Planning Report

File No S02/01104 Pt 1 Development Application No DA 151-05-2002 Property Luna Park – I Olympic Drive Milsons Point DP48514, Lots 1247-1251, 1253-1258 and 1264 Date of Receipt 22 May 2002 State Electorate And Member Jillian Skinner MP – North Shore BCA Classification of Building 7a (carpark), and 6 (brasserie) Applicant Metro Edgely Pty Ltd Applicant’s Address 1 Olympic Drive Milsons Point Owner’s Name The land is Crown Land managed by the Luna Park Reserve Trust, leased to Metro Edgely Advertised 21 June to 19 July 2002 Advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald, Mosman Daily, mailed to 4725 addresses and 2 Site Notices. Brief Description of Proposal Stage 2 DA for Phase D: Detailed design of Car Park and Café/Brasserie buildings, Luna Park Entertainment Complex Attachments A Notice of Determination & Conditions B Photomontage C Plans D Submissions E Report by Multiplex Constructions regarding the removal of excavated spoil Recommendation Approval (subject to conditions)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Summary A development application (DA) has been lodged by Metro Edgley Pty Ltd for the Stage 2 detailed design for the car park and café/brasserie buildings, these components having been called “Phase D” of the Luna Park Entertainment Complex by the applicant. The subject DA occupies the eastern portion of the Luna Park Entertainment Complex. The use and building envelope of the proposed buildings were approved by the Minister on 31 January as part of a Stage 1 development consent for Luna Park. The remainder of the site is the subject of a separate Development Application for detailed design, DA 201-06-2002, these works having been named “Phase E”.

The proposed development relies on the Stage 1 approval, and a modification application under s96(2) of the act was lodged concurrently to amend the timing of some conditions and minor modifications of building envelopes. This application, MOD 32-05-2002 is the subject of a separate planning report.

In summary, the proposed development for Phase D includes: - • The detailed design of the approved seven level carpark (including 6 basement levels), with retail and ticketing facilities at ground level, western façade to the Midway; • The detailed design of the approved a three level café/brasserie building (including 1 basement level), containing internal and external restaurant/dining and associated kitchen, storage, plant and back of house facilities; • landscaping, signage, lighting and weather protection elements; and • temporary removal and storage of existing rides including “spider”, “ranger”, “tumble bug”, U drive and “magic castle” rides.

The applicant has amended the DA in response to concerns raised by nearby residents, North Sydney Council, Sydney Harbour Design Review Panel and Planning NSW. Amendments include: • redesign of the rooftop and landscaping treatment of the car park building; • redesign of the internal parking layout and ramp system; • redesign of the façade colours and materials of the café/brasserie building; and • deletion of the proposed cliff stabilisation and consequential removal of certain cliff top trees (the applicant has submitted a separate DA to address this matter). • Some further minor amendments were included to include design development since lodging. These amendments are considered to differ only in minor respects from the original application and are further considered not to give rise to any impacts beyond those in the original application, and arise primarily in response to submissions. Accordingly, these amendments were accepted as a replacement application in accordance with s55 and s90 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. In accordance with s90 of the Regulations further notification of the application was not undertaken, and the applicant was advised of the acceptance of the amended plans on 9 December 2002. (The plans of the amended “replacement application” are at tag C).

The Minister for Planning is consent authority under clause 10 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Tributaries (SEPP 56). The Development Application is integrated development under section 91of the EP&A Act, as an approval is required from the Waterways Authority, under Part 3A of the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948, to permit the undertaking of works within 40 metres of Sydney Harbour. The Waterways Authority has provided General Terms of Approval in the event of DA approval.

SEPP 56, Clause 11 (1) Sydney Harbour Foreshores And Tributaries, Clause 11 (1) states that development consent must not be granted for development that relates to development on land to which Schedule 1 applies unless “(a) there is a master plan for the land”. On 6 October 1998, the

C:\DOCUME~1\johnsow\LOCALS~1\Temp\PLANNI~1.DOC 2 Minister exempted the Luna Park site from the requirements to prepare a Master Plan, based on the amount of work already undertaken for this site, including the adoption of a Luna Park Plan of Management under the Crown Land’s Act. The main issues relating to the proposed development include design, traffic generation, acoustic compliance of buildings, potential exhaust emissions, public access to landscaped rooftop car park, and compliance with relevant stage 1 consent conditions and relevant environmental planning instruments. Several submissions also raised issues relating to the aspects of the development for which consent has already been granted (such as use, carparking numbers, suitability and vehicle impacts). Issues are addressed under report section 6.

It is considered that the proposed development generally complies with the relevant planning instruments governing the site and is acceptable in terms of its impact on surrounding development and the locality. This report recommends that the Minister approve the application subject to conditions in accordance with the Notice of Determination (tagged “A”).

2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1. Siting and Location The Luna Park site extends along the south-eastern tip of Milsons Point, generally between Glen and Northcliff Streets and the Lavender Bay foreshore. The site contains a foreshore boardwalk, pedestrian walkways, recreation space for amusements and rides, administration facilities, and plant. Surrounding land uses include: - • the North Sydney Olympic Pool directly south of the site; • Bradfield Park, southeast of the site, and under the Sydney Harbour Bridge northern gantry; • a number of commercial and residential office buildings, directly east of the site, and significantly elevated to dominate the Milsons Point skyline; and • land owned by the State Rail Authority, northeast of the site, used for the stabling of trains.

