state significant development assessment ikea multi

STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

IKEA Multi-Function Logistics Unit Warehouse and Distribution Centre, Blacktown (SSD 6954)

Environmental Assessment Report

Section 89H of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

May 2016

ABBREVEATIONS AND DEFINTIONS

Applicant IKEA Distribution Services Australia Pty Ltd AS Australian Standard BCA Building Code of Australia CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan CIV Capital Investment Value Construction The demolition of buildings or works, carrying out of works, including erection of buildings

and other infrastructure covered by this consent Council Blacktown City Council DA 15/1088 Development Application 15/1088 determined by Blacktown City Council for bulk earthworks,

tree removal, sediment/erosion control works, importation of fill material, preparation of the site for future roads, and construction of a building pad for a future IKEA warehouse and distribution centre on proposed Lot 1 in DP 1208554

Dangerous Goods As defined by the Australian Dangerous Goods Code 7th Edition (Australian Government, 2010)

Day The period from 7 am to 6 pm on Monday to Saturday, and 8 am to 6 pm on Sundays and Public Holidays

Department Department of Planning and Environment Development The Development as described in the EIS and RTS for the construction of a warehouse and

distribution facility and supporting estate civil works EIS Environmental Impact Statement titled ‘Proposed IKEA Multi-Function Logistics Unit and

associated Estate Civil and Infrastructure Works’, prepared by FDC Construction and Fitout Pty Ltd, dated 8 July 2015

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 EP&A Regulation Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 EPA Environment Protection Authority EPI Environmental Planning Instrument Growth Centres DCP Blacktown City Council Growth Centre Precincts Development Control Plan 2010 Growth Centres SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 Minister Minister for Planning MFLU Multi-Function Logistics Unit MPIP Marsden Park Industrial Precinct OEMP Operational Environmental Management Plan Precinct Plan The Marsden Park Industrial Precinct Plan contained within Appendix 5 of the Growth

Centres SEPP RMS Roads and Maritime Services RTS Response to Submissions titled ‘SSD_6954 Response to Submissions Report’, prepared by

FDC Construction and Fitout Pty Ltd, dated 26 November 2015 SBP Sydney Business Park SEARs Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements Secretary Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment, or nominee SRD SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 TfNSW Transport for NSW

Cover Photograph: Aerial View of Marsden Park Industrial Precinct (Nearmap 2016)

© Crown copyright 2016 Published May 2016 Department of Planning and Environment www.planning.nsw.gov.au

Disclaimer: While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that this document is correct at the time of publication, the State of New South Wales, its agents and employees, disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of anything or the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the whole or any part of this document.

NSW Government Department of Planning and Environment i

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/

Table of Contents

1. BACKGROUND 2 1.1. The Proposal 2 1.2. Site and Site Context 2 1.3. Other Approvals 3

2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 5 2.1. Development Summary 5 2.2. Project Need and Justification 9

3. STRATEGIC AND STATURORY CONTEXT 9 3.1. Strategic Context 9 3.2. State Significant Development 9 3.3. Consent Authority 9 3.4. Permissibility 10 3.5. Consideration under Section 79C of the EP&A Act 10 3.6. Environmental Planning Instruments 10 3.7. Objects of the EP&A Act 10 3.8. Ecologically Sustainable Development 11 3.9. Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 12

4. CONSULTATION AND SUBMISSIONS 12 4.1. Public Exhibition 12 4.2. Public Authorities 12 4.3. Response to Submissions 14

5. ASSESSMENT 15 5.1. Compliance with the Growth Centres SEPP and Growth Centres DCP 15 5.2. Urban Design and Visual Impacts 19 5.3. Traffic, Parking and Access 25 5.4. Noise 27 5.5. Stormwater and Drainage 29 5.6. Other Issues 32

6. CONCLUSION 33 7. RECOMMENDATION 34 APPENDIX A CONDITIONS OF CONSENT 35 APPENDIX B CONSIDERATIONS UNDER SECTION 79C OF THE EP&A ACT 36 APPENDIX C CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 37 APPENDIX D COMPLIANCE WITH THE GROWTH CENTRES DCP 39 APPENDIX E ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 43 APPENDIX F SUBMISSIONS 44 APPENDIX G RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS 45

NSW Government Department of Planning and Environment ii

IKEA Multi-Function Logistics Unit, Sydney Business Park Environmental Assessment Report SSD 6954

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FDC Construction and Fitout, on behalf of IKEA Distribution Services Australia Pty Ltd (the Applicant) has lodged a Development Application (DA) and accompanying Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) seeking consent to construct and operate a warehouse and distribution centre and associated estate civil infrastructure within the Sydney Business Park, in Marsden Park in the Blacktown local government area.

The warehouse will have a gross floor area (GFA) of 70,391 m2 with a high bay storage component, to store and distribute goods to IKEA’s retail stores throughout Australia. The development will operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week.

The proposal has a capital investment value (CIV) of $112 million. It will generate 170 jobs during construction and approximately 165 full-time equivalent jobs during operation.

The development is classified as State significant development (SSD) under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) as it satisfies clause 12, Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 (SRD SEPP) being for the construction of a warehouse and distribution centre with a CIV in excess of $50 million. Consequently, the Minister for Planning is the consent authority for the development.

The Department exhibited the DA and EIS from 5 August 2015 to 7 September 2015 (34 days) and received eight submissions, including one from Blacktown City Council and seven from other government agencies. No submissions were received from the public.

Council initially objected to the development as the high bay component of the proposed warehouse exceeds the 18 m height limit identified in State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 (Growth Centres SEPP), and the warehouse had not been designed to achieve design excellence. Council also raised concern the development was inconsistent with the zoning controls outlined in the Growth Centres SEPP and the Indicative Layout Plan of the Blacktown City Council Growth Centre Precincts Development Control Plan 2010 (Growth Centres DCP). Residual concerns were also raised in relation to the proposed stormwater management strategy, and the amount of provisional car parking proposed on-site.

No other agency objected to the development, however, concerns were raised in relation to the modelling provided in the Applicant’s Traffic Impact Assessment, the potential biodiversity and water quality impacts of the development on the Little Creek chain of ponds and the impact of landscaping within the TransGrid easement.

The Applicant provided a Response to Submissions (RTS) report to address the issues raised in the agency submissions. The RTS provided justification for the proposed variations to the height and zoning controls in the Growth Centres SEPP and the Indicative Layout Plan of the Growth Centres DCP. It also included revised architectural and civil drawings to respond to the design and stormwater management issues raised by Council, the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) and TransGrid.

Further revisions to the architectural treatments proposed on the high bay component of the warehouse were made to respond to Council’s residual concerns. Council subsequently withdrew its objection and advised its residual car parking and stormwater management concerns could be resolved via conditions of consent.

The Department has assessed the application and has concluded the key issues for assessment are compliance with the Growth Centres SEPP, urban design, visual, stormwater and drainage, traffic and site access and noise.

The Department has concluded the impacts of the proposed development can be mitigated and/or managed to ensure an acceptable level of environmental performance, subject to the recommended conditions of consent. Further, the proposed development would provide employment opportunities in Western Sydney consistent with the State Priorities for NSW, including the Premier’s key priorities and the goals, directions and actions outlined in A Plan for Growing Sydney. Consequently, the Department has concluded the proposal is in the public interest and should be approved, subject to conditions.

NSW Government Department of Planning and Environment 1


1. BACKGROUND 1.1. The Proposal FDC Construction and Fitout, on behalf of IKEA Distribution Services Australia Pty Ltd (the Applicant), has sought development consent to construct and operate a warehouse and distribution centre, and supporting infrastructure works, within Sydney Business Park in the Blacktown local government area (LGA).

The Applicant seeks consent to construct and operate a 70,391 m2 warehouse and distribution centre with a high bay storage component to service IKEA’s retail stores throughout Australia. The facility is proposed to operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The application also proposes the construction of infrastructure, including roads and stormwater management devices, to service the other developments within the Sydney Business Park.

