Agenda of Shire Planning Committee

Business Paper Shire Planning Committee

Monday, 3 September 2018 6.30pm

Council Chambers, Level 2, Administration Building, 4-20 Eton Street, Sutherland

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

2. APOLOGIES

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS

5. PRESENTATIONS

6. REPORTS FROM OFFICERS PLN040-18 Quarterly Report Clause 4.6 Variations Register PLN041-18 Further Amendments to SSLEP 2015 PLN042-18 The Low Rise Medium Density Code - Options for Implementation PLN043-18 Infrastructure in the Sutherland Shire PLN044-18 Results of Exhibition of Draft Amended Strategy for Finalisation of old S94 and S94A Plans

7. QUESTIONS

8. CONSIDERATION OF BUSINESS IN CLOSED SESSION

9. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS FROM OFFICERS

Page 2

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

PLN040-18 QUARTERLY REPORT CLAUSE 4.6 VARIATIONS REGISTER -

Attachments: Appendix A⇩

PLN040 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  The Secretary of Department of Planning & Environment delegates to councils assumed concurrence to use Clause 4.6 (previously known as SEPP 1) to vary development standards in respect of most types of development.  Councils are required to monitor the use of the Secretary’s assumed concurrence and report to the Department of Planning & Environment on that usage on a quarterly basis.  Councils are also required to report all variations approved under delegation to a meeting of Council on a quarterly basis.  This report provides a list of variations approved under delegation for the quarter 1 April 2018 to 30 June 2018 (Appendix A).

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the quarterly report on Clause 4.6 Variations be received and noted.

Page 3

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

PURPOSE - This report informs Council of the delegated use of Clause 4.6 variations for the quarter 1 April 2018 to 30 June 2018 in accordance with reporting requirements set by the Secretary, Department of Planning

& Environment. PLN040

BACKGROUND The Secretary’s concurrence for use of Clause 4.6 is applied when flexibility is required for development proposals that meet the objective of a development standard but do not meet the standards of the Local Environmental Plan.

The outcome of a recent audit of councils by the Department of Planning & Environment recommended the following reporting procedures to ensure transparency; 1. Proposed variations to development standards cannot be considered without written application objecting to the development standard and dealing with the matters required to be addressed by the relevant instrument 2. A publicly available online register of all variations to development standards approved by the consent authority or its delegates 3. A quarterly report to the Department of Planning & Environment of all variations approved 4. A quarterly report to a meeting of council of all variations approved under delegation 5. Councils are to ensure that these reporting procedures are carried out on behalf of planning panels

Council implemented the reporting procedures for points 1, 2 & 3 above a number of years ago, however, the requirement of a report to a meeting of council is a recently adopted procedure.

DISCUSSION Appendix A provides a list of variations approved for the quarter 1 April 2018 to 30 June 2018. During this period 433 Development Applications were determined. 28 Development Approvals relied on support for (Clause 4.6) variations to development standards. The majority of variations were for landscaped area, particularly for pre existing non-compliances. By and large these pre exisiting non compliances were for minor residential works, such as replacing a pool, building a garage or carport on an existing hard stand area or converting a garage to a habitable room. Determinations were made by Council staff under delegation, or larger variations were determined by Sutherland Shire Local Planning Panel.

The Department of Planning & Environment will continue to carry out random audits of councils to ensure monitoring and reporting procedures are complied with. The Department and the ICAC will continue to review and refine audit strategy, and should ongoing non-compliance be identified the Secretary will consider revoking the notice allowing concurrence to be assumed.

Page 4

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

RESOURCING STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS - The reporting procedures for Clause 4.6 Variations are the responsibility of the Development Assessment Unit utilising existing resources.

PLN040 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Community Strategic Plan Strategy Delivery Program (2017-2021) Deliverables 1.3 The community is informed and empowered 1L Advocate and maintain dialogue across all to rise to the challenges and opportunities levels of government and with key stakeholders presented by a changing world around issues impacting our community. 1.4 Ensure community confidence in Sutherland 4C Implement legislative requirements to ensure Shire council environmental, archaeological and Aboriginal heritage are conserved and valued 1.4.1 Ensure a strong governance framework 6B Manage new and existing development that provides transparency, accountability and within a robust and effective framework. sustainability.

POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS The Department of Planning & Environment Planning Circular PS18-003 identifies reporting procedures for councils who use Clause 4.6 variation standards to development proposals. Reporting procedures are required to ensure transparency for councils who use Clause 4.6 and is a means for the Department of Planning & Environment and ICAC to continue to review and refine the audit strategy.

CONCLUSION The Quarterly Report Variations 4.6 Register is a reporting procedure as set by the Department of Planning & Environment to ensure transparency by councils.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Manager Development Assessment & Certification, Simone Plummer who can be contacted on 9710 0556.

File Number: 2015/25877

Page 5

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN040

Page 6

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN040

Page 7

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN040

Page 8

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN040

Page 9

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

PLN041-18 FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO SSLEP 2015 -

Attachments: Nil

PLN041 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 Council previously resolved to undertake some minor amendments to Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (PLN028-18 and PLN001-19). Council deferred its decision on this matter for a briefing session and to allow property owners and neighbours to be notified. A briefing was held on 28 May 2018 and all affected property owners have been notified. Feedback has resulted in some changes to the planning proposal being recommended.  Amendments are needed to update mapping layers to reflect changes in land information, to facilitate minor forms of development as complying development, to permit exhibition homes, and to correct descriptions in the heritage schedule.  Three additional matters have been identified that can be addressed as part of the amendment. It is proposed to list a new item Maris Park – Sandstone Boundary Wall and Park, as a local heritage item consistent with advice Council previously received. It is also proposed to change Item A1069 Brick kerbing, and Items A0631 and A4114 Alignment of first road in Sutherland Shire to be correctly identified as local heritage items rather than archaeological sites.  It is recommended that all of the above matters be merged into one planning proposal to ensure efficient processing. The Planning Proposal must be considered by the Local Planning Panel before it can be submitted to NSW Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. The Planning Proposal reported through PLN028-18 and PLN001-19 be amended to include the changes identified in this report.

2. The combined Planning Proposal be referred to the Sutherland Shire Local Planning Panel.

3. Provided the Sutherland Shire Local Planning Panel does not identify any significant concerns that would require further consideration by Council, the Planning Proposal be submitted to NSW Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination.

4. Subject to a positive Gateway Determination, the planning proposal be exhibited in accordance with Council’s policies and the conditions of the Gateway Determination.

Page 10

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

PURPOSE - This report also advises Council on the results of community consultation. It also recommends that two more minor issues be added to the Planning Proposal.

PLN041 BACKGROUND On the 5 February 2018 Council considered a report (PLN028-18) recommending drafting amendments to Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SSLEP2015). The amendments covered a range of planning issues. Council resolved to defer the recommendations of the report, subject to a Councillor briefing and notification of affected property owners and neighbours.

On the 16th July Council considered a report (PLN001-19) recommending that additional minor amendments are incorporated into the planning proposal.

Two minor heritage matters have been identified since the previous report was submitted to Council. They can be added to the Planning Proposal to facilitate the efficient resolution of these matters.

DISCUSSION Results of Consultation with Property Owners and Neighbours Affected by Proposed Amendments (PLN028-18)

In accordance with Council resolution of 19 February 2018 (PLN028-18), a Councillor Briefing was held on 28 May 2018 and letters were sent to property owners and neighbours affected by all land specific heritage and mapping changes. The following table shows where changes to the proposed amendments have been requested by the public and recommends a Council response:

Table 3: Requested changes to the proposed amendment Affected Property Submission Assessment of Submission and (and Previously Recommended Action Reported Amendment) 28-30 Grosvenor The owner of the property Council’s 2013 Community Heritage Review Crescent, Cronulla – expressed support for the recommended that the house be included in Local Heritage Item intent of the amendment the heritage listing as a fine example of an 1027 but requested that the interwar house and garden. (Update address of heritage listing should heritage listing to include the house in Because the expert advice affirms the request reflect the heritage addition to the garden from the property owner, it is recommended item’s location on which is currently listed. that Council amend the description of the item both lots within the to “house and garden” in addition to updating property) the address of the item to “28-30 Grosvenor Crescent, Cronulla” as previously reported.

