda’s important role within the sub region.”
Council has undertaken a review of all its centres as part of its recent Housing Strategy and this has been done under the broad mandate of the Metropolitan Strategy. To that end we are seeing the unique nature of the town centres emerge and it is certainly appropriate that housing be located around the Sutherland Centre as it emerges as a major centre within the region.
Specifically in respect of Sutherland the strategy notes:
Sutherland Town Centre is situated predominantly to the east of the rail line. Sutherland station is serviced by both the Cronulla and the Illawarra Rail Lines. The Town Centre is strong in local administration services housing the Council Chambers, courthouse, entertainment centre, shopping, education and sport facilities. A large cemetery substantially restricts further growth of the town to the west and the Princes
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 11 Highway, Old Princes Highway and park lands restrict further growth of the town centre to the north, east and south. Sutherland may prove to be a focus for employment growth in the long term and should be considered in any subregional centres planning work in the future.
Table 3 – Relationship to Strategic Planning Framework
METROPOLITAN PLAN FOR SYDNEY 2036
STRATEGIC DIRECTION A: COMMENT STRENGTHENING THE ‘CITY OF CITIES’
OBJECTIVE A2 It is the clear intent of the Metropolitan Plan to To achieve a compact, connected, multi- establish each centre with appropriate centred and increasingly networked city development to stimulate appropriately located structure. housing and employment uses to reduce travel times around the city. This proposal accords with this vision and will allow more people to live in a centre which is central to the growth in the southern region of Sydney and well connected to existing transport infrastructure.
It is also a key objective of the NSW Government to locate more people closer to their places of work. This achieves that objective as well.
OBJECTIVE A3 Proposal will provide for additional housing in an To contain the urban footprint and achieve a existing growth area and will not contribute to the balance between greenfields growth and growth of the urban footprint. renewal in existing areas
STRATEGIC DIRECTION B: COMMENT GROWING AND RENEWING CENTRES
OBJECTIVE B1 The Planning Proposal will make use of existing To focus activity in accessible centres. infrastructure, increase housing supply, allow more trips to be made by public transport and strengthen the customer base for local business in the Sutherland Town Centre.
The strategy endorses that ―Development will Action B1.1 occur within the walking catchments of centres.‖ It Plan for centres to grow over time also goes on to note that ―LEPs will be used to
provide capacity for the desired growth.‖
This Planning Proposal facilitates new housing Action B1.3 development within a centre with good public Aim to locate 80% of all new housing within transport. the walking catchments of existing and
planned centres of all sizes with good public transport.
OBJECTIVE B3 Some of the key outcomes of this objective which To plan for new centres and instigate a are supported by the Planning Proposal are: program for high quality urban renewal in revitalise existing centres to create vibrant existing centres serviced by public transport. places where it is pleasant to live, work and socialize; enhance public domain and civic spaces;
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 12 improve centre economies by clustering activity to enhance business viability;
Action B3.2 The Planning Proposal will stimulate the Plan for urban renewal in identified centres redevelopment of older style residential houses buildings to improve both the standard of design and the amenity of future residents in an identified centre. It will also promote high quality, sustainable residential development.
STRATEGIC DIRECTION D: COMMMENT HOUSING SYDNEY’S POPULATION
OBJECTIVE D1 Planning Proposal will allow for the redevelopment To ensure an adequate supply of land and of a site for increased residential development. sites for residential development
Action D1.1 This Planning Proposal seeks to locate new Locate at least 70 per cent of new housing housing within an existing urban centre. within existing urban areas and up to 30 per cent of new housing in new release areas
Action D1.2 The Sutherland draft Housing Strategy identified Reflect new subregional housing targets in that without changes to the current zoning Subregional Strategies and Local patterns or development control standards in Environmental Plans, and monitor their SSLEP2006, they cannot achieve the number of achievement. dwellings in centres required by the draft Subregional Strategy. This Planning Proposal will assist Council in meeting their housing targets through the new draft LEP 2013.