1.2. Site and Site Context The subject site is 12.56 hectares (ha) in area and located within a 256 ha development known as the Sydney Business Park. Sydney Business Park forms approximately 50 per cent of the Marsden Park Industrial Precinct, which is one of the key employment precincts identified in State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 (Growth Centres SEPP).

The IKEA warehouse is proposed on Lot 1 in DP 1208554, and the estate infrastructure works are proposed on Lots 3 and 4 in DP 1208554, Lots 128 and 132 in DP 1194052 and Lot 2 in DP 1188147.

The subject site comprises cleared land with some remnant vegetation surrounding the proposed building footprint. Surrounding land uses include business park zoned land to the north, industrial zoned land to the east and south, and South Street, the Air Services Australia Site and the Little Creek chain of ponds to the west. Two TransGrid transmission towers are located in close proximity to the western site boundary (see Figure 1).

The nearest residential receiver is located 210 metres (m) to the north-west of the site on land zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The Stony Creek Active Lifestyles Estate (an over 55s residential estate), which is an existing use located on IN1 General Industrial zoned land, is approximately 450 m to the south-east. The nearest residential suburb is Bidwill, approximately 800 m to the south. A Location Plan is provided at Figure 2.

Figure 1: Regional Context (Source: Nearmap)

Quakers Hill Bidwill

Subject Site

Stony Creek Active Lifestyle Estate

Blacktown CBD Glendenning



Figure 2: Local Context (Source: Nearmap)

1.3. Other Approvals Blacktown City Council (Council) has issued a number of development consents to facilitate the redevelopment of a 256 ha site, known as the Sydney Business Park. The key consent relevant to the redevelopment of the subject site is DA 15-1088, which permits bulk earthworks, tree removal, sediment and erosion control works, importation of fill material, site preparation works for estate Road 5, and construction of the building pad for the IKEA facility. The approved development and the extent of works under DA 15-1088 are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. To date, the Applicant has completed vegetation clearing and bulk earthworks and is finalising the establishment of the building pad for the proposed IKEA warehouse. The Department also notes Sydney Business Park recently registered a Plan of Subdivision (Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1208554) to ensure the proposed warehouse is located within the boundaries of a single allotment. No development consent was obtained prior to the creation of this lot.

Subject Site

Active Lifestyle Estate

Nearest Residential Receiver

Sydney Business Park (Orange Outline)



Figure 3: Details of Works Approved under DA 15-1088 (Source: RTS)

Figure 4: Extent of Works Plan for DA 15-1088 (Source: RTS)

Alignment of Road 5 and Basin B Area

IKEA Pad



2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2.1. Development Summary The Applicant is seeking development consent to construct and operate a warehouse and distribution centre to service its Australian retail stores. In addition to the warehouse facility, the Applicant is also seeking consent to construct the residual portion of estate Road 5 identified in the Growth Centres SEPP to facilitate vehicle access to the site.

The application also seeks consent to construct one of the estate basins identified within Council’s development contributions plan (Basin B) to ensure there is sufficient capacity in the estate drainage system to accommodate the operation of the IKEA development.

The major components of the development are summarised in Table 1 and are shown in Figure 5 to Figure 7. The proposal is described in full in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), with clarifications provided in the Response to Submissions (RTS) which are provided at Appendix D and Appendix F, respectively.

Table 1: Key Development Components Aspect Description Development Summary Construction and operation of a 70,391 m2 warehouse and distribution facility with a

high bay storage component, a single level ancillary office and associated landscaping, road and drainage works.

Proposed Use Warehousing and distribution with ancillary office space. Land Description Lot Deposited Plan

Warehouse 1 1208554 Estate Works 3 and 4 1208554

128 and 132 1194052 2 1188147

Facility Description

• a total gross floor area (GFA) of 70,391 m2 comprised of: − 69,033 m2 of warehouse floor space; and − 1,358 m2 of office floor space;

• a building height of 13.7 m for the standard height component of the development, and 34.7 m for the high bay component;

• nine automated high bay cranes; • 75 loading docks; • staff amenities; • photovoltaic system; • building management system; • on-site stormwater management system; and • rainwater harvesting and re-use system.

Access and Roads • construction of the road surface for estate Road 5. Stormwater and Drainage • construction of estate stormwater infrastructure including:

− detention Basin B; and − pits and culverts underneath estate Road 5.

• construction of on-lot infrastructure including: − a 440 kilolitre (kl) rainwater tank; − a bio-filtration swale with a filter area of 1,400 m2; and − a gross pollutant trap downstream of the bio-filtration swale within estate

Basin B. Road Traffic Construction Operation • 40 vehicle movements per day • 355 vehicle movements per day Landscaping • 7,000 m2 of on-site landscaping to be undertaken around the perimeter of the site. Hours of Operation • 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Parking • 262 permanent car parking spaces including six disabled parking spaces;

• 6 motorcycle parking spaces; and • 50 bicycle parking bays.

Infrastructure and Services • construction of water, electricity, sewer and communications infrastructure. Capital Investment Value • $112,494,000. Employment • 170 construction jobs; and

• 165 operational jobs.



Figure 5: Extent of IKEA Site and Estate Civil Works (Source: EIS)

IKEA Warehouse

TransGrid Easement

Estate Basin B

Estate Road 5 (Yellow)



Figure 6: Site Layout of IKEA Warehouse (Source: RTS)

Estate Basin B

Site Access

TransGrid Towers

Office and Staff Amenity Area

Car Park

Warehouse Footprint



Figure 7: Warehouse Elevations (Source: Supplementary RTS)

34.7 m

13.7 m

34.7 m 13.7 m

High Bay Storage

High Bay Storage



2.2. Project Need and Justification IKEA operates nine retail stores in Australia. These currently include: Majura (ACT), Marsden Park (NSW), Rhodes (NSW), Tempe (NSW), Adelaide Airport (SA), Richmond (VIC), Springvale (VIC), Logan (QLD) and Innaloo (WA), with new retail stores in Campbellfield (VIC) and North Lakes (QLD) scheduled to open in 2016.

IKEA has advised the growth of its retail network has generated the need to construct a purpose built warehouse and distribution facility. The proposed facility will facilitate the consolidation of IKEA’s existing logistical centres and allows the efficient distribution of goods to its retail stores throughout Australia. IKEA have advised the use of automated high bay systems technology is a key driver in its decision to develop at the subject site. High bay storage in conjunction with an automatic storage and retrieval systems (ASRS) allows larger volumes of goods to be stored on-site, with greater efficiency compared to a standard height warehouse development.

The Applicant has also advised the proposal will facilitate the on-going development of the Marsden Park Industrial Precinct (MPIP) in the North West Growth Centre and will take advantage of the sites proximity to the regional road network and other existing infrastructure.

In addition, IKEA has advised the facility is consistent with the goals, directions and actions outlined in A Plan for Growing Sydney as it will contribute to the growth of industry, the provision of employment opportunities in the region and will generate income to support the management and development of Western Sydney.

3. STRATEGIC AND STATURORY CONTEXT 3.1. Strategic Context The State Priorities for NSW and the Premier’s 12 key priorities seek to encourage business investment and the creation of 150,000 new jobs in NSW by 2019.

The construction and operation of the proposal would contribute towards the targets outlined in the State Priorities for NSW by investing approximately $112 million in Western Sydney which would have would generate 170 construction jobs and 165 full-time equivalent jobs once operational.

The proposal is also consistent with the goals, directions and actions outlined in A Plan for Growing Sydney as it will, as it will: • assist in the transformation of Western Sydney by providing growth and investment in an identified

industrial precinct with high levels of accessibility to the regional road network and existing and planned public transport and cycle infrastructure (Direction 1.4);

• provide additional employment opportunities within close proximity to existing residential developments in Western Sydney (Direction 1.4); and

• provide a high quality development that will stimulate economic activity and create new jobs within the Marsden Park strategic centre (Direction 1.7).

