Central Sydney Planning Committee (CSPC) - 11 May 2017 - Item … · 2017-05-11 · Cost of Works:...

ATTACHMENT A

COMMITTEE REPORT PREPARED BY EXTERNAL PLANNING CONSULTANT

130, 132-138 AND 140 JOYNTON AVENUE,

ZETLAND AND 94-104 AND 106-116 EPSOM ROAD, ZETLAND - GUNYAMA PARK

AQUATIC AND RECREATION CENTRE

ATTACHMENT A

ATTACHMENT A - INDEPENDENT PLANNER ASSESSMENT REPORT - GUNYAMA PARK AQUATIC AND RECREATION CENTRE FINAL 190417.DOCX

14090205

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 130, 132-138 & 140 JOYNTON AVENUE, ZETLAND AND 94-104 & 106-116 EPSOM ROAD, ZETLAND - GUNYAMA PARK AQUATIC AND RECREATION CENTRE

FILE NO: D/2016/824

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO: D/2016/824

SUMMARY

Date of Submission:

22 June 2016

Applicant:

City Projects and Property Unit, City of Sydney

Architect:

Andrew Burgess Architects and Grimshaw Architects

Developer: City Projects and Property Unit, City of Sydney

Owner: City of Sydney

Cost of Works: $87,162,396

Proposal Summary:

Construction of an aquatic and recreation centre and regional park known as Gunyama Park Aquatic and Recreation Centre at Green Square. The aquatic and recreation centre comprises indoor and outdoor pools, crèche, café and health and fitness centre. The regional park comprises outdoor playground, sports field, skate park, fitness station, amenities, BBQ areas and landscaping.

The application is classified as Integrated Development as the works require approval under the Water Management Act 2000. General terms of approval were issued by the WaterNSW on 14 September 2016.

The application was exhibited from 27 June 2016 to 29 July 2016. Seven submissions were received. Issues raised in submissions relate to consistency with the design competition, construction impacts and access, timing of construction and the desire for a tennis court to be included in the proposal.

The land is zoned B4 Mixed Use under Sydney LEP 2012 and the proposed uses are permissible with consent. The proposal complies with the majority of relevant planning controls however the amenities building within the park has a height of 5.5m (above existing ground level) or 4.0m (above finished ground level following 1.5m of fill). This exceeds the maximum height limit of 3m above existing ground level. The height of the shade structure and play equipment also exceed the maximum height limit (by 4.23m and 1.28m


14090205

respectively). Accordingly a Clause 4.6 ‘Exceptions to development standards’ variation has been sought to clause 4.3 of Sydney LEP 2012 -Height of Buildings.

The application was amended post lodgement to remove the proposal for licensing of the proposed café on site.

Summary Recommendation: The variation sought to 4.3 Height of Buildings in

accordance with Clause 4.6 ‘Exceptions to development standards’ of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 be supported in this instance;

The requirement under Clause 7.20 of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 requiring the preparation of a development control plan be waived in this instance; and

Consent be granted to Development Application No. D/2016/824, subject to the conditions set out in Attachment A1 to the assessment report prepared by Helena Miller (Consulting Planner, MG Planning), shown at Attachment A to the subject report.

Development Controls:

(i) State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

(ii) State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

(iii) Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Gazetted 21 December 2012, as amended)

(iv) Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 (in force on 14 December 2012, as amended)

(v) City of Sydney Access DCP 2004

(vi) City of Sydney Child Care Centres DCP 2005

Attachments:

A1 Recommended Conditions

A2 Selected DA Drawings

RECOMMENDATION

It is resolved that:

(A) the variation sought to Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings in accordance with Clause 4.6 of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 be supported;


14090205

(B) the requirement under Clause 7.20 of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 requiring the preparation of a development control plan be waived in this instance because Section 5.3 Green Square – Epsom Park of Sydney DCP 2012 provides detailed controls for the site and the proposed development is consistent with these controls; and

(C) consent be granted to Development Application No. D/2016/824 subject to the conditions set out in Attachment A1 to the assessment report prepared by Helena Miller (Consulting Planner, MG Planning), shown at Attachment A to the subject report.

Helena Miller, Planning Consultant (MG Planning Pty Ltd)


14090205

BACKGROUND

The Site and Surrounding Development

1. A site visit was carried out on 25 October 2016.

2. The site is rectangular with an area of approximately 28,693m2. It has frontages to Joynton Avenue to the east, Zetland Avenue to the north, George Julius Avenue to the east and the future Rose Valley Way to the south. The proposed aquatic centre is located at the western end of the site and is to have its major frontage to Zetland Avenue to the north. Other minor frontages are to the west on Joynton Avenue and to the south on the future Rose Valley Way. Gunyama Park is located to at the eastern end of the site and has frontages to Zetland Avenue to the north, George Julius Avenue to the east and the future Rose Valley Way to the south.

3. The site is located approximately 4km south of the Sydney CBD and 4km north of Sydney Airport. It is located to the east of the Green Square town centre and immediately east of the former South Sydney Hospital site across Joynton Avenue.

4. The site was formerly used for industrial purposes however the majority of structures have been demolished (under a separate approval). The site is now characterised primarily by hard stand areas and is currently used as a works site for the Green Square Town Centre Development and associated works, and partly for car storage.

Figure 1: Aerial image of subject site and surrounding area (Source: Nearmap 09/09/2016)

5. The site is largely devoid of vegetation however some significant plantings exist along the Joynton Avenue frontage. Some other trees are scattered across the site generally located along the boundaries of existing lots.

6. The site is part of the identified Epsom Park urban renewal precinct, which will see the area transition from light industrial to a mixed use residential area. In the immediate vicinity of the site there are some pre-existing industrial uses remaining however there is a significant amount of residential and commercial development


14090205

proceeding in the surrounding area. To the immediate north the site is adjoined by newly constructed medium density residential flat buildings. To the south and east the site is adjoined by industrial development (car sales centres).