Page 11

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

119 Fowler Road, A neighbour of the subject Council’s heritage officer has considered the - Illawong – Local property advised Council neighbour’s submission together with available Heritage Item 2016 that the house component evidence and supports a change to the

(Update address of of the heritage item had heritage listing to reflect this new information. PLN041 heritage listing to been destroyed some years reflect location of previously and that the It is therefore recommended that in addition to item) wharf is part of the adjacent updating the listing address, Council should property at 123 Fowler amend the description of the heritage item to Road. remove the reference to the house and wharf, to read as follows: “Boat shed and stone waterfront”. 12R South Street, Roads and Maritime Council’s Property and Rating Database and Gymea Services advised that advice from RMS indicate that these Lot 3 DP 882658 properties which had been properties have been acquired by the State of acquired by other NSW NSW through the Minister for Planning or 682 Old Illawarra State entities should remain another State entity. Road, Menai mapped for acquisition by Lots 3 & 4 DP RMS. As these properties are not directly in RMS 1066190 control, Council should not remove them from the land acquisition and reservation map at (Remove the lots this time. It is therefore proposed that the from the land previously reported change to these properties acquisition and not proceed. reservation map) 45 Flora Street and A submission was made on Council’s heritage officer has reviewed the 580 Princes behalf of the developers of submission and broadly supports the Highway, Kirrawee – the South Village, requested change. Lots 1 & 2 in requesting an update to the DP1242067 heritage listing which The mapping of the existing archaeological (Adjust zone and applies to the site to reflect site is no longer considered appropriate given other boundaries to the heritage structures the extensive redevelopment. It is therefore match the approved which have been retained, proposed that in addition to the previously park boundary) rather than the whole of site reported mapping changes, the archaeological listing which currently item listing and heritage mapping be restricted applies. to the preserved “Pipe Kiln” which is located on part of the site. The proposed heritage listing which reflects the future subdivision of the site is as follows:  Suburb: Kirrawee  Item Name: Pipe Kiln of the former

Page 12

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

Sutherland Brick Company -  Address: Part of 566-594 Princes Highway

 Property Description: Part of Lot 3 in PLN041 DP1215830  Significance: Local  Item no: A2404 111 Princes Four submissions were The concerns raised in the submissions have Highway, Sylvania – received from neighbours been addressed below: Lot 55 in DP1215725 of the subject site objecting (Correct a mapping to the proposed mapping 1. It is correct that the current and future use anomaly by adjusting adjustment for the following of the site as a preschool is not affected by the zone and other reasons: zoning or mapping issues. However a boundaries to match mapping anomaly currently burdens the property boundary) 1. The current use of the subject property. site is not affected by the zoning anomaly. 2. The proposed LEP mapping change is not proposed to facilitate any specific 2. The change could allow development proposal and Council has not redevelopment of the site received any applications to redevelop the with consequences for their site. Redevelopment of the site is already amenity during construction permissible under the existing LEP controls and the structure of their and zoning, despite the mapping anomaly. swimming pool. Any development proposal on this site would be assessed with a view to protecting the integrity of adjacent property. It is therefore considered that the proposed change will neither prevent nor create the impacts set out in the submissions from neighbours.

Consequently, it is recommended that Council should adjust the zone boundary and other mapping to match the property boundaries on this site as previously reported. It is good planning practice that zoning boundaries reflect whole lots of land. Saint Patrick’s Sydney Catholic Schools Council’s Environmental Science team has Primary School and provided a consultant conducted a site inspection and surroundings Church submission requesting that and confirmed the reduced extent of 551 President Council amend the significant vegetation on the subject sites. It is

Page 13

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

Avenue, 54 Belmont Environmentally Sensitive therefore recommended that the - Street, 130 Flora Land - Terrestrial Environmentally Sensitive Land - Terrestrial Street, Sutherland; Biodiversity map to match Biodiversity map be amended to excise the

the actual extent of following lots which have been found to not PLN041 507, 511 & 515 – significant vegetation on have significant vegetation. These lots extend 521 President the St Patrick’s School and beyond the landholdings of Sydney Catholic Avenue; Church Site. The Schools. submission includes a  Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 in Section 44 84-88 Glencoe vegetation assessment of DP 802; Street; prepared by an  Lots 1 & 2 in DP 326496; environmental consultant.  Lots A & B in DP 449596; 103-105, 110, 112,  Lot 1 in DP 881766; 114, 116, 118 & 120  Lot 1 in DP1015888; Flora Street - (No  Lot 1 in DP 1015890; previous  Lot 4 in DP 15941; amendment, new  Strata Plan 41980; matter raised in a  Lot 1 in DP1231961; submission)  Strata Plan 94756;  Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 in DP 324080;  Lot A & B in DP 431965;  Strata Plan 41980; and  Strata Plan 64905.

Page 14

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

New Local Heritage Item: Maris Park – Sandstone Boundary Wall and Park -

Maris Park is a public reserve in Port Hacking which features a sandstone wall on its frontage to

Turriell Point Road. The sandstone wall continues along Turriell Point Road and marks the front PLN041 property boundaries for 26, 40 and 42 Turriell Point Road, and a side property boundary for 2 Sandbar Place, as indicated in the plan below.

Figure 1: Indicative extent of proposed heritage item: Maris Park – Sandstone Boundary Wall and Park

The park and the sandstone boundary wall are remnants of the historic property “Maris Park,” which occupied this land in the early 20th century. In 2012, Council proposed to demolish part of the sandstone wall out of concern for public safety. Members of the community protested these works and requested that the wall be rebuilt and protected. Council restored the damaged sections of the wall and commissioned Australian Museum Consulting to undertake an assessment of its heritage significance. The assessment concluded the park and wall meet the criteria for listing as local heritage items. The recommendations of the heritage consultant have not been acted upon.

The assessment recommends that the listing should “..incorporate all extant sections of the wall..”, including those on private property. Heritage listing would place additional requirements on the affected properties to ensure that the wall is preserved. The affected owners of 26, 40 and 42 Turriell Point Road and 2 Sandbar Place will be specifically consulted. Similarly the owners of 38 Turriell Point Road will also be consulted as their property benefits from a right of way across no. 40, which could be affected by the proposed heritage listing.

Page 15

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

Changing the Category of Archaeological Site A1069 Brick Kerbing to a Local Heritage Item -

There are well preserved sections of brick kerb and guttering within the road reserves at Gerrale

Street, Waratah Street, Ewos Parade, Parramatta Street and Richmount Street, Cronulla. This PLN041 guttering is currently listed under SSLEP2015 as an archaeological site.

In February 2017, the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) wrote to the applicant for DA16/0416 in relation to a permit for works in and around the heritage kerb and guttering in Gerrale Street, Cronulla. OEH advised that the heritage kerb and gutter should not be classified as archaeological relics for the purposes of the Heritage Act 1977. Consequently, Council’s heritage officer has requested that the heritage listing of the kerb and guttering should be transferred from the list of “archaeological sites” to “heritage items” in Schedule 5 of SSLEP2015. The change will ensure that the heritage kerb continues to be protected.

