Addendum Items
PAGE
Planning & Compliance Report
PLAN 05 Warwick Farm Racing Precinct draft Structure Plan, draft Planning Proposal and draft Contributions Plan................................................................................ 651...........
652
Ordinary Meeting
24 November 2021
Planning & Compliance Report
|
PLAN 05 |
Warwick Farm Racing Precinct draft Structure Plan, draft Planning Proposal and draft Contributions Plan |
|
Strategic Direction |
Strengthening and Protecting our Environment Exercise planning controls to create high-quality, inclusive urban environments |
|
File Ref |
360071.2021 |
|
Report By |
Cameron Jewell - Senior Strategic Planner |
|
Approved By |
David Smith - Director Planning & Compliance |
Executive Summary
At its meeting of 29 September 2021, Council resolved (PLAN 06) to re-exhibit the revised draft Warwick Farm Racing Precinct structure plan, draft planning proposal and draft contributions plan (the planning package) for a period of 28 days, and to receive a further report following public exhibition. This follows changes made to the draft planning package based on a previous round of community consultation in late 2020.
Council received 26 submissions during the public exhibition period, including 15 submissions in opposition and 11 who were supportive of rezoning the precinct in principle, however concerns were raised with several elements of the planning package.
Recent changes in the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s (DPIE) planning proposal assessment processes mean that more information is now being required prior to planning proposals being lodged with DPIE seeking a Gateway determination. Specifically, planning proposals within the Liverpool Collaboration Area and Moorebank East have been returned from Gateway assessment, with DPIE stating that planning proposals should only be resubmitted “once the findings of Council’s Regional Flood Evacuation Study can inform the proposal”.
Council’s consultant is finalising this study, with a draft discussion paper due at the end of November 2021 to enable further detailed discussions with SES, DPIE and the Planning Delivery Unit (PDU). Council will continue to progress the finalisation of this study, with the assistance of the PDU and DPIE to enable planning proposals in these areas to be considered for a Gateway determination by DPIE.
Noting the above, it is recommended that Council supports in principle the revised planning package as exhibited, and upon finalisation of the Regional Flood Evacuation Study, delegates authority to the CEO to make any minor amendments to the planning package as may be required and forwards the planning proposal to the DPIE seeking a Gateway determination.
That Council:
1. Notes the submissions received on the revised draft planning package;
2. Notes that the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment requires the final planning proposal to be informed by the Regional Flood Evacuation Study, prior to Council forwarding the planning proposal to DPIE for a Gateway determination;
3. Supports in principle the revised planning package as exhibited;
4. Delegates authority to the CEO to make minor amendments to the planning package following the finalisation of the Regional Flood Evacuation Study;
5. Delegates authority to the CEO to forward the planning proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, pursuant to Section 3.34 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, seeking a Gateway determination;
6. Subject to Gateway determination, undertake public exhibition and community consultation on the planning proposal in accordance with the conditions of the Gateway determination and Council’s Community Participation Plan; and
7. Receives a further report on the outcomes of public exhibition and community consultation.
REPORT
Background
At its meeting on 28 April 2021, Council resolved (EGROW 04) to appoint a consultant to refine the draft Warwick Farm Racing Precinct Structure Plan, draft planning proposal and draft contributions plan (the planning package), and to receive a further report on the revised planning package following refinement of the plans.
Conybeare Morrison International was reappointed to:
· Respond to feedback received during public exhibition of the draft plans;
· Incorporate the outcomes of regional transport, flood, and open space studies;
· Respond to the outcomes of feasibility testing;
· Incorporate the 240 Governor Macquarie Drive site into the draft planning proposal and structure plan, considering DPIEs Gateway refusal and feedback received from public exhibition; and
· Conduct a detailed flood impact assessment to better understand land needed for flood mitigation and potential flood mitigation options.
At its meeting on 29 September 2021 (PLAN 06), Council considered the revised draft planning package and resolved to place the revised plans on public exhibition for a further 28 days and receive a report for a decision on whether to forward the planning proposal to DPIE for a Gateway determination.
This report details the submissions received during the consultation period.