3.2. State Significant Development The proposal is a State significant development pursuant to section 89C of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) because it triggers the criteria in clause 3, Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 (SRD SEPP) being for the development of a warehousing and distribution centre with a CIV of more than $50 million. Therefore, the Minister for Planning is the consent authority for the development.

3.3. Consent Authority On 16 February 2015, the Minister for Planning delegated the responsibility for the determination of SSD applications to Executive Directors who report to the Deputy Secretary, Planning Services where: • the relevant local council has not made an objection to the application; or • a political donation disclosure statement has not been made; or • there are less than 25 public submissions in the nature of objections.



The Executive Director, Key Sites and Industry Assessments may determine the SSD application as the Council supports the proposed development, no political donation disclosures have been made, and no public submissions have been received in relation to the application.

3.4. Permissibility The site is located in the North West Growth Centre. Land use planning for the site is regulated under the Marsden Park Industrial Precinct Plan (MPIP Precinct Plan) which forms part of the Growth Centres SEPP. The majority of the IKEA site is zoned IN1 General Industrial under the MPIP Precinct Plan. The site also straddles land which is zoned SP2 Infrastructure and B7 Business Park.

Warehouse and distribution centres with ancillary office facilities, road and drainage infrastructure works are permissible with consent within the IN1 General Industrial zone. However, warehousing and distribution uses are prohibited in the SP2 zone as the intent of this zone is to facilitate the provision of road and other servicing infrastructure within the MPIP.

Section 89E(3) of the EP&A Act specifies development consent may be granted for a State significant development despite it being partly prohibited under an environmental planning instrument (EPI). As only parts of the proposed warehouse building and hardstand encroach onto SP2 zone, the proposed development is only partly prohibited and development consent may be granted to the SSD application.

3.5. Consideration under Section 79C of the EP&A Act Section 79C of the EP&A Act sets out the matters to be considered by a consent authority when determining a development application. The Department’s consideration of these matters is set out in Section 5 and Appendix B. In summary, the Department is satisfied the proposal is consistent with the requirements of section 79C of the EP&A Act.

3.6. Environmental Planning Instruments The following State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) were considered in the assessment of the proposal: • State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011; • State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007; • State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006; • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land; and • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage.

Detailed consideration of the provisions of all EPIs that apply to the proposal is provided in Appendix C of this report. The Department is satisfied the proposal generally complies with the relevant provisions of these EPIs.

3.7. Objects of the EP&A Act In determining an application, a consent authority must consider whether an application is consistent with the relevant objects of the EP&A Act. These objects are detailed in clause 5 of the Act, and include:

(a) to encourage: (i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources,

including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land, (iii) the protection, provision and co-ordination of communication and utility services, (iv) the provision of land for public purposes, (v) the provision and co-ordination of community services and facilities, and (vi) the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native animals

and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats, and

(vii) ecologically sustainable development, and (viii) the provision and maintenance of affordable housing, and

(b) to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning between the different levels of government in the State, and



(c) to provide increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in environmental planning and assessment.

The Department has fully considered the objects of the EP&A Act, including the encouragement of ecologically sustainable development (ESD), in its assessment of the application.

The Department considers objects 5(a) (i), (ii), (vi) and (vii), 5(b) and 5(c) are most relevant to the merit assessment of this application. The Department has given due consideration to these objects in its assessment of the proposal (see Table 2).

Table 2: Objects of the EP&A Act and Relevance to the Proposal Object Consideration

5(a)(i)

The proposal would ensure the proper management and development of suitably zoned (i.e. industrial) land for the economic enhancement of the community including the provision of 165 full-time equivalent jobs within the North West Growth Centre. The proposal has been designed to meet current best practice environmental standards. The potential impacts of the proposal have been minimised through appropriate site selection, site layout, design and proposed environmental control measures.

5(a)(ii) The proposal is located on suitably zoned land and would be used economically to ensure the employment of 165 full time operational staff.

5(a)(vi) The Department’s assessment in Section 5 of this report demonstrates that with the implementation of the recommended conditions of consent, the impacts of the development can be mitigated and/or managed to ensure the environment is protected.

5(a)(vii)

The site preparation works for this proposal, including site clearing and earthworks, are being completed under a Part 4 consent issued by Blacktown City Council (DA 15-1088). The proposal is therefore unlikely to have an adverse impact on native flora or fauna, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities or their habitats.

5(b)

The Department has assessed the development in consultation with, and giving due consideration to, the technical expertise and comments provided by Council and other government authorities. This is consistent with the object of sharing the responsibility for environmental planning between the different levels of government in the State.

5(c) The application was exhibited in accordance with section 89F(1) of the EP&A Act to provide public involvement and participation in the environmental planning and assessment of this application.

3.8. Ecologically Sustainable Development The EP&A Act adopts the definition of ESD found in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (POEA Act). Section 6(2) of the POEA Act states ESD requires the effective integration of economic and environmental considerations in decision-making processes and ESD can be achieved through the implementation of: (a) the precautionary principle; (b) inter-generational equity; (c) conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity; and (d) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms. The Department’s assessment of the proposal (refer Section 5) is based on a conservative and rigorous assessment of the likely impacts, with consideration of cumulative impacts from existing and approved developments in the Sydney Business Park and the broader MPIP.

The Department has considered the need to encourage the principles of ESD, in addition to the need for the proper management and conservation of natural resources, the orderly development of land, the need for the proposal as a whole, and the protection of the environment including threatened species within Section 5 of this report.

The Department notes the broader MPIP has undergone a strategic biodiversity impact assessment to ensure the biodiversity impacts of development within the MPIP are offset. In addition, the MPIP is biodiversity certified under Part 7AA of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. As such, the Department has concluded that subject to recommended conditions of consent, the proposal will not result in any adverse biodiversity outcomes.

The proposal also incorporates the following ESD measures to manage and minimise resource and energy use on-site: • roof top photovoltaic cells;



• translucent roof panelling to minimise reliance on artificial lighting; • an automated building management system (BMS); • LED lighting fittings; • AAA rated water fixtures; and • rainwater harvesting and re-use.

3.9. Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 Subject to any other references to compliance with the EP&A Regulation cited in this report, the requirements for notification (Part 6, Division 6) and fees (Part 15, Division 1AA) have been complied with.

4. CONSULTATION AND SUBMISSIONS 4.1. Public Exhibition Under section 89F(1) of the EP&A Act, the Secretary is required to make a State significant DA, EIS and any accompanying information publicly available for at least 30 days. After accepting the DA and EIS, the Department: • made it publicly available from Wednesday 5 August 2015 until Monday 7 September 2015 (34 days

inclusive): - on the Department’s website; - at the Department’s Information Centre (Sydney); - at the Nature Conservation Council (Sydney); and - at Blacktown City Council;

• notified landowners in the vicinity of the proposal about the exhibition period by letter; • notified relevant State government authorities, the State member and Blacktown City Council about the

exhibition period by letter; and • advertised the exhibition in the Blacktown Advocate and the Blacktown Sun.

A total of eight submissions were received during the public exhibition period, all from public authorities. No public submissions were received. A summary of the issues raised in submissions is provided below and each submission is provided in full in Appendix E. 4.2. Public Authorities Blacktown City Council (Council) initially objected to the proposal due to the high bay storage component of the development exceeding the height limit for the site and the development not being designed to achieve design excellence. In addition it raised the following residual concerns:

Zoning • portions of the proposed warehouse encroach into the SP2 Infrastructure zone and development for this

purpose is prohibited within this zone.

Urban Design and Landscaping • the high bay component of the development has been poorly designed and does not exhibit design

excellence. The Applicant should revise this component of the development to provide a design solution which is consistent with the quality of the built form within the broader MPIP;

• the landscape plans provide a suitable design response, however the Applicant should provide suitably sized vegetation to ensure the development is screened within a suitable timeframe; and

• the architectural plans do not include details of the proposed boundary fencing or retaining walls. Stormwater Drainage • the hydraulic modelling should be revised to include a full catchment plan and stream stability

assessment. In addition, the Applicant should address Council’s residual engineering concerns; • Basin B should be constructed prior to the occupation of the IKEA facility and an interim right-of-way

should be provided to enable access until the South Street upgrade is complete; and • piped and overland flows from the IKEA site should bypass the bio-retention basin located within estate

Basin B.



