appendix b – submissions summary table · 2020. 9. 8. · appendix b – submissions summary...

APPENDIX B – SUBMISSIONS SUMMARY TABLE

East Leppington - Liverpool Part Precinct – Re-exhibition Summary of 24

Id/code Individual Submitter & Address

Submission/Issues Response

10-08-2013 Community drop in session

1.Extent of acquistions for road widening shown to Camden Valley Way(CVW).

2. Retaining access for properties adjoining CVW – RMS providing internal left in left out road for 4 properties.

3. Location of child care centre and drainage basin.

4. Block sizes and amount of road around corner of CVW & DCR.

1.This is a potential drafting error on the acquisition map. RMS have subsequently provided data on land acquisition and provided verbal advice that all land acqusitions had been completed for the widening of Camden Valley Way in this part of the precinct. The Department has provided RMS with the latest ILP, zone and acquisition map to confirm RMS holdings and acceptance of the final outcome.

2. RMS is providing like for like access to Camden Valley Way as an interim measure until the precinct is developed.

3. The existing childcare centre is within the proposed medium density zone which permits this use. The property will have exposure near the new signalised intersection and will ultimately be accessed from within the precinct from an internal road.

The technical consultant has advised that it is possible to change the configuration of the adjoining drainage basin, as long as the same overall area is retained within the drainage & infrastructure corridor. Refer to Id/code 3-2-09 for more detail.

4. Block size allows for rear lane access. Separate internal local/access road required for local traffic and separation to Camden Valley Way.

14-08-2013 Community drop in session

1. The question of a pedestrian underpass as part of the precinct to allow people to cross CVW (via an underpass) in the north of the precinct providing direct access to the new rail station & centre was raised.

A de-acceleration lane was required with a DA approval for a place of public worship located on the northern tip of the precinct. This lane has not yet been built but the circumstances are now very different and the sight lines poor. A

Underpass to Camden Valley Way

RMS advised 13 September 2013 (at a meeting) that an underpass could not be constructed as there was insufficient clearance for one.

Access to Camden Valley Way

In 2007, approval for the construction of a place of public worship was given by Liverpool Council with agreement





deferred DA for an extension of the place of public worship has also been lodged with council. As no access is to be provided from within the final precinct to CVW the cost of building a de-acceleration lane & the rational should be re-evaluated. Requested RMS and DP& I examine access current and future outcomes for this area.

Support for the exhibited ILP and the restriction on access to CVW was given although concerns about whether adjoining properties would be adversely affected by the deceleration lane were mentioned.

2. The owners of land in the proposed E4 zone previously provided a submission raising concerns that their land was shown as flood affected. This does not show on Liverpool Council maps. Wanted to know where the map came from and how it was prepared (Development Control).

from the RMS to concept plans requiring construction of a deceleration lane to the land at 1492 CVW. Access to this part of the precinct has been discussed with the RMS as part of precinct planning.

Refer to Id/code 5-5-09 for more detail.

Noted.

The subject property is 315 Denham Court Road. The Water Cycle Management report adopted the hydrological modelling assumptions of previous studies completed for Liverpool Council and used ground level data from the HEC RAS models made available by Liverpool Council. Detailed flood modelling was undertaken, peered reviewed and a revised WCM report placed on exhibition. The WCM (July 2013) report (as re-exhibited) documents the methodology and results, and represents the latest information on flood levels for this area.

1-13-08 Issue: Denham Court Road

Upgrade Denham Court Road to 4 lanes to handle increased traffic volumes.

Dangerous corner near Precinct travelling towards Campbelltown Road needs to be redesigned as it has resulted in road deaths.

Potential for increased traffic through Denham Court suburb cutting through to Campbelltown and the proposed suburb of Edmondson Park South.

The Traffic Assessment report 2013 recommends upgrading Denham Court Road to 4 lanes by 2026 within the East Leppington Precinct. This has been taken into account in the final ILP with land to be acquired for road widening identified along Denham Court Road within the precinct boundary

The widening of Denham Court Road beyond the precinct to Campbelltown Road is part of the government’s broader strategic consideration of roads within the South West Growth Centre rather than a precinct specific matter. The impact of additional traffic from outside the precinct has however been taken into account in the traffic and





Make Zouch Road a cul de sac to stop this thoroughfare.

transport consideration for the precinct and should inform discussions that may arise in relation to the road beyond the precinct boundary. The safe and efficient use of the road will be a consideration at the time the road is redesigned to 4 lanes within the precinct boundary. Consultation is usually undertaken by RMS at this time.

2-13-08 Issue: Direct Access of Camden Valley Way The land owner advised that the RMS had told him he would have direct access onto CVW from his property into the future and that he wanted the precinct plan to reflect this position. He argued one access point was inadequate.

