Policy Review
Committee Meeting ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11
November 2013
|
1
|
Planning Proposal for
Penrith Local Environmental Plan - Outcomes of Public Exhibition? ??
|
?
|
Compiled by:?????????????? Abdul
Cheema, City Planning Coordinator?
Authorised
by:??????????? Paul
Grimson, Strategic Planning Manager ??
|
Outcome
|
We plan for our future growth
|
|
Strategy
|
Protect the City's natural areas, heritage and
character
|
|
Service Activity
|
Maintain a contemporary framework of land use and
contribution policies, strategies and statutory plans
|
??????
Procedural
note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be
called in relation to this matter.
Executive Summary
Over the past few years Council has been developing a single
comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (LEP) for Penrith in two stages.? Stage
1 (Penrith LEP 2010) generally covers the rural areas, industrial areas,
heritage items and the St Marys Town Centre.? Stage 1 of the LEP was made by
the Minister for Planning on 22 September 2010.? Stage 2 (Planning Proposal for
Penrith LEP) generally covers all residential areas and local retail/commercial
centres except St Marys Release Area which incorporates Jordan Springs.
The Planning Proposal is, in most cases, based on a direct
translation of the existing planning controls (land use zones, building height,
FSR etc) into the State Government?s Standard Instrument, especially for the
established residential areas and local/neighbourhood centres which are not
identified for growth in the next 5 years.
The Planning Proposal also includes a number of
site-specific ?rezoning? proposals, ?deferred? matters from the Penrith LEP
2010 (Stage 1) and growth areas identified in the draft Urban Strategy where a
change in zone is proposed. It also includes a number of adopted or gazetted
LEPs.
At its Ordinary Meeting of 19 November 2012, Council
endorsed the Planning Proposal for Penrith LEP to be submitted to the
Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a revised Gateway Determination
under Section 56 of the Act. Council received a final Gateway Determination
dated 23 April 2013 authorising Council to publicly exhibit the Planning
Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan. Subsequently, the Planning
Proposal was exhibited from Monday 13 May to Friday 5 July 2013.?
During this public exhibition period, a total of 4,630
enquiries were received resulting in a total of 819 submissions.? There were
766 submissions received from the community and 53 submissions received from 34
public authorities. Out of the submissions received two key issues have been
raised by the local community.
???????? The proposed E4 Rural Lands in Castlereagh and
Cranebrook (120 submissions); and
???????? The proposed zoning of the Glossop Street Precinct
at St Marys (569 submissions).?
Discussion papers detailing and responding to all community
submissions and public authority submissions are attached to this report.
It is recommended that Council endorse the Planning Proposal
for Penrith LEP with changes as recommended in the discussion paper (Attachment
5) and Attachments 2-4.
Background
Council has been undertaking a major planning exercise to
prepare a new City-wide LEP.? The new City-wide LEP must comply with the
Government?s LEP template.
At its Ordinary Meeting of 10 October 2005, Council resolved
to prepare a comprehensive LEP for the City, which has been brought forward in
2 stages as follows:
?? Stage 1 generally covers the rural areas,
industrial areas, St Marys Town Centre and heritage items.? Stage 1 of the
Local Environmental Plan was made by the Minister for Planning on 22 September
2010.
?? Stage 2 primarily
covers the residential, local/neighbourhood centres, and release areas.? Stage
2, known as Planning Proposal for Penrith LEP also incorporates a number of
specific rezoning proposals.
The Stage 2 Planning Proposal for the majority of sites
proposes a direct translation of the existing planning controls into the
Standard Instrument, especially for the established residential areas and
local/neighbourhood centres which are not identified for growth in the next
five years.
The Stage 2 Planning Proposal also includes a number of
site-specific ?rezoning? proposals, ?deferred? matters from Penrith LEP 2010
and growth areas identified in the draft Urban Strategy where a change in zone
is proposed.
Further, the Planning Proposal includes a number of recently
adopted or gazetted LEPs.? These include the release area LEPs (Glenmore Park
Stage 2, South Werrington Urban Village and Caddens), Penrith City Centre LEP
2008, Penrith LEP 2010 and Penrith LEP 1991 (Environmental Heritage
Conservation).
