DECISION OF 3604th COUNCIL & COUNCIL ASSESSMENTS … · 2014-01-09 · AUTHOR: Brad Stafford,...

DECISION OF 3604th COUNCIL & COUNCIL ASSESSMENTS MEETING HELD ON 26 JUNE 2012

348. PDS02: 2 Anzac Avenue Cammeray Draft Masterplan Report of Brad Stafford, Senior Strategic Planner, 19 June 2012 Council has resolved to sell 2 Anzac Avenue, Cammeray, the site of the former Anzac Memorial Club, and to prepare a masterplan to inform future development of the site. A draft masterplan has been produced and is attached to this report. The draft masterplan includes a background report detailing each step of the masterplan process, being:

• a set of guiding principles; • a capacity and built form analysis; • a preferred built form option and • draft masterplan provisions.

The resolution of Council is sought to adopt the draft masterplan for public exhibition purposes, and to undertake a call for expressions of interest from prospective purchasers / developers. This will be a concurrent exercise that will facilitate a robust analysis prior to determining a final masterplan position. Should Council adopt the recommendations of this report, the public exhibition and expressions of interest processes are expected to take place in July / August 2012, with both matters being reported back to Council after the local government elections of 8 September 2012. Recommending: 1. THAT Council adopt the attached draft 2 Anzac Avenue masterplan and place the plan on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days; and 2. THAT Council call for expressions of interest from prospective purchasers / developers of the land.

Addendum to Item PDS02 was brought forward and dealt with at this stage. Addendum to report of Brad Stafford- 21 June 2012, 2 Anzac Avenue Cammeray Draft Masterplan The report on the draft masterplan give details regarding estimated future time frames for the process of the draft masterplan and the sale of the subject site. In particular, the report states that should Council adopt the draft masterplan for public exhibition purposes, the process for seeking expressions of interest from prospective purchasers will run concurrently with that exhibition process. In the interests of prudential management of Council assets, staff consider that prior to expressions of interest being called for from prospective purchasers, Council undertake a process to call for fee proposals from a number of property consultants by open tender to manage the expressions of interest, tender and contract of sale processes. In terms of the time frames indicated in the report, this would delay the calls for and assessment of expressions of interest from prospective purchasers. An amended indicative time frame follows, with changes in bold:

Stage Consultation Expected Timing

Comment

Public Exhibition

Public Exhibition

July 2012 To include letters to affected properties, precinct presentations, website and chambers / library display


Comment

Calls for fee proposals

Tender July / August 2012

Calls for fee proposals from firms to manage sale process with Council

Council Elections Caretaker Period 13 August – 8 September

Post-election timings to be confirmed, and are partly dependent on resolving program with property consultant

Post-Council elections

Councillor briefing(s)

To update new Council on masterplan and present key submissions

Post-Exhibition

Post-Exhibition Report to Council

Detail of submissions and recommendation to adopt masterplan with or without changes

Engage Property Consultant

Tender Report to Council

Market testing to ensure best consulting services value to Council

Expressions of Interest

Calls for expressions of interest

Calls for expressions of interest from developers etc. Further details in EOI section below


Councillor Briefing / Report

Discuss / present EOIs and recommend short list for selected tender

Selected Tender Process

Selected tender Tenders for sale of land to selected parties based on expressions of interest assessment


Councillor Briefing

Discuss / present preferred tender


Report to Council – preferred tender

Preferred tender selected /adopted

General Registry Precinct briefing

Update precinct on project

Contracts Exchanged

Contract for sale of land exchanged, with VPA attached to achieve aims of masterplan

Planning Proposal

Report to Council

Seeking adoption of planning proposal for gateway determination /draft DCP amendments

Planning Proposal

Public Exhibition

Exhibition of proposed LEP and DCP amendments


Comment

Development Application

Public Exhibition

Development application with VPA lodged by developer

Planning Proposal

Report to Council

Post-exhibition report to Council. PP adopted and sent to Minister for gazettal


Report to Council

Post-exhibition report to Council

Settlement Settlement to take place post-development consent

Recommending: THAT prior to the seeking of expressions of interest from prospective purchasers / developers, Council call for fee proposals by open tender from property consultants to manage the sale process with Council. RESOLVED: 1. THAT Council adopt the attached draft 2 Anzac Avenue masterplan and place the plan on public exhibition for an extended period of time. 2. THAT a public meeting be held after the Council elections in September 2012. The Motion was moved by Councillor Barbour and seconded by Councillor Gibson.

Voting was as follows: Unanimous

Councillor Yes No Councillor Yes No

McCaffery Y Zimmerman Y Gibson Y Baker Absent Christie Y Robjohns Y Reymond Y Carland Y Marchandeau Y Burke Absent Raymond Absent Pearson Y Barbour Y

A D D E N D U M

ADDENDUM TO REPORT OF BRAD STAFFORD FOR 25 JUNE 2012

SUBJECT: PDS02 - 2 ANZAC AVE, CAMMERAY DRAFT MASTERPLAN

AUTHOR: BRAD STAFFORD, SENIOR STRATEGIC PLANNER

DATE: 21 JUNE 2012 Attachments: None

SUMMARY The report on the draft masterplan give details regarding estimated future time frames for the process of the draft masterplan and the sale of the subject site. In particular, the report states that should Council adopt the draft masterplan for public exhibition purposes, the process for seeking expressions of interest from prospective purchasers will run concurrently with that exhibition process. In the interests of prudential management of Council assets, staff consider that prior to expressions of interest being called for from prospective purchasers, Council undertake a process to call for fee proposals from a number of property consultants by open tender to manage the expressions of interest, tender and contract of sale processes. In terms of the time frames indicated in the report, this would delay the calls for and assessment of expressions of interest from prospective purchasers. An amended indicative time frame follows, with changes in bold:

Stage Consultation Expected Timing Comment

Public Exhibition Public Exhibition July 2012 To include letters to affected properties, precinct presentations, website and chambers / library display

Calls for fee proposals

Tender July / August 2012 Calls for fee proposals from firms to manage sale process with Council


Post-election timings to be confirmed, and are partly dependent on resolving program with property consultant



To update new Council on masterplan and present key submissions

Post-Exhibition Post-Exhibition Report to Council


Engage Property Consultant

Tender Report to Council

Market testing to ensure best consulting services value to Council

ADDENDUM DATED 21 June 2012 Page 2

Re: 2 Anzac Avenue Draft Masterplan




Calls for expressions of interest from developers etc. Further details in EOI section below


Councillor Briefing / Report

Discuss / present EOIs and recommend short list for selected tender




Councillor Briefing Discuss / present preferred tender






Contracts Exchanged


Planning Proposal Report to Council Seeking adoption of planning proposal for gateway determination /draft DCP amendments

Planning Proposal Public Exhibition Exhibition of proposed LEP and DCP amendments


Public Exhibition Development application with VPA lodged by developer

Planning Proposal Report to Council Post-exhibition report to Council. PP adopted and sent to Minister for gazettal


Report to Council Post-exhibition report to Council


RECOMMENDATION: THAT prior to the seeking of expressions of interest from prospective purchasers / developers, Council call for fee proposals by open tender from property consultants to manage the sale process with Council. SIGNED ________________________

ITEM PDS02 REPORTS 25/06/12

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:

Draft Background Report and Masterplan Design Excellence Panel minutes 5 June 2012

SUBJECT: 2 Anzac Avenue Cammeray Draft Masterplan AUTHOR: Brad Stafford, Senior Strategic Planner, 19 June 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Council has resolved to sell 2 Anzac Avenue, Cammeray, the site of the former Anzac Memorial Club, and to prepare a masterplan to inform future development of the site. A draft masterplan has been produced and is attached to this report. The draft masterplan includes a background report detailing each step of the masterplan process, being:

a set of guiding principles; a capacity and built form analysis; a preferred built form option and draft masterplan provisions.

The resolution of Council is sought to adopt the draft masterplan for public exhibition purposes, and to undertake a call for expressions of interest from prospective purchasers / developers. This will be a concurrent exercise that will facilitate a robust analysis prior to determining a final masterplan position. Should Council adopt the recommendations of this report, the public exhibition and expressions of interest processes are expected to take place in July / August 2012, with both matters being reported back to Council after the local government elections of 8 September 2012. RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council adopt the attached draft 2 Anzac Avenue masterplan and place the plan on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days; and 2.THAT Council call for expressions of interest from prospective purchasers / developers of the land. Signed: Endorsed by: Manager Strategic Planning

Report of Brad Stafford, Senior Strategic Planner Re: 2 Anzac Avenue, Cammeray Draft Masterplan

(2)

LINK TO DELIVERY PROGRAM The relationship with the Delivery Program is as follows: Direction: 2 Our Built Environment Goal: 2.1 Ensure the long-term sustainability of infrastructure and assets BACKGROUND 2 Anzac Avenue, Cammeray is the site of the former Anzac Memorial Club, and is owned by Council. The Club ceased operations in 2010. At its meeting of 28 November 2011, Council resolved:

THAT in relation to the ANZAC Club site Council resolve that its preferred strategy is to dispose of the site and establish an investment portfolio to fund community and recreational projects. THAT Council prepare a Planning Proposal for the ANZAC Club site at Cammeray which incorporates a Master Plan process that sets the planning parameters within which a development proposal may be considered.

With regard to the second resolution, Strategic Planning staff began developing a draft masterplan in January 2012. It is expected that the draft masterplan, if adopted by Council, will form part of the tender process for the sale of the site. The successful tender would be selected partly on the response made to the provisions of the masterplan. SUSTAINABILITY STATEMENT The following table provides a summary of the key sustainability implications: QBL Pillar Implications Environment The draft masterplan will require development on the site to be of

the highest environmental standards. This was a key guiding principle of the process.