Figure 2: SSLEP2015 Heritage Mapping: Item A1069 (shown in blue)

Page 16

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

Changing the Category of Archaeological Sites A0631 and A4114 Alignment of First Road in - Sutherland Shire to a Local Heritage Item

In July 2018, the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) wrote to a utility contractor in relation to a PLN041 request for exemption of works in proximity to the heritage items; A0631 and A4114, which relate to the alignment of the first road in Sutherland Shire, along the length of Woolooware Road, Burraneer and Woolooware. OEH advised that the road alignment should not be classified as archaeological relics for the purposes of the Heritage Act 1977. Consequently, the heritage listing should be transferred from the list of “archaeological sites” to “heritage items” in Schedule 5 of SSLEP2015. The change will alllow future development applications to be more efficently processed.

Figure 3: SSLEP2015 Heritage Mapping: Items A0631 and A4114 (shown in blue)

RESOURCES STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS Management of Council’s LEP is conducted within the existing budget and resources of Strategic Planning.

Page 17

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT - Subject to a positive Gateway determination, public exhibition will be undertaken as required by the conditions issued by NSW Planning and Environment. Community engagement is expected to include:

 Public exhibition of the planning proposal on Council’s Join the Conversation website for 28 PLN041 days with the opportunity for members of the public to prepare submissions in response.  Publication of an advertisement in a local newspaper prior to the exhibition commencing.  Exhibition of the planning proposal and supporting documentation at all Sutherland Shire Council libraries and the Administration Building.  Notification letters will be distributed to the owner and neighbours of each property that is affected by a property specific mapping or heritage change.

Recent amendments to the EP&A Act 1979 create a role for Local Planning Panels in the consideration of Planning Proposals. The Minister for Planning issued a direction on 23 February 2018 that Councils must refer Planning Proposals to their Panels for advice before they are sent for a Gateway Determination. The direction takes effect from 1 June 2018 and applies to all Planning Proposals unless the Council considers that it meets one of the following criteria: a) the correction of an obvious error in a local environmental plan; b) matters that are of a consequential, transitional, machinery or other minor nature; or c) matters that council’s general manager considers will not have any significant adverse impact on the environment or adjoining land.

Should the Local Planning Panel identify any significant concerns, the matter will be reported back to Council before proceeding to Gateway Determination.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The issues addressed in this report have connections to the goals and principles of the Sutherland Shire Community Strategic Plan, including: Community Strategic Plan Strategy Delivery Program (2017-2021) Deliverables 4.1 Create and strengthen community DP 41 Implement legislative requirements to connections through shared cultural ensure environmental, archaeological and experiences. Aboriginal heritage are conserved and valued. 4.1.1 Identify and appreciate places, spaces and DP 41.2 Implement Sutherland Shire LEP 2015 stories that contribute to our Sutherland Shire Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation identity. 2.2.3 Encourage responsible urban planning 6B.6 Provide an effective Development which balances growth with environmental Application (DA) process. sustainability.

Page 18

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS - The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulations require Council to submit all Planning Proposals for a Gateway Determination before placing them on public exhibition. The

recommendations contained in this report will initiate this process and lead to the amendment of the PLN041 LEP.

CONCLUSION The proposed changes to SSLEP2015 are designed to address heritage issues and other matters arising from community input. The amendments will ensure the LEP is implemented as intended and facilitate better local development outcomes.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Manager of Strategic Planning, Mark Carlon who can be contacted on 9710 0523.

File Number: 2017/272970

Page 19

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

PLN042-18 THE LOW RISE MEDIUM DENSITY CODE - OPTIONS FOR - IMPLEMENTATION

Attachments: Nil PLN042

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  The application of the Low Rise Medium Density Code (part of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development) 2008) has been deferred from Sutherland Shire for 12 months.  The Code, when in effect, will allow development that is significantly more intense, and with greater amenity impacts than is presently permitted in the R2 Low Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential zones.  A number of Councils have lodged planning proposals that seek to ameliorate the impacts of the Code. It is appropriate for Council to consider what action it wants to take before the code comes into effect.  Given that Sutherland Shire has delivered record volumes of townhouses and dual occupancies under its current planning framework, it should seek permanent exemption from the Code because it is already delivering the “missing middle”.  In case the Minister for Planning does not support this approach, Council should also seek an amendment to the Code so that complying development must comply with the principle development standards contained in SSLEP2015.

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

1. Council make a request to the Minister for Planning for permanent suspension of the Code to Sutherland Shire because Council’s planning framework is delivering record numbers of dwellings across all forms of housing.

2. Council seek an amendment to the Code so that complying development must respect the principle development standards contained in Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015.

Page 20

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

PURPOSE - This report presents options for Council to address the impacts of the Codes SEPP – Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code on Sutherland Shire.

PLN042 BACKGROUND On the 21 May 2017, in response to increasing community concerns about the extent of change in the low density residential zones, Council resolved to seek a suspension of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development) 2008, Low Rise Medium Density Code (the Code). Council resolved (BWN010-18):

That Council request the NSW Minister for Planning, the Honourable Anthony Roberts MP, suspend the commencement of the complying development provisions which will encourage more dual occupancy in Sutherland Shire, as well as manor houses and terraces, until:

1. Council has undertaken an audit of infrastructure to establish whether local and State infrastructure can accommodate current and future housing growth, making sure infrastructure is aligned with growth, and 2. Council has carried out a review of its planning framework to address legitimate community concerns about the volume and density of residential flat buildings being approved under the current LEP. 3. Council is to commence the review as matter of urgency, The General Manager and the Director of Planning conduct a briefing as soon as possible to Councillors and involved staff on process and time frames.

Council again reiterated its concern regarding the impending introduction of the draft Code on 18 June 2018 when it resolved (BWN012-18):

1. Council notes the new planning laws Low Rise Medium Density Housing Code are due to take effect in about two weeks. 2. Council seeks an urgent response from Minister Roberts to its letter dated 25 May 2018 asking that the new laws be suspended from operation at Sutherland Shire. 3. The Mayor calls the Minister’s office urgently to bring Council’s concerns to his direct attention.

The infrastructure audit is being separately reported to Council.

Along with most other Councils, the Minister granted Sutherland Shire a one year suspension from the code. The Low Rise Medium Density Code (part of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development) 2008 (the Codes SEPP) will commence on the 6th July 2019. The intent of the suspension was to allow councils time to “submit a planning proposal that seeks to address and refine the planning controls for low rise medium density housing in Sutherland Shire.”

Page 21

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

DISCUSSION - Low Rise Medium Density Complying Development Sutherland Shire Council has, for many years, supported complying development and has taken an

active role in enabling minor forms of low impact development. Council values the role of complying PLN042 development in meeting resident’s needs to easily carry out routine development in that has minimal impact on neighbours and preserves the landscape qualities of Sutherland Shire. This process also frees staff from routine, non-contentious matters, allowing resources to be to be allocated to matters with more potential impact.

In late 2016 the State government exhibited a draft policy for low rise medium density complying development in the R2 and R3 zones. The new Code allows, as complying development, one and two storey:  dual occupancies (whether side by side, or above/below),  manor houses (3-4 flats within a single building) and  multiple dwelling (terraces) - (each dwelling must be at least 6m wide and front a road)

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development) 2008, aims to facilitate faster housing approvals by allowing low rise medium density development as complying development where medium density development is already permitted under a council’s local environmental plan. As townhouses and dual occupancy are permissible throughout the R2 Low Density zone under SSLEP2015, and were similarly permissible in the Local Housing zone under SSLEP2006, the Code will apply to vast areas of the Shire.

Council made a detailed submission (PLN015-17) raising concerns with the draft Code. In particular Council’s submission objected to the draft policy on the grounds that the SEPP would allow more dense development than permitted by the LEP, potentially eroding local character and exacerbating amenity impacts. Most other Sydney Councils were likewise concerned.

The Code requires a qualified designer or a building designer that is accredited by the Building Designers Association of Australia, to certify that the design of the development is consistent with the Design Criteria contained in the Medium Density Design Guide. The Design Criteria are both:  Development standards – prescriptive numeric standards specifically required by the Code (eg lot widths, height, setbacks), and  Design criteria - specified as objectives and design criteria in the Guidelines. These are a more qualitative measure of design performance.

