report to general manager subject: author: endorsed by ... · no rt h s y d ne y co unc i l r e p o...

Item LP02 Legal and Planning Committee 22/8/16

N O R T H S Y D N E Y C O U N C I L R E P O R T S

Report to General Manager Attachments:

1. Council Report (15 February 2016) 2. Letter to DPE (17 March 2016)

3. Pre Gateway Review – Information Assessment and Recommendation Report (29 June 2016)

SUBJECT: Planning Proposal, 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney - – Pre Gateway Review AUTHOR: Ben Boyd, Executive Strategic Planner ENDORSED BY: Joseph Hill, Director City Strategy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At its meeting on 15 February 2016, Council considered an assessment report in relation to a Planning Proposal to amend North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (NSLEP 2013) as it relates to 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney (also known as the ‘Bayer Building’). In particular, the Planning Proposal sought to:

• rezone the land from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use; • retain the maximum building height of 13m (the existing building on the site is

52.36m) for depth of 11m in from its eastern boundary to Little Alfred Street and increase the maximum building height over the remainder of the site to 85m;

• increase the maximum floor space ratio from 3.5:1 (the existing building on the site is 7.3:1) to 10.2:1; and

• impose a non-residential floor space ratio of 0.5:1 across the entire site. Council refused the Planning Proposal from proceeding to Gateway Determination for the following reasons:

a) The proposal is not underpinned by a comprehensive strategic planning study for the locality particularly in relation to commercial floor space as well as the site and general precinct’s relationship to other B3 zoned land in the North Sydney Centre;

b) The proposal has the potential to undermine future strategic planning for the North Sydney Centre;

c) The proposal would set an unacceptable precedent, prior to the establishment of a desired policy position for future development in the locality;

d) It is contrary to the actions and objectives of the Regional Plan A Plan for Growing Sydney and the draft Inner North Draft Subregional Strategy to promote North Sydney as the highest order Strategic Centre within an economic corridor or enable the Centre’s growth over time.

Report of Ben Boyd, Executive Strategic Planner Re: Planning Proposal, 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney – Pre Gateway Review

(2)

e) It will result in a reduction of commercial floor space over the site which is inconsistent with Direction 1.1 – Business and Industrial Zones to the S117 Directions under the EP&A Act.

f) The proposal would isolate the immediately adjoining sites, significantly impacting on their potential for redevelopment;

g) It is unclear whether the proposed amendments to the LEP are required to make the redevelopment of the site financially viable;

h) The proposed public benefits identified within the letter of offer, which would ultimately form part of a future Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) may be undervalued in relation to the potential up-lift that would be achieved by implementing the proposed amendments to the LEP; and

i) Sufficient residential capacity is already provided under North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 and foreshadowed in the planning studies for St Leonards and Crows Nest, without the need to further alter the development mix upon the site.

On 7 March 2016, Council received a letter from the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE), advising that the applicant had lodged a request for a pre-Gateway Review with the DPE. On 5 August 2016, a resident informed Council that the DPE had completed its initial assessment of the Review and had published the report on the DPE’s website (refer to Attachment 2). It was recommended the Planning Proposal be referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) for independent review. The DPE has also raised the following site specific concerns:

• the proposed height, bulk and scale should be considered in relation to the adjoining development;

• the rezoning of this one site would isolate the adjoining sites within the block, and potentially limit the viability of these adjacent sites for future redevelopment; and

• any future proposal would need to consider the entire block currently zoned B3 Commercial Core including zoning, land use, height and density, traffic implications, visual and related impacts on the surrounding low density residential area.

The Review has yet to be considered by the JRPP. The decision to issue a Gateway Determination has yet to be made and will not be undertaken until the Minister for Planning or their delegate has considered the recommendations of the DPE staff and the JRPP. If issued, the Planning Proposal will then progress to public exhibition. This report is submitted for Council’s information. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil Local Government Act 1993: Section 23A Guidelines - Council Decision Making During Merger Proposal Period


(3)

The Guidelines have been considered in the preparation of this report and are not applicable. RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT the Planning Proposal – 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney report be received.


(4)

LINK TO DELIVERY PROGRAM The relationship with the Delivery Program is as follows: Direction: 2. Our Built Environment Outcome: 2.1 Infrastructure, assets and facilities that meet community needs 2.2 Improved mix of land use and quality development through design

excellence 2.3 Vibrant, connected and well maintained streetscapes and villages that

build a sense of community Direction: 3. Our Economic Vitality Outcome: 3.1 Diverse, strong, sustainable and vibrant local economy 3.2 North Sydney CBD is one of Australia's largest commercial centres Direction: 4. Our Social Vitality Direction: 5. Our Civic Leadership Outcome: 5.1 Council leads the strategic direction of North Sydney 5.3 Council is ethical, open, accountable and transparent in its decision

making 5.4 Community is informed and aware BACKGROUND 1. Planning Proposal On 4 September 2015, Council received a Planning Proposal seeking to amend North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (NSLEP 2013) as it relates to land located at 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney (also known as the ‘Bayer Building’). In particular, the Planning Proposal sought to:

• rezone the land from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use; • increase the maximum building height from 13m to 85m; and • increase the maximum floor space ratio from 3.5:1 (the existing building on the

site is 7.3:1) to 10.2:1. On 27 October 2015, Council wrote to the applicant advising that it had completed a preliminary assessment of the Planning Proposal and it was unlikely to support the progression of the Planning Proposal to Gateway Determination. The letter also identified a number of minor issues which would require further assessment or clarification if the Planning Proposal was to proceed. In light of Council’s preliminary assessment, the applicant was requested to advise Council if it would like it to:

• continue to assess the Planning Proposal unamended and report it to Council with a recommendation for refusal; or


(5)

• continue to assess the Planning Proposal, subject to amendments addressing Council’s concerns; or

• withdraw the application and receive a partial refund. In response to Council’s preliminary assessment of the Planning Proposal, a supplementary submission was lodged by the applicant on 1 February 2016 outlining that the Planning Proposal should continue to be assessed and providing further discussion and clarification in response to Council’s concerns. The Planning Proposal, however, remained essentially unchanged with the following exceptions:

• a small increase in height from 12m to 13m across the eastern edge of the site; and

• the imposition of a non-residential floor space ratio of 0.5:1 across the entire site.

The applicant also indicated that additional details pertaining to the financial viability of the concept proposal were to be provided to Council, but was never proffered. On 15 February 2016, Council considered an assessment report (refer to Attachment 1) in relation to the Planning Proposal. The assessment report recommended that Council should not support the progression of the Planning Proposal to Gateway Determination for the following reasons:









i) Sufficient residential capacity is already provided under North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 and foreshadowed in the planning studies for St Leonards and Crows Nest, without the need to further alter the development mix upon the site.


(6)

2. Pre-Gateway Review On 7 March 2016, Council received a letter from the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) dated 3 March 2016, outlining that the applicant of the Planning Proposal had lodged a request for a pre-Gateway Review with the DPE. The letter also invited Council to provide additional justification for its determination. Council responded to this letter on 22 March 2016 by reinforcing its original position not to proceed with the Planning Proposal. The letter also highlighted that one of the principle reasons for not supporting the Planning Proposal proceeding to Gateway Determination, was that it may be contrary to the desired outcomes of the North Sydney Centre Review, which is currently being undertaken by Council. In this regard, Council also resolved:

THAT Council extend the opportunity to the applicant to make a submission to the North Sydney Centre Review process once publicly exhibited.

On 17 March 2016, the DPE contacted Council and requested if Council could provide additional information in relation to how the existing building on the subject site was originally approved. Council responded to this request for additional information on 14 April 2016 by letter (refer to Attachment 2). The response noted that it was unclear as to why land on the eastern side of the Warringah Freeway had been zoned solely for commercial purposes in the 1960s and that the approval of the current building was an anomaly and was not envisaged to be repeated to the east of the Freeway. On 5 August 2016, Council was advised by one of its residents that the DPE had completed its assessment (refer to Attachment 3) of the pre-Gateway Review application and was available to view on the DPE’s website. Council has not yet been formally advised by the DPE that its report has been completed. This report outlines the recommendations made by the DPE resulting from the pre-Gateway review request and highlights the potential implications from it proceeding to Gateway Determination. CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS Should Gateway Determination be issued by the DPE, community engagement will be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Protocol and any conditions of the Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal. SUSTAINABILITY STATEMENT The sustainability implications were considered and reported on during the initiation phase of this project.


(7)

DETAIL 1. The DPE Assessment Report On 29 July 2016, the DPE published a pre-Gateway Assessment and Recommendation Report on its website (refer to Attachment 3). The DPE concluded that there is sufficient merit in the proposal proceeding to the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel for independent review in its current form. Furthermore, it was recommended that the Panel consider the following issues in making its recommendation as to whether the planning proposal should proceed to Gateway:

• the proposed height, bulk and scale should be considered in relation to both the adjacent commercial zoned land and the surrounding low density residential area to enable a more appropriate transition to the low density area east of the site

• overshadowing impacts to the surrounding low density residential Heritage Conservation Area, and the need for a comprehensive shadow analysis; and

• the need to consider the entire block currently zoned B3 Commercial Core in its context, including zoning, land use, height and density, its traffic and visual impact, and any impacts to the development potential of adjoining land.

1.1. Consistency with employment directions Whilst the report acknowledged that the proposal was inconsistent with the employment objectives and directions under A Plan for Growing Sydney and section 117 Directions by significantly reducing the level of commercial floorspace, the proposal was also considered to be consistent with the housing objectives and directions under A Plan for Growing Sydney and section 117 Directions. Despite the inconsistencies, the DPE stated:

the role and contribution of the site (as well as the other commercial zoned sites east of the Warringah Freeway), to the North Sydney Centre is questionable. It is noted that while the block of land to which the site is a part of is zoned B3 Commercial Core, it is not included as part of the defined North Sydney Centre in the NSLEP 2013 North Sydney Centre Map, nor does it form part of any of Council's recently published studies supporting the North Sydney Centre Review.

The report also states that the site’s exclusion from the North Sydney Centre implies that the site is not of major significance to the North Sydney Centre commercial core. The report also considered Council’s work relating to the North Sydney Centre Review wherein it stated:

The Department queried Council staff as to whether the Capacity, Built Form and Land Use Review currently underway will include the commercial zoned land east of the Warringah Freeway. Council staff advised that the capacity component of this study does not incorporate the site and surrounding commercial block in its study area. Therefore, Council's argument that "the proposal has the ability to adversely impact upon the capacity to increase commercial floor space in the long term" is questioned given this land is not included in Council's study to establish existing capacity or consider opportunities and constraints faced in expanding the North Sydney Centre laterally.


(8)

Comment: The DPE’s justification for not retaining employment floorspace under Council’s own studies is questioned. Contrary to the DPE’s comments, Council had advised the DPE at the time that the area of commercially zoned land located to the east of the Warringah Freeway, is being considered as part of the draft Capacity, Land Use and Built Form Study, despite it being located outside of the North Sydney Centre Review’s study area. Preliminary findings under the draft Capacity, Land Use and Built Form Study have indicated that this small commercially zoned precinct contains a level of commercial floor space that is important to the overall stock of commercial floor space. It was concluded that it is prudent to protect as much existing commercial floor space where possible, and this precinct’s proximity to the North Sydney Centre, makes this precinct valuable as an employment generator. Whilst the draft Study has yet to be completed and endorsed by Council, the above findings will be included in the finalised version of the Capacity, Land Use and Built Form Study. Accordingly, the DPE’s argument is somewhat undermined in this regard and this point will be reiterated to the JRPP when Council is given the opportunity to address the Panel. 1.2. Height, Bulk and Scale The DPE raises serious concern over the bulk and scale of the development under the proposed scheme and essentially mirrors Council’s concerns, in particular, with the way that the concept development transitions down to the east. With regard to the DPE’s site specific assessment, its report states:

The existing built form is considered visually out-of-character and vertically excessive when compared to the adjoining commercial development and the low density residential to the site's east. Allowing for further uplift on the site as sought by the planning proposal will only further exacerbate the dominating form of this isolated site.

Comment: Whilst the DPE have identified that height is an issue, they have not provided any commentary as to whether or not the proposed increase in building height on the subject height is appropriate. Its assessment primarily concentrates on the potential overshadowing impacts of the concept proposal. The DPE also notes that the existing building is a “one off higher building in a low density environment”, alluding to the proposed additional height might not being appropriate in this instance. Impacts from potentially increasing building heights on neighbouring lands zoned B3 Commercial Core as indicated in the applicant’s Precinct Masterplan, have not been considered by the applicant or the DPE. Potential increases in height on these neighbouring lands has the potential to greatly increase bulk and scale of buildings in the locality and is likely to result in potential adverse overshadowing and privacy impacts. These issues will be brought to the JRPPs attention. 1.3. Financial Feasibility The DPE noted the applicant’s request for a 40% increase in density was based on the


(9)

financial feasibility of redeveloping the site. Similar to Council, the DPE also requested further information from the applicant to make an assessment to determine if the redevelopment of the site as proposed was financially viable, but the applicant appears not to have made this information available. The applicant’s reluctance to provide this information, may allude to their profit margins being significantly greater than they are actually claiming. If this is the case, then the proposed increase in density should not be supported. This point will be reinforced to the JRPP. 1.4. Precinct based planning The DPE generally supports Council’s position that the commercially zoned land east of the Freeway should be looked as a whole and addressed in a comprehensive way. In particular, the DPE recognises that the proposed spot rezoning would result in a patchwork application of zonings and has the potential to stifle the future redevelopment potential of adjoining lands. In addition, if consideration is given to the entire block in terms of zoning, land use, height and yield, traffic and visual impacts, and any impacts to the development potential of adjoining and surrounding lands, this would facilitate the future strategic planning of this locality whilst balancing the concerns of Council and surrounding land owners. Comment: As the current planning proposal is being progressed by a single individual, it is questioned how a precinct based planning proposal is to be progressed where the interests of a large number of other property owners also need to be considered. This opens a question as to who would fund the undertaking of the additional relevant studies and what proportion should they each pay. Council could undertake this work and is best placed to manage a balanced strategic planning process. However, Council does not currently have the resources to commence such a strategic planning exercise at this point in time. Whilst this work could be undertaken once the North Sydney Centre Review has been completed, it would need to be considered with regard to competing priorities. Given that the DPE has identified so many issues that need to be addressed, the planning proposal will no longer represent what was originally sought. On this basis, Council staff will continue to object to the progression of the planning proposal to the JRPP and request that any suggestion to prepare a planning proposal for the commercially zoned land to the east of the Warringah Freeway be started afresh and as a new standalone project. 2. Public Submissions After the DPE received the request for a pre-Gateway Review, Council received a letter from the Anderson Precinct Committee opposing the progression of the Planning Proposal. The submission reinforces its original submission to the Planning Proposal made prior to Council’s original consideration of the Council officer’s report on 15 February 2016. A copy of this additional submission is proposed to be provided to the JRPP for its consideration.


(10)

3. Where to from here? Having completed the first stage of the Review (i.e. DPE merit assessment), the second stage of the Pre-Gateway Review process is for the JRPP to give consideration to the request for Review. This consideration has yet to occur. Prior to the request for Review being considered by the JRPP, the proponent of the Review is required to pay a second set of fees to the DPE. It is unknown at this point as to whether the proponent of the Review has paid these fees. Despite this, it is highly likely that the fees will be paid and the Review will be forwarded to the JRPP for their consideration. As part of its consideration of the Review, the JRPP will invite Council, the DPE and the proponent to clarify any issues prior to completing its assessment. Once the JRPP completes its assessment, the recommendations of both the DPE and JRPP will be referred to the Minister for Planning and their delegate for a determination as to whether a Gateway Determination should be issued, which would enable the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal. Council has no formal opportunities to respond to the recommendations of the DPE or JRPP’s recommendations. However, nothing prevents Council writing to the Minister for Planning outlining its concerns. 4. Conclusion At its meeting on 15 February 2016, Council refused a Planning Proposal from proceeding to Gateway Determination. The Planning Proposal seeks to amend NSLEP 2013 as it relates to 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney by:

• rezoning the land from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use; • retaining the maximum building height of 13m (the existing building on the

site is 52.36m) for depth of 11m in from its eastern boundary to Little Alfred Street and increase the maximum building height over the remainder of the site to 85m;

• increasing the maximum floor space ratio from 3.5:1 (the existing building on the site is 7.3:1) to 10.2:1; and

• imposing a non-residential floor space ratio of 0.5:1 across the entire site. In February 2016, the applicant of the Planning Proposal lodged a request for a pre-Gateway Review with the DPE. In July 2016, the DPE completed its assessment of the pre-Gateway Review application with a recommendation that the Planning Proposal be referred to the Sydney East Region JRPP for independent review. The Pre-Gateway Review has yet to be considered by the JRPP.

