Agenda of Shire Planning Committee - 4 June 2018€¦ · Croydon St 16 extra public car parking...

Business Paper

Shire Planning Committee

Monday, 4 June 2018

6.30pm

Council Chambers,

Level 2, Administration Building,

4-20 Eton Street, Sutherland

Shire Planning Committee 4 June 2018

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

2. APOLOGIES

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS

5. PRESENTATIONS

6. REPORTS FROM OFFICERS

PLN035-18 Further analysis of strategic sites in Cronulla

PLN036-18 Dedication of E2 Environmental Conservation Land to Council

PLN037-18 Proposed Land Acquisition - 153 Gannons Road, Caringbah South

7. QUESTIONS

8. CONSIDERATION OF BUSINESS IN CLOSED SESSION

9. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS FROM OFFICERS


PL

N0

35

-18

PLN035-18 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF STRATEGIC SITES IN CRONULLA

Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Studio GL put forward proposals for bonus height and density for three sites in Cronulla as a

means of achieving public gains associated with tourist and visitor accommodation and more

public parking (PLN009-18). These concepts have been analysed in relation to overshadowing,

visual impact, potential impact on adjacent properties, streetscape character and traffic

implications.

To be successful development needs to be economically feasible and the resulting bulk and

scale acceptable in the streetscape. Council also needs to be certain that the preferred end use

will be assured. As put forward the concepts do not adequately resolve these key issues.

If Council wants to set a new vision for Cronulla with increased height and FSR or significant

bonuses to facilitate tourist and visitor accommodation or public parking, the best way forward

would be to encourage site specific Planning Proposals supported by Voluntary Planning

Agreements clearly articulating the community benefit. This approach would allow the

community to be very clear about the extent of the public benefit and the scale of change

required for it to be delivered.

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That Council acknowledge that it is prepared to consider amending development standards in

Cronulla where a Planning Proposal can deliver tourist and visitor accommodation and/or public

parking, provided the amenity of the public domain and surrounding properties is maintained.


PL

N0

35

-18

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of further analysis of the potential impacts of concepts

for three sites in Cronulla, put forward by Studio GL (consultants for Cronulla Town Centre Public

Domain Masterplan), and their potential to secure public gains associated with tourist and visitor

accommodation and public parking.

BACKGROUND

Council Motion PLN009-18

As part of its work on the Cronulla Town Centre Public Domain Masterplan, Studio GL explored how

key sites could be developed to help activate the centre with increased tourist and visitor

accommodation, additional public parking and a large supermarket. The consultants explored how

these uses could be facilitated through providing additional height and floor space to three strategic

sites. Council considered the concepts put forward by the consultant on 21 August 2017 (PLN009-18)

and resolved that prior to a decision being made, further analysis be carried out in relation to traffic

implications, shadowing of the mall (for the Kingsway site), visual impact and the potential impact on

adjacent properties. Council also sought advice on how the planning framework could be amended to

facilitate the outcomes identified by the consultant. This report provides analysis of these issues.

DISCUSSION

Current Strategic Planning Framework for Cronulla

The strategic planning framework for Cronulla was last reviewed during the preparation of SSLEP2015

and SSDCP2015. These plans were developed with extensive community consultation. Improving the

pedestrian experience and maintaining the amenity of the public domain were recognised as being of

primary importance to the community. Maintaining solar access to the mall was critically important

given its role as the retail and community focus of the centre. Community engagement highlighted that

the community valued the existing character of Cronulla. Strong demand for more quality residential

units was also apparent.

The strategy subsequently adopted was founded on promoting infill development in and around the

centre in a way that could maintain Cronulla’s relaxed beachside atmosphere and build on its vibrant

street culture. New development standards were introduced through SSLEP2015 to encourage

redevelopment and help activate the commercial centre. Height limits were carefully considered so

that good solar access to the public domain was assured, particularly for Cronulla mall, and the scale

of new development fitted into the existing skyline.

At that time Cronulla Centre and the surrounding residential flat zone had a mixture of two and three

storey older flats and commercial buildings, as well as some significantly taller 9-14 storey residential

flat buildings which were built under earlier planning schemes. Council ultimately adopted varied

height limits across the centre ranging from 16m (5 storeys) up to 30m (9-10 storeys), with floor space

ratios from 2:1 up to 3:1. Maximum heights were based on the immediate local context of each site.


PL

N0

35

-18

The potential of each site was assessed, having regard to what height could be accommodated while

protecting the amenity of adjacent development and the public domain. This approach means that infill

development facilitated through SSLEP2015 fits within the skyline created by the taller buildings

approved in the 1980s.

Notwithstanding this fairly conservative approach, increasing height and density in Cronulla Centre

generated significant community concern. When Draft LEP2015 was first exhibited, 67 submissions

objected to proposed increases in height and density in Cronulla. Key issues centred on objectors

wanting to preserve the existing open character of Cronulla and avoid the prospect of a ‘Gold Coast’

type of development. The second exhibition of the draft plan resulted in 237 submissions objecting to

increases in height and density in Cronulla, with 179 submissions specifically opposing development

which would impact Cronulla mall. A further 150 submissions to the third exhibition of the draft plan

objected to the proposed increases to height limits along Cronulla mall due to potential overshadowing

impacts. Submissions also objected to increases in height and density because of the additional traffic

generation and the exacerbation of parking issues. Council responded to submissions by carefully

modifying height limits and using DCP provisions to ensure that a very high standard of solar access

was assured for the public domain.

The strategies in SSLEP2015 and SSDCP2015 have delivered significant investment in Cronulla. The

8-9 storey height limits are commercially attractive and there are several new developments under

construction or being marketed. The new buildings are large in scale but can be accommodated

without changing the overall character of Cronulla. The infill development is meeting the demand for

quality units while delivering improved ground floor retail spaces and providing more opportunities for

cafes and restaurants in an improved public domain. As more redevelopments gradually displace the

older lower density flats and shops, the density of Cronulla will increase. The urban form will become

more consolidated with less space between apartment buildings. The following image shows new

buildings in colour to highlight how they fit into the existing urban form. When considering changes

that would facilitate development of greater height and density, it is important to see this in the context

of the redevelopment potential already in place in Cronulla, rather than how it is today.