The land owner on 13/08/13 verbally advised the Department that the RMS had confirmed the Department's advice that he will have ongoing access to his property as is currently the case but that future development within the part precinct will not have direct access off Camden Valley Way except where the Precinct Plan indicates access. He said he is now satisfied and has no further concerns or issues as he will be able to access his property under the current arrangements. The RMS also confirmed that they are providing a service roadway to enable access to land in this vicinity to ensure owners maintain their existing access arrangements. Also, that their policy for direct access off CVW remains restricted consistent with what is depicted on the precinct plan.

3-2-09 Joncarm Holdings P/L & Miclia P/L PO Box 200 Belfield NSW 2191

Issue: Existing childcare centre, land zoning & future uses

• To ensure the child care centre remains operational once infrastructure works are built the submitter requests that should the centre not be located within the SP2 zone, Cardno provides technical evidence that the ongoing use and operation of the centre could remain without adverse impacts on its operation.

• Not all the site is affected by the 100

The work undertaken for the WCM plan for the East Leppington precinct provides a framework for detailed design work to follow. A child care centre is a permissible use in the proposed R3 zone and can therefore continue to operate. The preparation of design work for the drainage basin will at that time have to consider all adjoining land uses, such as the child care centre and minimise impacts as part of the development process.

Once the Precinct is developed and access to Camden Valley Way is restricted, vehicular access from within the Precinct to the centre needs to be assured.





year ARI. Best and highest use of the site is R3 Medium Density Residential; however the land is burdened by drainage infrastructure.

• The majority of the site is subject to future acquisition & will be seeking separate legal advice.

• Very concerned about ongoing operation of the child care centre and development rights for the future use of the land.

• Properties with similar drainage lines are not proposed to be rezoned SP2.

• Consider rezoning the whole of the land R3.

• Request to meet with DP&I to discuss the above.

To enable a road to run along the northern boundary of the child care centre providing future access to on-site car parking and enabling other uses of the land in the future, for example housing, it was necessary to modify the adjoining drainage basin. This required examining the shape of the drainage basin within the drainage and infrastructure corridor to ensure the same volume required to manage flood waters within the precinct was achieved. This has been confirmed by the consultants and the final ILP modified. Accordingly additional land has been made available for housing on the subject site.

The Department met with the submitter on 9 October 2013 to hear their concerns and set out the Department’s proposed response, which is detailed above.

4-5-09 GAT & Associates

PO Box 96 Haberfield 2045

Issue: Rezoning of land at 1370-1380 Camden Valley Way, vegetation, open space and residential zoning & neighbourhood centre.

Neighbourhood Centre (NC)

• Support B1 zoning and addition of service centre definition but do not want any restrictions on the use of the land fronting CVW.

• Object to requirement that development must be consistent with the Desired Future Layout of the NC (Controls 1 & 2) & for the requirement to include a small square (per the DCP schedule) (control 15).

• Prefer to adopt principles relating to build form outcomes.

• Delete controls 1 & 2, 15 & 16.

Neighbourhood Centre

The approved service station and fast food outlet are permissible in the current and proposed new zone for the land. Any changes to these approved uses or for new uses will require a further development application to council.

The proposed zoning as B1 Neighbourhood Centre means that all land uses in this zone are possible subject to development assessment and resolution of traffic implications with RMS. No restrictions have been placed on the land in relation to future uses within the B1 zone, however a 2,500 sq m cap for retail applies and restrictions on access to Camden Valley Way.

The Desired Future Layout is an indicative layout which





can be varied subject to consideration of certain principles set out in the Liverpool Growth Centres DCP and Schedule 3. It is considered that with the preparation of an overall masterplan for the site any need to vary the Desired Future Layout will be suitably justified at that time. The wording of the DCP can be amended to clarify the indicative nature of the Desired Future Layout.

Controls 1,2,15 & 16 to be retained with minor changes made to clarify intent eg 200m2 for the local square and a note added about the indicative nature of the Desired Future Layout.

This approach was discussed and agreed with Liverpool Council officers.

4-5-09 Public recreation/open space/drainage

• Object to extent of open space on site. • Increase in area of land to be zoned as

drainage and public recreation compared with 2012 exhibition.

• Mapped land for drainage should be used for open space to assist with any shortfalls (permit dual use).

• Relocate the open space to less economically viable land to the east to be zoned very low residential density.

• The use of the land for open space is not based upon the flooding (western tributary is an artificial excavated channel which could readily be piped) or vegetation.

• Recommend reducing the amount of open space fronting the neighbourhood centre to a corridor so views and connectivity are retained, residential zone is extended and more open space

Public recreation/open space/drainage

2 hectares of land for local parks (flood free) and 3.8 hectares for passive open space (within the 100 year ARI) adjacent to the riparian corridor are proposed within the part precinct. These 6 hectares however falls short of the standard (9 hectares for projected population) however is considered acceptable by council within the framework of the broader Liverpool LGA.

The open space has been rationalised on the basis of validation of vegetation, refinement of the lot layout and review of the open space contiguous with the creek corridor. The intent is to encourage dual use of the land for open space and riparian corridor purposes.