Social The draft masterplan will mandate the delivery of a number of units for key worker affordable housing, allowing for essential service employees to live within the area they work.

Economic The sale of the land will allow Council to fund a number of recreational and social infrastructure upgrades.

Governance The masterplanning process represents a sound approach to ensuring that the sale of a Council asset delivers outcomes in accordance with adopted Council policy and strategy.


(3)

MASTERPLAN PROCESS The following is a brief summary of the process undertaken to date. Each part of the process is fully documented within the attached background report and masterplan. Staff have been mindful throughout the process of the importance of applying a structured, methodical approach to establishing the most appropriate future uses and density for this site. The opportunity for Council to implement a masterplan that achieves exceptional urban design, additional public benefit, and high environmental standards has been a key consideration from the outset. Site and Context Analysis In order to gain a comprehensive appreciation for the characteristics of the site and its surrounds, a site and context analysis portion of the background study considered the following:

Transport Open space Land use, built form and height Topography Zoning Traffic Existing buildings Dimensions Views Vehicular access Heritage Pedestrian links and desire lines Noise Visual context

Strategy Analysis The strategy review consisted of an overview of statutory and other planning documents to ascertain any implications in planning for the future development of the site. The background report considered the following documents:

Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and Draft Inner North Sub-regional Strategy North Sydney Residential Development Strategy 2009 North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2001 North Sydney Draft Local Environmental Plan 2009 North Sydney Development Control Plan 2002 North Sydney Draft Development Control Plan 2010

Needs Review

A needs review was undertaken to establish whether any elements of public infrastructure, the need for which was established within adopted Council plans or strategies, could or should be mandated within the masterplan for delivery on the subject site. The needs analysis assessed the following possible uses for the site:


(4)

Passive open space Active open space Community garden Seniors housing Childcare centre Key worker affordable housing Establishment of investment portfolio Educational facilities Residential development

The needs review concluded that residential development, key worker affordable housing, and a community garden were all identifiable needs and uses for which on-site provision is considered both possible and appropriate for the subject site. Opportunities and Constraints The background report then identified, based on the analysis described so far, the main opportunities and constraints of the site. Opportunities

Providing public benefit from the sale and development of the land Improving pedestrian circulation and amenity Promoting environmental sustainability Allowing increased height and yield for additional public benefit Exploring opportunities for vehicular access

Constraints

Current restricted access to site Noise effects from major roads Possible amenity loss for surrounding development

Principles A set of key guiding principles were developed based on the analysis undertaken and summarised above, and were used to inform the capacity analysis, options development and finally the provisions of the draft masterplan itself. The 8 principles developed are expanded upon in the background report and listed as follows:

1. Highest and best use 2. Increased yield and public benefit 3. Preferred land uses 4. Key worker affordable housing 5. Pedestrian circulation and vehicular access 6. Built form excellence 7. Ecologically sustainable development 8. Community garden


(5)

Capacity Analysis Council appointed an architectural firm to undertake a capacity study and built form analysis based primarily on existing LEP and DCP controls, with the aim of establishing a likely yield for the site under a theoretical ‘business as usual’ scenario. The analysis looked at several scenarios and established that a floor space ratio (FSR) of between 0.84:1 and 1:1 would be the likely density outcome under existing controls. These figures equate to around 99 -112 residential units, although these figures can vary slightly according to unit mix (i.e. the amount of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units provided). Options Development Having derived an indicative compliant built form and yield for the site, Council’s architectural consultant undertook an urban design and massing study to produce a set of options from which the masterplan might be based. The key consideration for the consultant in developing these options was the application of all the relevant principles developed during the background analyses. The consultant brief further specified that the application of the derived principles should result in a built form that:

Did not overshadow surrounding residences Complied with SEPP 65 guidelines Incorporated a secondary vehicular access off Anzac Avenue Incorporated a through-site link Considered amenity and context in deriving a maximum height Incorporated a community garden in an appropriate place Displayed a high level of internal amenity Appropriately addressed both Ernest St and Anzac Avenue Did not exceed 40% of site area in terms of footprint

The resulting options, detailed in the background report attached, varied in FSR from between 1.2:1 and 1.46:1. This equates to between 150-200 residential units (again based on an indicative unit size mix). Preferred Option The built form options were reviewed by staff and presented to Councillors at a briefing. A preferred option was developed by staff and Council’s architectural consultant, incorporating the best elements from each option. Specifically, the preferred option was to incorporate the following:

A consolidated and central private open space area A reduced effect of a six storey tower element on Anzac Ave A wider east-west view corridor option at the southern end A north/south orientation option for the western tower A larger option for the community garden area A more realistic unit mix to establish likely unit numbers.


(6)

The preferred built form option, detailed on page 21 of the attached background report, indicates an FSR of 1.45:1 for the site. This equates to approximately 174 units, based on an indicative unit split of 70 one bedroom, 90 two bedroom and 14 three bedroom units. Masterplan Provisions The principles and preferred built option established during the background and analysis stages of the process have been translated into draft provisions or controls for the masterplan. The twelve provisions relate specifically to:

1. Height and massing – 4 storeys and 6 storeys 2. Floor space ratio – 1.45:1 3. Building separation and setbacks – to ensure amenity 4. Through site link – publicly accessible link between Miller Street and Anzac Park 5. Building footprint and landscaped area – building footprint not to exceed 38% 6. Community garden – Owned and managed by Council for whole community 7. Ecologically sustainable development – to ensure high environmental standards 8. Key worker affordable housing – 5.75% of units dedicated to Council ownership 9. Bellevue Park embellishment – upgrade to public open space 10. Anzac Park memorial and heritage interpretation – responding to historical context 11. Vehicular access – from both Ernest Street and Anzac Avenue 12. Pedestrian access and activation – improving circulation and street activity

MASTERPLAN DELIVERY The provisions contained within the draft masterplan will be implemented via a number of statutory and non-statutory mechanisms. In summary, the main ways to ensure the implementation of the masterplan provisions are via: Amendments to Local Environmental Plan 2001 and Draft LEP 2009 Provisions such as height limits and floor space ratios can be dealt with via amendments to Council’s statutory planning documents – undertaken through the planning proposal process. A planning proposal would be reported to Council and forwarded to the Minister for Planning after a tender for the sale of the land is selected. Amendments to Development Control Plan 2002 and Draft DCP 2010 Other provisions which cannot form part of a planning proposal may take the form of amendments to Council’s DCP. This may include the insertion of a site-specific section in the Character Statements part of the DCP. A draft DCP would be reported to Council and publicly exhibited concurrently with the planning proposal. Voluntary Planning Agreements For provisions of the masterplan for which LEP and DCP amendments are not appropriate, a VPA can be drafted to ensure the delivery of masterplan provisions. In terms of the draft masterplan, a VPA would be used during the development application stage to ensure that units for key worker affordable housing and land for the proposed community garden are transferred at the appropriate time to Council.


(7)

Upon final adoption of the masterplan and selection of a successful tender, Council will seek further advice on the appropriate mechanisms via which the provisions of the masterplan can be implemented. CONSULTATION The future of the former Anzac Club site has been the subject of considerable public consultation, the most recent example being public exhibition of an options paper from November 2010 to February 2011. The consideration of submissions from that public exhibition led ultimately to Council’s 28 November 2011 resolution to sell the site to fund infrastructure upgrades and to develop a masterplan. The draft masterplan itself has not yet been publicly exhibited. The draft masterplan has been widely consulted within Council, with details below. Councillor Briefings 15 March and 3 April 2012 Councillors were briefed on the draft masterplan on 15 March and 3 April 2012. These briefings were held to illustrate and discuss the masterplan process as it related to background analyses, capacity analysis and preferred option development. Councillors at both these briefings were supportive of the process to date. 4 June 2012 A further briefing was held on 4 June 2012 at which the finalised preferred option and provisions of the draft masterplan were presented to Councillors. The briefing also detailed valuation / feasibility information for which Council had engaged an external consultant to provide. A key discussion point of that briefing was the provision of on-site public benefit, namely key worker affordable housing, and whether it was more appropriate for Council to use funds from the sale of the site to purchase affordable housing elsewhere within the municipality. Further comment on this matter has been received from Council’s Community and Library Services Department, and appears below under ‘Key Issues’. Manex MANEX endorsed the 2 Anzac Avenue Masterplan project plan on 23 January 2012. A presentation was made by staff to the Extended MANEX meeting of 23 April, and a further update was presented to MANEX on 4 June 2012. Consultation with other Council Divisions Consultation has been undertaken with key Council Directorates where appropriate, particularly during the needs analysis and strategy review phases. This was undertaken to clarify and confirm the identified social and recreational needs for possible incorporation on-site.