PL

N0

35

-18

Supporting Tourism

Council has long recognised the importance of tourism to the local economy and sought strategies to

grow its tourism offer. Reports on tourism commissioned by Council in 2013 and 2015 have

consistently identified a shortage of tourist accommodation in the Sutherland Shire (“Visitor

Accommodation Development Opportunities in the Sutherland Shire” by 2T Tourism Asset Services in

2013, a further report in 2015; and “Destination Management Plan” by The Stafford Group, 2015). A

key recommendation of the 2T report is that facilitation of tourism development requires additional

stimulus, such as bonus FSR for tourist and visitor accommodation. The report suggests that floor

space ratios in Cronulla B3 zone could be up to 5:1 for the short stay visitor accommodation

component of a new development. No analysis was made of the impacts that may result from

development of this density.

The 2T tourism report references an FSR bonus scheme operating in the commercial core of the City

of Sydney, where hotel development competes with higher value commercial uses and residential

units. However, the Visitor Accommodation Action Plan prepared by the City of Sydney notes limited

success from this FSR bonus scheme, and limited evidence that floor space incentives lead to an

increase in accommodation supply. It concludes that any floor space incentive may not be enough to

overcome the low demand and value for a particular use and the high demand and value for an


PL

N0

35

-18

alternative use.1 This may also prove to be true in Cronulla. If an operator cannot make the required

return for accommodation it will simply not be built regardless of the bonus offered.

In the Cronulla Strategic Sites report, the consultant has approached the problem of finding space for

tourist accommodation from an urban design perspective. Built forms have been developed which, in

the consultant’s view, achieve acceptable outcomes yet accommodate floor space above the current

LEP standards. The weakness of this approach is that it is not based on any economic analysis.

Council does not know if the suggested additional floor space is enough to make a hotel financially

viable.

A FSR or height bonus does not guarantee that a hotel will be developed. The LEP currently provides

an FSR bonus for tourist and visitor accommodation for a site at 40-44 Kingsway, Cronulla. It provides

a FSR bonus of 1:1 (from 2.5:1 to 3.5:1). This was provided at the request of the landowner. However,

this bonus has not been taken up and a residential development is currently under consideration.

Site 1: The Bowling Club

A potential amalgamated site consists of the land owned by Cronulla Recreation and Bowling Club

(fronting both Wilbar Avenue and Croydon Street) and three adjacent lots on Croydon Street owned by

Council that currently provide 39 public car parking spaces. The consultant presented three options

with different site amalgamation patterns. Only Option 1 is confined to lots owned by the Bowling Club

and Council.

SSLEP2015 currently gives greater development potential to the sites fronting Croydon Street than

those fronting Wilbar Avenue. This was put in place to provide a transition in scale to the older style

residential flat buildings on the western side of Wilbar Street.

1 City of Sydney Visitor Accommodation Action Plan (Hotels and Serviced Apartments) June 2015 P23


PL

N0

35

-18

Option Height FSR Bonus Public benefit

1 (Club and

Council land

only)

22m

and

15m

2.05:1 FSR bonus 0.5:1 for

properties on Wilbar

Av

Bonus 2m on

Croydon St

16 extra public car parking spaces

and current 39 public car parking

spaces replaced

Through block pedestrian path

2 (larger site,

not available,

development

under

construction)

22m

and

15m

2:1 FSR bonus 0.5:1 for

properties on Wilbar

Av bonus 2m on

Croydon St

16 extra public car parking spaces

and current 39 public car parking

spaces replaced

Through block pedestrian path.

3 (whole

block)

22m

and

15m

2.1:1 FSR bonus 0.18:1

Height bonus 2m on

Croydon St

57 extra public car parking and

current 39 public car parking spaces

replaced

Two through block pedestrian paths

Serviced apartments

Option 1 proposes additional car parking and the provision of a through-block pedestrian link as a

public benefit for additional FSR and height. The report suggests that a supermarket could be part of

this development which has been viewed as something missing from Cronulla centre that would

activate the locality. However, the delivery of a supermarket via a bonus provision is considered to be

a questionable public benefit as it is already permissible and is a high value commercial use. The

proposed bonus is also considered to be very small which questions the value of this option.

Option 2 includes four more lots on Croydon Street. This option is no longer available as there is a

development now under construction on those lots for a five storey residential/commercial

development.

Bowling Club Site Option 1 Concept Design


PL

N0

35

-18

Option 3 is for the whole block, including the Telstra site, Housing NSW land to the south and two lots

owned by Minister for Police (the local police station). This scheme allows for a pedestrian plaza as

well as a pedestrian through block link. It also contains tourist and visitor apartments at the southern

edge looking to Gunnamatta Bay. While a large site offers more options for redevelopment, an

amalgamation requirement of this size with multiple landowners makes redevelopment doubtful.

The three options for the Bowling Club amalgamated sites do not propose large increases in height or

density. They are considered to be compatible with the current scale and character of Cronulla and

could result in acceptable visual impacts. Option 4 includes tourist accommodation overlooking

Gunnamatta Bay would be very attractive and would have minimal impact due to the railway

embankment being to the south of the site. However, the views offered would also make the concept

highly attractive for residential units which would be more profitable.

Site 2: Railway End

Two concepts were presented by the consultant for site owned by Railcorp at the end of the railway

line and bounded by Cronulla Street, Waratah Street and Tonkin Street. The land is currently used for

train stabling and staff parking. There are no current indications that RailCorp plans to develop the

land. A through-site pedestrian path would be highly desirable in order to provide a more direct link to

the Bundeena Ferry wharf and Gunnamatta Park. Both concepts are based on tourist and visitor

accommodation.

Under SSLEP2015 the mapped height and FSR is 20m (6 storeys) and 2:1. Option 1 suggests

increasing height to 22m (7 storeys) and FSR to 3.21:1. Option 2 has a similar building envelope plan

with a 30m corner tower (9-10 storeys) with increased FSR to 4:1.