DECISION OF 3676th

HELD ON 15 FEBRUARY 2016 COUNCIL MEETING

11. CiS04: Planning Proposal - 275 Alfred Street, North

Sydney Report of Ben Boyd, Executive Strategic Planner On 3 September 2015, Council received a Planning Proposal (refer to Attachment 1) seeking to amend North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (NSLEP 2013) as it relates to land located at 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney (also known as the ‘Bayer Building’). In particular, the Planning Proposal sought to:

• rezone the land at 275 Alfred Street from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use;

• retention of the maximum building height of 13m (the existing building on the site is 52.36m) for depth of 11m in from its eastern boundary to Little Alfred Street and increase the maximum building height over the remainder of the site to 85m;

• increase the maximum floor space ratio from 3.5:1 (the existing building on the site is 7.3:1) to 10.2:1; and

• impose a non-residential floor space ratio of 0.5:1 across the entire site. The Planning Proposal has been lodged by Mecone on behalf of Benmill Pty Ltd, who is the owner of the subject site. A detailed assessment of the Planning Proposal has now been completed and this report has been prepared to enable Council to formally determine its position. It is recommended that the Planning Proposal not be supported to proceed to Gateway Determination for the following reasons:

• The proposal is not underpinned by a comprehensive strategic planning study for the locality particularly in relation to commercial floor space and the site and general precinct’s relationship to other B3 zoned land in the North Sydney Centre;

• The proposal has the potential to undermine future strategic planning for the North Sydney Centre;

• The proposal would set an unacceptable precedent, prior to the establishment of a desired policy position for future development in the locality;

• The proposal would isolate the immediately adjoining sites, severely reducing their potential for redevelopment;

• It is unclear whether the proposed amendments to the LEP are required to make the redevelopment of the site financially viable;

• The proposed public benefits identified within the letter of offer, which would ultimately form part of a future Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) may be undervalued in relation to the potential up-lift that would be achieved by implementing the proposed amendments to the LEP; and

• Sufficient residential capacity is already provided under North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (NSLEP 2013) and foreshadowed in the planning studies for St Leonards and Crows Nest, without the need to further alter the development mix upon the site.

As such, the Planning Proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory and should not be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) seeking a Gateway Determination.

Version: 1, Version Date: 22/02/2016Document Set ID: 6576948

Recommending: 1. THAT Council refuse the Planning Proposal from proceeding to Gateway Determination for the following reasons:









i) Sufficient residential capacity is already provided under North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (NSLEP 2013) and foreshadowed in the planning studies for St Leonards and Crows Nest, without the need to further alter the development mix upon the site.

2. THAT Council notifies the applicant of Council’s determination in accordance with clause 10A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000. 3. THAT Council extend the opportunity to the applicant to make a submission to the North Sydney Centre Review process once publicly exhibited. 4. THAT any changes to the planning controls for the precinct be considered holistically and involve all landowners. 5. THAT Council advise the Department of Planning and Environment that it does not support the Planning Proposal proceeding to Gateway Determination and it be provided with a copy of this report and its determination in support of Council’s position. Mr Mayoh, Mr Labutis and Mr Wyndham addressed the meeting.

A Motion was moved by Councillor Baker and seconded by Councillor Morris. 1. THAT Council refuse the Planning Proposal from proceeding to Gateway Determination for the following reasons:











2. THAT Council notifies the applicant of Council’s determination in accordance with clause 10A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000. 3. THAT Council extend the opportunity to the applicant to make a submission to the North Sydney Centre Review process once publicly exhibited. 4. THAT any changes to the planning controls for the precinct be considered holistically and involve all landowners, in the context of a comprehensive strategic planning study for the locality which includes planning for defined public benefits for any additional residential density. 5. THAT Council advise the Department of Planning and Environment that it does not support the Planning Proposal proceeding to Gateway Determination and it be provided with a copy of this report and its determination in support of Council’s position.

Voting was as follows: For/Against 9/0

Councillor Yes No Councillor Yes No

Gibson Y Beregi Y Reymond Y Barbour Y Clare Y Morris Y Baker Y Marchandeau Y Carr Y Bevan Absent

RESOLVED: 1. THAT Council refuse the Planning Proposal from proceeding to Gateway Determination for the following reasons:




d) It is contrary to the actions and objectives of the Regional Plan A Plan for Growing Sydney and the draft Inner North Draft Subregional Strategy to


promote North Sydney as the highest order Strategic Centre within an economic corridor or enable the Centre’s growth over time.






2. THAT Council notifies the applicant of Council’s determination in accordance with clause 10A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000. 3. THAT Council extend the opportunity to the applicant to make a submission to the North Sydney Centre Review process once publicly exhibited. 4. THAT any changes to the planning controls for the precinct be considered holistically and involve all landowners, in the context of a comprehensive strategic planning study for the locality which includes planning for defined public benefits for any additional residential density. 5. THAT Council advise the Department of Planning and Environment that it does not support the Planning Proposal proceeding to Gateway Determination and it be provided with a copy of this report and its determination in support of Council’s position.


� ITEM CiS04 REPORTS 15/02/16�

N O R T H S Y D N E Y C O U N C I L R E P O R T S

�

Report to General ManagerAttachments:

1. Planning Proposal 2. Revised submission to Planning Proposal

3. Submissions Table�

SUBJECT: Planning Proposal - 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney

AUTHOR: Ben Boyd, Executive Strategic Planner

ENDORSED BY: Joseph Hill, Director City Strategy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On 3 September 2015, Council received a Planning Proposal (refer to Attachment 1) seeking to amend North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (NSLEP 2013) as it relates to land located at 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney (also known as the ‘Bayer Building’). In particular, the Planning Proposal sought to:

� rezone the land at 275 Alfred Street from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use;

� retention of the maximum building height of 13m (the existing building on the site is 52.36m)�for depth of 11m in from its eastern boundary to Little Alfred Street and increase the maximum building height over the remainder of the site to 85m;

� increase the maximum floor space ratio from 3.5:1 (the existing building on the site is 7.3:1) to 10.2:1; and

� impose a non-residential floor space ratio of 0.5:1 across the entire site.

The Planning Proposal has been lodged by Mecone on behalf of Benmill Pty Ltd, who is the owner of the subject site.

A detailed assessment of the Planning Proposal has now been completed and this report has been prepared to enable Council to formally determine its position. It is recommended that the Planning Proposal not be supported to proceed to Gateway Determination for the following reasons:

� The proposal is not underpinned by a comprehensive strategic planning study for the locality particularly in relation to commercial floor space and the site and general precinct’s relationship to other B3 zoned land in the North Sydney Centre;

� The proposal has the potential to undermine future strategic planning for the North Sydney Centre;

� The proposal would set an unacceptable precedent, prior to the establishment of a desired policy position for future development in the locality;

� The proposal would isolate the immediately adjoining sites, severely reducing their potential for redevelopment;


Report of Ben Boyd, Executive Strategic Planner Re: Planning Proposal - 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney

(2)

� It is unclear whether the proposed amendments to the LEP are required to make the redevelopment of the site financially viable;

� The proposed public benefits identified within the letter of offer, which would ultimately form part of a future Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) may be undervalued in relation to the potential up-lift that would be achieved by implementing the proposed amendments to the LEP; and

� Sufficient residential capacity is already provided under North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (NSLEP 2013) and foreshadowed in the planning studies for St Leonards and Crows Nest, without the need to further alter the development mix upon the site.

As such, the Planning Proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory and should not be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) seeking a Gateway Determination.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

RECOMMENDATION:1. THAT Council refuse the Planning Proposal from proceeding to Gateway

Determination for the following reasons:









i) Sufficient residential capacity is already provided under North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (NSLEP 2013) and foreshadowed in the planning studies



(3)

for St Leonards and Crows Nest, without the need to further alter the development mix upon the site.

2. THAT Council notifies the applicant of Council’s determination in accordance with clause 10A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000. 3. THAT Council extend the opportunity to the applicant to make a submission to the North Sydney Centre Review process once publicly exhibited. 4. THAT any changes to the planning controls for the precinct be considered holistically and involve all landowners.5. THAT Council advise the Department of Planning and Environment that it does not support the Planning Proposal proceeding to Gateway Determination and it be provided with a copy of this report and its determination in support of Council’s position.



(4)

LINK TO DELIVERY PROGRAM

The relationship with the Delivery Program is as follows:

Direction: 2. Our Built Environment

Outcome: 2.1 Infrastructure, assets and facilities that meet community needs 2.2 Improved mix of land use and quality development through design

excellence 2.3 Vibrant, connected and well maintained streetscapes and villages that

build a sense of community

Direction: 3. Our Economic Vitality

Outcome: 3.1 Diverse, strong, sustainable and vibrant local economy 3.2 North Sydney CBD is one of Australia's largest commercial centres

Direction: 4. Our Social Vitality

Direction: 5. Our Civic Leadership

Outcome: 5.1 Council leads the strategic direction of North Sydney 5.3 Council is ethical, open, accountable and transparent in its decision

making 5.4 Community is informed and aware

BACKGROUND

Preliminary Rezoning Proposals Prior to the lodgement of the Planning Proposal (refer to Attachment 1) on 3 September 2015, Council has been approached by the property owner of 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney (subject site) on 4 separate occasions with regards to rezoning the site for residential purposes.

8 January 2003 - Council received a submission, in response to the public exhibition of draft Amendment No. 9 - North Sydney Centre to North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2001 (NSLEP 2001), from Tony Moodie - town planning consultant, on behalf of Benmill Pty Ltd (the then property owner of the subject site). The submission specifically objected to the draft amendment’s proposal to rezone the subject site Commercial, which would result in the prohibition of residential development on the subject site.

30 January 2003 - A Councillor briefing was held to discuss a number of issues in relation to draft Amendment No.9 to NSLEP 2001, including the 8 January 2003 submission in relation to the subject site. In relation to the subject site, Councillors at the briefing resolved to retain the proposed Commercial zone over the subject site, and the prohibition of residential development in the Commercial zone.

24 February 2003 - Council considered a post exhibition report with regard to draft Amendment No.9 to NSLEP 2013. In relation to the subject site, Council resolved not to change the proposed Commercial zoning of the subject site, nor to amend the draft



(5)

Amendment such that residential development could be undertaken with consent on the subject site. Council also resolved to forward the draft Amendment to the Department of Planning (DoP) with a request to make the LEP.

30 May 2006 - Council received a submission from Urbis on behalf of Benmill Pty Ltd (the then property owner of the subject site). The submission included a preliminary ‘Zoning Discussion Paper’, dated May 2006, seeking the rezoning of the subject site from Commercialto Mixed Use zone under NSLEP 2001. The submission noted that Council had on the 8 May 2006, resolved to adopt draft Amendment No. 28 – North Sydney Centre to NSLEP 2001 and forward it to the DoP seeking the issuance of a Section 65 certificate to enable public exhibition. Accordingly, it requested that the submission be considered as a formal submission as part of the public exhibition of draft Amendment No.28 to NSLEP 2001.

20 March 2007 - Council received a document seeking endorsement for the lodgement of a rezoning proposal prepared by Michael Mobbs - sustainability consultant, on behalf of Benmill Pty Ltd (the then property owner of the subject site). The document outlined a number of sustainability initiatives that could be achieved if the subject site was rezoned from Commercial to Mixed Use. On the same day, Council sent a letter to the sustainability consultant in response to their submission advising that the proposal would be taken into consideration as part of the comprehensive review of NSLEP 2001, that was being undertaken by Council’s Strategic Planning Department at the time.

9 October 2007 - Council met with Urbis and Benmill Pty Ltd (the then property owner of the subject site) to discuss the ‘Zoning Discussion Paper’ that was first received by Council on 30 May 2006.

14 November 2007 - Council referred the ‘Zoning Discussion Paper’ to the DoP seeking their advice as to whether such a rezoning proposal could be supported.

27 December 2007 - Council received a letter from the DoP responding to its referral of the Zoning Discussion Paper. The DoP advised that it would be unlikely to support the proposed rezoning, due to the significant loss of commercial floor space in close proximity to North Sydney railway station, having particular regard to and limitations on the amount of floor space estimated to be achievable under the draft Amendment No. 28 to NSLEP 2001. In addition, the DoP stated that the proposal would be contrary to meeting North Sydney’s employment capacity targets set under the draft Inner North Subregional Strategy. A copy of this response was forwarded to the property owner on 16 January 2008.

22 January 2008 - Council received a request from Urbis and the applicant to meet to review a revised Zoning Discussion Paper, notwithstanding the DoP’s response to its former Zoning Discussion Paper.

31 January 2008 - Council met with the applicant to discuss a revised Zoning Discussion Paper, dated 11 January 2008. The Zoning Discussion Paper sought to rezone the subject site from Commercial to Mixed Use, with the view to adaptively convert the existing commercial building into a mixed use building comprising 6 commercial levels and 12 residential levels. At the meeting the property owner sought a formal response to have the matter investigated.

19 March 2008 - Council wrote to the property owner in response to the meeting held on 31 January 2008, stating that if the applicant wished to obtain a resolution from Council in



(6)

regards to the proposed rezoning, then it recommended that the property owner seek a Notice of Motion to be raised by an elected Councillor for consideration at a Council meeting.

20 May 2008 - Council received an email from DoP stating that it had met with the property owner on 15 April 2008 to discuss their revised Zoning Discussion Paper. The DoP reiterated its previous position, stating that whilst it was unlikely to support any net loss in commercial floor space in the near future, this strategic position did not preclude future residential redevelopment opportunities for the site, if Council can satisfactorily demonstrate that the commercial floor space target is near to being achieved (under draft NSLEP Amendment No.28 to NSLEP 2001 and the comprehensive LEP), taking into account the actual and potential losses of floor space on achieving that target.

4 September 2008 - a copy of the DoP’s email of 20 May 2008 was forwarded to the property owner’s planning consultant at their request.

27 October 2014 - Council met with Benmill Pty Ltd (the then property owner) to discuss the potential redevelopment of the subject site, with the view to lodging a Planning Proposal to amend the planning controls applying to the subject site. Council staff advised the applicant that any rezoning proposal for the site would need to address employment targets under regional and subregional strategies and identify where any lost employment floor space will be accommodated within the remainder of the North Sydney CBD. The applicant advised Council that they would approach the DoP for an opinion on the progression of the proposal.

Planning Proposal On 3 September 2015, Council received a Planning Proposal (refer to Attachment 1) to amend NSLEP2013 to amend the planning controls as they apply to land at 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney. In particular, the Planning Proposal sought to:

� rezone the land at 275 Alfred Street from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use;

� increase the maximum building height from 13m to 85m; and � increase the maximum floor space ratio from 3.5:1 to 10.2:1.

On 27 October 2015, Council wrote to the applicant advising that it had completed a preliminary assessment of the Planning Proposal and it was unlikely to support the progression of the Planning Proposal to Gateway Determination for the following reasons:

� The proposal is not underpinned by a comprehensive strategic planning study for the locality;

� The proposal has the potential to undermine future strategic planning for the locality;


� The proposal will result in isolating the immediately adjoining sites which would result in them not being able to be redeveloped to their full potential;

� The proposed public benefits identified within the letter of offer, which would ultimately form part of a future Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) appears to be undervalued in relation to the potential up-lift that would be achieved by implementing the proposed amendments to the LEP;



(7)

� There was sufficient residential capacity already provided under North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (NSLEP 2013) without the need to alter the development mix upon the site; and

� The conceptual development scheme overestimates the development potential of the site.

The letter also identified a number of minor issues which would require further assessment or clarification if the Planning Proposal was to proceed. In light of Council’s preliminary assessment, the applicant was requested to advise Council within 14 days if it would like it to:

� continue to assess the Planning Proposal unamended and report it to Council with a recommendation for refusal; or

� continue to assess the Planning Proposal, subject to amendments addressing Council’s concerns; or

� withdraw the application and receive a partial refund.

On 2 November 2015, the applicant requested a meeting with Council to discuss the issues within Council’s letter, prior to providing a formal response.

On 25 November 2015, Council met with the applicant in response to its request of 2 November 2015. The issues raised within Council’s letter were discussed. The applicant advised that it sought to proceed with the Planning Proposal and would seek to amend the Planning Proposal to address Council’s concerns. Council staff strongly advised that the Planning Proposal was inappropriate at the current time and that the matter would be more appropriately addressed as part of the North Sydney Centre Review which was currently taking place. The applicant was given until the end of January 2016 to submit a revised planning proposal.

A supplementary submission (refer to Attachment 2) was lodged by the applicant on 1 February 2016 outlining that the Planning Proposal should continue to be assessed and providing further discussion and clarification in response to Council’s concerns. The Planning Proposal, however, remains essentially unchanged with the following exceptions:

� a small increase in height from 12m to 13m across the eastern edge of the site; and� the imposition of a non-residential floor space ratio of 0.5:1 across the entire site.

The applicant also indicated that additional details pertaining to the financial viability of the concept proposal were to be provided to Council, but were never received.

CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS

Should Council determine that the Planning Proposal can proceed, community engagement will be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Protocol and the requirements of any Gateway Determination issued in relation to the Planning Proposal.

SUSTAINABILITY STATEMENT

The following table provides a summary of the key sustainability implications:



(8)

QBL Pillar Implications Environment � If implemented, the proposal has the ability to increase waste

generation and traffic volumes around Alfred Street. In addition, there is potential for adverse air, noise, dust, soil and water pollution to result from associated construction works.

Social � If implemented, the proposal could potentially increase public transport patronage and public safety through increased casual surveillance over Alfred Street.

� If implemented, the proposal is likely to increase demand for on street parking and use of Council roads, footpaths and parks.

Economic � The applicant has proposed a number of public benefits including pedestrian and bicycle links and improved public domain upgrades, which would ultimately form part of a future Voluntary Planning Agreement. However, the public benefits appear to be undervalued in relation to the potential up-lift that would be achieved if the Planning Proposal were implemented.

� If implemented, the proposal will result in a net loss of commercial floorspace and employment.

Governance � If implemented, the proposal has the potential to undermine strategic planning processes which are currently being undertaken for the North Sydney Centre.

� If implemented, the proposal has the potential to set an undesirable precedent prior to the establishment of a desired policy position for future development in the locality.

DETAIL

1. ApplicantThe applicant for the proposal is Benmill Pty Ltd, who is also the owner of the subject site (refer to Section 2). The applicant has had numerous discussions with Council prior to the lodgement of the Planning Proposal as detailed in the background section to this report.