(8)

Council’s Community and Library Services (CLS) division has worked closely with Strategic Planning staff in ascertaining the need for and appropriate number of units for key worker affordable housing and their mandating within the masterplan for dedication to Council. Design Excellence Panel The draft background report and masterplan were presented to Council’s Design Excellence Panel prior to its meeting of 5 June 2012. The Panel were asked to comment generally on the draft masterplan and specifically on matters relating to built form, ecologically sustainable development, and key worker affordable housing. The minutes of that Design Excellence Panel meeting are attached for the information of Councillors. Where relevant, specific comments of the Panel that relate to key issues are detailed in that section of the report below. KEY ISSUES The following is an outline and discussion of one key matter arising out of the consultation process undertaken to date. It does not represent all matters discussed, but addresses the matter for which further information has been sought or has come to hand. On-Site Versus Off-Site Provision of Key Worker Affordable Housing The draft masterplan mandates a quantum of units to be transferred to Council ownership for management by a local key worker affordable housing provider. At the Councillor briefing of 4 June 2012, the question of whether key worker affordable housing should be purchased off-site from a portion of the revenue generated from the sale of the site. Particular mention was made of the number of units that might be purchased this way versus the number of units provided within a future development on the subject site, as mandated within the draft masterplan. The needs analysis undertaken in the draft masterplan background report identified a severe shortage of key worker affordable housing within the North Sydney LGA. Also identified was the lack of recent success in providing new affordable housing in accordance with adopted Council strategies – of an estimated 2000 affordable bed spaces lost since 1984, only 15 have been created since 1999. Funds do exist for the purchase of housing units, but market forces have made it difficult for Council to acquire such properties. Council’s Community and Library Services Department has confirmed that it is their strong recommendation that key worker affordable housing remain in the masterplan for on-site provision. This position is supported by PDS staff. The option of mandating key worker affordable housing in the masterplan meets all of the criteria Council and the Department of Housing (DOH) have over many years applied to joint purchases of community housing:

Suited to purpose: proximity to shops and public transport Integrated with wider community (affordable key workers (incomes up to

$75,000pa) will co-exist acceptably with residents of units sold on the open market)


(9)

Maintenance issues are acceptable No structural issues Value for money

For these reasons, the sale of the subject site and its subsequent redevelopment is considered to be a valuable opportunity to provide quality affordable housing for key workers within North Sydney. FUTURE CONSULTATION AND PROJECT TIMELINE The following is a summary of the expected public consultation and project timeline to be undertaken should Council adopt the draft masterplan. The upcoming local government elections make setting post-election time frames difficult, hence the absence of expected timing dates in that section of the table.


Public Exhibition Public Exhibition July 2012 To include letters to affected properties, precinct presentations, website and chambers / library display



July 2012 Calls for expressions of interest from developers etc. Further details in EOI section below




September/October 2012

To update new Council and present key submissions / EOIs

Post-Exhibition Post-Exhibition Report to Council





Councillor Briefing Discuss / present preferred tender






Contracts Exchanged


Planning Proposal Report to Council Seeking adoption of planning proposal for gateway determination /draft DCP amendments

Planning Proposal Public Exhibition Exhibition of proposed LEP and DCP amendments


(10)



Public Exhibition Development application with VPA lodged by developer

Planning Proposal Report to Council Post-exhibition report to Council. PP adopted and sent to Minister for gazettal


Report to Council Post-exhibition report to Council


EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST Should Council adopt the draft masterplan for public exhibition, a call for expressions of interest will be undertaken concurrently with that public exhibition. The call for expressions of interest allows prospective purchasers of the site / developers to register their interest in the site without lodging a formal tender. Importantly EOI responses will facilitate a robust analysis of the proposal prior to determining a final masterplan position. The call for expressions of interest will include the draft masterplan as the primary document, and interested parties will be requested to provide the following information:

Company / proponent profile, including CVs of key staff Details of experience with similar projects / ventures, including contact names of

associated referees Demonstrated commitment to the principles and objectives of the masterplan A broad response to the provisions of the masterplan Details of any design consultants to be used by the proponent

Based on the responses to the above, a short-list of suitable candidates will be created to which detailed tender documents for the sale and redevelopment of the land will then be forwarded.

Background Report

Built Form Analysis

Masterplan

DRAFT - UNENDORSED

Prepared by Strategic Planning May 2012

2 ANZAC AVENUE, CAMMERAY – MASTERPLAN 2012

ATTACHMENT TO PDS02 - 25/06/12 Page 11


2

CONTENTS 1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................. 3

2 SITE LOCATION, SETTING AND CONTEXT ..................................................................................................... 3

2.1 TRANSPORT .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Trains and Buses .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Private Vehicle ............................................................................................................................................. 4

Active Transport ........................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 2.2 OPEN SPACE ................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 2.3 LAND USE, BUILT FORM AND HEIGHT ............................................................................................ 5

2.4 2.4 TOPOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. 6

2.5 2.5 ZONING .......................................................................................................................................... 6

2.6 2.6 TRAFFIC .......................................................................................................................................... 6

3 SITE ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................................. 7

3.1 EXISTING BUILDINGS ............................................................................................................................ 7

3.2 DIMENSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 7

3.3 TOPOGRAPHY and VIEWS .................................................................................................................... 7

3.4 VEHICULAR ACCESS .............................................................................................................................. 7

3.5 HERITAGE ............................................................................................................................................. 7

3.6 PEDESTRIAN LINKS AND DESIRE LINES ................................................................................................. 8

3.7 NOISE ................................................................................................................................................... 8

3.8 VISUAL CONTEXT .................................................................................................................................. 8

4 STRATGEY REVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... 9

4.1 METROPOLITAN STRATEGY AND DRAFT INNER NORTH SUBREGIONAL STRATEGY ............................ 9

4.2 NORTH SYDNEY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 2009 (RDS) ................................................ 9

4.3 NORTH SYDNEY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2001 ........................................................................ 9

4.4 NORTH SYDNEY DRAFT LEP 2009 ......................................................................................................... 9

4.5 NORTH SYDNEY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2002 ....................................................................... 9

4.6 NORTH SYDNEY DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2010 .......................................................... 10

5 NEEDS ANALYSIS AND STRATEGY REVIEW – PUBLIC BENEFIT ................................................................... 10

6 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ......................................................................................................... 14

6.1 OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................................................................................. 14

Public Benefit ............................................................................................................................................. 14

Pedestrian Circulation ................................................................................................................................ 14

Environmental Sustainability...................................................................................................................... 14

Increased Height / Yield ............................................................................................................................. 14

Vehicular Access ......................................................................................................................................... 14

6.2 CONSTRAINTS ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Access ......................................................................................................................................................... 15

Noise ........................................................................................................................................................... 15

Overshadowing .......................................................................................................................................... 15

Views .......................................................................................................................................................... 15

7 PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................................................................. 16

8 EXISTING CAPACITY AND BUILT FORM ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 17

9 OPTIONS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................... 18

9.1 OPTIONS APPRAISAL........................................................................................................................... 18

9.2 PREFERRED OPTION DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 21

9.3 PREFERRED OPTION ........................................................................................................................... 21

9.4 ARTIST PERSPECTIVES ......................................................................................................................... 22

10 MASTERPLAN .............................................................................................................................................. 23

10.1 HEIGHT AND MASSING ....................................................................................................................... 23

10.2 FLOOR SPACE RATIO ........................................................................................................................... 23

10.3 BUILDING SEPARATIONS AND SETBACKS ........................................................................................... 23

10.4 THROUGH SITE LINK ........................................................................................................................... 24

10.5 BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND LANDSCAPED AREA ................................................................................ 24

10.6 COMMUNITY GARDEN ....................................................................................................................... 24

10.7 ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 25

10.8 AFFORDABLE KEY WORKER HOUSING ................................................................................................ 25

10.9 BELLEVUE PARK EMBELLISHMENT ..................................................................................................... 25

10.10 ANZAC PARK MEMORIAL .................................................................................................................... 26

10.11 VEHICULAR ACCESS ............................................................................................................................ 26

10.12 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS........................................................................................................................... 26



3

1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Council has resolved to dispose of 2 Anzac Avenue, Cammeray and to develop a masterplan to inform

future development outcomes on the site. The masterplan seeks to facilitate the sale and

development of the site, and ensure that any development achieves best-practice in ecologically

sustainable building design, incorporates on-site public benefit where appropriate, and ensures a

reasonable sale price for Council. The masterplan will form the basis of any amendments to Council’s

Local Environmental and Development Control Plans needed to give effect to the masterplan.

In developing the masterplan, staff have drawn on a number of adopted strategies, plans and

previous Council resolutions to inform the decision making process for the site. Figure 2 provides an

illustration of how the masterplan process has been undertaken.

Previous Consultation / Consideration

A public meeting regarding the future of the subject site was held on 4 November 2010. After the

public meeting, the presentation from that meeting was placed on public exhibition from November

2010 to February 2011, seeking public responses to options for the future of the subject site. Council

considered a report on 14 March 2011 summarising the results of the exhibition and recommending

that Option 2 – to sell the site for educational, aged care or residential development – be pursued.

The resolution of Council called for further information regarding planning implications of various

development types. At its meeting of 28 November 2011, Council resolved to sell the site to fund

capital works, and also to develop a masterplan for the site.

2 SITE LOCATION, SETTING AND CONTEXT

The site is centrally located within the North Sydney LGA and is within reasonable distance of several

smaller and larger commercial and neighbourhood centres. The site is 400m from Cammeray Village,

800m from Crows Nest Town Centre, 1 km from Neutral Bay Town Centre, and 1.2 km from the North

Sydney Centre.

Site Analysis

+ Strategy Analysis

+ Needs Review

Principles and Priorities

Preferred Option

Adoption of Masterplan

Figure 1 – Subject Site, 2 Anzac Avenue,

Cammeray

Figure 2 – Masterplan Process Overview

Subject site

Neutral Bay

Town Centre

Cammeray

Village

Crows Nest

Town Centre

North

Sydney

Centre

North Sydney

Railway Station



4

2.1 TRANSPORT

Trains and Buses

Sydney Buses provides several services north and south along Miller Street, which is less than 100m

from the subject site. Major east/west routes to the North Shore and Military Road / Northern

Beaches are serviced from Falcon Street, around 300m south of the site.

Several of the southbound routes provide services to North Sydney Railway Station, approximately

1.6km from the subject site.