Option Height FSR Bonus Public benefits

1 22m FSR

3.21:1

FSR bonus 1.21:1

Height bonus 2m

Pedestrian path to park and ferry

Hotel

2 30m FSR 4:1 FSR bonus 2:1

Height bonus 10m

Pedestrian path to park and ferry

Hotel


PL

N0

35

-18

Railway End site Option 1 Concept design

Railway End site Option 2 Concept design

The site is bounded by railway land and roads and is adjacent to the wide intersection of Waratah

Street, Cronulla Street and Nicholson Parade. This site is at a higher level than Gunnamatta Park to

the south-west, and there would be overshadowing impacts on the northern end of the park and the

child care centre on Waratah Street. These impacts would be greater for the taller Option 2. The

overshadowing impacts of development on this site could be within acceptable limits for Options 1 and

2, depending on the design of the development.

Development of the site would enliven this part of the centre, while creating a different, more urban

streetscape character. While the site is zoned B3 Commercial Core, commercial activities are largely

absent from the immediate locality, and the site is not built upon. This part of the centre currently has a

very open character because Cronulla Street is located along the ridge and the land falls to

Gunnamatta Park and the bay. Development of the site to the scale suggested in either option would


PL

N0

35

-18

result in a marked change to the streetscape character of the area, extending the commercial centre

to the edge of the park and residential flat area.

The height of building suggested in Option 1 is only 2m higher than the current height permissible

under SSLEP2015. Option 2, with a 30m element, is higher than allowed on nearby sites, but

consistent with the maximum allowable heights elsewhere in the centre, and reflects the scale of

recent development in Gerrale Street. Options 1 and 2 are considered to be compatible with the

current scale and character of the Cronulla centre and could result in acceptable visual impacts.

Site 3: Top of the Mall

The consultant presented the following three concepts for an amalgamated site on the Kingsway at

the northern end of Cronulla mall, bounded by the Kingsway, Abel Place and Croydon Street.

Option Height FSR Bonus Public benefit

1

30m FSR 3:1 No change 11 surplus car parking spaces

2 45m FSR 3.48:1 FSR bonus: 0.48:1

Height bonus: 15m

9 surplus car parking spaces

Tourist and Visitor accommodation

3 67m

FSR 4:1 FSR bonus: 1:1

Height bonus: 37m

126 public car parking spaces

(above GL so included in FSR)

16 surplus car parking spaces

Tourist and Visitor accommodation

This is a very prominent site located on the ridge of the Kingsway at the head of Cronulla mall. The

ridge starts to falls towards the beach at this point, making the site prominent from all directions, but

particularly so for vehicles and pedestrians approaching Cronulla on the Kingsway from the west. The

site’s location at the top of the mall means that views from the mall will terminate at this site and as

such it is critical to pedestrians’ experience of Cronulla mall.

SSLEP2015 recognises that the site has considerable development potential and sets an allowable

height of 30m (9-10 storeys) and FSR up to 3:1 if the whole block is amalgamated into one

development site (5,255 m2). Development of such a large site must be skilfully designed as there is a

risk of overpowering the streetscape’s fine grain of shopfronts which express the traditional narrow lot

subdivision pattern.

The current development standards were informed by analysis of potential overshadowing and sought

to limit impact on the mall. The image below shows the impact of the current controls on the northern

section of the mall at 12 noon in mid-winter. In this worst case scenario, overshadowing is limited to its


PL

N0

35

-18

northern edge. This was considered acceptable given that users are unlikely to gather at the edge of

the Kingsway and the remainder of the mall is unaffected.

Site 3: SSLEP2015 current development controls: Midwinter shadow diagram 30m height

Option 2 has increased height to 45m and FSR up to 3.48:1. The building envelope plan locates

significant floor space in a taller element at the eastern end of the amalgamated site with the

remainder being closer to 20m. This approach moves the shadow impact of the additional height away

from the mall so that it predominately falls onto the cinema site. This is a sensible solution in terms of

reducing impact upon the public domain.

Site 3 Option 2: Midwinter shadow diagram height 45m at 12 noon


PL

N0

35

-18

The maximum extent of overshadowing of the mall for Option 2 is at between 10am and 11am, but the

shadow has largely cleared the mall by 1pm. The maximum distance that the shadow extends into the

mall from the Kingsway is 64m.

To the east of the subject site, on the corner of Abel Place and 1 Kingsway is a 10-14 storey (approx.

40m) building containing Quest short-stay apartments and residential units with Northies Hotel

occupying the lower levels. With Option 2 some overshadowing of the western facing units would

occur from 3pm midwinter. However, given orientation and development standards this impact is not

unreasonable.

The 3D image below shows Option 2 within its local context. The maximum height of this option at

45m (15 storeys) is 5m higher than the neighbouring Quest apartments. This is not a significant height

increase, but does give the building increased prominence due to its ridge top location. This height

and FSR could result in a development which is similar in scale to buildings in its immediate context

and as such would not be out of character with the existing streetscape.

Site 3 Option 2: 3D view

In Option 3 the taller element is a tower (67m at its highest edge) with a small floor plate, with other

parts of the development being 16m (4 storeys) and 24m (7 storeys) in height. The tower is slender,

which helps mitigate the overshadowing impacts as a narrow shadow moves more quickly. The top of

the tower is angled to the north, which also reduces the amount of shadow cast. The overshadowing

impact of the tower and podium extends approximately 80m into the mall at 10am. However, by 11am

most of the shadow has moved out of the mall.


PL

N0

35

-18

Site 3 Option 3: Midwinter shadow diagram height 67m at 10am

Site 3 Option 3: Midwinter shadow diagram height 67m at 12 noon

In terms of potential overshadowing of the mall, the angled built form of the tower and its slender form

results in acceptable impacts. The mall is essentially free from overshadowing from 11:30 mid-winter.