At its Ordinary Meeting of 19 November 2012, Council
endorsed the Planning Proposal for Penrith LEP to be submitted to the
Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a revised Gateway Determination
under Section 56 of the Act. Council received a final Gateway Determination
dated 23 April 2013 authorising Council to publicly exhibit the Planning
Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan. Subsequently, the Planning
Proposal was exhibited from Monday 13 May to Friday 5 July 2013.
Public Exhibition
The Gateway Determination required the Stage 2 Planning
Proposal to be exhibited for a minimum period of 28 days (4 weeks).? However,
Council resolved on 19 November 2012, to extend the exhibition period to 8 weeks.
A range of tasks to support the public exhibition were carried out during this
time including:
1.?? Media
releases
2.?? Notification
advertisements in relevant newspapers
3.?? Weekly
newspaper articles
4.?? Notification
letters to all property owners and tenants in the LGA
5.?? Notification
letters to public authorities
6.?? Information
and fact sheets on understanding the LEP, zones, how to have a say, etc.
7.?? An
online mapping system for individuals to obtain information (zones, heights,
FSRs, etc.) about their property
8.?? Pro-forma
for making submissions
9.?? Availability
of staff at Penrith and St Marys to answer community enquiries.
The types of enquiries dealt with during the
exhibition period are listed in Table 1 below.
Table
1: Enquiry Summary
|
Enquiry Summary
|
|
Enquiries
|
Approximate Number
|
|
Penrith Civic Centre
|
450
|
|
St Marys Office
|
40
|
|
Phone enquiries
|
200
|
|
Website hits
|
4,000
|
|
Total
|
4,690
|
Structure for consideration of
submissions
A Discussion Paper has been prepared to assist Council in
its consideration of submissions received on the exhibited Planning Proposal.
The Discussion Paper has been divided in four (4) parts/sections based on the
type of submission received.
Part A ? ???? Submissions received that relate to the
Planning Proposal and Written Instrument
Part B ? ???? Submissions
received that relate to a Key Precincts e.g. ?Penrith Health and Education
Precinct?
Part C ? ???? Submissions that relate to specific sites
Part D ? ???? Submissions
received from public authorities that are not associated with parts A to C
above.
?
Each chapter within the above parts addresses both any
submissions from a public authority and any submissions from the community on a
particular matter. There are a range of options available for Council to
consider at the end of each chapter and an appropriate recommendation/s.
Submissions
The submissions received during the exhibition period for
the Planning Proposal are summarised in the Table 2 below.?
Table 2:
Submission Summary
|
Submission
Summary
|
|
Type of Submission
|
Number
|
|
E4 Lands in Castlereagh and Cranebrook
|
120*
|
|
Glossop Street Precinct St Marys
|
569
|
|
Other
|
77
|
|
Community Submissions
|
(766)
|
|
Public Authority Submissions
|
53
|
|
Total Submissions
|
819
|
* This includes 6 petitions with
146 signatures.
One of the dominant issues was the proposed zoning
of land within the E4 Rural Lands in Castlereagh and Cranebrook with the
majority of representations in favour of the proposed zoning.? On 25 June, a
meeting was held with a group of affected owners, predominantly residents from Hinxman
and Sheredan Road at their request.
The other dominant issue is the Glossop Street
Precinct at St Marys where a higher density residential zone has been applied
in accordance with the draft Urban Strategy.? A pro-forma letter has been
circulated objecting to the higher density zone which resulted in a large
number of submissions being received by Council.?
A summary of both these matters is provided below
with further detailed commentary provided in Attachment 5 (provided separately
to Councillors and available on Council?s website).?
E4 Rural Lands, Castlereagh and Cranebrook
When Stage 1 of the City-wide Local Environmental Plan (LEP)
was exhibited in 2008-09, it proposed to zone certain land in Castlereagh and
Cranebrook as E4 Environmental Living.? The E4 zone was selected to implement
the outcomes of Council?s adopted Rural Lands Strategy (2003).? The
land, however, was deferred from Stage 1 of the LEP, in response to community
submissions received, including a petition from local residents.? Most
submissions objected to the proposed E4 zone predominantly because it would
have prohibited new commercial agriculture and animal boarding or training
establishments.? There were also concerns about the title of the zone and its
potential or perceived implications.? Other submissions supported the proposed
E4 zone, largely because it would have helped to enhance aspects of rural
living.
