attachments: 1. previous report to council …...sep 09, 2015 · item - 9.5 planning proposal...

TRANSPORT, ACCESS & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 7 SEPTEMBER 2015

PAGE 121 ITEM - 9.5 Planning Proposal 2013/4 - 65 Albert Avenue, Chatswood (Mandarin Centre)

9.5 PLANNING PROPOSAL 2013/4 - 65 ALBERT AVENUE, CHATSWOOD (MANDARIN CENTRE)

ATTACHMENTS: 1. PREVIOUS REPORT TO COUNCIL MEETING

DATED 5 MAY 2014 2. AMENDED PLANS JUNE 2014 3. GATEWAY DETERMINATION DATED 12 AUGUST

2014 4. RESPONSE FROM PUBLIC AUTHORITIES 5. SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS WITH COMMENTS 6. LETTER FROM URBIS DATED 21 AUGUST 2015

RESPONDING TO SUBMISSIONS 7. MAP OF CHATSWOOD PARK 8. DRAFT WILLOUGHBY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

PLAN SECTION E.3.5 (AS AMENDED BY THIS REPORT)

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER: IAN ARNOTT - PLANNING MANAGER AUTHOR: CRAIG O‘BRIEN – STRATEGIC PLANNER CITY STRATEGY LINK: 6.2.1 A COMMUNITY THAT IS INFORMED OF KEY

COUNCIL POLICIES, SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES AND CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS

MEETING DATE: 7 SEPTEMBER 2015

Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the public exhibition for the Planning Proposal, draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (draft VPA) and Explanatory Note submitted by Urbis on behalf of Mandarin Developments and Blue Papaya Pty Ltd (the owners of the site), as well as the draft Willoughby Development Control Plan Section E3.5 (draft WDCP) prepared by council officers, relating to Lots 1, 2 and 3 DP 1035379 and Lots 41 and 42 DP 1150370 at 65 Albert Avenue, Chatswood. The exhibited Planning Proposal was accompanied by indicative concept plans (June 2014), context analysis and shadow diagrams prepared by Bates Smart, planning report and economic assessment prepared by Urbis, and a traffic report prepared by GTA Consultants. This report summarises and provides comment on the issues raised by the submissions received during the exhibition. The main issues raised were height, floor space, design, amenity impacts such as loss of views and privacy on adjacent properties, overshadowing, car parking and traffic. The report also includes assessment of the Planning Proposal, with height and floor space discussion having reference to Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 (WLEP 2012) height and floor space objectives. The report recommends that Council support the Planning Proposal subject to amendments and that the Minister be advised to make the amendment to WLEP 2012.



Locality Map and site description

The site is located in a prominent position on the corner of Victor Street and Albert Avenue, Chatswood and is known as Lots 1, 2 and 3 DP 1035379 and Lots 41 and 42 DP 1150370. It has a site area of 3519m2. Orchard Road (north) is located adjacent to the western boundary of the site and is a Council owned service road which provides vehicle access to the Sage building, Secure car parking station and the Metro Towers above the Chatswood Railway Station. The site is generally rectangular in shape and comprises the Mandarin Centre which was approved in the early 1990s. It has a frontage to Albert Avenue of approximately 73 metres, Victor Street of approximately 44 metres and Orchard Road of approximately 48 metres. Under WLEP 2012, the site is zoned B3 Commercial Core, permits a maximum height of 27 metres and a floor space ratio of 2.5:1. The existing Mandarin Centre exceeds these controls having been approved under the previous planning instrument, Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (SREP) No. 5 – Chatswood Town Centre for a floor space ratio of 4.6:1 (being all commercial) and height of approximately 29 metres.



The Mandarin Centre currently comprises two retail levels, a food court level, Hoyts Cinemas level, Strike Bowling level and Pearl Club level. There is currently 5,815.2m2 of leaseable retail space in the Mandarin Centre and approximately 13,000m2 when the entertainment and club levels are included. The existing development has vehicular access for both cars and trucks from Victor St. There are currently four pedestrian access points into the Mandarin Centre, being:

The corner of Victor St and Albert Ave.

A smaller but more frequented access to the north in Victor St (facing Westfield).

A pedestrian bridge at Level 1 across Albert Avenue linking the site to the Council Youth Centre and Westfield car park.

Through the interchange public open space terrace via level 2 (location of the food court).

The site is located at the south western edge of the Chatswood retail precinct and, in Victor St, is adjacent to the Sebel development to its north which is a 28 storey building comprising Willoughby Council offices, serviced apartments and residential units with a height of approximately 83m or RL175.8 (plus plant RL 182.15). The Sage office building in Albert Ave to the west has an approximate height of 66m or RL160. Westfield is located to the east of the site and the Council Youth Centre, Baptist Church, Chatswood Oval and park are located to the south and south west of the site.

Background The Planning Proposal for the site at 65 Albert Avenue, Chatswood was submitted by Urbis on behalf of Mandarin Developments and Blue Papaya Pty Ltd (the owners of the site) on 20 September 2013. Following concerns of Council Officers and discussions with the proponent, two sets of amendments have been made to the Concept plans (December 2013 and April 2014), involving reduction in height and floor space ratio, changes to internal layout, setbacks and podium design. Additional information justifying the inclusion of shop top housing in the B3 Commercial Core Zone and agreement to the provision of affordable housing was also requested and provided. The proponent maintained that the Concept design had the potential to comply with SEPP 65 standards and indicated that this assessment should occur in the context of a development application. Council considered a report on the Planning Proposal at the Council Meeting of 5 May 2014 (Refer to Attachment 1). The Planning Proposal sought to amend WLEP 2012 to allow shop top housing to occur on the site by adding ‗shop top housing‘ as an additional permitted use in Schedule 1 while retaining the Commercial Core B3 zoning for the site. The development standards for the site requested in the Planning Proposal reported to Council were: i) An increase in the maximum height limit from RL 92 (27m) to RL181.95 (89.95m). ii) Increase the permissible Floor Space Ratio from 2.5:1 to 11.15:1. Under the requested 11.15:1, it was proposed to maintain the existing commercial component and provide approximately 244 residential units.



The development would comprise a podium building presenting as:

7 storeys to Victor Street (the same height as Westfield opposite).

7 storeys on the corner of Victor Street and the Sebel, with the remaining Podium height to the Sebel being 4 storeys (with the exception of the publicly accessible landscaped open space area at 3 storeys on the Orchard Road corner).

6 storeys to Albert Avenue.

A combination of 6, 4 and 3 storeys to Orchard Road / the Sage. The Podium level therefore presents at various heights across the site, with two towers located above. For the purpose of counting storeys, if the Podium height is taken as 4 storeys, the western tower has a height of 11 storeys and the eastern tower 24 storeys plus plant. The retail/commercial floor space is shown in the Concept design to include a supermarket in the below ground level (3000m2), 3 levels of specialty retail and one level of ‗Entertainment‘ use(s). The proponent stated that 4% of the residential floor space would be provided as affordable housing. The design principles for the Concept were stated as: (i) Provide a retail podium that is consistent in street edge height and scale with the

existing Sebel building in Victor St and the Westfield building in Albert Ave. (ii) Activate the street frontages to Albert Ave and Victor St. (iii) Facilitate more practical pedestrian linkages within the precinct. (iv) Minimise view loss and overshadowing to the Sebel and Sage buildings as well as

sensitive land uses such as Chatswood Park by limiting the lower building to the height of the serviced apartments (Level 15) of the Sebel building and designing the taller tower with an elliptical shape.

(v) Provision of vehicle access from Orchard Rd (north). The applicant also submitted a letter agreeing to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement with Council to provide: i) A 3m wide road dedication to Council along Albert Ave to enable adequate traffic

access to and from the site. ii) A publicly accessible landscaped open space area connecting with the interchange

public open space terrace precinct. iii) A two metre building setback at the ground level of the proposed development along

the full length of the Victor St frontage of the site providing an active street frontage with a widened public footpath and street planting.

The proponent justified the Planning Proposal on the basis that the existing Mandarin Centre is not functioning effectively as a shopping centre and needs to be rejuvenated. The accompanying economic study argues that there is sufficient retail demand in the Chatswood CBD to support the redevelopment of the existing Mandarin shopping centre.