Public Exhibition
The draft planning package was placed on public exhibition from 8 October 2021 to 7 November 2021. The draft structure plan is outlined in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 - Draft revised Warwick Farm structure Plan (Source: CM+)
The planning package was exhibited on Council’s website and included the following documentation:
· draft structure plan (Attachment 4);
· draft planning proposal (Attachment 5);
· draft contributions plan (Attachment 6);
· a summary fact sheet (Attachment 7);
· Council report and resolution (Attachment 8);
· flood assessment report (Attachment 9);
· economic feasibility testing (Attachment 10);
· traffic impact assessment (Attachment 11); and
· a fact sheet on property acquisition (Attachment 12).
Letters were also sent to landowners in the precinct, and a Facebook and LinkedIn post was published. Council also offered one-on-one meetings during the exhibition period to any interested landowners, however there were no requests made.
Summary of submissions
Council received 26 submissions during the public exhibition period. Of the 26 submissions received, 15 submissions were opposed to the plans and 11 were supportive of rezoning the precinct in principle, however some raised issues with several elements of the planning package and requested changes.
Figure 2 - Percentage of support/opposition in submissions received during the public exhibition period
Of the 15 submissions opposed:
· nine were from people living outside the precinct;
· four were from landowners within the area; and
· two did not provide address information.
The four submissions opposing the plans with address details were from landowners whose properties are proposed to be zoned RE1 Public Open Space and acquired by Council in the future.
Of the 11 submissions that were supportive of the rezoning in principle, all but one owned land within the precinct that was proposed to be zoned either B4 Mixed Use or R4 High Density Residential. All 11 raised issues with the plans as proposed, including requests for additional height and FSR, changes to precinct boundaries, issues with the proposed staging and sequencing plan, concerns related to feasibility and the cost of contributions, and disagreement with the flood impact assessment and the necessity of raising roads.
Figure 3 illustrates the key themes (raised more than once) in the submissions received and how many times each category was mentioned. This figure helps to demonstrate the strength of sentiment regarding specific issues.
Figure 3 - Key themes raised during public exhibition
A detailed summary of each submission is provided in Attachment 1 and 2, however key issues raised during public exhibition are summarised below.
Traffic
Many submissions, mostly from people outside the precinct, expressed concern about increased traffic congestion that would likely result from rezoning this precinct to allow high density residential and mixed uses. The rezoning proposal is supported by a Traffic Impact Assessment and road upgrades are proposed to support future development, funded by the proposed Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan. The traffic impact assessment indicates that the rezoning can be supported, subject to the proposed road upgrades.
Perceived overdevelopment
Many submissions, mostly from people outside the precinct, indicated that the proposal represented an overdevelopment and that there were too many high-rise developments in Liverpool already.
Development standards
Of those who supported the rezoning in principle, many indicated that development standards should be greater on their properties to better incentivise redevelopment, and to ensure that the design principle of having greatest heights near the station and then tapering down is maintained.
The precinct’s current distribution of density is aligned with the urban design principles and it is considered that the current yields are generous enough to encourage redevelopment while remaining sensitive to site limitations.
Flooding
Many residents disagree with the findings of the detailed flood impact assessment; however none provided any detailed flood modelling to support their submission.
Council’s flood planning level maps indicate that the entire precinct is within the flood planning area, and thus is subject to flood planning considerations. To enable high density residential development in this flood prone precinct, it is necessary for roads to be raised to the flood planning level and for new residential development to be above the flood planning level (1:100 flood level plus 0.5m freeboard). This is consistent with Local Planning Direction 4.3 issued by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces.
Direction 4.3 states:
“The objectives of this direction are:
· to ensure that development of flood prone land is consistent with the NSW Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy and the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005; and
· to ensure that the provisions of a local environmental plan that apply to flood prone land are commensurate with flood behaviour and include consideration of the potential flood impacts on and off the subject land”.
Direction 4.3 also states that a planning proposal must not contain provisions that apply to the flood planning area which:
· permit development in floodway areas;
· permit development that will result in significant flood impacts to other properties;
· permit development for the purposes of residential accommodation in high hazard areas;
· permit a significant increase in the development and/or dwelling density of that land;
· permit development for the purpose of centre-based childcare facilities, hostels, boarding houses, group homes, hospitals, residential care facilities, respite day care centres and seniors housing in areas where the occupants of the development cannot effectively evacuate;
· permit development to be carried out without development consent except for the purposes of exempt development or agriculture. Dams, drainage canals, levees, still require development consent;
· are likely to result in a significantly increased requirement for government spending on emergency management services, flood mitigation and emergency response measures, which can include but are not limited to the provision of road infrastructure, flood mitigation infrastructure and utilities; or
· permit hazardous industries or hazardous storage establishments where hazardous materials cannot be effectively contained during the occurrence of a flood event.