As part of the Stage 2 Planning Proposal, an alternative
zoning option was placed on exhibition.? This took into account the views
expressed in the earlier exhibition, the physical characteristics of the area
and the results of a 2009 land use survey.? The alternative zoning option
proposed to zone part of the area as RU4 Primary Production Small Lots and the
other part as E4 Environmental Living.
The Stage 2 Planning Proposal exhibition has resulted in 114
community submissions and six petitions containing a total of 146 signatures.?
Of the 114 submissions, 78 (68%) support the zone proposed on their own
property; while 35 (31%) object to the zone proposed on their property.?
In addition to expressing a view about the zoning of their
property, many submissions (85) also express a view about the zones proposed in
their locality.? Of the 85 submissions, all object to the zone proposed in
their locality, even those that support the zone proposed on their own
property.? This indicates a need to reconsider the location of the boundary
between the proposed E4 and RU4 zones.?? The objections generally centred on
three localities ? Hinxman Road, Keech Road/Sheredan Road and Church Lane/Vane
Street.
The reasons for objecting to the RU4 zone (and supporting
the E4 zone) relate to the impact on the character of the area; existing
covenants applying to properties in the Castlecrest Estate; the impacts of uses
permitted in the RU4 zone; the agricultural capability of the land; and the
impact on property values.? The reasons for objecting to the E4 zone (and
supporting the RU4 zone) relate to the E4 zone not being a true translation of
the current rural zones; the impact on the character of the area; the
restrictions on land use and the loss of agricultural potential; and the impact
on property values.
In the Hinxman Road locality, it is considered that the zone
boundary should be amended so properties in the Castlecrest Estate, subject to
restrictive covenants, are zoned E4 consistent with the character of this
area.? Properties in Hinxman Road, outside of Castlecrest Estate, are proposed
to be zoned RU4 to support existing agricultural activities and opportunities
for new agricultural activities.
In the Keech Road/Sheredan Road locality, it is considered
that there is insufficient justification for amending the zone boundary, given
the character and uses in this locality and the mixed views expressed by local
residents.? The zone boundary exhibited in the Planning Proposal corresponds
with the boundary between the current 1(a) Rural ? General and 1(b) Rural ?
Smallholdings zones under Penrith LEP No. 201 (Rural Lands).
In the Church Lane/Vane Street locality, it is also
considered that there is insufficient justification for amending the zone
boundary, given existing uses in this locality.?
Council also received two public authority submissions
relating to the Castlereagh and Cranebrook area.? The Office of Environment and
Heritage (OEH) recommends that, at least six lots, three identified as Priority
Conservation Land and three as significant areas of vegetation, should be zoned
E2 Environmental Conservation or hatched as Natural Resource Sensitive Land
(NRSL).? It is proposed that these lots be considered in a wider review of the
area, which also includes the deferred E2 lands to the north, following the
completion of Stage 2, given other options will not provide an opportunity for
affected landowners to comment or will delay the LEP process.
The Department of Primary Industries ? Agriculture NSW
Division (DPI-Ag) recommends that land within agricultural land classes 2 - 4
and already cleared be zoned RU4.? This would mean that the entire area should
be zoned RU4, except for parts of the Castlecrest Estate and the six lots
identified by the OEH.? This option, however, would not reflect existing land
uses in the area, with about 80% of properties currently being used for rural
living despite agriculture being permitted.?
Overall, it is considered that the proposed amended zones
shown in Figure 9 of Chapter B1 of the discussion paper (Attachment 5) achieve
an appropriate balance between supporting new agricultural activities in those
areas where they currently exist, and maintaining the character and amenity of
rural living areas.? They also recognise the ecological and scenic values of
the vegetation along the escarpment.
Chapter B1 included in the discussion paper (Attachment 5) presents
further detailed commentary on the deferred Castlereagh and Cranebrook area to
assist Councillors in their considerations.