The Council report dated 5 May 2014 noted: In regards Floor space ratio:

“In response to Council‟s Traffic Engineer‟s requirements, the applicant has agreed to provide a 3m road dedication along the Albert Ave frontage. This will result in a reduction in achievable floor space to around 10.5:1 after accounting for the various heights of buildings and setbacks proposed in the concept plan to minimise view loss, overshadowing and accentuation of the podium. It is therefore considered that should Council resolve to support the Planning Proposal the floor space ratio should be 10.5:1, not 11.15:1 as requested.

It is also proposed that, in order to ensure that the redevelopment achieves the commercial / entertainment floor space that is proposed (for which the shop top housing is claimed to be required in order for redevelopment to be financially viable) a limit of 6:1 be placed on the shop top component of any development on the site.”

In regards height:

“As a consequence of the consideration of privacy, overshadowing and view loss issues … the height limits for the site in the WLEP 2012 and WDCP should be very specific. This will ensure that the principles of the concept plan are implemented and the impacts on adjacent properties and open space areas are limited. As previously discussed the height of the podium building is to reflect the adjacent Westfield building in Albert Ave and the Sebel podium in Victor St. In urban design terms it is also considered appropriate for the height of the proposed Eastern Tower at the Albert Ave frontage to be no higher than the Sage building at RL 160 (not RL 169.3 as shown in the proposed concept plans). It is therefore proposed that the eastern tower steps back from RL 160 at Albert Ave to a height of RL 181.95 and as discussed in this report, the western tower should be limited in height to RL 140.7 to preserve views from the Sebel.”

The Council report dated 5 May 2014 concluded:

“Should the Planning Proposal proceed, the physical redevelopment of the site will be subject to a future development application and assessment which must accord with the parameters set out within the amended WLEP 2012 and VPA as well as satisfactory resolution of the traffic and parking impacts, and compliance with additional relevant statutory provisions such as the Willoughby Development Control Plan and State Environmental Planning Policy 65 (SEPP 65) - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.”

The Council resolved on 12 May 2014:

“That:

1. the Planning Proposal for 65 Albert Ave, Chatswood (Mandarin Centre) be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment seeking a Gateway Determination for public exhibition under Section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to:



a) the Planning Proposal amendments as outlined in the Officer's report; b) the proposed draft amendments to Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012

as set out in the report; and c) the proposed draft amendments to Willoughby Development Control Plan for

specific controls for the site as outlined in the report. 2. a draft Voluntary Planning Agreement be exhibited with the Planning Proposal, as

outlined in the letter of offer from the applicant dated 11 April 2014, subject to the offer being amended to be consistent with the maximum height of the proposed tower buildings, that is, RL181.95 and RL 140.7 and the revised floor space ratio of 10.5:1 and to accord with the plans as shown on the Design Concepts and Urban Design Analysis dated March 2014. As well as achieving provision of on-site car parking in accordance with the DCP.

3. the applicant submit certification by a suitability qualified independent person of the Shadow Diagrams provided with the Planning Proposal prior to the exhibition.“

Following the Council resolution, the proponent submitted additional information to address height and floor space as follows:

A letter from Urbis dated 16 June 2014 stating: - a maximum building height of RL 181.95 for the Eastern Tower and RL 140.7 for the Western Tower. - a maximum floor space ratio of 10.5:1 excluding affordable housing.

Amended plans dated June 2014 showing: - a maximum building height of RL 181.95 for the Eastern Tower and RL 140.7 for the Western Tower consistent with the abovementioned Urbis letter. - a maximum floor space ratio of 10.9:1 including affordable housing that differs from the Urbis letter that states 10.5:1 excluding affordable housing.

The Amended Plans can be seen at Attachment 2. The on-site parking provision was not adjusted to comply with WDCP rates and instead was based on the RMS – Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (October 2002) and in particular the requirement for ‗High Density Residential Flat Buildings (Metropolitan Regional CBD Centres)‘. Refer to Car parking in the Discussion section below. The proponent submitted certified shadow diagrams (dated 13 June 2014). In response to the Council resolution, the Planning Proposal was forwarded to NSW Planning and Environment for a Gateway Determination which was granted on 12 August 2014, stating that the Planning Proposal should proceed to public exhibition subject to conditions (Refer to Attachment 3). It is noted that a number of conditions were required to be satisfied prior to the public exhibition taking place, and standard consultation and exhibition practices undertaken. These conditions were addressed and formed part of the exhibition. In particular it should be noted that:

Council produced WLEP 2012 amendment plans and documentation for exhibition so that it reflected the Resolution of Council dated 12 May 2014.



In accordance with the Gateway requirements, the Planning Proposal was referred to the RMS for comment. However a final response was not received until April 2015. The reason for the delay was because of inadequate traffic information having been submitted and inconsistencies with the Concept design, as well as additional information requirements from the RMS. Once adequate traffic information was received, further assessment was required by both the RMS and Council‘s Traffic section.

Draft Willoughby Development Control Plan (draft WDCP) specific controls for the site as outlined in the 5 May 2014 Council report were also prepared by Council for the purpose of exhibition and included:

Control 2: “Vehicular access to the site must be from Orchard Ave (north) only.**”

Control 3: “All car parking for the redevelopment is to be provided on site.”

Control 5: “There is to be dedication to Council of a 3 metre wide strip of land along the Albert Ave frontage for road widening to address the site‟s traffic flow.”

Control 6: “The development must ensure the provision of a sufficient carriage way width for trucks (3.5m) in accordance with Australian standards and 0.5m for pedestrians along Orchard Rd (north). This requires a minimum setback of the building by one metre.”

Control 7: “The lower western tower is to be set back 15m from Albert Ave to align with the central blank wall of the Sage building and the eastern tower will be located 2m from Albert Ave and 6m from Victor St.”

Control 8: “There is to be provision of a 2m ground level setback along the Victor St frontage of the site for improved pedestrian amenity with an active street frontage, a widened footpath and street planting as required by Council‟s Street Tree Masterplan.”

“** Note: The Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) requires ingress to the site to be from Victor St and egress to the site to be from Orchard Rd (north) which is contrary to the requirement for all vehicular access to the site to be from Orchard Rd (north) as required in Control 2 of this draft WDCP amendment. Council will consider the RMS proposed revised access arrangements following the outcomes of the exhibition of the Planning Proposal. Should the proposed access arrangements be supported by Council it is noted that Council‟s Traffic Section has advised that there would also be a requirement for a 1.5m wide land dedication along the Victor Street frontage for at least the first 10m north of Albert Avenue to cater for the turning movements of service vehicles entering Victor Street. This would need to be extended to 2m if 12.5m HRV‟s were to access the site from Victor Street.”

A draft VPA and Explanatory Note was provided reflecting the abovementioned letter (Refer to separate report in this Agenda Paper). PUBLIC EXHIBITION / COMMUNITY CONSULTATION The exhibition of the Planning Proposal, draft amendments to WLEP 2012, draft amendments to WDCP, draft VPA and Explanatory Note took place for 4 weeks from Wednesday, 13 May until Wednesday, 10 June 2015.



The exhibition involved notification letters being sent to surrounding property owners, the Chatswood West Ward Progress Association and the Federation of Willoughby Progress Associations. In accordance with the Gateway Determination, notification letters were also sent to the Office of Environment and Heritage, Transport for NSW, NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) and the Department of Education and Communities. The exhibition was placed on Willoughby Council‘s ‗Have Your Say‘ page. The exhibition was also advertised in the North Shore Times on 13 May 2015. The explanatory information provided with the exhibition requested that all submissions must be in writing, provide a name and address and that any political donations within the past 2 years must be declared pursuant to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008. No such declarations were received by Council. There were 55 submissions received, with 50 submissions objecting and 5 submissions supporting the Planning Proposal. The majority of submissions objecting to the proposal (37) have come from owners at the property immediately to the rear / north of the subject site, being the Sebel. One petition was received objecting to the Planning Proposal, containing 17 signatures from owners of the Sebel. No submission requested a public hearing under section 56(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. In accordance with the Gateway Determination, the Planning Proposal was forwarded to the Office of Environment and Heritage, Transport for NSW, NSW Roads and Maritime Services and the Department of Education and Communities. Council also referred the matter to Sydney Water and Ausgrid. Submissions were received from Transport for NSW, NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), Sydney Water and Ausgrid and can be viewed at Attachment 4. It is noted that some of the requirements outlined in the submissions may require design changes to the Concept when a future development application is submitted. A summary of the submissions, together with comments, can be viewed at Attachment 5. A letter in response to submissions was received from Urbis on behalf of the proponent dated 21 August 2015 and can be viewed at Attachment 6. DISCUSSION 1) Process The planning system in NSW allows for a planning proposal to be submitted to a Council seeking variation of local environmental planning controls that apply to any given site. There is no numerical limit placed on the variation that may be requested, with each Planning Proposal required to be justified and assessed on its individual merits and the circumstances of that case. Council is, therefore obliged to consider the Planning Proposal as submitted.