The Code requires the development to meet the minimum lot size requirements under the relevant council LEP, or a specified size if there is no LEP requirement. Council has referred a draft LEP to the Minister to be made to introduce a minimum lot size. The amendment seeks to require: for dual occupancy development in R2 zone - 600sq.m. minimum lot size; and for multi dwelling development

Page 22

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

(which includes terraces) in R2 zone - 1200sq.m. minimum lot size. Council is yet to receive - confirmation that this amendment will be made.

The Codes SEPP and Consistency with SSLEP2015 & SSDCP2015 PLN042 The Code is not consistent with Council’s current planning controls. The Code will result in increasingly larger dwellings, for both dual occupancy and multi dwelling (terrace) development. The bigger, bulkier buildings will not reflect the character of the low density zones. These buildings will have adverse impacts on the qualities of the Shire residents most value, undermining its landscape character and resulting in increasing visual intrusion from bulk and scale with resultant impacts on privacy.

Of greatest concern is the scale of development. For dual occupancy on lots 400m2 to 2,000m2 the code applies a sliding scale to maximum gross floor area - 25% of lot area + 300m2. As highlighted in the table below, the resulting FSR is significantly greater than 0.55:1 permitted in the R2 zone.

Dual Occupancy & Terrace development under the SSLEP2015 Code R2 Zone lot size FSR 1: FSR 1: 450m2 0.92 0.55 600 m2 0.75 0.55 750 m2 0.65 0.55 900 m2 0.58 0.55

On a standard 600 m2 lot, Code development will be 36% larger than that permitted under SSLEP2016. Council has only recently increased the FSR in the R2 zone as part of SSLEP2015, from a FSR of 0.45:1 to 0.55:1. Many adjacent dwellings will have a FSR of 0.4:1 and consequently the FSR facilitated by the Code will be even more evident in its immediate neighbourhood. The Code also creates a two tier system – those proposals that require a DA will be limited to 0.55:1 as per SSLEP2015, and those that meet the Code could be up to 0.75:1.

The Code applies numeric controls that are lesser standards than current SSDCP2015 controls. Front setbacks are generally consistent with Councils DCP (an average of the street). Although in the R3 zone, multi dwelling housing (terraces) can be setback 3.5m from the front boundary. Only 25% of the frontage must be landscaped, compared to the currently required 50%. The controls do not include a limit on the extent of two storey development as per Council’s SSDCP2015. Setbacks are also less that of the DCP requirement which will result in less space to accommodate landscaping and little outdoor space for residents.

Essentially the Code will permit more intensive development in low density neighbourhoods than that which is permitted by the primary environmental planning instrument, SSLEP2015. The result will be

Page 23

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 the further erosion of Sutherland Shire's landscape character and greater building bulk which will - exacerbate impacts on neighbours. The Code does not recognise the unique local character of Sutherland Shire. Sadly the Code is at odds with recent directives from State Government to protect

local character and facilitate community engagement at the strategic stage of planning. PLN042

Housing Delivery The Greater Sydney Commission South District Plan estimates that the South District has a current population of 741,250 people. By 2036 this is forecast to grow to 945,350 people. The South District Plan sets a population target of 204,100 people (83,500 dwellings) in the South District to 2036. At present, the South District Plan has set the Sutherland Shire a 5 year target of 5,200 additional dwellings to 2021. Council must now prepare a Housing Strategy to arrive at how it will meet local demand for housing over the 6-10 year period and the direction it will take over a 20 year horizon.

The following graph demonstrates net dwelling approvals to 30 June 2018, by zone.

It is clear that the Shire will achieve the current 5 year housing target. Since the gazettal of the SSLEP2015 Council has approved a net increase of close to 6,000 dwellings across the Sutherland Shire. In addition over 1,200 dwellings are pending determination. Approximately 30% of these dwellings are in the R2 and R3 zones and are dual occupancies and townhouses. Clearly Council has facilitated the “missing middle” housing through its planning framework. As such a heavy handed

Page 24

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

SEPP is unreasonable and unnecessary to meet the objectives of increasing housing supply and - choice.

As part of the next Local Environmental Plan, Council must prepare and exhibit a Local Strategic PLN042 Planning Statement (LSPS) by July 2019. This statement must identify the planning priorities for the Shire and explain how these are to be delivered and implemented. The statement must include a 20- year vision of future land use and housing supply. Determining options to deliver a range of future housing types is best achieved through this process which will align growth with infrastructure capacity and respond to community engagement. Overriding this strategic approach by mandatory complying medium density development makes a mockery of the new plan making process.

Other Council Responses to the Code In Sydney, only 8 LEPs allow multi dwelling housing in the R2 zone: Sutherland Shire, Canterbury Bankstown, Botany Bay, Hurstville, Lane Cove, Manly and Ryde. Many councils are concerned about the permissibility of complying terrace houses and manor homes in the R2 zone, the density of dual occupancy development, and the resulting impacts on amenity and residential character. A number of Councils have already lodged planning proposals to address how the Code will apply to their area. To date proposed amendments include: 1. Northern Beaches Council does not support dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing (terraces) and manor houses being carried out as complying development. Accordingly, the planning proposal seeks to prohibit:  dual occupancies and multi dwelling housing in Zone R2 Low Density Residential under Manly Local Environmental Plan (MLEP 2013);  dual occupancies in Zone R2 Low Density Residential under Pittwater LEP 2014 (PLEP 2014); and  dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing and manor houses on land zoned R3 Medium Density Residential in the Warriewood Valley Release Area. 2. Ryde Council has commenced proceedings in the Land and Environment Court against the State Government’s Medium Density Housing Code. The area has two State Government priority precincts and a large housing target. The City of Ryde has stated that it has no confidence that State infrastructure will improve to a satisfactory level in the 12 months to 1 July 2019, when the Code is due to take effect in the Ryde Local Government Area. The City of Ryde is also concerned with the impacts that development under the Code will cause to the community and environment. It has been reported that Ryde has gained a second year exemption from the Code. 3. Canterbury Bankstown has lodged a planning proposal to remove multi dwelling housing as a permitted use from the R2 zone. The proposal also seeks to apply the current development standards that apply to dual occupancy in the LEP so that they override the dual occupancy controls in the Code. 4. Lane Cove’s planning proposal seeks to prohibit multi-dwelling housing in the R2 zone.

Page 25

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

5. The Hills Shire Council is seeking a minimum lot size in the R3 zone of 1800m2 . - 6. Wollondilly Shire Council has a planning proposal that seeks to introduce minimum lot size requirements for dual occupancy in R2 Low Density, R3 Medium Density and B4 Mixed Use

zones. PLN042 7. Cumberland Council’s planning proposal seeks to introduce 600m2 minimum lot area provisions for dual occupancies in the R2 Low Density Residential and R3 Medium Density Residential zones

Options Open Council to Mitigate the Impacts of the Code Council is already seeking an amendment to introduce a minimum lot size for dual occupancy and multi dwelling development in the R2 zone. This planning proposal was motivated by the need to improve development outcomes. However, it will reduce the volume of development to some extent. It will not ameliorate the full impact of the Code on low density neighbourhoods.

A number of options on how Council could seek to mitigate the impacts of the code of the R2 Low Density zones are below:

1. Permanent Suspension of the Code. Council could seek permanent suspension from the Code making a very strong case to the Minister and Secretary that its dwelling approval numbers across all housing forms demonstrate that it can meet the demand for low rise medium density without the need for complying development. Low rise medium density housing is being delivered throughout the R2 zone with a FSR and landscaped component that reflects the standards applying to single dwellings, and as such will fit with the desired future character of the low density neighbourhoods. Council’s performance demonstrates that a heavy handed, one size fits all policy is not warranted to meet the objective of delivering a variety of housing forms.