2. Site Description The subject site comprises a single allotment of land legally described as Lot 1 DP 546856 and otherwise known as 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney (refer to FIGURE 1) and commonly referred to as the ‘Bayer Building’. The subject site has an area of 1,334sqm with a 31.2m frontage to Alfred Street, a 31.1m frontage to Little Alfred Street, and a depth of 41.3m along the northern boundary and 42.9m along the southern boundary. The site falls 3m from Alfred Street to Little Alfred Street along its northern boundary, rises 3m from Alfred Street to Little Alfred Street along its southern boundary and falls of 5.5m along its Little Alfred Street boundary.

The site is currently occupied by an 18 storey commercial tower, with ground floor retail and 17 floors of commercial office space. Approximately 90 separate commercial tenants occupy the building. The building has a gross floor area (GFA) of 9,756sqm, of which approximately 7,085sqm comprises net lettable area (NLA). The typical floor plate within the existing building provides approximately 530sqm of GFA and 460sqm of NLA per floor.



(9)

The principal commercial building is setback 8.3m from its western (front) boundary, 10.3m from its eastern (rear) boundary and 3m from both its northern and southern (side) boundaries resulting in a site coverage of approximately 564sqm or 42%.

The building was originally constructed in the early 1970s and despite appearances, is reaching the end of its economic life especially in an operational context. A variable message advertising panel, displaying commercial messages not associated with the site is located on the western facade just above the fifth storey.

FIGURE 1: Aerial photograph FIGURE 2: Subject site

3. Local Context The site is located on the south-eastern periphery of the North Sydney Centre, which is a major commercial centre in the Sydney Metropolitan area and is identified as ‘CBD’ under the relevant regional and subregional strategies and forms part of the ‘Global Economic Corridor’. The site is located within a small established commercial precinct on the eastern side of the Warringah Freeway. The precinct is generally bound by Alfred Street, Whaling Road, Little Alfred Street and the extended alignment of Ormiston Avenue to the north. Buildings in the immediate vicinity of the subject site predominantly comprise of 3 storey commercial office buildings and 2-3 storey attached multi-dwellings houses. North Sydney railway station is located approximately 500m to the west of the site, which provides regular services to the south to Sydney City, and to the north to Chatswood, Macquarie Park and Hornsby.

Directly to the north of the subject site is 283 Alfred Street, which contains a 3 storey commercial building built to all boundaries. The building, which was originally constructed in the 1970s / 1980s, appears to be reaching the end of its economic life. A large billboard, displaying commercial messages not associated with the site, is located on the roof of the building and is orientated to the west. Further to the north predominantly lies 1-2 storey



(10)

detached and semi-detached dwelling houses, which also forms part of the Whaling Road heritage conversation area (refer to Figure 6).

To the east of the site, on the opposite side of Little Alfred Street are a number of 1-2 storey detached dwelling houses fronting Little Alfred Street and Ormiston Avenue. Further to the east predominantly lie 1-2 storey detached and semi-detached dwelling houses, which also forms part of the Whaling Road heritage conversation area (refer to Figure 6).

Directly to the south of the subject site is 271 and 273 Alfred Street, which contains a 3 storey commercial building built to all boundaries. The building, which was originally constructed in the 1970s/1980s, appears to be reaching the end of its economic life. A large billboard, displaying commercial messages not associated with the site, is located on the roof o the building and is orientated to the west. Further to the south predominantly lie a 2-3 storey attached dwellings, interspersed by residential flat buildings and mixed use developments.

To the west of the site is the Warringah Freeway, with a vehicle and pedestrian overpass connecting Alfred Street with the North Sydney Central Business District (CBD). Further to the west predominantly lie commercial buildings ranging in height from 6-30 storeys.

4. Current Planning Provisions The following subsections identify the relevant principal planning instruments that apply to the subject site.

4.1. NSLEP 2013 NSLEP 2013 was made on 2 August 2013 through its publication on the NSW legislation website and came into force on the 13 September 2013. The principal planning provisions relating to the subject site are as follows:

• Zoned B3 Commercial Core (refer to FIGURE 3); • A maximum building height of 13m (refer to FIGURE 4); and • A maximum floor space ratio of 3.5:1 (refer to FIGURE 5);



(11)

FIGURE 3: NSLEP 2013 Zoning Map extract The subject site is zoned B3 Commercial Core

FIGURE 4: NSLEP 2013 Height of Buildings Map extract The subject site is limited to a maximum height of 13m

FIGURE 5: NSLEP 2013 Floor Space Ratio Map extract The subject site has a maximum FSR of 3.5:1

FIGURE 6: NSLEP 2013 Heritage Map extract

5. Proposed LEP Amendment The primary intent of the Planning Proposal is to redevelop the site with a new mixed-use tower, which will include the following:



(12)

� Up to 4 levels of basement car parking;� 1 service level; � 2 levels of commercial/retail space; � Approximately 118 apartments above commercial/retail space; � Public domain improvements, including creation of pedestrian through-link

from low-density residential area to North Sydney CBD, and upgrade works to the pedestrian pathway across the Warringah Freeway.

It principally seeks to achieve these goals by amending the zoning of the site, the maximum building height controls and maximum floor space ratio applicable to the subject site under NSLEP 2013. The following subsections outline the specific amendments requested to NSLEP 2013.

5.1. Land Zoning Map It is proposed to amend the Land Zoning Map (ref: 5950_COM_LZN_002A_005_20130607) to NSLEP 2013 such that 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney is rezoned from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed use.

The applicant’s Planning Proposal anticipates that the Map would be amended similar to that depicted in FIGURE 7.

FIGURE 7: Proposed amendment to Land Use Zoning Map LZN_002A Extent of land proposed to be rezoned from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use

Mixed Use (new)

Commercial Core (existing)

Low Density Residential (existing)

Public Recreation (existing)

Infrastructure (existing)

B4�B4

B3

R2

RE1

SP2



(13)

5.2. Height of Buildings Map It is proposed to amend the Height of Buildings Map (ref: 5950_COM_HOB_002A_005_20130607) to NSLEP 2013 such that the maximum building height to 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney is increased from 13m to 85m, with the exception of an 11m deep portion of the site fronting Little Alfred Street which is to retain a maximum building height of 13m.

The applicant’s Planning Proposal, as confirmed by the supplementary submission, anticipates that the Map would be amended similar to that depicted in FIGURE 8.

FIGURE 8: Proposed amendment to Height of Building Map HOB_002A Land subject to a change in maximum building height.

85m (new)

8.5m (existing)

13m (existing)

5.3. Floor Space Ratio Map It is proposed to amend the Floor Space Ratio Map (ref: 5950_COM_FSR_002A_005_20130607) to NSLEP 2013 such that a maximum FSR to 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney is increased from 3.5:1 to 10.2:1.

The applicant’s Planning Proposal anticipates that the Map would be amended similar to that depicted in FIGURE 9.

AB�N

I

AB



(14)

FIGURE 9: Proposed amendment to Floor Space Ratio Map FSR_002A Land subject to a change in maximum Floor Space Ratio.

10.2:1 (new)

3.5:1 (existing)

5.4. Non-residential Floor Space Ratio Map It is proposed to amend the Non-residential Floor Space Ratio Map (ref: 5950_COM_FSR_002A_005_20151104) to NSLEP 2013 such that a maximum non-residential FSR of 0.5:1 is applied to the entirety of 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney.

The applicant’s Planning Proposal, as confirmed by the supplementary submission, anticipates that the Map would be amended similar to that depicted in FIGURE 10.

AE

AE�W



(15)

FIGURE 10: Proposed amendment to Non-Residential Floor Space Ratio Map FSR_002A Land subject to a change in minimum Non-residential Floor Space Ratio.

05:1 (new)

6. Planning Proposal Structure The Planning Proposal as submitted (refer to Attachment 1) is considered to be administratively generally in accordance with the requirements under s.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). In particular, the Planning Proposal sets out the following:

� A statement of the objectives or intended outcomes of the proposed local environmental plan;

� An explanation of the provisions that are to be included in the proposed local environmental plan;

� Justification for those objectives, outcomes and provisions and the process for their implementation; and

� Details of the community consultation that is to be undertaken with regard to the Planning Proposal.

However, the Planning Proposal is not considered to be in accordance with the requirements under s.55(3) of the EP&A Act which require Planning Proposals to be prepared in accordance with the DPE’s (2012) ‘A guide to preparing planning proposals’.

D

D�



(16)

In particular, the Planning Proposal does not contain sufficient and clear information to make a considered assessment, despite the submission of additional information on 1 February 2016.

In this respect, the Planning Proposal should not be permitted to proceed as currently submitted.

7. Justification of the Planning Proposal

7.1. Objectives of the Planning Proposal Section 5 of the Planning Proposal sets out the objectives and intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal. Section 6 provides an explanation of the proposed amendments to NSLEP 2013 to achieve the objectives and outcomes within Section 5.

On balance, the proposed amendments to NSLEP 2013 do not achieve the objectives and intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal as outlined in TABLE 1.

TABLE 1: Analysis of objectives and intended outcomes Objectives and

Intended Outcomes Comment

1. To provide for a mixed use development in close proximity to public transport and other services;

� The proposed change of zoning will achieve this outcome.

2. To facilitate redevelopment of an ageing commercial building in need of redevelopment;

� This objective is overstated. Nothing technical prevents the refurbishment or replacement of the existing building for commercial purposes. Whilst the applicant claims that it is financially unviable to do so, insufficient evidence has been provided to justify this argument.

3. To facilitate a development that will offer an appropriate transition between low density residential and high density commercial;

� This objective is overstated. The proposal seeks an increase to the maximum building height beyond the height of the existing building (approximately 52m) which already significantly exceeds the current maximum building height limit of 13m. Despite the concept proposal suggesting that the building bulk can be repositioned on the site, it does not achieve a positive transition in height between the low density residential areas to the east and North Sydney CBD to the west.

4. To provide for increased permeability in the area by delivering a site through-link and a protected walkway across Warringah Freeway;

� This objective is overstated. Whilst it is recognised that the proposal provides a though site link, it does not link up with pedestrian desire lines. The provision of a covering for pedestrians utilising the existing walkway over the Warringah Expressway does not increase permeability.

5. To provide for additional dwellings in an urban area while minimizing adverse impacts on the surrounding public domain and residential areas;

� Whilst the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional dwellings, there are likely to be adverse impacts on the adjoining residential area, through reduced privacy and overshadowing. Such impacts can only be achieved if site specific controls are also set for the site under Councils DCP.



(17)

TABLE 1: Analysis of objectives and intended outcomes Objectives and

Intended Outcomes Comment

6. To facilitate high quality architectural design that responds to its context;

� This objective is overstated. The proposed amendments to NSLEP 2013 will not result in the provision of high quality architectural design.

7. To refine Council’s strategy of consolidating the commercial core and surrounding it with mixed use; and

� This objective is overstated. There is little to no pressure for Council to further consolidate its Commercial Core, given that significant amounts of commercial floor space is being removed from the North Sydney Centre to accommodate mixed use buildings. The significant reduction of non-residential floor space on the subject site will reduce the amount of employment opportunities in the North Sydney CBD.

8. To assist in achieving State and local government housing targets.

� This objective is overstated. There is sufficient amounts of appropriately zoned land under NSLEP 2013 to adequately meet its State set housing targets, without the need to rezone the subject site.

7.2. Building Height A maximum building height of 13m currently applies to the site under NSLEP 2013 and the existing development provides a maximum height of 52.6m to the roof of the top storey and 60.25m to the top of the screening to the rooftop plant, which is more than 463% greater than the current requirement. The Planning Proposal seeks to apply a maximum building of 85m across the majority of the subject site and 12m over the remainder. This would result in an increase of 654% over that which is currently permitted. No justification has been provided to justify the proposed increase to the maximum building height other than to reflect the desired outcome of the concept proposal and potentially to make the redevelopment of the site financially viable, whilst minimising any additional overshadowing to nearby residential premises.

Just because the existing building exceeds the current height limit, does not necessarily mean that maintaining that height in the future is appropriate or desirable. Building heights should be set with regard to a wider strategic planning study that also investigates the cumulative impacts of increasing building heights within a locality not just on a specific site.

A solar envelope was generated for the subject site and adjoining commercially zoned properties fronting Alfred Street (refer to page 43 of Grimshaw’s Design Report - Appendix 2 to the Planning Proposal). The envelope demonstrates the maximum built form that could be accommodated on the subject site without any net increase in overshadowing of neighbouring properties. The accompanying diagram (refer to FIGURE 11) to the Design Report identifies that a maximum height of 81.1m could be achieved along the frontage to Alfred Street, directly in front of No.283 Alfred Street. However, the maximum height limit for the subject site would be approximately 75m at its northern boundary, progressively reducing to approximately 65m, before significantly dropping to 22.4m close to its southern boundary.



(18)

FIGURE 11: Solar Building Envelope Solar envelope of buildable areas that does not impose any additional shadow impacts than the existing building. Source - Grimshaw (Appendix 2 to the Planning Proposal

Based on the solar envelope generated by the applicant, there appears to be significant areas of the site where the existing building footprint could be expanded without the need to increase the maximum height control to 85m.

The Planning Proposal illustrates that the concept proposal will result in significant additional overshadowing in comparison to the existing building. Despite this increase, the majority of the additional overshadowing is identified as falling across the public domain. Where it does occur over private property, properties already overshadowed by the existing building will generally be worse off (i.e. those generally immediately to the south and south-east of the subject site, with new properties only affected for minimal amounts of time (i.e. those fronting the south of Whaling Road).

The proposed height limit of 13m across the eastern portion of the site would help somewhat in restricting the building form across the site, however it is less restrictive across the western portion of the site. Without a strict limitation on other built form controls over the subject site (such as setbacks) there is no guarantee that the concept proposal would be built in the form suggested. Therefore, the potential overshadowing impacts could be made worse by repositioning the bulk of the building across the site.

The extent of potential overshadowing is considered unacceptable given that the existing building on the site already significantly exceeds the height limit. Potential exists to minimise the impact of the potential building mass that could be accommodated on the subject site by further restricting building height along its boundaries and or specific setback controls imposed under the DCP. It should also be remembered that the applicant is requesting to amend the planning controls and the building design process occurs at the DA stage. Extreme care therefore needs to be exercised with this “course” high level consideration, given that the sensitivity of this type of potential impact.

The absence of any detailed data relating to the feasibility of the concept proposal also places a question on the need to obtain additional height on the subject site (refer to section 7.6 of this report).

283�

275�

263�269�

271�273�



(19)

The Planning Proposal does not adequately consider the proposed building heights in relation to the site’s immediate context. In particular the proposed heights are inconsistent with the approach adopted by Council which is to scale development down from the centre of the CBD to adjoining residential development. The maximum buildings heights for land within the North Sydney Centre have been set with the aim to minimise the extent of overshadowing on residentially zoned land adjacent to the Centre.

The section illustrated in FIGURE 12 (Source: Page 7 to the Design Report prepared by Grimshaw) demonstrates how out of context the existing and proposed building heights are, particularly as it relates to development to the east of the subject site.

FIGURE 12: East West Section Source: Grimshaw - Design Report

Furthermore, whilst the Design Report to the Planning Proposal provides an analysis of the proposal’s contextual fit (section 5.4 on pages 69-72), it is not adequately supported by the accompanying images. Each of the images is taken from a birds eye perspective and accordingly do not accurately represent how the proposal will sit within the locality when viewed from the public domain.

The concept proposal generally complies with the proposed maximum building height controls. However, there is a significant area of non-compliance over the south-eastern portion of the subject site where the proposed 13m height control is proposed to be set. The primary non-compliance occurs for a 1.2m deep section of the southern portion of the eastern facade between Levels 3 and 21 (refer to Figures 13-14).

If the concept proposal was designed to strictly comply with the proposed development controls, it is likely to impact upon the floor space ratio that could be accommodated on the subject site. It is also noted that the concept proposal is approximately 3m lower than the maximum height limit, suggesting that a larger building could be accommodated on the subject site, which would result in increased overshadowing of neighbouring properties.



(20)

FIGURE 13: Solar Building Envelope (Levels 3-21) The areas highlighted in red represent the areas of non compliance with the proposed building height controls. Source - Grimshaw (Appendix 2 to the Planning Proposal

FIGURE 14: Extent of non-compliance - Levels 3-21 The areas highlighted in red represent the areas of non compliance with the proposed building height controls. Source - Grimshaw (Appendix 2 to the Planning Proposal

85m

13m

13m



(21)

In this respect, the Planning Proposal cannot be supported in its current form and would need substantial revision to ensure that adverse overshadowing impacts do not occur and a better relationship is provided to adjoining development.

7.3. Proposed floor space ratio requirements A maximum FSR of 3.5:1 currently applies to the site under NSLEP 2013 and the existing development provides an FSR of 7.3:1, which is more than 208% greater than the current requirement. The Planning Proposal seeks to apply a maximum FSR of 10.2:1 to the subject site as a whole, an increase of 291% over that which is currently permitted. No justification has been provided for the proposed application of an FSR of 10.2:1, other than to reflect the desired outcome of the concept proposal and potentially to make the redevelopment of the site financially viable.

The existing development already significantly benefits from a non-compliance with the current development standard. To further increase this non-compliance is considered unreasonable, especially when based on an unsubstantiated claim of financial feasibility (refer to section 7.6 to this report). Any change to the maximum FSR control should be based on the outcomes of a wider planning study, that are at least based on the investigation the cumulative impacts of changing the FSR controls for all B3 Commercial Core zoned land located to the east of the Warringah Freeway and not just the subject site.

However, if Council is of the opinion that the Planning Proposal should proceed, then the maximum FSR for the subject site should be set at a maximum of 7.3:1 to reflect the existing quantum.

7.4. Non-residential floor space ratio Clause 4.4A of NSLEP 2013 stipulates the amount of non-residential FSR that applies to a subject site. The primary objectives of the non-residential FSR controls are to ensure the activation of street frontages, encouraging a mix of uses and to protect and promote the hierarchy of commercial centres.