The open space is located within the centre of the precinct providing for ready access and improved outlook for many residents. Active uses are to be encouraged along its length.

Reducing the open space/local park fronting the neighbourhood centre as suggested will result in the loss of valuable, usable open space (surrounded by dwellings





is added in the very low density zone. • Amend Figure 3.2 to show off road cycle

path as per Green Travel Strategy.

and the neighbourhood centre) to a narrow corridor with very little use or value to the new neighbourhood. Notwithstanding this the shape of the open space and the design of the roading and residential block have been re-assessed and a more efficient design proposed in the final ILP.

The option of relocating the open space to lower density land next to the Upper Canal is not supported as it tucks away the open space to the fringe with reduced nexus to surrounding development.

• DCP to be amended to correct location of off road cycle path.

4-5-09 Existing Native Vegetation (ENV)

• Subject land now has mapped Existing Native Vegetation requiring protection which was not shown when exhibited in 2012.

• Vegetation surveyed by SLR who concludes that there is no vegetation on the site worthy of retention.

• The Cumberland Plain Woodland to the north should be retained for open space instead.

• The ENV was identified in the non-certified lands within the Biodiversity Certification Report, Strategic Assessment and Planning Report 2012 and 2013.

• The Field Validation Report December 2012 re-

examined the vegetation in this part and found that due to its small size, history of disturbance and low recovery potential it was of moderate ecological value. However the good quality canopy cover contributed to it meeting the criteria for mapping ENV and has consequently been protected.

• The subsequent reworking of the draft ILP considered the extent and location of ENV with the essential infrastructure and what could be





retained. • Areas of open space have been aligned where

possible with ENV. • The Department’s technical consultant reviewed

the SLR report and advised that the ability to remove the vegetation is highly constrained by the application of the Growth Centres Biodiversity Certification Order and the restrictions placed on clearing of non-certified ‘Existing Native Vegetation’. These restrictions are enshrined in both state and commonwealth legislation. The justification for clearing must be made on land use as opposed to poor ecological value, the approach taken by SLR. If clearing was permitted, such clearing would need to be offset through the protection of ENV or revegetation of other (non-riparian) lands on a 3 to 1 ratio. The rational for the retention of the vegetation is therefore very strong as the alternative scenario of removing and offsetting the vegetation is unlikely to be approved and unlikely to be viable.

• The submission does not address clause 7 of the Growth Centres Biodiversity Conservation Order or provide an offset as per clause 8.

4-5-09 Residential density

• Minimum 25 dwelling/ha will result in buildings not suited to this precinct particularly as public transport is not as accessible as suggested.

• In actuality, Camden Valley Way physically divides this precinct from North Leppington precinct and the railway station.

• 25 dwellings/ha = 250 sq m lots. • Request 300 sq m lots which would still

The R3 medium density zone permits a range of housing types that are also permitted within the R2 Low Density zone. The housing common to both zones is attached dwellings, dwellings, dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing and semi-detached dwellings.

The recently released Housing Diversity package for the Growth Centres provides guidance on the type of housing that can be used to achieve dwelling densities within a suburban or urban context. Lots of 300 sq m will be achievable as long as the housing mix achieves the overall density of 25 dwellings/ha.





achieve population targets. • Extend medium density zone into the

open space area as per Figure 7.

It is not proposed to lower the housing density in this location given its proximity to the Neighbourhood Centre, bus routes and open space.

The extension of the medium density zone as proposed in Figure 7 will remove valuable open space within the centre of the precinct and is not supported for the following reasons:

• The open space provides an important focal point for the community, located opposite the neighbourhood centre and surrounded by medium density housing.

• The area of open space proposed to be removed will detrimentally affect the overall provision of open space but also its purpose within the centre of the precinct is to provide much needed open space for activities, pedestrian and cycle connections, views and a green outlook.

• The park land links with the open space and riparian corridor running the length of the part precinct.

• Medium density housing with an outlook onto a well-designed park separated by a road will improve the overall appeal and value of the area.

The Department met with the owner and submitter on 26 September 2013 to discuss the submission. Consensus was reached on ensuring flexibility in the DCP in regard to the design of the neighbourhood centre and in particular the reliance on stated principles to achieve the desired future form. No further changes were agreed to the ILP in terms of the open space location and residential lands, however a revised block layout and shape to the open space was presented to the submitter providing for a more efficient design and is reflected in the final ILP.





5-5-09 Issue: Access to 1492 CVW, Leppington

• Subject site is used as a place of worship and for community counselling.

• Concerned with loss of access to CVW and reliance on a service road.

• Seeks clarification on use and operation of the site.

• About to begin construction for a new mosque and concerned about the impact of change to zone, access, acquisition etc. (Approved DA 364/2005)

• Spent $50,000 getting approval for a deceleration lane.

• RMS approval for lane has been provided & agreement to construct is underway.