The proposed development, the subject of this application (hereafter referred to as Phase D) relates to the part of the site bounded by the Luna Park Face and the Ferris Wheel, and between the foreshore boardwalk and the base of the cliff. Luna Park Phase E comprises the remainder of the Luna Park Entertainment Complex site and is the subject of a separate Stage 2 development application.

C:\DOCUME~1\johnsow\LOCALS~1\Temp\PLANNI~1.DOC 3 2.2. Past approvals and statutory decisions The site is already subject to a number of recent development approvals and site decisions: - 1. DA 316/00 for the removal of the Big Dipper, approved by North Sydney Council on 20 December 1999. 2. DA 427/00 for alterations to the Crystal Palace and additions to Coney Island, approved by North Sydney Council on 27 March 2000. 3. S96 modification to DA 427/00, including the generation of noise levels, approved by North Sydney Council on 15 September 2000. 4. DA 772/00 for a Staged DA for Master Plan parameters relating to the site, and including a car park for 500 spaces. North Sydney Council approved the DA on 23 October 2000, with conditions limiting the car park to 100 spaces, and refusing two alternate car park locations. 5. On 2 February 2001, Amendment 4 to SEPP 56 was gazetted, which included the transfer of the Luna Park from Schedule 2 to a Schedule 1 of this instrument. A consequence of this amendment makes the Minister the consent authority for the Luna Park site. 6. DA 154-06-01 Stage 1 Luna Park Complex and Stage 2 commercial office building fronting Glen Street, Milsons Point, was approved by the Minister for Planning on 31st January 2002. The subject Stage 2 DA – Phase D relates to this Stage 1 approval 7. MOD 32-05-2002 to DA 154-06-01 a modification application adjusting the timing of some conditions, correcting some misdescriptions and altering some building envelopes of the carpark and brasserie, which was not yet determined by the Minister for Planning at the time of writing of this report, but has been forwarded to the Minister with a recommendation for approval.

2.3. The development application The subject development application seeks a second stage consent pursuant to Section 80(4) of the EPA Act 1979, for the following: - 1. Demolition of the southern extremity of the existing two-storey Luna Park administration building and the “tumble bug” building; 2. Bulk excavation works to a maximum depth of RL -12.890 to accommodate the proposed car park and basement area for the cafe/brasserie building; 3. Construction of a nine (9) level (plus rooftop) carpark building, accommodating 6 basement levels, 389 parking spaces (including 8 disabled parking spaces), a loading dock, garbage compactor room, and ground level retail space and Luna Park ticketing areas; 4. Removal and storage of the existing “Spider”, “Ranger”, “Tumble bug”, “U Drive” and Magic Castle” rides and amusements; 5. Relocation of the existing “Rotor” ride from the north of the existing Luna Park administration building, to adjacent to the western facade of the proposed car park building 6. Provision of a new Carousel ride adjacent to the proposed car park western facade; 7. Construction of a three (3) level cafe/brasserie building, accommodating one basement level, internal/external restaurant facilities with ancillary facilities (kitchen, storage, plant); and 8. Associated landscaping, signage, lighting and weather protection elements. 9. Cliff stabilisation and removal of trees on the cliff and adjacent lands.

C:\DOCUME~1\johnsow\LOCALS~1\Temp\PLANNI~1.DOC 4

Above: Aerial view east from waterways Below: Aerial view west from Harbour Bridge

2.4. Development application amendments On 5 November 2002, the applicant, submitted to PlanningNSW amended plans for the car park and café/brasserie building, incorporating: - • Reduced and amended car park ramp arrangements, and increased area of rooftop landscaping for public use and access to the Luna Park complex below; • Amended (excavated) basement envelope from RL -12.76 to RL -14.76, in response to the amended parking ramp arrangements described above; • Amended configuration of vehicular access ramps, carparking/service layout at each level, and location/distribution of plant areas and access stairs; and • Revised colour and materials scheme for the Café/Brasserie building, to better respond to the amusement park character of the Luna Park. • Retention of cliff-top trees (In addition the applicant has lodged a separate development application DA 264-8-2002 addressing the proposed cliff top stabilisation works and tree removal. PlanningNSW sought this separate DA in order to ensure that the public was appropriately informed of this aspect of the proposal as it was considered to have not been appropriately clear in the application as lodged).

These amendments are considered to differ only in minor respects from the original application and are further considered not to give rise to any impacts beyond those in the original application, and

C:\DOCUME~1\johnsow\LOCALS~1\Temp\PLANNI~1.DOC 5 arise primarily in response to submissions. Accordingly, these amendments were accepted as a replacement application in accordance with s55 and s90 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. In accordance with s90 of the Regulations further notification of the application was not undertaken, and the applicant was advised of the acceptance of the amended plans on 9 December 2002. (The plans of the amended “replacement application” are at tag C).

3.0 STATUTORY CONTEXT The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning is the consent authority under clause 10 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Tributaries (SEPP 56). Other instruments applying to the land are Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 23 Sydney and Middle Harbours, North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2001. The Luna Park Act 1990 also specifically applies to the site.