Council applies a non-residential FSR controls to all land zoned B4 Mixed Uses under NSLEP 2013. The Planning Proposal, as confirmed by the supplementary submission, seeks to apply a non-residential FSR control of 0.5:1 to the subject site, which equates to about 667sqm.

There are discrepancies in the Planning Proposal documentation as to how much non-residential floor space is proposed to be provided. In particular, the following amounts are identified as being provided:

• 1,353sqm - page 27 of the Planning Proposal;• approximately 1,300sqm (comprising 300sqm of retail and 1000sqm of

commercial) - page 7 of the Design Report by Grimshaw;• 1,224sqm (Gross Floor Area for retail/commercial/non-residential) - page 74 of

the Design Report by Grimshaw and page 7 of the supplementary submission by Mecone;

• 975sqm (Net Selling Area for retail/commercial/non-residential) - page 74 of the Design Report by Grimshaw;

• 995sqm (retail + commercial lobby at Ground Level + commercial at Level 1) - Ground and Level 1 Plans to Part 8 - Drawings of the Design Report by Grimshaw;



(22)

• 998sqm (retail and commercial uses) - page 6 to the Transport Assessment by ARUP ; and

• 367sqm (retail and commercial uses) - page 8 to the Economic Impact Assessment by AEC.

It would be reasonable to assume from the plans contained within the Design Report, that the concept proposal would appear to provide in the vicinity of between 975sqm and 1,353sqm of non-residential floor space, resulting in a non-residential FSR of between 0.73:1 and 1.02:1.

Clearly this is an overwhelming reduction of non residential floor space compared with the current Gross Floor Area of 9,756sqm which is accommodated in the existing building.

It should be noted that according to Knight Frank (2015) since the start of 2013, there has been a total of 33,000sqm of commercial floor space withdrawn from the North Sydney market as a result of residential conversion. A further 45,000sqm is earmarked for potential conversion to residential floorspace, with almost half of this stock expected to be withdrawn in the next 24 months. In St Leonards, almost 20,000sqm of commercial floor space has been withdrawn since the beginning of 2015 with a further 42,000sqm expected to be withdrawn to make ay for residential development. According to SGS Economics and Planning (2016), this is an issue that is not unique to North Sydney and St Leonards.

In light of the proposed level of non-residential floor space under the concept proposal, it is questioned why such a low non-residential FSR requirement is being proposed under the Planning Proposal. This would merely open up the ability for the applicant or future owner of the site to further reduce the level of non-residential floor space being provided on the site. The non residential floor space ratio of 0.5:1 is considered far to low in this context. It is clear that the trend of conversion from commercial to residential development is significant and a strategic approach to the establishment of a policy position is required.

Should the Planning Proposal proceed as proposed, then a non-residential FSR control of at least 1:1 should be applied. This would ensure that at least the ground floor and first floor levels are used for commercial purposes. Depending upon which figures are correct, there would still be the ability to revise the concept proposal’s design to better improve building access and activation of the public domain.

7.5. Alternative Options The DPE’s A guide for preparing planning proposals (2012) require Planning Proposals to consider if there are alternative options to achieving the intent of the proposal. The supplementary submission (refer to Attachment 2) has outlined the following alternative approaches.

Option 1 involves rezoning the subject site to B4 Mixed Use as proposed. This option is considered acceptable as it would enable a development that could generally meet the objectives of the zone, with the exception of ‘maintaining existing commercial space’. A reduction in commercial floor space is only permitted whereby the proposal can still meet the minimum non-residential FSR requirements. The concept proposal would comply with the proposed non-residential FSR requirements for the subject site, despite not being supported as discussed elsewhere in this report.



(23)

Option 2 involves including “shop top housing” as a permitted use within the B3 Commercial Core zone. This is undesirable as such use would be contrary to the objectives of the zone and would have a much wider impact of undermining the economic viability of the North Sydney Centre.

Option 3 involves retaining the B3 Commercial Core zone and including a site specific provision within Schedule 1 of NSLEP 2013. In particular, it would seek to include a new clause that would permit ‘shop top housing’ with consent on the subject site. However, the proposed use is considered to be inconsistent with the objectives of the B3 Commercial Corezone. In particular, the Planning Proposal does not:

• provide a wide range of retail, business, office, entertainment, community and other suitable land uses that serve the needs of the local and wider community;

• encourage appropriate employment opportunities in accessible locations; and • prohibit further residential development from occurring in the core of the North

Sydney Centre.

With respect to the proposed increase in building height and FSR controls, there are no alternate options to amend NSLEP 2013 to achieve the intended outcomes.

7.6. Feasibility of the development The proposed changes are primarily based on achieving a financially feasible redevelopment of the subject site. The Planning Proposal only contains scant details as to the financial feasibility of the development and therefore, Council is unable to make an informed decision as to whether the proposal is reasonable or not. The applicant has advised that they could provide additional details as to the feasibility of the concept proposal on commercially in-confidence basis. However such details have not been provided to date.

It is considered that the financial feasibility of the proposal is significantly undervalued. The justification behind this opinion that the building is likely to remain an isolated tower site with commanding and uninterrupted district views, especially to iconic items such as Sydney Harbour, the Opera House, Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Sydney CBD. This would result in:

• the vast majority of the proposed apartments commanding above average sales; and

• if retained for entirely commercial purposes, commanding above average rents for a medium sized floor plate building.

On this basis, it is not recommended that the building height or floor space ratio controls be amended until such time as the financial feasibility of the concept proposal has been adequately assessed.

7.7. Isolation of Sites If the Planning Proposal is proceeded with, it would result in the isolation of three adjoining sites located at 271, 273 and 283 Alfred Street (refer to FIGURE 16). The implications of their isolation are discussed in the following subsections.

The supplementary submission identified that whilst the concept proposal does not strictly comply with the Apartment Design Guide, the proposal could be consistent with the general



(24)

amenity objectives of these controls. The B3 Commercial Core zoned precinct located to the east of the Warringah Expressway represents a discreet pocket of development and amendments to the planning controls should really occur across the entirety of this small precinct, rather than on an individual site by site basis. This would ensure that both zoning controls and development standards could be considered more holistically and equitably. This would be best undertaken by Council as an independent party given that a number of landowners are effected.

FIGURE 16: Isolated sites

Subject site

283 Alfred Street

273 Alfred Street

271 Alfred Street

7.7.1. 283 Alfred Street (Lots 14-16, Section A, DP 67882; Lot 1, DP 554749; Lot 3, DP554750)

No.283 Alfred Street comprises 5 separate lots that create an irregular shaped allotment that is almost rectangular in shape. The site has an area of 872.6sqm, a frontage of 21.6m to Alfred Street, a rear frontage of 17.8m to Little Alfred Street and an average depth of 44m. It is located directly to the north of the subject site.

The site is zoned B3 Commercial Core under NSLEP 2013 and contains a 3-storey commercial building built to all boundaries. The building was constructed circa 1970s and was modestly refurbished in 1998. The building is reaching the end of its economic life in terms of its operating efficiency. Two large illuminated billboards are located on the roof of the building, one oriented to the west and one to the north.



(25)

To the north of No.283 Alfred Street is No.1 Bray Street, which contains a single storey semi-detached dwelling. No.1 Bray Street comprises the beginning of the R2 Low Density Residential zone under NSLEP 2013, which extends to the north and east of No.283 Alfred Street. There are no other properties to the east or west with which the property could consolidate.

Whilst No.283 site could be redeveloped for commercial activities, its redevelopment potential is hampered by restrictive interface development controls applying (e.g. increased setbacks) due to the site being located adjacent to residentially zoned land. It is not feasible for No.s 283 Alfred Street to be consolidated with No.1 Berry Street due to the change of land use zones.

Furthermore, the concept proposal’s reduced setbacks to No.283 results in the concept proposal effectively denying development potential from No.283 without compensation. This results in a poor planning outcome.

Therefore, this site should be consolidated with the subject site to ensure that a desirable planning outcome is achieved.

7.7.2. 273 Alfred Street (SP6830) No.273 Alfred Street is an ‘L’ shaped allotment, which has an area of 777.8sqm, a frontage of 11.4m to Alfred Street, a rear frontage of 22.8m to Little Alfred Street and a depth of 45.8m. It is located directly adjacent to the south of the subject site.

The site is zoned B3 Commercial Core under NSLEP 2013 and contains a 3-storey strata titled commercial building built to all boundaries. The building was constructed circa 1970s and was modestly refurbished in 2007. The building is reaching the end of its economic life in terms of its operating efficiency. A large illuminated billboard is located on the roof of the building, oriented to the west.

To the south, lie No.271 Alfred Street and No.4 Little Alfred Street. No.271 has an area of 253sqm and contains a 3-storey commercial building, which is similarly styled to No.273 and is built to all boundaries. The building was constructed circa 1970s and was modestly refurbished in 2007 in conjunction with No. 273. The building is reaching the end of its economic life in terms of its operating efficiency. No.4 Little Alfred Street has an area of 862sqm and contains a 4-storey residential flat building with 20 dwellings. The building was constructed in 2000 and was strata subdivided in 2003. There are no allotments located to the east or west of No.273.

Whilst the planning controls do not prevent the redevelopment of No.273 for commercial purposes in isolation, it’s unlikely to occur in the short to medium term due to restrictive built form controls applying to the subject site, the awkward shape of the allotment and the small size of the allotment, which would heavily impact upon feasibility. Therefore, it would be best practice for this allotment to be consolidated with another allotment to enable redevelopment

There is potential to consolidate No.s 273 and 271 Alfred Street to form a 1030sqm parcel of land. Such a landholding would enable the creation of a building with a desirable floorplate to meet market demands as required within the North Sydney Centre. However, if the owners of No.271 are not willing to consolidate, then No.273 will remain isolated with limited potential



(26)

for redevelopment due to its awkward shape. Consolidation with No.4 Little Alfred Street is not feasible given the young age of the building and the large number of owners to negotiate with.

7.7.3. 271 Alfred Street (Lot 1 DP 532504) The Planning Proposal does not consider the potential isolation of the property at 271 Alfred Street should it not be consolidated with No.273. Whilst this property does not directly adjoin the subject site, it may be left isolated between No.273 and No.263-269 Alfred Street.

No.271 Alfred Street is a rectangular shaped allotment, which has an area of 352.1sqm, a frontage of 10.4m to Alfred Street and a depth of 22.6m. It is located between the south-western boundaries of No.273 Alfred Street and the northern boundaries of No. 263-269 Alfred Street and No.4 Little Alfred Street.

As indicated in section 7.7.2 to this report, No.271 contains a 3-storey commercial building, similarly styled to No.273 and built to all boundaries.

Whilst the planning controls do not prevent the redevelopment of No.271 for commercial purposes in isolation, it’s unlikely to occur in the short to medium term due to restrictive built form controls applying to the subject site and the small size of the allotment, which would heavily impact upon feasibility. Therefore, it would be best practice for this allotment to be consolidated with another allotment to enable redevelopment.

No. 271 is incapable of being consolidated with No.263-269 Alfred Street and No.4 Little Alfred Street, due to these sites containing a large number of strata lots, and being less than 20 years in age.

Therefore, No.271 should be consolidated at least with No.273 and or the subject site to ensure that a desirable planning outcome is achieved.

7.8. Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) The Planning Proposal includes a letter of offer for the applicant to enter into a VPA with Council with the view to provide approximately $835,000 worth of public benefits. The public benefits identified by the applicant include:

� Upgrade of the pedestrian pathway to the extension of Mount Street across the Warringah Freeway including a full length awning, new paving and landscaping ($650,000);

� Upgrading Little Alfred Street to include a widened footpath and landscaping ($20,000); and

� Provision of a pedestrian through site link ($165,000).

The applicant has also indicated that they were willing to have a draft VPA agreed to by Council to be exhibited with the Planning Proposal.

The letter of offer provides sufficient details to inform the preparation of a future VPA that could be adopted by Council in draft form, prior to the Planning Proposal being placed on public exhibition if it proceeds.



(27)

Whilst items 1 and 3 are considered to be public benefits, which typically falls outside the scope of the types of conditions imposed on development consents, item 2 is questioned. Item 2 does not appear to involve widening the existing footpath within the public domain, but however increases its width by continuing it into the subject site. These works could be achieved as part of any normal development application and there is no need to include them as a public benefit as it would not be possible to continue the perceived increase in footpath width across adjoining sites.

As indicated in section 7.6 to this report, no detailed analysis has been provided to Council with regards to the development’s feasibility. Therefore, it is difficult to determine what the full extent of uplift of the development is and whether or not the level of public benefit being provided is appropriate.

It is therefore not recommended that the Planning Proposal proceed without first receiving sufficient information that clearly indicates the feasibility of the development and Council staff having determined if the amount of public benefits appropriately reflects the level of uplift that the change to the planning controls will have.

This is an important part of the process to ensure that Council is receiving an appropriate value of public benefit arising from the Planning Proposal and that there is community confidence in the process.

7.9. Transport Implications The Planning Proposal is accompanied by a Traffic Impact Assessment, which has been prepared by ARUP. The Traffic Impact Assessment assesses the potential impact of the concept proposal and generally concludes that:

� The site is located within North Sydney Council with a constrained parking environment;

� The rezoned development would be responsible for a minor increase in peak hour traffic flows along surrounding key roads during the PM peak hour;

� Traffic modelling demonstrates that the adjacent intersections operate satisfactorily following completion of the development;

� Up to 112 off-street parking bays are proposed for the concept development with rates in accordance with North Sydney Council DCP and LEP;

� Adequate on-site loading and servicing is proposed for the concept development; and

� Secure bicycle parking is to be provided as a component of the proposed development

The Planning Proposal and Traffic Impact Assessment were referred to Council’s Strategic Transport Planner for comment. The Strategic Transport Planner has noted that the concept proposal includes provision for the maximum number of private parking spaces for the site that might be permissible under current planning controls. However, providing the maximum number of private parking spaces for the site without consideration of proximity to public transport, declining demand for private vehicle trips and increased demand for alternative travel options (e.g. cycling, car share, etc), will also maximise the amount of traffic generated by the site. Therefore, the parking demand/supply for the site should be re-assessed and consider the opportunities for minimising trip generation afforded by the site’s:



(28)

� proximity to local shops and amenities, � proximity to walking infrastructure, � proximity to cycling infrastructure, � proximity to excellent public transport infrastructure, � opportunities for car sharing, and � opportunities for other parking management and travel planning initiatives for

the site (draft Green Travel Plan).

A number of specific issues were also identified that require further consideration before submission of any Development Application for the concept proposal. The relevant issues are discussed in the following subsections.

7.9.1. Development Mix It is noted that the Traffic Impact Assessment utilises different floor space figures for non-residential development in comparison to the figures used in the Planning Proposal. In particular, the Traffic Impact Assessment indicates that the concept proposal contains a total of 998sqm of non-residential floor space, whereas the Planning Proposal indicates that a total of between 975sqm and 1,353sqm, representing a difference between -23sqm and +355sqm. This has the potential to affect the overall transportation impacts of the development and provides a misleading analysis.

7.9.2. WalkingWhilst the Traffic Impact Assessment provides some assessment of existing walking infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, it has not provided a clear assessment of how the concept proposal might affect the walkability of the area. In particular, the following issues should be addressed:

� The proposed entrance orientation negatively affects the overall legibility and, therefore, walkability, of Alfred Street. Delivering the main entrance along the side of the proposed building will reduce visual access cues and result in confusion for those approaching the site from North Sydney CBD.

� It will also increase the distance between the Alfred Street pedestrian crossing and the main building entrance.

� Retaining an engaging frontage on Alfred Street also benefits road users walking past the site to Alfred Street north and south.

� A more engaging western boundary also increases natural surveillance on Alfred Street and reduces secluded entry areas, maximising “safer by design” security outcomes and reducing security lighting and surveillance requirements.

� Ensuring consistency with entry locations on adjacent sites also help to protect the existing flow of built form on Alfred Street, which also contributes to the attractiveness of the street and its resultant walkability.

The applicant should consider existing walking desire lines and barriers to movement between the site and local shops, amenities, and public transport stops/stations. This will provide valuable insights into other potential improvements to the walking network in the vicinity of the site. These improvements can either to be undertaken as part of the development or highlighted as an action in the site’s “Draft Travel Plan”.



(29)

The revised proposal should also consider intervisibility between drivers of vehicles exiting the site and pedestrians walking along site frontages. Visibility splays must be provided around vehicle crossings at the property boundary on Little Alfred Street in accordance with figure 3.3 of AS2890.1:2004 Clause 3.2.4(b).

7.9.3. CyclingThe proposal does not demonstrate how cycling will be encouraged. In particular, the applicant should consider:

� Existing cycling infrastructure on roads around the site and potential for improvements as part of these proposals or as an action in the Draft Travel Plan.

� Proposed cycle parking, shower, changing, and locker requirements. Any proposal to increase facility provisions above NSDCP2013 requirements should be included as an action of the “Draft Travel Plan”.

� Access between off-site cycling infrastructure and on-site cycling infrastructure.

7.9.4. Public Transport The subject site has good access to existing (North Sydney train station and buses) and future (North Sydney Metro) public transport services. As such, reduced car parking rates are acceptable at this site. Improvements to footpath/crossing infrastructure that facilitates walking to nearby existing/future public transport stations/stops should be considered as part of these proposals. Any other actions to encourage public transport use, reduce car reliance and minimise on-site parking demand should be included as part of the applicant’s “Draft Travel Plan”.

7.9.5. Car Parking and Parking Management Based on the standardised basement plans over 4 levels, the concept proposal seeks to provide a total of 132 parking spaces. All of the spaces are to be allocated to residential tenants, and none allocated to the non-residential components of the building.