The Council report of 5 May 2014 assessed the Planning Proposal with reference to NSW Planning and Environment ‗A Guide to preparing Planning Proposals.‘ This document requires Council to identify the relationship of a planning proposal within the strategic planning framework and ensure that the specific proposal is consistent with the applicable State Environmental Planning Policies and Ministerial Directions (S.117 Directions). The Council report of 5 May 2014 is at Attachment 1. The 5 May 2014 Council report stated that the Planning Proposal is not consistent with the objectives and actions of the applicable regional or sub regional strategies as it proposes to allow shop top housing in the B3 Commercial Core zone on a site which would be a suitable size for a commercial office building. Since the 5 May 2014 Council report, the NSW Planning and Environment ‗A Plan for Growing Sydney‘ dated December 2014 has been released. This document replaced the Draft Metropolitan Plan for Sydney to 2031 released in March 2013. ‗A Plan for Growing Sydney‘ states that the priority for the strategic centre of Chatswood is “to provide capacity for additional mixed-use development in Chatswood including offices, retail, services and housing.” The Planning Proposal is consistent with this priority. The changes to the Planning Proposal recommended in this report are consistent with the abovementioned priority. The Planning Proposal is consistent with other applicable State Environmental Planning Policies and Ministerial Directions (S.117 Directions), with the exception of SEPP 65 which is discussed further in this report. 2) Willoughby Local Environmental Plan 2012 (WLEP 2012) changes

a) Shop top housing / residential use

The Planning Proposal seeks to make shop top housing a permissible use for 65 Albert Avenue, Chatswood. The Council report dated 5 May 2014 concluded:

“A commercial building with no residential development would be more aligned with the B3 zone for the site and the long term employment strategies for the Chatswood CBD. However, given the uncertainties in the current commercial office building market and the retention of the employment potential and additional retail choice envisaged by the Planning Proposal, it is conceded that the inclusion of a residential “shop top” housing component will be more likely to facilitate the redevelopment of the site as a rejuvenated and successful shopping centre.

It is considered that support for this Planning Proposal will not set a precedent for other B3 Commercial Core sites in the Chatswood CBD to develop for shop top housing as this site is at the southern boundary of the B3 Commercial Core land and although adjacent to the Sage commercial office building, is removed from the primary office precinct on the western side of the railway line.”



It is considered that this conclusion is acceptable in the circumstances and therefore remains unchanged in this report. The subject site is located on the edge of the Chatswood CBD, next to the Sebel which contains shop top housing and within close proximity to residential accommodation to the west in Albert Avenue on the other side of the railway line. The residential use is acceptable based on the employment generation achieved by commercial floor space being maintained. Recommendation: That WLEP 2012 be amended by:

Adding to Clause 14 (Use of Certain land at 65 Albert Ave, Chatswood) of Schedule 1 (Additional permitted uses) Subclause (3) as follows: ―(3) Development for the purposes of shop top housing is permitted with

development consent.‖

b)Height The Planning Proposal, as amended following the 5 May 2014 Council meeting and resolution (refer to background section of this report), involves raising the maximum height on the site from 27m to RL181.95 (89.95 metres) for the Eastern Tower and RL 140.7 (48.7 metres) for the Western Tower. Height has been assessed with reference to the current height objectives contained in WLEP 2012 Clause 4.3 ‗Height of Buildings.‘ The objectives are listed below with comments provided. A recommendation is provided at the end of this discussion. Cl. 4.3(1) (a) “to ensure that new development is in harmony with the bulk and scale of surrounding buildings and the streetscape.” Comment: The Planning Proposal adequately addresses its urban design context with regard to height as follows:

The height of the Podium has been designed to reflect the height of the adjacent Westfield building in Albert Avenue and the Sebel Podium in Victor Street.

The Western Tower is limited in height to RL 140.7 in order to preserve views to the south of the neighbouring property to the rear of the subject site (being the Sebel) and to minimise overshadowing to the south.

The Eastern Tower is limited in height to RL 181.95, being a similar height as the neighbouring property to the north (rear, being the Sebel), with a design intended to maximise views either side of the tower building. Design is further discussed below.

The height of the Eastern Tower has been designed to step down from the maximum height of RL 181.95 to a height no higher than the Sage building, identified on the Concept Plan as being RL 158.40.

Cl. 4.3(1) (b) “to minimise the impacts of new development on adjoining or nearby

properties from disruption of views, loss of privacy, overshadowing or visual intrusion.”

i) Views



Comment: An assessment has been made of view impacts due to the proposed increase in height and floor space. Currently south facing units in the Sebel above the existing Mandarin centre enjoy clear views towards North Sydney, Sydney City and the harbour. As noted in the Council report dated 5 May 2014:

“The design seeks to adopt the principle of „view sharing‟.

Views for residents of the Sebel building located directly to the north of the site will be impacted by a development at the height and scale proposed by the Planning Proposal. Views from the Sage building to the west of the site will also be adversely impacted (however it is considered less “view sensitive” being a commercial development.) The lower levels of the Sebel building (up to level15) include the commercial uses of Willoughby Council offices (which have no views in the direction of this site) and levels approved as serviced apartments which are also considered to be less “view sensitive”.

The indicative concept is designed to reduce view loss to the Sebel by reducing the building envelopes of the proposed building above the height of the serviced apartments levels. In this regard the floor level of the first level of the Sebel residential component is RL 140.7. The design provides two residential building envelopes which respond specifically to the views from these residential apartments.

The lower western tower is intended to be the same height as the serviced apartments level allowing the residential apartments of the Sebel to retain views over the western tower.

A taller elliptically shaped eastern tower is designed to retain angled views from the residential dwellings of the Sebel building. The building would be 27 storeys and 89.95m or RL 181.95 in height including plant. (For comparison, the Sebel height is approximately RL 175.8 to the roof (or RL 182.13 including plant). The top levels will be stepped to reduce overshadowing to Chatswood Park and provide a visual transition from the Sebel building to the CBD edge. The adjacent Sage building is RL 160.”

The principle of view sharing is supported by Council Officers. This means that a solution or compromise is required to be found that respects, as much as possible, the interests of the subject property as well as the neighbouring properties. The Planning Proposal involves a maximum height for the Eastern Tower which is similar to the height of the property immediately to the rear / north, the Sebel. There is a reasonableness to the height of part of the subject site being the same as the neighbouring site. As noted above, the design of the Concept has attempted to address view sharing by providing a lower Western Tower with a maximum height below the first level of the residential component of the Sebel and an elliptical design for the eastern Tower.

ii) Privacy Comment: An assessment has been made of privacy impacts due to the proposed increase in height and floor space.



As noted in the Council report dated 5 May 2014:

“The design of the indicative concept plan has had regard to the privacy impact on adjacent properties, particularly to the residential apartments in the Sebel building. As already described, the lower western tower is setback 15m from Albert Ave and will be restricted in height to below the level of the residential apartments of the Sebel. This will limit the impact on privacy for some of the Sebel apartments as well as some of the commercial Sage building occupants. There will be an impact on privacy for those Sebel apartments located adjacent to the taller eastern tower in the new building.

The curved elliptical design of the taller tower will reduce these privacy impacts.”

