Policy Review
Committee Meeting 12
December 2016
|
1
|
Amendment to Penrith
Development Control Plan 2014 - 164 Station Street, Penrith
|
|
Compiled by: Nicole
Dukinfield, Senior Planner
Authorised
by: Abdul
Cheema, Acting City Planning Manager
|
Outcome
|
We plan for our future growth
|
|
Strategy
|
Ensure services, facilities and infrastructure meet
the needs of a growing population
|
|
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.
|
Applicant:
|
Tomasy Planning
|
|
Owner:
|
SHMH Pty Ltd
|
Executive Summary
At its Ordinary Meeting of 7 December 2015, Council resolved
to prepare a Planning Proposal to insert an incentives clause for Key Sites
into the Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2010. The Planning Proposal
seeks to provide for a departure from the existing building height and floor
space ratio controls for Key Sites, if a Public Benefit is offered in return. A
draft LEP amendment was exhibited between 9 May 2016 to 6 June 2016. Council at
its Policy Review Committee meeting of 11 July 2016 resolved to adopt the LEP
amendment.
In response to the proposed incentives on offer as part of
the LEP amendment a request for an amendment to the Penrith Development Control
Plan (DCP) 2014 was received for land at 164 Station Street, Penrith. At the
Policy Review Committee meeting of 10 October 2016, Council resolved to
publicly exhibit the draft DCP amendment.
Public exhibition was recently undertaken for the draft DCP
amendment. Four submissions were received, raising the following key issues:
· A request for
further information on the traffic implications of the proposed development
· That there is too
much variance in the proposed building heights and that excessive heights are
proposed along Woodriff Street due to the adjacent low density character
After consideration of the
matters raised in the submissions, it is recommended that Council resolve to
adopt the draft DCP, with some minor changes.
Background
On 1 July 2016, Council received a request to amend the
Penrith DCP 2014 for land at 164 Station Street, Penrith.
The subject site is zoned R4 High Density Residential under
the Penrith Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2010 and will be subject to
incentives provisions that are currently being finalised by the Greater Sydney
Commission as part of a Planning Proposal to amend the LEP.
The key components of the draft DCP include:
· Provision for approximately 2,000 dwellings across the site
at varying heights;
· A minimum area of
1 hectare for the purposes of public open space;
· Private open space
in the form of communal gardens, rooftop gardens and balconies;
· Vehicular,
pedestrian and cycling networks providing connectivity throughout the site;
· On and off-street
parking with primary vehicular movements confined to basement level and;
· A minimum of
1,000m2 of non-residential land uses to cater for local resident
services.
At the Policy Review Committee meeting of 10 October 2016,
Council resolved to place the draft DCP on public exhibition.
Public exhibition
The draft DCP was publicly exhibited between 27 October and
24 November 2016 in line with the exhibition requirements outlined within the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and
Assessment Regulation 2000.
A number of submissions were received as a result of the
exhibition. The issues raised and a response to these are detailed for each
submission below
Submission 1
This submission raised the following issues:
· The development
will add significant traffic volume to the existing congested roads.
· The submission
asks for more information on what traffic measures will be in place during
construction
· The submission
asks for more information on the housing volume mix and whether there is a
dedicated mix of social housing
· That acoustic
mitigation would need to be higher due to the location adjoining a football
stadium and entertainment precinct.
Response
Prior to the lodgement of a development application, the
proponent will be required to undertake a Traffic Assessment to determine the
impacts of additional vehicles on the surrounding road network. The Vehicle
Access and Pedestrian Movement Plan identified on page 27 of the draft DCP is
indicative only and subject to the outcomes of a Traffic Assessment. Any
traffic or parking measures that are required will be determined once a
development application identifying the number and location of dwellings and predicted
traffic volumes has been received and assessed.
The draft DCP includes a control requiring a mix of
apartments, to provide a range of bedroom numbers within a development. This
will ensure that dwellings will provide a range of housing choice and household
types. The DCP does not contain any controls relating to social housing,
however, there is nothing preventing future development from providing social
housing.
An Acoustic Assessment will be required to be submitted when
a development application is lodged. The Acoustic Assessment will identify the
measures required to mitigate against noise impacts, including road noise and
noise from entertainment facilities.
Submission 2
This submission raised the following issues:
· A request for
further information in regard to the impact on flooding in the area and whether
any compensatory works will be done elsewhere to mitigate impacts
· A request for
further information regarding any upgrades to existing roundabouts and how the
traffic modelling will consider an additional population
· A request for
further information as to how passive surveillance will be considered
Response
A Flood Impact Assessment is required to be prepared and
submitted when a development application is lodged. The Flood Impact Assessment
will identify whether any works are required to mitigate the impact of the
development on the flood scenario.
A Traffic Assessment will be carried out prior to lodgement
of a development application. The Traffic Assessment will identify the traffic
scenario resulting from the additional population and whether any upgrades to
nearby intersections are required.
The design and location of buildings as indicated are
indicative only. All development proposals will be considered by an
appointed Design Jury that will consider a range of considerations including
the safety of residents and visitors as part of the development assessment
process.
Submission 3 – Urban Design Review Panel comments
Pursuant to Section 21A of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Regulation 2000, where a draft DCP contains provisions relating
to residential apartment development, the DCP must be referred to the relevant
Urban Design Review Panel for comment. As the subject draft DCP contains
provisions relating to apartment development, it was referred to
Council’s Urban Design Review Panel for comment.
The submission raises a number of inconsistencies of the
development proposal against the current controls located in chapter E11
– Part A Penrith City Centre of the Penrith DCP 2014, including the
provision of public open space and the proposed location of new internal
streets and intersections.
The most pertinent issue raised in the submission is the
proposed building heights, particularly along Woodriff Street. The submission
states that there is too much variance in the proposed heights and storeys indicated
in the draft DCP, and that anything above 3 storeys should not be permitted
along Woodriff Street due to the adjacent low density area that only permits a
maximum building height up to 8.5 metres.
Response
The majority of matters raised in the submission will be
addressed through an appointed Design Jury, who will consider development
proposals for the site as part of the development assessment process.
In response to issues raised regarding the proposed height
ranges, it is recommended that Council insert a statement identifying that the
storey heights indicated in the DCP (Figure 21) are indicative only and subject
to a Design Jury process, in order to provide a balance between future height
transition and amenity which would be resolved during a future design jury
process and the provision of certainty for the proponent.