Under the provisions of NSDCP 2013, the concept proposal should provide no more than 102 parking space (99 residential and 3 non-residential). The concept proposal therefore does not comply with the maximum parking requirements of the DCP. The Traffic Impact Assessment suggests that “a provision of 112 car parking bays … should be sufficient” (pg 8). This also exceeds the DCP’s maximum requirements.

The level of parking provided in the concept proposal is considered to be unacceptable given the scale of the proposed development, the site’s proximity to North Sydney CBD shops and services, the site’s proximity to good public transport options and declining demand for private vehicle use. Opportunities to provide less car parking than what is acceptable under NSDCP2013 should be explored as part of a Draft Travel Plan for the site.

The applicant’s amended submission, however, has indicated a commitment to complying with Council’s parking requirements and does not intend this proposal to seek a change to such controls.



(30)

7.9.6. Car Share NSDCP 2013 allows for the provision of up to 6 car share vehicle spaces, replacing 25 residential and non-residential spaces and reducing the overall parking requirement on the site by up to 19 parking spaces. Actions to encourage car sharing should be included in a DraftTravel Plan for the site.

7.9.7. Travel Demand and Mode Split The Planning Proposal and the Traffic Impact Assessment does not address emerging travel demand and mode split trends. An analysis of ABS travel to work data (2006 and 2011) suggests that residents within the suburb of North Sydney are currently experiencingdeclining levels of dependence on private vehicle trips. In particular, approximately 74% of North Sydney residents generally walk, cycle, take public transport, or ride share to their place of employment. Based on current trends this dependence is likely to reduce further as densities increase and traffic congestion increases in the locality. Given this growing trend, the applicant should consider how declining car dependence will affect car ownership, resultant demand for private parking, and demand for alternative mobility solutions, such as car share, at the site.

7.9.8. Traffic Generation The Traffic Impact Assessment provides an assessment of the proposal’s impact on traffic function at the intersection of Whaling Road and Little Alfred Street (based on only providing vehicular access to the subject site from Little Alfred Street). Its impact on the intersection of Whaling Road and Alfred Street has not been considered. This intersection has a complex arrangement and carries significantly more traffic than the assessed intersection. Given that vehicles must use this intersection to access the subject site, its impact on traffic function at this location should also be assessed.

7.9.9. Vehicle Access Facilities Section 4.2 of the Traffic Impact Assessment states that the proposed loading and servicing facilities will not comply with the requirements of NSDCP2013. The applicant must justify how a single rigid vehicle bay will accommodate all of the proposed development’s delivery (retail and commercial) and moving (residential) needs.

A loading zone on Alfred Street is not an acceptable alternative to delivering the required loading and servicing facilities.

7.10. Policy and Strategic Context 7.10.1. Section 117 Directions Section 117 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 enables the Minister for Planning to issue directions regarding the content of Planning Proposals. There are a number of s.117 Directions that require certain matters to be addressed if they are affected by a Planning Proposal. Each Planning Proposal must identify which s.117 Directions are relevant to the proposal and demonstrate how they are consistent with that Direction.

The Planning Proposal is considered to be generally consistent with all relevant s.117 Directions, with the exception of Direction 1.1 – Business and Industrial Zones as discussed in the following subsections. In particular, the applicant’s justification for supporting inconsistencies with the Directions are not supported.



(31)

7.10.1.1. Direction 1.1 – Business and Industrial Zones Direction 1.1 – Business and Industrial Zones applies when a relevant planning authority prepares a planning proposal that will affect land within an existing or proposed business or industrial zone. The specific objectives of the Direction are to:

(a) encourage employment growth in suitable locations, (b) protect employment land in business and industrial zones, and (c) support the viability of identified strategic centres.

Subclause (4) to the Direction states:

A planning proposal must: (a) give effect to the objectives of this direction, (b) retain the areas and locations of existing business and industrial zones, (c) not reduce the total potential floor space area for employment uses and related

public services in business zones, (d) not reduce the total potential floor space area for industrial uses in industrial

zones, and (e) ensure that proposed new employment areas are in accordance with a strategy

that is approved by the Director-General of the Department of Planning.

The Planning Proposal is inconsistent with subclause (4)(c) as it will significantly reduce the level of floor space made available for commercial purposes. The existing commercial building has a gross floor area of 9,756sqm. The Planning Proposal seeks to reduce the minimum requirement to 667sqm (i.e. a non-residential FSR of 0.5:1) of non-residential floor space resulting, which would result in a loss of 9,089sqm of non-residential floor space.

However, subclause 5 to the Direction states:

A planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the relevant planning authority can satisfy the Director-General of the Department of Planning (or an officer of the Department nominated by the Director-General) that the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent are: (a) justified by a strategy which:

(i) gives consideration to the objective of this direction, and (ii) identifies the land which is the subject of the planning proposal (if the

planning proposal relates to a particular site or sites), and (iii) is approved by the Director-General of the Department of Planning, or

(b) justified by a study (prepared in support of the planning proposal) which gives consideration to the objective of this direction, or

(c) in accordance with the relevant Regional Strategy or Sub-Regional Strategy prepared by the Department of Planning which gives consideration to the objective of this direction, or

(d) of minor significance.

Accordingly, there are a number of options by which a Planning Proposal may justify an inconsistency with the requirements of the Direction.

The Planning Proposal claims that the inconsistency is of a minor nature, based on the following:



(32)

� the site is unsuited for continued commercial use � the site is relatively small and is dislocated from the main commercial core. � the site has been excluded from Council’s ongoing North Sydney Centre

Review as well as the North Sydney Centre Economic Review (2014), which strongly implies that the site is not of major significance to the North Sydney commercial core.

Whilst the subject site and other commercial zoned sites east of the Warringah Freeway, were excluded from the initial studies supporting the North Sydney Centre Review, they are currently being considered as part of an investigation into potential impacts and opportunities on land located adjacent to the North Sydney Centre.

Initial analysis has found that the area of land located to the east of the Warringah Freeway currently contains approximately 15,000sqm of non-residential floor space which is a significant contribution to the North Sydney Centre’s total commercial floor space. If the Planning Proposal proceeds and the concept proposal built, it will result in the loss of more than half this amount.

The Planning Proposal is also accompanied by an Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) prepared by AEC that seeks to justify the level of residential and non-residential floor space to be provided within in the concept proposal. The EIA investigates the impact of both the wholesale rezoning of all commercially zoned properties east of the Warringah Freeway (Subject Area) and the redevelopment of the subject site as proposed and in summary concludes that:

� The Subject Area currently: o Contributes 12,448sqm of secondary office floorspace to the North

Sydney;o Contributes 318sqm of retail floorspace; o Sustains an estimated 549 full and part time jobs; o Generates an estimated $3.3 million in retail expenditure per annum;

ando Provides jobs close to homes and public transport.

� If the subject site and Subject Area are not rezoned to B4 Mixed Use, it will result in: o A reduction of occupied floorspace in North Sydney CBD by

1,571sqm; o A reduction in employment by 84 workers; o A continued decline in the quality of the site; o No change to the provision of retail floor space and choice; o A reduction in retail expenditure within the North Sydney CBD by $0.3

million; and o A reduction in the provision of jobs close to homes and public

transport. � If the subject site and Subject Area are rezoned to B4 Mixed Use, it will result

in:o The loss of 334 full and part time office jobs from the subject site; o The retention of 15 full and part time retail jobs;



(33)

o The provision of more than 118 new dwellings, which accords with State and local government objectives to deliver an additional housing by 2031;

o Ensuring housing price affordability for all sectors of the community in North Sydney.

o Increasing retail expenditure by $4.20m from new residents; o Providing new and existing residents with greater choice and

competition in the retail sector; o Providing new homes close to jobs and public transport; o Potentially minor increases in local traffic; o Ensuring the efficient and effective use of urban infill land; o Generating $117.5m in additional output, $25.6m in incomes and

salaries and 326 full time employment jobs; and o Short-term negative externalities as a result of the construction process.

The EIA makes a number of assumptions in its assessment which had been used to justify its position. In particular, it assumes that:

� The office vacancy rate in North Sydney will be maintained at 9.1% since January 2015;

� There will be not net decreases in non-residential floor space since January 2015;

� That new demand is based on a development’s total gross floor area and not the new additional floor area.

These assumptions have resulted in a number of skewed results. The EIA suggests that the three Part 3A developments approved in the CBD (1 Denison Street, 100 Mount Street and 177 Pacific Highway) will provide approximately an additional 131,00sqm of office floor space and the forecast demand for office floor space over the next 5 years for the CBD only equates to 27% of that amount. However:

� the three identified Part 3 developments only result in approximately an additional 125,000sqm of non-residential (including office, retail and other non-residential uses);

� there has been significant losses of non-residential floor space both approved (e.g. 144-156 Pacific Highway, 211 Miller Street), and currently under assessment (e.g. 168 Walker Street); and

� a continuing fall in the office vacancy rate (refer to TABLE 2), as commercial floor space is being converted for residential purposes.

TABLE 4: North Sydney Vacancy Rates for Office Floor Space Source – Property Council of Australia – Office Market Report

Date Vacancy Rate (%)

2011 January 10.3

2011 July 9.0

2012 January 7.0

2012 July 7.4

2013 January 7.8



(34)

TABLE 4: North Sydney Vacancy Rates for Office Floor Space Source – Property Council of Australia – Office Market Report

Date Vacancy Rate (%)

2013 July 10.6

2014 January 10.5

2014 July 10.2

2015 January 9.1

2015 July 8.0

2016 January 7.1

If the subject site was rezoned in isolation, then there would be pressure to rezone the remaining commercial land east of the Warringah Freeway to mixed use which would ultimately result in even higher levels of loss of non-residential development. Whilst the EIA has flagged the potential rezoning of the entire area east of the Warringah Freeway, it has not considered the impact of this actually occurring. Accordingly the wider impacts have not been considered.

Furthermore, no analysis has been provided which determines the existing and potential amount of non-residential floor space that could be constructed in North Sydney under NSLEP 2013 and compares that data against the long term future demand for non-residential floor space in the locality. It is considered that such an analysis could result in very different outcomes for the locality.

7.10.2. A Plan for Growing Sydney In December 2014, the State Government released A Plan for Growing Sydney (Regional Plan) covering the North Sydney LGA. The Plan replaced the former Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 and Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031.

The Regional Plan seeks to provide an additional 664,000 homes and 689,000 new jobs by 2031. No targets are set for any of the subregions, of which the North Sydney LGA is part of the North Subregion. It is noted that new draft sub-regional strategies, consistent with the Regional Plan are currently being prepared by the State Government in consultation with Councils. North Sydney is identified as a Strategic Centre and considered to form a part of Sydney CBD under the Regional Plan.

Goals, Directions and Actions identified in the Regional Plan which are relevant to the Planning Proposal are as follows:

Goal 1: A competitive economy with world-class services and transport • Direction 1.1: Grow a more internationally competitive Sydney CBD

o Action 1.1.1: Create new and innovative opportunities to grow Sydney CBD office space by identifying redevelopment opportunities and increasing building heights in the right locations

• Direction 1.6: Expand the Global Economic Corridor o Action 1.6.1: Grow high-skilled jobs in the Global Economic Corridor by

expanding employment opportunities and mixed-use activities o Action 1.6.2: Invest to improve infrastructure and remove bottlenecks to grow

economic activity



(35)

• Direction 1.7: Grow strategic centres – providing more jobs closer to home o Action 1.7.1: Invest in strategic centres across Sydney to grow jobs and

housing and create vibrant hubs of activity

Goal 2: A city of housing choice, with homes that meet our needs and lifestyles • Direction 2.1: Accelerate housing supply across Sydney

o Action 2.1.1: Accelerate housing supply and local housing choices • Direction 2.2: Accelerate urban renewal across Sydney – providing homes closer to

jobso Action 2.2.2: Undertake urban renewal in transport corridors which are being

transformed by investment, and around strategic centres • Direction 2.3: Improve housing choice to suit different needs and lifestyles

o Action 2.3.3: Deliver more opportunities for affordable housing

Goal 3: A great place to live with communities that are strong, healthy and well connected

• Direction 3.1: Revitalise existing suburbs o Action 3.1.1: Support urban renewal by directing local infrastructure to centres

where there is growth • Direction 3.3: Create healthy built environments

o Action 3.3.1: Deliver guidelines for a healthy built environment

Despite the Planning Proposal being generally consistent with the intent to increase residential accommodation in close proximity to jobs and public transport, it is considered to be generally inconsistent with the Regional Plan’s relevant goals, directions and actions due to impacts on the ability to adequately accommodate sufficient levels of employment floor space in the medium to long term.

Action 1.1.1, the Metropolitan Strategy states:

Research indicates that action is needed to make available sufficient office space capacity in the Sydney CBD in 10 to 14 years. In the absence of significant large sites, beyond the development at Barangaroo, Sydney CBD [which appears to include the North Sydney CBD] will need to expand its capacity by redeveloping existing buildings, growing upwards and extending to the south. ...Over the last 20 years more than 50,000 dwellings have been added to the City of Sydney’s housing stock. The Sydney CBD is a preferred destination for both residential and office development. Demand for both central Sydney living and office stock will continue to grow. In fact, recently there has been a net reduction in the total stock of office space in North Sydney due to conversions to residential development.

In the short-term, the development of Barangaroo will play a significant role in fulfilling the Sydney CBD’s short-term office floor space requirements. Beyond 10 to14 years, the supply of office floor space will be limited and action will be required to create medium to long-term office supply opportunities.

In addition, Action 1.6.1, the Metropolitan Strategy states:



(36)

In major suburban office markets where a commercial core exists or is planned, and where residential pressure is being experienced, critical retail, business and office space needs to be protected. In some instances, this is necessary to realise the benefits of business agglomerations, supported by efficient transport networks.

Commercial cores can support more business activity, and therefore jobs, and need to be protected against residential encroachment; however, restrictive zonings need to be well targeted. Commercial core zoning is particularly important in centres with good existing or planned public transport to ease pressure on congested road networks.

The Government will work in partnership with councils to: � devise commercial core zonings in targeted locations and update planning

controls to increase density, including changing floor space ratio allowances and building height controls to facilitate the expansion of these markets; and

� help remove barriers to growth and promote more efficient land use outcomes, firstly, in Parramatta, Macquarie Park and Norwest.

These statements clearly illustrate that there is pressure to convert employment floor space to residential within existing centres that enjoy good access to public transport. However, the Regional Plan also realises that this pressure is likely to impact upon the ability to deliver sufficient floor space for employment functions in the medium to long term.

The subject site is located on the periphery of the North Sydney CBD, where there is currently substantial pressure for the conversion of commercial floor space to residential. Council has already made a concerted effort to increase residential opportunities at the periphery of the North Sydney Centre, whilst protecting the requirement for the provision of employment floor space directly adjacent to its commercial core. If Council is to allow further reductions in the non-residential floor space provision to land within or directly adjacent to the commercial core, it would significantly jeopardise Council’s ability to meet long term commercial demand. This approach aligns with the State Government’s desire to protect lands for the medium and long term growth of employment floor space in its existing centres.

Whilst it is recognised that the subject site is somewhat detached from the main part of the CBD due to the Warringah Expressway, the subject and adjoining sites site contains approximately 15,000sqm of non-residential floor space which comprises an important quantum of the overall stock of non-residential floor space in North Sydney. The subject site is also in close proximately to existing and future heavy rail infrastructure which lends itself to promotion of commercial activities over residential.

Of further note, whilst housing can essentially be accommodated anywhere, it’s far more difficult to appropriately locate employment generating floor space. Given the importance of locating employment generating floor space close to public transport, greater weight should be given to retaining existing employment related functions over housing, especially within and adjacent to existing commercial centres. These issues are further exacerbated by strata titling of residential development rarely being converted back for commercial purposes.

If preference is given to the provision of housing over employment generating opportunities, the strategic economic importance of identified centres under the Regional Plan will be severely undermined.



(37)

With respect to Action 1.6.1, it states that where residential pressure is being experienced in major suburban office markets, critical retail business and office space needs to be protected. The Proposal will result in an overall loss of commercial floor space within 580m walk of an existing railway station and 470m from a future railway station which is contrary to this Action.

Action 2.3.3 of the Regional Plan seeks to provide more opportunities for affordable housing. Whilst the Planning Proposal does not propose to provide any dwellings for affordable housing, potential exists to accommodate affordable housing within the concept proposal and could be addressed through the negotiation of a VPA. Requiring the applicant to provide affordable housing is acceptable given the significant uplift obtained by the proposed amendment to the planning controls. Should the Planning Proposal proceed, it is recommended that the applicant be required to provide affordable housing addressing the actions and goals of the Regional Plan.

The Regional Plan also sets out a number of priorities for the North Subregion and Strategic Centres within subregion. The relevant priorities as they relate to the subject site are as follows:

Priorities for the North SubregionA competitive economy � Preserve the corridor for Sydney Rapid Transit including a second harbour

rail crossing. Accelerate housing supply, choice and affordability and build great places to live � Work with councils to identify suitable locations for housing and employment

growth coordinated with infrastructure delivery (urban renewal) and train services, established and new centres, and along key public transport corridors including the North West Rail Link, the Western Line, the Cumberland Line, the Carlingford Line, the Bankstown Line and Sydney Rapid Transit.

Priorities for Strategic Centres – North Sydney� Work with the City of Sydney and North Sydney Council to:

o recognise and plan Global Sydney as a transformational place; o plan Sydney CBD as Australia’s premier location for employment,

supported by a vibrant mixture of land uses and cultural activity, and iconic places and buildings including Sydney Harbour, the Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge;

o provide capacity for long-term office growth in Sydney CBD; o provide capacity for additional mixed-use development in the precincts

that make up Global Sydney for offices, retail, tourism, arts, culture, services and housing;

o improve access to the CBD including through Sydney Rapid Transit and the CBD and South East Light Rail;

o investigate a potential light rail corridor from Parramatta to Sydney CBD via Parramatta Road; and

o improve walking and cycling connections between Global Sydney precincts and to the surrounding area.