Concern is raised with the rear setbacks on the Eastern Tower as it increases in height, with particular regard to overlooking from the lift waiting area as shown in the Concept design. SEPP 65 setback requirements are relevant as they assist in ensuring adequate amenity and in this instance privacy. SEPP 65 setbacks are discussed below in ‗Visual Intrusion (setbacks)‘.

iii) Overshadowing Comment: Overshadowing impacts due to the proposed increase in height and floor space have been assessed with particular regard to:

Chatswood Park.

Chatswood Oval.

The Baptist Church located on the corner of Albert Avenue and Orchard Road.

The solar panels being part of the Council Solar Farm located on the Westfield car park.

See Attachment 7 for a site plan of Chatswood Oval and Chatswood Park. This shows the children‘s play area, skate area, various benches, trees and each tree canopy within the park. Tree canopy‘s affect much of Chatswood Park, with the area least affected in the north eastern section toward the corner of Albert Avenue and Orchard Road. As noted in the Council report dated 5 May 2014:

“Shadow diagrams … indicate that there is likely to be additional overshadowing to the northern end of Chatswood Park between 9am and 11am … at 21 June (winter solstice). This means that at that time the skate board facility and playground will be in shadow most of the morning. After 11am the impact from the development will have passed however existing shadows from the Sage building impact on this area.

The applicant argues that the shadow impact at the 21 June from the development is acceptable because:

The shadow occurs at only a limited time of the year (though no evidence has been provided to support this statement).

The shadow passes over the area quickly (i.e limited to a short period of the day).

The area impacted is already affected by more significant and larger shadows cast by existing buildings.



Much of the area affected is vegetated with large trees which effectively shade the area already and which mask the actual impact of shadows cast from any building.

The shadow at no point casts onto Chatswood oval.” As required by the Council resolution dated 12 May 2014, certified shadow diagrams (dated 13 June 2014) were prepared by Deneb Design for the winter solstice (21 June) and submitted to form part of the exhibition. These shadow diagrams are based on the 3 metre road widening in Albert Avenue and the building heights stated in the Council resolution. Verified levels have also been obtained from the tall buildings in the vicinity of the subject site, so that an overall accurate overshadowing picture is obtained. With regard to Chatswood Park, the following should be noted:

At 9am, the Concept design casts additional shadow across the middle section of Chatswood Park (approximately 30%). When combined with existing shadows, this means approximately half of Chatswood Park will be overshadowed.

At 10 am, the Concept design casts additional shadow over approximately 50% of Chatswood Park. When combined with existing shadows, most of Chatswood Park will be overshadowed.

At 11am, the Concept design casts additional shadow over a minor section of Chatswood Park (approximately 10%). There is considerable existing shadow from other tall buildings to the north.

At 12 noon the Concept design casts no additional shadow over Chatswood Park. There is considerable existing shadow from other tall buildings to the north.

At 1pm the Concept casts no additional shadow over Chatswood Park. There is existing shadow from other tall buildings to the north.

At no time is any part of Chatswood Oval shadowed by the Planning Proposal. WLEP 2012 Clause 4.3A (8) states:

“Development consent must not be granted to the erection of a building within 50 metres of The Concourse, Garden of Remembrance, Chatswood Park and Oval, Chatswood Mall and the Angophora costata on the Chatswood Police Station site if the development would cause increased overshadowing impacts on the space used by the public, or the tree canopy in the case of the Angophora costata, at mid-winter between 12.00 pm and 2.00 pm.”

The Planning Proposal is consistent with Clause 4.3A (8) in that the Concept design would not cause increased overshadowing impacts on Chatswood Park at mid-winter between 12.00 pm and 2.00 pm. As noted above the Concept design does not cast any shadow onto Chatswood Oval. The importance of Chatswood Oval as recreation space is recognized. It is recommended that a clause be included in the proposed WDCP section to say there is to be no overshadowing of Chatswood Oval from any redevelopment of the site (see below under Draft WDCP Section E.3.5). The Baptist Church on the corner of Albert Avenue and Orchard Road, opposite 65 Albert Avenue, contains a small open childrens play area and carpark forward of the building line, and a paved entranceway area behind the front building line.



In regards to this property, the following should be noted with regard to the childrens play area and paved entranceway area:

At 9am the Concept design casts additional shadow over all of the childrens play area at the front of this site. The paved entranceway area is overshadowed by existing shadows (approximately 90%).

At 10am the Concept design casts additional shadow over all of the childrens play area at the front of this site. The paved entranceway area is overshadowed by existing shadows (approximately 70%), with some additional shadow (approximately 30%).

At 11am the Concept design casts additional shadow on part of the childrens play area and paved entranceway area at the front of this site (approximately 50%), with the remaining area affected by existing overshadowing.

At 12 noon, the Concept design does not cast any additional shadowing. The front of this site is affected by existing shadowing.

The small open childrens play area at the front of the Baptist Church will be impacted by the Planning Proposal as it will be overshadowed in mid-winter all day. It should be noted that this area will not be overshadowed for most of the morning and all of the afternoon at the March and September equinox. The overshadowing in mid-winter to this area is undesirable, however this impact in a location immediately to the south of the Chatswood CBD is considered acceptable in the circumstances. The Concept design has attempted to provide setbacks to the building form of the redevelopment to minimise overshadowing. This issue can be further assessed with detailed design drawings at development application stage. With regard to the solar panels being part of the Council Solar Farm located at the rear of the Westfield car park roof:

Prior to 3pm the Concept does not cast any additional shadowing on this area.

At 3pm both existing and additional overshadowing occurs over part of this area. Additional overshadowing from the concept design affects approximately 20% of the solar panels at this time.

It is recognized that the Concept has been designed to minimize shadowing to Chatswood Park and its surrounds. Subject to this report, it is considered that the overshadowing resulting from the Concept design is acceptable at Planning Proposal stage. Further consideration of this issue will occur at development application stage.

iv) Visual intrusion (setbacks) Comment: An assessment has been made of the rear and side building setbacks being provided in the Concept design. Separation between buildings contributes to the urban form of an area and the amenity within apartments and open space areas. In this instance the subject site is in a highly visible corner location that forms an important part of the Chatswood CBD. Any redevelopment should have adequate regard to urban form, as well as the amenity of both surrounding development (which includes residential units) and residential units within the development proposed. The Concept plans were submitted to Council in June 2014, however, it should be noted that for development applications incorporating shop top housing or other multi – residential developments lodged after 19 June 2015, regard is required to be given to the Apartment Design Code (ADG) accompanying SEPP 65.



In this regard it is considered appropriate for the Planning Proposal to be assessed with regard to these updated documents. SEPP 65 and the ADG apply to shop top housing and mixed use housing. In regards to building separation, the ADG states:

“Separation between buildings contributes to the urban form of an area and the amenity within apartments and open space areas.

Amenity is improved through establishing minimum distances between apartments within the site … and with boundaries to neighbours.

Within apartments, building separation assists with visual and acoustic privacy, outlook, natural ventilation and daylight access.

Building separation controls should be set in conjunction with height controls and controls for private/communal open space and visual and acoustic privacy.”

The ADG establishes minimum separation distances for buildings as:

Up to four storeys (approximately 12 metres) - 12 metres between habitable rooms/balconies - 9 metres between habitable and non-habitable rooms

Five to eight storeys (approximately 25 metres) - 18 metres between habitable rooms/balconies - 12 metres between habitable and non-habitable rooms

Nine storeys and above (over 25 metres) - 24 metres between habitable rooms/balconies - 18m metres between habitable and non-habitable rooms

In measuring these minimum separation distances, the following clarification is provided:

“When measuring the building separation between commercial and residential uses, consider office windows and balconies as habitable space.

Where applying separation to buildings on adjoining sites, apply half the minimum separation distance measured to the boundary.”

An assessment of the Concept design has been carried out in respect to the setback / building separation specified in the ADG for the residential towers. In regards the proposed northern (rear) setback (to 31-37 Victor St, the Sebel):

On the basis of the Eastern Tower lift area being non-habitable and the neighbouring property (the Sebel) containing habitable rooms/balconies, the Eastern Tower provides an adequate setback at Podium level up to the 4th storey. However an inadequate setback is provided further above, as the setback is required to be 6 metres between five and eight storeys, and 9 metres between nine storeys and above. It is considered reasonable to require any future development application to comply with the above setbacks, in particular due to the positive amenity impacts that follow increased building separation (discussed below).