Option 3 would overshadow western facing units above Northies in late afternoon midwinter. Some

additional overshadowing would also impact the 12-storey Rydges Hotel at 20-26 Kingsway. Future

redevelopment on the eastern side of the mall would also be affected, but the alignment of Abel Place


PL

N0

35

-18

creates a corridor for northern solar access that benefits these sites. Given the scale of the concept

building, overshadowing is well handled, but this is reliant on a very particular angled roof form.

Site 3 Option 3: 3D view

The Option 3 concept, at 67m, would result in a much higher building than exists in Cronulla or

allowed anywhere in Sutherland Shire. By comparison, the highest building in the Kirrawee Brickpit

development is 50m (16 storeys, not yet constructed). The visual impact of a building of this scale in a

prominent ridge top location needs to be carefully considered. The question that needs to be asked is

whether introducing a building of a much larger scale would change the character of Cronulla and if

so, is this representative of the desired future character for the Cronulla Centre. To test the impact of

Option 3, modelling has been carried out of the concept from key vantage points and is shown below.


PL

N0

35

-18

Site 3 Option 3: 3D view from south

Site 3 Option 3: 3D view from north

Analysis confirms that a building to 67m would dramatically change the skyline of Cronulla. It would

introduce a tower building into the skyline, in marked contrast to the existing squatter built forms. It

would stand out from the pack, rather than being part of a cluster.


PL

N0

35

-18

The mix of older style apartment buildings with a scattering of quality infill buildings, gives Cronulla a

unique feel with a mixed community. Gradually older lower scale buildings within the centre will be

redeveloped, but the development standards of SSLEP2015 will ensure the new buildings reflect the

scale and density of recent projects. These have generally been well received by the wider

community. Tower buildings make it easier to achieve premium apartments because fewer units per

floor can take advantage of panoramic views. They would accommodate growing demand for premium

units in Cronulla. If Council supports the addition of a tower building to the Cronulla skyline it is highly

likely that Planning Proposals for more sites will be encouraged.

When viewed from the mall, looking east along the Kingsway, or from the older style residential flat

precinct to the north, the Option 3 concept building would be dramatic. It will be a statement building at

the main entry of the centre and begin to set a new character for Cronulla. The question for Council is

what character does it want Cronulla to have in 10 or 20 years’ time?

Best practice planning requires a place based approach grounded on community engagement. Any

Planning Proposal that looks to change development standards is required to undergo extensive

community consultation. The South District Plan directs Council to take a design led, collaborative

approach to deliver a planning framework that creates great places for local communities. It suggests

that Council works with local communities, local businesses and other stakeholders to develop a

shared vision for places.

If Council wants to set a new vision for Cronulla that better accommodates quality residential units in

residential towers, or provides significant bonuses to facilitate tourist and visitor accommodation or

public parking, it would be best to commence a place based planning exercise for Cronulla to inform

changes to SSLEP2015.

Traffic Implications

An assessment of the traffic implications of the proposals for the three sites has been undertaken by

Council’s Traffic and Transport Services Unit, and their response is included below:

Traffic Congestion

In general, traffic congestion in Cronulla has steadily increased over time to the point where regular

delays occur in the weekday and weekend peak periods. Traffic modelling of the town centre indicates

that under a 2034 do nothing scenario, future traffic growth (based on the anticipated uptake of

increased development yield provided by SSLEP 2015 will significantly add to existing congestion

within the road network, in particular the Wilbar Avenue/Cronulla Street route. Significant pinch points

and extensive queuing are identified at key intersections along this route.

In this context, it is evident that there is a fundamental issue with the locations of the Bowling Club and

Railway End Strategic sites. Increased development yield (above the SSLEP 2015) and additional


PL

N0

35

-18

public parking will create additional vehicle trips to and from these sites that will further exacerbate

traffic congestion. Existing constraints and competing demands for improved streetscapes and

pedestrian and cycling facilities limit the ability to build additional capacity into the existing road

network to and from these sites. Investigation of a number of options including one way movements

around the town centre show that such treatments would be very expensive and in all likelihood only

transfer the problem to other locations.

The traffic study undertaken for Cronulla in 2015 indicated that the provision of a new road link via

Tonkin Street and Searl Road would provide sufficient additional capacity. However, the provision of

this additional road link has many challenges including current land ownership, the need to relocate

major water and sewer mains servicing South Cronulla and potential impact on Tonkin Oval. It

remains as a potential long term proposition subject to further feasibility analysis.

The location of the Northern Gateway is a more suitable site in order to secure public gains associated

with the development of tourist and visitor accommodation and the provision of more public car

parking. The site is located on the northern side of the town centre and associated traffic generation

will have less impact on the already congested areas of the town centre south of Kingsway.

Public Parking

With higher land values, limited available space, increasing traffic congestion and the demand for

improved streetscapes, the conventional approach of trying to satisfy increased public parking

demand through the provision of more public parking spaces will become less effective over

time. Council will need to better manage the demand for parking in order to maximise the potential of

our commercial and recreational areas. Council is currently preparing a Shire wide parking

management and improvement plan which specifically covers relevant policies and mechanisms that

can be used to manage existing parking facilities and current and future demands for additional

parking. This includes measures to increase the turnover of existing parking spaces and promote

alternatives to car transport.

So whilst there is merit in exploring the opportunity for additional town centre parking through

incentives offered to development, this must only occur on sites where the additional traffic

generation can be managed. Therefore, of the three sites put forward only the Kingsway site has merit

because additional traffic is not brought into the already congested streets south of the Kingsway.

However, even the Kingsway site will not be without costs associated with increased traffic

congestion.

Simply providing more parking is not the answer to Cronulla’s future and Council needs to find a point

of balance between traffic/parking and the amenity of the centre. The Cronulla Town Centre Public

Domain Masterplan identifies a comprehensive series of works that will make the Cronulla centre a

more attractive place offering a higher standard of amenity for residents and users. It may be better for


PL

N0

35

-18

Council to focus on centre improvements and more efficient use of existing parking rather than

increasing parking supply.”