NORTH SYDNEY CBD (IN NORTH SUBREGION)



(38)

� Retain a commercial core in North Sydney CBD for long-term employment growth.

� Investigate potential future employment and housing opportunities associated with a Sydney Rapid Transit train station at Victoria Cross (North Sydney).

The Planning Proposal is unlikely to adversely impact upon the implementation of the majority of these priorities. However, the proposal has the ability to adversely impact upon the capacity to increase commercial floor space in the long term. The long term provision of commercial floor space needs to be determined through strategic planning process. These issues are currently being addressed as a part of the North Sydney Centre Review, which extends to cover the subject site.

7.10.3. Draft Inner North Subregional Strategy In July 2007, the State Government released the draft Inner North Subregional Strategy. This Draft Strategy has yet to be finalised and adopted by the State Government. The State Government is currently preparing new draft subregional Strategies within which new (greater) housing and job targets will be set.

The Inner North Subregion is proposed to provide an additional 30,000 homes (from 2004) and 60,000 new jobs (from 2001) by 2031. The Draft Strategy sets targets for new dwellings and jobs of 5,500 and 15,000 respectively in 2031 for the North Sydney LGA, of which 11,000 jobs are to be accommodated within the North Sydney Centre which is identified as a “Strategic Centre”. Strategic Centres are to be the “focus of economic development within subregions”.

Objectives and Actions identified in the Regional Plan which are relevant to the Planning Proposal are as follows:

Objective A1: Provide suitable commercial sites and employment lands in strategic areas� Action A1.1: Provide a framework for accommodating jobs across the City Objective A3: Improve opportunities and access to jobs for disadvantaged

communities � Action A3.1: Embed skills development in major redevelopment projects � Action A3.2: Increase integration of employment and housing markets � Action A3.3: Encourage emerging businesses Objective B1: Provide places and locations for all types of economic activity and employment across the Sydney region � Action B1.2: Establish employment capacity targets for Strategic Centres Objective B2: Increase densities in centres whilst improving liveability � Action B2.1: Plan for housing in centres consistent with their employment

role Objective B3: Cluster businesses and knowledge–based activities in Strategic

Centres� Action B3.4: Ensure sufficient commercial office sites in Strategic Centres Objective B4: Concentrate activities near public transport � Action B4.1: Concentrate retail activity in Centres, business development

zones and Enterprise Corridors � Action B4.2: Support centres with transport infrastructure and services



(39)

Objective B5: Protect and strengthen the primary role of economic corridors � Action B5.1: Establish a stronger corridors planning and development

initiative Objective C1: Ensure adequate supply of land and sites for residential development � Action C1.2: Apply sustainability criteria for new urban development Objective C2: Plan for a housing mix near jobs, transport and services � Action C2.1: Focus residential development around centres, town centres,

villages and neighbourhood centres � Action C2.3: Provide a mix of housing Objective D3: Influence travel choices to encourage more sustainable travel

The Planning Proposal is generally consistent with some the above objectives and actions of the draft Subregional Strategy, in so far that it would enable an increase in residential accommodation provided on the subject site in an urbanised centre which is capable of utilising reasonable access to services and facilities.

However, the Planning Proposal is also contrary to the above objectives and actions of the draft Subregional Strategy, in so far that it will:

� result in a loss of non-residential commercial floor space over that permitted under NSLEP 2013 and that currently existing on the subject site;

� not strengthen the employment role of a Strategic Centre located within the Global Economic Corridor; and

� doing little to influence travel choices.

Action A1 of the Draft Strategy is to provide suitable commercial and employment lands in strategic areas. It seeks to achieve this in part by planning for sufficiently zoned land and infrastructure to achieve employment targets. In the preparation of NSLEP 2013, Council has demonstrated that the LEP is capable of delivering on the relevant employment targets set by the State Government. The Planning Proposal seeks to reduce the level of non-residential floor space within a strategic centre with good access to transport, services and facilities which is contrary to meeting this Action.

Action B1 to the Draft Strategy is to provide places and locations for all types of economic activity and employment across the Sydney Region. It seeks to achieve this by establishing a typology of centres and employment targets for strategic centres. The targets for North Sydney and their ability to be met are addressed above.

Action B2 to the Draft Strategy is to increase residential densities in centres whilst improving liveability. In particular, housing growth is to be planned such that it does not undermine the identified employment needs for a centre. In particular, the Draft Strategy states that North Sydney Council is to continue to restrict residential development within the commercial core of North Sydney CBD to support its economic role within Global Sydney and to encourage further residential development in other areas within access to key public transport nodes.

Council has complied with this action through the making of NSLEP 2013 by maintaining a prohibition on residential development in the commercial core and reducing the non-residential floor space requirements at the periphery of the North Sydney Centre to improve vitality. Whilst it is acknowledged that the subject site, along with the adjoining B3 Commercial Core zoned land, is detached from the primary core, the site enjoys high levels of



(40)

access to the existing railway station and will be further enhanced through the site’s proximity location to the new metro station.

Action B5 is to protect and strengthen the primary role of economic corridors. The substantial reduction in the provision of non-residential floor space over the subject site is contrary to achieving this Action.

Whilst housing can essentially be accommodated anywhere, it’s far more difficult to appropriately locate employment generating floor space. Given the importance of locating employment generating floor space close to public transport, greater weight should be given to retaining existing employment related functions over housing, especially within and adjacent to existing commercial centres. These issues are further exacerbated by strata titling of residential development rarely being converted back for commercial purposes.

If preference is given to the provision of housing over employment generating opportunities, the strategic economic importance of identified centres under the Regional Plan and Draft Strategy will be severely undermined.

Action C1 is to ensure adequate supply of land and sites for residential development. In particular, the North Sydney LGA is to accommodate an additional 5,500 dwellings. As indicated in section 7.10.4 to this report, Council’s Residential Development Strategy indicates that Council has sufficient land zoned to accommodate an additional 6,199 dwellings by 2031, which is well in excess of the minimum targets set by the Draft Strategy. Accordingly, there is no pressure for Council to alter the residential / commercial mix on the subject site to meet these targets.

Action C4 is to improve housing affordability. If the Planning Proposal proceeds, it is unlikely to result in the provision of any affordable housing for residents of North Sydney and definitely not when considering the wider population of Greater Sydney. If this Planning Proposal is to proceed, consideration should be given to ensuring that a portion of the development is allocated for affordable housing. It is common practice to require a minimum of 4% of all dwellings within a new high density development as affordable housing.

7.10.4. Residential Development Strategy The North Sydney Residential Development Strategy (RDS) identifies the potential for an additional 6,199 dwellings in the North Sydney LGA by 2031 under the provisions of NSLEP 2013. The RDS identifies that the North Sydney Centre, incorporating the subject site, has the capacity to supply 2,097 additional residential dwellings over the next 18 years, all of which are to be located in the B4 Mixed Use zone.

The State Government has indicated that Council needs to accommodate an additional 5,500 dwellings between 2004 and 2031. As indicated above, NSLEP 2013 has sufficient capacity to easily accommodate this target, without having to increase residential densities elsewhere.

It is also of relevance that capacity identified by the RDS does not establish any reliance on dwelling yield obtained through substantial non-compliances with core development controls, either through planning proposals, court based planning approvals or PAC/JRPP determinations which overturn assessment officers’ recommendations. In particular, substantial numbers of additional dwellings approved above and beyond that originally envisaged by NSLEP 2013 include the following:



(41)

� 6-16 Atchison Street, St Leonards � 7-19 Albany Street, St Leonards � 545 Pacific Highway, St Leonards � 144-154 Pacific Highway & 18 Berry Street, North Sydney � 200-220 Pacific Highway, Crows Nest

Whilst it is noted that new dwelling targets have been set by the State Government under APlan for Growing Sydney, the actual amounts to be accommodated within the North Sydney LGA and North Sydney Centre are currently unknown and will not necessarily result in a linear projection.

7.10.5. North Sydney Local Development Strategy The North Sydney Local Development Strategy (LDS) reflects the outcomes sought by the Metropolitan Plan, draft INSS and RDS. These issues are addressed in the previous subsection to this report.

7.10.6. State Environmental Planning Policies Each Planning Proposal must identify which State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP) are relevant to the proposal and demonstrate how they are consistent with that SEPP. The Planning Proposal is considered to be generally consistent with all relevant SEPPs, with the exception of SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment DevelopmentWhilst the Planning Proposal itself is generally consistent with the aims and objectives of the SEPP, the concept proposal that accompanies the Planning Proposal and that informs the amendments to NSLEP 2013 is inconsistent with the SEPP. In particular, the concept proposal is not in accordance with the setback criteria (refer to section 3F) of the associated Apartment Design Guide to its northern boundary.

If the concept proposal had been designed to comply with the relevant setback requirements of the Apartment Design Code, it is likely to result in a reduced proposed maximum building height and maximum floor space ratio control. These controls should not be amended until such time as Council has given consideration to a concept proposal that demonstrates strict compliance with these basic built form controls.

7.10.7. North Sydney Development Control Plan The concept proposal that accompanies the Planning Proposal is generally inconsistent with the requirements of North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013 (NSDCP 2013). In particular, the concept proposal does not comply with the following built form requirements under Section 2.1 – Central Business District to Part C of NSDCP 2013:

� Subdivision – results in isolation of adjoining properties incapable of meeting a minimum 1000sqm site area.

� Form massing and scale – the building does not result in a generally stepping down in height from the tallest buildings, being Northpoint down to the lower scale residential development to the east;

� Setbacks – the concept proposal does not incorporate the required setback to Alfred Street and Little Alfred Street; and



(42)

� Podiums – the concept proposal does not incorporate the required podium heights, or setbacks above the podium.

The proposed amendments to the building height and FSR controls are largely based massaging the built form across the site with no cognisance of the DCP controls. However, if the DCP controls were considered in the design of the concept proposal, then it would result in a vastly different built form outcome (i.e. reduced building height, and floor space ratio controls).

If the Planning Proposal is to proceed in its current form, then NSDCP 2013 would need to be amended concurrently to ensure that the controls within the DCP are not undermined by granting substantial variations to those controls.

7.10.8. North Sydney Centre Review In 2014, Council commenced a comprehensive review of its planning controls as it relates to the North Sydney Centre in accordance with the requirements under Division 1 to Part 6 of NSLEP 2013.

Despite being zoned B3 Commercial Core, the subject site is located just outside of the North Sydney Centre and has been excluded from all studies that relate the North Sydney Review. On this basis the Planning Proposal suggests that Council does not consider the subject site to form part of the North Sydney Centre and therefore the B3 Commercial Core is no longer the most suitable zoning for the site.

Council acknowledges to date that the subject site has not been included in any adopted studies undertaken by Council. However, the subject site along with a number of other sites located adjacent to the North Sydney Centre are currently being investigated by Council as part of its North Sydney Centre Review. None of these investigations have yet been considered by Council or have been placed on public exhibition for comment.

Preliminary investigations have concluded that the B3 Commercial Core area, located to the east of the Warringah Freeway, houses around 15,000sqm of non-residential floor space which comprises an important quantum of the overall stock of non-residential floor space in North Sydney.

A significant loss of commercial floor space on the subject site will have significant implications for the provision of employment floor space elsewhere in the North Sydney Centre. Therefore, it is considered premature to consider any changes to the planning controls of the subject site until these investigations have been completed.

8. Public Submissions Four (4) submissions were received in response to the lodgement of the Planning Proposal, despite not having being placed on public exhibition. The submissions have been made as a result of residents and property owners being informed of the proposals lodgement via Council’s Planning Proposal Tracking website.

Whilst there are no statutory requirements to publicly exhibit a planning proposal or consider any submissions made in relation to a planning proposal before the issuance of a Gateway Determination, the issues raised in the submissions have been considered as part of this report.



(43)

All four submissions objected to the Planning Proposal from proceeding in its current form. A summary of the submissions and response to the issues raised is provided in Attachment 2 to this report. In summary, the key issues raised include:

� Disagrees with the proposed increases in the built form controls to enable the redevelopment of the site on the basis of financial feasibility;

� Overshadowing impacts; � Privacy impacts to existing residences; � Lack of setback to the northern boundary; � Reduced development potential of adjoining sites; � Lack of public consultation; � Equity in increasing the built form controls when the existing development

already breaches these; and � Traffic impacts.

A copy of the submissions made have been provided for the Councillors information in the Councillor Room.

9. CONCLUSION

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the zoning, building height and floor space ratio range requirements of NSLEP 2013 as it relates to the subject site.

It is considered the Planning Proposal is generally set out in accordance with the relevant requirements under s.55(2) of the EP&A Act. However, it is not considered to be in accordance with the requirements under s.55(3) of the EP&A Act which require Planning Proposals to be prepared in accordance with the DPE’s ‘A guide to preparing planning proposals’(2012). In particular, the Planning Proposal does not contain sufficient and clear information to make a considered assessment.

Whilst the Planning Proposal would result in the increased provision of residential accommodation in close proximity to transport, services and facilities, the Planning Proposal cannot be supported for the following reasons:

� The proposal is not underpinned by a comprehensive strategic planning study for the locality particularly in relation to commercial floor space and the site and general precinct’s relationship to other B3 zoned land in the North Sydney Centre;

� The proposal has the potential to undermine future strategic planning for the North Sydney Centre;


� It is contrary to the actions and objectives of the Regional Plan A Plan for Growing Sydney and the draft Inner North Draft Subregional Strategy to promote North Sydney as the highest order Strategic Centre within an economic corridor or enable the Centre’s growth over time.

� It will result in a reduction of commercial floor space over the site which is inconsistent with Direction 1.1 – Business and Industrial Zones to the S117 Directions under the EP&A Act.



(44)

� The proposal would isolate the immediately adjoining sites, severely reducing their potential for redevelopment;

� It is unclear whether the proposed amendments to the LEP are required to make the redevelopment of the site financially viable;

� The proposed public benefits identified within the letter of offer, which would ultimately form part of a future Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) may be undervalued in relation to the potential up-lift that would be achieved by implementing the proposed amendments to the LEP; and

� Sufficient residential capacity is already provided under North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (NSLEP 2013) and foreshadowed in the planning studies for St Leonards and Crows Nest, without the need to further alter the development mix upon the site.

It is therefore recommended that Council resolve not to support the forwarding of the Planning Proposal to the DPE, seeking a Gateway Determination under s.56 of the EP&A Act. In addition, the applicant should be encouraged to engage with the North Sydney Centre Review process which is currently being prepared.


c:\users\boyben\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet

files\content.ie5\mjv6xxks\ecm_6629905_v1_275 alfred st north sydney - pgr_2016_north_001_00.doc

Ms Karen Armstrong

Director Metro Delivery CBD

NSW Department of Planning and Environment

GPO Box 39

SYDNEY NSW 2001

BB3 (CIS)

Attention: Yolande Miller

14 April 2016

Dear Yolande,

RE: PGR_2016_NORTH_001_00 – 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney

I refer to the telephone conversation between Yolande Miller and Ben Boyd of North

Sydney Council on 17 March 2016, with regard to the Pre-Gateway Review in relation to

275 Alfred Street, North Sydney. In particular, it was requested if Council could provide

additional information as to how the existing building on the site was originally approved.

This letter provides a brief outline of the planning and approval history in relation to the

subject site and the current area of land currently zoned B3 Commercial Core, which is

located on the eastern side of the Warringah Freeway. Please be aware, that the information

provided does not comprise an exhaustive and absolute history, as some information has

not been able to be obtained to date.

Planning History – 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney

Date Instrument /

Application

Comment

19 April 1963 North Sydney

Planning Scheme

Ordinance (NSPSO)

Subject site and all land currently zoned B3 Commercial

Core east of the Warringah Freeway is zoned Residential

‘A’.

Low scale residential development is the predominant form

of development permissible in the Residential ‘A’ zone.

Maximum building height of 3 storeys applies, unless

consent is obtained to go higher (subject to the provisions

of the Heights of Building Act)

All sites contain detached dwelling houses.

5 April 1968 Interim Development

Order No.14 (IDO

14)

Applies to the subject site and all land currently zoned B3

Commercial Core east of the Warringah Freeway.

Repeals the provisions of NSPSO as it relates to the subject

lands.

Adopts the 1965 Model Provisions

Original signed by Marcelo Occhiuzzi on 14/4/2016

- 2 –




Date Instrument /

Application

Comment

Only development permissible with or without consent in

the Commercial 3(a) zone under the NSPSO is permissible.

Shops are permissible without consent. Any use is

permissible with consent other than that which is prohibited.

All residential development is prohibited unless it

comprises a dwelling house used in conjunction with a

shop.

No other controls apply.

No information has been found to date as to how this IDO

came about.

Rescinded by IDO 60 on 29 August 1975.

28 November

1968

DA 68/22484 DA lodged for the demolition of the detached dwellings at

275-281 Alfred Street to accommodate a 140ft (42.7m)

commercial office building comprising 14 office floors

above a 3 level podium (one located below Alfred Street).

The podium level occupies the entire site, boundary to

boundary.

The tower element measures 65ft 5in (19.9m) wide by 140ft

6in (42.8m) deep.

21 January

1969

DA 68/22484 DA granted consent subject to conditions; including

o Redesigning and repositioning of the building to give

suitable setbacks to from Little Alfred Street and the

side boundaries

Council assessment report of 21 January 1969 notes that:

o No consultation was required with the State Planning

Authority in issuing approval.

o Approval was granted to 3 storey commercial buildings

on either side of the subject site (283 and 273 Alfred

Street) in 1968.

March 1969 IDO 14 State Planning Authority consider making amendments to

IDO 14.