The Western Tower contains a setback at Podium Level in excess of ADG requirements and is therefore satisfactory.



In regards the proposed western setback (to 67 Albert Ave, the Sage):

The eastern elevation of the Sage building is setback approximately 2 metres from the boundary with the subject site and is characterized by two east facing side sections with full height windows / glass elements, and a middle section of blank wall setback approximately 2 metres. The majority of the Western Tower has been located opposite the blank wall of the Sage building (eastern elevation), directly on the boundary.

Draft WDCP Section E.3.5 as exhibited contained a specific control that stated in part:

“7. The lower western tower is to be setback 15m from Albert Ave to align with the central blank wall of the Sage building …”

The reason for the above draft WDCP control was to ensure minimal impact on the amenity of the front section of the Sage building with windows / glass elements. It is considered that provided the western tower is setback 15 metres from Albert Avenue to align with the central blank wall of the Sage building, the zero side setback in the Concept design reasonably addresses the amenity of this part of the Sage building and the objectives of SEPP 65.

The setback of the Western Tower to the rear of the subject site is approximately 15 metres. The zero setback and blocking of any glass elements of the rear section of the Sage building eastern elevation may be further assessed at development application stage.

In regards the proposed eastern setback to Victor Street:

Clause 7 of Draft WDCP Section E.3.5 as exhibited contained a specific control which also stated in part:

“7 .…. the eastern tower will be located 2m from Albert Avenue and 6m from

Victor St.”

Due to 2 metre wide road widening being required in Victor Street for the first 10 metres after the Albert Avenue road widening (discussed below), the 6 metre setback of the Eastern Tower from Victor Street will be reduced in part to 4 metres and then return to 6 metres. This is considered an acceptable outcome of the required road widening and any further setback is considered unreasonable.

The 2 metre setback of the Eastern Tower is unchanged. The proposed internal setback of 6.97 metres between the Eastern and Western Towers will be assessed at development application stage and be required to satisfy SEPP 65. As noted above, the Concept design does not comply with SEPP 65 requirements regarding Eastern Tower rear setbacks. The proponent has stated that SEPP 65 will be complied with at development application stage, however in order to determine an acceptable FSR for the site it is important to apply appropriate setbacks at Planning Proposal stage. Issues behind the establishment of building separation controls in the ADG, such as privacy and views, were raised in submissions and are discussed above. In particular these issues were raised by the property immediately to the rear of the subject site (the Sebel). It is noted that compliance with SEPP 65 will have positive outcomes for units both neighbouring and within the site in regards outlook, natural ventilation and daylight access.



A Site layout and Western Elevation diagram have now been included in the draft WDCP section showing the Eastern Tower rear setbacks based on SEPP 65 and the ADG. Setbacks will be further considered at development application stage. Cl. 4.3(1) (c) “to ensure a high visual quality of the development when viewed from

adjoining properties, the street, waterways, public reserves or foreshores.” Comment: An assessment has been made regarding the suitability of the elliptical design of the Eastern Tower. The elliptical shape for the Eastern Tower was chosen by the proponent to maximise views and minimise adverse privacy impacts on the units to the rear at the Sebel. A Concept involving a square shape design would potentially increase building bulk, reduce setbacks, obstruct more views and increase privacy impacts. On the issue of design, a balance is sought between building form and amenity impacts in order to achieve the most appropriate outcome. The Concept design also involves activating the street frontages to Albert Avenue and Victor Street, and reinforcing zero buildings lines to the Podium Level with buildings above. As discussed above, amendments will be required to the design to satisfactorily address SEPP 65 with regard to building separation and setbacks. The issue of design may be further assessed when detailed plans are provided at development application stage. Cl. 4.3(1) (d) “to minimise disruption to existing views or to achieve reasonable view sharing

from adjacent developments or from public open spaces with the height and bulk of the development.”

Comment: See discussion of views above. Cl. 4.3(1) (e) “to set upper limits for the height of buildings that are consistent with the

redevelopment potential of the relevant land given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping.”

Comment: The heights distributed across the site in the Concept design are considered to have adequate regard to development restrictions, in particular surrounding building heights and urban design context, public and internal open space / landscaping, impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties and overshadowing of land to the south, including Chatswood Park. It is considered important that the redevelopment potential of the subject site be based on these height maximums and any other relevant considerations such as SEPP 65 and the draft WDCP section as detailed below. Cl. 4.3(1) (f) “to use maximum height limits to assist in responding to the current and

desired future character of the locality.” Comment: Chatswood CBD is characterised by tall buildings based on a mix of architectural forms. The Concept design adequately relates to the surrounding urban context in terms of both height and varied architectural forms across the site.



Cl. 4.3(1) (g) “to reinforce the primary character and land use of the city centre of Chatswood with the area west of the North Shore Rail Line, being the commercial office core of Chatswood, and the area east of the North Shore Rail Line, being the retail shopping core of Chatswood.”

Comment: The site is located in the area east of the North Shore Rail Line, being the retail shopping core of Chatswood. The Planning Proposal largely retains the existing amount of commercial floor space, activates street frontages to Albert Avenue and Victor Street where current activation is minimal and facilitates more practical pedestrian linkages within and through the site. Cl. 4.3(1) (h) “to achieve transitions in building scale from higher intensity business and

retail centres to surrounding residential areas.” Comment: The Concept design, with the lower Western Tower and the Eastern Tower similar in height to the Sebel building (to the north) then stepping down towards Albert Avenue to be a similar height to the Sage building (to the west), adequately provides a transition to surrounding residential areas to the south. Recommendation: That WLEP 2012 be amended by:

Identifying the height on the Special Provisions Area Map, subject to a bonus clause, with the eastern part of the site being subject to a height of RL181.95 and the western part, RL 140.7. The dividing line is based on the western wall of the Eastern Tower.

Adding a bonus clause for a site greater than 3,000 metres, allowing a height of RL 181.95 and RL 140.7 as shown on the Special Provisions Area Map.

The recommended wording to achieve this is outlined in the recommendation for floor space below.

c) Floor space The Council Resolution of 12 May 2014 required that the floor space for exhibition be 10.5:1 (excluding affordable housing), with limit placed on the residential component of 6:1, which resulted in a commercial component of 4.5:1. As previously stated in the Background section of this report, Council has received conflicting information on floor space. The Concept design shows a floor space ratio of 10.9:1 including affordable housing, while the Urbis letter of 16 June 2014 agrees to a maximum floor space ratio of 10.5:1 excluding affordable housing. An examination of the figures accompanying the Concept design has the floor space ratio at 10.93:1 including affordable housing, resulting in a floor space ratio of 10.68:1 excluding affordable housing. The residential component excluding affordable housing is 6.37:1, including affordable housing is 6.62:1 and the commercial component is 4.31:1. Concern is raised that the floor space ratio required by the Council resolution and agreed to in the Urbis letter of 16 June 2014 is not reflected in the Concept design.



It is considered important to ensure that the floor space ratio over the site is established with clear regard to the Council resolution as well as building separation as required under SEPP 65. Floor space has been assessed with reference to the current floor space objectives contained in WLEP 2012 Clause 4.4 ‗Floor space ratio.‘ The objectives are listed below with comments provided. A recommendation is provided at the end of this discussion. Cl. 4.4(1) (a) “to limit the intensity of development to which the controls apply so that it will

be carried out in accordance with the environmental capacity of the land and the zone objectives for the land.”