Figure 2: Extract for Sydney DCP 2012 – site within the Epsom Park Precinct

7. The site is inclusive of a number of properties which extend beyond the boundary of the development (refer Figure 3 below). Most of the land is owned by the City of Sydney however Lot 1 DP 850870 is owned by Lincon Development and Lot 101 DP 850686 is owned by Ausgrid. Owner’s consent from Ausgrid and Lincon is not required for the subject DA as notice was served on the owner’s in accordance with clause 49(2)(a) of the EP&A Regulation prior to the lodgement of the DA.

8. It is proposed that construction of the proposal may be staged depending on the timing of access to land not owned by Council. In this regard it is noted that Ausgrid has indicated that it intends to relocate its existing depot in 2019 but that no VPA or DA currently exists over the site and no sale is currently being pursued. There is therefore currently no certainty in relation to land dedication however this is not likely to occur until 2021 at the earliest. Lincon has an existing development approval and VPA but is seeking to amend these to reflect changing requirements for delivery of the Green Square Trunk Drain before seeking funding for development or possibly selling the site. Therefore similarly in relation to this part of the site there is no certainty in relation to the dedication of land however it is considered unlikely that this would occur earlier that 2019.

9. The lack of certainty regarding when (and indeed if) Council will gain access to parts of the site currently owned by Ausgrid and Lincon, does not restrict approval of the subject DA. The proposed works can be staged by the applicant and an interim occupation certificate could be issued if necessary.


14090205

Figure 3: Property boundaries

10. The site is not a heritage item and is not located within a Conservation Area. It is however located opposite the former South Sydney Hospital site which is listed as a heritage item under South Sydney LEP 1998. It also accommodates an existing historic brick wall along the Joynton Avenue (western) frontage which is consistent with the retained brick wall opposite on the former South Sydney Hospital site.

11. Photos of the site and surrounds are provided below:

Figure 4: Eastern part of the site currently used for car storage

Proposed development area Lot 1 DP 850686

Lot 1 DP 830870

Lot 101 DP 1200645

Lot 100 DP 1200645

Lot 2 DP 850686

Lot 1 DP 830870


14090205

Figure 5: Former South Sydney Hospital site to the north west across Joynton Avenue

Figure 6: Residential development to the north across Zetland Avenue


14090205

PROPOSAL

12. The application seeks consent for:

Clearing of the site and removal / demolition of existing structures

Site earthworks

Construction of a new Aquatic and Recreation Centre that is to comprise

(i) A 50m heated outdoor pool;

(ii) A 25m indoor program pool;

(iii) A heated outdoor leisure pool

(iv) An indoor hydrotherapy pool;

(v) An indoor crèche

(vi) A café (not licensed as amended);

(vii) An indoor health and fitness centre and outdoor balcony;

Construction of Gunyama Park including

(i) a multi-purpose synthetic sports field;

(ii) a children’s adventure playground;

(iii) a skate area;

(iv) a promenade walkway that weaves around the park;

(v) fitness, circuit training and elements to encourage physical activity;

(vi) passive park features including seating, BBQ areas, lighting, paths, tree planting and landscaping; and

(vii) park amenities providing public toilets, change rooms and storage.

Installation of a co-generation plant to provide electricity for the facility; and

site servicing.

As noted above following lodgement the application has been amended to remove the proposed licensing of the café. The application continues to include a café however licensing is no longer proposed. Further, although the application includes a signage strategy, approval for signage has not been sought as the proposed signage is ‘exempt’ under Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

The key numerical characteristics of the proposal are outlined below:


14090205

Gross Floor Area 5,545m2

Site Area 28,693m2

FSR 0.19:1

Height Max. RL30.4

Bicycle provision Minimum 138 spaces

Parking Nil

Loading bays provided on Zetland Ave and Rose Valley Way (future).

Figure 7: Overview plan (Note: land in north east corner owned by others)

AT

TA

CH

ME

NT

A -

IND

EP

EN

DE

NT

PL

AN

NE

R A

SS

ES

SM

EN

T R

EP

OR

T -

GU

NY

AM

A P

AR

K A

QU

AT

IC A

ND

RE

CR

EA

TIO

N C

EN

TR

E F

INA

L

19

041

7.D

OC

X

14

090

205

Fig

ure

8: L

ands

cape

site

pla

n

AT

TA

CH

ME

NT

A -

IND

EP

EN

DE

NT

PL

AN

NE

R A

SS

ES

SM

EN

T R

EP

OR

T -

GU

NY

AM

A P

AR

K A

QU

AT

IC A

ND

RE

CR

EA

TIO

N C

EN

TR

E F

INA

L

19

041

7.D

OC

X

14

090

205

F

igur

e 9:

Pro

pose

d A

quat

ic a

nd R

ecre

atio

n C

entr

e el

evat

ions


14090205

Figure 10: Proposed Aquatic and Recreation Centre built form

Figure 11: Internal photomontage of pool hall


14090205

Figure 12: Proposed Gunyama Park outlook

HISTORY RELEVANT TO THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

13. On 29 July 2013, Council endorsed the use of an open design competition to procure design services for the project. Subsequently on 18 November 2013, Council endorsed a master plan (site layout) for the project, and resolved that planning and preliminary design works progress to enable a design competition to be held.

14. In early 2014 Council called for architectural design competition entries for the recreation and aquatic centre and 144 designs were received. Following public exhibition of these designs, five finalists were invited to participate in Stage 2 of the competition. The winning design by Andrew Burges Architects in association with Grimshaw and T.C.L was announced by the competition jury in September 2014. The Jury report noted that “the jury considered that the Andrew Burges (with Grimshaw & TCL) scheme will be a world class exciting new project for the City of Sydney, further enhancing its reputation as a leader and a patron of architectural excellence”. The subject development application is generally consistent with the competition winning scheme albeit with some detailed design development.