24 June 1969 DA 68/22484 Minister for Local Government grants in principle support

for approval under the Heights of Building Act.

20 August

1969

DA 68/22484

(Revision) Revised plans submitted to address the conditions imposed

on the development consent. Proposed development now

comprises:

o 150ft (45.7m) tall commercial building comprising 12

office floors above a 5 level podium.

o The tower element measuring 71ft (21.6m) wide by

117ft (35.7m) deep.

- 3 –




Date Instrument /

Application

Comment

o The building being setback 20ft (6.1m) from Alfred

Street.

o The building being setback 15ft (4.6m) from Little

Alfred Street.

28 October

1969

DA 68/22484

(Revision) Amended DA plans approved by Council by resolution,

subject to conditions, which included the dedication of land

to widen Little Alfred Street.

16 January

1970

DA 68/22484

(Revision) State Planning Authority issues approval under the Heights

of Building Act subject to conditions including:

o The building not exceeding 150ft (45.7m) high;

o The building not exceeding 80ft wide by 80ft deep;

o The building not exceeding an FSR of 8.5:1.

2 February

1970

DA 70/1019 DA lodged to demolish the detached dwellings at 275-281

Alfred Street to accommodate a 150ft (45.7m) commercial

office building comprising 16 office floors above a 3 level

basement.

This DA comprises a revised version of DA 68/22484, with

the plans for the proposed building being revised to be

consistent with the State Planning Authority’s approval

under the Heights of Buildings Act dated 16 January 1970.

The proposed building now comprises a freestanding tower

measuring 80ft (24.4m) wide by 80ft (24.4m) deep and

located almost centrally on the site.

The building has an FSR of 7.4:1

10 March

1970

DA 70/1019 DA approved by Council by resolution, subject to

conditions, one of which stated that the development

consent to DA 68/22484 (and its subsequent amendments)

are superseded.

12 October

1971

DA 70/1019 State Planning Authority issues Certificate of Approval to

occupy the building.

29 August

1975

Interim Development

Order No.60 (IDO

60)

Applies to approximately half the LGA including the

subject site and all land currently zoned B3 Commercial

Core east of the Warringah Freeway.

Repeals the provisions of NSPSO as it relates to the subject

lands.

Subject site and all land currently zoned B3 Commercial

Core east of the Warringah Freeway is zoned Business

Restricted ‘3(d)’.

The following development is permissible with consent in

- 4 –




Date Instrument /

Application

Comment

the Business Restricted 3(d) zone:

Most commercial activities are permissible with consent.

Residential development is prohibited unless it comprises a

dwelling house, boarding house or residential flat building

in conjunction with commercial premises, shops or office

space.

A maximum whole of building FSR of 3.5:1 applies to the



A maximum non-residential FSR of 2:1 applies to the



3 November

1989

NSLEP 1989 The subject site and all land currently zoned B3

Commercial Core east of the Warringah Freeway:

o Zoned Commercial ‘A’ permitting a wide variety of land

uses including residential in isolation.

o A maximum building height of 4 storeys

o A maximum building FSR of 3.5:1

o A maximum commercial floorspace 2:1

1 June 2001 NSLEP 2001 LEP gazetted.

The subject site and all land currently zoned B3

Commercial Core east of the Warringah Freeway were

deferred from inclusion within the LEP, therefore NSLEP

1989 applied.

28 February

2003

NSLEP 2001

(Amendment No.9 Amendment No.9 gazetted.



o Are zoned Commercial. Most commercial activities are

permitted, but residential development is prohibited.

o Maximum building height of 13m applies.

o Maximum FSR of 3.5:1 applies.

13 September

2013

NSLEP 2013 LEP gazetted



o Are zoned B3 Commercial Core. Most commercial

activities are permitted, but residential development is

prohibited.

o Maximum building height of 13m applies.

- 5 –




Date Instrument /

Application

Comment

o Maximum FSR of 3.5:1 applies.

During our research in relation to 275 Alfred Street, we have also found reference to a

similar proposal (15 storey tall commercial building) that was subject to a development

application on land at 265-269 Alfred Street. This site is situated to the south of the subject

site fronting Whaling Road. The application was lodged with Council and the State

Planning Authority of NSW 6 weeks after the development application for 275 Alfred

Street. Whilst the development application for 275 Alfred Street was approved, the State

Planning Authority would not grant their approval for the proposal at 265-269 Alfred

Street. It is understood, that the State Planning Authority did not wish to see any other tall

buildings located in the commercial zone to the east of the Warringah Freeway.

Council staff has not yet reviewed the property file relating to this development application

and are not at this point able to provide any details as to the real reasons why the

application was not approved. This application may have in part triggered the superseding

of IDO 14.

Summary

It is unclear how IDO 14 originally came about, which effectively zoned all of the land

currently zoned B3 Commercial Core to the east of the Warringah Freeway solely for

commercial purposes. It is even more unclear as to why development standards had not

been applied to these parcels at the time (1968). However, it would appear that the then

NSW Planning Department never envisaged tall towers across the entire street block.

Further research may result in the justifications being determined. Notwithstanding, it

would appear that the current building is an anomaly, which was not envisaged to be

repeated to the east of the Freeway.

Should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned on

9936 8100.

Yours faithfully,

MARCELO OCCHIUZZI

MANAGER STRATEGIC PLANNING

Ref. No: PGR_2016_NORTH_001 00

Planning &Environment

PRE-GATEWAY REVIEW - lnformation Assessment and Recommendation Report

1. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL

The planning proposal seeks to redevelop land at275 Alfred Street, Notlh Sydney (the site) asa mixed-use tower building comprising 24 levels of residential apartments above two levels ofretail/commercial uses. The site, commonly referred to as the'Bayer Building', comprises oneallotment and has a site area of 1,334m2. The site is bounded by Alfred Street to the west, LittleAlfred Street to the east, and commercial development to the north and south (refer to Figures1 and 2).

Figure 1: Location of site (outlined in red). Source: Near Map 2016

tÐ-

1

ú

Pre (lrìte\,v¿ry P,ovrew 2/5 ¿\lirecl iitreel Nr.rrtlt Syclney

Local Governmental Area: North Sydney

Amended LEP: North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013

Address: 275 Alfred Street, North Sydney

X Council notified proponent itwill not support proposedamendment

! Councilfailed to indicatesupport for proposal within g0

daysReason for review:

ls a disclosure statement relating toreportable political donations under s147 olthe Act required and provided?

X Provided n ruln

Gomment: There are no donations or gifts to be disclosed

X Provided & correct E ruot provided / incorrectAssessment Fee:

The Site

The Site

site in red). Source: Mecone 2015

To achieve a mixed-use development on the site, the planning proposal seeks to amend theNotth Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (NSLEP 2013), as follows.

o rezone the site from 83 Commercial Core to 84 Mixed Use (refer to Figure 3);. increase the maximum building height for the site from 13m (existing building 52.36m) to

85m (refer to Figure 4); and. increase the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) for the site from 3.5:1 (existing building

7.3:1) to 10.2:1 (refer to Figure 5).

Figure 3: Current and Proposed zoning controls. Source: Grimshaw 2015

Figure 4: Current and Proposed building height controls, Source: Grimshaw 2015

2

The Site The Site

Land Zon¡ng

øãrûdf Csr¡l¡ad \,¡a

!ilutütl¡ Ctlltìtrür!¡rr¡qüût¡Urñ¡xr¡üiIrhr¡h¡altrfl.'JÈìrùiaÊìl¡l

Looürtir¡ûrtt

o æn.d ¡thnffitB D aidrnt¡l

tLand Zoning

CoãntË¡ Cnþrtl¡.Aì,nñrû¡¡øtrÌürlftûmì5r¡lu9tnm.ú¡ufs¡Ðlìtriûr¡Løl|!ì3ti¡ül!¡

ll$Orírti..ünill

rty tgn.d It bln ornntur u a¡ì¡|nblL

The Site

Gurrent Heiqht of Buildinq controls

Max¡mum Build¡ngHe¡ght (m)

ùtur0 ¡¡fl¡t12 tort ¡trt a4

t6 ¡42

r9-r5 a9

¡! Í{

t0It

The Site

H ht of Buildi

Maximum Build¡ngHe¡ght (m)

it ,tr0 ¡5fl2t12 JO

ft !!16 .0r¡ ¿¡

r9-rÉ 17

¡¡ t0

00

t6

Pre Gatev/ay Rerriew. 2/5 Allr¡d Street, North Syclrrey

The Site

rS

¡

I

fr2?.3

¡,5

10t.!t,?

r¡1

I

The Site

Floor Ratio

(

"ù¿

{

ü,¿: ttl: II,S

zot,tl,?

t,0

Figure 5: Current and Proposed floor space ratio controls. Source: Grimshaw 2015

The planning proposal would enable the development of a new 26-storey mixed-use tower,which includes the following:

. 118 residential apartments (39 x one-bedroom, 46 x two-bedroom and 33 x three-bedroom) (Levels 2to25), totalling 12,418 square metres of residential gross floor area;

. 1,224 square metres of commerc¡al and retail gross floor area (Ground and First Floor);

. 5 basement levels incorporating servicing and parking for approximately 112 car spaces(Levels LG to 84); and

o public domain improvements, including a pedestrian walkway from Alfred Street to LittleAlfred Street and upgrade works to the Mount Street walkway across the WarringahFreeway as part of a proposed Planning Agreement.

The proposal seeks a 40o/o increase in density (compared to the existing building) as a minimumto make redevelopment of the site financially viable,

The site is zoned 83 Commercial Core and contains an 18-storey commercial building (Groundfloor retail and 17 levels of commercial office space). The existing building on site does notcomply with the height and FSR controls under NSLEP 2013. The building has a height of 53.36metres and an FSR of 7.3'.1, yet the height and FSR controls for the site (and also the entire 83Commercial Core block within which the site is located) are 13 metres and 3,5:1 respectively.

The commercial zoned block east of the Warringah Freeway is bounded by Alfred Street,Whaling Road, Little Alfred Street and low density residential development to the noÉh. This 83Commercial Core block is separated (approximately 140 metres) from the North Sydney CentralBusiness District (CBD) by the Warringah Freeway (refer to Figure 6).

The low density residential development immediately east of the site is within the Whaling RoadHeritage Conservation Area and contains a number of local heritage items identified in NSLEP2013 (refer to Figure 9).

Pre-Gateway Review 275 Allrecl Street, North Sydney

Ângelo

d?s,

Irà!l.tj/ cl

wt,ah,rn

l:i

q

o'9?

Figure 6: The Site compared to North Sydney GBD Planning Poftal2016

The site is approximately a 600 metre walking distance of North Sydney Train Station(southwest of the site) and 500 metre walking distance of regular bus services along the PacificHighway. ln addition, the Nodh Sydney Ferry Wharf is located within a one kilometre walkingdistance of the site.

The Department recommends that the planning proposal proceed to the Sydney East JointRegional Planning Panel for independent review. While it is considered that there is somestrategic merit given the supply of additional housing in close proximity to jobs and in a locationwell serviced by public transporl, the Department has the following site-specific concerns withthe proposal:

. the proposed height, bulk and scale should be considered in relation to the adjoiningdevelopment;

. the rezoning of this one site would isolate the adjoining sites within the block, andpotentially limit the viability of these adjacent sites for future redevelopment; and

. arìy future proposal would need to consider the entire block currently zoned 83Commercial Core including zoning, land use, height and density, traffic implications,visual and related impacts on the surrounding low density residential area.

2. REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 55 OF THE EP&A ACT

2.1 Objective and intended outcomes:The following objectives and intended outcomes have been put forward by the applicant:

. to provide for a mixed use development in close proximity to public transport and otherservices;

. to facilitate the redevelopment of an ageing commercial building in need ofredevelopment;

. to facilitate a development that will offer an appropriate transition between low densityresidential and high density commercial;

. to provide for increased permeability in the area by delivering a site through-link andupgrade the existing Mount Street walkway across the Warringah Freeway;

. to provide for additional dwellings in an urban area while minimizing adverse impacts onthe surrounding public domain and residential areas;

. to facilitate high quality architectural design that responds to its context;

. to refine Council's strategy of consolidating the commercial core and surrounding it withmixed use; and

. to assist in achieving State and local government housing targets.

Pre'(laiiJ'iv:-ìy fì,-vrew 275 Alfrerri Sirer;1, North Sydney 4

The Site

2.2 Explanation of provisions:The proponent has suggested the following amendments to the NSLEP 2013 for the site.

. rezone from 83 Commercial Core to 84 Mixed Use by amending the Land Use ZoningMrp;

. alter the maximum building height from 13m, by increasing the height along Alfred Streetto B5m and decreasing the height along Little Alfred Street to 12m by amending theHeight of Building Map (note: existing building is 52.36m); and

. increase the maximum floor space ratio from 3.5:1 to 10.2:1 by amending the FloorSpace Ratio Map (note: existing building is 7.3:1).

2.3 Mapping:The planning proposal contains sufficient images and mapping of the site and of thesurrounding context. lt demonstrates the current and proposed land zoning, building height andFSR controls applicable to the site and the surrounding area.

2.4 Community consultation (including agencies to be consulted):The proponent has indicated that community consultation would be conducted in accordancewith any Gateway determination. Should the proposal proceed to Gateway, consultation withthe following public agencies is recommended: Transport for NSW, Roads and MaritimeServices, Energy Australia, Sydney Water, Department of Education and Communities andNSW Ministry of Health.

A public exhibition period of 28 days is recommended should the proposal proceed to Gateway

3. VIEWS OF COUNCIL AND AGENCIES

3.l Gomments from North Sydney GouncilCouncil resolved not to support the planning proposal at its 15 February 2016 meeting for thefollowing reasons:

. the proposal is not underpinned by a comprehensive strategic planning study for thelocality, particularly in relation to the commercial floor space of the North Sydney CBD;

o potential to undermine any future strategic planning for the North Sydney CBD and wouldset an unacceptable precedent;

o it is contrary to the actions and objectives of A Plan for Growing Sydney which identifiesNorth Sydney as a Strategic Centre within the Global Economic Corridor;

. it will result in a reduction of commercial floor space over the site which is inconsistentwith S1 17 Direction 1 .1 - Business and lndustrial Zones;

. the proposal would isolate the immediately adjoining sites, significantly impacting on theirpotential for redevelopment;

. it is unclear whether the proposed amendments to the LEP are required to make theredevelopment of the site financially viable;

. the proposed public benefits identified within the letter of offer, which would ultimatelyform part of a future Planning Agreement may be undervalued in relation to the potentialup-lift that would be achieved by implementing the proposed amendments to the LEP'and

. sufficient residential capacity is already provided under Norfh Sydney LocalEnvironmental Plan 2013 (NSLEP 2013) and foreshadowed in the planning studies for StLeonards and Crows Nest, without the need to further alter the development mix uponthe site.

ÃPre'Gatelv:ry Revic.w. 2/5 ¡\lfred Street North Sy':lney

4, PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT

4.1 Strategic merit assessment4.1.1 A Plan for Growino Svdnev 2014

ln December 2014, the Department released A Plan for Growing Sydney (the Plan), the longterm strategic plan for metropolitan Sydney.

The site is located in the Norlh Subregion and within the Global Economic Corridor which isidentified for "concentrated employment, economic activity and other uses in centres, transportgateways and industrial zoned land extending from Port Botany and Sydney Airport, throughSydney CBD, noÍh-west through Macquarie Park, and towards Noruest, Parramatta andSydney Olympic Park".

f \lFT

ST

\

O c:o

Q s rc¡c.r.

O r--kúr(r,b

6di k:¡ntr. cridr

ffi P¡llgnulÐr¡iy

=+ rrlpdtlißrTr--n

---\ BÐC !úhry

.t

ß

Figure 7: Extract from Á Plan for Sydney 2014

The planning proposal is inconsistent with the Plan's Directions as follows

Direction 1.6: Expand the Global Economic Corridor, as employment opportunities willnot be expanded as a result of the proposal;Direction 1.7: Grow strategic centres - providing more jobs closer to home, as theproposal will reduce employment floor space and result in fewer jobs on site.

However, the planning proposal is consistent with the Directions of the Plan associated withhousing, including:

. Direction 2.1 and Action 2.1.1 as it would increase the local housing supply and choice inclose proximity to jobs and serviced by frequent public transport;

o Direction 2.2 and Action 2.2.2 as it would facilitate urban infill and increase housingproduction around a strategic employment centre and transport corridors;

. Direction 2.3, Actions 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 as it would provide a range of housing choices tosuit different needs and lifestyles;

. Direction 3.3 as it would support a healthy built environment by providing housing in

walking distance to existing employment and services; and. North Subregion priority to accelerate housing supply, choices and affordability and build

great places to live.

4.1.2 Section 1'17 DirectionsThe proposal's consistency with the key relevant section 117 directions are outlined below

Direction 1.1 Business and lndustrial ZonesThe planning proposal will rezone the site from 83 Commercial Core to 84 Mixed Use, andtherefore commercial uses will remain permissible on the site. However, the 9,756sqm ofemployment gross floor area (GFA) currently provided by the exiting commercial building will bereduced lo 1,224sqm of employment GFA as a result of the site's proposed redevelopment. lt is

o

a

i,lt: (ì tr 1r¡r 1r7 ll;y,r\r/ )/ ),\itr -,1'iir ,,'¡ itl't¡i r ìyri rr;r7 6

lndicativelocation

I

noted that there are discrepancies in the planning proposal documentation as to how muchemployment floor space is proposed to be provided.