4.0 LOCAL MEMBER The site is within the electorate of North Shore. The local member, Jillian Skinner, MP, did not provided any submission on these applications, but is understood to not support the application. Ms Skinner objected to the stage 1 application (DA 154-06-2001) and has written on 1 October to the Minister with concerns about the carpark entrance and tree removal.

5.0 CONSULTATION 5.1. Notification The DA was advertised in accordance with Section 79A of the EP&A Act 1979. An advertisement was placed in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Mosman Daily on 20 June 2002. Relevant public authorities and nearby landowners and occupants were notified by mail. The notification was carried out in accordance with the North Sydney DCP 2002, however, the exhibition period was 7 days longer than the minimum specified in the DCP. The notification mail-out was based on the same area PlanningNSW and North Sydney had earlier notified in previous consents for the site with addresses taken from the North Sydney Council rates database in accordance with the DCP to approximately 4725 properties. The DA was placed on public exhibition at PlanningNSW’s principal office and at North Sydney Council between 21 June 2002 and 19 July 2002.

Submissions continued to be received and considered after the public exhibition period until the time of writing of this report, 8 November 2002.

5.2. Summary of Public Submissions A total of 42 public submissions were received from surrounding residents, businesses, general public and government departments/relevant authorities. Relevant issues raised in public submissions are addressed under the report section 6 “Consideration of Submissions”. One (1) submission was received in support of the development application.

By way of location, 32 submissions (76 %) were from Milsons Point, Kirribilli, Lavender Bay or North Sydney, and 10 submissions (24%) were from outside the North Sydney local government area.

5.3. Referral to North Sydney Council The DA was referred to North Sydney Council in accordance with SEPP56. As a consequence of a Council meeting on 19th August 2002, North Sydney Council has submitted a letter dated 27th August 2002 to the Minister, highlighting the following issues and recommendations: - • The design of the carpark landscape area is inadequate, does not integrate with the cliff top, and consequently should be expanded to the east; • Landscaping above the car park should be limited to 2 metres ion height to preserve public views;

C:\DOCUME~1\johnsow\LOCALS~1\Temp\PLANNI~1.DOC 6 • Access to the landscaped rooftop area should be available at all times the park is open. Furthermore the applicant should enter into a legal agreement with North Sydney Council preserving the right of public access; • Café/brasserie structures and ventilation ducts above RL12.00 should be eliminated • The detailed design of the Café/Brasserie should be amended through recommended colours and increased masonry components; • The Minister defer consideration of the car park, pending amended drawings detailing o A 2 metre setback from the base of the cliff; o Elevations and sections detailing structure setbacks as described above; o Retention of cliff top trees during construction • The proposed removal of trees falls outside the DA boundaries, and consequently a separate DA should be sought; • Planning NSW request the applicant to surrender previous DA consents for Coney Island and Crystal Palace in terms of hours of operation; • Construction hours reflect North Sydney Council’s policy; • Planning NSW request the applicant to investigate alternate methods of transporting spoil, and construction access, to and from the site, including use of the Rail yards north of site, and use of barges across Sydney Harbour; • The applicant enter an appropriate easement for purpose of enabling deliveries and maintenance associated with access to North Sydney Olympic Pool plant area; • The applicant to construct, at cost, traffic lights at the intersection of Broughton and Fitzroy Streets, and that a performance bond of $120,000 be lodged with Council; • Standard consent conditions

Council was shown a copy of the proposed draft conditions of consent on 1 October 2002. On 10 October, Council responded with some suggested changes to conditions. As a result, the wording of conditions 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 22, 27 and 40 were amended to incorporate Council’s suggestions.

Ongoing consultation and dialogue with Council staff and the Mayor has continued from the time the applications were lodged.

5.4. Summary of Submissions from Government Agencies/Authorities The DA was also referred to a number of Government authorities/agencies. The following summary details relevant submissions: -

5.4.1. Waterways Authority The Waterways Authority (Integrated Development authority, requiring approval under Part 3A of the Rivers and Foreshores improvements Act). The Authority has provided General Terms of Approval in the event of development consent being granted, which are included in the recommended consent notice to this development application.

5.4.2. RTA The RTA (SRDAC), in response to SEPP11, has advised by email (dated 1August 2002 from Andrew Popoff) that the SRDAC does not raise any objections and is only interested in the Phase D or modified DA if plans are to increase parking numbers by 10% from that already proposed.

5.4.3. NSW Heritage Council The NSW Heritage Office was forwarded a copy of the application. Under s47(2) of North Sydney LEP 2001 “Archaeological resources controls”: -

C:\DOCUME~1\johnsow\LOCALS~1\Temp\PLANNI~1.DOC 7 Consent must not be granted to development on land that contains an archaeological resource unless the consent authority: (a) has considered a statement of heritage impact showing how the proposed development would affect the conservation of the archaeological resource known or likely to be located on that land, and (b) has notified the Heritage Council of its intention to do so and taken into consideration any comments received from the Heritage Council within 28 days after the notice was sent.

The Heritage Council has under delegated authority approved an application under S140 for an archaeological excavation permit. Recommended conditions of consent are proposed to ensure that the Heritage Council’s archaeological requirements are reflected in the Minister’s consent.