• If deceleration lane is not required will seek legal advice to claim costs.

• May cost a further $150,000 if deceleration lane not built.

• Request to meet with the Department to discuss the above.

Liverpool Council has advised that the landowner has a series of consents dating from 1999 to 2007 pertaining to a place of public worship. While the 2007 determination had deferred commencement provisions these have been satisfied and the Council has advised that the landowner has a valid consent for the construction and operation of a place of public worship on the site.

The exhibited Precinct Plan does not provide for any access from Camden Valley Way into the northern part of the precinct other than at a new signalised intersection near Cowpasture Road (South).

The 2007 approval for 1492 Camden Valley Way however requires a deceleration lane into the subject property from Camden Valley Way and has been agreed to by the RMS.

Access in and out of 1492 (the subject property) from Camden Valley Way preceded the precinct plan and is not consistent with the future development of the precinct. Any change in land use will require a further development application and consultation with RMS.

Consistent with RMS advice access from the site into the precinct is not permitted while the deceleration lane is in place. The deceleration lane is to serve only the subject site with left in, left out access onto Camden Valley Way as shown in the DCP.

The use of the land as a place of public worship will be a permissible use in the R3 Medium Residential Density zone.

No changes are proposed to the zoning or other maps which apply to the land.

The Department met with the owner/s on 11 October 2013 to discuss the issues raised and to set out the Department’s response as detailed above.





6-6-09 Brown Consulting

PO Box 8300 Baulkham Hills NSW 2153

Issue: Increased residential density for part of subject land at 1322 Camden Valley Way, Leppington

• Subject site is 11ha, developable, within walking distance of the neighbourhood centre.

• Support the re-exhibited plan with increased densities and medium density housing.

• Request that part of land close to Camden Valley Way be changed from proposed R2 zone to R3 zone commensurate with medium density housing on the northern side of the neighbourhood centre; and to make more efficient use of the land in close proximity to the neighbourhood centre and adjoining other medium density housing.

• Seeks the same treatment that has been applied to land on the northern side of the neighbourhood centre.

The subject site fronts Camden Valley Way and has a proposed medium density zone to this frontage. The request to extend the R3 zone to the next superblock behind so as to be on parity with the northern side is not supported for the following reasons:

• The subject land has a proposed minimum residential density of 15 dwellings per hectare which does not prevent the land being developed to 25 dwelling per hectare, although different frontage requirements etc. do apply.

• The types of housing that can be built in the R2 zone such as attached houses and multi dwelling housing is the same as the R3 zone and enables the achievement of a higher dwelling density on this land. The key difference in the zones is residential flat buildings are permissible in the R3 zone only.

• The context for an R3 zone in this part is not the same as on the northern side of the neighbourhood centre where medium density housing fronts Camden Valley Way, the neighbourhood centre and/or open space.

Consideration was given to retaining the current R2 zone and increasing the residential density from 15 d/ha to 20d/ha for land west of the collector road and where it adjoins the R3 zone as a transition between the two zones. This approach was discussed with Liverpool Council officers who prefer to retain the lower minimum 15 dwellings per hectare and allow for greater capacity where it can be demonstrated.

The Department met with the owner/submitter on 27 September 2013 to discuss the submission, integrated housing and increased residential densities. A draft subdivision plan was presented by Brown Consulting to show how new smaller lot housing would work within the





framework of the Housing Diversity package amendment currently on exhibition.

It is however proposed to retain the existing zonings as re-exhibited as the minimum density can be exceeded if the relevant controls are satisfied.

Id/code Government Submission Response

1.NSW Trade & Investment

Crown Lands Denham Court Road and Camden Valley Way are Crown Roads. If the parts highlighted are required for access they should be transferred to the relevant road authority.

The Department contacted RMS who advised that RMS is the roads authority for freeways only and that councils were the relevant road authority for these roads.

Crown Lands have been advised of the response from RMS. Liverpool Council has been provided with the submission from Crown Lands & the RMS to enable council to resolve the matter with Crown lands.

2. Department of Primary Industries.

Office of Water Revised Water Cycle Management Report lacks some clarity regarding the implementation of riparian corridors.

Table 2.1 needs to be updated with the current table from the approved Guidelines for riparian corridors on waterfront land.

Clarify whether the basins will be fully compliant with the Guidelines or whether offsetting within the riparian corridor will be required.

Flood modelling and density of riparian vegetation is not typical of dense structured riparian

Noted.

Noted. The WCM report updated to include a note requiring compliance with relevant Guidelines.

The creek line has been substantially altered over time and is to be re-engineered. Where possible existing native vegetation will be retained however only those areas of vegetation outside the SP2 zone will be protected.




vegetation. Future vegetation management plans should concentrate dense planting adjacent to banks of the watercourse with less dense plantings in outer areas of the corridor so as not to adversely impact on flood levels. This approach should be included in supporting documents to the Precinct Plan.