Private Vehicle

The site lies within close proximity to major local and vehicular routes, with the Warringah Freeway –

the main arterial road south to the Sydney CBD and airport and north to the North Shore and beyond,

accessible via Miller Street and Ernest Street. Those two streets also represent the primary

north/south and east/west local and regional routes.

Active Transport

The subject site is within reasonable distance of marked on-road bicycle routes, connecting with

nearby residential areas and local centres. The proposed Naremburn to Harbour Bridge Cycleway

project has the potential to greatly enhance regional scale connectivity with the subject site.

2.2 OPEN SPACE

There are four areas of significant publicly-accessible open space within 1km of the subject site,

offering a range of passive and active recreational activities.

Anzac Park lies immediately to the east of the subject site, and incorporates a war memorial and

commemorative tree planting, and a reasonably-sized area of informal open space.

St Leonards Park lies 300m south of the subject site, and incorporates a small stadium and sporting

fields, a bowling club, a music bowl, and large areas of infomal open space.

St Thomas Rest Park lies some 500m from the subject site, and is an informal piece of open space

incorporating childrens’ play facilities.

Cammeray Park lies about 500m the east of the subject site, and contains a sporting field, a skate

park, and some informal open space. It is also adjacent to Cammeray Golf Course.

Figure 4 – Sydney Buses Northern

Region map extract

Figure 3 – Local Context

Figure 5 – Road Network Map

Figure 6 – North Sydney

Bicycle Map extract

Subject site

Subject Site



5

Subject Site

St Thomas Rest Park

Cammeray

Park

St Leonards

Park

Anzac Park

There are several other smaller areas of open space around the subject site, the most significant

being Bellevue Park – a small strip of land zoned Public Open Space forming the site’s eastern

boundary. The open space is of limited utility, and has implications for vehicular access to the site

along its major street frontage.

2.3 LAND USE, BUILT FORM AND HEIGHT

Generally speaking, the surrounding locality can be described as a low to medium density,

predominantly residential area. Within its street block, the site is bounded to the north by

townhouse and apartment buildings ranging from two to four storeys in height. Along its western

boundary sits a mix of single storey free-standing dwellings, two storey town house developments,

and a large four to five storey apartment building, formerly part of the larger subject site which was

subdivided and sold by Council in 2005. This development at 331 Miller street is the most intensive

form of residential development in the immediate locality.

To the south across Ernest Street, a mix of three storey apartment buildings and single storey

attached dwellings comprise the local built form. The site is bordered to the east by a strip of public

open space, which varies in width from 6m to 16m. Continuing east across Anzac Avenue lies Anzac

Park and then the Warringah Freeway. The development to the north of Anzac Park is characterised

by lower-scale flat buildings.

Figures 8 and 9, taken from Council’s 3D modelling software, give a visual indication of the scale of

the surrounding built form.

Figure 7 - Open

Space Network

Figure 8 – Model indicating surrounding built form – looking south.

Figure 9 – Model indicating surrounding built form – looking north-west

Miller Street

Ernest Street

Warringah Freeway

Miller Street

Ernest Street

Anzac Park



6

2.4 TOPOGRAPHY

The topography of the subject site mirrors that of the surrounding precinct, with a general rise in

ground level from the site west towards crows nest and north towards Cammeray. To the northeast,

the land moderately falls towards the Warringah Freeway, Cammeray Golf Course and eventually to

Primrose Park and Willoughby Bay. At the site’s southeastern edge, the land continues to fall down

Ernest Street to the Warringah Freeway and rises again beyond toward Neutral Bay.

2.5 ZONING

The zoning of the surrounding locality is generally reflective of built form, with the Residential C zone

(allowing apartment buildings) applying to areas to the north, east and southeast of the site, and the

Residential B zone (allowing attached dwellings / townhouses) forming the predominant zoning to

the south and southeast. 331 Miller Street to the site’s immediate east is zoned Special Uses (Club),

illustrating its previous connection to the subject site.

2.6 TRAFFIC

Ernest Street and Miller Street are state roads and handle medium to high traffic volumes on

average. Rosalind Street and Anzac Aveneue however are local streets and carry much less traffic.

> 20,000

<20,000

<10,000

<4,000

<2,000

Figure 10 – Topography – wider locality Figure 11 – Zoning Map – NSLEP 2001 Figure 12 – Average daily traffic volumes near subject site. (Sources – RTA

and Council)

Rise in topography

Fall in topography



7

3 SITE ANALYSIS

3.1 EXISTING BUILDINGS

The site was formerly occupied by the North Sydney Anzac Memorial Club. The club building, parking

and recreational structures remain on the site (the tennis courts and a portion of the car park are still

in use). The original 1940s building was added to in the 1960s and another later addition was added.

The building has deteriorated to some degree since it became largely vacant.

3.2 DIMENSIONS

The subject site is an irregularly-shaped block with an area of 9887m², varying in dimensions but

having a predominantly north-south orientation. However, the dominant portion of the site is its

central and northern portions, which form a large square area. The site narrows at its Ernest Street

frontage to around 44m. Its eastern boundary to Bellevue Park is around 135m in length.

3.3 TOPOGRAPHY and VIEWS

The site slopes moderately down from west to east, a total of 5m at its widest point. As Figure 14

indicates, the site has had significant amendments made to its natural ground level, the most

prominent being the car parking at the southern end of the site.

The site sits at the lowest point within its street block and is therefore contained towards its north

and west by both topography and existing development, and therefore naturally addresses its

eastern and to some extent its southern boundaries.

As the site sits quite low within the surrounding topography, existing views from the site are limited

to the immediately surrounding locality, although elements of the Neutral Bay Skyline are visible to

the east.

3.4 VEHICULAR ACCESS

The site has two street frontages, although the open space zoning along Anzac Avenue currently

prevents vehicular access from that street. Access to the site and to 331 Miller Street is via Ernest

Street, which is a regional road and a secondary feeder route for the Warringah Freeway,

southbound on and northbound off.

3.5 HERITAGE

There are no listed items of heritage significance within the curtilage of the subject site. The

memorial stand of trees and tramway memorial to the fallen in Anzac Park do however face the

subject site and are significant, not only within the context of the former club, but in their own right.

75 74

73

72

71

70

95

m

80

m

135

m

44

m

Figure 13 – Key Site Dimensions

(in metres)

Figure 14 – Ground Level Contour Map –

Heights are shown as RLs



8

The site itself, whilst not subject to any local or state heritage listing, contains a number of items

which are considered to be significant. These include:

Frank Hurley photographic montages – removed for relocation to another RSL venue;

A number of timber campaign commenmorative panels that remain in the memorial hall;

A large honour roll of original donators to the club;

A number of smaller honour rolls that will be relocated to the new RSL sub-branch premises

in St Leonards Park; and

Two stone tablets set into the wall outside the original foyer, one reading 'This stone was set

by a soldier 22.11.41' and the other 'This stone was set by a citizen 22.11.41'.

Efforts are being made to remove significant items to prevent damage as the building’s condition

deteriorates. A photographic conservation survey has been undertaken at the site to document the

existing building’s history and significant features.

3.6 PEDESTRIAN LINKS AND DESIRE LINES

The pedestrian network around the subject site is based solely on footpath routes around existing

street blocks. The main east/west axis along Ernest Street provides access west to Crows Nest and

east to Neutral Bay, while the north/south axis of Miller Street is used to access Cammeray Village to

the North and St Leonards Park and the North Sydney Centre to the south. The subject site would

have once been considered a destination for pedestrian activity, but this has ceased with the closure

of the Anzac Club.

The street block within which the subject site sits is rectangular in shape with a north/south

lengthwise orientation. In terms of pedestrian access into and through the site, a potential future

desire line traverses the site between Miller Street and Anzac Park. This was acknowledged during

the development of 331 Miller Street, with the creation of a right of way, by way of a Section 88b

instrument, across the northern edge of that site. The link was originally located to improve access to

the Club, and its existence allows for the consideration of options to utilise that link in the masterplan

for the subject site.

Depending on the nature of uses on the site, a north/south link from Ernest Street through to the

above mentioned desire line may increase connectivity to and permeability of the site (see Fig. 15).

3.7 NOISE

Traffic noise is heard on the site, particularly from the Warringah Freeway (despite the Freeway

sitting within a cutting below natural ground level) and to a lesser extent from Ernest and Miller

Streets.

3.8 VISUAL CONTEXT

See photographs at right.

Pedestrian Links

Desire Lines

1 2 3

4 5 6

Figure 15 – Pedestrian links and

Desire Lines

5

2

1

3

4

6

Figure 16 – Key to context photographs



9

4 STRATGEY REVIEW

This section of the Background Report seeks to inform decisions on the future of the subject site

through a review of statutory documents applying to the land, in addition to adopted Council

strategy documents regarding need for and supply of public infrastructure.

4.1 METROPOLITAN STRATEGY AND DRAFT INNER NORTH SUBREGIONAL STRATEGY

Under the current Sydney Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney 2036, as well as the Draft Inner North

Subregional Strategy, the subject site sits within the Global Arc – the global economic corridor

connecting Macquarie Park, Chatswood, St Leonards, North Sydney, Sydney City, Pyrmont-Ultimo,

Sydney Airport and Port Botany. The corridor is the preferred location for higher order global and

regional economic activity.

The Strategies mandate the increase of employment capacity within the sub-region, of which

North Sydney is a part. This increase in employment is expected to be realised predominantly

within the North Sydney Centre commercial core and mixed use areas, and to a lesser extent in

other mixed use areas within the LGA.

In terms of residential development, the Strategies mandate a housing target of 5,500 additional

dwellings in North Sydney by 2031. The majority of this target is expected to be delivered within

existing mixed use areas and to some extent by infill development within other residential zones.