Contributions • contributions shall be levied in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plan No. 21 – Marsden

Park Industrial Precinct (Contribution Plan).

Traffic and Parking • car parking should comply with the Blacktown City Council Growth Centre Precincts Development

Control Plan 2010 (Growth Centres DCP). The Department reviewed Council’s comments and agreed the Applicant should revise the design of the high bay component of the development to achieve design excellence. In addition, the Department requested the Applicant address Council’s residual engineering and car parking concerns in its RTS. Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) raised no objection to the development subject to the Applicant ensuring all vehicles access the site via the Richmond Road/Townson Road intersection. The Department has recommended conditions of consent to address the issues raised by RMS. Transport for NSW (TfNSW) raised no objection, however it requested the Applicant: • revise its Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) to:

- justify why the impacts on the Richmond Road/South Street intersection were not modelled; - identify how heavy vehicle and pedestrian movements will be separated in accordance with

Council’s requirements; - ensure bicycle parking is provided in accordance with the Austroads guidelines; and - address how the development will integrate with planned bicycle routes;

• identify whether high productivity vehicles (vehicles up to 30 m in length) can access the site; • prepare a Construction Traffic Management prior to the commencement of construction; and • prepare a Workplace Travel Management Plan. The Department has reviewed TfNSW’s comments and requested the Applicant address these issues in its RTS. In addition, the Department has recommended conditions of consent to ensure the Applicant prepares and implements a Construction Traffic Management Plan and Workplace Travel Management Plan. Department of Primary Industries (DPI) raised no objection, however it requested the Applicant: • provide an assessment of the groundwater impacts of the proposed development; • provide an assessment of the impact of the development on the Little Creek chain of ponds; and • clarify the timing for the construction of Basin B and the associated bio-filtration basins; The Department has reviewed DPI’s comments and notes the EIS did not include an assessment of the groundwater impacts of the development as the excavation required to service the site was approved by Council under DA 15-1088. The Department has requested the Applicant address DPI’s residual concerns in its RTS. In addition, the Department has recommended conditions of consent to ensure all stormwater infrastructure is designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s engineering requirements. Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) raised no objection, however it advised: • the subject site drains into a tributary of Little Creek which is located on land that is not biodiversity

certified under Part 7AA of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and is zoned Environmental Conservation and Public Recreation – Regional under the Growth Centres SEPP; and

• the development should meet the ‘ideal’ stormwater water quality and environmental flow targets outlined in the Growth Centres DCP.

The Department has reviewed the OEH’s comments and requested the Applicant quantify the impacts of the proposed development on the Little Creek chain of ponds in its RTS. TransGrid raised no objection, however, it requested conditions to ensure: • the Applicant provides an Earthing Study prior to the commencement of any construction within 30 m of

the TransGrid transmission towers; • all landscaping along the western site boundary does not exceed a height of three metres at maturity;



• 24 hour access is provided to TransGrid’s transmission towers; and • the Applicant notifies TransGrid prior to any construction works occurring on-site.

The Department has reviewed TransGrid’s comments and has recommend conditions of consent to manage the construction and operational impacts of the development on TransGrid’s assets. Sydney Water raised no objection, and advised the development is subject to the Government’s Precinct Acceleration Protocol, which requires the Applicant to deliver all water and wastewater infrastructure required to service the site. The Department has recommended conditions of consent to ensure the site is serviced prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. Environment Protection Authority (EPA) raised no objection, and advised the proposed development is not classified as a scheduled activity under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. 4.3. Response to Submissions On 27 November 2015, the Applicant submitted an RTS to address the issues raised in the agency submissions. The RTS presented three design options to respond to Council’s concerns, with ‘Option 3’ preferred by the Applicant. In addition, the RTS included the following additional information: • updated civil engineering plans; • amended details for the bio-retention basin; • revised swept path analysis to confirm high productivity vehicles can access the site, if required in the

future; • revised bicycle and car parking arrangements; • confirmed the scope of works approved under DA 15-1088; and • revised management and mitigation measures. Following the lodgement of the RTS, the Applicant provided a fourth option (‘Option 4’) to respond to concerns raised by the Department and Council. The RTS was referred to Council, DPI, RMS, TfNSW, OEH, TransGrid and Sydney Water for comment. The Department received submissions from Council, DPI, RMS, TfNSW, OEH and TransGrid. A summary of these submissions is provided below. Council withdrew its objection and advised design ‘Option 4’ will complement the existing buildings within the MPIP. In addition, Council advised the recommended conditions of consent resolve Council’s residual landscaping, engineering and car parking concerns. DPI advised the RTS addressed the issues raised in its submission. RMS advised the RTS addressed the issues raised in its submission and requested a condition of consent to ensure all operational traffic accesses the site via the Richmond Road/Townson Road intersection. The Department has recommended a condition requiring the Applicant to ensure all vehicles access the site via the Richmond Road/Hollinsworth Road intersection until South Street is upgraded to support heavy vehicle movements. TfNSW advised the RTS addressed the issues raised in its submission, however it requested the Applicant prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan and Workplace Travel Plan. The Department has recommended conditions of consent requiring the Applicant to prepare and implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan and Workplace Travel Plan. OEH advised the DA should not be determined until the Applicant can demonstrate the proposed development will not result in any indirect impacts on the water quality or biodiversity values of land downstream of the site (the Little Creek Chain of ponds).



The Department has reviewed the OEH’s comments and has concluded Basin B has been designed to accommodate a future connection to the stormwater diversion pipe identified in Council’s Protecting Little Creek Report. The intention of the diversion pipe is to ensure all water from the MPIP entering the Little Creek chain of ponds achieves the ‘ideal’ water quality targets outlined in the Growth Centres DCP. As Council has not yet adopted the recommendations of the Protecting Little Creek Report, the Department has recommended a condition of consent requiring the Applicant to prepare an Interim Stormwater Management Plan to manage the impact of the development on the Little Creek chain of ponds. This plan must be consistent with the findings of the Protecting Little Creek – Marsden Park Industrial Precinct Little Creek Catchment Alternate Stormwater Management Strategy, prepared by Bligh Tanner Pty Ltd, dated 23 June 2015, and must be implemented until Basin B is connected to the stormwater diversion pipe proposed by Council. TransGrid advised its recommended conditions of consent are still required to address TransGrid’s concerns. The Department has included the conditions recommended by TransGrid in the recommended conditions of consent. 5. ASSESSMENT The Department has considered the EIS, the issues raised in the submissions, and the Applicant’s RTS and supplementary information in its assessment of the proposal. The Department considers the key assessment issues are: • compliance with the Growth Centres SEPP and the Growth Centres DCP; • urban design and visual impacts; • traffic, parking and access; • noise; and • stormwater and drainage. A number of other issues have also been considered. These issues have been considered to be minor and are addressed in Section 5.6 of this report. 5.1. Compliance with the Growth Centres SEPP and Growth Centres DCP As outlined in Section 2.1 of this report, the application seeks approval to construct a 70,391 m2 warehouse building, a portion of which exceeds the 18 m height limit applicable to the site under the Growth Centres SEPP (see Figures 8 and 9). In addition, portions of the proposed building extend into the SP2 Infrastructure Zone and require a variation to the zoning controls applicable under the Growth Centres SEPP, as well as a variation to the Indicative Layout Plan identified in the Growth Centres DCP (see Figure 10).