Submission 4
This submission raised the following issues:
· Raised concerns
regarding the limited street parking already experienced by the area and;
· Requested parking
rates specific to the site, including 1.5 car spaces for a 1 bedroom apartment,
2 car spaces for a 2 bedroom apartment and 2.5 car spaces for a 3 bedroom
apartment.
Response
The creation of new access points into the site will result
in the loss of some on-street car parking spaces on the external road network.
However, the creation of a new internal road network will provide for
additional on-street car parking spaces.
Council’s car parking requirements reflect an
appropriate rate for higher density forms of residential development whilst
promoting more sustainable transport use. Residential developments are required
to provide on-site parking for both residents and visitors.
Proposed changes
One minor change is proposed to the draft DCP in response to
the submissions received.
It is proposed to insert a statement identifying that the
proposed number of storeys in Figure 21 are indicative only, and are subject to
a Design Jury process.
The amended DCP for 164 Station Street, Penrith is provided
in Attachment 1.
Conclusion
The public exhibition of the draft DCP for 164 Station
Street, Penrith was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Regulation 2000.
The exhibition resulted in four submissions and a number of
issues were raised in respect to traffic, noise and amenity. Many of these
concerns will be addressed during the development application process. However
in response to the submissions, one minor change is proposed to address
concerns over the proposed building heights/number of storeys indicated for the
site.
It is recommended that Council resolve to adopt the draft
DCP including the changes proposed in this report to Penrith DCP 2014.
.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That:
1. The
information contained in the report on Amendment to Penrith Development
Control Plan 2014 - 164 Station Street, Penrith be received.
2. Council
resolve to adopt the amended Development Control Plan for 164 Station Street,
Penrith (Attachment 1), as Amendment No. 3 to the Penrith Development Control
Plan 2014.
3. In
accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000,
Council give public notice of its decision in a local newspaper within 28
days, with the Development Control Plan coming into effect immediately upon
notification in the newspaper.
|
ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES
|
1. ⇩
|
Amended Development Control Plan for 164 Station Street,
Penrith
|
29 Pages
|
Attachments Included
|
Policy Review
Committee Meeting 12
December 2016
|
2
|
Review of Environmental
Factors (REF) for Jane Street and Mulgoa Road Infrastructure Upgrade,
Penrith
|
|
Compiled by: Walter
Sinnadurai, Transportation Planner
Authorised
by: Adam
Wilkinson, Engineering Services Manager
|
Outcome
|
We can get around the City
|
|
Strategy
|
Provide a safe, efficient road network supported by
parking
|
|
Service Activity
|
Provide technical advice on traffic issues and plan
for the delivery of traffic, shared paths, bicycle and bus shelter facilities
|
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to present Council with
information relating to the proposed concept design and Review of Environmental
Factors (REF) for Jane Street and Mulgoa Road Infrastructure Upgrade, which was
developed by the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS). This report will provide an
assessment of the key issues that have been part of RMS exhibition material
presented through the community feedback information.
The report recommends that the information be received and
that the Engineering Services Manager be authorised to finalise a submission,
based on this report, and forward it to the RMS by the closing date of 16
December 2016.
Background
A major traffic congestion point exists at the western end
of the Penrith CBD with implications for motorists travelling east-west and
north-south through the western edge of the Penrith City Centre. Congestion
results from a conflict with east-west movements from Jane Street to Victoria
Bridge clashing with a strong north-south movement along Castlereagh Road. The
conflict is exacerbated by the ‘dog-leg’ in the east-west movement.
Resolution of this traffic “pinch point” has
been high on Council’s list of advocacy items for some time. In
2013 the Australian and NSW Governments committed $35 million each ($70 million
in total) for the Jane Street Extension Project to alleviate congestion and
improve traffic flow between the Nepean River and the Penrith CBD, as well as
north-south traffic flows.
RMS considered a number of options, to identify the best
solution for the Jane Street and Mulgoa Road Infrastructure Upgrade (JSMRIU) to
support current traffic demands and future growth in the area. The RMS
recommended that Option 12 be supported, with the addition of a southbound
dedicated left lane on Castlereagh Road; with a free flow left slip lane into
High Street.
In February 2015 Council made a submission in support of
Option 12, with amendments to RMS for their work in developing the best option
for the JSMRIU to support current traffic demands and future growth in the
area.
At a recent Councillor Briefing held on 31 October 2016, RMS
presented to Council the details of the proposed upgrade.
Current Situation
After reviewing the comments and issues that were raised by
various stakeholders including Penrith City Council, RMS have developed the
concept design and REF for Jane Street and Mulgoa Road Infrastructure Upgrade
and are seeking community feedback by Wednesday 16 December 2016.
Key features of the proposed road upgrade include;
· Widening the existing alignment on the western side of Mulgoa Road -
Castlereagh Road between Union Road and a point south of Museum Drive to allow
for six lanes of through traffic, a central median strip and auxiliary turning
lanes at intersections
· Upgrade and widening of the Jane Street / Mulgoa Road - Castlereagh
Road intersection and addition of a bus priority lane
(‘queue-jump’) lane for buses turning right out of Jane Street onto
Castlereagh Road
· Upgrade and widening of the Mulgoa Road / High Street intersection to
allow for an additional eastbound lane and right turn lane out of High Street
onto Mulgoa Road
· Provide a dedicated south bound left turn lane for Castlereagh Road
into High Street east bound
· Replacement of the existing railway bridge over Castlereagh Road with a
new 39 m single span concrete bridge using a specialised method known as a
‘bridge slide’
· Installation of bridge protection beams on either side of Castlereagh
Road as a safety mechanism for over-height vehicles on approach to the railway
bridge
· Provision of a 4.5 m wide separated pedestrian and cycle pathway along
the eastern side of Mulgoa Road - Castlereagh Road and safe crossings at the
High Street and Jane Street intersections with Mulgoa Road - Castlereagh Road
· Relocation of underground utilities in the proposal area and
improvement of local drainage
· Tree planting and landscaping to match the vision for the whole of the
Mulgoa Road corridor
· Temporary establishment of up to three construction compound sites.
The Australian and NSW
Governments have jointly committed $70 million to fund the proposal.