5.5. Sydney Harbour Design Review Panel The Sydney Harbour Design Review Panel (SHDRP) commented as follows: - • Support for the underground portion of the carpark, the activation of the midway, the activation of the waterfront. • Concern about the negative impact on the landscape design of the top of the carpark, and that the design for the waterfront brasserie building is too restrained and does not reinforce Luna Park as an entertainment precinct. • Recommendations: a) the carpark entry and exit ramps should be redesigned to two single lane street connections with the ramps/queue lanes lowered and `buried` so that the landscape area on the roof is the length of the building. b) an alternative may be to bring the cars along the front of the roof top garden. c) the waterfront brasserie building could incorporate more colour and more closely reflect the architectural language of Luna Park. The building should reinforce Luna Park both night and day as viewed from the water. A bold expression should complement the `Face` at the junction of the two. Comment: The applicant has submitted amended plans which respond to and satisfy all the issues raised by the SHDRP (refer to report section 3.2).

6.0 CONSIDERATION 6.1. Section 79C The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration listed under Section 79C of the EP&A Act, and a table summarising this assessment is found at Appendix 4.

6.2. Compliance with Stage 1 consent An assessment of the Stage 2 DA for Phase D response to the Stage 1 consent conditions (DA 154- 06-11) is found at Attachment XX of this report. This assessment is based on the amended Stage 1 DA being the subject of MOD 32-05-2002 to DA 154-06-01. This modification application seeks to adjust the timing of some conditions, correcting some misdescriptions and altering some building envelopes of the carpark and brasserie. MOD 32-05-2002 was not yet determined by the Minister for Planning at the time of writing of this report, but has been forwarded to the Minister concurrently with this report with a recommendation for approval. This DA (DA151-05-2002) is not recommended for approval unless the approval of MOD 32-05-2002 has already occurred.

The Stage 2 DA for Phase D, as amended, complies with the relevant Stage 1 consent conditions as amended. The recommended Stage 2 determination notice includes conditions to: - • retain those relevant conditions in the stage 1 consent, and

C:\DOCUME~1\johnsow\LOCALS~1\Temp\PLANNI~1.DOC 8 • strengthen relevant Stage 1 consent conditions as a result of new information submitted as part of this application – for example consultant reports dealing with transport management, parking pricing policy, pedestrian safety and security, security management, noise emissions, lighting, and compliance with the provisions of the BCA and Australian Standards.

6.3. Response to Submissions A summary of the main issues in submissions is provided below. A detailed list of submitters, and issues raised in submissions, is attached to this report (tagged D).

6.3.1. Traffic congestion A total of 33 submissions have raised concerns with the perceived traffic congestion that will be created by vehicles gaining access to, or leaving, the Luna Park car park. Consideration: The proposed development conforms with the current Stage 1 development consent, which has already considered and approved the location of a 389 space carpark building and the resulting traffic impacts. Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Statement by Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes, that conclude: - • 3.12 The operations of the Alfred Street intersections have been re-analysed using INTANAL computer program. With the additional Luna Park traffic, average delays for all movements for the three periods at all Alfred Street intersections are less than 20 seconds. • 3.37 The existing road network and its intersections have the capacity to cater for traffic generated by the Luna Park redevelopment.

6.3.2. Objection to the Luna Park carpark A total of 17 submissions have reiterated objections to the location of the car park. Consideration: The proposed development conforms with the current Stage 1 development consent, which has already approved the location of a carpark building limited to 389 spaces.

6.3.3. Car Park setback details North Sydney Council has requested that the Minister defer consideration of the car park, pending amended drawings detailing: - • A 2 metre setback from the base of the cliff; • Elevations and sections detailing structure setbacks as described above; • Retention of cliff top trees during construction Consideration: It is considered that the proposed development is generally satisfactory in terms of location and layout as it: - • complies with the Stage 1 consent envelope above ground level. • complies with Stage 1 consent condition: ”91 (e) Service corridor - A average 6-metre wide building setback shall be established at the base of the cliff, for buildings north of the existing Administration Centre.” • is generally setback from the cliff face with the exception of the proposed ramps located at the rear of the car park to facilitate a standard layout of parking spaces;

With regard to the proposed tree removal, this aspect of the consent is not recommended for approval, with appropriate conditions deleting this element from the consent. Revised plans have been submitted to retain the trees and accepted. Cliff stabilisation and tree removal are the subject of a separate application DA264-08-2002, which DA has also been amended to retain the trees.

C:\DOCUME~1\johnsow\LOCALS~1\Temp\PLANNI~1.DOC 9 6.3.4. The carpark landscaped area should be expanded to the east; North Sydney Council submission notes that the design of the carpark landscape area is inadequate, does not integrate with the cliff top, and consequently should be expanded to the east. Consideration: This is considered an appropriate means to better integrate the landscaping of the carpark and cliff in accordance with Condition 109 of the Stage 1 consent. As reflected in the amended application for DA151-05-2002, the carpark roof has been extended east to integrate with the cliff top, providing a significant additional area of vegetation and further reducing any potential noise impacts of the carpark ramps (discussed below 6.3.7). The expanded roof also assists in the stabilisation of the cliff, by providing a stable beam at RL11.7 which can resist any expansion of the cliff westwards over time. That beam however, generally relies on a structure independent of the cliff as it does not actually touch the cliff except in two locations where the very large cantilever of the slab requires columns be placed on the cliff-top (which in that location is closer to horizontal). The nearest of these columns to the significant fig trees is over 7m away from the trunk, and this is considered to be sufficiently far to avoid any significant risk of damage to the tree roots. Notwithstanding, a recommended condition of consent requires that the excavation for these columns be supervised by an arborist.