In the event that the focus of the Department and Minister is on streamlining process of applications, Council could support its request for permanent suspension with a commitment to introduce local complying development provisions in the LEP. This would allow Council to tailor development standards to better fit with local character.

2. Remove Multi Dwelling Development from the R2 Zone and Widen the Application of the R3 Zone This option would result in all multi dwelling housing development (including manor houses) being prohibited in the R2 zone, accompanied with widening the application of the R3 zone. This would remove housing choice in the R2 zone and lead to greater concentration of density in areas up-zoned to R3. This would reduce the impact of the code because manor houses and multiple dwellings would not be permissible in the R2 zone. The up-zoned R3 would have a FSR of 0.55:1, rather than 0.7:1 as currently applies to R3, to ensure the scale of single dwellings was not increased.

Page 26

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

- This option would not address the potential scale of dual occupancy development in the R2 zone which would be still subject to the Code.

PLN042 3. Seek a SEPP Schedule 3 Complying Development Codes Variation Like Canterbury Bankstown, Council could lodge a planning proposal that seeks a specific amendment to the SEPP itself. The planning proposal could seek to maintain the low density residential character and amenity of the suburban neighbourhoods in the Shire by applying the current SSLEP2015 planning controls (FSR, height and landscape area) to development under the Code.

This option would still facilitate manor houses throughout the R2 zone, but would limit the density and scale of development consistent with SSLEP2015. The actual provisions would be drafted by the Department, considering the intent of the proposal. Council staff have been advised that the Minister may be reluctant to amend the Code. However, it is noted that Clause 1.12 of the SEPP allows variations to the Code as specified in the table to Schedule 3.

Preferred Option Based on maintaining current permissibility and local character a two pronged approach is recommended. Council should lobby the State Government for a suspension of the Code, on the grounds that it is presently meeting the State housing targets. Council should also lodge a planning proposal that seeks a specific variation to the Code to apply the current SSLEP2015 development standards to development permitted by the Code in Sutherland Shire. This second step is recommended in case the Minister does not grant a permenant suspension before the commencement date of the Code.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The issues addressed in this report have connections to the goals and principles of the Sutherland Shire Community Strategic Plan, including: Community Strategic Plan Strategy Delivery Program (2017-2021) Deliverables 1.1.2 Evolve, influence and deliver community DP 41 Implement legislative requirements to strategies in partnership with the community to ensure environmental, archaeological and meet their aspirations. Aboriginal heritage are conserved and valued. 2.2.2 Manage, promote and enhance our tree canopy in urban and natural areas. 2.2.3 Encourage responsible urban planning which balances growth with environmental sustainability. 4.1.1 Identify and appreciate places, spaces and stories that contribute to our Sutherland Shire identity.

Page 27

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

6.2 Facilitate a diverse housing mix that - provides choice and meets the needs of all community members.

PLN042 POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS The recommendation of this report could result in the State Government amending the State Policy.

CONCLUSION The Low Rise Medium Density Code will allow infill medium density development at densities greater than currently permitted by SSLEP2015. The increased density will have adverse impacts on the qualities of the Shire residents most value, undermining its landscape quality, increasing visual intrusion from bulk and scale with resultant impacts on privacy and streetscapes. Not only will these outcomes undermine the local character of the low density zones, it creates a nonsensical two tier system where development applications are restricted to a lower density than complying development.

Local Government is best placed to determine local character. Best practice local planning should be collaborative and reflect community priorities. Community consultation for successive Community Strategic Plans and for the preparation of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SSLEP2015) and its predecessor, Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2006, consistently demonstrates that the maintenance of the Shire’s low density neighbourhoods and its landscape character are the key community priorities.

The complying development controls are motivated by an attempt to unlock the “missing middle”. However, SSLEP2015 has facilitated record numbers of both dual occupancies and infill multi dwelling developments. This needs to be appreciated at the State level. A heavy handed one size fits all approach is not unreasonable when Council has successfully delivered the outcomes sort by the policy. Accordingly it is recommended that Council seek a permanent suspension of the Code.

In the event that a permanent suspension is not secured before the commencement of the Code, it is prudent that Council seek an amendment to the Code so that complying development respects the principle development standards contained in Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Manager of Strategic Planning, Mark Carlon, who can be contacted on 9710 0523.

File Number: 2016/257428

Page 28

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

PLN043-18 INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE SUTHERLAND SHIRE -

Attachments: Nil

PLN043 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  This report provides a summary of infrastructure capacity in the Sutherland Shire. Conclusions reached are drawn from information contained in reports published by relevant State Agencies.  It is sensible planning to align growth with existing and planned infrastructure capacity, and this is the approach taken by the Greater Sydney Commission in preparing the District Plans. The growth rates for Sutherland Shire are pedicted to be one of the lowest in Greater Sydney, being less than 1% per annum over 20 years (to 2036).  The findings of the audit show a mixed picture. There is infrastructure capacity in certain key areas, such as most utilities, services and open space. Elsewhere, however, there are major infrastructure challenges, particularly in road and rail transport.  The findings of the Infrastructure Audit will be used by Officers as input for discussions with the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) on planning priorities for Sutherland Shire, and help inform the upcoming Local Strategic Panning Statement and the review of Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan.

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the report “Infrastructure in the Sutherland Shire” be received and noted.

Page 29

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

PURPOSE - This report is in response to Council’s resolution to Minute No: 264 (BWN010-18) seeking an audit of the capacity of infrastructure in the Sutherland Shire to accommodate housing growth.

PLN043 BACKGROUND On 21 May 2018 Council resolved (BWN010-18) that: “…an audit of infrastructure (be undertaken) to establish whether local and State infrastructure can accommodate current and future housing growth, making sure infrastructure is aligned with growth”

In response to Council’s resolution a detailed audit of infrastructure capacity in Sutherland Shire has been conducted and is provided as an attachment to this report. This work is timely as it is a key first step in the review of the Local Environmental Plan (LEP).

The GSC has set a timetable for each Council to complete a review of its LEP. Sutherland Shire Council is required to have completed its review in three years and there are key milestones that must be met along the way. The first step is a LEP “health check”. This is essentially a check of how well Council’s current planning and policy framework is aligned with the priorities and actions of the South District Plan. The health check is required to be submitted to the GSC in November 2018 and will be reported to Council in October.

Council must then prepare is Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS). This is a new document that will provide a plain English explanation of how Council will amend its planning framework to be consistent with the South District Plan. It is intended to provide a direct line of sight between the Community Strategic Plan and the South District Plan to the LEP. The LSPS must be exhibited and submitted to the GSC by 1 July 2019.

The heath check will highlight where strategic analysis is needed to inform a revision of the LEP and give effect to the LSPS. One key area will be a review of Council’s Housing Strategy. The Housing Strategy will need to make provision for anticipated growth and align projected growth with existing and proposed infrastructure. It will need to identify the right locations for growth and take a place- based approach to help facilitate high quality urban outcomes.

DISCUSSION Aligning growth with the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure is the basis of good urban planning. The Greater Sydney Region Plan – A Metropolis of Three Cities notes that providing adequate infrastructure to support population growth is essential to creating strong communities. The key role of the metropolitan plan is to co-ordinate a whole-of-government approach that can provide the appropriate infrastructure in the right places to support the growth of the three cities. In partnership with Future Transport 2056 and State Infrastructure Strategy 2018–2038, the Plan is critical in providing the basis for this collaborative approach.

Page 30

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

- Aligning infrastructure and growth at a local level forms the basis of the Greater Sydney Commission’s South District Plan. Planning Priority 1 of the South District Plan directs Councils to plan for a city

supported by infrastructure. The South District Plan prioritises a number of detailed infrastructure PLN043 actions, as summarised below:  Prioritise infrastructure investment to support the vision for Greater Sydney;  Sequence growth to promote north-south and east-west connections;  Align forecast growth with infrastructure;  Sequence infrastructure provision using a place-based approach;  When planning infrastructure consider the adaptability and potential shared use; and  Maximise the utility of existing infrastructure assets, and consider strategies to influence behaviour changes to reduce demand for new infrastructure, including the development of adaptive and flexible regulation to allow decentralised utilities.