15. As advised by the applicant, comprehensive consultation with specific City stakeholders including Green Square, Green Infrastructure, Greening and Leisure, Aquatic and Leisure Services, Property, Social Policy and Programs and Risk Units was undertaken from January 2015 to date to refine the winning design. Key components of the design such as function, access, cost and risk were investigated and workshopped to ensure those components met project objectives and requirements. It is advised that this process ultimately resulted in the submission of the current proposal.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

16. Dewatering will be required as a result of the proposed excavation for the basement level, and the proposal is therefore Integrated Development under section 91 of the Water Management Act 2000.


14090205

17. Accordingly the application was referred to WaterNSW, which has provided General Terms of Approval. These are included in the recommended conditions of consent.

ECONOMIC/SOCIAL/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

18. The application has been assessed under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, including consideration of the following matters:

Environmental Planning Instruments and DCPs.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land

19. The aim of SEPP 55 is to ensure that a change of land use will not increase the risk to health, particularly in circumstances where a more sensitive land use is proposed.

20. A Remedial Action Plan and Interim Audit Advice was submitted with the subject application. The Auditor’s advice concluded that the site ‘should’ be suitable for the proposed use, however that additional investigations should be undertaken prior to the development of the site. These additional investigations were identified to include groundwater sampling across the entire site, as well as soil vapour monitoring to assess potential vapour intrusion into the proposed crèche. Accordingly additional information was requested from the applicant in this regard. The applicant submitted additional information on 3 March 2017. Council’s Health & Building Unit has reviewed the additional information provided and is satisfied that subject to conditions, the site can be made suitable for the proposed use. Accordingly it is considered that the requirements of SEPP 55 have been complied with.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 64—Advertising and Signage

21. The application includes information in relation to signage in the form of a signage master plan for the Park and signage zones only for the Aquatic and Recreation Centre. However the proposed signs comply with the development standards for ‘exempt development’ under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 therefore development consent is not required. Further the applicant has advised that consent is not sought for the proposed signage. Accordingly the provisions of SEPP 64 do not apply and no assessment under the Policy is therefore required.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

22. The provisions of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 have been considered in the assessment of the development application.

23. As noted above the signage referred as part of the subject development is exempt development under Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and the applicant has advised that consent is not sought for this component of the proposal.

24. The SEPP does not contain any other provisions relevant to the subject application.

Sydney LEP 2012


14090205

25. The site is located within the B4 Mixed Use zone. The proposed uses are defined as a recreation area, a recreation facility (indoor) and a recreation facility (outdoor). All these uses are permissible with consent.

26. The relevant matters to be considered under Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 for the proposed development are outlined below.

Compliance Table

Development Control Compliance Comment

4.3 Height of Buildings No A maximum height of 27m is permitted generally on the western part of the site in the location of the proposed aquatic centre. A maximum height of 3m applies to the remainder of the site including a strip along Joynton Avenue (refer Figure 12 below).

Figure 12: Maximum Height map (subject site shown with red line)

(Note: A=3m and T2 = 27m)

A maximum height of 10.4m (RL30.4) is proposed for the aquatic centre which complies with the maximum height limit.

A height of 5.5m (above existing ground level) or 4.0m (above finished ground level following 1.5m of fill) is however proposed for the amenities building within the park. This exceeds the maximum height limit of 3m above existing ground level. The height of the shade structure and play equipment also exceed the maximum height limit (by 4.23m and 1.28m respectively).

A clause 4.6 variation has been submitted in respect of the variation (refer below).


14090205

Compliance Table

4.4 Floor Space Ratio Yes A maximum FSR of 0.6:1 is permitted. A FSR of 0.19:1 is proposed and the proposal therefore complies.

4.6 Exceptions to development standards

Yes The proposal seeks to vary the development standard prescribed under Clause 4.3 in relation to maximum building height for the proposed amenities building, shade structure and play equipment within the park as outlined above.

See discussion under the heading Issues.

5.9 Preservation of trees or vegetation

Yes The proposal is acceptable in terms of tree preservation as it provides for the protection of significant trees on the Joynton Avenue frontage and replacement planting through a comprehensive landscape planting plan across the site. The proposed planting will outweigh any adverse impact resulting from the loss of existing trees on site (refer further discussion under the heading Issues).

5.10 Heritage conservation

Yes The site is not a heritage item and is not located within a Conservation Area. However, it is located opposite a listed heritage item (the former South Sydney Hospital). The site also accommodates an existing historic street wall along the Joynton Avenue (western) frontage. Amended plans have been submitted which provide for the retention of this significant heritage element following advice from Council’s heritage specialist. This is considered appropriate (refer discussion below under issues).

A heritage impact statement has been submitted to assess the impact of the proposed development on the former South Sydney Hospital. Having regard to the assessment it is considered that the proposal will not adversely impact on the heritage significance of the item.

See discussion under the heading Issues.


14090205

Compliance Table

Part 6 Local provisions - height and floor space

6.14 Community Infrastructure floor space at Green Square

Yes The subject site is within Area 6 as shown on the FSR map. An additional 0.5:1 FSR is permissible within this area where the development includes Green Square community infrastructure. Community infrastructure is defined as “development at Green Square for the purposes of recreation areas, recreation facilities (indoor), recreation facilities (outdoor), public roads, drainage or flood mitigation works”. The proposal meets this definition however additional floor space over and above the maximum permitted is not required. Therefore this clause is not considered relevant.

Division 4 Design excellence

Yes The proposed development has been subject to a design competition as outlined above. As determined by the Competition Jury it is considered that the proposal demonstrates design excellence having regard to all relevant matters set out at Clause 6.21(4). The Public Art Advisory Panel were also consulted throughout the schematic design development and have indicated general support for the proposal.

Part 7 Local provisions—general

Division 1 Car parking ancillary to other development

N/A No maximum or minimum number of car spaces is stipulated for recreation facilities or parks under this Division. Notwithstanding no on-site parking is proposed within the development. This is supported given Council’s policy of promoting sustainable transport to the site

7.14 Acid Sulphate Soils Yes Soil investigations have identified that Potential Acid Sulphate Soils exist in the western portion of the site below the depth of fill. An Acid Sulphate Soils Management Plan (ASSMP) was not included in the original DA documents but has now been submitted. The development should be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the


14090205

Compliance Table

ASSMP. A condition of consent to this effect is therefore recommended.