Direction 4.3 states that a planning proposal may be inconsistent with the terms of this direction only if the planning proposal authority can satisfy the Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment that:
· the planning proposal is in accordance with a floodplain risk management study or plan adopted by the relevant Council in accordance with the principles and guidelines of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005, or
· where there is no council adopted floodplain risk management study or plan, the planning proposal is consistent with the flood study adopted by the council prepared in accordance with the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005, or
· the planning proposal is supported by a flood and risk impact assessment accepted by the relevant planning authority and is prepared in accordance with the principles of the Floodplain Development Manual 2005 and consistent with the relevant planning authorities’ requirements, or
· the provisions of the planning proposal that are inconsistent are of minor significance as determined by the relevant planning authority.
Odour Buffer Zone
Some submissions maintain that development should be allowed within Sydney Water’s odour contour. As outlined to Council previously, Sydney Water will object to any intensification of residential development in the odour buffer area.
Feasibility
Two submissions from consultants indicated that the assumptions used by Council’s consultants for the feasibility testing, which informed the floor space ratio (FSR) controls, used assumptions that underestimated the cost of development, and overestimated the price of apartments, and contained other assumptions that were not industry norms. These submissions were referred to Council’s consultant who has reviewed the submissions and provided a detailed response (Attachment 10) that justifies the original assumptions used. It is therefore considered that the original assumptions are sound.
Staging and Safety
Some submissions are from properties that are not included in Stage 1 of the indicative staging plan and have indicated that they do not agree with how the stages have been selected. Key to this concern is that the initial reason for rezone the precinct, which is to allow horse trainers to move off-site due to increasing conflict between industrial vehicles and horses, particularly along Manning Street, is not adequately considered by the staging plan.
The primary need for a staging plan is due to the fragmented land ownership in the precinct and the need to address flooding constraints and flood evacuation requirements to meet Local Planning Directions for development on flood prone land. As identified above, the precinct is flood prone, and any rezoning of the precinct must demonstrate that the precinct can be developed above the flood planning level and that people can safety evacuate the precinct in times of flood.
Considering the Hume Highway (overbridge) is the high point, development in the precinct must occur from north to south to ensure a continually rising evacuation path exists from the southern parts of the precinct to the Hume Highway and onto the overbridge.
The staging plan is indicative only. Should a future developer provide an alternate staging plan at the DA stage that achieves the stated objective to facilitate evacuation of the precinct in a flood event, this will be considered by Council. The future redevelopment of this precinct will likely be a long-term process and will be largely driven by market demand. The timeline from endorsing the planning proposal to the beginning of development may be several years. The bypass road is the key enabling piece of infrastructure that will reduce heavy vehicle conflict and improve safety.
Contributions
Many submissions indicated that the high contribution rates would make redevelopment challenging and that Council should investigate other ways to reduce the contribution rates. It is acknowledged that the contribution rates are relatively high, compared to other areas, however this reflects the constrained nature of the precinct, and the level of infrastructure needed to support growth in this area, without unfairly overburdening other ratepayers in Liverpool. Other sources of funding for key infrastructure such as open space and the bypass road will still be investigated, and amendments made to the contributions plan if appropriate.
Major landowner submissions
Council received detailed submissions from three major landholders in the Warwick Farm Racing Precinct. These included:
· Australian Turf Club;
· Godolphin; and
· Warwick Farm Central Pty Ltd (240 Governor Macquarie Drive).
Australian Turf Club submission
The Australian Turf Club (ATC) is the owner of the Warwick Farm racecourse and three additional lots of land within the Warwick Farm racing precinct. The ATC made an extensive submission, reiterating their former request that ATC land outside the current precinct be considered as part of the current planning work, as they believe doing so would reduce contributions rates and offset the costs associated with on-site stabling, and land acquisition needed for public open space and flood storage.
It is considered that amending the precinct boundary would be inconsistent with Council’s previous resolutions, which focus this strategic planning on the horse training precinct. There is also the risk that the proposals strategic merit may be undermined as Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) does not envisage the precinct expanding to the racecourse site.