Managing the growth of Greater Sydney is a challenge faced by all tiers of government and State agencies. As an indicator of the scale of this challenge, in December 2017 the NSW Government announced a record $80.1 billion commitment to the State infrastructure program.

NSW is also the strongest economy in Australia. Strong economic growth supports population growth, and the population of NSW is forecast to increase from 7.7 million people to over 12.1million in 2056. Greater Sydney is the focus of the State’s growth and by 2056 it is expected to be home to 8 million people.

At a local level, The Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) estimates that by 2036 the South District (including Sutherland Shire, Canterbury-Bankstown, and Georges River Council areas) will experience 12% of Greater Sydney’s population growth (204,100 people). It has set a five year housing requirement for the Sutherland Shire is 5,200 dwellings (2026-2021); with ABS census data (2011 and 2016) and recent dwelling approval data supporting this forecast. ABS data also confirms shifting demographics (particularly an ageing population).

Importantly, the growth projections and demographic trends show the Sutherland Shire is part of a bigger picture of change facing Greater Sydney. The challenge will be to ensure infrastructure responds to the needs of the local population, which will mean accommodating housing growth to meet local demand. As aged people make up an increasingly large proportion of our community, more houses will be needed to maintain the local population because older people tend to live alone. More dwellings are needed simply to keep our population base stable. Facilitating services to support an ageing population will also be a critical challenge.

The challenge at both the local and State level is to improve the integration of land use and infrastructure planning in order to plan, prioritise and deliver local infrastructure needs.

Page 31

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

Sutherland Shire Population Growth - The Sutherland Shire Estimated Resident Population for 2017 was 227,073. The South District’s population is currently 741,250 people. By 2036 this is forecast to grow to 945,350 people, an

additional 204,100 people. PLN043

The GSC is not setting medium or long term housing targets for each LGA. Instead it expects each Council to prepare a local strategy showing how it will accommodate local needs based on detailed demographic analysis of how its population will grow and change. The GSC has directed Council to focus on how change can deliver great places to live. It expects Councils to undertake detailed placed based planning to understand how local amenity can be enhanced through redevelopment and new initiatives. Each council’s Housing Strategy will show what strategies it will pursue in its LEP to accommodate future housing needs. Aligning growth with infrastructure can be an integral part of the strategy.

The Department of Planning & Environment demographers have forecast a very low annual growth rate for Sutherland Shire, being less than 1% per annum over the next 20 years (to 2036):

Total Population Total Change Total Change Annual Change 2036 people % % 260,400 40,150 18.2% 0.7%

The Sutherland Shire’s annual growth rate is the same as the Northern Beaches, and one of the seven lowest Councils in Sydney - Woollahra (0.2%), Mosman (0.4%), Waverley (0.5%), Hunters Hill (0.5%), Blue Mountains (0.6%) and Fairfield (0.6%).

Significantly greater annual growth rates are expected in Liverpool (2.3%), The Hills (2.7%), Parramatta (2.9%), and Camden (5.5%). Parramatta Council area is expected to grow by 213,650 people.

Whilst it is evident that growth over the next 20 years will be slow, there will be a demographic shift in the types of households in the Shire, which in turn will have an impact on the services and infrastructure needed to support the community. The two tables below highlight how the Shire’s demographics are expected to shift.

Page 32

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

2016 2036 - Number % of total Number % of total % increase population population

Babies and pre-schoolers (0-4) 15,000 6.54% 15,250 5.86% 1.67% PLN043 Early Primary Schoolers (5-9) 14,600 6.36% 15,450 5.93% 5.82% Secondary schooler (10-19) 27,550 12.00% 32,050 12.31% 16.33% Young Independents and workers 43,950 19.15% 45,100 17.32% 2.62% (20-34) Parents and homebuilders (35-49) 47,650 20.76% 48,750 18.72% 2.31% Older workers and pre- retirees 54,800 23.88% 59,850 22.98% 9.22% (50-69) Seniors and elderly (70+) 26,050 11.35% 44,000 16.9% 68.91% Total 229,600 260,450

The forecasts indicate that the most dramatic change will be a 69% increase in the number of people over 70 years old. When coupled with the growth in older workers and pre-retirees (50-69), this period will see increased demand for dwellings as older people are more likely to live on their own (due to divorce or death) and changing infrastructure. Lone person households are expected to increase from 21% of households to 24% of households and there is a corresponding decline in households with children (39% down to 35%). Fewer persons per dwelling means more dwellings are required to accommodate our existing population.

No significant increase in babies or early primary aged school age children is expected.

Page 33

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

Planned State Infrastructure - The most significant transport infrastructure investment in the South District is the Sydenham to Bankstown Metro that extends to the city and then to the northwest. This will help to free up capacity

in the inner city circle and somewhat improve southern rail services. PLN043

The NorthConnex/ WestConnex road works also aim to ease existing congestion, increase capacity, provide a western bypass of the Sydney CBD, as well as provide connections to the future Western Harbour Tunnel, Beaches Link, F6 extension and major international gateways at Sydney Airport and Port Botany.

Future transport infrastructure investment in the District could include a Kogarah to Miranda train link/mass transit link, the extension of the F6 from Kogarah through the Shire and transit connections to Parramatta, though there is no firm commitment to these projects. For example, the District Plan describes the potential mass transport corridor from Miranda to Kogarah as ‘visionary’ and beyond the 20 year planning horizon.

Infrastructure Audit Our review of local infrastructure looked at current supply, drivers and potential challenges that may affect future infrastructure capacity. A desk top review was conducted of all readily available government reports to arrive at capacity conclusions. The following four themes have been used to group major infrastructure provision.

Figure 1: Infrastructure Evaluation Framework

Page 34

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

Figure 2 below provides a simple “traffic light” code to represent the key findings. The detailed data, - analysis and sources are contained in the attachement to this report.

Figure 2: Infrastructre Capacity Overview PLN043

Category Infrastructure Statu s

Rail

Transport Infrastructure Road

Bus

Car Parking

Freight

Electricity

Utilities and Services Gas

Water/Sewer

NBN

Waste

Stormwater Stormwater and Waterway Waterways Infrastructure

Community Facilities

Fire and Rescue NSW

Page 35

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 - Police

Ambulance PLN043

Justice

Health services

Social Infrastructure Education

Child Care

Aged Care

Sport and Recreation

Transport Infrastructure

Of the four main areas, transport infrastructure poses the most significant capacity challenge for Greater Sydney and the South District.

Across Sydney, a 30% increase (2.7 million) in daily car trips is expected by 2036. This annual growth rate is higher than was expected in 2012 and in line with population growth. Figure 3 is taken from State Infrastructure Strategy, it highlights in pink the roads that are currently operating beyond their design capacity. Clearly the road network across Sydney will be under considerable strain by 2036.

Figure 4 shows a more detailed view of Sutherland Shire. In comparison to inner and central areas, Sutherland Shire shows less future congestion, although Alfords Point Bridge, Tom Uglys Bridge, Woronora Bridge and the Princes Highway between Sutherland and Engadine are all expected to be operating above their design capacity by 2036, with Tom Ugly’s Bridge having an Average Daily Traffic Count of 99,180 (higher than General Homes Dr and Parramatta Rd).

The F6 Extension would provide a link between the M1 Princes Motorway and the Sydney motorway network near Sydney Airport. The project is currently in the planning phase, with Stage 1 (providing a link between the New M5 and President Avenue at Kogarah) identified as the initial priority. The District Plan identifies the remainder of the F6 as “being investigated 0-10 years”.