Glossop Street Precinct at St Marys
The draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney (the draft
Metropolitan Strategy) and Subregional Strategy compels Council to adopt local
policies that will result in an increase in housing and employment around
transport accessible centres.? This requires support for ongoing housing growth
through urban renewal in centres, including St Marys, which is located on the
strategic transit network as identified in the draft Metropolitan Strategy.???
???
The planning controls included in draft amendment to LEP
2010 have evolved out of Council?s Urban Study and Strategy which was completed
in 2008.? The Penrith Urban Study and Strategy provides a centres based
planning approach seeking to ?ensure all future high density development in
existing urban areas will be centre based development and located within 800
metres of a centre? with St Marys identified as one key town centre.
The proposed rezoning under the draft LEP aims to implement
the overarching planning strategies and principles required by the draft
Metropolitan Strategy, draft Subregional Strategy and Penrith Urban Strategy.?
The rezoning provides an opportunity to renew older housing stock within the
Glossop Street Precinct, incorporating more contemporary urban design and
sustainability principles that reflect the policy directions of the guiding
planning strategies.
Housing delivery is critical for Penrith Council to meet the
dwelling targets handed down to Council by the State Government through targets
set in the draft Metropolitan Strategy.? The location of the Glossop Street
Precinct is ideal given its proximity to public transport (trains and buses),
employment provision (St Marys Town Centre, retail and industrial uses) good
access to local services and schools to support higher density housing.???
The Glossop Street Precinct provides a sustainable location
for increased housing density.? Providing increased density of housing in
another location such as in urban release areas would not meet sustainable
locational criteria of being close to existing infrastructure.? This imposes
significant additional costs to government, Council and the community in the
provision of new infrastructure which is not required to the same extent in
established areas.?
The Glossop Street Precinct has potential to deliver
approximately 1,000 new dwellings.? If the rezoning is not endorsed, Council?s
housing targets will not be met.? Should the existing zoning remain, then
further medium density housing can be developed in the form of strata titled
townhouse type development.? Development of strata title townhouse developments
would provide some additional housing but not of the density needed to meet the
housing targets.? Once strata title development goes ahead it becomes very
difficult to redevelop the land for higher density development in the future.?
Maintaining the existing zoning would be a missed opportunity which compromises
Council?s ability to meet targeted housing provision.?
The community submissions on the Glossop Street zoning raise
various issues that result from the direct impacts of future development.?
Although these matters are an important consideration, they are all matters
that are considered as part of the assessment of a development application.?
Currently the local community is notified of development proposals in
accordance with the Development Control Plan.? However in future, under the new
planning legislation, these developments are likely to become code assessable
and there would not be an opportunity for neighbour notification.? Council
involvement in the early planning stages for the new housing codes is crucial
to ensure these impacts are being considered and relevant provisions are built
into the new housing codes.
Once the Stage 2 LEP is gazetted, further detailed precinct
planning will be undertaken, building on the existing ?Glossop Street Precinct
St Marys Urban Design Study? to guide future assessment of developments which
can further address the specific concerns raised in submissions.
On the request of Councillors,
Council officers conducted an information session at St Marys Memorial Hall on
22 October 2013. Three sessions were attended by about 70 members of the
community. The key issues raised were mostly the same as raised in the previous
submissions:
???? Concerns regarding existing traffic
conditions in St Marys and in particular along Glossop Street
???? Concerns regarding cars being parked on
local roads and the additional housing making the situation worse
???? Concerns about the height of buildings
and resultant privacy/overshadowing impacts
???? Social impacts resulting from the
development ? creation of a ghetto. People were concerned that more
people equals more crime
???? Views across to the Blue Mountains ?
concerned about the loss of existing views due to higher density housing.
Further detailed commentary on this matter is provided in
Chapter B2 (Attachment 5).
Council?s Property Development submission
Council?s Property Development Department has made a
submission as a commercial arm of Council. This submission was initially
assessed by Council?s city planning team and then forwarded to the Blue
Mountains City Council for an independent peer review to ensure that probity
and transparency of the process is maintained.