OBJECTIVE D2 Planning Proposal will provide for additional To produce housing that suits our expected dwelling units to meet the expected future needs future needs. of the community as identified in Council‘s Housing Strategy. It is also well established that OBJECTIVE D3 small housing units are required within Sutherland To improve housing affordability to assist with affordability issues facing the shire. Great diversity brings greater choice allowing Action D3.1 young residents to remain in the Shire as they Explore incentives to deliver moderately establish their own homes. This is a strong social priced rental and purchase housing across all benefit which serves to strengthen the family unit subregions as well.
As supply is increased so will affordability increase. This process will also flow through to rental affordability as well which has strong ties to capital value.
OBJECTIVE D4 Sutherland has already shown that increasing To improve the quality of new housing development potential has been necessary to development and urban renewal activate the market. This is based on simple economics but is a fact of life in terms of city development. Council‘s initiatives in terms of Design Review Panels and the implementation of SEPP 65 is also assisting to improve quality.
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 13 DRAFT SYDNEY SOUTH SUBREGION STRATEGY
CENTRES AND CORRIDORS COMMMENT
OBJECTIVE B2 Planning Proposal provides for increase in Increase densities in centres whilst improving residential density in the Sutherland Town Centre livability and will improve livability by developing dwelling units that comply with SEPP 65 requirements and are located near to transport and business services.
OBJECTIVE B4 The planning proposal assists in achieving this Concentrate activities near public transport objective.
HOUSING COMMMENT
OBJECTIVE C1 Sutherland GLA has been allocated a target of Ensure Adequate supply of land and sites for housing requirements of 10,100 new dwellings by residential development 2031 as set down in the draft Subregional Strategy. Major initiatives need to be undertaken at a zoning level to meet these targets and appropriate opportunities for major Planning Proposals should also be explored.
It should also be noted that it is rare to have a 100% take-up of density in any zoned area and so sites which are ripe and ready for development should also be assessed and embraced as appropriate. It is considered that this Planning Proposal is one of those sites.
OBJECTIVE C2 The planning proposal assists in achieving and Plan for a housing mix near jobs, transport supporting this objective, the related actions and and services strategic outcomes.
Action C2.1 Focus residential development around centres, town centres, villages and neighbourhood centres.
SO 2.1.1 South Councils to ensure location of new dwellings improves the subregion‘s performance against the target for the State Plan Priority E5.
SO 2.1.2 Councils to provide in their LEPs, zoned capacity for a significant majority of new dwellings to be located in strategic and local centres.
Action C2.3 Provide a mix of housing.
SO 2.3.2 South Councils to provide for an appropriate range of residential zonings to cater for changing housing.
OBJECTIVE C3 The planning proposal assists in achieving a Renew local centres revitalization and renewal under-utilised land in Sutherland. While this is not public works, the development of private land around and in town centres is important in the renewal of centres.
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 14 OBJECTIVE C4 The strong demand for units in Sutherland is being Improve housing affordability driven by two markets: (1) ageing residents seeking to down size and utilize public transport Action C2.3 Improve the affordability of services; (2) young first home buyers who have housing grown up in the Shire and wish to remain close to friends and family. The Shire has a very unique ‗tightness‘ in this regard.
Units such as those proposed in the Planning Proposal will assist in providing affordability for this market.
OBJECTIVE C5 Improve the quality of new development and urban renewal
Action 5.1 Improve the design of new development and urban renewal
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 15
5. Is the planning proposal consistent with the local council’s Community Strategic Plan, or other local strategic plan?
The Planning Proposal is consistent with the Draft Housing Strategy prepared by Sutherland Shire Council to addresses future housing issues in the Sutherland Shire up to 2031. In particular, the proposal will; Increase housing supply through revised floor space ratios and building heights in order to deliver more dwellings within existing higher density zones. Assist Council achieve the requirement of the Sub-regional Strategy for an additional 2,700 dwellings within centres. Stimulate redevelopment of existing older style residential houses to improve both the standard of design and the amenity of future residents.