Construction of the proposal is anticipated to start late 2018 (subject to planning
approval) and would be completed by mid-2020, weather permitting.
The improvements to intersection safety, the proposed
traffic management arrangements at each intersection along the route, the
provision of bus priority lane (‘queue-jump’) lane,
are all very much welcomed.
This report and Council’s submission will focus more
so on a limited number of matters for which we believe further consideration
must be given. Furthermore, Council would welcome the opportunity to
assist the RMS in reviewing matters raised separately by the community to RMS
through the recent exhibition process.
The proposed submission to RMS will include the following;
Road Infrastructure
Road Widening
The proposal seeks to widening Mulgoa Road / Castlereagh
Road between Museum Drive and Union Road to six through lanes and auxiliary
lanes at intersections, upgrading intersections with Jane Street and Great
Western Highway / High Street and lengthening of Rail Bridge to allow for
widening of Castlereagh Road.
Comments
The proposed increased number of lanes along Mulgoa Road -
Castlereagh Road corridor between Museum Drive and Union Road is supported. The
increase of the number of lanes would improve road capacity and the
travel times. Land acquisition required to accommodate the proposed
upgrade is dealt with separately below.
Bus lane
Provision
of a bus priority lane (‘queue-jump’) for buses in each direction
along High Street crossing over Mulgoa Road. In addition of a bus
priority lane (‘queue-jump’) lane for buses turning right out of
Jane Street onto Castlereagh Road northbound direction.
Comments
The provision of bus priority
lanes (‘queue-jump’) is supported. Future proofing of the
arterial road as a transport corridor through the provision of dedicated bus
lanes should be considered to extend the life of the road upgrade. Bus
priority lanes at intersections may not be sufficient into the future as the
service for an Regional City are increased.
Intersection Upgrades
The proposal has identified 2 intersection upgrades along
Mulgoa Road - Castlereagh Road corridor including auxiliary turning lanes at
some intersections. The proposed intersection upgrades would improve
intersection capacity and travel times, and also improve the connectivity for
pedestrians and cyclists, hence improving safety. Specific
locations are addressed in more detail below.
Jane Street / Castlereagh Road / Mulgoa Road intersection
The proposed upgrade comprising:
· Widening
Mulgoa Road / Castlereagh Road between Museum Drive and Union Road to six
through lanes and auxiliary lanes at intersections
· Provision
of bus priority (‘queue-jump’) lane at Jane Street onto Castlereagh
Road north northbound direction.
· Realigning
Castlereagh Road towards the west to the north of Jane Street
· Provision
of staged pedestrian crossing on the southern leg of Jane Street / Castlereagh
Road intersection.
Comments
In considering the regional road
connectivity and relief to the through traffic in both the north and south
bound directions between Museum Drive and Union Road, the upgrades are
supported.
To address the existing conflict
of the ‘dog-leg’ in the east-west movement as well as the
north-south movement between Castlereagh Road and Mulgoa Road, it is
crucial that sufficient storage capacity is provided for south bound through
traffic at the critical intersections of Jane Street to High Street, and avoid
queuing during peak times through these intersections. It is also
important that signal coordination is set up to meet peak hour demand and avoid
unnecessary queuing along both Jane Street (east) and Castlereagh Road (north)
as is presently experienced.
Great Western Highway / Mulgoa Road / High Street
intersection
The proposed upgrade comprising:
· Widening
Mulgoa Road / Castlereagh Road to all six through lanes and auxiliary lanes at
intersections
· Provision
of left turn slip lane on Castlereagh Road
· Additional
right turning short lane on High Street
· Additional
bus priority (‘queue-jump’) lane at High Street to Great Western
Highway
· Extending
length of left turn slip lane on High Street
· Provision
of length of left turn slip lane on Mulgoa Road (90m)
· Additional
right turning short lane on Great Western Highway
· Additional
through short lane on Great Western Highway. Retain bus priority
(‘queue-jump’) lane at Great Western Highway to High Street
· Extending
length of left turn slip lane on Great Western Highway from 90m to 110m
· Provision
of staged pedestrian crossing on northern leg of High Street / Mulgoa Road
intersection
· Provision
of staged pedestrian crossing on southern leg of High Street / Mulgoa Road
intersection
Comments
In considering the regional road
connectivity and relief to the through traffic in both the north and south
bound directions between Museum Drive and Union Road, is supported with the
recommendation that maximum right turn storage be provided on each leg of the
intersection. It appears there are excessive concrete median areas that
can be used for right turn storage. Namely right turn from Mulgoa
Road to High Street and High Street to Castlereagh Road. It is also
important that signal coordination is set up to meet peak hour demand and avoid
unnecessary queuing.
Rail Underpass Drainage Upgrade
The rail underpass is designed such that it becomes a trap
low point in the event of major storm events. The lack of drainage at this
point results in regular flooding of the underpass, causing major traffic
disruption as the road becomes untrafficable. We strongly urge the RMS to
undertake detailed stormwater modelling and design, to ensure that adequate
stormwater infrastructure is provided at this trap low point capable of
managing flows from all storm events.
Ancillary facilities
The proposal seeks to establish a construction compound
comprising a temporary equipment laydown and stockpile site. The compound
is proposed to be established adjacent to the Nepean District Tennis
Association and rail corridor.
Other supplementary compound
sites may be established south west of High Street and Mulgoa Road on land
known as the ‘Carpenter site’ and at the Lion Dairy and Drinks car
park adjacent to Castlereagh Road.
Comments
Council
requires more information about the timeframe for the use of its land
(Carpenters and Woodriff Gardens) for temporary construction compounds.
Council is looking to develop the Carpenter’s site, but this is some time
in the future
(development is unlikely within the next 3 years). The Report, Figure 3-2
shows that almost the entirety of the Carpenters site is needed for a
construction compound. It would be preferable if the RMS could clarify
the extent of the site needed for a construction compound and how long it will
be required for.
RMS
will need to restore all sites to their current condition when the construction
compound is no longer required.
The
RMS should also be aware that the site is burdened by an electricity
transmission easement. The use of the site will need to ensure that
Endeavour Energy’s requirements for access to the transmission line
easement are maintained.
Active Transport
Proposed Separated Path
The project includes provision of a
4.5m separated path for use by pedestrians and bike riders on the eastern side
of Mulgoa/Castlereagh Road, between Union Road and Museum Drive.