Rezoning remaining part of the Waterside Estate
The Planning Proposal includes the rezoning of a remaining
part of the Waterside Estate from IN2 Light Industrial to R1 General
Residential. The Planning Proposal states that consideration will be
given to not proceeding with this rezoning until relevant flood risk
information is available. The flood risk information is required to assess
and manage the risks presented to the proposed residential development,
including the safe and effective evacuation of that development, during flood
events.
The relevant flood risk information will be available when
the results of the Regional Flood Model incorporate the final landform for the
Penrith Lakes Scheme. This can occur once the Department of Planning
and Infrastructure has approved a final landform for the Scheme. The
Department is currently considering the draft landform proposed by the Penrith
Lakes Development Corporation?s 2012 Water Management Plan. As of 1
November 2013, the Department has not determined this Water Management
Plan.
This means that the proposed residential zoning cannot
proceed at this time and the industrial zone currently applying to the land is
retained. However, should the flooding information become available, and
the necessary planning studies can be completed and support the proposed
rezoning, prior to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure?s publication
of the local environmental plan, Council has the ability to vary the Planning
Proposal to deliver the rezoning. There is little to no risk that such a
variation of the Planning Proposal will prompt the Minister to require the
re-exhibition of the proposed residential zone, as the proposed residential
zone has already been subject to a full public exhibition. It is therefore
recommended that the proposed rezoning of part of 111-167 and 177-215 Andrews
Road, Cranebrook (Lot 33 DP 270488) from IN2 Light Industrial to R1 General
Residential not proceed at this time. If the required flood risk information
and planning studies are completed and are supportive of the proposed rezoning
prior to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure?s publication of the
local environmental plan, a report will be presented to Council seeking its
endorsement to deliver the proposed rezoning as part of the Planning Proposal.
Discussion Paper and Attachments
Discussion papers addressing the community
submissions and all Public Authority submissions are included as Attachment 5
(provided separately to Councillors and available on Council?s website). Other
attachments include:
a.?? Attachment
2 - Table showing the record of Post Exhibition Changes to the Planning
Proposal covering document for Penrith Local Environmental Plan
as a result of the recommendations of the discussion paper and after
consideration of other technical matters.
b.?? Attachment
3 - Table showing the record of Post Exhibition Changes to the draft
Local Environmental Plan statutory instrument as a result of the
recommendations of the discussion paper and after consideration of other
technical matters.
c.?? Attachment
4 - Table showing the record of Post Exhibition Changes to Local
Environmental Plan Maps as a result of the recommendations of the
discussion paper and after consideration of other technical matters.
d.?? Attachment
6 - Table showing a summary of recommendations from the
Discussion Paper.
Post exhibition changes to
the Planning Proposal and need for re-exhibition
A fundamental consideration in
any LEP (now Gateway) process is the nature and extent of any changes made to a
Planning Proposal in response to, or following, public exhibition, and whether
such changes are material to the operation and outcomes of the LEP.? Where
potential changes are deemed to be material to the operation and outcomes of
the LEP, it needs to be re-exhibited to ensure that communities are able to
comment on the amended draft LEP / Planning Proposal.
The new Gateway process has
changed the way in which a decision about re-exhibition is made.? In accordance
with s58(2) and (3) of the EP&A Act, further community consultation is now
not required unless the Minister makes that direction in a revised (Gateway)
determination.? However, following discussions with the Regional Office of the
DP&I, Council should provide an initial view on any specific changes that
it feels may warrant consideration for re-exhibition.
Changes to the Planning
Proposal for Penrith LEP, in response to consideration of submissions, are
identified in Attachments 2, 3, 4 and 5. It is considered that, in the main,
these changes would not alter the operation and outcome of the Planning
Proposal for Penrith LEP, and therefore do not warrant re-exhibition.