4.2 NORTH SYDNEY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 2009 (RDS)

The RDS establishes the strategic framework for housing in North Sydney to 2031. It forms the

basis for residential zonings and development standards under Council’s comprehensive Draft

Local Environmental Plan 2009 (Draft LEP 2009).

The RDS estimates that Cammeray holds capacity for an additional 435 dwellings by 2031 under

the provisions of Draft LEP 2009. This compares to 2,097 and 1,453 for North Sydney and St

Leonards / Crows Nest respectively. The subject site was included in calculations for the

Cammeray dwelling increase.

4.3 NORTH SYDNEY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2001

Zoning

The subject site is zoned Special Uses (Club). The objectives of the Special Uses zone are to:

(a) Identify land on which special uses are carried out; and

(b) Minimise the impact of the use on that land on adjoining land.

The following development is permissible with consent in the zone:

(a) On all sites in the zone - apartment buildings; attached dwellings; duplexes; dwelling-

houses; open space; remediation; telecommunications facilities; utility installations, other

than gas holders or generating works, and

(b) on sites shown on the map with red lettering - the land use indicated by red lettering on

the map.

Development Standards

Where Special Uses sites adjoin or are directly across the road from land in more than one zone,

the development standards applied are the most restrictive standards. This means that site has an

effective current height limit of 8.5m. In addition, a minimum landscaped area of 60% applies to

the site, and setbacks are defined by a building height plane envelope control of 1.8 metres from

the boundary.

4.4 NORTH SYDNEY DRAFT LEP 2009

Zoning

The site is proposed to be zoned R4 High Density Residential under the Draft LEP 2009. The

objectives of this zone are:

(a) To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential

environment.

(b) To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment.

(c) To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs

of residents.

(d) To encourage the development of sites for high density housing forms, where such

development does not compromise the amenity of the surrounding areas, or the natural

or cultural heritage of the area.

(e) To ensure that a reasonable high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained.

Development Standards

The site is proposed to have a height limit of 12m under the Draft LEP.

Draft LEP 2009 was publicly exhibited from 20 January to 31 March 2011. No submissions were

received in relation to the subject site.

4.5 NORTH SYDNEY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2002

Sections of DCP relevant to the subject site include:

Section 7 Residential Development

Section 9 Car Parking

Cammeray Planning Area Character Statement



10

Other sections may also be of relevance once uses for the site have been established by the

masterplan.

The development provisions of Section 7 – Residential Development, relate to many aspects of

residential development, including dwelling yield, housing mix, privacy, safety, form and scale,

balconies, dwelling size, vehicular access, accessibility, landscaping, and matters relating to

sustainable building design.

Section 9 – Car Parking requires 1 space to be allocated to studios and one and two bedroom

apartments, and an average of 1.5 spaces for apartments or attached dwellings of three or more

bedrooms. Visitor parking is required at a rate of .25 spaces per dwelling.

The Cammeray Planning Area Character Statement does not specifically refer to the subject site,

but seeks to maintain and extend comfortable and safe pedestrian routes, and promote

cohesiveness through landscaping and street tree planting in the area. In terms of built form, the

DCP seeks to reinforce the distinctive built form of the area and distribution of accommodation

types. Designing the built form to minimise noise from the Warringah Freeway and other main

roads is also a stated priority.

4.6 NORTH SYDNEY DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2010

Whilst containing some new provisions and updated controls, Draft DCP 2010 is for the most part

a translation of the current DCP 2002 into a new format.

5 NEEDS ANALYSIS AND STRATEGY REVIEW – PUBLIC BENEFIT

The needs review part of this section of the report will do two things – establish the need for

certain community infrastructure through a review of existing needs and provision strategies, and

then assess whether they are suitable or desirable for provision on the subject site, via the

masterplan.

To establish what, if any, public infrastructure should be incorporated into the masterplan, a

process of review was undertaken to establish Council’s needs and priorities. The review drew on

the following strategies and studies:

North Sydney Open Space Provision Strategy

North Sydney Recreational Needs Study

North Sydney Social Plan 2008-2012

North Sydney Affordable Housing Strategy (2008)

North Sydney Children’s Services Strategic Plan 2010-2012

North Sydney Delivery Program 2011/2012

Neighbourhood Parks Plan of Management

Inner City Mayors’ Group Study on Affordable Housing

Section 94 Contributions Plan 2006

DCP 2002

In addition, relevant Council departments were consulted to ascertain needs and opinion beyond

adopted delivery programs and strategies. Submissions to the public exhibition of options for the

subject site in November 2010 to February 2011 (reported to Council on 14 March 2011) have also

been reviewed.

The following tables asses key infrastructure / public benefit types against established

identification of needs, and their suitability for on-site provision.



11

OPEN SPACE (PASSIVE e.g. park)

Strategy / Study North Sydney Open Space Provision Strategy

Specified Needs / Details The Strategy cites the 2020 Vision strategic plan, which identifies part of the site as an opportunity

to provide new open space. Neither document expands on size, location, or type of open space.

Suitability for On-Site Provision The site straddles the open space catchment category boundary, so is identified as between 100-400 m from a park or reserve. It therefore ranks as priority 3 and 4 (4 being the lowest) for areas requiring new open space.

The attributes of the site, including size and topography, make it suitable for open space.

Comment The subject site lies adjacent to Anzac Park, which is not included in the above-mentioned catchment boundary map.

The Strategy map does not consider Anzac Park, which lies immediately across the road, to be a “park or reserve of reasonable size and good quality” – its criteria for inclusion on that map (its size is 12,538m2 - for reference, 2 Anzac Avenue is 9,887m2). Despite this, the subject site still ranks as low priority for the provision of new open space.

On balance, the provision of passive open space does not rank highly among the options for the site. There is scope however for the provision of other recreational services, which are covered elsewhere in the needs analysis.

Director OSES has confirmed that open space is not a required use on the site.

Recommendation Passive open space (park) not recommended for site.

OPEN SPACE (ACTIVE)

Strategy / Study Recreational Needs Study

Specified Needs There is high demand for quality sporting fields and other recreational facilities in North Sydney. Many of Council’s facilities are at or near capacity.

The only reference made in the Study to the Anzac Club is a recommendation for the resurfacing of bowling greens to extend their use for football etc. It is noted however that the Study pre-dates the closure of the Anzac Club and its related activities.

In addition to sporting fields, the Study cites a need for additional tennis courts in the LGA.

Suitability for On-Site Provision The provision of new sports fields, especially for team sports such as football, cricket, hockey etc require large areas which the subject site cannot provide. Funds are best spent on improving facilities (lighting, drainage etc) at existing sites, thereby increasing capacity.

In terms of the Needs Study’s recommendation to upgrade the bowling greens for small-sided football, as mentioned above, the recommendation was made prior to the closure of the Anzac Club. In any case, that use on the subject site has caused some amenity issues in the past. Such uses are usually undertaken in indoor facilities, although the Study does not recommend a second indoor sports centre in North Sydney.

There are currently two tennis courts on the site, which site visits have confirmed are still in use.

Comment The Needs Study refers to the Anzac Club in its capacity as an on-going operation. It makes no comment on uses once the Club has ceased operations.

Despite the Study’s identification of increased demand for tennis courts, it is noted that other

courts within the LGA are not considered viable on-going concerns. Council-owned courts in Green

Park, less than 1km from the subject site, have recently lost its commercial operator for this reason.

The tennis courts on the site are therefore not considered a high priority for retention.

It is considered that community needs for improved active recreational facilities can best be met

through the funding of upgrade projects for existing infrastructure.

Recommendation Active recreation facilities are not considered a high priority for the subject site.

OPEN SPACE - COMMUNITY GARDEN

Strategy / Study Neighbourhood Parks Plan of Management

2011/12 Operational Plan and Delivery Program

Specified Needs The Plan of Management lists the establishment of new community gardens in appropriate locations in North Sydney as an objective.

The Operational Plan and Delivery program, part 1.1.2.4, aims to promote community gardens,

including the Streets Alive program.

Suitability for On-Site Provision The subject site is considered large enough to accommodate this type of use, and appropriately sited, could provide a green buffer to neighbouring development or to busy Ernest Street.

The site is well located within the LGA for such a use, as existing community gardens are located well away from the site, and is likely to have a considerable catchment of participants given its surrounding development and central location, well serviced by public transport.

Although Council records do not identify the site as potentially contaminated, Council would need to satisfy itself that the use of fertilisers etc on bowling greens has not impacted considerably on nearby and underlying soil.

Comment A community garden policy is currently being developed by OSES.

Community gardening is a valuable recreational activity that has positive social, nutritional and educational benefits for participants. It can also improve the amenity, safety and patronage of the surrounding area. Community gardens also tie into wider themes of sustainability and food security.

Such a use would likely be managed by a community group with the support of Council staff. Start-up costs are estimated to be between $50,000 and $100,000.

Although not specifically identified within a needs study or strategy, a community garden is considered a suitable use for the site.

Recommendation A community garden be considered during the options development stage of the masterplan.



12

SENIORS HOUSING

Strategy / Study North Sydney Social Plan

Specified Needs The Social Plan identifies a shortfall in the supply of seniors housing in North Sydney, but

recommends only that Council should ensure that its controls allow for the appropriate

development of aged care facilities.

Suitability for On-Site Provision Aged care facilities / seniors housing is permissible in all residential zones under LEP 2001 and residential, mixed use and light industrial zones under Draft LEP 2009. As such, the use would be permissible on the site under the proposed zoning.