7.15 Flood planning Yes The site is identified by Council as being flood prone and flood modelling has therefore been undertaken. Following a revision to the flood design, and removal of the previously proposed flood detention basin within the Council’s depot site, Council’s flood engineers have advised that the proposed flood management measures are acceptable and will not result in any unacceptable flood impacts. See discussion under the heading Issues.

7.20 Development requiring preparation of a development control plan

No – acceptable

This clause requires the preparation of a DCP for sites over 5000m2 on land outside of the Sydney CBD prior to the granting of development consent. It is considered that a DCP would be unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance as Section 5.3 Green Square – Epsom Park of Sydney DCP 2012 provides detailed controls for the site and the proposed development is consistent with these controls.

Sydney DCP 2012

27. The relevant matters to be considered under Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 for the proposed development are outlined below.

2. Locality Statements – Epsom Park

The subject site is located in the Epsom Park locality. The proposed development is consistent with the locality statement and relevant principles and will deliver a highly significant regional recreational facility for the existing and future residents of Green Square. The proposed aquatic and recreation centre and park will make a significant contribution to the creation of this new neighbourhood, reinforcing its strong sense of place and encouraging public life. The high quality architectural design of the centre and the park landscape will help establish Epsom Park’s urban character and identity and provide excellent recreation facilities for residents and workers in the area. It is noted that the locality statement specifically provides that: a central park of approximately 15,500 square metres called Gunyama Park will

provide space for active sports and passive recreation. It will be located adjacent to a new Aquatic Centre that will serve the wider community.

The proposed development is also consistent with relevant locality statement principles as follows:


14090205

(a) Retain, protect and enhance the grand scale of street trees along Joynton Avenue - The proposal retains the street trees along Joynton Avenue.

(g) Buildings along the Zetland Avenue are to address the street frontage, defining and contributing to ground level activity associated with retail, café/ outdoor seating, and commercial uses - The aquatic centre has been designed to address Zetland Ave to the north with the major entrance located on this frontage. The proposed café is also located adjacent to Zetland Avenue.

(i) Provide an Aquatic Centre located between Gunyama Park and Joynton Avenue – Consistent, aquatic centre included in the proposal.

(j) Street trees located along the length of the Zetland Avenue are to integrate with the character of Gunyama Park to provide a unified link into the park, and reinforce the landscaped character of the neighbourhood - While street trees on Zetland Avenue do not form part of the application, these are shown on the plans consistent with this principle and will be separately provided by Council in accordance with this principle.

(n) Public art and the public domain are to interpret the neighbourhood’s connection with the Sheas Creek catchment – A detailed public art strategy has been prepared which proposes site-specific sculptures to interpret the Aboriginal heritage of the site and celebrate its water histories. The strategy highlights the connection between these water histories and its ongoing aquatic usage.

3. General Provisions


3.1 Public Domain Elements

Yes The proposed development will make a positive contribution to the public domain and is consistent with provisions as outlined below.

3.1.4 Public Open Space Yes The proposal will achieve a high quality design and provide for a range of recreational activities to meet the active and passive recreational needs of users. Landscaping will include native vegetation which is drought tolerant and the park will achieve good solar access. The design provides a high level of permeability and has regard to flooding issues. The proposed design is accessible and will ensure safety and security consistent with CPTED principles. Further the proposed children’s playground is fenced in accordance with Council requirements.

3.1.5 Public art Yes Public art has been provided within the Park in accordance with Council’s requirements. The proposal includes sculptures (Bangala) in a riparian


14090205

landscape and rain garden setting along the site’s overland flow path. This artwork acknowledges the traditional owners of the land and utilises the theme of water which is significant to the Green Square area. The artwork has been generally endorsed by the City’s Public Art Advisory Panel.

3.1.6 Sites greater than 5,000sq.m

Yes The site layout and buildings have been designed in accordance with this provision. The layout of the site provides for legible and publicly accessible through-site links. A clear public address has been provided for the aquatic centre, with its main entrance off Zetland Ave. The park will be clearly identifiable from surrounding streets with ready access provided from the north, east and south. A public art strategy has been included in the application which provides for high quality art features in the public domain.

3.2 Defining the Public Domain

Yes The proposed development has been designed to greatly enhance the overall public domain. The park and aquatic centre will greatly improve the visual quality and views in the area. Both the public domain and pedestrian environment will be characterised by excellence in design, high quality materials and integrated public art. The aquatic centre and park have been designed to maximise sunlight to publicly accessible spaces (notably outdoor pool and parts of the park) while also providing for appropriate shade cover during summer.

3.3 Design Excellence and Competitive Design Processes

Yes The proposed development has been subject to a design competition as discussed above.

3.5 Urban Ecology Yes A flora and fauna assessment has been undertaken which found that in general the site is highly modified and existing vegetation is of limited significance although Grey-Headed Flying Foxes visit the site. The report makes a number of recommendations which are recommended as conditions of consent. Refer to Issues section.


14090205

The proposed development will result in the removal of: 59 trees of low to very low retention

value 19 trees of moderate retention

value, and 2 trees with high retention value. In general, it is considered that the proposed tree removal is justified given the scale of the proposed site redevelopment and that the extensive new tree planting proposed will readily compensate for the tree loss. Refer to Issues section.

3.6 Ecologically Sustainable Development

Yes The proposal will not have unacceptable impacts on the environment. The proposed development has been designed to achieve a certified 5 star Design and As Built Green Star rating.

3.7 Water and Flood Management

Yes The site is flood affected. As noted above following a revision to the flood design, and removal of the previously proposed flood detention basin within the Council’s depot site, Council’s flood engineers have advised that the proposed flood management measures are acceptable and will not result in any unacceptable flood impacts. See discussion under the heading Issues.