One possible departure from this
relates to 88-110 Nepean Avenue, Penrith (4 properties) as discussed in detail
in Chapter B3 of Attachment 5.? During the exhibition of the Planning Proposal
an error was noted on the Minimum Lot Size map.? The map indicated a minimum lot
size of 2,000m2 although a 4,000m2 minimum lot size was recommended for this
site and adjoining properties by the Rural Land Strategy and was exhibited
accordingly in Stage 1 of the Penrith LEP.? The property owners were notified
of the error and provided additional time to make a submission. However, it is
unlikely that the development potential indicated in the Planning Proposal or
as exhibited in Stage 1 of the Penrith LEP and advice provided to owners (4,000
m2) could be achieved given the flood constraints on these properties. It is
therefore recommended that the current subdivision control requiring a minimum
lot size of 2 hectares be retained. As the property owners were provided with
the opportunity to make a further submission and there is no change to the
current planning, it is considered that this change does not warrant a
re-exhibition. However, this is a matter that may need to be considered by the
Minister.?
There are
six other matters that may need the Minister?s consideration due to minor errors
in the exhibited material. Again these were identified early in the exhibition
process, owners were notified of the errors, additional time was made available
for owners to make submissions and submissions were received which acknowledge
the correct intended material/provision. None of these six matters would alter
the operation and outcome of the Planning Proposal for Penrith LEP, and
therefore may not warrant re-exhibition. However these matters will be raised
in our submission to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
Next Steps
Should Council endorse the amended
Planning Proposal for Penrith LEP tonight and confirm that endorsement at an
Ordinary Meeting of Council, the following steps will occur in accordance with
the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:
1.????? Council
officers will continue to update the Planning Proposal,
written instrument and associated maps based on the policy direction endorsed
by Council.
2.????? Council
officers will forward the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning and
Infrastructure to make the plan.
3.????? Council
officers will liaise with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and
negotiate any changes sought by the Department in the lead up to the writing of
the instrument by Parliamentary Counsel.
4.????? Council
officers will liaise with Parliamentary Counsel in writing the instrument and
do any mapping changes required.
5.????? The
Minister for Planning and Infrastructure will make the plan.
Conclusion
For some years, it has been
Council?s goal to replace the myriad of environmental planning instruments that
apply across the City with one single LEP.? This will assist in making planning
information more accessible to residents, developers, business owners,
community groups and staff. A single LEP for the City will have considerable benefits,
particularly providing greater clarity and certainty over development
opportunities and managing the growth of the City
|
RECOMMENDATION
That:
1.???? The information contained in
the report on Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan -
Outcomes of Public Exhibition be received.
2.???? Council endorse the
Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan, as attached
(Attachment 1 provided separately to Councillors and available on Council?s
website), amended in accordance with:
a.?? Attachment 2 (Post Exhibition
Changes to the Planning Proposal covering document for Penrith LEP);
b.?? Attachment 3 (Post Exhibition
Changes to the draft Local Environmental Plan statutory instrument); and
c.?? Attachment 4 (Post Exhibition
Changes to the Local Environmental Plan Maps)
d.?? The recommendations of each
chapter in Attachment 5.
3.???? The
General Manager be granted delegation to make any necessary minor changes
required to the Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan before
submitting it to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
4.???? Council endorse the
Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan to be forwarded to the
Minister for Planning and Infrastructure with a request that the Minister
consider the changes made to the Planning Proposal in response to the public
exhibition, and make a determination as to whether the Planning Proposal is
to be re-exhibited in accordance with s58 of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979.
5.?????? The Minister be
requested to make the plan in accordance with the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979, should he determine that re-exhibition is not required.
|
ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES
|
1. View
|
Exhibited
Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan (provided separately
to Councillors and available on Council?s website)
|
486
Pages
|
Attachment
|
|
2. View
|
Record
of Post Exhibition Changes to the Planning Proposal for Penrith Local
Environmental Plan covering document
|
6 Pages
|
Attachment
|
|
3. View
|
Record
of Post Exhibition Changes to the draft Local Environmental Plan statutory
instrument
|
9 Pages
|
Attachment
|
|
4. View
|
Record
of Post Exhibition Changes to Local Environmental Plan Maps
|
15 Pages
|
Attachment
|
|
5. View
|
Discussion
Paper - Submissions to Planning Proposal for Penrith Local Environmental Plan
(provided separately to Councillors and available on Council?s website)
|
589
Pages
|
Attachment
|
|
6. View
|
Summary
of Recommendations
|
17 Pages
|
Attachment
|
???