It should be noted that the Planning Proposal is essentially inconsistent with the draft LEP 2013 as it was exhibited in that it was only allowing for six (6) storey development up to 20m. Indeed the town centre strategy for Sutherland did not actually include the subject precinct in consideration for substantially higher density.
6. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable State Environmental Planning Policies?
The Planning Proposal has been considered in relation to the following applicable State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs). It is not considered that the planning proposal contains any provisions that fail to accord with the application of those SEPPs: SEPP 6 Number of Storeys in a Building SEPP 32 Urban Consolidation (Redevelopment of Urban Land) SEPP 55 Remediation of Land SEPP Infrastructure 2007 SEPP Building Sustainability Index: BASIX SEPP Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability SEPP Exempt and Complying Development Codes 2008
7. Is the planning proposal consistent with applicable Ministerial Directions (s. 117 directions)?
Table 4 – Assessment against Ministerial Directions
Relevant Direction Response
3.1 Residential Zones The objectives of this direction are: (a) to encourage a variety and choice of housing types to provide for existing and future housing needs, (b) to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services and ensure that new housing has appropriate access to infrastructure and services, and (c) to minimise the impact of residential development on the environment and resource lands.
It is considered the planning proposal is consistent with the objectives of this Direction and works to ensure their achievement, particularly (a) and (b).
3.4 Integrated Land (1) The objective of this direction is to ensure that urban structures, building use and Transport forms, land use locations, development designs, subdivision and street
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 16 layouts achieve the following planning objectives: (a) improving access to housing, jobs and services by walking, cycling and public transport, and (b) increasing the choice of available transport and reducing dependence on cars, and (c) reducing travel demand including the number of trips generated by development and the distances travelled, especially by car, and (d) supporting the efficient and viable operation of public transport services, and (e) providing for the efficient movement of freight.
It is considered that the proposal dramatically works towards the achievement of these objectives, particularly (a) – (d).
4.1 Acid Sulphate The planning proposal is considered to be consistent with the Direction on Soils Acid Sulphate Soils.
5.2 Sydney Drinking The planning proposal is consistent with SEPP (Sydney Drinking Water water catchments Catchment) 2011 and development will have a neutral or beneficial effect on water quality.
6.3 Site Specific The objective of the planning proposal will require the amendment of provisions Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2006 in order to allow the particular development proposal to proceed in the existing zone. It is suggested that this can be done via the consolidated LEP 2013.
7.1 Implementation of It is considered that the planning proposal is shown to be consistent with the the Metropolitan Plan NSW Government‘s Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036. This has been well for Sydney 2036 demonstrated within this overall submission.
Section C – Environmental, social and economic impact.
8. Is there a likelihood that critical habitat or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, will be adversely affected as a result of the proposal?
No.
9. Are there any other likely environmental effects as a result of the planning proposal and how are they proposed to be managed?
Urban design and building form are considered to be the key issues and are discussed earlier in this submission. The main environmental impacts given careful consideration relates to overshadowing. The attached building envelopes have been developed to help model this impact.
The entire building envelope has been designed as best as possible to try and allow as much sunlight into the southern properties throughout most of the year. This is obviously more difficult in the winter solstice months but is achievable at all other times of the year. These southern properties are also suggested to be rezoned to allow for their future redevelopment however they are already developed as low rise residential apartments and it must be acknowledged that any future development of these sites would be unlikely.
Traffic will also be a consideration however there is much development proposed for the town centre and it considered that the grid pattern of streets provides ample opportunity for
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 17 multiple trip options and acceptable car movement. Access to public transport will also alleviate traffic impacts.
There are no other likely environmental effects of a major nature resulting from the Planning Proposal which have not been assessed previously.
10. How has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?
It is not considered there will be any adverse economic effects arising from this proposal. In terms of social impacts it is considered there may be several positive effects such as:
. The ability for Sutherland to provide quality housing near to local businesses and public transport.
. This proposal will assist in providing a more affordable and smaller housing option than the more traditional large house which has underpinned much of the Shire for many decades.