This concept is supported being a higher level facility than a shared-use path
as bike riders and pedestrians use the path in separate, rather than shared
space, which reduces conflict, if used correctly. It has
potential to encourage more active transport trips.
Comments
This concept is supported being a
higher level facility than a shared-use path as bike riders and pedestrians use
the path in separate, rather than shared space, which reduces conflict, if used
correctly. However, there may be confusion with users as the new separated
paths connect to existing shared-use paths and rules of use change. If
the Mulgoa /Castlereagh Road upgrade (ultimate) proposes separated paths, the
timing of the connection between these new facilities is important, otherwise
users transition from one facility to another which may create confusion.
If the Mulgoa /Castlereagh Road upgrade (ultimate) proposes shared-use paths,
then this facility should be ‘shared’ rather than
‘separated’ to be consistent along the length.
Our preference, however, is that RMS provides infrastructure
that caters for the broader range of cyclists, particularly on-road cyclists,
who choose to travel at a higher speed than a path provides. The design
should be capable of providing for a 2.5m wide shared-use path, as well as
on-road bike lanes of 1.2m min each for each direction of travel.
There are some inconsistent
references to bike and pedestrian infrastructure in the REF which should be
amended to accurately reflect the proposal:-
· The key of Figure 2-1, page 13 refers to ‘on-road
cycle path’ rather than ‘cycle lane’.
· Page 40 refers to ‘existing off-road separated cycle
paths’ being retained, and the table on Page 57 states the proposed
‘design maintains the existing shared paths and separated paths in the
proposal area’. These sections should read ‘the design
replaces the existing shared paths with separated paths and connects to
existing shared paths in the area’.
· Page 68 should be amended to read “the proposal would
improve pedestrian and cycle facilities along the Mulgoa-Castlereagh Road
corridor and would connect to pedestrian and cycling infrastructure between the
Penrith CBD and Nepean River Bridge”
· Page 79 indicates shared path is provided, rather than a
separated path; also on same page “a 1.5m wide shared path would be
retained along Jane Street …” This should read “1.5m
wide footpath”.
· Landscape plan refers to 4.5m shared path rather than
separated path.
Signalised Pedestrian Crossings
Where the crossing length for
pedestrians and bike riders will be more than 25m, staged crossings are
proposed. The REF indicates on Page 68 that the pedestrian crossing times
have been considered.
Comments
· Council seeks clarification from RMS in relation to the
separate stages of a crossing, and will then be synced (all green or all red)
or will different light phases be installed requiring pedestrians and bike
riders to wait mid-road on the median? If the latter is applied, this
will encourage impatience and people will cross against the lights. Long
green phases are requested.
· Bike lanterns are to be provided to the crossings along the
pedestrian/bike route.
· Medians are to be large enough to cater for storage of
multiple bike riders (min 2) without the need to dismount.
· If the kerb ramps are not the full width of the crossing
corridor, they should be aligned to the left of the corridor to direct users to
the best crossing desire line, especially considering pedestrians crossing in
opposing directions to bike riders.
· To assist people with vision impairments, kerb ramp
gradients should be 1:8, not “maximum 1:8” to allow for physical
identification of the ramp/road, rather than providing a gradual, imperceptible
change.
Bus ‘queue jump’ Lanes
· Ensure lanes are labelled as Bus Lanes, not Bus Only Lanes,
to allow for on-road cyclists.
TfNSW/RMS Active Transport Program – Jane St
As part of the State Active
Transport Program, Council has been working with TfNSW and RMS to design and
construct a shared-use path in Jane Street, between Castlereagh Road and
Penrith Railway Station. Designs for this proposal are well advanced.
To best match in with
Council’s project, the following path design is preferred for the
Mulgoa/Castlereagh upgrade project:
Maintain
separated path on eastern side of Castlereagh Road and:-
· Provide a continuation of the 4.5m separated path on the
northern side of Jane Street to the proposed access driveway to the RailCorp
Substation. This would then allow bike access to the car park where,
under Council’s project, mixed traffic logos will be implemented to the
Westfield signals; pedestrians to utilise existing footpath.
· Implement
3m shared-use path on southern side of
Jane Street to Council building driveway.
Landscaping
In the Penrith City Centre,
Council’s colour palette for concrete paths should be used (dark
grey).
· Ensure appropriate clearance space to proposed tree
locations (mature size) in accordance with Austroads Cycling Aspects of
Austroads Guidelines and RMS NSW Bicycle Guidelines.
· Photomontages show tall grasses planted in the clearance
space between the path and kerb edge. This is impossible to maintain
without traffic lane closures. Council has previously used imitation
grass in the clearance space which reduces maintenance requirements while
providing ‘green’ to hard surfaces. A different
material to concrete is considered essential in the clearance zone to provide a
visual and physical separation from the road, especially for inexperienced
and/or young riders.
Planning Assessment
1. Impacts
to current planning controls
The REF
proposes a number of partial land acquisitions along the study area:
|
Site
|
Area to be acquired
|
Current zone
|
Proposed zone
|
|
Sinclair Motors Site
|
150m2 at the corner
of High Street and Mulgoa Road to allow for the expansion of the road
footprint.
|
B4 Mixed Use
|
SP2 Infrastructure
|
|
Penrith City Council
|
1,038m2 at the edge
of the car park for expansion of the road footprint.
|
B4 Mixed Use
|
SP2 Infrastructure
|
|
Woodriff Gardens
|
2,832m2
of land would be acquired on the south-east corner of the site.
|
SP3
Tourist
|
SP2
Infrastructure
|
|
Nepean District Tennis
Association
|
1,675m2 on the
eastern portion of the site to allow for the
expansion of the road footprint. This grass/gravel area is currently used as
an informal car park.
|
RE1 Public Recreation
|
SP2
Infrastructure
|
REF report, Figure 6-20 (on page
166) does not accurately illustrate the extent of the proposed acquisitions
indicated in Table 3-2 (page 49). It is requested that the RMS provide detailed
maps which accurately reflect the location of the proposed acquisitions.
1. Property Acquisition
The potential impacts resulting from property acquisition:
2. Car Parking
The REF has indicated
that there will be some loss of parking spaces from
the Civic Centre, Sinclair Motor Site and the Nepean District Tennis
Association car parks. It is noted that land currently used as informal
all day car parking adjacent to the existing tennis
courts is proposed to be used by RMS during the construction process. No details are provided in the REF on the number
of car spaces estimated to be removed.