ATC would like further clarity regarding incentives for absorbing stabling on-site. As previously mentioned, any planning changes to ATC land outside the precinct can be pursued separately and will need to address the LSPS. While Council is supportive of opportunities to relocate horse training to the racecourse, ultimately this is a commercial decision for the ATC and horse trainers. Council will continue to engage with ATC as needed to understand their requirements and facilitate conversations with current horse trainers.
ATC also indicated that the Contributions Scheme remains too expensive. It is acknowledged that the contribution rates are relatively high, compared to other areas, however this reflects the constrained nature of the precinct, and the level of infrastructure needed to support growth in this area, without unfairly burdened other ratepayers in Liverpool. Other sources of funding for key infrastructure such as open space and the bypass road will still be investigated, and amendments made to the contributions plan if appropriate.
ATC also stated that the staging and sequencing of development would be challenging, as roads would need to be raised prior to development contributions being received. Council may need to pool contributions or seek alternative funding sources to cover upfront costs or enter works in kind agreements with developers to enable future development.
Godolphin submission
Godolphin owns two large blocks within the precinct. Their submission indicated that the urban design principles of height transitioning down from the Warwick Farm station was not followed precisely and requested that the number of storeys on the structure plan be revised to match the height of building controls proposed. It is noted that the structure plan provides a preferred development approach and an indication of how sites could develop under the proposed development standards, however the sites would be able to develop in accordance with the LEP controls and other necessary requirements, such as SEPP 65, and therefore no changes are considered necessary.
They indicated concern regarding the structure plan marking an area of privately owned publicly accessible open space on site, that would not be zoned for public recreation. It is proposed to keep this area unchanged, as it is burdened by the odour contour, and having increased development potential in this area may lead to Sydney Water not supporting the precinct redevelopment. The area can also be used in landscaped area and deep soil planting calculations so should have limited impact on the development potential of the site.
Further detail on raising of the roads was requested, how this would be practically accomplished, and whether development could proceed out of sequence. Council has provided a high-level staging plan to address this issue. Details and boundaries would still need to be tested and set, however it is considered that this can be done post-Gateway in a detailed plan. It is considered that all development in a stage would need to occur together, due to the roads needing to be raised to allow for development. It is proposed that no development in a further stage be allowed until the first stage is completed unless arrangements suitable to Council are proposed as part of future DAs.
Godolphin also raised issues with the contributions rates and recommended that Council seek other funding sources to reduce the contributions rates. It is acknowledged that the contribution rates are relatively high, compared to other areas, however this reflects the constrained nature of the precinct, and the level of infrastructure needed to support growth in this area, without unfairly burdened other ratepayers in Liverpool. Other sources of funding for key infrastructure such as open space and the bypass road will still be investigated, and amendments made to the contributions plan if appropriate.
Finally, Godolphin raised issues with the exhibited economic feasibility modelling, indicating that the cost of construction was undervalued based on current industry best practice, that industry norms weren’t used in assumptions, requiring amendments and potentially a review of development standards. The consultant engaged to conduct the economic feasibility modelling has provided advice responding to concerns raised during public exhibition (Attachment 10). Based on this advice, it is considered that the original assumptions used in the economic feasibility testing are sound.
Warwick Farm Central Pty Ltd submission
Warwick Farm Central Pty Ltd, owners of the 240 Governor Macquarie Drive site, state that the FSR previously endorsed by Council in a separate planning proposal should be applied to the structure plan for the precinct. Council’s resolution at the 28 April 2021 Council meeting was to: “Incorporate the 240 Governor Macquarie Drive site into the draft planning proposal and structure plan, considering DPIE’s Gateway refusal and feedback received from public exhibition”. Many submissions on the previous structure plan indicated that density should be more equitably distributed across the precinct. Therefore, the structure plan has been updated to take this into account.
The submission also raised concerns with the feasibility testing assumptions, including that end sale prices have been overvalued, providing a consultant report to outline this point; and that construction costs had been undervalued, providing another report to outline this point.
As mentioned previously, the consultant engaged to conduct the economic feasibility modelling has provided advice responding to concerns raised during public exhibition (Attachment 10). Based on this advice, it is considered that the original assumptions used in the economic feasibility testing are sound.
Facebook Feedback
A Facebook post was published to publicize the proposed planning package and obtain feedback from the wider Liverpool community on 21 October 2021. A screenshot is provided at Figure 4 below.