Changes to the Planning Framework to Facilitate Public Outcomes

It is possible to include a clause in an LEP that provides bonus height and/or FSR if certain criteria are

met. Council has successfully used this approach in the medical precinct, but it has not been

successful in delivering tourist accommodation at 40-44 Kingsway, Cronulla. A bonus provision

provides an incentive, but it is not a guarantee that a preferred use will be developed, as development

is determined by economic feasibility.

There is also a risk for Council in using a bonus provision because the bonus indicates that it has

accepted the impacts of a larger building as being reasonable in the local context. To ensure that

tourist and visitor accommodation will be developed, any bonus development standards have to be

clearly contingent on the preferred use being developed. The history of the approval of the Cecil

Apartments provides a cautionary tale in this regard. Council approved a building which exceeded the

development standards which applied at the time because the building was to contain tourist and

visitor accommodation in addition to residential flats. However, as the development approval was not

tightly bound to tourism accommodation, no serviced apartments were ultimately produced, and the

Cecil sits as the tallest building in the Cronulla Centre.

RESOURCING STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS

The planning controls for these sites are the responsibility of the Strategic Planning Unit. The Strategic

Planning Unit could also conduct community consultation or progress a Planning Proposal using

existing resources.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Council’s most recent community consultation survey found that three of the four top issues of concern

for Shire residents are: the impact of development, the overwhelming traffic congestion and the

frustration of parking, with 91% noting that it is getting harder to find parking. The survey confirmed

that residents have high emotional investment in the Shire. They seek to minimise the impact of

development on themselves where development potential is to be increased and want to understand

how council are weighing the interests of the community vs developers. Those residents who prefer

the option of development being spread across the Shire also feel that tall buildings are out of line with

the look and feel of the area and would erode the areas’ ‘small town’ feel. While the survey did not

specifically address development forms in Cronulla, it does suggest that the community remains

sensitive to change and the consequences of increased urbanisation.

Community consultation was also undertaken during the preparation of the Cronulla Town Centre

Public Domain Masterplan (December 2016). It found that a key area of community concern for


PL

N0

35

-18

Cronulla Centre was traffic and parking. Also, 80% of respondents agreed with the guiding principle “to

reflect local character”; with respondents expressing affection for the centre’s local village feel.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

Community Strategic Plan Strategy Delivery Program (2017-2021) Deliverables

1.1.1 Actively engage with the community to

understand their views and aspirations

1B.1 Undertake community research and

consultation to inform strategy development

1B.4 Implement Engagement Strategy

5.1 Collaborate with our business community to

support thriving local business

5A.5 Ensure our Commercial Centres foster an

environment that stimulates and supports

sustainable economic growth

5.11 Develop vibrant, productive local centres

POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Council’s Housing Strategy and the adoption of SSLEP2015 have resulted in Council meeting the

current housing targets of the South District Plan. Development of tourist and visitor accommodation

would provide jobs, helping to meet the employment target in the South District Plan.

CONCLUSION

The consultant has presented sensible ways in which additional development yields could be

accommodated without unreasonably compromising the amenity of the public domain. The concepts

for the Bowling Club site and the Railway End are fairly modest and could be accommodated without

significant change to the character of Cronulla. However, locating a supermarket and public car park in

Croydon Street would add to traffic congestion where it cannot be absorbed without impact.

Of greater concern is the concept of a significantly taller building (Option 3 is up to 67m) on the

Kingsway at the top of the mall. This height would be significantly larger than any other building in

Sutherland Shire. Its ridge-top location would make it visually prominent from most locations within

Cronulla, particularly for vehicles approaching Cronulla from the west and for pedestrians in the mall. It

would set a new building scale that would appear more of a tower in the landscape than existing

development. This would be a change to the streetscape character and a new strategic direction for

Cronulla. Developing new strategic directions is best informed by community engagement.

The concept building forms have been derived from urban design analysis without analysis of whether

the additional density would be sufficient to make tourist and visitor accommodation or public parking

economically feasible. As such there is no certainty that changing the planning framework to reflect

the concepts would in fact deliver any public gains suggested.

The concept building forms have been carefully considered and are generally successful in avoiding

amenity impacts upon the public domain. However, the planning framework is at best, a fairly blunt


PL

N0

35

-18

instrument. If pursued, the concepts would ultimately be given a single height and FSR maximum

under the LEP accompanied by a bonus provision. The DCP could incorporate elements of the

consultants’ work as a building envelope plan. If any of the sites were to be developed, it is unlikely

that the developer and architect would accept the proposed forms unchallenged. There is no certainty

that the forms shown in the report would ultimately be achieved.

An alternative way forward is for Council to acknowledge that it is prepared to amend development

standards where a proposal can deliver tourist and visitor accommodation and/or public parking,

provided the amenity of the public domain and surrounding properties is not unreasonably

compromised. Should any party want to develop one of the strategic sites, or any other large site,

officers could invite a Planning Proposal accompanied by a Voluntary Planning Agreement. A site

specific Planning Proposal would allow the community to be very clear about the extent of the public

benefit proposed and the scale of change required for it to be delivered. Community consultation could

commence as soon as a Planning Proposal was received, rather than waiting for Gateway

Determination. This approach would facilitate more effective and meaningful community consultation.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this report is the Manager Strategic Planning, Mark

Carlon, who can be contacted on 9710 0523.

File Number 2018/297528


PL

N0

36

-18

PLN036-18 DEDICATION OF E2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAND TO

COUNCIL

Attachments: Appendix A⇩ and Appendix B⇩

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An offer has been made to Council to dedicate 0.7Ha of land at 25 Yanderra Avenue, Bangor.

The land is zoned E2 Environmental Conservation under SSLEP2015. This E2 zoned land has

no feasible development potential and recognises land with conservation value.

Council ownership of the land is not without costs - maintenance costs as well as potential risk

and liability issues are relevant. The land is highly bush fire prone.

Council has a Service Agreement with the Rural Fire Service for maintenance of bush fire prone

land. This does not remove the responsibility from Council as the land manager, as per the

Rural Fires Act 1997. However, the RFS concur that increasing the amount of publicly owned

land “will not significantly increase Council’s exposure to bush fire risk”.