Comments
It is requested that the RMS
should provide details of the number of spaces proposed to be
removed so that Council, in conjunction with RMS, can
understand the implications of this parking loss in respect to: parking
provision within the City Centre and any inconsistencies with the Penrith City
Centre Car Parking Strategy, and how any loss of car parking can be managed.
3. Reduction
available tourism land
It is noted that there
is a reduction in land zoned SP3- Tourism at the existing Woodriff
Gardens and Carpenters Site.
Comments
It is requested that RMS provide further detail is required
on the exact location of land
acquisition in order for Council to understand the impact
of the proposal on this land.
4. Loss of entry
statement
The REF acknowledged the loss of the planted Penrith entry
statement through the
acquisition of land at Woodriff Gardens. It is recommended
that the RMS consider providing
an alternative replacement entry statement.
Comments
Council has been
advised that the entry “statement” is to be relocated at the north
east (Council) corner of the intersection, in a more contemporary setting. We
strongly recommend further dialogue between RMS and Council designers to
resolve the new entry statement.
A suite of Council
branded wayfinding signage is soon to be installed within the project area.
5. Proposed land rezoning
and Information Provided on Section 149 Planning Certificates
The
REF has indicated that the land proposed to be acquired is expected to be rezoned to SP2 – Infrastructure under the Penrith
Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Penrith LEP 2010).
Comments
It is requested that RMS consult with Council about amending Penrith LEP 2010 in
order to facilitate the rezoning. It is also requested the RMS
consult with Council on the proposed land acquisition process, in order to
ensure information for 149 planning Certificates is accurate. It is also
requested that RMS provide further advice as to whether there is a need for any
land proposed for acquisition to be identified on the
Land Reservation Acquisition Map of Penrith LEP 2010.
6. Impacts to future
development
A number of identified future
development sites are likely to be impacted by the Jane Street and
Mulgoa Road Infrastructure Upgrade. In particular, the Sinclair
Site (Mulgoa Road/High Street/Union Road).
The
REF has indicated that approximately 150m2 would be acquired to
allow for the expansion of the road footprint. The Sinclair Motor Site is a
“Key Site” under Penrith LEP 2010. In August 2016, Council endorsed
a Planning Proposal which included this site.
Comments
It is recommended that the RMS
undertake further consultation with the owners of the Sinclair Motor Site on
the proposed land acquisitions over their land.
7. Carpenter
Site Access
The Carpenter Site is located on the south western corner of
the Mulgoa/Castlereagh/High Street intersection. Presently a large vacant
parcel of land, this site is one of, if not the, most critical development
“gateway” sites for Penrith. Council is currently investigating
options for the development of this land and it is critical that appropriate
and substantive access be secured. To this end, Council Officers have been
working closely with RMS to ensure that appropriate access is provided to the
site, including investigating options for signalised access points from both
Mulgoa Road and the Great Western Highway. Council Officers have continued to
stress the need to ensure that RMS’s Jane Street project is designed in
recognition of the need to accommodate this future major access point into the
Carpenter site. The Jane Street project must not preclude nor inhibit the
development of a signalised access point to the Carpenter site.
We urge the
RMS to continue this productive dialogue, and request that the finalisation of
the Carpenter
site access point be incorporated into the detailed design of the RMS project;
acknowledging
that the implementation of the said access point will be subject to separate
discussions.
Environmental Assessment
Noise During Construction
A Noise Assessment has been carried out to identify the
potential noise impacts during the construction phase. This assessment
considered the noise associated with the construction compounds, utility
relocation, road construction, bridgework and finishing works. The
modelling found that works within 100 metres of residential premises (High
Street and Mulgoa Road) and Woodriff Gardens, and works within 150 metres of
the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre, as well as night-time bridge works
may cause noise impacts to these receivers. Further, work carried out at
night may also cause sleep disturbance.
Construction is anticipated to occur over a two year period
(late 2018 to mid-2020) with works generally being carried out during standard
working hours. However, to minimise disruption to the road and rail
networks, some construction activities will be carried out outside the standard
hours, including utility relocation, pavement works, and key bridge works. In
general, where possible, the noisier activities will be restricted to standard
work hours.
In addition, the REF commits to construction work being
carried out in accordance with the Interim Construction Noise Guideline
(DECC, 2009) and the Noise Criteria Guidelines (Roads and Maritime,
2015) with a Noise and Vibration Management Plan to be prepared as a part of
the Construction Environmental Management Plan. The REF outlines that
this Plan will identify potential noise sources and measures to reduce noise
(such as restrictions to work hours, temporary noise barriers, and staging).
Further, additional consultation with neighbouring properties will also
occur. The REF states that final construction methodology and staging
will be refined during the detailed design phase of the proposal, and associated
noise and vibration impacts and mitigation measures re-assessed as required.
Key sources of construction vibration including excavation,
grading of existing roadways and vibratory compacting of new road
surfaces. Vibration from the works are not likely to adversely impact
sensitive receivers. Certain safe working distances are identified in the
REF for vibration intensive plant, and where works occur within these
distances, mitigation measures will need to be applied.
Comments
It is requested that the RMS ensure that the further
detailed design identified as being required in the REF are undertaken with
subsequent community consultation to ensure that construction noise and
vibration impacts upon nearby receivers are minimised and scheduled for the
shortest possible duration.
Further, it is noted that the Operational Traffic and
Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment Report has not considered
impacts to office, commercial and industrial activities, commenting that
“there are no identified businesses within the study area that are
considered particularly sensitive to noise”. Given the duration of
the construction period and the proximity of some of the proposed construction
works to these uses, an assessment of impacts to these sites would be of value
to better understand what mitigation strategies would need to be implemented
for the different construction activities to reduce potential noise
impacts. In addition, the Noise and Vibration Management Plan should also
address these activities/businesses, particularly in terms of consultation in
regards to key noise-generating events.
Operational Noise
Once the upgrade works are
complete, noise modelling for the proposal shows that the Noise Mitigation
Guideline criteria would be exceeded for a number of properties. Further,
some properties may also experience sleep disturbance impacts.