The post was shared 27 times, and received 346 comments and 143 reactions, including 70 ‘likes’ and 60 ‘angry faces’. The link to the public exhibition page was clicked 291 times, and the post’s reach was 16,700 users.
Figure 4 - A Facebook post on the proposed planning package
Most comments were negative in relation to the proposed planning package, and the most expressed sentiments were regarding a perception of overdevelopment in Liverpool, and the proposal exacerbating traffic congestion, which many commenters saw as a current unresolved issue.
Questions taken on notice
Completion of flood evacuation study
Recent changes in DPIE’s planning proposal assessment processes mean that more information is now being required prior to planning proposals being lodged with DPIE seeking a Gateway determination. Planning proposals within the Liverpool Collaboration Area and Moorebank East have been returned from Gateway assessment, with DPIE stating that planning proposals should only be resubmitted “once the findings of Council’s Regional Flood Evacuation Study can inform the proposal”.
Based on previous and ongoing discussions with DPIE, a proposal sent to Gateway prior to this study being completed will not be accepted.
Council is finalising this study, with a draft discussion paper due at the end of November 2021 to enable further detailed discussions with SES, DPIE and the Planning Delivery Unit (PDU). Council will continue to progress the finalisation of this study, with the assistance of the PDU and DPIE.
Next Steps
It is recommended that Council supports in principle the revised planning package as exhibited, and upon finalisation of the Regional Flood Evacuation Study, delegates authority to the CEO to make any minor amendments to the planning package as may be required and forwards the planning proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) seeking a Gateway determination.
CONSIDERATIONS
|
Economic |
Deliver and maintain a range of transport related infrastructure such as footpaths, bus shelters and bikeways. Deliver a high quality local road system including provision and maintenance of infrastructure and management of traffic issues. Facilitate economic development. |
|
Environment |
Promote an integrated and user friendly public transport service. |
Social |
Regulate for a mix of housing types that responds to different population groups such as young families and older people. |
Civic Leadership |
There are no civic leadership and governance considerations. |
|
Legislative |
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 |
|
Risk |
The risk is deemed to be Low at this early stage in the plan making process, given the analysis completed in relation to flooding, traffic and open space. The risk in relation to the recommendations of the report is considered within Council’s risk appetite. |
ATTACHMENTS
2. Submissions Summary - Confidential
3. Responses to questions taken on notice
8. 29 September 2021 Council Report
|
1 |
|
|
PLAN 05 |
Warwick Farm Racing Precinct draft Structure Plan, draft Planning Proposal and draft Contributions Plan |
|
Attachment 1 |
Submissions Summary |
|
PLAN 05 |
Warwick Farm Racing Precinct draft Structure Plan, draft Planning Proposal and draft Contributions Plan |
|
Attachment 3 |
Responses to questions taken on notice |
|
PLAN 05 |
Warwick Farm Racing Precinct draft Structure Plan, draft Planning Proposal and draft Contributions Plan |
|
Attachment 4 |
Draft Structure Plan |
|
PLAN 05 |
Warwick Farm Racing Precinct draft Structure Plan, draft Planning Proposal and draft Contributions Plan |
|
Attachment 5 |
Draft Planning Proposal |
|
PLAN 05 |
Warwick Farm Racing Precinct draft Structure Plan, draft Planning Proposal and draft Contributions Plan |
|
Attachment 6 |
Draft Contributions Plan |
|
PLAN 05 |
Warwick Farm Racing Precinct draft Structure Plan, draft Planning Proposal and draft Contributions Plan |
|
Attachment 7 |
Summary Fact Sheet |
|
PLAN 05 |
Warwick Farm Racing Precinct draft Structure Plan, draft Planning Proposal and draft Contributions Plan |
|
Attachment 8 |
29 September 2021 Council Report |
|
PLAN 05 |
Warwick Farm Racing Precinct draft Structure Plan, draft Planning Proposal and draft Contributions Plan |
|
Attachment 9 |
Flood Assessment Report |
|
PLAN 05 |
Warwick Farm Racing Precinct draft Structure Plan, draft Planning Proposal and draft Contributions Plan |
|
Attachment 10 |
Economic Feasibility Testing |
|
PLAN 05 |
Warwick Farm Racing Precinct draft Structure Plan, draft Planning Proposal and draft Contributions Plan |
|
Attachment 11 |
Traffic Impact Assessment |