3.8 Subdivision, Strata Subdivision and Consolidation

N/A The DA does not seek approval for subdivision. Given the existing land ownership, the site will need to be subdivided or a boundary adjustment undertaken in the future once the land owned by Lincon and Ausgrid is dedicated to Council. The timing of this is not currently known.

3.9 Heritage Yes The proposed public use and the scale and form of the new structures/works on site will not result in any adverse impacts on conservation areas or heritage items within the local area. Further the existing heritage wall on the Joynton Avenue frontage is proposed to be retained as part of the proposed development consistent with Council’s heritage specialist’s recommendation. Refer to Issues section.

3.11 Transport and Parking

Yes No on-site parking is proposed. This is consistent with Council’s sustainable


14090205

transport policies. The DA includes a draft Green Travel Plan and provides for bicycle parking and facilities in accordance with the DCP. Conditions are recommended to ensure bicycle parking and sustainable transport measures are adequate for the development. Refer to Issues section.

3.12 Accessible Design Yes The Access Assessment Report lodged with the DA indicates that the development complies with or can be made to comply with relevant disability legislation and standards subject to recommendations. A condition has been recommended to provide appropriate access and facilities in accordance with the recommendations of the Access Assessment Report.

3.13 Social and Environmental Responsibilities

Yes The proposed development provides adequate passive surveillance and is generally designed in accordance with the CPTED principles.

3.14 Waste

Yes A Waste Management Plan has been provided with the DA which addresses both construction and operational waste management.

3.15 Late Night Trading Management

N/A The original DA sought approval for a licensed café within the Centre however the applicant has since advised that it is no longer seeking approval for the café to be licensed. A condition of consent to this effect is therefore recommended.

3.16 Signage and Advertising

N/A The proposal includes a signage strategy however all proposed signage meets the criteria for ‘exempt development’ under Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure SEPP. Accordingly development consent is not required for the proposed signage.

5. Specific Areas Green Square - Epsom Park


5.3.1 Epsom Park Urban Strategy 5.3.2 Objectives for Epsom Park

Yes The proposal satisfies the relevant objectives and is consistent with the planning strategy in that it provides for:


14090205

Gunyama Park for passive and active recreation

an Aquatic Centre with active frontages to the park and Zetland Avenue

pedestrian/cycle links between Zetland Ave and Epsom Rd, and

a landscape setback along Joynton Ave.

Excerpt from Epsom Park Urban Strategy

5.3.3 Local infrastructure and public domain

Yes The proposal is consistent with this provision in that it provides for a large central park that accommodates a range of active sports facilities and is linked to the Aquatic Centre.

5.3.3.1 Public open space Yes Gunyama Park is consistent with this provision in that it: is of high quality design

incorporating landmark sculptural elements that reference the site’s history

provides for deep soil and indigenous tree planting

is to be used for active and passive recreation

includes a flexible active sports pitch, and

provides a clear link to the aquatic centre.

5.3.4 Building form and design

Yes The proposed aquatic centre building complies with this provision. The facility has been the subject of a design competition and is of high architectural design and quality. The building height is consistent with the maximum two storey height limit stipulated.


14090205

City of Sydney Access DCP 2004

28. The Access DCP 2004 seeks to provide non-discriminatory, equitable and dignified access for all people who use the City of Sydney, regardless of disability.

29. An Access Assessment Report has been submitted with the application which indicates that the design for the most part complies or is capable of complying with relevant accessibility standards and legislation. However, the report identifies a number of non-compliances that will require further design consideration.

30. A condition is therefore proposed requiring that the detailed design comply with the recommendations in Section 4.2 of the Access Assessment Report as well as the more general requirements set out in the City of Sydney Access DCP 2004. Subject to the imposition of this condition it is considered that the proposed works will provide for appropriate access arrangements.

City of Sydney Child Care Centres DCP 2005

31. The aquatic centre incorporates an indoor crèche which will offer an on-site short term child minding service to parents and guardians making use of the facilities inside the Centre, primarily during peak usage times. The proposed facility is not a child care centre for parents to leave their child in care and undertake activities outside or away from the Centre. Child minding in the crèche is proposed for a maximum two (2) hour period on any single day.

32. The definition of a “child care centre” under Sydney LEP 2012 specifically excludes “a regular child-minding service that is provided in connection with a recreational or commercial facility (such as a gymnasium), by or on behalf of the person conducting the facility, to care for children while the children’s parents are using the facility”. The proposed indoor crèche is not therefore a child care centre as defined and the provisions of the Child Care Centres DCP 2005 do not therefore apply.

ISSUES

Design excellence

33. As outlined above the proposed design has been the subject of a design competition and as determined by the Competition Jury represents design excellence. The proposed design provides a unified concept for the park and aquatic/recreation centre with a coordinated design language and design elements throughout the building and the park. The design is inspired by the playful atmosphere of the beach and coastal pools of Sydney as well as the site’s indigenous history. The design has also been informed by sustainability principles and targets a 5 star Design and As-Built Green Star rating. It is therefore considered that the proposal represents design excellence as required by clause 6.21 of Sydney LEP 2012.

Built form

34. The proposed aquatic and recreation centre is a simple, two storey structure which sits within a bermed topography. The building is located at the western edge of the site towards Joynton Avenue, setback 10m from Joynton Avenue in accordance with the required landscape setback.


14090205

35. The main entrances are from the corner of Joynton Avenue, the new Zetland Avenue and from Zetland Avenue via the café fronting the park. The two entries provide an engaging and activated street edge together with a strong planting presence along the principal frontage of Zetland Avenue.

36. The centre extends in a generally north-south orientation (lengthwise), with an ‘arching’ of the façade to provide views outwards across the external swimming area and towards Gunyama Park through the eastern façade. Views to the tree canopies in the Joynton Avenue landscape setback are also available from the west façade.