The site is suitable for seniors housing, although there is no additional public benefit to be gained from a private development of such use (e.g. affordable housing).

Comment Council’s Community Development department considers that the Anglicare development at 52 McLaren Street will, when completed, provide adequate supply of nursing home accommodation in the short to medium term. It is noted though that a shortage of other forms of seniors housing will still exist.

It is considered also that future demand will be catered for through private development on other sites, meaning there is no specific need to require seniors housing to be developed on this particular site.

The use should be permissible, but not mandated, on the 2 Anzac Avenue site.

Recommendation Seniors housing is not considered a priority for inclusion in the masterplan.

AFFORDABLE (KEY WORKER) HOUSING

Strategy / Study Affordable Housing Strategy 2008

Social Plan 2008-2012

Inner City Mayors’ Group Study on Affordable Housing

Section 94 Contributions Plan 2006

DCP 2002

Specified Needs The Affordable Housing Strategy 2008 cites a continued trend of loss of affordable bed spaces within the LGA – with an estimate of 2000 bed spaces lost since 1984. It states that 15 bed spaces have been replaced since 1999, with funds collected for further allocation. The number of boarding houses in North Sydney has halved in 14 years from 48 to 24.The Strategy highlights the clear undersupply of affordable rental properties in the LGA.

Under the Social Plan 2008-2012, housing (including affordable) is one of the four strategic priorities of the Plan, with the objective that ‘low and medium income earners with links to the LGA are supported in accessing affordable accommodation’.

The Inner City Mayor’s Group Study on Affordable Housing, reported to Council’s P&D Committee on 7 November 2011, recommended that the study’s findings be taken into consideration regarding 2 Anzac Avenue. The study suggested that a development bonus be incorporated into a masterplan, with a percentage of that bonus being gifted to Council for management as affordable housing.

Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan provides for the replacement of lost bed spaces via a monetary contribution made to Council for the purchase of bed spaces within the LGA. Between

1998 and 2003, the plan states that s94 funds replaced 9 bed spaces of 304 lost in that same period.

DCP2002 requires 4% of residential flat development in mixed use areas to be affordable housing. No similar requirement is made for other residential zones.

Based on average income of key workers as a percentage of median house prices, North Sydney ranks among the top 5 least affordable LGAs in NSW (Bank West, 6 March 2010).

Suitability for On-Site Provision The site is highly suited for the provision of affordable housing units, as such a use would be incorporated into the residential development for which the land is proposed to be zoned under Draft LEP 2009.

Whilst strategies exist for the purchase of existing dwellings by Council for use as affordable, this case provides an excellent opportunity for Council to mandate for affordable housing prior to it disposing of the subject site.

The site is suitable for affordable key worker housing given its central location and access to public transport and local services.

Comment The provision of residential units to be transferred to Council for management as affordable housing for key workers on this site represents a key opportunity for Council to fulfil its obligations to its adopted affordable housing policies.

The use of planning incentives to capture additional public benefit in the form of affordable housing is a strategy often used. The Dept of Housing classes development bonuses as a high-impact mechanism for providing affordable housing. Later sections of the background report deal with the amount of affordable housing considered to be appropriate for the site, with identified needs, adopted strategies, development capacity of the site, and financial feasibility all taken into consideration.

Given that the site is owned by Council, there is no need for Council to offer development bonuses. Rather, it could simply mandate the provision of affordable housing in the masterplan. However, it should be understood that if development bonuses were not offered, the purchase price of the subject site would obviously fall to some degree. This is true of the provision of any public benefit. If Council wishes to maintain a particular target sale price, then the provision of public benefit requires offsetting through an increased yield on the site. This would have the effect of meeting targets for the provision of affordable housing (and perhaps other public benefit) whilst maintaining Council’s commitment to funding infrastructure upgrades off-site.

Recommendation Affordable housing is a high priority for the masterplan.

CHILDCARE CENTRE

Strategy / Study North Sydney Social Plan 2008-2012

Children’s Services Strategic Plan

Specified Needs The Strategic Plan cites a shortage in childcare places, especially for 0-2 year olds and family day care.

Council’s Community Development Department’s submission / memo regarding the Anzac Club Site

(undated) recommends that a childcare centre be located on site as part of any redevelopment and

that it be transferred or leased long-term to Council.

Community Development also advise that there is excess demand for family day care services

within the LGA.



13

Suitability for On-Site Provision The site is considered suitable for such a use, and may be incorporated into other built form on the site, should the final design necessitate it.

An analysis of the location of childcare facilities within the North Sydney LGA reveals that there is no pressing need for a childcare centre to be located on this site in particular. There are seven long day care centres within 1000m of the subject site (in addition to other care services).

Drop-off and pick-up points would require further consideration, particularly as Ernest Street is a Regional Road, and no vehicular access is currently permissible though Bellevue Park to the subject site.

Comment A new centre would most likely be gifted to Council once built, and then be leased to / managed by a not-for-profit organisation. It would not therefore be an income-producing asset under Council’s ownership.

The estimated cost of constructing a childcare centre would be $2.5-3 million. The onus on a developer to provide a childcare centre on the site as part of the masterplan would have an obvious impact on the sale price offered for the site.

Further, childcare centres, in a similar way to seniors housing, are provided by the market if and

when they are considered commercially viable – that is – demand exists. Most centres within the

North Sydney LGA are privately operated. In this sense, it is not imperative that Council be the

provider / owner of childcare facilities.

Childcare centres are a permissible use under the proposed R4 zoning.

Recommendation A childcare centre is not considered a priority for the site.

SALE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO

Strategy / Study Council Resolution 28 November 2011

Specified Needs The report attached a list of currently unfunded Open Space projects..

Suitability for On-Site Provision This represents the alternative to providing new sports and recreational facilities on site. Most of the unfunded projects listed are indeed specific to other sites (upgrades to existing infrastructure).

The suitability of the site to accommodate the many options for recreational facilities has not been extensively explored, as OSES and Council, via its resolution, have preferred to pursue the alternative of funding upgrades and new facilities off-site from a portion of the sale dividend.

Comment Whilst possibly less tangible as public benefit than on-site facilities, the fund is important to

facilitate the upgrading of existing infrastructure.

Recommendation New sporting / recreational facilities are not a priority for the site.

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES

Strategy / Study Council Resolution 14 March 2011

Specified Needs Submissions to the public exhibition of options for the site saw a significant level of support for the

provision of educational facilities on the site.

Suitability for On-Site Provision Under the R4 High Density Residential zoning, educational establishments are a permissible use.

The site is suitable for such a use.

Comment The use of the land for educational facilities is likely to impact heavily on the purchase price of the land, and reduce the funds available for Council to establish its investment portfolio. It is therefore considered that educational facilities should not be mandated in the masterplan. Should responses to the masterplan exhibition suggest alternative outcomes for the site which include such a use, this will be considered at that time.

It is acknowledged that local public primary schools are experiencing some level of difficulty regarding capacity. However, the provision of educational services is, in terms of public primary and high schools, a matter for the state government. It would be expected that the state government, if interested in acquiring the land for the provision of schooling services, would approach Council with an offer to purchase the land.

It is noted that under the proposed R4 Residential zoning in Draft LEP 2009, educational

establishments are a permissible use on the land.

Recommendation That educational facilities not form part of the masterplan

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Strategy / Study Draft Inner North Subregional Strategy

North Sydney Residential Development Strategy 2009

Specified Needs The Draft Inner North Subregional Strategy 2007 mandates that North Sydney must provide an

additional 5,500 dwellings between 2004 and 2031.

The North Sydney Residential Development Strategy 2009 identifies additional capacity within the

R4 High Density Residential zone (Draft LEP 2009) in Cammeray of 307 dwellings. This figure

includes the subject site.

Suitability for On-Site Provision Under the proposed R4 High Density Residential zoning, apartment buildings are a permissible use.

The site is of considerable size and within reasonable distance of transport and recreation facilities.

Residential uses for the site are compatible with the surrounding land use.

Comment Residential uses are considered to be the best fit for the site, given its size, location and context.

Recommendation That residential uses form part of the masterplan.



14

6 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

6.1 OPPORTUNITIES

Public Benefit

On-site: The subject site is a relatively large, Council-owned parcel of land, which, if redeveloped

appropriately, could deliver an exceptionally-designed residential development incorporating significant

public benefit. This would satisfy Council’s obligations set out by State Government policy regarding

housing provision, and Council’s own adopted strategies for the provision of public infrastructure, including

for example affordable housing, childcare or other community facilities.

Off-site: The proposed sale of the site also offers Council the opportunity to fund infrastructure

improvements elsewhere within the LGA.

Pedestrian Circulation

The redevelopment of the site offers opportunities to improve local pedestrian connectivity and

circulation, as well as general streetscape improvements to improve the amenity of the area, including the

embellishment of Bellevue Park.

Environmental Sustainability

The masterplan offers the opportunity for Council to ensure that redevelopment of the site will exceed

expectations in terms of ecologically sustainable building and urban design, and will represent a

demonstration project for other redevelopment within the LGA. Doing so will also help Council achieve the

aims of its strategic vision, as set out in the 2020 Vision plan, including:

Lead by example

Promote innovation to achieve sustainability

Support the North Sydney community to live in ways that promote environmental well-being

Increased Height / Yield

The size and location of the site presents opportunities to increase its development potential, which in turn

may be used as leverage for the provision of additional public benefit. There exist opportunities to explore

creative approaches to building height and massing to achieve this additional yield.

Vehicular Access

Opportunity exists to provide an alternative or secondary vehicular access point across Bellevue Park open

space, without heavily impacting on the overall utility of the open space.