Figure 8: Extent of Non-Compliance with the Growth Centres SEPP Height Control along Primary Frontage

Figure 9: Extent of Non-Compliance with the Growth Centres SEPP Height Control along Secondary Frontage

18 m height limit

18 m height limit



Figure 10: Extent of Non-Compliance with the Zoning Controls and the Marsden Park Indicative Layout Plan

The Department’s assessment of the development against the provisions of the Growth Centres SEPP and DCP are provided in Sections 5.1.1 to 5.1.3 below. 5.1.1 Variations to the Height Control The Growth Centres SEPP provides controls to co-ordinate land release in the North West and South West growth centres. Clause 7 of the Growth Centres SEPP requires a consent authority to consider the provisions of the MPIP Precinct Plan provided at Appendix 5 of the SEPP prior to granting consent to a DA. The Growth Centres DCP includes planning, design and environmental objectives and controls that supplement the controls contained in the MPIP Precinct Plan. Whilst clause 11 of the SRD SEPP specifies DCPs do not apply to State significant development, the Department has assessed the development, as amended by the RTS, against the provisions of the MPIP Precinct Plan and the Growth Centres DCP. This assessment concluded the proposed development will: • provide a high quality built form outcome that will:

- create a functional and innovative warehouse development; - provide employment opportunities and enhance economic growth within the MPIP; - promote pedestrian and vehicle connectivity within the MPIP; and - provide for sustainable development through the incorporation of ESD initiatives in the design of the

warehouse consistent with the aims of the MPIP Precinct Plan; • provide for warehousing and industrial uses that minimise adverse impacts on other land uses, and

support road and water management infrastructure within the MPIP consistent with the objectives of the IN2 Light Industrial, B7 Business Park and SP2 Infrastructure zones applicable to the site; and

• comply with the design, setback, water quality, landscaping, ESD, and waste management controls outlined in the Growth Centres DCP (see the Department’s full assessment provided at Appendix D.

Notwithstanding the above, the Department has concluded the application requires variations to the following requirements: • the height and zoning controls identified in clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of the Growth Centres SEPP; • the road network identified in the Indicative Layout Plan of the Growth Centres DCP; and • the car parking controls identified in Section 6.8 of the Growth Centres DCP. An assessment of the proposed variations to the height and zoning controls of the Growth Centres SEPP, and the Indicative Layout Plan of the Growth Centres DCP is provided in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 below. In addition, car parking is discussed in Section 5.3 of this report.

SP2 Land Provided for Road 4

Proposed Alignment of Road 4 Extending into the B7 Zone

SP2 Zoned Land Provided for Road 5

Proposed Alignment of Road 5 Extending into the IN1 Zone



5.1.2 Variations to the Height Control The Height of Buildings Map specifies a height limit of 18 m for the subject site (see Figure 11 below). The application seeks consent to construct a warehouse building with a maximum height of 34.7 m.

Figure 11: Growth Centres SEPP Height of Buildings Map (Source: Growth Centres SEPP)

Clause 4.6 of the Precinct Plan permits variations to a development standard subject to the Applicant: • providing a written request justifying compliance with the development standard is unnecessary or

unreasonable; and • demonstrating there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the

standard. In considering a variation to a development standard under clause 4.6(4) of the Precinct Plan the consent authority must be satisfied that: • the Applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters under clause 4.6(3) of the Precinct

Plan; and • the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the

relevant standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is located.

The Applicant submitted a written request to vary the height limit applicable to the site pursuant to clause 4.6 of the MPIP Precinct Plan. The Applicant advised the proposed variation to the height limit is appropriate on the basis that: • to construct a standard height warehouse with a similar storage volume would require an additional

30,000 m2 of floor space which would necessitate the creation of a warehouse with a significantly larger floor plate. This may generate adverse visual impacts as it will create a single monolithic structure;

• the height exceedance is limited to the high bay storage component of the development, which is centrally located within the building envelope;

• the proposal would be well suited to the context of surrounding development once the Sydney Business Park is fully developed, and the short-term visual impacts will occur while the Sydney Business Park is under construction, and can be mitigated with architectural and landscape treatments;

• the site is setback from Richmond Road and surrounding existing or future residential areas; and • the height of the warehouse will not result in any overshadowing impacts to the adjoining buildings or

lots.

Approximate Site Area



The Department has considered the Applicant’s clause 4.6 request and has concluded the proposed building height is acceptable on the basis that: • the proposed variation satisfies the relevant objectives of the IN1 General Industrial zone as it:

- would assist in providing a wide range of industrial and warehouse land uses within the MPIP by establishing a national warehouse and distribution centre for IKEA’s retail stores;

- will provide additional employment opportunities within the MPIP; and - minimises adverse impacts on industry and other land uses by being located in a strategically

planned employment precinct which permits the creation of a range of residential, commercial and industrial uses; and

• the portion of the development that exceeds the height control is small relative to the overall size of the proposed warehouse (22.3 per cent of the primary facades [eastern and western], and 67 per cent of the secondary facades [northern and southern]) (see Figure 7),

• the proposed architectural and landscape treatments would mitigate the visual impacts of the development at the most sensitive vantage points (see Section 5.2 of this report); and

• Council supports the proposed variation on the basis the additional height will not result in any adverse design or visual outcomes within the MPIP.

The Department supports the proposed variation to the height control, subject to the Applicant implementing and maintaining the proposed architectural and landscape treatments on-site. The Department has recommended conditions of consent to ensure this occurs. The Department is therefore satisfied of the matters set out in clause 4.6(4) of Appendix 5 of the Growth Centres SEPP. 5.1.3 Variation to the Zoning Controls and the MPIP Indicative Layout Plan The Department notes the proposed development is partially prohibited under the Growth Centres SEPP as portions of the proposed warehouse extend into the SP2 Infrastructure Zone, where only earthworks, environmental protection and flood mitigation works, recreation areas and facilities, roads, water recycling facilities and artificial waterbodies are permitted with consent. The Department also notes the proposed development is inconsistent with the road network identified in the Indicative Layout Plan in the Growth Centres DCP as roads 4 and 5 require minor realignments due to the location of the building pad approved by Council under DA 15-1088. The Council in its submission also raised concerns that the proposed development is prohibited as warehousing is not permitted within the SP2 zone. The Department has reviewed Council’s concerns, however, the Department notes section 89E(3) of the EP&A Act allows development consent for a State significant to be granted despite a development being partly prohibited under an EPI. As only parts of the proposed warehouse building and hardstand encroach onto SP2 zone, the proposed development is only partly prohibited and development consent may be granted to the SSD application.

The Department has assessed the proposed variations to the MPIP zoning plan and the Indicative Layout Plan in accordance with clause 4.6 of the Growth Centres SEPP and section 1.7.2 of the Growth Centres DCP, and has concluded the proposed variations are acceptable for the following reasons: • the Applicant’s clause 4.6 variation demonstrates the proposed development is consistent with the

objectives of the IN1, SP2 and B7 zones as it will: - facilitate the creation of a new warehouse within the MPIP; - encourage employment opportunities and the creation of 165 new operational jobs; - minimise any adverse effects of industry on other land uses; and - provide for infrastructure related uses (roads and water management devices);

• section 1.7.2 of the Growth Centres DCP permits variations to the Indicative Layout Plan where the variation is minor and consistent with the Indicative Layout Plan. The Department has assessed the proposed variations to the road network and considers these variations minor as: - the realignment of Road 5 is minor and is consistent with the road preparation works approved by

Council under DA 15-1088; - the realignment of Road 4 reflects the configuration of the development pad approved by Council

under DA 15-1088 and the lot boundaries created when Lot 1 in DP 1208554 was registered by Sydney Business Park in August 2015; and

- the realignment of roads 4 and 5 will facilitate the east-west road connections proposed under the Indicative Lot Plan; and



• the alignment of roads 4 and 5 has been designed to integrate with the broader road network currently under construction by the Sydney Business Park.