In turn, a number of noise
sensitive receivers may qualify for at-property mitigation measures (though
this list may be further refined during the detailed design phase) to address
these noise impacts:
· 680
High Street
· 682
High Street
· 686
High Street
· 688
High Street
· 4 John
Tipping Grove
· 6-8
John Tipping Grove*
· 10
John Tipping Grove
· 12
John Tipping Grove
· 14
John Tipping Grove
· 83-85
Union Road
· 86
Union Road.
Architectural treatments that
may be applied to mitigate operational noise may include upgraded windows,
glazing and doors, acoustic seals and provision of mechanical ventilation
systems, and they will be applied when agreed with by individual property
owners. Quieter pavement, noise mounds or noise walls are not feasible
measures, given the proximity of the dwellings to the roadway.
Comments
It is requested that the RMS ensure that the further
detailed design identified as being required in the REF are undertaken, with
subsequent engagement in community consultation to ensure that appropriate and
effective noise mitigation measures are implemented that respond to the
concerns of the noise affected community and ensure that the noise levels at
sensitive receivers comply with applicable noise criteria.
Surface Water Quality Impact
The project site contains and is close to a number of water
bodies, and these may be impacted by the development. The proposed works
have the potential to impact on surface water quality during the construction
works due to sediment-laden runoff caused by excavation, vegetation removal and
other surface work, particularly before or during periods of heavy rainfall.
The REF commits to the preparation and implementation of site specific
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans as part of the overall Soil and Water
Management Plan.
Comments
The erosion, sediment and water quality control measures
proposed to be implemented prior to and during construction works should
effectively manage potential water quality issues during the construction
stage.
Based on a review of the
information no stormwater treatment for the operational stages of the project
has been incorporated into the design. Despite the works resulting in a need to
relocate a stormwater pipe to the southern side of the railway line and provide
a drain of greater dimension, the existing outfall arrangements and water
quality measures would be adopted to manage any potential impacts to water
quality.
It is requested that the RMS
consider how the project could be delivered in a way which is consistent with
Council’s Water Sensitive Urban Design 2013 (WSUD) Policy which requires
the following pollutant load reductions:
· Gross
Pollutants 90%
· Total
Suspended Solids 85%
· Total
Phosphorus 60%, and
· Total
Nitrogen 45%.
The proposed upgrade of the road presents an opportunity to
increase the level of stormwater treatment and further mitigate the impacts on
the receiving waters which includes the Nepean River.
The existing water quality measures which are relied on for
this project are already undersized for the catchment and the construction of
this project will further reduce the performance of the existing treatment
measure. As such, it is recommended that stormwater treatment should be
incorporated into the project.
It is request that the stormwater treatment should seek to
achieve best practice where possible. In this regard, we recommend the
stormwater treatment should be designed to achieve the criteria outlined in
Council’s WSUD Policy. However, at a minimum it is suggested that a
suitably sized vortex style GPT with an offline storage be incorporated into
the design.
Air Quality
During construction, the primary risk to local air quality
is the generation of dust, which may occur during works involving the stripping
of topsoil and clearing of vegetation, earthworks, stockpiling, the movements
and handling of soils, and traffic movements on unpaved roads. Those
receivers located close to the site works and in the direction of prevailing
winds will be the most susceptible to dust-related impacts, particularly during
dry hot periods. The REF commits that an Air Quality Management Plan will
be prepared as a part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan, which
will identify sources of pollutants and mitigation measures, including spraying
or covering exposed surfaces, covering loads and street cleaning.
Potential impacts on air quality during the operation of the
proposal are considered to be similar to those currently occurring, with the
proposal considered to have a negligible impact to air quality.
Comments
The REF proposes a number of safeguards and management
measures to minimise air quality impacts during construction activities. The
implementation of these should effectively minimise potential air quality
impacts.
Contaminated Land
A Stage 1 contamination assessment has been undertaken,
identifying areas of the site that have the potential to be contaminated due to
historic land uses and land filling. This assessment did not include any
ground investigations, sampling or testing of soils, however the REF recommends
that a Stage 2 contamination investigation be carried out to ensure that any
contamination is located so that it can be managed appropriately.
During construction works, the storage and use of fuel and
other chemicals presents a risk of land contamination due to leaks or spills,
whilst excavations may expose contaminants of concern. The REF commits to
the preparation and implementation of a Contaminated Land Management Plan and an
Asbestos Management Plan as part of the overall Construction Environmental
Management Plan for the project. Furthermore, the REF states that consultation
with the EPA shall occur if contaminated areas are encountered during
construction.
Comments
Whilst detailed contamination investigations have not yet
been conducted, it is anticipated that land contaminated through existing and
past uses shall impact upon the proposed project site. As the project
works are categorised under State Environmental Planning Policy
(Infrastructure) 2007 as being “development permitted without
consent”, any associated remediation works that are required during the
construction of the project do not require Council consent.
It is requested that the RMS ensure that comprehensive and
detailed contaminated land investigation, remediation and validation procedures
and protocols are implemented as part of the Contaminated Land Management Plan
and Asbestos Management Plan and that consultation with the NSW EPA occur, as
stated in the REF, should land contamination be identified.
It is also requested that the RMS ensure that a
comprehensive Waste Management Plan is prepared and implemented to ensure that
all waste arising from the construction of the project, including contaminated
material and asbestos, is collected, transported and disposed of lawfully at a
lawful waste management facility.
Landscape and Urban Design
We strongly recommend further dialogue between RMS and
Council designers to resolve a number of issues, outlined below
Council has not been provided with concepts for the longer
term urban and landscape design (Glenmore Parkway to Andrews Road). Therefore
some of the design initiatives for this project may be interpreted out of
context of the larger landscape outcome. This includes character (native,
exotic trees, informal, formal, boulevard etc) and pattern (gateways,
intersections, park edges and other treatments).
Streetscape and planting
There is extensive removal of mature trees throughout the
whole project area which will have a significant visual impact. Given verge
widths are mostly narrow due to property boundaries and footpath treatments,
there is significantly reduced opportunity for replacement and new tree
plantings of either similar or appropriate mature size. The landscape concept
suggests tree planting ‘where possible’ and therefore delivers only
small patches of street trees which is not considered commensurate with the
scale and nature of the new roads.