. Locating residents around town centres will assist in stimulating their vitality and attractiveness in the long term. Urban spaces with people around are shown to be more vibrant than single purpose commercial centres, particularly into the evening. This will encourage restaurants and cafes and business initiatives within the town centre.
. Improved streetscape and strong passive surveillance over the street and school properties after hours.
Section D – State and Commonwealth interests.
11. Is there adequate public infrastructure for the planning proposal?
The proposed development is very well served by public transport and road infrastructure and is about 250m from Sutherland railway station. It is considered that existing networks and facilities will easily continue to service the area.
12. What are the views of State and Commonwealth public authorities consulted in accordance with the gateway determination?
Consultation with other public authorities has not occurred at this stage. Appropriate consultation can happen at the correct time if required.
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 18 PART 4 – COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
Any future gateway determination or Council resolution will specify the community consultation that must be undertaken on the planning proposal. Generally the Department adopts a 14 day or 28 day public exhibition period depending on the possible impact of the proposal.
If Council is of a mind to further exhibit the draft LEP following additional submissions, it is suggested that this proposal could be attached to the second exhibition period if Council were supportive of the proposed changes.
Appendix – Planning Proposal Considerations 19
31 October 2013 Our Ref: 8683A.1KO
Environmental Planning Unit Sutherland Shire Council Locked Bag 17 SUTHERLAND NSW 1499
Dear Sir/Madam
Amended Draft Sutherland LEP 2013 - LP/03/79340
DFP Planning Consultants (DFP) have been commissioned on behalf of the land owners of 10- 14 Merton Street, Sutherland to review the draft planning controls proposed to apply to 10-14 Merton Street, Sutherland (herein referred to as the site) under Draft Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2013 (Draft SSLEP 2013).
We understand that Draft SSLEP 2013 was initially exhibited between March and May, 2013. Following a review of submissions received in response to the public exhibition of Draft SSLEP 2013, Council subsequently adopted a number of changes which have required re-exhibition of the Draft SSLEP 2013 (referred to as the Amended Draft SSLEP 2013).
We also understand that a submission was prepared by ddc Urban Planning and submitted to Council in July 2013 on behalf of the owners of 10-14 Merton Street. That submission sought a building height limit of 40m and an FSR of 4:1 to apply to the site. The Amended Draft SSLEP 2013 as currently exhibited proposes a building height limit of 40m and an FSR of 4:1 for the site.
In preparing this submission we have undertaken the following: An inspection of the site and surrounding area; A review of the Amended Draft SSLEP 2013 and supporting documentation; and A review of the submission prepared by ddc Urban Planning.
1.0 The Site The site is located within Sutherland Town Centre and is a short walk (about 250m) to Sutherland Station and the Town Centre shops. The site is located within the block bounded by Merton Street to the west, Flora Street to the north, Belmont Street to the east and President Avenue to the South. A location plan is shown at Figure 1.
The site is legally described as Lots 151 and 152 in DP 1020267. The site has a 47m frontage to Merton Street and 47m rear boundary to St Patricks Primary School. The site has a depth of approximately 67m. The total site area is 3,147m2. The site is generally flat but does fall to the south. Current site improvements include two houses, separate garage, grassed area and scattered vegetation. An aerial photograph of the site is shown at Figure 2 and photographs of the site at Figures 3 and 4.
11 Dartford Road PO Box 230 t : 02 9980 6933 Thornleigh NSW 2120 Pennant Hills NSW 1715 f : 02 9980 6217 www.dfpplanning.com.au ABN 24 551 441 566 DX 4721 Pennant Hills NSW e : [email protected] P:\PROJECTS\8683A 10-14 Merton Street, Sutherland\Letters\8683A.1KO.docx
2
Figure 1: Site Location plan
Figure 2: Aerial photo of the site
Merton Street runs in a north-south direction sloping down from Flora Street to President Avenue and beyond. The street is relatively wide and well landscaped. Ninety degree angled parking in provided on the western side of Merton Street and parallel parking on the eastern side of Merton Street.