6.3.5. Public access to rooftop North Sydney Council has requested that access to the rooftop landscaped area should be available at all times the park is open and that, furthermore, the applicant should enter into a legal agreement with North Sydney Council preserving the right of public access. Consideration: It is considered that public access to this area is an important outcome and accordingly consent conditions are recommended to achieve this aim effect. As the land in question is Crown Land, it is considered that its long term public ownership is secure. Given that the Luna Park Act, under s6F, “does not limit or otherwise affect the operation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 or any instrument under that Act in its application to land comprising any part of the Luna Park site” it is further considered that the conditions of consent are an appropriate means by which to ensure that the land remains publicly accessible (by controlling any powers of the Trust and its lessees to control access to this area). Accordingly, further agreements with Council in this regard are not considered necessary.

6.3.6. Traffic Lights at Broughton and Fitzroy Streets North Sydney Council has requested that the applicant be requested to construct, at cost, traffic lights at the intersection of Broughton and Fitzroy Streets, and that a performance bond of $120,000 be lodged with Council. Consideration: Council’s request is considered inappropriate for the following reasons: - • this application is for detailed design and does not propose carparking and vehicular movements in excess of that already approved by the Stage 1 consent (DA154-06-2001) – ie traffic impacts are do not arise out of this application. • is not appropriate in terms of installation and costs directly to the applicant under this development application.

6.3.7. Noise A total of 16 submissions have raised concerns with the anticipated generation of noise from the Café/Brasserie, the car park and its exhaust stack. Consideration: Noise impacts were considered in the Stage 1 consent and appropriate conditions included. The applicant’s noise consultant, Acoustic Logic Consultancy Pty Ltd, confirms (by letter dated 14 August 2002) compliance of the Café Brasserie complies with the following Stage 1 consent condition: -

C:\DOCUME~1\johnsow\LOCALS~1\Temp\PLANNI~1.DOC 10 “102. The LA10, 1-hour noise level emanating from buildings and internal spaces shall not exceed 60dB(A) at any time, measured at the closest residential facade.”

The Noise Impact Report by Acoustic Logic also concludes that the carpark will not produce adverse noise impact and will comply with the relevant criteria of 58 dB(A) during the night time period (based on monitored background noise levels in the vicinity).

6.3.8. Emissions from exhaust stack A total of 5 submissions object to the perceived air pollution impact from the car park building exhaust stack to adjoining residential units. Consideration: The applicant has submitted a letter from Adamus Consulting Practice, dated 13 August 2002, which concludes: - “The mechanical ventilation of the carpark is legislated by BCA.1996, clause F4.11, to comply with Australian Standard AS 1668.2 1991, Mechanical ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. The standard requires that “all exhaust air and spill air shall be discharged to atmosphere in such a manner as not to cause danger or nuisance to occupants in the building, occupants of neighbouring buildings or members of the public.”

The carpark ventilation system at Luna Park has been designed to meet all discharge requirements set out by the standard as noted below: • Located not less than 6m from property boundary or outdoor intake • Arranged vertically with a discharge of not less than 5m/s • Situated 3m above a flat roof/trafficable thoroughfare.”

The applicant has also submitted amended drawings of the car park layout (in response to issues raised in submission by North Sydney Council and the SHDRP, and from Planning NSW). The amended drawings cover the carpark ramps with a concrete slab, and relocate a vent stack located at the southwest corner of the car park building (ie furthest from nearby residential uses) further reducing possible noise impacts. The development is obliged to comply with the relevant Australian Standard AS 1668.2 1991. The exhausts have also been relocated to be as far as possible from adjacent residential uses. Accordingly it is considered that the proposed development adequately addresses issues of exhaust emissions.

6.3.9. Removal and storage of rides A total of 5 submissions object to the removal and storage of Luna Park rides, and perceive this as a reduction of the Luna Park’s legitimate use as a fun park complex. The applicant’s SEE report, prepared by JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd – 01121, clearly states under 4.2 - “These rides are to be stored and relocated elsewhere within the Luna Park Entertainment Complex”. The storage is interpreted as the storage of rides during construction works, and is reinforced by proposed Stage 2 consent condition.

C:\DOCUME~1\johnsow\LOCALS~1\Temp\PLANNI~1.DOC 11 Consideration: It is considered that the storage or rides during construction is acceptable. It is further noted that nothing prevents the changing of rides from time to time in accordance with the typical long term operation of the fun park.

6.3.10. Café/brasserie rooftop terraces A total of 3 submissions object to the location of the café/brasserie rooftop terraces in terms of the noise that will emanate from patrons using those terraces at late night hours. This assessment notes that the First Floor Level balconies face towards the Harbour waterways and will be screened visually and acoustically by the location of residual building roof and plant, the Luna Park car park building, and the eastern cliff face. The café/brasserie will be located at a minimum of 85 metres from the closest residential unit window. The café/brasserie uses will be limited to the following hours of operation (Stage 1 condition 101): - Monday to Saturday: 7.00 am to 1.00 am (the following morning) Sunday: 7.00 am to 12.00 midnight and to the following acoustic restrictions (Stage 1 condition 102): - The LA10, 1-hour noise level emanating from buildings and internal spaces shall not exceed 60dB(A) at any time, measured at the closest residential facade.