Comment
We believe the concept design will not deliver the
project’s urban design corridor vision of ‘an attractive green
corridor’ that will ‘provide shade, cooling, healthy air and water
quality essential for a liveable city.’ The current concept design if
delivered will have a long term negative visual impact on the amenity of this
major road and city gateway. As per Urban Design Objective 1, the character and
appearance of the road is to be improved and it is suggested engineering and
landscape design should be better integrated to achieve this outcome.
Landscaping, specifically street trees should be equally as
significant to the delivered outcome as the function of the road for vehicles.
We strongly recommend further dialogue between RMS and
Council designers to ensure a strong street tree presence is delivered to all
road verges impacted for improved visual amenity and public domain outcomes. In
future developments that will address the upgraded roads, large trees in front
setbacks cannot be guaranteed, so the best opportunity to establish a green
streetscape is to do so in the road verges. This may require modification to
conditions to accommodate both clear zones and paths as well as tree planting,
and may require further land acquisition to deliver a complete road corridor.
A strong continuous and balanced street tree presence would
re-establish amenity of the corridor and sense of place at this key city centre
intersection precinct. This is in line with Council’s Complete Streets
strategy and will help reduce the heat island effect in the region.
Large trees are recommended to help reduce the large expanse
of the new road width.
Indicative tree planting palette is entirely gum trees
(Eucalypts). It is considered Eucalypts should have a presence in the
landscape, not dominate it. This type of tree has numerous qualities that are
not suited to constrained verges and in close proximity to high volumes of
traffic – these include limb and leaf drop, storm damage, size of trunk
and damage by large root zones to footpaths, kerbs etc. Dialogue with RMS
should result in an agreed mix of suitable trees that still includes some
representation of Eucalypts where appropriate and where space permits.
The road interface with Woodriff Gardens is recommended to
be in keeping with the style and diversity of trees in the park, rather than a
curtilage of the street tree theme. This will highlight and enhance the park as
a ‘special place’ in the streetscape and local landscape
Shrub and ground cover planting in verges is not acceptable
due to maintenance and safety issues. Council recommends turf. There may be
opportunities in medians for groundcover and tree plantings which is supported.
These areas would be maintained by RMS under existing contracts
Services, signage and medians
· Existing overhead
power is affected by the road widening on Great Western Highway, west of Mulgoa
Road and Council requests that all overhead lines should be relocated
underground for consistent streetscape character and to enable a suitable
treescape to establish.
· Any signage
affected is to be sensitively integrated into the project at RMS cost and to
Council’s approval.
Medians – imagery suggests medians, when not planted
are a red-like colour. Concrete sections of medians should be uncoloured,
so it is not a feature and to avoid possible colour matching in the future as
this is often unsuccessful.
Railway Bridge and underpass
At this stage, the retaining walls are conceptual.
Comment
We strongly recommend further dialogue between RMS and
Council designers to further develop concepts until agreed, addressing planting
/ green walls, art themes, patterns, maintenance requirements, graffiti
minimisation, feature lighting etc.
The bridge structure is a key structure in the Penrith
gateway precinct and in terms of aesthetics is proposed to be a
‘utlitarian structure’.
As previously requested, Council wishes to use the structure
for messaging by means of an LED strip sign to both north and south sides of
the structure. The messages will promote events, direct traffic etc and thereby
enhance the structure.
Property Acquisition
The REF has acknowledged that partial
property acquisitions would be required to accommodate construction of the
proposal. The REF states that RMS would undertake all property boundary adjustments
and leasing arrangements in accordance with current Roads and Maritime Services
guidelines.
Comments
Council understands that Council land will be required to
deliver this proposal. The specific description of the land required for
acquisition would need to be resolved with Council prior to any further
detailed design works and further consultation undertaken regarding
compensation under the Just Terms Compensation Act. We strongly encourage
the RMS commence a separate dialogue with Council’s Property team to
determine the most appropriate mechanism and timing to deliver the necessary
land acquisition.
Sydney RailCorp Substation
Access
The proposal seeks to close the existing RailCorp Substation
access from Castlereagh Road and to establish new vehicular access from Jane
Street via the existing 50 space car park. The new access driveway could
remove approximately 10 car parking spaces.
In July 2015 Council approved a one year lease for Transport
for NSW to occupy the subject land for the purpose of commuter car parking at
an annual rent of $1 dollar. When this matter was reported to
Council, it was understood that the land was likely to be required by the
RMS for the pending Jane Street upgrade. The Licence will continue in
holding over unless either party advises the other that the licence is to be
terminated.
Comments
The specific description of the land required for
acquisition would need to be resolved with Council prior to any further
detailed design works and further consultation be undertaken regarding
compensation under the Just Terms Compensation Act.
Conclusion
The RMS has developed an access strategy and preliminary
design for Jane Street and Mulgoa Road Infrastructure Upgrade. The
improvements and upgrade to this critical arterial road corridor are supported
in principle, subject to the matters contained within this report being
addressed by the RMS in the finalisation of the design. Our submission to RMS
will seek to reinforce Council’s support of the project and highlight a
small number of matters which warrant further consideration.
The key issues identified within the body of this report
will be included in Council’s submission to the RMS and Council officers
will continue to work with the RMS to ensure that the future upgrade delivers
appropriate outcomes for all stakeholders.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That:
1. The
information contained in the report on Review of Environmental Factors (REF)
for Jane Street and Mulgoa Road Infrastructure Upgrade, Penrith be received.
2. Council’s Engineering Services
Manager be authorised to finalise a submission, based on this report, to the
Roads and Maritime Services by 16 December 2016.
|
ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES
There are no attachments for this report.
Policy Review
Committee Meeting 12
December 2016
|
4
|
College, Orth and Werrington
Creeks Catchment Overland Flow Flood Study - Public Exhibition
|
|
Compiled by: Elias
Ishak, Senior Engineer Stormwater
Authorised
by: Adam
Wilkinson, Engineering Services Manager
|
Outcome
|
We care for our environment
|
|
Strategy
|
Minimise risks to our community form natural
disasters
|
|
Service Activity
|
Provide a strategic framework to manage floodplains
and inform land use policy
|
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to advise Council that the
Final Draft of the College, Orth and Werrington Creeks Catchment Overland Flow
Flood Study is complete and is ready for public exhibition.
This report recommends that the Final Draft of the College,
Orth and Werrington Creeks Catchment Overland Flow Flood Study be placed on
exhibition for public comment.