P:\PROJECTS\8683A 10-14 Merton Street, Sutherland\Letters\8683A.1KO.docx
3
Figure 3: 10 Merton Street
Figure 4: 12-14 Merton Street
P:\PROJECTS\8683A 10-14 Merton Street, Sutherland\Letters\8683A.1KO.docx
4
1.1 Surrounding Development To the immediate north of the site is 152 and 154 Flora Street which comprise single storey buildings used for commercial purposes. 154 Flora Street is built to the street frontage on both Flora Street and Merton Street. The Southern Cross Nagle Apartments are located at 144-150 Flora Street and comprise 40 low care apartments for seniors. The apartments are managed by the Southern Cross Care.
To the immediate south of the site is a recently constructed three storey residential flat building at 16-18 Merton Street. 20 Merton Street comprises an older three storey residential flat building. 22 Merton Street also comprises a three storey residential flat building. These three residential flat buildings have been strata titled.
Adjoining the site to the east is St Patrick’s Primary School. The school buildings are up to three storeys in height. The Primary School site includes playground areas, administration building and classrooms and school hall. St Patrick’s Primary School also adjoins St Patrick’s College which fronts President Avenue between Merton Street and Glencoe Street. We understand that in recent years both schools have undergone refurbishment of facilities, which has also included a new classroom building and school hall at St Patrick’s Primary School. St Patrick’s Church is located adjacent to the Primary School and College at 136 Flora Street.
Opposite the site to the west is the Sutherland Primary School. The school site includes classrooms and playground areas. The school site is listed as a local heritage item, with the original building and grounds the listed heritage items.
In summary the site is adjoined by commercial and aged care uses to the north, educational uses to the west and east and medium density residential uses to the south.
1.2 Town Centre Area DFP considers that the town centre (on the eastern side of the station) is defined by major arterial roads being the Old Princess Highway (to the north) and Acacia Road (to the east) and the Cronulla railway line (to the west).
The commercial core area in the immediate vicinity of the station comprises predominately 1-2 storey commercial and retail uses. The town centre also includes a range of civic and administrative buildings and uses including Sutherland Shire Council Offices, Sutherland Entertainment Centre, Court House, Police Station, Library, other community buildings, schools and churches.
The town centre, particularly south of President Avenue and east of Belmont Street (and Glencoe Street) has experienced significant residential flat building development. The residential flat buildings are predominately 3-4 storeys in height, with some buildings on Stapleton Avenue being 8-9 storeys and some 8 storey mixed use and residential development on President Avenue between Gray Lane and Eton Street.
This development pattern has resulted in a ‘dish effect’ where taller buildings are located on the fringes and edges of the town centre, with lower height buildings in the commercial core. As the town centre develops this built form relationship should be reversed with taller buildings in the core area of the town centre, with a gradual stepping down of the built form to the edges of the town centre. Given the predominance of 3-4 storey residential flat buildings in the town centre beyond the core, there is limited development potential in these areas. Therefore the development potential of land in the core area should be maximised (which we consider to the area generally between Sutherland Station (Robertson Street) to the west, Glencoe Street to the east, Old Princess Highway to the north and President Ave to the south.
P:\PROJECTS\8683A 10-14 Merton Street, Sutherland\Letters\8683A.1KO.docx
5
2.0 Strategic Context The NSW State Government’s overarching priority is to focus housing and employment growth in and around town centres and areas well serviced by infrastructure and public transport. The Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 and the draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031 both set housing targets for Sydney’s sub-regions which for the South region is 22,000 dwellings to 2021 and 42,000 to 2031. Both strategies also identify Sutherland as a potential Major Centre that can accommodate increased retail, office and residential development.
The South Subregion Draft Subregional Strategy identifies a dwelling target of 10,100 dwellings for the Sutherland Shire between 2004-2031. The strategy also identifies that the Sutherland town centre could increase its share of the sub-regions employment. The subregional strategy also aims to focus housing growth around centres.