Page 36

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

Figure 3: Road Network Performance Across Greater Sydney in 2036 Morning Peak - PLN043

Source: State Infrastructure Strategy, Transport for NSW, 2017

Page 37

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

Figure 4: Road Network Performance Across South Sydney Including Sutherland Shire in 2036 - Morning Peak

PLN043

Source: State Infrastructure Strategy, Transport for NSW, 2017

The State Infrastructure Strategy 2018-2038 records the use of the rail network servicing the Sutherland Shire (T4 line and Illawarra-Shoalhaven line) as being above capacity (measured to be over 150% at times), particularly at peak travel times. Figure 5 is taken from the Western Sydney Rail Needs Scoping Study Outcomes Report, Transport for NSW, March 2018. The use of black shading on the two maps shows the areas of greatest congestion on the rail network in 2056 and the effect of planned investment. Significantly, despite very significant investment in rail infrastructure, significant overcrowding on the T4 line will remain. The planned investment will remove considerable congestion from the city wide network, but the T4 and Illawarra-Shoalhaven line will remain at the lowest level of service.

Page 38

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

Figure 5: Morning Peak Hour Train Crowding in the Absence of Investment in 2056 -

PLN043

Page 39

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

Figure 6: Morning Peak Hour Crowding After Planned Investment in 2056 - PLN043

Source: Western Sydney Rail Needs Scoping Study Outcomes Report, Transport for NSW, March 2018

Opal data indicates that passenger numbers continue to grow on the T4 line. Minor railway capacity upgrades are planned for the T4 and Illawarra-Shoalhaven lines, which will free up some capacity. However, this is needed to meet current use and will not create the capacity needed for population growth.

Future Transport 2056 shows that there are no transport infrastructure works proposed within the next 20 year period that will fundamentally increase the capacity of the rail network serving Sutherland Shire. The South District Plan identifies a new mass transit link serving Miranda north to Kogarah. However, this is visionary in planning terms with a time horizon beyond 20 years.

The State Infrastructure Strategy 2018 -2038 points to an expected doubling of bus patronage across Greater Sydney over the next twenty years. The 2017 State Infrastructure Strategy identifies priorities including priority bus lanes, upgrades to interchanges, on-demand bus services.

The bus network in the Shire is fragmented – improved services are needed. An on demand bus service, which is currently on trial in the Council area, may be a partial solution. Reallocating road space and prioritising access for on-road rapid transit will be crucial to achieve the necessary mass transport options affordably and to present a credible, competitive alternative to private vehicle trips on key corridors. The B-Line to the Northern Beaches is a successful example of this approach.

Despite the State Government’s significant commitment to new infrastructure, the analysis of State agencies show that it will not be able to meet demand for road and rail transport in the South District.

Page 40

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

The District plans point to strategies that will influence behaviour to reduce demand for new - infrastructure. Strategies to influence travel behaviour will become critical in Sutherland Shire unless

planned investment the F6 and mass transport systems are brought forward. PLN043 The census shows both growing car ownership rates and a growing population which will continue to put pressure on public parking. The traditional approach to parking has been that motorists should nearly always be able to easily find convenient and free parking at every destination. However, in the last 15 years there has been an increased focus the more efficient use of existing transport infrastructure as an alternative to expanding roads and parking facilities. Under this ‘demand management’ approach, parking facilities should be used more efficiently and behavioural change should be encouraged to reduce demand for parking.

Utilities and Services Infrastructure

Ausgrid’s 2017 Substation Capacity and Demand Forecast and gas provider Jemena’s published consumption data both highlight that utilities and services are generally meeting demand across Greater Sydney, particularly as electricity and gas demand is reported to be growing at slower than forecast levels. Utilities and service infrastructure requirements for centres and large developments should be considered in consultation with government authorities and private suppliers. However, analysis has established that there are no known barriers to utility provision.

Digital connectivity capacity and quality should increase as the National Broadband Network (NBN) upgrade is completed across Sutherland Shire.

Waste services cater to current demand, while rising prices and decreasing land availability provide a challenge to supply sustainable, practical and cost-effective solutions in the future. The NSW Waste and Resource Recovery Strategy 2014-21 largely focuses on reducing the amount of waste going to land fill, increasing recycling rates and better managing problem waste.

Sydney Water Growth Servicing Plan 2017-2022 indicates where Sydney Water anticipates growth and needs to augment water and wastewater infrastructure, based on the DPE Housing Supply Forecast. No work is planned for Sutherland Shire, which means that planned growth can be accommodated.

Stormwater and Waterway Infrastructure

This includes infrastructure such as flooding/drainage/stormwater assets as well as the health of the Shire’s waterways. Council’s understanding of the physical characteristics, condition, serviceability and performance of its grey and green infrastructure assets is limited, but is improving. The strormwater perferfomance is poor and would not meet todays design standards. Flood risk will not worsen significantly. At a local level, Council is continuing to develop policies that protect and enhance waterways, mitigate flooding, and manage drainage and stormwater affects in development areas.

Page 41

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

Social Infrastructure -

Council works collaboratively with the Rural Fire Service and Fire & Rescue to manage bush fire risk. Council’s planning framework limits development in bushfire prone areas so that the number of lives or properties at risk from bushfire is not exacerbated over time. Other emergency services are well PLN043 catered for.

Social infrastructure includes facilities, services and networks that are used for the physical, social, cultural or intellectual development or welfare of the community. Council provides significant community services and a significant number of venues for service provision. Forecasts predict growth in the population of elderly residents and figures suggest that health services in the Sutherland Shire are nearing capacity with high occupancy rates in local and surrounding hospitals.

On the whole, public schools in the Sutherland Shire are well equipped with land area, which allows schools to explore options to cater for increasing student numbers. NSW Department of Education forecasts of 2036 classroom shortages show that Sutherland Shire will generally experience less severe shortages then those experienced elsewhere in Greater Sydney.

Maintaining existing standards of social and health infrastructure capacity may be difficult with an increasingly aged population. Demand for aged care will greatly increase, however, capacity and the ability for current infrastructure to cater to this growth is difficult to forecast as these services are largely provided through the private sector and respond to demand.

Analysis of Sutherland Shire Infrastructure

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS (Current) (Future)

There are major Rail network over  Smart technology Freight rail and secondary 150% capacity at upgrades to rail services may be road connections peak travel times and road to assist affected by future to Greater Sydney capacity planned increases – with strong Road capacity at to commuter rail north-south major entry and  Pinch point services connections exit points to the program to assist Shire are recorded with road capacity Forecasts predict Well serviced by at or above increased road distribution of rail capacity in peak  Long term future capacity issues in stations across periods project, the rail 2036 central spines metro service from Car parking Kogarah to Limited ability to Good supply of reported at Miranda, could increase freight community capacity in centres address capacity services with facilities and a major constraints sections of the M1 concern of the at or above Schools have community  Road capacity capacity significant land improvements assets to Limited opportunity through proposed Car parking

Page 42

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 accommodate to influence F6 extension demand, - growth infrastructure particularly provision as  Bus improvements commuter parking, Good supply of funding is at a across Greater could be expected

sport and Federal or State Sydney through to grow in line with PLN043 recreation level, and through priority lanes, increasing facilities compared private providers upgrades to population to Greater Sydney interchanges and Caseloads in the on demand bus There are signs Electricity local court having services that the ability of demand and been increasing Sydney Water to forecast data year on year  Improvements to accommodate indicates the area showing capacity active transport growth at low is performing well, constraints on (walking and incremental costs and has the Justice cycling) options, is running out – key capacity to supply and use of public challenges are further demand in Health services transport could anticipated from the future are nearing help decrease car population growth capacity with high parking and road and climate change Gas connections occupancy rates in capacity locally is local and challenges Changing age increasing but surrounding profile – forecast to usage rates are hospitals  Strategies that will ageing population decreasing - data influence requiring more suggests future The capacity of behaviour changes health services capacity Council’s can reduce requirements stormwater demand for new Capacity could be met system has not infrastructure. shortages outside been fully defined. the Shire may Investment in the  Community result in increased NBN rollout will expectation on pressure on Shire improve digital how waste is infrastructure connectivity managed, could improve support of recycling initiatives to divert waste from landfill

 Maldon - Dombarton freight rail line may take freight off roads/rail and free up capacity

 Greater employment self- containment could be achieved

Page 43

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT - No community engagement is required at this stage.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT PLN043 Strategy 1.1 Our community and leadership will collaborate to enable the lifestyle and environment to which we aspire Community Strategic Plan Strategy Delivery Program (2017-2021) Deliverables 6.1 Plan and develop integrated transport 6B Manage new and existing development within networks to provide transport choices that allow a robust and effective framework. people to get around in a safe, accessible and efficient manner.

POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS There are no legislative implications for Council at this stage.

CONCLUSION It is evident that the largest infrastructure issue facing the Shire is apparent limitations in transport capacity. This will temper Sutherland Shire’s ability to accommodate high growth rates. However, Sutherland Shire is not unique in experiencing transport congestion as the issue is faced by much of Greater Sydney.

Given the Sydney will continue to grow regardless of local planning strategies; it is likely that the State will increasingly look to behaviour modification to take pressure of infrastructure. Opportunities to support greater employment self- containment should be used to address a lack of transport capacity. Congestion will in itself force behavioural change. Frustration will result in more people changing their commuting times, working from home or using active transport to avoid wasting time in congestion.

The ageing of the local population will also take pressure of peak periods because significantly more people will be retired. An ageing population will require considerably more health care and personal services which may grow local employment opportunities.

While city-shaping infrastructure, such as major transport projects, is directed by State level investment, Council can promote, collaborate and respond to infrastructure capacity through local plans and strategies. However, when city shaping infrastructure is provided it will most likely be followed by housing targets to maximise the value from investment.

Further improvements to the utilisation of community infrastructure could be facilitated through local plans and strategies. New approaches may include shared use of community facilities, such as libraries or community buildings being reimagined as community hubs.

Page 44

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

Active transport links may become significant movement corridors in their own right, assisted by the - growth in electric bikes and scooters. Future planning should contemplate alternative transport options, such as autonomous vehicle technology.

PLN043 Council is required to prepare and exhibit a Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) by July 2019. The statement must identify the planning priorities for the Shire and explain how these are to be delivered and implemented. The statement must include a 20-year vision of future land use. Importantly, it must be a planning vision, emphasising strategic land use, transport and environmental planning, clearly demonstrating how the Shire will change to meet the community’s needs in 20 years’ time. Infrastructure constraints must be considered when drafting the LSPS.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Manager Strategic Planning, Mark Carlon, who can be contacted on 9710 0523.

File Number: 2018/308432

Page 45

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

PLN044-18 RESULTS OF EXHIBITION OF DRAFT AMENDED STRATEGY FOR - FINALISATION OF OLD S94 AND S94A PLANS

Attachments: Appendix A⇩ and Appendix B⇩ PLN044

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  Council deferred consideration of this matter on 20 August, 2018 for one round to allow Councillors to obtain information from Council officers. It is now re-submitted for finalisation.  With the commencement of new s.94 and s.94A plans in January 2017, a “Strategy for Finalisation of old S94 and S94A Plans” was adopted. The strategy sets out the details for reconciliation of funds and projects from the 12 legacy Contribution Plans and is appended to the two current Development Contribution Plans.  Council resolved to amend the works schedule in the strategy as well as allocating funds from the superseded 2003 Community Facilities Plan to the augmentation of the Sutherland Entertainment Centre (see COR18-18).  The Strategy for Finalisation has also been amended to remove references to work that has been completed or that is no longer proposed to be carried out.  This report presents the results of the public exhibition of the draft amended strategy, which was publicly exhibited from 23 May to 20 June 2018. No submissions were received and it is recommended that the draft amended strategy be adopted.

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the “Draft Amended Strategy for Finalisation of old S94 and S94A Plans” as exhibited.

Page 46

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

PURPOSE - This report presents the outcome of public exhibition of the document “Draft Amended Strategy for Finalisation of old S94 and S94A Plans” and recommends adoption of the strategy as exhibited.

PLN044 BACKGROUND On 7 November 2016 Council resolved (PLN003-17) to adopt two new development contribution plans, being “Sutherland Shire Section 94 Development Contribution Plan 2016” and “Sutherland Shire Section 94A Development Contribution Plan 2016.” The two new plans replaced 12 old contribution plans. The new contribution plans have applied to development and complying development applications since 1 January, 2017.

A section common to each of the plans is the “Strategy for finalisation of old S94 and S94 Plans”. This document explains how funds and projects in the 12 superseded Contribution Plans are to be reconciled and the old plans wound up. This is necessary because funds continue to be collected under conditions of consent imposed in accordance with the superseded plans, as development consents issued in prior to 1 January 2017 can be acted upon for up to five years.

Consideration of this matter was deferred by Council on 20 August 2018. It is now re-reported for finalisation.

DISCUSSION A recent review of the “Strategy for finalisation of old S94 and S94 Plans” updated the project list and recommended changes to fund allocation in the finalisation strategy for the superseded plans. This approach was adopted by Council in April 2018 (COR018-18). The amended strategy allocates funds from the superseded 2003 Community Facilities Plan to augmentation of the Sutherland Entertainment Centre. This project is consistent with the aims of the plan, which is to maintain the existing standard of provision of community facilities in response to demand generated by new development.

RESOURCING STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS The amended strategy is a cross divisional project by the Strategic Planning Unit in consultation with Shire Services and Shire Infrastructure. The contributions received by Council provide income for Council to use towards the acquisition and embellishment of infrastructure. The funds will be expended in accordance with the Works Schedule and the adopted Infrastructure/ Capital Program.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The “Draft Amended Strategy for Finalisation of old S94 and S94A Plans” was publicly exhibited for a period of four weeks from 23 May to 20 June 2018. Public notice was given in the Leader. The amended strategy document and supporting documents were available on Council’s website (Join the Conversation). The exhibition material was also on exhibition at the Council Administration Building and the Sutherland Shire public libraries.

No submissions were received during or following the four week exhibition period.

Page 47

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT - The plans provide for the levying of development contributions on new development. The plans will ensure that there will be public facilities to meet the needs of the population.

PLN044 Community Strategic Plan Strategy Delivery Program (2017-2021) Deliverables 4.2 Maintain and enhance our cultural facilities DP4G Progress the long term redevelopment plan for the Sutherland Entertainment Centre

POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS The Development Contribution Plans and the “Draft Amended Strategy for Finalisation of old S94 and S94A Plans”, which forms part of the plans, have been prepared and exhibited in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

CONCLUSION The “Draft Amended Strategy for Finalisation of old S94 and S94A Plans” incorporates amendments as adopted by Council in April 2018 (COR18-18). The amendments update the works schedule and allocate funds from the superseded 2003 Community Facilities Plan to the augmentation of the Sutherland Entertainment Centre. The amended strategy document was publicly exhibited for a period of four weeks and no submissions were received. As such it is appropriate for it to be adopted as exhibited.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Manager Strategic Planning, Mark Carlon, who can be contacted on 9710 0523

File Number: 2018/307839

Page 48

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 49

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 50

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 51

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 52

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 53

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 54

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 55

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 56

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 57

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 58

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 59

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 60

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 61

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 62

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 63

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 64

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 65

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 66

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 67

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 68

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix A Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 69

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 70

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 71

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 72

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 73

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 74

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 75

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 76

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 77

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 78

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 79

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 80

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 81

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 82

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 83

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 84

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 85

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 86

Shire Planning Committee 3 September 2018

18 Appendix B Appendix 18

- PLN044

Page 87