A controlled activity approval for works on waterfront land will be required for future development in the precinct.

Noted for future development assessment work.

3. State Emergency Service

Community Safety Directorate As the Agency responsible for co-ordinating the response to floods the SES is particularly interested in public safety and how land use change affects flood risk.

A strategic assessment of the impact of cumulative growth targets on flood emergency management capability is required to determine if the entirety of the Southwest and Northwest Growth Centres can be accommodated in a flood emergency context.

Noted.

This is a matter that goes beyond the East Leppington Precinct itself and is a strategic consideration for the Growth Centres. This matter has been discussed with the SES and is under review through a separate process between the Department and the SES.

The Water Cycle Management Report acknowledges some issues with access and egress within the precinct associated with flooding. The NSW Floodplain Development Manual, 2005 (FDM) recommends that the full range of flooding be considered up to a PMF event. This should also be considered valley wide not just for the precinct.

• Noted. More detailed flood evacuation planning will need to be undertaken as the precinct develops.

• The Growth Centres SEPP provides controls for dealing with land within the 100 ARI as does the DCP schedule.

It is clear that there is likely to be considerably more evacuation traffic in future floods than has been allowed for in current SES emergency planning.

Noted.




Include an objective into the Precinct Plan to provide a robust road network, with steadily rising roads linking to arterial or regional routes to enable timely evacuation during floods. It should explicitly refer to emergency access and egress to support the key action of ‘keeping people safe’ as per the NSW Government’s State Plan 2010.

It is recommended that a section on flood evacuation route design considerations be included.

Noted. This matter is part of a separate and wider strategic assessment relating to flash flooding, evacuation and sheltering in place currently being investigated by the Department and the SES.

Controls in any DCP must comply with any flood evacuation strategy and must take into account flooding up to the PMF.

The Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct DCP (Main DCP) requires development to be consistent with the NSW Floodplain Development Manual along with other conditions, including the timely, orderly and safe evacuation of people from the area.

No additional controls are proposed in the East Leppington Liverpool DCP Schedule regarding flooding.

Consideration should be given to the risk from flash flooding. Should the area be subject to flash flooding, safe evacuation may not be possible due to insufficient warning times and inadequate warning systems. The Cardno report refers to ‘refuge’. Refuge or sheltering-in-place is not equivalent, in emergency management to evacuation. The NSW SES supports the emergency management strategy of the AFAC guidelines which at section 3.15 states …remaining in buildings likely to be affected by flash flooding is not low risk and should never be a default strategy.

Noted. This matter is part of a separate and wider strategic assessment relating to flash flooding, evacuation and sheltering in place currently being investigated by the Department and the SES.

The SES has provided the AFAC guidelines that it would like considered in the Department's future precinct planning work.

In land use planning refer to the Hawkesbury-Nepean Flood Management Strategy Guidelines:

Noted.




• Building guidelines • Land use guidelines • Sub-division guidelines

Ensure the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy and Floodplain Development Manual are considered.

In particular, be sure the planning proposal demonstrates consistency with the principles outlined in the FDM (9 specifically identified in the submission).

The WCM has been prepared with consideration of the principles in the Floodplain Development Manual.

4. NSW Rural Fire Service

Areas likely to pose bush fire hazard are limited to the passive open spaces proposed adjoining Bonds Creek which are in part co-located with areas of Existing Native Vegetation.

Recommends that bush fire matters be adequately addressed by future development in proximity to open space as it is expected these will be regenerated to a level that would be considered a bush fire hazard.

The medium density residential zone adjacent to the existing and/or regenerated native vegetation needs to ensure an appropriate APZ is applied to ensure adequate separation from the bushfire hazard.

Any future development in areas identified as bushfire prone will need to comply with section 79BA or section 91 of the EP&AAct and may require the issue of a bush fire safety authority under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997.

The precinct planning work has established Asset Protection zones for land along Bonds Creek and for Exiting Native Vegetation to be protected. Road corridors of approximately 15m separate the bushland, at its closest point, from residential zones. These lots will need to provide a front boundary setback to comply with a 20m APZ.

5. Office of Environment & Heritage

Biodiversity Certification Consistency Report

The 1.83 hectares of ENV/AHCVV should be protected with an E2 Environmental Conservation zone same as such vegetation in the

An additional biodiversity assessment was undertaken in December 2012 to determine extent, condition recovery potential and conservation significance of ENV in the Liverpool Part Precinct.




Camden/Campbelltown part of the precinct.

Notes that the ENV & AHCVV will be located within proposed SP2 and RE1 zones. Recommends consideration be given to zoning all vegetation to be retained, E2.

This assessment concluded that due to the small size, history of disturbance and low recovery potential of the remnants they had low to moderate ecological value. Both remnants exhibit good canopy structure but poor quality lower stratums.

This is unlike the species composition and ecological value of ENV & AHCVV in the Camden/Campbelltown part precinct where all areas given an E2 zone contain Cumberland Plain Woodland (CPW) in good condition and 2 of these areas also contain Pimelea spicata.