37. The building comprises rendered masonry with panelled cladding to the first floor with a flat roof with skylights. The covered pool hall is a high space with skylights. The service areas to the northern perimeter are earth covered in a winding footprint that provides a green backdrop to the park and new avenue.

38. The building design has been developed following completion of the design competition and represents a complex and sophisticated layout with a simple and elegant structure over the covered pool that sits on the curved, earth banks to the north and extends over the main pool deck.

39. The proposed building will be substantially lower than recently developed high-rise apartment buildings to the north and is in line with the general two and three storey scale of development in the area including the previous buildings on the site and the redevelopment of the former South Sydney Hospital site opposite. The low building height will help create a commonality between the network of public and cultural facilities that provide the civic core for the new Green Square area.

40. Having regard to all relevant matters it is concluded that the design is a well-considered piece of modern architecture which is fit for purpose, appropriate to its setting adjacent to Gunyama Park and surrounding roads and that will not result in any adverse impacts.

Exceptions to Development Standards – Height of Buildings

41. The site is subject to two height limits as shown in Figure 13 below. The area labelled ‘A’ on the Height of Building (HOB) map has a 3m height limit while the area of the aquatic centre building labelled ‘T2’ has a 27m height limit. The proposed aquatic building conforms with the T2 maximum height level however within the park itself the amenities building, playground shade structure and play equipment exceed the 3m height limit.


14090205

Figure 13: Height of buildings map under LEP 2012

42. In accordance with clause 4.6 of Sydney LEP 2012, the application includes a submission seeking variations to the height of buildings development standard under Clause 4.3 in relation to the amenities building, shade structure and play equipment as shown in Figures 14 and 15 below.

Figure 14: Proposed amenity building in relation to 3m height limit

Figure 15: Proposed play equipment and shade structure in relation to height limit


14090205

43. A written request has been submitted to Council justifying a contravention of the height of buildings development standard in relation to the amenities building, play equipment and shade structure.

44. The non-compliance associated with the roof of the amenities building, the play equipment, and the shade structure relates to a small portion of the site within Gunyama Park. With respect to the amenities building, the encroachment above the 3m HOB control by 1.5m (or 1.0m when measured from future ground level) is considered to be minor, particularly noting that the building will provide a high level of amenity to park users and for the functional management and operation of Gunyama Park. Although the amenities building will be visible from the public domain, the variation itself will not be overly discernible as the building and its shade structure are appropriate in height, not excessive in bulk, and will integrate well with the surroundings.

45. With respect to the play equipment and site shade structure, these items are integral to the site’s intended function as a public park, and will be well integrated into the surroundings once neighbouring buildings, landscaping, and other infrastructure have been completed. It should be noted that following the site’s dedication as a public reserve, these structures could be constructed by Council without consent under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and that compliance with the HOB control under LEP 2012 would not be required. Nevertheless, until that time a formal Clause 4.6 Variation is required for consideration.

46. The proposal complies with the objectives of the HOB control zone and in particular will provide a development that is appropriate to the site and its context and that will ensure the amenity of the public domain. It is also consistent with the objectives of the B4 Mixed Use zone including providing a mix of uses that support the viability of centres.

47. It is considered that the applicant has provided adequate justification for the non-compliance with the 3m height limit and accordingly the variations to the height of buildings development standard are supported with respect to the amenities building, play equipment and shade structure.

Landscaping and Tree Removal

48. The layout of the park is largely driven by the provision of a sports field that is set to the centre of the site with perimeter landscaping. Other key elements include a playground, skate facilities, a fitness station, BBQ facilities, natural grass areas, park amenities and change rooms.

49. New landscaping proposed is illustrated on the landscape plans. The park is landscaped with a mix of indigenous tree species and understorey plants, intended to contribute to the urban ecology of the wider area. A focus of the planting will be to return the site to an indigenous wetland and banksia scrub condition. The site has therefore been designed to capture and treat its own rainfall run-off within the garden beds of the park.

50. The proposed development will necessitate the removal of:

59 trees of low to very low retention value (including 12 trees on the Lincon and Ausgrid properties declared to be noxious weeds)


14090205

19 trees of moderate retention value, and 2 trees with high retention value.

51. Given the extent of the site redevelopment proposed and new ground levels required across the site for flood mitigation purposes, it is accepted that there are no feasible options that would enable the retention of any of the trees of moderate or high retention value in this instance. However, extensive replacement planting is proposed as part of the overall site landscape treatment within the site, including planting over 250 new indigenous tree species, to compensate for loss of amenity.

52. Four large Lemon-scented Gums and one Swamp Mahogany of high retention value along the Joynton Avenue frontage are proposed to be retained as part of the proposed development. These trees will need to be adequately protected during construction. A condition of consent to this effect is therefore recommended.

53. Further it is noted that three trees on the nature strip adjacent to the site and one tree within the site are to be removed by others as part of the proposed roadworks in Joynton Avenue and Zetland Avenue. The impact of removal of these trees has not been considered in the subject assessment as they do not form part of the proposed works.

Ecology

54. A Flora and Fauna Assessment and 7-Part Test has been undertaken for the proposed development. This assessment found that the site is a highly modified urban environment and existing vegetation is of limited conservation significance.

55. Vertebrate fauna present is limited to bird and mammal species commonly found in suburban environments. Grey-Headed Flying-Foxes, which visit the site to feed on flowers and the fruit of existing trees on site, are the only fauna species observed of conservation significance.

56. The assessment recommends that:

Corymbia citriodora trees be planted as replacement food trees for Grey-Headed Flying-Foxes on-site and elsewhere in the LGA

Hollows be salvaged where possible and retained on-site. At least 4 nest boxes should be installed on-site (2 x micro-bat and 2 x medium size), and

A qualified ecologist be present on site during removal of potential possum habitat and that at least 1 ring tail possum dray substitute be placed on site when landscape planting is dense enough to provide adequate habitat.