North Sydney Council notes that “such terraces are consistent with the restaurant uses”. Consideration: It is considered that the café/brasserie level 1 balconies are satisfactory, subject to full compliance with existing Stage 1 consent conditions.

6.3.11. Café/Brasserie structures and ventilation ducts North Sydney Council has requested that café/brasserie structures and ventilation ducts above RL12.00 be eliminated. The structures exceeding RL 12 comprise of two (2) exhaust ducts and one (1) light beacon. Stage 1 DA consent condition 91 (f) states: - “(f) Height in general The RL height limits quoted above may be exceeded by minor building elements including flagpoles, masts, performance structures and decorative features. Details are to be provided in subsequent DA.” Consideration: It is considered that the structures and ducts are acceptable: - • The light beacon is considered to be a minor decorative feature that contributes to the atmosphere of the Luna Park Entertainment Complex; • The exhaust vents are required to comply with Australian Standard AS 1668.2 1991 (refer to paragraph 6.8 above); and • The café/brasserie building is generally at RL 12, and complies with the height limit imposed under the Stage 1 consent as modified.

6.3.12. Protection of trees A total of 6 submissions object to the removal of trees, in particular the cliff top Port Jackson Figs and Coral Trees immediately west of the junctions of Glen, Northcliff and Dind Streets. Consideration: Since exhibiting the original application the applicant has amended the application by now proposing the retention of all significant fig trees identified by the Luna Park Plan of Management, largely addressing this issue. This work is also partly covered by a separate application, DA264-08-2002, similarly amended since it was exhibited. PlanningNSW accepted these amendments on 9 December 2002. The removal of the significant fig trees is considered inappropriate and is recommended to be excluded from any approval by condition. With regard to the coral trees, no significance is ascribed to these trees by the Luna Park Plan of Management and the applicant’s arborist report recommends their removal. Notwithstanding the above, as their removal is

C:\DOCUME~1\johnsow\LOCALS~1\Temp\PLANNI~1.DOC 12 not required as a result of the development, it is considered inappropriate to grant consent at this time for the removal of the coral trees, and removal of coral trees is also recommended to be excluded from any approval by condition. It has also been argued that as the trees appear to be on land not the subject of the application that there may be a technical impediment to approving their removal. The applicant has since lodged a separate application DA264-08-2002 for the same works resolving this issue.

6.3.13. Luna Park carpark would encourage commuter vehicles One (1) submission has objected to the carpark on the grounds that it will attract commuter (non- Luna Park) parking in Milsons Point. Consideration: A recommended condition applies a pricing policy catered to encourage short stay Luna Park and North Sydney Olympic Pool visitors, and to discourage commuter vehicles and trips.

6.3.14. Lighting spill One (1) submission has raised concerns with the anticipated spillage of Luna Park lighting and impact on adjoining residential units. Consideration: A recommended condition requires all lighting will comply with the “Luna Park DA Lighting Strategy” prepared by Adamus Consulting Practice (Job number 2751, dated 23.04.02), and with relevant Australian Standards, in particular Australian Standards AS/NZS 1158.3.1.1999 “Pedestrian area (Category P) Lighting – Performance and installation design requirements.”, and AS 4282 “Control of the obtrusive effects of Outdoor Lighting”.

6.3.15. Removal of Spoil & Construction Access North Sydney Council has requested that Planning NSW request the applicant to investigate alternate methods of transporting spoil, and construction access, to and from the site, including use of the railway yards north of site, and use of barges across Sydney Harbour. Consideration: The removal of spoil by alternative means whilst desirable is only considered to be appropriate if the alternative means reduce impacts and environmental risks rather than simply relocate those impacts and risks. Consequently, and in accordance with Council’s submission, the applicant was requested to provide an investigation into the use of alternative means of access to the site. That investigation, prepared by the applicant and consultants Mainland Civil Engineering P/L, Pyrmont Raw Materials, and EcCell Environmental Management P/L Rail: Site access by rail is also considered to be potentially appropriate subject to the relevant Railway authority being agreeable to the use of the rail lines. It is understood however, that there is no spare capacity in the rail system (the lines immediately north of the site are fully occupied by commuter trains in layover outside peak periods including during the day) during the permitted construction times. Whilst it would be possible to allow extended construction hours for loading of spoil, the impacts on local residents are considered to be unacceptable. Material would also need to be transported to the rail lines. On-site routes do not exist, with the Coney Island building effectively blocking access N-S across the site. An option of craning, which would involve carrying the material over several significant heritage items and may require the disconnection of power lines. Even if an onsite loading route could be found, there may also be increased risk of damage to Coney Island and the Crystal Palace, both heritage items, in gaining access to the railway area. Accordingly, whilst it seems potentially desirable, on closer inspection it is considered that the use of the rail tracks near the site is not feasible. Barge: Providing construction access, particularly the removal of excavated material on face value appears to be a potentially appropriate alternative. Though there is no formal Government Policy favouring barging over alternative methods, in cases where barging offers a significant reduction in environmental impacts the use of barging can be supported. For example: the White Bay facility