As the proposed changes to the alignment of roads 4 and 5 are minor and will still facilitate the provision of the east west connections through the Sydney Business Park, the Department supports the proposed variations to the zoning and Indicative Layout Plan pursuant to clause 4.6 of the Growth Centres SEPP and section 1.7.2 of the Growth Centres DCP. 5.2. Urban Design and Visual Impacts The proposed building comprises a combination of standard height and high bay storage areas. The standard height component of the building has a maximum height of 13.4 m and the high bay component has a maximum height of 34.7 m. The building will be setback 18 m from the northern boundary, 45 m from the eastern boundary, 43 m from the western boundary; and 57 metres from the southern boundary. The urban design and visual impacts of the proposed development are discussed in Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 below. 5.2.1 Urban Design Three design options were considered by the Applicant to reduce the bulk and scale of the high bay component of the warehouse and provide a high quality design outcome. These options are presented in Figures 12 to 14. The Department notes all three design options were presented to Council who suggested the Applicant consider redesigning the high bay component of the development to provide a ‘cube’ that ‘floats’ above the low rise portion of the development. Council advised this design option could be achieved by: • creating a slot of approximately 6 m in height (two storeys) at the junction of the ‘low rise’ and ‘high bay’

components of the warehouse to create a base and recess for a ‘floating cube’ to sit over; • creating vertical build outs at random widths and centres within the ‘high bay’ component of the

warehouse. These build outs should be 1.5 m deep and between 1.5 and 6 m in width to create visual interest and provide articulation to reduce the bulk and scale of the high bay component; or

• providing a combination of the concepts presented above. Council’s preferred design concepts are presented in Figure 15.



Figure 12: Option 1 ‘Barcode’ Design Concept (Source: RTS)

Figure 13: Option 2 ‘City Skyline’ Design Concept (Source: RTS)

Figure 14: Option 3 ‘Flat Pack’ Design Concept (Source: RTS)

Figure 15: Council’s Preferred Design Solution



The Applicant advised Council’s preferred design options were not feasible for the following reasons: • the building has been designed to enable the automatic retrieval system (ARS) to act as the structural

frame for the building, however the ARS can only accommodate the load associated with light weight metal cladding;

• in order to create a recessed box or install the decorative panels suggested by Council, a second structural skin would need to be constructed over the ARS. The costs associated with this design option are excessive and would be inconsistent with sustainable design practices which seek to minimise the use of unnecessary materials in the construction process;

• the installation of a secondary decorative skin would act as a sail area allowing wind driven rain to penetrate the roof structure. This is particularly problematic given the cost of procuring the ARS and the impacts it may have on the supply chain in the event the ARS fails due to water damage; and

• the creation of a second structural skin would increase the size of the high bay component, which is inconsistent with the intent of this design option (to reduce the overall bulk of the building).

The Department reviewed the alternate design options provided in the RTS in consultation with Council and concluded none of the options would reduce the bulk and scale of the high bay component. The Department subsequently met with Council and the Applicant to discuss further design options that would reduce the bulk and scale without requiring the construction of a structural skin around the ARS. In response the Applicant provided a fourth ‘stacked box’ design option. This option seeks to articulate the façade to reduce the bulk and scale of the high bay component via the use of: • light colour cladding along the edges and corners of the high bay area to ‘frame’ the structure; • alternating light and dark grey precast dado panelling to create a series of ‘stacked boxes’ and provide

horizontal articulation and a perception of depth within the façade; • lighter coloured louvres on the western and eastern elevations to frame the building and reduce the

prominence of the ridgeline; and • a black and grey colour palate with low reflective properties. The ‘stacked box’ design concept is provided at Figure 16 below.

Figure 16: Option 4 ‘Stacked Box’ Design Concept (Source: Supplementary RTS)



The Department has reviewed design option 4 in consultation with Council and agrees the ‘stacked box’ concept provides horizontal articulation and creates the perception of depth within the high bay component. Furthermore, the lighter coloured louvres on the western and eastern elevations will ‘cap’ the building and reduce the prominence of the ridgeline from public vantage points. The Department’s assessment concluded the combination of the proposed design elements will ensure a high quality urban design outcome that is consistent with the intent of Council’s preferred design solution. The Department has recommended conditions of consent to ensure the architectural treatments are installed in accordance with the supplementary information provided by the Applicant. 5.2.2 Visual Impact The Applicant’s RTS includes an assessment of the visual impacts of the proposal from key vantage points within the MPIP. This analysis concluded: • the development has been designed to incorporate an 8 m landscape setback adjacent to estate Road 4

to screen the standard height component of the warehouse. The high bay component of the development is unlikely to be a dominant feature as it will be setback 108 m from the road corridor. Accordingly the development will have minimal impacts when viewed from Road 4;

• the development is on a battleaxe lot there will be no direct views from Road 5. Any views available from this vantage point would be softened by the perimeter landscaping;

• the high bay component of the warehouse will not be visible from Richmond Road as it is lower than the level of the road corridor and

• in the short to medium-term existing vegetation will screen the development at the receivers located to the north, west and south of the site.

The extent of the visual catchment and the impacts of the proposed development at the nearest sensitive receivers are identified in Figure 17. Key vantage points within the catchment are shown in Figures 18 to 21.

Figure 17: Extent of the Visual Catchment



Figure 18: Vantage Point 2 – Looking east across South Street adjacent to the IKEA warehouse site (Source: RTS)

Figure 19: Vantage Point 3 – IKEA Facility Looking South Down South Street (Source: RTS)



Figure 20: Vantage Point 5 – IKEA Facility Looking South from South Street (Source: RTS)

Figure 21: Vantage Point 8 - IKEA Facility looking North West from the Stony Creek Active Lifestyle Estate (Source: RTS)



The Department has assessed the visual impacts of the high bay component and has concluded the most affected receivers will be vantage points 1 and 2 and the residence at 372 South Street, which are located directly opposite the site, and vantage point 8 which is located within the Stoney Creek Active Lifestyles Village. The impacts on these receivers are discussed below. The development will also be visible from some residual vantage points along South Street (vantage points 3 to 5), however, these views will be screened once lots immediately north of the site are developed in accordance with the MPIP Precinct Plan. The development will not be visible from the residual vantage points along Richmond Road (vantage points 6 and 7). The Department has assessed the visual impacts at the most sensitive receivers and has concluded: • the residence at 372 South Street is the most affected receiver as it is located directly opposite the site.

The development will not obscure any significant local or regional views from this vantage point. The Department considers the visual impacts are acceptable as the development is 360 m from the residence, and has been designed s the high bay component is set back from the façade and incorporates appropriate architectural features to reduce the bulk and scale of the building;

• vantage points 1 and 2 are located on the western side of South Street on land zoned RE1 Public Recreation and is heavily vegetated. The photomontages from these vantage points demonstrate the warehouse will not block any significant local or regional views. Accordingly, the Department has concluded the impacts at these vantage points are acceptable;

• vantage point 8 is located 450 m south east of the site within the Stoney Creek Active Lifestyles Village. The proposed development will be directly visible from this vantage point in the short to medium-term while the Sydney Business Park is under construction. The development will not block any significant local or regional views and impacts will be significantly reduced once the land to the south is redeveloped in accordance with the MPIP Precinct Plan. The Department is satisfied the proposed architectural treatments are sufficient to mitigate the visual impacts in the short to medium term until the Sydney Business Park is fully developed; and

• once the Sydney Business Park is fully developed the building will be read as part of a broader industrial landscape at vantage points 3 to 5 and 8, which will reduce the impacts of the development in the long-term.

The Department also notes no public objections were received, and Council raised no objection to the development subject to the Applicant installing the design treatments outlined in Section 5.2.1 of this report. The Department’s assessment concludes the visual impacts of the proposed development are acceptable subject to the Applicant implementing the proposed architectural and landscape treatments. The Department has recommended conditions of consent to ensure these treatments are installed prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate. 5.3. Traffic, Parking and Access 5.3.1 Road Network and Site Access The subject site is located adjacent to Roads 4 and 5 within the Sydney Business Park, approximately 150 m east of South Street and 1.6 km west of Richmond Road. Richmond Road provides direct access to the M7 Motorway which is located approximately 1.7 km south of the Sydney Business Park. At present, a number of local roads are currently under construction within the Sydney Business Park. Once complete, access from the site to South Street and Richmond Road will occur via estate Road 5 and Hollinsworth Road. The surrounding road network is depicted in Figure 22.