57. Conditions of consent are proposed to address these recommendations.

Heritage

58. The subject site is not a heritage item and is not located within a Conservation Area. It is however located directly opposite a listed heritage item (the former South Sydney Hospital). The subject site also accommodates an existing historic street wall along the Joynton Avenue (western) frontage.

59. A Statement of Heritage Impact has been prepared for the development which concludes that there are no heritage issues that would preclude development of the site as proposed.


14090205

60. Council’s Heritage Specialist has similarly advised that in general the proposal has no negative impact on the adjacent heritage items and nearby conservation area, due to its low building height and the large landscaping area. The advice notes that the site’s public recreation use will facilitate the retrieval and adaptive reuse of the heritage buildings in the vicinity.

61. However, Council’s Heritage Specialist has advised that the brick retaining walls built on Joynton Avenue have considerable heritage significance as the only remnants of the early motor industrial developments on the site. In response, the applicant has advised that the existing walls and piers to the Joynton Avenue boundary wall will be retained in the existing location however that these would be concealed in the new landscaping levels which are required to match the raised levels of Joynton Avenue. Interpretative devices will be incorporated in the landscaping design to mark the location of the wall. Council’s Heritage Specialist considers that this solution for the brick wall is acceptable. Amended plans to this effect have been provided.

Transport and Parking

62. In accordance with the Council’s vision for a sustainable and connected Sydney, no on-site parking is proposed and only limited service vehicle access is provided. Instead, the focus of the development is on public transport, walking and cycling connectivity. It should be noted that the plans indicate angled car parking on the western side of George Julius Avenue adjacent to the park. This parking is outside the scope of the DA and is not supported by Council’s Transport Planning Team in its current form. It is considered that this matter can be resolved by Council separately from the current application.

63. A transport impact assessment has been submitted with the application which addresses the parking, service/loading and traffic implications of the proposed development. It also includes details of proposed road infrastructure and sustainable transport infrastructure in the local area and incudes a green travel plan. The assessment concludes that the proposal is or will be well serviced by walking and cycling facilities, public transport (including buses, heavy rail and future light rail line). It also includes a green travel plan which includes measures to encourage sustainable transport and reduce reliance on private cars.

64. The parking assessment notes that a theoretical peak parking demand of 100-130 spaces could result from the proposed development in its initial stages but that this would reduce with increased development density surrounding the site and improvements to the walking/cycling and public transport network. Approximately 150-175 on street spaces are available within 200m of the facility increasing to 215-240 spaces within a 225m walk. The facility will promote train, bus, bicycle and walking routes to the site and facilities. Whilst the assessment notes that the facility may result in some initial impact on nearby street parking it concludes that over time this will reduce as people adopt more sustainable transport methods.

65. Service vehicles will utilise a service road to the west of the aquatic centre and designated loading and waste collection areas adjacent to this roadway. This approach will ensure safe 24 hour access for servicing of the facility.

66. In terms of traffic impact the assessment concludes that the impact of the proposed facility upon opening would be greater and would reduce over time with the development of the surrounding area (thus increasing the walkable catchment) and with the implementation of sustainable transport initiatives. In general the


14090205

assessment concludes that the impact would be acceptable subject to the potential future upgrade of the intersection of Joynton Avenue and Zetland Avenue.

67. Council’s Transport Planner has reviewed the development and the transport impact assessment and has advised that the proposal is acceptable subject to the imposition of recommended conditions of consent.

Solar Access

68. Shadow diagrams have been submitted with the application and illustrate that the proposal will not result in any adverse shadow impacts. The shadows cast by the aquatic centre in mid-winter will be largely contained to the site with some very minor overshadowing of the street footpath in Joynton Avenue in the early morning. The northern part of the park will be affected by some overshadowing in the early morning from tall buildings to the north of the site however this impact will only be for a small part of the park and only in the early morning in mid-winter. Accordingly it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of shadow impacts and will not be adversely affected by shadows from any nearby development.

Privacy

69. The proposal will not result in any privacy impacts on neighbouring or nearby properties.

Working Hours

70. It is proposed that the Aquatic and Recreation Centre would operate 7 days per week throughout the year with the exception of Good Friday and Christmas Day with potential early closures or later openings over the Christmas and New Year period and on Anzac Day. The proposed hours of operation are as follows:

Aquatic and Recreation Centre (including fitness area) – indoor and outdoor Staff setting up and closing Monday to Friday Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays

5.00am – 11.30pm 5.30am – 9.30pm

Customers using the building: Monday to Friday (indoor) Monday to Friday (outdoor) Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays

5.30am – 11.00pm 5.30am – 10.00pm 6.00am – 9.00pm

Café – indoor and kiosk Staff setting up and closing Monday to Friday Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays

6.00am – 11.30pm* 6.00am –9.30pm* *subject to external operator or centre management


14090205

Customers using the building: Monday to Friday Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays

6.30am – 10.00pm 7.00am – 8.00pm

71. It is noted that the above hours are as proposed in the DA when the proposed café

was intended to be licensed. The applicant has since amended the proposal to delete the proposed licensing of the café. Without licensing it is considered unlikely that the café would operate for the full hours proposed.

72. An amended Management Plan has been submitted (dated January 2017) in response to concerns raised by Council during the assessment in respect of noise from outdoor events and activities. The Management Plan includes limits in relation to the number and timing of noisy events to be held in the proposed outdoor pool to protect neighbouring amenity. The Management Plan also indicates that loudspeakers will have noise limiters installed and their use, as well as the use of game control devices (except in an emergency), will be limited to between the hours of 7am to 10pm. The limits included in the Management Plan are considered appropriate and will protect the amenity of the neighbourhood subject to implementation of the amended Management Plan and recommended conditions of consent. Council’s Health and Building Unit has advised that the proposal is acceptable subject to recommended conditions of consent which include compliance with the recommendations of the acoustic report limitations on speaker noise, noise limiters etc.

73. Given the proposed management measures to be implemented it is considered that the proposed hours of operation are acceptable.