Comment: An appropriate floor space ratio is required to be established for the site taking into account any floor space lost on account of road widening. Refer to further discussion below in the Traffic section of this report. There is concern that an excessive floor space ratio may result in encroachments in respect to SEPP 65 building setbacks, increases in height or inappropriate design outcomes. To this end, it is considered that an appropriate floor space ratio be established for the site, having regard to the acceptability of the Concept design submitted with an ‗overlay‘ of SEPP 65 building setback requirements. The establishment of the appropriate floor space ratio for the site in WLEP 2012 will exclude affordable housing in accordance with Clause 6.8. However for the purposes of considering the appropriate bulk outcome for the site, it is considered appropriate to understand the floor space ratio that would include affordable housing. Calculations based on the above assessment has determined an appropriate maximum floor space ratio for the site of 8.65:1 excluding affordable housing and 8.91:1 including affordable housing. This results in a residential component excluding affordable housing of 4.42:1, including affordable housing of 4.68:1, and a commercial component of 4.23:1. The reduction in the residential component from 6:1 to 4.42:1 (excluding affordable housing) results in the loss of approximately 50 residential units. Cl. 4.4(1) (b) “to limit traffic generation as a result of that development.” Comment: Locating residential development within close proximity to the station and bus interchange is considered to have an impact on limiting traffic movements connected with the redevelopment of the site. However this is subject to the immediate road network being capable of supporting the traffic generated by the development. Subject to road widening in Albert Avenue in accordance with the draft VPA and further road widening recommended in the draft WDCP section, traffic movements in and around the site are considered capable of being managed. Traffic and car parking issues are discussed separately below. Cl. 4.4(1) (c) “to minimise the impacts of new development on adjoining or nearby

properties from disruption of views, loss of privacy, overshadowing or visual intrusion.”

Comment: Discussed above under height comment for Cl. 4.3(1) (b).



Cl. 4.4(1) (d) “to manage the bulk and scale of that development to suit the land use purpose and objectives of the zone.”

Comment: Discussed above under height comment for Cl. 4.3(1) (b) and Cl. 4.4(1) a). Further assessment of bulk and scale will occur at development application stage. Cl. 4.4(1) (e) “to permit higher density development at transport nodal points.” Comment: The subject site is located within an established central business district and major urban centre serviced by existing utilities infrastructure, within close proximity to rail and bus services. It is considered consistent with good planning principles, to allow high rise buildings and densities (subject to maintaining an adequate commercial component) in such well serviced transport locations. Cl. 4.4(1) (f) “to allow growth for a mix of retail, business and commercial purposes

consistent with Chatswood‟s sub-regional retail and business service, employment, entertainment and cultural roles while conserving the compactness of the city centre of Chatswood.”

Comment: The commercial component of 4.23:1 is slightly lower than the 4.5:1 as discussed in the 5 May 2015 Council report, however this is considered acceptable based on the following:

While the approved gross floor area for the subject site is 4.6:1, the existing net lettable floor area is 3.7:1. Therefore a commercial component of 4.23:1 is still above the existing net lettable floor area.

The calculation of floor space has changed under different planning instruments, with floor space previously measured to the outer face of external walls. Under WLEP 2012 gross floor area “means the sum of the floor area of each floor of a building measured from the internal face of external walls.”

The floor space ratio will remain above the current WLEP 2012 floor space ratio for the site of 2.5:1.

The redevelopment presents an opportunity to create a revitalised and more functional commercial component than what currently exists.

Cl. 4.4(1) (g) “to reinforce the primary character and land use of the city centre of

Chatswood with the area west of the North Shore Rail Line, being the commercial office core of Chatswood, and the area east of the North Shore Rail Line, being the retail shopping core of Chatswood.”

Comment: Discussed above under height comment for Cl. 4.3(1) (g). Cl. 4.4(1) (h) “to provide functional and accessible open spaces with good sunlight access

during key usage times and provide for passive and active enjoyment by workers, residents and visitors to the city centre of Chatswood.”

Comment: The proponent has offered a publicly accessible landscaped open space area connecting with the interchange public open space terrace precinct as part of the draft VPA. In mid winter, there is solar access to approximately 50% of this area at 1pm.



In respect to overshadowing of Chatswood Oval and Park, refer back to Cl. 4.3(1) (b) iii) above. Cl. 4.4(1) (i) “to achieve transitions in building scale and density from the higher intensity

business and retail centres to surrounding residential areas.” Comment: Discussed above under height comment for Cl. 4.3(1) (h). Cl. 4.4(1) (j) “to encourage the consolidation of certain land for redevelopment.” Comment: The Planning Proposal involves Lots 1, 2 and 3 DP 1035379 and Lots 41 and 42 DP 1150370 at 65 Albert Avenue, Chatswood. The subject corner site is located between the existing developed buildings at the Sebel to the north and the Sage to the west, with no land isolated as a result of this proposal. It is proposed to address consolidation in the draft WDCP Section E.5 (see below). Cl. 4.4(1) (k) “to encourage the provision of community facilities and affordable housing and

the conservation of heritage items by permitting additional gross floor area for these land uses.”

Comment: Affordable housing is provided under the Planning Proposal. Recommendation: That WLEP 2012 be amended by:

Identifying the land as Area 3 for the purposes of affordable housing in accordance with Clause 6.8 and Area 8 in accordance with Clause 6.22 outlined below on the Special Provisions Area Map.

Adding Clause 6.22 ‗Bonus height and floor space ratio available for development on 65 Albert Avenue‘ as follows:

―6.22 Bonus height and floor space ratio available for

development on 65 Albert Avenue

(1) This clause applies to the following land at 65 Albert Avenue, Chatswood:

(a) Lot 1, DP 1035379, (b) Lot 2, DP 1035379, (c) Lot 3, DP 1035379, (d) Lot 41, DP 1150370, (e) Lot 42, DP 1150370,

identified as ―Area 8‖ on the Special Provisions Area Map.

(2) Despite clauses 4.3 and 4.4, if the site area for development on land to

which this clause applies is greater than 3,000 square metres, development consent may be granted to development that will have:

(a) a height of any building on the land not exceeding:



(i) for that part of Area 8 that is shown edged black and marked ―181.95‖ on the Special Provisions Area Map - being RL 181.95 AHD.

(ii) for that part of Area 8 that is shown edged

black and marked ―140.7‖ on that Map - being RL 140.7 AHD.

d)Land Acquisition The proponent has offered a 3m wide road dedication to Council along Albert Ave as part of the draft VPA and this land has also been identified on the Land Acquisition Reservation Map. Recommendation: That WLEP 2012 be amended by:

Including on the Land Acquisition Reservation Map a 3 metre wide strip of land along the Albert Ave frontage of the site known as 65 Albert Ave for local road widening purposes.

3) Infrastructure

a) Traffic An assessment has been made regarding the impact of the proposed development on the immediate road network surrounding the site, being Victor Street, Albert Avenue, Orchard Road and each intersection. The Planning Proposal is accompanied by a Transport Impact Assessment prepared by GTA Consultants dated 16 April 2015. In respect to traffic impacts and vehicle access to the site, this report concluded:

“The site is expected to generate up to 53, 84 and 123 additional vehicle movements in the weekday AM and PM and Saturday lunchtime peak hours, respectively.

Three vehicle access options have been assessed and indicate that adequate capacity exists in the surrounding road network to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the site (Option 1 involved all traffic via Victor Street, Option 2 involved traffic in via Victor Street and out via Orchard Road, and Option 3 involved all traffic via Orchard Road).

There are competing interests between Council (pedestrian amenity) and RMS (through vehicle capacity) as to the most appropriate vehicle access option, however all three options are viable from a traffic perspective.”

As noted in the Council report dated 5 May 2014:

“The planning documentation advises that the development provides all vehicle access from Orchard Rd (rather than the existing Victor St access) with 594 car spaces in 6 basement parking levels. Orchard Rd would be reconfigured to provide two northbound lanes and one southbound lane. Details such as car parking layout, loading and unloading areas, garbage loading bays have not been provided at this stage.”



The Council report dated 5 May 2014 also concluded:

0.5 metre road widening for Orchard Road and 0.5 metre footpath widening for pedestrian access (which currently exists but would be reduced by road widening) was required.

The above widening is required due to the particular characteristics of that road, including the four support pylons for the Sage building being located within the road.

In respect to the footpath widening in Orchard Road, it was noted that the existing footpath is on a pedestrian desire line from Albert Ave to Chatswood station, so the developer will need to provide details showing how safe pedestrian access along Orchard Rd and through to the station may be managed.