Public Ownership of this land offers significant long term benefits to the community – including

potential for public and maintenance access, and conservation values.

It is appropriate for Council to accept the dedication of this property and other privately owned

land zoned E2 Environmental Conservation.


THAT:

1. Council accept dedication of 25 Yanderra Avenue, Bangor at terms and conditions to the

satisfaction of the General Manager.

2. A Planning Proposal be prepared to reclassify 25 Yanderra Avenue, Bangor as ‘Community’

land.

3. The Planning Proposal be submitted to NSW Planning and Environment for Gateway

Determination with a request that Council may make the plan under delegation.

4. Subject to an approval being granted at Gateway, the above planning proposal be exhibited in

accordance with Council’s policies and any conditions specified in the Gateway determination.

5. Council delegates the General Manager to execute any necessary documentation, in

accordance with the Power of Attorney dated 6 July 2016 BK 4710 No. 28, for the acquisition

of 25 Yanderra Avenue, Bangor (Lot 53 DP 73250624).

6. Council accept dedication of land wholly zoned E2 Environmental Conservation where the

land is privately owned (other than GLALC), provides potential for public access to bushland

and will not significantly increase Council’s exposure to bush fire risk.


PL

N0

36

-18

PURPOSE

This report seeks support for the dedication of privately owned land zoned E2 Environmental

Conservation to Council. Owners on behalf of 25 Yanderra Avenue, Bangor (Lot 53 DP 73250624) are

currently seeking agreement to transfer the land to Council’s ownership at no cost, as the land is

generating rates and is unusable. Acquisition of this parcel would only entail transfer costs.

BACKGROUND

Zoning under SSLEP2015

The land is zoned E2 Environmental Conservation. Under Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan

2015 (SSLEP2015) the E2 zone is applied to areas with high ecological, scientific, cultural or aesthetic

values outside national parks and nature reserves. The zone provides for the highest level of

protection, management and restoration for such lands whilst allowing very limited uses compatible

with those values. Permitted in the zone are: Environmental facilities; Environmental protection works;

Flood mitigation works; Information and education facilities; Roads.

The E2 zone is generally applied to publicly owned bushland outside of National Parks. However,

there are also large parcels of land in Sutherland Shire which are privately owned but have no

development potential. The Shire has over 27 Ha of privately owned land which is wholly zoned E2

Environmental Conservation under SSLEP2015 (see List and Map Appendix A & B). This land has no

development potential due to steep topography and high levels of bushfire risk.

The privately owned E2 land is predominantly found in the west of the Shire and was deemed unable

to be developed when Menai and surrounding suburbs were first developed. The typical subdivision

saw perimeter roads sited at the edge of steep escarpments. The area below the cliff could not be

accessed and was therefore left in its natural state. Essentially the land was left over from the original

subdivision.

In most cases the ownership of the valleys was transferred to the State, mostly from Landcom - the

major original landowner at Menai. However, some of the land was not dedicated to the State or

Council and remains in private ownership. In many cases the land has no legal means of access. In all

cases the land is subject to extreme bushfire risk, contains steep topography and ecological

communities of significance. It is quite clear that such land has no reasonable development potential.

Often this E2 zoned land is surrounded by other publicly owned parcels.

There is over 30 Ha of E2 zoned land owned by Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council (GLALC).

The bulk of the land owned by GLALC was deferred from SSLEP2015 and is currently zoned 1(b)

Future Urban under SSLEP2000. The amount of conservation land would most likely be significantly

increased when the land is brought under SSLEP2015 or should Gandangara Aboriginal Land Council

wish to proceed with developing their land (north of Heathcote Road, West Menai).


PL

N0

36

-18

DISCUSSION

Value of conservation land to the Community

The Community Strategic Plan is committed to “enhancing and protecting the beautiful and healthy

natural environment of Sutherland Shire”. There are over 380 reserves containing more than 900

hectares of bushland that is owned or under the care control and management of Council. In addition

there are over 1,250 ha of other publicly owned bushland. As a result outdoor spaces are a key part of

the Shire’s identity. Sutherland Shire Customer Engagement 2017 showed that 69% of Shire residents

visit bushland, creeks, and waterways at least once a month. Shire residents value their connections

to nature. The customer engagement also found bushland qualities underpin the area’s own self-

mythology and identity as ‘God’s Country’.

As densities increase in Sutherland Shire and across Greater Sydney, there will be more demand for

access to bushland. The bushland valleys have the potential to provide an extensive system of

walking trails. However, the existence of private land parcels currently act as barriers to achieving

networks of walking trails.

The E2 land contains significant natural bushland and wildlife corridors. The land is located within the

Greenweb and may contain endangered ecological communities or riparian zones, or be a buffer to

such. Many land parcels are located within steep valleys with natural watercourses running through

them. These watercourses carry Council’s stormwater and associated liability to maintain the

watercourse. There may be potential to harness the biodiversity values of the land.

Some of the land contains fire trails which are used by the community for recreational access. Some

parcels have the potential for future recreational access.

Maintenance and Risk

Isolated parcels of E2 land are generally adjacent to residential land or perimeter roads and typically

near parcels of publicly owned land. Most residents would assume that this land is publicly owned

bushland. As mature bushland, E2 land does not require significant maintenance, apart from perimeter

weed control. In some instances Bushcare volunteers assist Council in maintenance of bushland.

E2 land is typically highly bush fire prone. Generally, the more flammable and dense the vegetation,

and steeper the slope, the greater the hazard will be. Whilst historically, liability to pay for losses

caused by bushfire has always fallen on those that intentionally start a fire, not on the owner of the fuel

that sustains the fire, Council as a land owner has an obligation under the Rural Fires Act 1997 to

prevent the occurrence of bush fires:


PL

N0

36

-18

63 Duties of public authorities and owners and occupiers of land to prevent bush fires

(1) It is the duty of a public authority to take the notified steps (if any) and any other practicable

steps to prevent the occurrence of bush fires on, and to minimise the danger of the spread of a

bush fire on or from:

(a) any land vested in or under its control or management, or

(b) any highway, road, street, land or thoroughfare, the maintenance of which is charged

on the authority.