Figure 17 – Opportunities for improved pedestrian flow and amenity

Existing right of way

Potential for through-site links

Potential for streetscape improvements



15

6.2 CONSTRAINTS

Given the attributes of the site, there are relatively few constraints to redevelopment. However, the

following are key issues in considering options for redevelopment:

Access

Access to any on-site car parking is currently restricted to the Ernest Street frontage, owing to the narrow

Bellevue Park, zoned Open Space and forming the site’s eastern boundary.

Noise

The site is affected by noise from traffic sources, including the Warringah Freeway and Ernest Street. Noise

also needs to be considered from the subject site to surrounding residential development.

Overshadowing

Development on the site has the potential to create overshadowing and other amenity impacts on

surrounding residential development and adjacent parkland.

Views

Local and district views are enjoyed by surrounding residential development, particularly from 331 Miller

Street ENE across the subject site beyond Cammeray Golf Course toward Willoughby Bay, and east toward

Neutral Bay.

Traffic Noise

Surrounding

Residential

District Views

Anzac Park

Memorial and

Tree Planting

Bellevue Park

Figure 18 – Site Constraints



16

7 PRINCIPLES

The following principles, derived from the analysis to date, are to inform the development of the masterplan:

PRINCIPLE 1: HIGHEST AND BEST USE

To ensure that Council is able to provide both on-site and off-site public benefit, the sale price of the land needs

to be maximised. This is achieved through the realisation of the site’s development potential within the

constraints placed upon it by other identified principles.

PRINCIPLE 2: INCREASED YIELD AND PUBLIC BENEFIT

As public benefit mandated by the masterplan increases, the sale price for the land can be expected to

decrease. An increase in developable yield beyond that which is currently permitted allows for a trade off

between yield and public benefit, to help maintain an acceptable sale price.

PRINCIPLE 3: LAND USES

The land should be developed predominantly for residential purposes. Apartment buildings, permissible under

the existing and proposed zoning, are the most appropriate development type for the site.

Other land uses may be incorporated as defined by the needs analysis and other principles.

PRINCIPLE 4: AFFORDABLE KEY WORKER HOUSING

The Strategy Review and Needs Analysis of this report identified affordable key worker housing as a key

deliverable on-site public benefit. The amount of key worker housing to be provided will be established via both

the needs analysis / strategy review and the capacity and feasibility analyses.

PRINCIPLE 5: PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION AND VEHICULAR ACCESS

The masterplan should incorporate through-site links where appropriate, particularly the east/ west link

identified in the Opportunities section. This link is already partially provided by the right of way over 331 Miller

Street. A link through the subject site should respond to that right of way.

Vehicular access onto the site should consider and be integrated with pedestrian movements in and around the

site.

PRINCIPLE 6: BUILT FORM EXCELLENCE

The built form typology on the site should be based on the following considerations:

Minimise impacts on the amenity of surrounding development

Minimise impacts of development upon Anzac Park

Use increased height where possible to provide for improvements at ground level and appropriate

separation between buildings

Use appropriate scale and massing at the interface with adjacent development

Use landscaped areas to buffer surrounding development and increase amenity

Respond positively to Ernest Street and Anzac Avenue frontages, maximising opportunities for active

and passive surveillance

Deliver an exceptional built form outcome

PRINCIPLE 7: ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The masterplan is to incorporate elements of sustainable building design appropriate to the site that would

achieve or exceed a 5-star Green Star rating for residential development. Consideration should be given to

elements that represent a demonstration project within the LGA (e.g. green roofs).

PRINCIPLE 8: COMMUNITY GARDEN

Consideration should be given to devoting a portion of the site’s landscaped area to the establishment of a

community garden, gifted to Council for community use and management.



17

8 EXISTING CAPACITY AND BUILT FORM ANALYSIS

Council engaged architectural firm Rice Daubney to undertake a capacity and built form analysis of the subject

site, based primarily on existing LEP and DCP controls. The aim was to ascertain a likely yield under a theoretical

‘business as usual’ scenario.

Existing development yield on the site was calculated via the following assumptions:

A 12m / 4 storey maximum height control

Compliance with building height plane controls (see figures 25-28)

60% landscaped area control

Residential flat buildings permissible

Dwelling mix as per DCP 2002

General compliance with SEPP 65 guidelines

East/west through site link / vehicular access to be incorporated

The capacity and built form analysis produced three compliant options, with FSRs ranging from .84:1 to 1:1, and

from 99 to 112 units. For the purposes of calculating any additional yield identified on the site, the base

compliant scenario is assumed at 1:1 and 111 units

The following figures are representations of the various options explored by Rice Daubney.

Figures 25-28 – Building height plane envelope visualisation

Figures 19 and 20 - Compliant Option 1





18

9 OPTIONS DEVELOPMENT

Having derived a compliant built form and yield for the site under existing controls, Council’s architectural

consultant undertook an urban design and massing study to produce a set of built form and yield options from

which the masterplan could be based. The key consideration for the consultant in the options development phase

was the application of all relevant principles outlined in Section 7 of the report.

The options development for built form was to include the following elements or features:

Minimal or no overshadowing on surrounding residences;

Building separations as per SEPP 65 guidelines or greater;

The investigation of a secondary vehicular access off Anzac Avenue;

The incorporation of a through-site link;

No pre-determined height control, but derived with regard to amenity and context;

Investigation into the most appropriate place for a community garden;

High level of internal amenity on the site;

Setbacks to the eastern boundary (Bellevue Park) need not apply;

Built form to appropriately address both Ernest Street and Anzac Avenue; and

Built-upon area to not exceed 40%

9.1 OPTIONS APPRAISAL

FSR 1.4:1

Built-upon area 35%

Units 204

Mix (1/2/3 bed) 58/78/66

Cars 350

Notes:

6 storey maximum on Ernest and Anzac frontages, 4

storey elsewhere

No residential overshadowing 9-3 mid-winter. Anzac Park

overshadowed from 2:30 pm

Community garden area at north-western corner

Pros:

East / west sight line maintained at south-eastern corner

Street wall effect to through-site link;

Cons:

Northern elements excluded from wider development

Imposing 6 storey facade to Anzac Ave

Option 1

Figures 25 and 26: Option 1



19

FSR 1.2:1

Built-upon area 35%

Units 174

Mix (1/2/3 bed) 48/66/58

Cars 275

Notes:

Same as Option 1 except for the lowering of eastern

tower element to 4 storeys

No residential overshadowing 9-3 mid-winter. Anzac Park

overshadowed from 3:00 pm

Pros:

As with Option 1

Lower Anzac Avenue frontage provides some improvement to pedestrian scale and less overshadowing of Anzac Park

Cons:

Northern elements excluded from wider development

Decrease to 4 storeys on Anzac Avenue lowers yield significantly

FSR 1.3:1

Built-upon area 36%

Units 168

Mix (1/2/3 bed) 28/82/58

Cars 269

Notes:

5th

tower element introduced

Breaking up of Anzac Ave frontage

Extension of northern element west

Pros: Additional east/west view corridor created

Cons:

Northern elements further excluded from wider development

Encroachment onto community garden space

Street wall to Anzac Avenue diminished

Fragmentation of private open space

Built form closer to 331 Miller Street

Option 2

Option 3





20

FSR 1.55:1

Built-upon area 40%

Units 196

Mix (1/2/3 bed) 48/78/70

Cars 330

Notes: Tower element at south-western edge

Extension of Anzac Avenue street wall

Pros: Northern tower brought into development via wider opening to private open space

Cons:

Further fragmentation of private open space

No street frontage for south-western tower

Lower amenity for 331 Miller Street

Reduction of view corridor at southern end


FSR 1.4:1

Built-upon area 40%

Units 194

Mix (1/2/3 bed) 62/66/66

Cars 310

Notes: North/south orientation for western tower

L-shaped configuration at Ernest Street corner

Pros: Better separation to 331 Miller Street

Centralised and consolidated private open space area

Inclusion of northern tower into wider development

Cons:

Movement and reduction of east/west view corridor


Option 4

Option 5





21

9.2 PREFERRED OPTION DEVELOPMENT

In developing a preferred option, positive elements from each of the options above were utilised. In summary,

the preferred built form option was to:

Have a consolidated and central private open space area;

Reduce or soften the effect of a six storey tower element on Anzac Avenue;

Include the wider east-west view corridor option at the southern end of the site;

Incorporate the north/south orientation option for the western tower element;

Include the larger option for the community garden area; and

Include a more realistic unit mix. *Note that unit mix and therefore numbers are indicative only, and

therefore subject to change.

9.3 PREFERRED OPTION

FSR 1.45:1

Built-upon area 38%

Units 174

Mix (1/2/3 bed) 70/90/14

Cars 233

Notes: Setback at 6th

storey on eastern tower reduces apparent

scale at ground level and creates a more effective

stepping up of the eastern elevation from north to south,

whilst maintaining yield

Larger east-west view corridor provided at southern end

of site

Larger option for community garden

Enclosed and consolidated private open space area

No overshadowing between 9am and 3pm mid-winter of

surrounding residences.

Figures 35 - 39: Preferred Option



22

9.4 ARTIST PERSPECTIVES

Indicative drawings showing articulation of the block modelling above. This is a visual interpretation based on the

block modelling at 9.3 and does not represent the final built form for the site.

Figures 40 - 42: Preferred Option Visualisation



10 MASTERPLAN

10.1 HEIGHT AND MASSING

Figure 43: Building Heights and Massing

Building height ranges between 4 and 6 storeys as indicated on the

map.

Massing is to be set out as indicated on the map, with setbacks and

separations detailed in 10.3.