That there are outstanding access issues that require resolution. The traffic impacts of the Planning Proposal have been identified as a major issue by both Council‘s Traffic Section and the RMS. Concern exists with the potential adverse impacts on Orchard Road, Victor Street and Albert Avenue. As noted above the Planning Proposal has all vehicles entering and leaving the site via Orchard Road, which has its own limitations. The existing development has all vehicular access and exit points via Victor Street, where there are existing traffic and pedestrian congestion issues and Albert Avenue is a significant access route to the Chatswood CBD and Pacific Highway. Both Council and the RMS have sought an acceptable outcome. The Transport Impact Assessment prepared by GTA Consultants dated 16 April 2015 was referred to Council‘s Traffic Section, who concluded:

1) Based on the results of the SIDRA analysis provided in the report, Option 2 would appear to be the most suitable of the 3 options from a traffic viewpoint as it would have the least impact on traffic congestion and delay times. This would involve all vehicles entering the car park from Victor Street and exiting to Orchard Road. Option 1 would not be considered, as Council would not accept having both the entry and exit from Victor Street, as is the current arrangement. There are problems associated with pedestrian amenity and queuing to enter and exit the existing Mandarin Centre car park. These problems would continue if Option 1 was used. Option 3 would cause significant delays at the Orchard Rd / Albert Ave intersection as it would require all vehicles to enter and exit the car park via Orchard Road.

2) Agree with the RMS comments that there should be 2 exit lanes on Orchard Road (north) and one entry lane. This would be necessary if Option 2 was considered, which would have all vehicles exiting from Orchard Road.

3) If Option 2 was adopted there would still be a requirement to dedicate a 3m wide strip of land along the Albert Avenue frontage.

4) There would also be a requirement for a 2m wide land dedication along the Victor Street frontage with corner splay to cater for the turning movements of service vehicles entering Victor Street and accessing the site.

5) If Option 2 was adopted then the exit lane on Orchard Road would need to be widened

from 3m to 4m with corner splay to cater for heavy vehicles and pedestrians.

6) More information will need to be provided at development application stage regarding the entry and exit points for vehicles, including heavy vehicles. All vehicle entry points on Victor Street should be as far as possible from the Albert Avenue intersection. Adequate manoeuvring is required to be shown for all vehicles exiting the site via Orchard Road.”



The latest traffic information, including Council‘s comments, was referred to the RMS, who concluded:

1) “That a site specific clause in WDCP include details of the infrastructure required” for “access provision in accordance with the Roads and Maritime‟s preferred access strategy "Option 2" (Entry via Victor Street and Exit via Orchard Road).

2) The VPA to include the provision for the kerbside southbound Orchard Road approach lane to the Albert Avenue / Orchard Road signals to be widened to 3.5m (to accommodate service vehicles).

3) The adopted VPA should also include indicative timeframes or trigger points for the

provision of the VPA works / land dedication.

4) Consideration should be given for provision in the VPA to ensure that the proposed changes at the Albert Avenue / Orchard Road signals comply with the following requirements: a) Fully funded and constructed by the developer / proponent. b) The developer / proponent will be required to submit detailed civil / signal

design plans that are designed to meet Roads and Maritime requirements, and endorsed by a suitably qualified practitioner. The design requirements shall be in accordance with AUSTROADS and other Australian Codes of Practice. The certified copies of the civil / signal design plans shall be submitted to Roads and Maritime for consideration and approval prior to the release of the Construction Certificate by the Principal Certifying Authority and commencement of road works.

The developer / proponent will be required to enter into a Works Authorisation Deed (WAD) with Roads and Maritime for the abovementioned changes at the Albert Avenue / Orchard Road signals.

Roads and Maritime fees for administration, plan checking, civil / signal works inspections and project management shall be paid by the developer / proponent prior to the commencement of the works.”

The proponent has provided under the draft VPA accompanying the Planning Proposal 3 metre road widening on Albert Avenue. However it should be noted that a full assessment of traffic issues from both Council‘s Traffic section and the RMS has only been able to occur following receipt of the latest traffic information dated 16 April 2015 and draft VPA. Based on a full assessment of traffic issues by both Council and the RMS, it is considered reasonable to accept the conclusions identified above and to require further road widening in Victor Street (2 metres for the length of the boundary) and Orchard Road (1 metre for the length of the boundary). It considered that at this stage in the process, the draft WDCP section is the appropriate mechanism to require this local road widening (see below under Draft WDCP Section E.3.5). Recommendation: That WLEP 2012 be amended by:

Including on the Land Acquisition Reservation Map a 3 metre wide strip of land along the Albert Ave frontage of the site known as 65 Albert Ave for local road widening purposes.



b) Car parking Concern was raised in submissions regarding both inadequate and excessive car parking provision and its impact on the area. The existing car parking on the site is 303 car spaces. Based on the Planning Proposal, a total of 904 car spaces are required under WDCP. The Concept design indicates 594 car spaces based on the RMS – Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (October 2002) and in particular the requirement for ‗High Density Residential Flat Buildings (Metropolitan Regional CBD Centres)‘. As noted in the Council report dated 5 May 2014 the original traffic report by GTA consultants justify the shortfall on:

“Proximity to Council interchange.

ABS data for low car parking rates in high density buildings in the Chatswood area.

General trends toward reduced private car usage rates.”

According to the traffic report, the proposal is an “opportunity to promote the vision of less dependence on private vehicle use by encouraging the use of public transport, cycling and walking and not encouraging an abundance of car parking within this area, and in turn an over use of motor vehicles.” The Council report dated 5 May 2014 went on to state:

“The existing Mandarin Centre currently provides 303 on-site car parking spaces accessed from Victor St, operated by Secure Parking and offers 3 hour free parking. This is inadequate and the car park is regularly full especially during peak school holiday times. The original parking provision for the Mandarin Centre was determined on the basis of some parking being satisfied from the Albert Ave Car Park. This arrangement was agreed prior to the introduction of extended retail trading hours when additional spare capacity in the Albert Ave Car Park was available. This is no longer the case and the development will need to satisfy its assessed parking demand on site.”

The Council report dated 5 May 2014 concluded that there are outstanding car parking issues that require resolution. Between the Council report of 5 May 2014 and this current report, consideration has been given to the appropriate car parking provision by both Council‘s Traffic Section and the RMS. Council is able to consider variation to car parking provision in the context of a development application on a merit basis. WDCP Section C.4 ‗Transport Requirements for Development‘ requires the following to be considered in any departure from car parking rates:

“The size and nature of the development, amount of additional floor area relative to the existing floor area and the parking demand generated;

Encouraging less use of motor vehicles, especially those developments close to railway stations and major public transport routes;

Availability and accessibility of other public parking;

Accessibility of public transport and the probable transport mode of users;

Existing and likely future traffic volumes on the surrounding road network and the nature of this network.”



Council‘s Traffic Section have concluded:

“The latest proposal is based on the number of retail spaces being increased to a rate of 3 spaces/100m2, and the residential parking reduced to be in accordance with the Guide to Traffic Generating Development‟s requirement for High Density Residential Flat Building Metropolitan Regional CBD Centres. It is considered that the proposal for 594 parking spaces is appropriate for this site.”

The RMS have concluded:

The following rates should below apply to the current site: - "Shop Top Housing" to provide "maximum parking rates" which are no greater

than the "High Density Residential Flat Building (Metropolitan Regional CBD Centres)" parking rates provided within the Roads and Maritime Services - Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (October 2002).

- "Retail" to provide "maximum parking rates" which are no greater than 3 spaces / 100m2.”

The car parking rates to apply to the subject site as recommended by Council‘s Traffic Section and the RMS are consistent with SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Code, which identifies appropriate (reduced) car parking provision based on proximity to public transport. The conclusions reached by Council‘s Traffic Section and the RMS are based on a concern with the ability of the surrounding road network to accommodate traffic generated by 310 car spaces in addition to the proposed 594 car spaces (total 904 in accordance with WDCP requirement). The appropriate car parking rate has been identified by the RMS, a recognized state authority on traffic generation matters and has been supported by Council‘s Traffic Section, with regard to a site within very close proximity to a train station and bus interchange. The car parking provision is considered acceptable provided car parking is determined on the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Development‘s requirement for High Density Residential Flat Building Metropolitan Regional CBD Centres and 3 spaces / 100m2 for retail. This car parking rate is to be included draft WDCP Section E.5 (see below). Any reduction in floor space as recommended in this report will reduce the amount of car spaces required. However it should be noted that as the floor space recommended to be reduced is residential, and the residential rates are lower rates than commercial, the reduction in car spaces from the required total will be relatively minor. 4) Construction Impacts An assessment has been made regarding the potential adverse impacts on neighbouring residential amenity from construction related to development of the site should the Planning Proposal be supported. The general locality surrounding the subject site has seen considerable recent construction activity. The occurrence of any recent construction or expected future construction is not a sufficient reason to refuse this Planning Proposal. The subject site is located within close proximity to the Chatswood CBD, where it can be reasonably expected that development will continue to occur. Construction impacts are addressed on a site by site basis, with any major disruptions to the road network covered in traffic management plans and addressed accordingly.