(2) It is the duty of the owner or occupier of land to take the notified steps (if any) and any other

practicable steps to prevent the occurrence of bush fires on, and to minimise the danger of the

spread of bush fires on or from, that land.

(3) A public authority or owner or occupier is liable for the costs incurred by it in performing the

duty imposed by this section.

(4) The Bush Fire Co-ordinating Committee may advise a person on whom a duty is imposed

by this section of any steps (whether or not included in a bush fire risk management plan) that

are necessary for the proper performance of the duty.

(5) In this section:

notified steps means:

(a) any steps that the Bush Fire Co-ordinating Committee advises a person to take under

subsection (4), or

(b) any steps that are included in a bush fire risk management plan applying to the land.

A Service Agreement exists between the Council and the Rural Fire Service (RFS) regarding bush fire

maintenance in the Shire. Council provides funding for RFS activities in the Shire, land and/or

buildings for RFS activities, as well as building maintenance, utilities, and various forms of equipment.

In return “The Commissioner has agreed to exercise all of the functions imposed on the Council by

and under Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW) other than those functions specified in Schedule 1.” Schedule

1 covers the Constitution and procedure of Advisory Council and Bush Fire Co-ordinating Committee.

In this way, Council’s obligations for management of its land under the Act are fulfilled.

The Sutherland Shire Bush Fire Risk Management Plan (BFRMP) applies to the whole Shire. It

includes public and privately owned land as well as National Parks & Wildlife Service land, Defence

land, and Gandangara land. The plan identifies the bushfire risk and treatments that will be

undertaken. The plan satisfies the notified steps requirement under the Act.

Under the Service Agreement hazard reduction in the west of the Shire is undertaken by the Rural Fire

Service. In practice, hazard reduction does not cease at the boundary of a private property – as it

would be impossible to identify the legal boundaries on site during hazard reduction activities. The

RFS work collaboratively with various owners of bush fire prone land in hazard reduction burning.


PL

N0

36

-18

Council’s public reserves contain over 900Ha of bushland. In addition there is 1,252 Ha of other

publicly owned bushland, as well as 17,279 Ha of National Parks and Nature Reserves ass subject to

bush fire risk.

The RFS has been consulted and advised the following in respect to 25 Yanderra Rd:

The assets (residential properties) which adjoin this parcel of land are identified as ‘extreme’

risk from bush fire, as per the Sutherland Shire Bush Fire Risk Management Plan (BFRMP)

2015-2020. It identifies that the risk in this area is treated (mitigated to a certain degree) by

mechanical clearing (Asset Protection Zones), hazard reduction burning (Strategic Fire

Advantage Zones) and providing training and resources to Community Fire Units.

Adjoining this land to the east is a council owned Asset Protection Zone (23R), which is

maintained by the RFS Mitigation Crew as per the Service Level Agreement. This however does

not remove the responsibility from Council as the land manager, as per the Rural Fires Act

1997.

The land in question (No.25) cannot be treated by mechanical clearing due to its slope, as such

it is identified as a Strategic Fire Advantage Zone (SFAZ). This means it is an area that is

hazard reduced by burning at regular intervals (7-10 years), to maintain fuels at a moderate

level.

Bush Fire Management Zones (APZ’s, SFAZ’s) as per the BFRMP are identified on a tenure

blind approach, therefore a SFAZ typically covers multiple tenures, as is the case with this

particular parcel.

In my opinion, there is no obvious burden to Council in terms of works, as Fire Agencies will

undertake this work on behalf of the land manager.

It is important to note that there is a legal responsibility in terms of liability for Council, however I

will leave this to the experts within Council itself to asses this accordingly.

As such, I support your statement that it ‘will not significantly increase Council’s exposure to

bush fire risk’, as Council already shares a fair portion of risk with other land managers locally.

Council already owns or has care or control of significant hectares of bush fire prone land. The RFS

concur that increasing Council’s ownership of land subject to bush fire risk will not significantly alter

Council’s current exposure to risk.


PL

N0

36

-18


Council does not have funds to purchase E2 land and Section 94 funds cannot be used for

environmental conservation. Accepting ownership of privately owned E2 land has financial

implications in terms of transfer fees, maintenance and risk.

The current land owner of 25 Yanderra Avenue wishes to give Council the land at no cost. Dedication

of the subject land is the responsibility of the Property Services Unit utilising existing resources.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

In the recent customer engagement exercise, our community stated that the number one thing they

value in the Sutherland Shire is “access to our beautiful beaches, parks and natural reserves.” This is

reflected in our vision, being: “A connected and safe community that respects people and nature,

enjoying active lives in a strong local economy” . This is also reflected in our Community Strategic plan

Outcome 2: “We want to enhance and protect the beautiful and healthy natural environment of

Sutherland Shire”. This is linked to the following strategy:

Strategy 2.2 Enhance and protect diverse natural habitats:


2.2.1: Enhance and protect our diverse flora,

fauna and ecological communities

2A Review, revise and implement the

Environment and Sustainability Strategy

2.2.2: Manage, promote and enhance our tree

canopy in urban and natural areas

2D Review and implement the Urban Tree and

Bushland Policy and Programs

2.2.3: Encourage responsible urban planning

which balances growth with environmental

sustainability

2E Review the Biodiversity Strategy


It is recommended that Council accept dedication of land wholly zoned E2 Environmental

Conservation where the land is privately owned (other than GLALC), provides potential for public

access to bushland and will not significantly increase Council’s exposure to bush fire risk.

CONCLUSION

Public ownership of the E2 Environmental Conservation zoned land will ultimately benefit the

community. Other than land transfer costs, dedication will be at no cost to Council. While additional

land ownership infers increased resourcing liability due to maintenance and risk, this is best viewed in

terms of the scale of the existing land holding. The RFS concur that increasing Council’s ownership of

bushland by 0.7 Ha will not significantly alter Council’s current exposure to risk. Accordingly it is

recommended that Council support the dedication of 25 Yanderra Avenue, Bangor.