The town centre, particularly its core area (within 400m of the station) is underdeveloped and if it is to emerge as a Major Centre it requires significant investment in its urban renewal. It is noted that the core of the town centre is currently zoned urban centre and allows for development up to 8 storeys, however there has been no development taken up in the centre since these controls were introduced in 2006.
There are a number of major centres and town centres across the Sydney Metropolitan Area that have introduced new planning controls or are reviewing their planning controls for land within the major and town centres. Whilst each major centre is unique in terms of its size, location, accessibility, infrastructure services, public transport and topography etc, there is an emerging trend for greater densities and building heights in major centres and town centres. Whilst each centre has various height and building typologies, these centres are planning for growth and include building heights of 12-15 storeys and greater. Such centres include Dee Why, Hurstville, Hornsby, Merrylands, North Ryde and Mascot for example. Therefore it is expected this will be an emerging built form character of major centres and town across the Sydney Metropolitan area.
2.1 Sutherland Shire Housing Strategy The Sutherland Shire Housing Strategy identifies three main strategies for increasing housing choice in the Sutherland Centre which are: Increasing the height and/or floor space ratio for residential flats and mixed used developments in the centre where appropriate; Removing the limitation on the proportion of residential development in the commercial centre; and Increasing the area where residential flats are permissible.
As noted in the Housing Strategy the centre is an appropriate location to increase residential density, is reasonably affordable, and has excellent public transport to the city. The centre is also readily accessible to the nearby beaches, the Port Hacking waterways and the Royal National Park.
The strategy identifies development up to 12 storeys in the area zoned B3 (identified as Area 1 in the Housing Strategy) and up 6 storeys in the Residential flat zone area (identified as Area 2 and the area in which 10-14 Merton Street falls).
We understand that the Housing Strategy for the Sutherland Centre amongst other things aims to reinforce the existing commercial/retail triangle area as the primary shopping area and reinforce the significance of Flora Street as the main access spine on the ridge.
P:\PROJECTS\8683A 10-14 Merton Street, Sutherland\Letters\8683A.1KO.docx
6
The Strategy also seeks to provide a transition to surrounding lower density residential development, which may include landscape setback and 100% residential development on some sites.
3.0 Site Opportunities The ddc Urban Planning report submitted to Council in July 2013 considered the broader context of the site within the town centre and not the site in isolation, which is an appropriate context. The submission included a high level building envelope analysis for the town centre to demonstrate basic block modelling to give an indication of how the site would sit within the broader town centre context.
DFP has also considered the site’s opportunities and constraints having regarding to the surrounding land uses and the previous block modelling and massing studies prepared for the owners. Based on this, DFP considers the site has the following opportunities and constraints:
Opportunities The site is large, approximately 3,147m2 and capable of accommodating a residential flat building development. The site is about 250m to Sutherland Station and is a brief, level walk to the main retail/commercial precinct. Merton Street is relatively wide and includes substantial street tree plantings. The site is generally flat. The site is not mapped as environmentally sensitive land, containing acid sulphate soils or being flood prone under Sutherland LEP. The site does not contain significant vegetation. The site has not been identified for land reservation or acquisition. The site has excellent access to shops, community facilities, Sutherland library and local schools. Subject to detailed building design, the site could accommodate a residential flat building capable of achieving good amenity, with opportunities for capturing district views, in an accessible location. The site can be developed for residential purposes in the short term.
Constraints The development potential of land adjoining and surrounding the site is mixed, with sites to the south, east and west unlikely to be developed in the medium term. The site adjoins the St Patrick’s Primary School to the east, and future development will require careful consideration of the interface with the school. The site is in close proximity two heritage items being Sutherland Public School and Sutherland Uniting Church. A residential flat building adjoins the site to the south and appropriate amenity will need to be maintained for the adjoining residents. Solar access to the playground spaces of St Patrick’s Primary School, St Patrick’s College and Sutherland Primary School will need to be maintained during key periods (e.g. lunchtimes).
P:\PROJECTS\8683A 10-14 Merton Street, Sutherland\Letters\8683A.1KO.docx
7
The existing residential flat buildings to the south and the St Patrick’s school sites to the south and east are unlikely to be redeveloped for other purposes in the medium to long term. The topography of Merton Street falls away to the south (or rises to the Flora Street ridge line).