Figure 22: Surrounding Road Network (Source: Nearmap)

Road 5 will be complete to enable operational traffic to access the site via the Richmond Road/Townson/Hollinsworth Road intersection. No access is proposed via Road 4. Once within the Sydney Business Park, vehicle access to the site will occur via a four-lane shared driveway off Road 5. The driveway has been designed to ensure separate access is provided for passenger vehicles and B-doubles. The gatehouse has been sited to ensure no queuing occurs within the local road network. Construction traffic will access the site via South Street. This will enable the construction works for the warehouse building to be undertaken whilst Road 5 is under construction. The Department has recommended conditions of consent to ensure Road 5 is constructed prior to the warehouse becoming operational. The Department has reviewed the proposed site access arrangements in consultation with Council and TfNSW and is satisfied the proposed development has been designed to cater for the largest vehicle accessing the site (B-doubles). The Department notes the swept path analysis provided in the RTS, demonstrates high productivity vehicles (vehicles up to 30 m in length) could access the site should this be required in the future. 5.3.2 Traffic Impacts The Applicant provided a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) prepared by Cardno which models the operational impacts of the IKEA facility on the local and regional road network. Based on a maximum of 100 employees being on-site during each shift, the TIA concluded the development will generate 255 inbound vehicle movements and 265 outbound vehicle movements per day, of which 119 vehicle movements will occur per hour during the am and pm peak periods. A breakdown of the inbound and outbound traffic movements is provided in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Inbound and Outbound Daily Traffic Movements (Source: EIS) Inbound Vehicles/Day Outbound Vehicles/Day Containers 25 35 Trucks/Vans 30 30 Office Workers 200 200 Total Vehicles/Day 255 265

IKEA Warehouse Pad

Proposed Shared Driveway

South Street/Richmond Road



Based on the above, the TIA concluded: • the proposed car parking arrangements do not comply with the provisions of the Growth Centres DCP

(442 car parking spaces required, 235 car parking spaces proposed), however car parking exceeds the requirements of RMS’ Guidelines for Traffic Generating Development (262 car parking spaces required, 235 car parking spaces proposed); and

• the additional traffic generated by the proposed development will result in the Richmond Road/Hollinsworth Road intersection operating at Level of Service D (near capacity) in the ‘worst case’ scenario in 2027.

Council did not support the variation to the car parking rates identified in the Growth Centres DCP. The Applicant provided a provisional car parking plan in its RTS that demonstrated 444 car parking spaces could be provided on-site, however the provision of these spaces would affect the movement of B-doubles within the site. Council reviewed the additional information and agreed 262 permanent car parking spaces would be sufficient to accommodate 100 employees. However, it requested a condition to ensure the Applicant provides additional car parking in the event employee numbers increase over time. The Department, in consultation with Council and the RMS has concluded the road network within the MPIP has been designed to accommodate the redevelopment of the Sydney Business Park, subject to the completion of the road upgrades currently being undertaken by the RMS and Council. The Richmond Road/Hollinsworth Road intersection will operate at Level of Service D (near capacity) in the ‘worst case’ scenario in 2027, however this level of service is attributed to increases in background traffic external to traffic generated by the redevelopment of the Sydney Business Park. The Department’s assessment concludes a variation to the minimum car parking requirements of the Growth Centres DCP is appropriate for the following reasons: • use of the automated racking system will reduce the number of employees per square metre of floor

space in comparison to a standard warehouse development. Therefore the application of the Growth Centres DCP car parking rates would be unreasonable;

• there is sufficient car parking proposed to accommodate shift change over (where up to 200 employees could be on-site) and any visitors accessing the site; and

• there is sufficient space on-site to provide additional car parking should employee numbers exceed 100 persons per shift.

The Department is satisfied the proposed development will not generate any unreasonable traffic impacts, and has recommended the following conditions of consent to manage the traffic generated by the proposed development: • the Applicant provides 262 permanent car parking spaces and 50 bicycle parking spaces for the life of

the development; • the Applicant submits a Traffic Report and car parking plan prepared in accordance with AS 2890.1 and

AS 2890.2 to the Secretary for approval prior any increase in employee numbers occurring on-site; • in the event more than 100 employees are required in any shift, the Applicant must provide the additional

car parking spaces identified in any car parking plan approved by the Secretary for the life of the development;

• estate Road 5 is constructed to Council’s standards and dedicated to Council within six months of the road being completed to Council’s satisfaction;

• construction and operational traffic is managed in accordance with an approved Traffic Management Plan;

• a Workplace Travel Plan is prepared and implemented to reduce travel demand associated with private vehicles; and

• all car parking and internal road surfaces are designed and constructed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards.

5.4. Noise The Applicant provided an Acoustic Assessment prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics Pty Ltd which assesses the construction and operational noise impacts of the development against the requirements of the NSW Interim Construction Noise Guideline (INCG), the Industrial Noise Policy (INP) and the Road Noise Policy.



The assessment identified six residential receivers within 400 m of the site. The nearest residential receivers and the noise monitoring locations are identified in Figure 23.

Figure 23: Monitoring Locations (Source: EIS)

The INCG provides the framework for setting noise limits on construction noise whilst the INP provides a framework for setting noise limits on new developments during the operational phase. These noise limits are shown in Tables 4 to 6. The Department has reviewed the results of the noise assessment and has concluded the proposed development will comply with the relevant construction and operational noise levels with the exception a marginal non-compliance of 2 dB during operation at the nearest receivers during the night time (see Tables 4 and 6). The Department considers an exceedance of 2dB is acceptable as this cannot be readily perceived by humans and consequently, would not adversely impact the amenity of nearby residential receptors. This level would be less than the existing ambient night time noise level of 47 dB(A) and therefore the project will generally be masked by extraneous noise.

Table 4: Compliance with ICNG Construction Noise Criteria (Source: EIS) Period Background Noise Level ICNG Construction Noise Criterion

Background + 10 dB(A) Predicted Noise Level dB(A) Compliance

Day 42 52 48 Yes Evening 42 N/A N/A N/A

Night 36 N/A N/A N/A

Table 5: Compliance with INP Amenity Criterion at Nearest Sensitive Noise Receiver (Source: EIS)

Period Background Noise Level dB(A) L90

Project Specific Noise Level Leq (15

minute) dB(A)

Predicted Noise Level dB(A) Leq 15 min Compliance

Day 42 47 44 Yes

Evening 42 45 44 Yes Night 36 41 43 No

372 South Street



Table 6: Sleep Disturbance Criterion (Operation) at nearest sensitive receiver (Source: EIS) Receiver Sleep Disturbance Criterion, dB(A) L1 1min Predicted Noise Level dB(A) L1 1 min Compliance

372 (Lot 43) South Street, 210 m north-west

51 46 Yes

The Department has concluded the development will not result in any unacceptable construction or operational noise impacts subject to the Applicant implementing best practice noise management procedures over the life of the development. The Department has recommended the following conditions of consent in relation to noise: • compliance with the construction noise management levels outlined in the Interim Construction Noise

Guideline; • compliance with the following project specific noise levels (LAeq(15 minute)):

- all day time noise must not exceed 47 dB(A); - all evening noise must not exceed 45 dB(A); and - all night-time noise must not exceed 43 dB(A);

• noise testing within three months of the commencement of operation to assess compliance with the project specific noise levels at the nearest residential receivers; and

• where noise testing identifies a non-compliance with the project specific noise levels, the Applicant must implement suitable mitigation measures to the satisfaction of the Secretary.