In regards to minimizing construction impacts on neighbouring properties and the immediate locality, a construction management plan may be required at development application stage for all phases of the development including demolition as well as construction. Such a plan may consider methods in minimising dust and noise, and control hours of work. A traffic management plan for all construction vehicles may also be required at development application stage to manage impacts on Albert Avenue and Victor Street and ensure satisfactory traffic flows. See draft WDCP Section E.5 below. 5) Community benefits The Planning Proposal enables broad community benefits that include:

Urban renewal of a key strategic site within Chatswood CBD.

Provision of existing and additional jobs in a highly accessible, strategic Major Centre location which is consistent with the subregional employment targets for Chatswood.

Provision of a renewed shopping centre with a more flexible form and layout that will attract a range of retail and entertainment tenants, including a potential new supermarket anchor.

Potential for residential apartments, including 4% affordable housing which supports the subregional housing targets for Chatswood.

More specifically, the Planning Proposal is accompanied by improvements to the surrounding road network, provision of additional public open space and footpath widening in a draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) as follows:

A 3m wide road dedication to Council along Albert Ave to enable adequate traffic access to and from the site.

A publicly accessible landscaped open space area (minimum area 97.8m2) connecting with the interchange public open space terrace precinct.

The provision of a two metre building setback at the ground level of the proposed development along the full length of the Victor St frontage of the site providing an active street frontage with a widened public footpath and street planting.

Assessment of the draft VPA is the subject of a separate report contained in this Agenda paper. As noted above, following advice from Council‘s Traffic Section and the RMS, it is proposed to require all vehicle access to the site to be via Victor Street and leave the site via Orchard Road. This alters the existing arrangement for the site in which all vehicles enter and leave the site via Victor Street. The implications of this arrangement have been carefully considered as discussed in the Traffic Section of this report in order to ensure an appropriate outcome that best serves the road network and community. Amendments are proposed to draft WDCP to satisfactorily address traffic issues. Road widening and associated construction costs are required along the three boundaries of the property adjacent roads. Refer to Draft WDCP Section E.3.5 below. 6) Willoughby Development Control Plan (WDCP) changes The draft WDCP Section E.3.5 that was exhibited has been amended in accordance with this report to include the following: • All lots forming part of this site are to be consolidated into one lot.



• All vehicular ingress to the site is to be from Victor St and egress from the site to be from Orchard Rd (north).

• 2 exit lanes are to be provided on Orchard Road, entering Albert Avenue.

• A 2 metre wide strip of land, with no encroachments, is to be dedicated to Council along Victor Street for the purposes of road widening. Construction of this road widening is to be at the full cost of the owner / developer.

• At the corner of Albert Avenue and Victor Street, in addition to any road widening, a splay is to be provided that complies with the swept turning path of a 12.5 metres long Heavy Rigid Vehicle (HRV).

• A 1 metre wide strip of land, with no encroachments except the publicly accessible open

space at Level 3, is to be dedicated to Council along the Orchard Road frontage of the site for local road widening purposes. Construction of this road widening is to be at the full cost of the owner / developer.

• At the corner of Albert Avenue and Orchard Road, in addition to any road widening, a

splay is to be provided that complies with the swept turning path of a 12.5 metre long Heavy Rigid Vehicle (HRV).

• The publicly accessible landscaped open space area (minimum area 97.8m2) connecting

with the interchange public open space terrace precinct is to be provided outside of any road widening.

• The ground floor of the development is to be setback 2 metres for the length of the Victor

Street frontage, in addition to any local road widening in Victor Street, in order to provide a widened footpath and tree planting. Construction of this footpath and tree planting is to be at the full cost of the owner / developer.

• Construction of the 3m wide road dedication to Council along Albert Ave is to be at the

full cost of the owner / developer.

• All vehicle entry points on Victor Street should be as far as possible from the Albert Avenue intersection. Adequate manoeuvring is required to be shown for all vehicles exiting the site via Orchard Road.

• Car parking for the site is to be based on the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating

Development‘s requirement for High Density Residential Flat Building Metropolitan Regional CBD Centres and 3 spaces / 100m2 for retail.

The proposed changes at the Albert Avenue / Orchard Road signals are to comply with the following RMS requirements:

a) Be fully funded and constructed by the owner / developer. b) The owner / developer will be required to submit detailed civil / signal design plans

that are designed to meet Roads and Maritime requirements, and endorsed by a suitably qualified practitioner. The design requirements shall be in accordance with AUSTROADS and other Australian Codes of Practice. The certified copies of the civil / signal design plans shall be submitted to Roads and Maritime for consideration and approval prior to the release of the Construction Certificate by the Principal Certifying Authority and commencement of road works.

c) The owner / developer will be required to enter into a Works Authorisation Deed (WAD) with Roads and Maritime for the abovementioned changes at the Albert Avenue / Orchard Road signals.



d) Roads and Maritime fees for administration, plan checking, civil / signal works inspections and project management shall be paid by the owner / developer prior to the commencement of the works.

A construction and traffic management plan for all phases of development (including demolition) is to be provided at development application stage, detailing how development on the site is to be managed to:

a) Have minimum impact on neighbouring properties. b) Have minimum impact on the surrounding road network. In this regard information is to

be provided on trucks routes, truck loading and unloading areas, and how impacts on Albert Avenue and Victor Street are to be minimized.

There is to be no overshadowing of Chatswood Oval from any redevelopment of the site.

‗End of trip facilities‘ (bike storage, change rooms, showers and lockers) are to be provided with the development application.

Recommendation: That:

WDCP Section E.3.5 be amended in accordance with Attachment 8.

Council support and adopt draft Willoughby Development Control Plan Section E3.5 for the site.

Conclusion

The Planning Proposal for the mixed use development of the land Lots 1, 2 and 3 DP 1035379 and Lots 41 and 42 DP 1150370 at 65 Albert Avenue, Chatswood, and the Concept design is generally supported subject to a number of areas of concern being adequately addressed. The additional use of shop top housing on the site is consistent with the priority for Chatswood, identified as a strategic centre in ‗A Plan for Growing Sydney‘, and is supported in this case. In addition the footprint of the two towers above the Podium and the height of the Eastern and Western Towers are generally supported subject to floor space concerns and compliance with SEPP 65. The lower Western Tower and elliptical shaped Eastern Tower are considered acceptable solutions in maximising views and minimising adverse privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties. The proposed floor space ratio is an issue because there is concern that the floor space proposed is unable to be located within the building foot prints and envelopes shown in the Concept design. Furthermore it is noted that the Concept does not comply with the building separation requirements of SEPP 65 and the accompanying Apartment Design Code. It is recommended that the Planning Proposal have a floor space ratio of 8.65:1 excluding affordable housing with shop top housing not exceeding 4.42:1, and a commercial component not being less than 4.23:1. The reduction in the residential component from 6:1 to 4.42:1 results in the loss of approximately 50 residential units. The commercial component of 4.23:1 is slightly lower than the 4.5:1 as discussed in 5 May 2014 Council report, however this is considered acceptable as discussed in the report.



Vehicle access to and from the site is a significant issue for this Planning Proposal to satisfactorily address. Following consideration of traffic issues by both the Council‘s Traffic Section and the RMS, it has been concluded that all traffic ingress to the site is to be via Victor Street and all egress from the site to be via Orchard Road. It is recommended that this be included in Draft WDCP Section E.3.5. Full details on vehicle access (loading and unloading, and all on-site vehicle manoeuvring) will be further considered at development application stage. Appropriate measures have been considered to facilitate the abovementioned supported vehicle access

attachments: 1. previous report to council …...sep 09, 2015 · item - 9.5 planning proposal...

Documents