Cumberland Plain Woodland is listed as a critically endangered ecological community while the Pimelea spicata is listed as a threatened species under both the TSC and EPBC Acts.

Given the good condition of this vegetation and its listing the application of an E2 zone for these areas was most appropriate.

In the Liverpool part precinct the species significance is quite different however the majority of it will be protected in the RE1 Public Recreation zone and be acquired and managed by Council under a Plan of Management. In addition the ENV will be mapped and protected under the SEPP. A revised Biodiversity Certification Report has been prepared addressing these matters and provided to OEH for their endorsement.

Supports the proposal not permitting exempt and complying development on environmentally sensitive areas including land shown as ‘Existing Native Vegetation’, ‘Native Vegetation Retention Area’ or land zoned ‘E2 Environmental Conservation’.

Noted.




Floodplain risk management

The assessment by Cardno follows accepted floodplain risk management practice and is considered adequate subject to further investigation of:

- Given the Water Cycle Management (WCM) report states “Some habitable parts of the floodplain are affected by the PMF and suitable provisions should be made so that the public can safely escape flood inundation if necessary” – an Emergency Management Strategy should be prepared in consultation with Liverpool City Council and State Emergency Service to ensure public safety.

- In terms of the WCM and flood assessment, investigation should occur to assess the impact of the proposed amendments to the ILP in Liverpool. This should be undertaken in consultation with Liverpool Council during the detailed design stage.

Noted. An Emergency Management Strategy can be prepared by the SES in consultation with Liverpool Council.

The proposed amendments to the Liverpool part ILP have been assessed by Cardno and informed the WCM. Detailed design work will be undertaken as the precinct is developed and will be ultimately be led by council as the consent authority.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

A thorough assessment of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage values of the Liverpool part precinct should be undertaken prior to re-zoning.

Management recommendations should be provided and must be designed in consultation with the Aboriginal community.

The report East Leppington Precinct Planning Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Heritage Assessment (June 2012, GML) prepared for DP&I for the Camden/Campbelltown part gives an

A thorough assessment of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage is desirable to enable efficient development of the precinct particularly where there are multiple landholders, as is the case in the Liverpool part precinct.

Archaeological surveys were undertaken in the 2012 work by GML of approximately half the land owners in the Liverpool part precinct where access to the land was granted. GML have also continued their archaeological work and aboriginal consultation in the Precinct (Campbelltown/Camden




indication of the level of assessment required.

Acknowledge that the Liverpool part has multiple owners which may impede an in depth assessment. However, a thorough level of assessment is required in order to adequately identify the scientific and cultural values in this precinct and to design appropriate management recommendations to protect these values.

part) on behalf of the landowner in relation to the AHIP.

Additional follow up work is proposed for the Liverpool part precinct and can proceed independently of the rezoning. This approach was agreed by OEH and subsequent meetings arranged to agree on a methodology for fragmented lands.

6. Transport for NSW

It is noted that the Precinct Plan proposes a fourth leg to the signalised intersection on Camden Valley Way at Cowpasture Road. This is not part of the approved upgrade to Camden Valley Way currently being progressed by the RMS. Therefore a fourth leg will need to be added.

Table 5.8-5.10 of the Traffic Assessment indicates that this signalised intersection will operate at a Level of Service (LoS)F by 2026.

Based on the traffic modelling by Cardno for this 4th leg an additional lane (third lane) is proposed of 150m. This third lane does not form part of the approved upgrade of CVW.

As a way forward, the applicant is to liaise with TfNSW/RMS with a view to submitting revised traffic modelling to confirm the geometric layout of the proposed signalised four-way intersection on CVW.

RMS is prepared to meet and clarify the modelling requirements. However,

• TfNSW/RMS is not in favour of the short-third through lane (providing right in, right out into the precinct) on CVW.

• TfNSW requests consideration of improving bus priority at this intersection for buses travelling between Leppington

It is noted that access into the Liverpool lands does not form part of the approved upgrade to Camden Valley Way currently being progressed by RMS and will need to be added.

Strategically the precinct has been planned in consultation with RMS to provide access to the Liverpool lands from Camden Valley Way. Capacity exists within the road reserve to enable this 4th leg to be built.

This access will need to go through the development application process and the cost of the work paid for through section 94 funds.

The inclusion of a third lane to the signalised intersection was to provide an optimum scenario for the precinct and enable right in and right out access from the precinct for vehicles and buses.

Consistent with TfNSW and RMS advice access to the precinct and the provision of priority bus facilities within the intersection will need to be integrated into future works. With the delivery of the train station at Leppington ahead of time and the high consumer demand for lots recently released in the southern portion of the Precinct this may occur sooner than expected and may even support a variation to the current planned works to Camden Valley Way.




Station and the Precinct.