C:\DOCUME~1\johnsow\LOCALS~1\Temp\PLANNI~1.DOC 13 established to take the clean spoil from the Northside Storage Tunnel project. In that example, the local road network of Manly peninsula and the very high volume of excavated material were key issues. In addition the existing railway goods line at White Bay was also used to access to the final receiving site at St Marys thereby avoiding the use of all local roads in this aspect of the development and offering key environmental gains. Removal of spoil by barge in the Luna Park context is likely to give rise to several impacts: • Safety and Security Concerns: The loading of a barge would require a class B hoarding be constructed to protect the boardwalk, with cranes or conveyors loading material above. Though the boardwalk would remain trafficable to pedestrians, the public’s use of the boardwalk would be affected in terms of its visual impact, and through potential safety/security issues, particularly at night as it would enclose a potion of the boardwalk pathway. The boardwalk would also be closed for approximately 2 weeks to construct and dismantle hoardings. (Council’s approval would be required for the hoarding and so may that of Waterways Authority depending upon its precise location.)

• Removal of fill/demolished material: No facility has yet been identified on the harbour that can accept and process the demolition spoil and excavated fill. Whist White Bay could accept Virgin Excavated Natural Material (VENM) – this is essentially the “clean” natural sandstone excavated, but not the fill, or any demolition materials – any barging of non VENM materials and spoil would result in additional handling of this material (from excavator to barge, barge to truck at the remote location) with the result merely being the relocation of all traffic impacts to local roads in a different area – ie: from Milsons Point to some other inner harbour location. Milsons point is well serviced by arterial roads, and the applicant’s proposed traffic routes are considered to acceptably minimise the use of local streets by construction vehicles. The amount of non VENM excavated material is approximately 5,000m³ (with a further 10,000m³ arising out of the commercial building which is already approved under DA154-06-2001). • Removal of VENM sandstone: The Virgin Excavated Natural Material (VENM) – this is essentially the “clean” natural sandstone excavated, but not the fill, or any demolition materials – could be accepted by the White Bay facility established out of the Northside Storage Tunnel project. This is assuming that an EPA licence could be (re)issued for the facility (which seems reasonable, but is untested). The VENM component of the Luna Park excavation comprises approximately 30,000m³ (about 85% of the total excavated material for phase D, and about 66% of the total material for the whole site taking into account current applications and approvals). The material would be transported to the final St Marys destination using the rail network, thereby offering significant benefits in terms of traffic issues. Some impacts at the White Bay site arise out of unloading and reloading the material, however, these are (arguably) manageable. The White Bay facility, however, only accepts Virgin Excavated Natural Material (VENM) at sizes of 300mm or less. Depending on the excavation methods, this would involve crushing of oversized rocks on the Luna Park site prior to barging. The applicant has estimated that the requirement for crushing on site will reduce excavation output by around 30% with crushing occurring for a period of between 26 and 28 weeks (ie concurrently with and for six weeks longer than the excavation). The use of a conveyor to load the barge would also cause increased construction noise impacts. This is regarded as a considerable impact compared to trucking. In addition, such a facility would constitute designated development, requiring separate approval, and it is unclear if such a facility is permissible in the current zoning.

C:\DOCUME~1\johnsow\LOCALS~1\Temp\PLANNI~1.DOC 14 Nor is it considered reasonable for the crushing to occur at any similarly populated inner harbour site – effectively transferring the impacts of the development to a different population. • Ferry Safety and Route impacts: Mooring of a barge would require the approval of the Harbour Master due to the proximity of the Luna Park ferry stop. It is unclear at this time if such approval would be made. • Infrastructure: The mooring of a barge would require the sinking of piles into Sydney harbour to provide mooring points (as the existing wharf and boardwalk structures are not sufficiently strong) as well as other anchor points on or near the sea wall. (The approval of the Waterways Authority would also be required.) • Time impacts: Trucking the material has been estimated to take approximately 18-22 weeks, depending on weather conditions. This is based on the removal of between 400m³ and 700m³ per day depending upon the nature of the material. Due to the crushing requirement, an additional 6 weeks would be involved. • Other impacts: There are dust and noise impacts at the offloading site (possibly White Bay) which may or may not be manageable depending upon the exact location, and which are increased compared to the truck only option as a result of additional handling of materials. There are also potential financial impacts arising out of the additional handling of material, however, these have not been fully costed to enable a full compared to alternative options. The provision of construction access to and from the site via barge or rail is considered to be an unreasonable imposition on this development. In particular, any proposal to require the loading of vehicles onto barges, or the delivery of material via barge loaded at a remote site merely relocates traffic impacts from Milsons Point to some other inner harbour location which is considered to be unacceptable. Milsons point is well serviced by arterial roads, and the applicant’s proposed traffic routes are considered to minimise the use of local streets by construction vehicles. In summary, the use of the rail network is considered not to be feasible on the basis of the information provided. With regard to barging, whilst on face value it appears to be a potentially worthwhile option, further examination reveals additional impacts on the local community compared to trucking. Whilst it is acknowledged that there will be impacts arising out of the construction, Milsons Point is located in very close proximity to major arterial roads, and the traffic impacts from construction vehicles are considered to be manageable, consistent with the requirements imposed by North Sydney Council to date on other waterfront sites where it is consent authority and, on balance, acceptable. In terms of scale of materials, the volume of excavated material is comparable to that excavated in a typical medium/high rise North Sydney office or apartment building. It is considered that the use of trucks in accordance with the traffic management plan in the Statement of Environmental Effects is acceptable, and on balance preferable to the additional impacts that would arise out of the barging requirement.