4.0 Proposed Planning Controls In the context of the above broader strategic planning framework, the site’s location and characteristics and surrounding development, we have reviewed the key planning controls that are proposed to apply to the site under the Amended Draft SSLEP 2013.
DFP has also reviewed the previous submission to Council prepared by ddc Urban Planning in response to the previously exhibited draft SSLEP. The ddc Urban Planning submission proposed a height limit of 40m for the site (and mid block area) between Flora Street and President Avenue.
The key controls proposed for the site under Amended Draft LEP 2013 are to: R4 High Density Residential Zoning; Building Height Limit of 40m; and Floor Space Ratio of 4:1.
The objectives of the R4 High Density Residential Zone are to: To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment. To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment. To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents. To encourage the supply of housing that meets the needs of the Shire’s population, particularly housing for older persons and people with disabilities. To promote a high standard of urban design and residential amenity in a high quality landscape setting. To ensure a high standard of design that responds to natural features and opportunities to incorporate existing trees and vegetation. To minimise the fragmentation of land that would prevent the achievement of high density residential development.
It is noted that the R4 zone applies to the land south of the site and the St Patrick’s school land as shown in Figure 5. The land fronting Flora Street is zoned B3 Commercial Core along with Sutherland Public School. The R4 High Density Residential zoning is considered appropriate for the site.
P:\PROJECTS\8683A 10-14 Merton Street, Sutherland\Letters\8683A.1KO.docx
8
Figure 5: Zoning map extract from Amended Draft SSLEP 2013 (source Sutherland Shire Council)
The building heights proposed for the site and surrounding area are shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Building Height map extract from Amended Draft SSLEP 2013 (source Sutherland Shire Council)
P:\PROJECTS\8683A 10-14 Merton Street, Sutherland\Letters\8683A.1KO.docx
9
The buildings fronting Flora Street are proposed to have a 30m height limit along with the St Patrick’s School sites. Surrounding sites in the town centre have height limits of 20m, 30m and 40m which are aimed to encourage new retail, commercial and residential development in the town centre.
As noted in Section 1.2, currently the core commercial area in the immediate vicinity of Sutherland Station comprises predominately 1-2 storey commercial and retail uses, with 3-4 storeys and 8-9 storey mixed use and residential developments outside the core commercial retail area.
Given the apparent fragmented ownership of many sites in the town centre and other constraints of sites (e.g. heritage items), and considering the extent of residential flat building development towards the edges of the centre, the development potential of less or unconstrained sites needs to be maximised, particularly larger consolidated sites.
The Amended Draft SSLEP 2013 sets out the broad planning framework for the town centres future growth and therefore in considering the appropriateness of the proposed planning controls for the site we have considered the development potential of the site and surrounding land.
152 and 154 Flora Street are currently single storey commercial premises and are lots that could be amalgamated and have redevelopment potential. Similarly we understand that 144- 150 Flora Street comprises 40 seniors housing units and that the site is in single ownership and has not been strata subdivided, and therefore has future development potential.
There also several other sites on Flora Street that have an ownership pattern that would enable short to medium term redevelopment without the need for site amalgamation (or require limited amalgamation). These sites include the Council Car Park site, Court House and Police Station block and residential sites on the southern side of Flora Street. These sites are illustrated in Figure 7.
As noted above the Sutherland Housing Strategy seeks to reinforce the significance of Flora Street as the main access spine on the ridge. There is an opportunity to reinforce Flora Street as the main access spine to the town centre with strong urban edge development with taller residential flat buildings built to the street frontage, that may comprise a podium and tower form development.
Given the fragmented ownership of many sites in the town centre and potential of the Flora Street to develop as gateway spine, 40m building height would be appropriate. The Council car park site has at part 30m part 40m height limit and we consider this should be reviewed to provide a 40m height limit to the site at the street frontage.