Following resolution of the modelling issues, the applicant is to develop an acceptable design for the geometric layout of the proposed four-way intersection for the Camden Valley Way upgrade. This design should be submitted and overlaid on the currently approved CVW upgrade. Approved civil drawings can be provided by RMS upon request.

The Traffic Assessment proposes a second set of traffic signals on Denham Court Road. No modelling or proposed layout has been provided to enable RMS to approve these in the proposed location.

The applicant should be aware of the potential for road traffic noise impact on the development of the site. Noise attenuation measure should accord with OEH’s Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise.

TfNSW supports:

- the proposed internal bus route roads and recommends a 3.2 m wide kerbside parking lane in each direction to allow buses to stop without affecting the flow of traffic,

- travel lanes on the bus routes being 3.5m wide to adequately and safely accommodate buses and

- indicative bus stop locations with the inclusion of an additional stop as shown

Advises that all bus stops require corresponding bus stops (i.e. located opposite each other on both sides of the road).

The advice on the third lane and improving priority for buses is noted for future work to this intersection.

Noted. The Traffic Assessment has identified the need for the traffic signals at this intersection. RMS approval will be sought when the road is developed and the required modelling provided at that time. The proposed intersection has been modelled for precinct planning purposes.

Noted. The Liverpool Growth Centres DCP and Schedule 3 (East Leppington) provide guidance on noise attenuation measures.

The draft ILP and Liverpool Growth Centre Precincts DCP provide for a 3.5m wide traffic lane along collector roads for bus services. The provision of an additional 3.5m kerbside parking lane (passenger drop off and pick up) could also be achieved in set locations with a redesign of the verge/planting area within the 20m road reserve.

The location of the additional bus stop as suggested is not supported due to its location near the roundabout and within 90m of the signalised intersection with Camden Valley Way.

Noted.




7. Sydney Catchment Authority

Notes that the SCA canal has been correctly identified as a State heritage item and controls for land adjacent to the Upper Canal correctly included in the DCP schedule.

Noted.

The updated WCM refers to the SCA upper canal and the need for more detailed design work to ensure there is no spill into the canal. The SCA supports the measures proposed in the updated report aimed at effectively ensuring stormwater does not enter the canal and measures that accommodate and not impede upstreams flows across, along or under the Upper Canal.

The SCA expects to be consulted at the detailed design stage on the stormwater management measures and any other matters relevant to the Upper Canal corridor as each development stage progresses.

Noted.

8. NSW Police Force

Acknowledge receipt of the correspondence and referral of the matter to the relevant command with the NSW Police Force for appropriate attention.

Noted.

Liverpool Council

Contributions Plan has not been available at the same time as the exhibition material.

It is critical that the draft CP be completed as a matter of urgency as soon as possible following rezoning.

A draft contribution plan was discussed with Council in June 2013 & a copy provided for comment at that time. Exhibition of the revised ILP commenced 4 August 2013 and has concluded.

The Department & AECOM have finalised the CP and a copy was forwarded to Council in October for its review, exhibition and adoption.

There is no commitment regarding the State Governments Special Infrastructure Contributions Levy.

This issue is a matter for the State Government and is part of the planning reforms currently underway.




There is no commitment from the State Government to fund critical infrastructure or acquire required land.

As above.

State government restrictions relating to Council developer contributions still apply and the impact on community creation.

Council has been advised that the Government is committed to funding the gap between the existing $30,000 cap and amounts above the cap subject to IPART review and has allocated funds in the current budget to facilitate this.

Council understands that “seagulls” are to be constructed to facilitate right turn movements in and out of the new road into the E4 zoned land. This infrastructure needs to be included in delivery of the road upgrade through the SIC or other State funding mechanism.

Cardno has confirmed that there is sufficient land area within the road reserve to allow for right in and right out access to this part of the Precinct. The final details will be determined when the road is upgraded.

Consideration will be given as to the mode and method of funding the upgrade works and intersection treatment. Notwithstanding, Denham Court Road is included as an item on the SIC Schedule and decisions by Government would be required regarding the scope and extent to which the nominated funding would be applied, whether additional funds are required for these works and if so, how the funding would be achieved..

‘Highway service centre' as an additional use to the B1 zone is not supported largely as the definition allows facilities for emergency vehicle towing and repairs and parking for vehicles with the potential to impact negatively on nearby residents.

Development consent has been given for a service station and fast food outlet with RMS approved access for these uses only from Camden Valley Way.

Any changes to these uses will require a further development application to Council.

The highway service centre definition was proposed to ensure these uses (service station, fast food outlet and associated other uses) occurred on land immediately adjoining Camden Valley Way consistent with development consent rather than




within the precinct where impacts would be greater.

The existing approved uses are permissible within the zone as standalone uses and Council’s concerns are noted.

It is proposed therefore not to proceed with the inclusion of ‘highway service centre’ as an additional use for this land. However any service station use will need to be on the Camden Valley Way frontage consistent with RMS requirements.