10.2 FLOOR SPACE RATIO

Figure 44: Floor Space Ratio

The gross floor area (as defined within North Sydney Draft LEP 2009)

for the site is not to exceed a floor space ratio of 1.45:1, and applies

to the whole site area of 9887m².

10.3 BUILDING SEPARATIONS AND SETBACKS

Figure 45: Building setbacks and separations

Buildings are to be setback and separated as indicated above.

The setback from Ernest Street of the southern tower is to match that

of 331 Miller Street.

The 6th storey of the eastern tower is to be set back 3m on all sides.

4 Storeys / 12m

6 Storeys / 18m

30 18

12 12

3 12 3

18

14

3

6

3

7

12.5

3

1.45:1



24

10.4 THROUGH SITE LINK

Figure 46: Through Site Link

A shared vehicular / pedestrian way as indicated above will be

constructed, to link the existing right of way through 331 Miller Street

with Anzac Avenue. Both stairs and ramp to be provided at western

edge of site.

The through-site link will adjoin the community garden space (shown

green above) at the north western corner of the site. A public right of

way / easement shall exist over the link for access to the community

garden and from Anzac Avenue to Miller Street.

The construction of the link will require the crossing of a portion of

Bellevue Park at the eastern end of the link.

To limit vehicular use of the area, the basement car park entrance

serviced by the link should be located as close as practicable to Anzac

Avenue.

Publicly-accessible areas and private space is to be clearly delineated.

10.5 BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND LANDSCAPED AREA

Figure 47: Building Footprint

The footprint of the built form will not exceed 38% of the total site

area.

The remaining portion of the site will form unbuilt-upon and

landscaped area. Total areas for these two elements should be

provided in accordance with North Sydney Draft DCP 2010, sections

1.5.5 to 1.5.10.

The community garden area (green above) is to be included as

landscaped area. The through-site link is to be defined as un-built-

upon area.

10.6 COMMUNITY GARDEN

Figure 48: Community Garden

720m² of land at the north western corner of the site is to be

dedicated to Council for use as a community garden space, owned and

administered by the Council.

The space will be directly accessible from the through-site link.

Community Garden Building footprint

Landscaped area

Through-site Link

Through-site link

Existing link



25

10.7 ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Figure 49: Ecologically Sustainable Development

The development is to attain a 5-Star Green Star rating from the

Green Building Council of Australia.

As part of the above, the development is to incorporate green roofs in

its design. Both extensive and intensive styles of green roofs may be

utilised.

The development will be a green roof pilot project and will be the

subject of a cost-benefit analysis.

Strong consideration should be given to incorporating elements of

renewable energy production within the development.

10.8 AFFORDABLE KEY WORKER HOUSING

Figure 50: Affordable Key Worker Housing

Upon completion of the development, a total of 5.75% of units will be

dedicated to Council for ownership and management as key worker

affordable housing.

60% of the dedicated units will be 1 bedroom units, with 40% being 2

bedroom units.

All minimum standards relating to unit size and design are to be

applied to these units.

10.9 BELLEVUE PARK EMBELLISHMENT

Figure 51 Bellevue Park

That part of Bellevue Park adjoining the subject site is to be upgraded

to include landscaping and any other elements to improve the public

domain and complement the development.

Any works on the park are to be undertaken such that the site is

clearly identifiable as public land.

The design should complement, respond to and were possible

integrate with Anzac Park and the memorial opposite.

Bellevue Park

Access over



26

10.10 ANZAC PARK MEMORIAL & HERITAGE INTERPRETATION

Figure 52: Anzac Park Memorial

The design of the eastern tower fronting Anzac Avenue is to

acknowledge and compliment the memorial situated on the eastern

side of Anzac Avenue in Anzac Park.

The development of the site will acknowledge and where possible

incorporate elements of the site’s history as public land and a

memorial club dedicated to those Australians who served in armed

conflict.

10.11 VEHICULAR ACCESS

Figure 53: Vehicular Access

Vehicular access via the shared through-site link should terminate as

soon as possible on site to minimise vehicle movements within the

shared way.

Primary vehicular access should be provided on the Ernest Street

frontage at the southern end of the site (subject to RMS approval).

Basement parking / excavation will be provided in accordance with

relevant Draft DCP 2010 provisions.

10.12 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND ACTIVATION

Figure 54: Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian access to the eastern tower may be provided over Bellevue

Park as indicated above.

In order to activate the through site link, ground level entry to towers

should where possible front the through site link.

Terrace-style units with individual entrances at ground level should be

utilised where possible to increase activity and provide opportunities

for passive surveillance.

Indicative basement outline

Preferred Options for vehicular entry/exit

Location of Anzac Memorial Pedestrian access (public)

Preferred access (private)


NORTH SYDNEY COUNCIL

DESIGN EXCELLENCE PANEL

Date of Briefing:

Subject:

Present:

5 Jr¿ne2012

2 Anzac Ave Masterplan

Panel: Philip Graus, Cox RichardsonProfessor Peter'WebberDavid Chesterman, Jackson TeeceRussell Olsson, Olsson and Associates

Staff: GeorgeYouhanna, Brad Stafford, Alex Williams

The Panel was asked to comment on the draft masterplan for 2 Anzac Avenue, Cammeray.The Panel was very supportive of Council's endeavours to strategically plan for the future ofthe site. Key matters raised were as follows:

Heritage, Social Issues and Symbolism

The Panel considers that the now-deserted Anzac Club had a long and important involvementwith the North Sydney community, and acted as a social centre for countless thousands ofpeople over many years, as well as serving a commemorative role for former servicemen andwomen. The club amenities as well as the tennis courts and bowling greens were invaluablecommunity resources. Its closure due to management issues has been a matter of deep regretin the community, and it is appreciated that Council must reinvigorate the site.

It is considered that any development should to the extent possible acknowledge andrecognize the long public ownership and role of the site and ensure that any futuredevelopment is much more than standard residential accommodation. Obvious options wouldinclude child carelkindergarten facilities and incorporation of tennis courts. The briefingnotes to the Panel indicated that these and other possibilities been considered but were notrecommended. It is appreciated that commercial management and the design task ofintegrating such facilities make for considerable challenges, but some members of the Panelare not persuaded that that they would not result in a far better community outcome. Noalternative designs were presented indicating such options. With or without their inclusionthe proposals to put strong emphasis on 'cutting-edge' environmental/sustainable design forall buildings, affordable housing and inclusion of a community garden are strongly supported.These features should be integrated in a way that Council can advocate them as models forfuture development.

A further initiative should be the integration of artlsculpture/landscape in a way thatcreatively celebrates the critical historical and social value of the site.

Floor Space Ratio

The Panel considered the 1.45:1 proposed FSR for the site to be appropriate.

I:\DOCS\PROJECTS\Anzac ClubWlasterplan 2012\consultation\DEP minutes 5 June 20l2.docx


DEP Minutes 5 June 2012 Pase2

Height, Bulk and Scale

The appropriateness of the height, bulk and scale of the proposed 6 storey building, whenviewed from Anzac Avenue, was raised as a matter for consideration by Council.

Public versus Private Space

The panel considered that clear delineation between private and public spaces is requiredduring the design phase. Publicly-accessible areas - the through-site link and communitygarden - need to be clearly identified as such.

Relationship with Anzac Park

The Panel considered that the relationship between Anzac Park and the subject site isextremely important, and that the design of the built form and the embellishment of BellevuePark should strengthen and enhance that relationship. The narrowing of Anzac Ave on one orboth sides was suggested as a way of achieving this, and which would also help to amend thecharacter of Anzac Ave to a 'roadway through a park'.

Through-site Link Activation

In order to optimise the safety and utility of the through-site link, the Panel considered itimportant that the building design, particularly of the northern tower, incorporate as manyentry points as possible off the link. To this end, it was considered that terrace-style housingat lower levels with individual entries should be utilised.

Unit sizes

The question of lowering the minimum required unit size for the affordable key workerhousing units was put to the Panel, who considered that this is not the preferred method ofgaining additional affordable rental units. The Panel did however question the minimum unitsizes mandated within Council's DCP, which exceed the minimum guidelines containedwithin SEPP 65.

Relationship with Site History

The Panel considered that the history of the site be explored and responded to in the design ofthe development.

Green Roofs

The Panel did not comment specifically on the proposed controls relating to the incorporationof green rooß within the masterplan.

Private Open Space / Central Courfyard

The Panel considered that the uses in the central courtyard space should be well considered,given the relatively large size of the space, its interface with the public through site link, andthe potential affordable units. For example, the RFDC recommends that 3 bedroomapartments, which have the potential to house families, are often best located at ground, inwhich case large private courtyards would be appropriate, in addition to communal space orcommunal room with access to a sunny landscaped area.

I:\DOCS\PROJECTS\Anzac Club\Masterplan 2012\consultation\DEP minutes 5 June 2012.docx


DEP Minutes 5 June 2012 Page 3

Best Practice Urban Design

The Panel considers that the development should be of a high standard and act as a best-practice benchmark for North Sydney

Recommendations

The Panel considers that it would be desirable to explore other options as suggested abovebefore committing to the limited brief represented in the design submitted. In the absence ofsuch altematives the design approach is generally supported subject to response to the issuesraised.

I:\DOCS\PROJECTS\Anzac ClubMasterplan 20l2\consultation\DEP minutes 5 June 20l2.docx


DECISION OF 3604th COUNCIL & COUNCIL ASSESSMENTS … · 2014-01-09 · AUTHOR: Brad Stafford,...

Documents

Transcript of DECISION OF 3604th COUNCIL & COUNCIL ASSESSMENTS … · 2014-01-09 · AUTHOR: Brad Stafford,...