6.3.16. Access to North Sydney Pool plant area. North Sydney Council has requested that the applicant enter an appropriate easement with North Sydney Council for the purpose of enabling deliveries and maintenance associated with access to North Sydney Olympic Pool plant area. Currently no formal agreement exists to this effect.

C:\DOCUME~1\johnsow\LOCALS~1\Temp\PLANNI~1.DOC 15 Consideration: The Luna Park Management Trust has advised the Department that an appropriate easement or arrangement has been negotiated and is close to being finalised. Accordingly no conditions are proposed in this regard.

6.3.17. Development sustainability The applicant has submitted an ESD report prepared by Adamus Consulting Practice, dated 23/04/02. Specific to the Phase D proposal, the report confirms the following ESD initiatives: - i. Car park - Natural ventilation above ground level, and reduction of carpark ventilation capacities based on the improvement in fleet vehicle emissions ii. Café/Brasserie - External shading devices to external windows and use of higher performing glass

6.3.18. Surrender of past consents North Sydney Council has requested the applicant to surrender past development consent granted by Council for the hours of operation of Coney Island and Crystal Palace. Consideration: As neither building forms part of the Phase D development application, such surrender would be outside the scope of this application. Furthermore, the Stage 1 consent conditions have reinforced the hours of operation already granted by Council to these buildings.

6.3.19. Landscaping of the carpark roof be limited to 2m Council requested Landscaping of the carpark roof be limited to 2m to preserve public views. Consideration: This is considered appropriate and relevant conditions of consent are recommended.

6.3.20. Brasserie detail design Council requested that the brasserie design be amended to introduce colours and materials more consistent with Luna Park. This issue was also raised by the Sydney Harbour Design Review Panel. Council also requested a greater degree of masonry. SHDRP did not seek further masonry. Consideration: This issue has been largely addressed by the amendments to the brasserie and the design is considered acceptable.

6.3.21. Construction hours reflect North Sydney Council’s policy Council requested the imposition of construction hours in accordance with its policy. Consideration: This is considered appropriate and relevant conditions of consent are recommended.

6.3.22. Standard consent conditions Council requested the imposition of standard conditions of consent Consideration: Relevant standard conditions of consent are recommended. 6.4. Section 94 Contributions North Sydney Council has requested that the Minister apply appropriate (unspecified) S94 levies to the Phase E development, calculated in accordance with the North Sydney Section 94 Contribution Plan (updated July 2001) – referred to as the “Plan”.

Consideration: The Plan states under Plan section 1.4 that contributions will be levied on new residential development and new commercial development (including showrooms) within the North Sydney local government area. The Phase D development, however, does not propose any residential development. The North Sydney LEP 2001 defines commercial development as follows: “commercial premises means a building or place used as an office or for other business or commercial purposes, but (in Part 2) does not include a building or place elsewhere specifically defined in this Schedule or a building or place used for a land use elsewhere specifically defined in this Schedule.”

C:\DOCUME~1\johnsow\LOCALS~1\Temp\PLANNI~1.DOC 16 It is considered, however, that all Phase D buildings and land uses fall into other definitions within the LEP 2001 Schedule 2 definitions, and consequently cannot be defined as commercial development, for example: - • Refreshment Room includes cafes and restaurants. • Shop includes a building/place offering good for sale by retail, goods, merchandise etc. • Place of Assembly includes a public hall, theatre, music/concert/dance hall. • Recreation Facility includes a fun parlour.

It is also noted that there appears to be an inconsistency with the Plan’s Table 4 entitled “Contribution per 100sq m for commercial (including showrooms)/retail (or part of).” The inconsistency is derived by: - • the S94 Table 4 introduction of the word “retail” which is contrary to the definition contained within the Plan section 1.4 of development that attracts a S94 levy; and • the North Sydney LEP 2001 definition of “commercial”, and the lack of any definition for “shop” under LEP 2001.

Consequently it is concluded that the appropriate s94 contribution is nil.

7.0 CONCLUSION It is considered that the proposed development generally complies with the relevant planning instruments governing the site and is acceptable in terms of its impact on surrounding development and the locality. Issues including hours of operation and construction, car park and café/brassiere noise, built form and building envelopes, exhaust emissions, and related environmental impacts raised in submissions, have been addressed in this planning report. It is concluded that the impacts arising from the proposed development are manageable subject to consent conditions.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Minister for Planning: 1. Under section 80(1)(a) of the EP&A Act and in accordance with clause 10 of SEPP 56, grant consent to the Development Application No. 151-05-2002 subject to conditions in accordance with the Notice of Determination of Development Application (tagged “A”); and 2. Under sections 81(1) and 81(2) of the EP&A Act authorise the Director, Urban Assessments, to advise the applicant, Council and those who made submissions regarding the development application of the determination.

Prepared by Stephane Kerr, Consultant Town Planner & Urban Designer Endorsed:

Alan Cadogan Robert Black Team Leader, Urban Assessments Director, Urban Assessments

C:\DOCUME~1\johnsow\LOCALS~1\Temp\PLANNI~1.DOC 17