Access

74. An Access Assessment Report has been submitted with the subject application. The report concludes that the design complies with or is capable of complying with the BCA, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) and the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 (the Premises Standards) subject to recommendations contained in section 4.2. Having regard to the findings of Access report it is considered that access for disabled persons can be provided to the development. Notwithstanding a condition of consent in this regard are considered appropriate requiring that disabled access be provided in accordance with the recommendations contained in section 4.2 of the Access Assessment Report and the relevant provisions of the DCP.

Other Impacts of the Development

75. The proposed development is capable of complying with the BCA. It is Class 6/9b (Café / Kitchen), 5/9b (Hydro Pool), 9b (Gym / Pool Amenities), 10b (Swimming Pool), 10a (Park Amenities and Storage) and 10b (Perimetre Fencing).

76. It is considered that the proposal will have no significant detrimental effect relating to environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality, subject to appropriate conditions being imposed.


14090205

Suitability of the site for the Development

77. The proposal will provide a high quality new active and passive recreation facility to meet the recreational needs of future residents and workers within Green Square. The proposal is located in close proximity to the Green Square Town Centre and adjacent to public transport. It is highly accessible, will not result in any significant adverse impacts and therefore provides a suitable use of the site.

INTERNAL REFERRALS

78. The Design Advisory Panel was consulted on four separate occasions (28 April 2015, 14 July 2015, 15 September 2015 and 8 March 2016) in respect of the proposal during the design competition phase. At the meeting of 8 March 2016, the Panel commended the team on the progress of the concept design, noting that design refinements have improved the strong competition scheme. The Panel noted support for:

A unified design for the entire site with the background work in place to establish timely ‘site handover’ for implementation

The integration of the park amenities into the site and the integration of the Park and the Building and the surrounding landscape

The coherence in the proposed choice of materials and colour palette for the Park and Building elements

The resolution of a defined edge detailed between synthetic sports field and natural grass.

It further recommended:

With regards to the options for the fence, the Panel’s preference is for it to be receding and not overt, noting its visibility from the street. The Panel recommends that the fence does not detract from the other strong elements of the design. Safety issues in regard to access to banks will also need resolution.

The Rose Valley Way facade needs further design articulation to move it away from being a ‘blank wall’, the Panel suggested softening the faced through green walls and overhanging plants from the green roof.

An analysis of the proposed shade structures with the anticipated wind and rain conditions, to conform the provision of adequate weather protection.

The recommendations of the Panel have been adequately addressed by the final design. In particular fencing is proposed such that the site is generally open with mesh fencing to the Aquatic Centre and playground area. The Rose Valley Way façade has been amended to ensure an appropriate presentation to the street and incorporates planting as suggested. Appropriate shade structures have also been included.

79. The application was also considered by the Public Art Advisory Panel on three occasions (5 May 2015, 27 October 2015 and 22 March 2016). The Panel provided ongoing feedback throughout the research and design concept phases and


14090205

generally indicated its support for the proposed art strategy on site and the selected location.

80. The conditions of other sections of Council have been included in the proposed conditions.

EXTERNAL REFERRALS

Notification, Advertising and Delegation (Submission(s) Received)

81. The application constitutes Integrated Development and as such the application was notified and advertised for 30 days in accordance with the provisions of Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000. As a result of this notification, seven submissions were received, including five from the same submitter (representing different companies). Issues raised in submissions are summarised below.

(a) Prefer original design in respect of hydrotherapy pool, kiosk / kitchen areas, concrete bleachers and open generous sight lines and spaces.

Response – The consent authority is bound to consider the application as submitted.

(b) Request application fast tracked to minimise construction impacts on neighbouring development. In addition the submitter was concerned that the Meriton development at 84-92 Epson Road was required to include retail frontage opposite the park to activate the frontage however in terms of timing the development is to be occupied in Feb-June 2017 and the park is not to be completed until 2019. This will leave the retail tenancies with poor amenity and no activation for up to 2 years.

Response – Construction timing and duration is a matter for the applicant. It is suggested that the applicant liaise with the objector to mitigate any potential adverse impacts.

(c) Request that construction access and loading be moved away from the Meriton development at 84-92 Epson Road to the north of the site to minimise construction impacts.

Response – It is considered that the proposed construction management plan is appropriate and that adequate mitigation measures are included to minimise adverse amenity impacts during construction.

(d) Lack of tennis court which would greatly add to the amenity of the area as there are currently no public tennis courts in Zetland.

Response – As noted above, the consent authority is required to consider the application as submitted. No tennis courts have been proposed.


14090205

PUBLIC INTEREST

82. It is considered that the proposal is in the public interest, subject to appropriate conditions being proposed.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

83. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Water Management Act 2000.

CONCLUSION

84. Having regard to all matters outline above, it is considered that the construction of a new aquatic and recreation centre and regional park known as Gunyama Park Aquatic and Recreation Centre at Green Square is consistent with the objectives and provisions of Sydney LEP 2012 and Sydney DCP 2012. The proposed aquatic and recreation centre comprises indoor and outdoor pools, a crèche, café and health and fitness centre. The regional park comprises an outdoor playground, sports field, skate park, fitness station, amenities, BBQ areas and landscaping.

85. The proposed development is suitable in the subject location and will meet the recreational needs of the existing and future community within the locality. It is consistent with surrounding land uses and with future plans for the locality. The proposal represents a high quality design, is consistent with the design competition for the site and will have a positive impact on the public domain. The proposal will also preserve existing trees and the historic wall on Joynton Avenue.

86. Accordingly it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable and is therefore recommended for approval subject to recommended conditions of consent.

GRAHAM JAHN, AM Director City Planning, Development and Transport

Helena Miller, Planning Consultant (MG Planning Pty Ltd)

Central Sydney Planning Committee (CSPC) - 11 May 2017 - Item … · 2017-05-11 · Cost of Works:...

Documents

Transcript of Central Sydney Planning Committee (CSPC) - 11 May 2017 - Item … · 2017-05-11 · Cost of Works:...