The proponent justifies the proposal's inconsistency with objectives of this Direction based onthe following:

. the site is considered unsuitable for continued commercial use - the existing building willcontinue to deteriorate and it contribution to employment will decline;

o redevelopment for commercial use is not financially viable given the site's isolatedlocation;

. the site is not considered an appropriate location for future employment growth associatewith commercial office uses;

. a more economically suitable use of the site is mixed use;

. the proposal will not harm the viability of North Sydney CBD's commercial core; and

. exclusion of the site from Council's ongoing North Sydney Centre Review as well as theNorth Sydney Centre Economic Review implies the site is not of major significance to theNorth Sydney commercial core.

Further detail on the above points are addressed by the accompanied Economic lmpactAssessment Repod prepared by the AEC Group.

The proponent concludes that the proposal's inconsistency with this Direction is considered tobe of minor significance as the site is unsuited for continued commercial use.

Given the proposal will result in a net reduction in the totalfloor space area for employmentuses, the proposal is considered inconsistent with this Direction. However, the role andcontribution of the site (as well as the other commercial zoned sites east of the WarringahFreeway), to the Nodh Sydney Centre is questionable. lt is noted that while the block of land towhich the site is a paft of is zoned 83 Commercial Core, it is not included as parl of the definedNotlh Sydney Centre in the NSLEP 2013 NoÍh Sydney Centre Map, nor does it form part of anyof Council's recently published studies supporting the North Sydney Centre Review.

Furthermore, the land at the southern end of the commercial block, identified as 263-269 AlfredStreet, North Sydney, is comprised of terraces that permit partial or full residential use despitethe 83 Commercial Core zone that applies.

Direction 2.3 Heritage ConseruationThe Whaling Road Heritage Conservation Area and a number of heritage items are located tothe north and east of the site (refer to Figure 9). The proponent states that the proposeddevelopment will not have an adverse impact on the heritage conservation area and a furtherassessment will be provided at the development application stage.

It

¡¡f.t

Figure 9: Whaling Road nservation Area

ØtrE¡t5

ffih.-

7

The Site

Pre Gaterrvay Rcvrew 2/5 Alfred Street, North Syclney

in red). Source: NSLEP 2013

However, the proposed height increase will extend the shadow impacts further across theheritage conservation area and heritage items to the east of the site (refer to Section 4.2.3 andFigure 11 of this report). Should the proposal proceed to Gateway, the proponent shouldaddress this Direction by assessing the potential visual, amenity and overshadowing impactsupon the heritage conservation area and heritage items.

Direction 7.1 lmplementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney (2014)This Direction gives legal effect specifically to the planning principles, directions, and prioritiesfor subregions, strategic centres and transporl gateways contained in A Plan for GrowingSydney. Whilst the proposal is consistent with housing objectives, it is inconsistent withobjectives to protect commercial land. A more detailed analysis of the proposal's consistencywith A PIan for Growing Sydney has been provided at Section 4.1.1 of this Report.

4.1.3 Local Strateqv

North Sydney Local Development Strategy 2009The North Sydney Local Development Strategy (LDS) 2009 sets out the strategic vision forNorth Sydney Council by identifying appropriate planning policies to manage the future natural,cultural, economic and built environment of North Sydney. The proposal will reduce the existingcommercial office space and employment opportunities within the site, therefore conflicts withthe key direction to plan for 15,000 additional jobs by 2031 and protecting existing employmentland.

However, the planning proposal is consistent with Council's key directions to provide anadditional 5,500 dwellings in accordance with the draft lnner North Subregional Strategy by2031. As the site is disconnected from the commercial core of the Sydney CBD, the loss ofcommercial floor space is considered to be minor.

Norfh Sydney Residential Strategy 2009The North Sydney Residential Strategy (RDS) 2009 guides North Sydney's residentialdevelopment over the next 25 years. lt identifies the potential for 6,000 dwellings in the NorthSydney LGA by 2031 which the planning proposal supports through the provision of anadditional 1 18 new dwellings. The RDS notes the impacts on local character, amenity,environment and heritage surrounding lower density suburbs are minimised by locating themajority of new residential development in the high density mixed use centres.

The bulk and scale of the proposed development is considered to be excessive compared to theneighbouring low density residential area and will generate negative impacts on theneighbourhood, including overshadowing. The proposed development is 26 storeys (B5m),whilst the adjoining commercial development is currently 3-storeys with a maximum buildingheight of 13m and the adjacent residential area is predominantly 1-2 storeys (8.5m). lt is notedthat the current building at 18 storeys (52m), exceeds the current height limits, yet is a one-offhigher building in a low density environment. Should the proposal proceed to Gateway, theproposed building height should be reviewed to enable a more appropriate transition from lowerdensity residential to the east of the site to the commercial towers located in the North SydneyCBD.

Notfh Sydney Centre Review 2014/15ln 201412015 Council commenced a multi-faceted, comprehensive planning review of the NorthSydney CBD and its growing mixed use periphery. The Review aims to identify and implementpolicies and strategies to ensure that the North Sydney Centre retains and strengthens its roleas a key component of Sydney's Global Economic Corridor, remains the principle economicengine of Sydney's North Shore, and becomes a more attractive, sustainable and vibrant placefor residents, workers and businesses.

aPrr-. [ìarte',vay Revrew 27li /\lfr¿r.l Street North Syrlrr,ry

The studies informing the overall Review will include

. Traffic and Pedestrian Management study

. Public Domain Review

. Late Night Trading and Small Bars study

. Capacity, Built Form and Land Use review

. Marketing and Promotion study

As noted by the proponent, the site has been excluded from Council's ongoing Norlh SydneyCentre Review, which strongly implies that the site is not of major significance to the NorthSydney commercial core.

The Department queried Council staff as to whether the Capacity, Built Form and Land UseReview currently undenruay will include the commercial zoned land east of the WarringahFreeway. Council staff advised that the capacity component of this study does not incorporatethe site and surrounding commercial block in its study area. Therefore, Council's argument that"the proposal has the ability to adversely impact upon the capacity to increase commercial floorspace in the long term" is questioned given this land is not included in Council's study toestablish existing capacity or consider opportunities and constraints faced in expanding theNorth Sydney Centre laterally.

4.2 Site-Specific merit assessment4.2.1 Proposed Built Form

The Design Report prepared by Grimshaw Architects, illustrates the built form outcome of theplanning proposal (refer to Figure 10). The proposed development will add an additional 33metres above the existing building on site or an additional 72 metres above what is currentlyallowed for under NSLEP 2013's building height controls.

The existing built form is considered visually out-of-character and vedically excessive whencompared to the adjoining commercial development and the low density residential to the site'seast. Allowing for further uplift on the site as sought by the planning proposal will only furtherexacerbate the dominating form of this isolated site.

Figure 10: Current and proposed built form (east view ey CBD). Source: Grimshaw Architects 2015

4.2.2 Overshadowing impactsThe Design Report prepared by Grimshaw Architects includes shadow diagrams (pages100,1 01, 104 and 105) however these diagrams do not adequately distinguish the extent of

l' rl (-ìiltr,:'rri;ty llllVll\,V )/ '. ¡\lir,,;tl litritrtt irlotlll '-.ìV,irli;'¡ 9

bI

r¡Proposed Built Form

-\\

shadows cast by the existing and proposed development. Rather, the shadow diagramsdistinguish areas of red and blue shaded areas which relates to the solar access requirementsof Sfafe Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential ApaftmentDevelopmenf (SEPP 65) and the Apartment Design Guide.

The red shaded areas indicate the facades that currently have more than 3 hours of sunlightand are reduced below 3 hours on the 21st of June from 9:00am to 3:00pm and the blue shadedareas indicate the facades that currently have less than 3 hours of sunlight and are furtherreduced by more than 20o/o on the 21"1 of June from 9:00am to 3:00pm.

Given that the solar access analysis is not clear on the overall impact, should the proposalproceed to Gateway, a comprehensive shadow analysis should be undertaken.

4.3 Services and lnfrastructure4.3.1 Public transport - trains, buses and ferries

The site is well serviced with public transport infrastructure as it is within approximately 600metre walking distance of North Sydney Train Station (southwest of the site) with regularservices to the Sydney CBD, Redfern, Chatswood, Strathfield, Lidcombe and Hornsby. The siteis also within 500 metre walking distance of regular bus services along the Pacific Highwayproviding connections to various locations across the Sydney metropolitan region (such as theSydney CBD, Botany, Bondi Junction, Chatswood, Rouse Hill, Castle Hill, Kellyville andDaceyville). ln addition, the Nodh Sydney Ferry Wharf is located within a one kilometre walkingdistance of the site with ferry services stopping at Circular Quay, Kirribilli, Kurraba Point andNeutral Bay.

4.3.2 Traffic and car parkinqThe planning proposal is supported by a Transport Assessment Report by ARUP Pty Ltd. Therepod concludes that the proposed development will result in a minimal change in both peakhours and that the Whaling Road / Little Alfred Street intersection (south of site) is operatingwell under capacity in both the existing and future traffic conditions.

Vehicular access to the site is currently via Little Alfred Street which is a two-lane road with on-street parking on one side. Little Alfred Street is also the access road for various residentialdwellings and garages, as well as the basement car parking associated with the 83 Commercialcore block.

The proposed development will retain the existing vehicular access location and provide 112 carparking spaces, however, the proposal does not meet the car parking requirements of SfafeEnvironmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Developmentwhich requires 163 car spaces and the North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013 whichrequires 98 car spaces, 10 motorcycle spaces and up to 125 secure bicycle spaces.

Although, the traffic report notes that proposed development will not negatively impact theexisting traffic, it does not consider the potential densification of the entire 83 Commercial Coreblock and the impacts on the residential development fronting Little Alfred Street.

4.3.3 lnfrastructure and servicesThe site has access to existing infrastructure, utilities and services. As the proposal wouldintensify development on the site, it is recommended that relevant state infrastructure serviceproviders are consulted, including Sydney Water, Energy Australia, NSW Ministry for Health,and NSW Depaftment of Education and Communities, should the proposal proceed to Gateway

4.3.4 Open space and communitv facilities

Pre Gateway Fìevrer¡ 2r'fj Alfr..'rl Street florth Syclney 10

The site is accessible to open space and community facilities, including Anderson Park,Warringa Park, Forsyth Park, Kirribilli Tennis Centre, North Sydney Tennis Centre, St LeonardsPark, North Sydney Oval, Mater North Sydney Hospital and local schools.

4.4 Other lssues4.4.1 Precinct Masterplan

The Design Report prepared by Grimshaw Architects includes a precinct masterplan for theentire commercial zoned block east of the Warringah Freeway (refer to Figure 11). The reportexplains that the majority of the sites in the block (with the exception of the subject site) haveshown to be under developed by up to 50% of what the FSR allows for under the existingcontrols in NSLEP 2013. The masterplan is based on increasing the built form FSR on alladjoining sites to the maximum amount that could be achieved under existing controls, andexceeding existing building height limits.

The precinct masterplan would result in:. Nos 271-273 and 263-269 Alfred Street being built to 9 storeys fronting Alfred Street and

2 stories along Little Alfred Street.. No 283 Alfred Street increasing in height to 7 stories fronting Alfred Street and 4 stories

along Little Alfred Street.

Figure l1 : Proposed Precinct Plan, Source: Grimshaw Architects 2015

The proposal's concept design is built to the boundary with No. 283 Alfred Street, whicheffectively restricts the development potential of this adjoining lot to.

It is the Department's view that the zoning and development controls for the 83 CommercialCore zoned precinct located east of the Warringah Freeway should be looked at across theentirety of this small precinct, rather than on an individual site-by-site basis. As noted byCouncil, taking this approach would ensure that both zoning and development standards couldbe considered more holistically and equitably.

4.4.2 Financial feasibilitv of the developmentThe planning proposal states that the design concept for the site has been developed inconjunction with undertaking a financialfeasibility analysis to determine the level ofdevelopment required. The proponent concludes that the feasibilities demonstrate a 40o/o

increase in density is required at a minimum to achieve sufficient financial incentive toredevelop the site. Despite the proponent's offer of providing feasibility information separatelyupon request, and that it being accepted as commercial-in-confidence, this information was notforthcoming. Without this information, the Department is unable to assess the proponent'sjustification that establishes the need for the proposed 40% uplift of the site.

4.4.3 Letters reqardinq the proposalThe Department received four (4) letters in response to the lodgement of a Pre-GatewayReview request. The letters have been made as a result of the residents and propedy ownerslearning of the proposals lodgement via the Department's Pre-Gateway Tracking System.

Pr.r (ì:ttt:w;ty lìevrí),/v. 2r'5 AIir:,ISjtree't Nlortlr Syclnr:y 11

Obiection Obiects to the redevelopment proposal lor 275 Alfred St, North Svdnev 1,2,4Built form The proposal has no setbacks to the adjoining property a|283 Alfred St,

North SydneyEvidence of the proposed development's non-compliance with theBuildins Code of Australia

1,2, 3

lmpact The proposalwill result in adverse impacts to the adjoining propertiesAdjoining properties will be restricted from potentialupqradinq or redevelopment

1,2, 3, 4

Zoning anddevelopmentcontrols

The entire block of commercial zoned land should be looked at in itsentirety.275 Allred St, North Sydney should not be rezoned in isolation.Adjoining properties should be given the same zoning, height and floorspace ratio controls as that of 275 Alfred St, North Sydney.

1,2, 3, 4

Site amalgamation Land at 271- 273,275 and 283 Alfred Street, North Sydney should beamalgamated and redeveloped together.Architect has been engaged to prepare preliminary sketches based onsite amalgamation of these properties to achieve best possibledevelopment outcome.

2,3,4

Existing building at275 Alfred St,North Sydney

Existing building a|275 Alfred St, North Sydney significantly exceededdevelopment controls at the time of approval, yet adjoining propertiescomplied with these controls. Query why 275 Alfred St, North Sydneyshould receive further development potential.

3

State government'sstrategic planningobjectives

Of the view that the commercial zoned block east of the WarringahFreeway has considerable development potential and the opportunity toachieve many of the State government's planning objectives.

3,4

lssue ints raised Letter No.

Whilst there are no statutory requirements to consider any letters made in relation to a Pre-Gateway Review request, the issues raised in the letters have been considered andsummarised as follows:

As raised in letters and also noted by Council, the planning proposal has the potential to isolatethe two directly adjoining properties at No's 271-273 and No 283 Alfred Street. Council notesthat it would be beneficial if one or both of these sites could be consolidated with the subject siteto provide a larger site capable of accommodating a floor plate more conducive to commercialdevelopment.

The Depaftment considers that a comprehensive approach to the future redevelopmentpotential of the entire 83 Commercial Core block is warranted. A one-off spot rezoning of 275Alfred Street will result in a patchwork application of zonings to the commercial zoned land eastof the Warringah Freeway, and has the potential to stifle the future redevelopment of theadjoining property at283 Alfred Street. Consideration of the entire block in terms of zoning, landuse, height and yield, traffic and visual impacts, and any impacts to the development potential ofadjoining land and the surrounding low density residential would facilitate the future strategicplanning of this locality whilst balancing the concerns of Council and surrounding land owners.

5. BACKGROUNDSUPPORTINGINFORMATION

5.1 Adequacy of existing informationThe planning proposal is supported by the following documentat¡on:

. Pre-Gateway Review Application Form;

. Pre-Gateway Review Request Letter, Mecone Pty Ltd, February 2016

. Planning proposal, Planning Proposal for a Mixed Use development, Mecone Pty Ltd,September 2015 (as refused by council);

Pre-(ìate\r'/ay Revlr:'¡r 2/5 Alfrr:d StreL;t Nortl' Syrlrrey 12

. Written advice from North Sydney Council, advising Council does not support theplanning proposal;

. Design Report, Grimshaw Architects, September 2015;o Transport Assessment, ARUP Pty Ltd, August 2015;. Economic lmpact Assessment, AEC Group, August 2015;. Strategic lnvestment Analysis, AEC Group, February 2015;o Proposed Planning Agreement, Mecone Pty Ltd, August2015.

ls the supporting information provided more than 2 years old? Yesn NoX

ls there documented agreement between the proponent and the councilregarding the scope/nature of supporting information to be provided? Yesn NoX

ls there evidence of agency involvement in the preparation of any suppoftinginformation or background studies? Yesn NoX

5.2 Requirement for further informationNo further information is required.

6. CONCLUSION

The planning proposal seeks to redevelop 275 Alfred Street, North as a new 26 storey mixed-use tower building by amending the zoning, height and floor space ratio controls of NSLEP2013 as it relates to the site.

The Department has considered the proposal and supporting documentation and concludes thatthere is sufficient merit in the proposal proceeding to the Sydney East Joint Regional PlanningPanel for independent review in its current form.

It is recognised there is some strategic merit in the proposed renewal of the site for mixed use,with the introduction of housing, particularly considering the site's close proximity toemployment opportunities and public transport within the North Sydney CBD.

It is recommended the Panel consider the following issues in making its recommendation as towhether the planning proposal should proceed to Gateway:

. the proposed height, bulk and scale should be considered in relation to both the adjacentcommercial zoned land and the surrounding low density residential area to enable amore appropriate transition to the low density area east of the site'

o overshadowing impacts to the surrounding low density residential Heritage ConservationArea, and the need for a comprehensive shadow analysis; and

. the need to consider the entire block currently zoned 83 Commercial Core in its context,including zoning, land use, height and density, its traffic and visual impact, and anyimpacts to the development potential of adjoining land.

Pre-Gatevtray Review 275 Alfred Street, Norlh Sydney 13

7. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Deputy Secretary:

1. form the opinion that sufficient ínformation has been provided and the request is eligiblefor review, and

2, agree to forward the request to the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel foradvice.

Karen ArmstrongDirector, Sydney Region East

Deputy Secretary, Planning Services

qhl'c

Pre-Gateway Review: 275 Alired Street, North Sydney 14

report to general manager subject: author: endorsed by ... · no rt h s y d ne y co unc i l r e p o...

Documents