Clause 2.4 is unclear. Retain the existing provision in the Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct Plan.

It is proposed to retain the existing provision, being clause 2.7 Demolition of Appendix 8 Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct Plan.

The minimum lot size controls indicated in 4.1.2 of the EIE are different to the controls in the Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct Plan. Council understands this is to be consistent with the rest of the East Leppington Precinct however as the approach in the SEPP is towards LGA based controls, for consistency the existing controls in the Liverpool GCPP should be adopted.

The Housing Diversity package (exhibited until 14 October 2013) proposes to introduce minimum lot size amendments and new housing types to promote greater choice and higher densities of housing within Greenfield areas. These lot sizes and densities are different to both the Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct Plan and the East Leppington Precinct Plan.

It is proposed therefore to retain the exhibited minimum lot sizes for the East Leppington Precinct in Liverpool which once the Housing Diversity changes are adopted will be wholistically amended across all Precincts and align the minimum lot sizes in one go. This approach has been discussed and agreed with Liverpool Council officers.

The minimum 2,000sqm for the residential land west of the canal is too large to achieve the residential streetscape sought. It is recommended a lot width more in keeping with those proposed opposite (10-12m) would be more appropriate along with a minimum lot size of

An analysis of block widths and depths (discounting the electricity easement) found that block sizes of 800 sq m to the north opposite a streetscape of dwellings with a 15 dwellings per hectare was a suitable transitional size while to the south a 1200 sq m was more compatible with the open




approximately 800 sq m. space/drainage outlook and view corridor to rural residential lands beyond in the Denham Court Suburb. In each case consideration was given to the constraints of the electricity easement, achievement of streetscape objectives, transitional densities as well as providing for sufficient developable land.

It is proposed therefore to change the minimum lot size for this area to 800 sq m and 1200 sq m as shown on the minimum lot size map. This approach has been discussed with Liverpool Council officers with agreement that the controls need to reflect the context and future character.

The Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct Plan currently does not have a clause relating to Restricted Premises. This is a use not permitted in any zone, making this clause unnecessary. The inclusion of the clause would be problematic as it would only apply to East Leppington and not Austral or Leppington North.

Remove the clause from the draft amendment and if necessary consider it as a later SEPP change for the whole Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct Plan.

Council comments are noted. As restricted premises are expressly prohibited in the Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct Plan and within East Leppington Precinct it is proposed not to proceed with this amendment to the SEPP.

It is not clear whether 6.1.4 of the EIE applies to all of the B1 zoned land. The EIE should not refer to a site called the “East Leppington Neighbourhood Centre” and should only refer to land zoned B1 with the EL precinct.

The EIE is an explanatory document to assist community understanding of what is proposed. It was not intended that a new entity/zone titled East Leppington Neighbourhood Centre would be created. The EIE applies to the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone which covers all the land. The proposed restriction on retail to 2,500 sq m applies to all the land (inclusive of the approved service station and fast food outlet).




Attachment 1 identifies issues to the exhibited maps as:

• Include regional roads in the legend • Identify the SP2 road that is to be

acquired on the zoning map as SP2. • Rezone a small parcel of land RE1 rather

than SP2. • The approved service centre should not

be identified on the zoning map, it is not a zone.

• The final ILP map will correctly identify the regional road.

• The acquisition and zoning for this part of the collector road will be aligned.

• The area of land is one to two metres wide. No drainage infrastructure is proposed on the land thus it can be identified as open space as a continuation of the adjoining open space lands.

• The hatching was shown on the map to clearly locate the approved service centre and its proposed zoning as B1. It is not intended to show this hatching on the final zoning map.

Carefully consider the implications of any changes in the amendment that may potentially affect the Astral and Leppington North Precincts within the Liverpool Growth Centres Precinct Plan. Please avoid complications that differentiate between the 3 Precincts within the one statutory instrument.

Agreed. The amendment will carefully consider any implications and minimise differences within the SEPP.

Campbelltown City Council

Council notes that it is proposed to rezone part of Denham Court Road to SP2 Infrastructure Regional Road and that the RMS is identified as the acquisition authority.

Noted. The intention is to ensure the acquisition of the road by the RMS and its appropriate identification as a regional road.

Campbelltown previously requested regional road status for Denham Court Road however this was denied and an SP2 Infrastructure Local Road with Council as the acquisition authority instead placed on it. While Stocklands has agreed to work with RMS to construct that portion of the road within the boundaries of the release area Council continues to be concerned by its listing within the SEPP as the acquisition authority.

Council concerns are noted. This matter requires separate resolution, to this SEPP amendment, in consultation with Campbelltown Council, RMS and the Department.




Council requests that the proposed SP2 Regional Road zoning identified for the Liverpool Part Precinct be extended to include all land related to Denham Court Road within the Campbelltown Part Precinct.

As above.

appendix b – submissions summary table · 2020. 9. 8. · appendix b – submissions summary...

Documents