PL

N0

36

-18

It is also recommended that Council accept dedication of privately owned E2 land where similar

benefits can be demonstrated.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is Mark Carlon, Manager Strategic Planning

and Gwyn Cleeves, A/Team Leader Buildings and Open Space who can be contacted on 9710 0523

and 9710 0473 respectively.

File Number: 2015/87209


PL

N0

36

-18 A

pp

en

dix

A


PL

N0

36-1

8 A

pp

en

dix

B


PL

N0

37

-18

PLN037-18 PROPOSED LAND ACQUISITION - 153 GANNONS ROAD, CARINGBAH

SOUTH

Attachments: Appendix A⇩

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council has been approached by the owner of 153 Gannons Road, Caringbah (Lot 108 DP

5179) to accept donation of approximately 800m2 of the rear section of her property, which

adjoins Wattlebird Bushland Reserve, for inclusion in the adjoining reserve.

The acquisition of the property satisfies the Council’s Environment Strategy 2013 that guides

the Sutherland Shire LEP 2015, as well as Outcome 2 within Council’s Community Strategic

Plan, and will assist Council in providing the community with increased open space.

Rezoning the land from R2 Low Density Residential to RE1 Public Recreation and classifying it

as Community land will ensure it is consistent with the rest of the reserve.


THAT:

1. The owner of 153 Gannons Road be thanked in writing for the generous donation to benefit

the Shire Community.

2. The acquisition by donation of approximately 800m2 of 153 Gannons Road, Caringbah (Part

Lot 108 DP 5179) to increase open space at Wattlebird Bushland Reserve at terms and

conditions to the satisfaction of the General Manager be approved.

3. Once the land is acquired, a Planning Proposal be prepared to rezone part of 153 Gannons

Road, Caringbah from R2 Low Density Residential to RE1 Public Recreation and reclassify

the land as ‘Community’.

4. The Planning Proposal be submitted to NSW Planning and Environment for Gateway

Determination with a request that Council may make the plan under delegation.

5. Subject to an approval being granted at Gateway, the above planning proposal be exhibited

in accordance with Council’s policies and any conditions specified in the Gateway

determination.

6. The acquired land (Part Lot 108 DP 5179), and Wattlebird Bushland Reserve (consisting of Lot

1114 DP 588662, Lot 32 DP 537845, Lot 34 DP 589616, Lot 36 DP 538620, Lot 44 DP

535533 and Lot 46 DP 536689) be consolidated into a single lot.

7. Council delegates the General Manager to execute any necessary documentation, in

accordance with the Power of Attorney dated 6 July 2016 BK 4710 No. 28, for the acquisition

of part of 153 Gannons Road, Caringbah (Lot 108 DP 5179).


PL

N0

37

-18

PURPOSE

To seek Council approval to acquire, via donation to Council, the rear (approx. 800m2) of 153

Gannons Road, Caringbah (Part Lot 108 DP 5179) to be added to Wattlebird Bushland Reserve for

open space purposes.

BACKGROUND

The owner of 153 Gannons Road, Caringbah, a long time participant of the Bushcare program for

Wattlebird Bushland Reserve, wishes to donate to Council the rear portion of her property (approx.

800m2). She intends to bequeath the remainder of the 1939m

2property upon her passing.

The owner has requested the donated parcel “never be built on and is returned to the original

bushland state” at no cost to the owner. Appendix A contains an aerial map of the proposed land to be

transferred to Council in relation to the reserve.

DISCUSSION

The parcel of land is contiguous with the existing Wattlebird Reserve. It will provide a complementary

addition of relatively flat land with several significant mature trees that provide public amenity and add

environmental value to the reserve.

Upon acquisition it is proposed the parcel of land be classified ‘Community’ and zoned RE1 Public

Recreation via an amendment to the LEP 2015. No planning issues are expected to be raised by the

proposed rezoning. The land adjoins land zoned RE1 and essentially improves the utility and

community value of the existing open space. This is a positive outcome and consistent with good

planning practice.


To facilitate the land transfer it is proposed Council provide for acquisition costs, including legal fees

and survey, estimated at $5,000.

Minor works to the land to ensure it is safe for the public are needed and include the removal of

bamboo and several introduced trees, removal of a small dilapidated shed and old wire fencing, and

the installation of a new fence. These works, estimated to cost $7,500, can be accommodated within

current operating budgets. Restoration will require planting of native plants, which will be achieved

through the existing Bushcare program.

Wattlebird Reserve is a CX4 (maintenance only on request and where there is a hazard or safety

concern) reserve requiring minimal maintenance. The additional parcel of land will have the same

classification. While this is an additional asset being added to Council’s portfolio, it is not expected to

adversely impact ongoing operational budgets due to the very low levels of maintenance required, the


PL

N0

37

-18

majority of which will be provided through Bushcare volunteers who support the addition of the parcel

of land to the reserve.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

Council has an Environment Strategy 2013 that supports Council's LEP 2015. An objective of this

strategy is “To protect and enhance local biodiversity”. Moreover this proposal assists Council in

meeting the following strategic objective:


2.2 Enhance and protect diverse natural

habitats

2D Review and implement the Urban Tree and

Bushland Policy and Programs.


The acquisition of the land will help Council meets its policy objectives within the Urban Tree and

Bushland Policy, more specifically “To improve the quality and increase the quantity of bushland and

the tree canopy throughout the Sutherland Shire”.

CONCLUSION

The addition of this parcel of land to Wattlebird Bushland Reserve is viewed as a positive contribution

that will help Council increase the bushland and open space available to residents. It is recommended

that approval be given for the acquisition, rezoning, reclassification and basic restoration of this

property.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this Report is the Manager Property Services, Lani

Richardson, who can be contacted on 9710 0614.

File Number: 2018/304252


PL

N0

37-1

8 A

pp

en

dix

A

Agenda of Shire Planning Committee - 4 June 2018€¦ · Croydon St 16 extra public car parking...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda of Shire Planning Committee - 4 June 2018€¦ · Croydon St 16 extra public car parking...