Background
The NSW Government’s Flood Policy is directed at
providing solutions to existing flooding problems in developed areas and
ensuring that new developments are compatible with the relevant flood hazard
and do not create flooding problems in other areas. Under the Policy the
management of flood prone land remains the responsibility of Local
Government. Policy and floodplain management practices are defined in the
NSW Government’s Floodplain Development Manual, April 2005.
The State Government, under its
policy, provides technical advice and in some instances financial support to councils
to manage their floodplains.
Floodplain Risk Management Studies and Plans for various
creek systems and the catchment areas within the Penrith Local Government Area
(LGA) will be required to effectively manage Council’s floodplains. In 2006 Council undertook an “Overland Flow Flood
Overview Study” for the entire Penrith Local Government Area.
This identified and mapped all major overland flow paths; to assess provisional
flood hazard for properties at risk of flooding; to rank catchment areas in
terms of severity of flooding; and to assist Council in prioritising catchment
areas to undertake detailed flood studies.
Recently, Council completed detailed flood studies for the
Penrith CBD and ST Marys (Byrnes Creek) Catchment areas.
The College, Orth and Werrington Creeks Catchment was
identified as one of the priority catchments requiring a detailed overland flow
flood study and a floodplain risk management plan to effectively manage
overland flows.
The College, Orth and Werrington Creeks Catchment Area covers
parts of Orchard Hills, Caddens, Kingswood, Cambridge Park, Werrington and
Werrington County and has an area of approximately 1,200 hectares (12 km2).
The Study Area is located North of the M4 Motorway, East of Richmond Road and drains
to South Creek via Werrington Creek at a point downstream of Dunheved Road and
Werrington Road. The area is urbanised with a mix of residential,
commercial and industrial properties including educational institutions such as
Western Sydney University, Western Sydney Institute Nepean College, Kingswood
and Werrington Public Schools. There are several major developments
currently underway within the Study Area. The Catchment has a history of
flooding, including the storm events of August 1986 and April 1988, where the
areas between Victoria Street and Dunheved Road were affected by these flood
events.
The primary objectives of the Flood Study are to review the
studies previously undertaken by various agencies and to establish the overland
flow flood behaviour such as flood extents, flood levels, depths, velocities,
flows, hydraulic and hazard categories. The Flood Study also includes:
· A
review of available information, including previously completed flood studies,
rainfall records, topographic mapping of the floodplain and details of the
Community Consultation process and responses from the Community;
· A
detailed survey of the stormwater drainage system, creeks and hydraulic
structures;
· Definition
of overland flow flood behaviour such as flood flows, flood levels, depths and
velocities for the 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 and 500 year flood events and the
Probable Maximum Flood events;
· Definition
of the Provisional Hydraulic and Hazard categories for the 20 and 100 year
floods and PMF event;
· Flood
inundation maps for the all design flood events and the Probable Maximum Flood
event;
· Maps
showing flood hazard and hydraulic categories;
· Emergency
response precinct classification maps and assessment of the performance of
major hydraulic structures which will assist the State Emergency Services with
emergency response planning;
· Potential
impact of climate change on existing design flood behaviour;
· Flood
planning area maps; and
· A
summary of the preliminary flood mitigation options to mitigate the flooding
issues.
The Flood Study has been undertaken in accordance with the
NSW Floodplain Development Manual and provides a comprehensive analysis of the
College, Orth and Werrington Creeks Catchment flooding; defining the flood
behaviour for a range of flood events under the current floodplain condition. The
Flood Study was overseen by a Technical Working Group comprising
representatives from Council, the Office of Environment and Heritage and the NSW
State Emergency Services.
The Final Draft College, Orth and Werrington Creeks
Catchment Overland Flow Flood Study, November 2016 (Volume 1-text and Volume
2- maps are separately provided in the Councillor Portal) is now complete
and ready for public comment.
The Flood Study results of the College, Orth and Werrington
Creeks Catchment Overland Flow Flood Study were presented to the Floodplain
Management Working Party on 7 November 2016 and to Floodplain Management
Committee on 28 November 2016. The Committee endorsed the Final Draft
College, November 2016 for public exhibition.
Public Exhibition
The exhibition process will include direct exhibition
through the catchment and public notification of that exhibition period. It is
proposed that the following will be undertaken as part of the public
exhibition.
· Advertisements
will be placed in the local newspaper inviting residents, ratepayers and
business owners to review the Final Draft Flood Study documents and make
submissions;
· Letters
to residents within the catchment informing them about the public exhibition
and requesting they to review the Final Draft Flood Study documents and make
submissions;
· Council’s
website will be used to access the study documents and arrangements will be
made for making submissions electronically;
· Printed
study documents will be placed as appropriate at Council offices, libraries and
community centres for viewing by the public;
· Community
Information Sheets detailing the flood management process and the steps
involved in developing a floodplain risk management plan will be prepared and
distributed. This will also be made available through Council’s Website.
· One Community
drop in session will be arranged at suitable location within the catchment so as
the public has the opportunity to directly view the relevant documents and
discuss as required.
At this stage it is proposed to commence the exhibition in
February 2017.
Once the Final Draft Flood Study is exhibited, a further
report will be presented to Council outlining the results of the exhibition and
to seek formal adoption by Council of the Final Draft College, Orth and
Werrington Creeks Catchment Overland Flow Flood Study. It will then be proposed
to undertake a Floodplain Risk Management Study and a Floodplain Risk
Management Plan for the catchment.
Conclusion
The Final Draft College, Orth and Werrington Creeks
Catchment Overland Flow Flood Study is now complete and ready for public
exhibition. The next step is to publicly exhibit the documentation and bring a
subsequent report back to Council detailing the results of the exhibition.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That:
1. The
information contained in the report on College, Orth and Werrington Creeks
Catchment Overland Flow Flood Study - Public Exhibition be received
2. The
Final Draft College, Orth and Werrington Creeks Catchment Overland Flow Flood
Study, November 2016 be endorsed for public exhibition for a period of no
less than 28 days.
3. A
further report to be presented to Council on the results of the public
exhibition of the Final Draft College, Orth and Werrington Creeks Catchment
Overland Flow Flood Study, November 2016 addressing any submissions received
during the exhibition period.
|
ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES
There are no attachments for this report