A 40m height limit could also apply to 144, 152 and 154 Flora Street, and other land fronting Flora Street to provide an appropriate urban form as Flora Street is a main east-west link and is on a ridge line. This land is also proposed to be zoned B3 Commercial Core and could comprise mixed use and residential flat buildings.
In the context of the centre’s urban renewal and the potential of the Flora Street sites, DFP are of the view that development of 10-14 Merton Street be considered in the context of the development potential along Flora Street and that a 40m building height limit on 10-14 Merton Street is appropriate.
Given the land at 16-22 Meriton Street is already developed for residential flat buildings and unlikely to be redeveloped in the medium term, a 30m height could be considered for this land, which is also consistent with the height limit for the St Patrick’s school land. This would also
P:\PROJECTS\8683A 10-14 Merton Street, Sutherland\Letters\8683A.1KO.docx
10
provide a stepping of building heights south along Merton Street, following the topography of the street block.
DFP understands that in recent years both the St Patrick’s Primary School and College have had building refurbishments undertaken and new buildings on the Primary School site. It is therefore considered unlikely they will be redeveloped for other than school purposes, however a 30m building height limit as proposed in the Amended Draft SSLEP 2013 may allow for taller buildings in the future and other built form changes within the sites, which would form part of the future built form character of the Merton Street-Belmont Street block and the broader town centre.
Figure 7: Development context for 10-14 Merton Street
Whilst the Amended Draft SSLEP sets out the broad planning framework for the Sutherland Town Centre, the future development of the town centre needs to be guided by detailed design controls (Development Control Plan). The final built form at 10-14 Merton Street (as with other potential redevelopment sites in the town centre) would need to be carefully considered and designed to provide amenity to the residential uses to the south and not adversely impact on the schools to the east and west.
To this end, the land owners have undertaken some preliminary built form modelling to test the future residential amenity. This high level testing is included at Attachment A and shows a built form could be established that achieves daylight access, cross ventilation and allows good
P:\PROJECTS\8683A 10-14 Merton Street, Sutherland\Letters\8683A.1KO.docx
11
solar access to the schools opposite and adjoining the site. This example is only one development option for the site and is for illustrative purposes only.
Whilst the future detailed design of the residential flat building is not a matter for consideration for the Amended Draft SSLEP, it is considered that the site is of sufficient size to accommodate a sensitively designed building of up to 13 storeys. As a detailed design is developed it is expected that some parts of the site would not achieve a 40m height and that the building(s) form would be tapered or stepped to provided appropriate amenity to surrounding land uses.
DFP have reviewed the prepared modelling and considers that an FSR of about 3:1 would likely be achieved within a 40m height limit applying to the site.
5.0 Conclusion DFP has been requested by the landowners to undertake a review of the planning controls that are proposed to apply to site under the Amended Draft SSLEP 2013.
The proposed zoning and building height limit of 40m for the site is considered appropriate on the following basis: The Sutherland town centre is identified in the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 and other strategic plans as a future potential major centre. There has been limited urban renewal in the core town centre area with the previous eight storey height limit has not attracted new development in the town core area. New planning controls are required to encourage new investment and development. The site is large and located in very close proximity to Sutherland Station as well as shops and commercial services. The site is located near the corner of Merton and Flora Street and forms part of number of potential development blocks that can reinforce Flora Street as the main access spine to the town centre with strong urban edge development. Given the fragmented nature of many sites in the town centre, opportunities for the urban renewal on consolidated or less constrained sites should be maximised as it will facilitate to delivery of new housing stock in a location accessible to shops, public transport, and community facilities and services. The site is of sufficient size to allow for a building to be designed and sited to provide amenity to the residential uses to the south and not adversely impact on the schools to the east and west. If you would to discuss, please contact Kirk Osborne on 9980 6933.
Yours faithfully DFP PLANNING CONSULTANTS
KIRK OSBORNE PRINCIPAL PLANNER Reviewed: [email protected]
Encl.
Attachment A – Preliminary SEPP 65 analysis and shadow diagrams
ATTACHMENT A