5.5. Stormwater and Drainage The Applicant submitted a Civil Report and civil engineering drawings prepared by Cardno which outline designs for the management of stormwater flows, and assess the potential flooding and water quality impacts of the proposed development. Council, the OEH and DPI raised concerns with the design of the stormwater management system, the results of the stormwater modelling and the potential water quality and biodiversity impacts of the proposed development on the Little Creek chain of ponds. The Applicant provided revised modelling and engineering drawings to address these concerns, and proposes the construction of the following estate-wide and on-lot drainage infrastructure: • construction of estate Basin B to accommodate stormwater flows from Road 5, South Street, and other

industrial lots within Stage 3.01 of the Sydney Business Park; • augmentation of interim estate Basin E to accommodate stormwater flows from Road 5 and other

industrial lots within Stage 3.01 of the Sydney Business Park; • construction of drainage culverts under Road 5; • construction of a bio-filtration swale along the western boundary of the IKEA warehouse; • construction of a gross pollutant trap (GPT) downstream of the bio-filtration swale, prior to discharge into

estate Basin B; • installation of a 440 kl of water storage tank to store run-off from the warehouse roof; and • rainwater harvesting and re-use on-site. The RTS also states the bio-retention basin located within Estate Basin B does not form part of this application as it will be delivered by Council in accordance with the provisions of its Contribution Plan. In addition, the RTS confirms estate Basin B has been designed to accommodate a future connection to the stormwater diversion pipe proposed in Council’s Stormwater Harvesting Diversion Strategy. This diversion pipe is required to ensure all stormwater that flows into the Little Creek chain of ponds is treated to achieve compliance with the ‘ideal’ water quality and flow targets identified in the Growth Centres DCP. The proposed stormwater management devices are depicted in 24 and 25. Council did not raise any objection to the stormwater management system, however it advised there are a number of inconsistencies in the revised engineering drawings. To resolve these design issues, Council requested a condition to ensure the engineering drawings are re-submitted and approved by Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The Department notes the OEH remains concerned the proposed water treatment devices may not be sufficient to ensure the development does not result in any unacceptable water quality or biodiversity impacts within the Little Creek Chain of ponds. The Department has reviewed the revised stormwater management strategy and civil drawings and considered comments provided by Council, DPI and the OEH and has concluded the proposed development is acceptable on the basis that:



• estate Basin B has been designed to comply with the requirements of Council’s Contribution Plan, and the inconsistencies within the revised engineering drawings can be resolved between Council and the Applicant prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate;

• achieving compliance with the ‘ideal’ water quality and environmental flow targets outlined in the Growth Centres DCP is cost prohibitive on a lot by lot basis. As such, Council has proposed the construction of an estate wide diversion pipe to ensure developments within the Sydney Business Park will not result in unacceptable water quality or biodiversity impacts in the Little Creek chain of ponds; and

• subject to estate Basin B being connected to Council’s proposed diversion pipe, the Department considers the proposed development will not generate any adverse water quality or biodiversity impacts on the Little Creek chain of ponds.

To ensure appropriate stormwater management outcomes are achieved on and off-site, the Department has recommended conditions of consent requiring the Applicant to: • submit details of the final design of Basin B to the satisfaction of Council prior to the issue of a

Construction Certificate. This will ensure estate Basin B is designed to integrate with Council’s existing estate wide drainage infrastructure;

• ensure no stormwater is discharged into Basin B until: - Basin B is connected to the diversion pipe proposed by Council; or - the Applicant prepares and implements an Interim Stormwater Management Plan that is consistent

with the outcomes of Council’s Protecting Little Creek - Marsden Park Industrial Precinct Little Creek Catchment Alternate Stormwater Management Strategy; and

• manage stormwater and drainage within the IKEA site in accordance with an approved stormwater management plan.



Figure 24: Site Wide Drainage Infrastructure (Source: RTS)

Figure 25: Relationship Between the Estate Wide and Ikea On-Lot Drainage Infrastructure (Source: RTS)

Estate Basin B

Interim Basin E

Road 5

IKEA On-Lot Bio-Filtration Swale

Estate Basin B

Integrated Bio-retention Filter



5.6. Other Issues A number of other assessment issues were identified in the EIS. These issues are considered to be minor in nature and are assessed in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Assessment of Other Issues Consideration Recommended Conditions Contamination • Bulk earthworks for the IKEA site and the preliminary works for the

construction of Road 5 were approved under DA 15-1088 issued by Council.

• Condition 3.7 of DA 15-1088, requires the Applicant to submit a Validation Report to Council, prepared by a suitably qualified environmental consultant, to certify the subject site is fit for warehousing and distribution uses, prior to the release of the first Subdivision Certificate.

• As the proposed development relies on the completion of the bulk earthworks approved under DA 15-1088, the Department is satisfied the site will be made suitable for warehousing and distribution uses. The Department has concluded the proposed development is consistent with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land.

The Department has recommended a condition requiring the Applicant to: • provide a copy of the Validation

Report confirming the site has been made suitable for warehousing uses prior to any construction works associated with the proposed warehouse building.

Signage • The application seeks consent to install three building identification signs

on the northern, southern and eastern elevations of the proposed warehouse building. Each sign would be 8.51 m x 1.52 m.

• The EIS includes an assessment of compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64) and the signage controls outlined in the Growth Centres DCP. The Department has reviewed this assessment and concluded: - no advertising signage is proposed on-site and therefore the

provisions of SEPP 64 do not apply to the proposed development; - no signage is proposed on the high bay component of the

development and therefore it will not be visible from any significant vantage points within the visual catchment; and

- the signage has been designed to integrate with the proposed architectural treatments and is commensurate with the scale of the development.

The Department has recommended conditions of consent requiring the Applicant to ensure: • all signage is installed in the

locations identified in the architectural drawings; and

• no signage is installed on the high bay component of the warehouse in the future.

Landscaping • The application proposes to create a 7,000 m2 landscaped area comprised

of: - native trees ranging in height between 10 and 15 m; - shrubs and accent plants ranging in height between 1.5 and 5 m; - native groundcovers and grasses; and - grasses within the on-lot bio-retention swale.

• Council advised the proposed landscape treatments respond to the context of the site, however the size of the plants will not be large enough to offset the visual impacts of the development once the high bay component of the warehouse is constructed.

• Council requested the Applicant plant larger trees to reduce the time for plantings to reach full maturity.

• TransGrid advised the height of the vegetation near or within the transmission line easement must not exceed three metres in height.

• The Department’s assessment concludes the proposed landscaping treatments will soften the bulk and scale of the development.

The Department has recommended conditions requiring the Applicant to: • to ensure appropriately sized

seedlings are planted on-site to reduce the time required for perimeter trees to reach full maturity; and

• ensure all trees within the TransGrid easement must not exceed a mature height of three metres.

Soil and Water • The application proposes minor earthworks to facilitate the construction of

estate Basin B and the culverts under estate Road 5. • The Applicant has assessed the impacts of these works and has

concluded temporary erosion and sediment controls should be installed to manage potential impacts on soil and water quality.

• The Department has recommended conditions requiring the Applicant to implement and maintain best soil management practices in accordance with the latest version of the Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction Guideline.

The Department has recommended a condition requiring the Applicant to: • implement best practice soil and

erosion management in accordance with Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction Guideline.



Consideration Recommended Conditions Air Quality • The Applicant proposes minor earthworks to facilitate the construction of

estate Basin B and the culverts under estate Road 5. The Department has concluded the construction works are unlikely to generate any significant air quality impacts as earthworks and the construction of a building pad were previously done under DA 15-1088.

• The Department has concluded the proposed development is unlikely to generate any significant air quality impacts during the operational phase of the project.

• The Department has recommended standard conditions to ensure the construction and operational phases of the development incorporate best practice air quality management techniques.

The Department has recommended conditions requiring the Applicant to: • implement best management

practices to prevent and minimise dust emissions associated with the construction and operation of the development; and

• minimise any visible off-site air pollution that occurs as a result of construction and operation of the development.

Contributions • The provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (Special

Infrastructure Contribution - Western Sydney Growth Areas) Determination 2011 (SIC Determination) and Council’s Contributions Plan apply to the proposed development.

• Clause 5(3) of the SIC Determination specifies that if a State infrastructure contribution (SIC) has been made for a site, future development applications on that site are not be required to also pay a SIC.

• Condition 3.5 of DA 15-1088 requires the Applicant to provide Council with evidence it has paid the special infrastructure contribution required under the SIC Determination ($ 1,103,245) prior to the issue of any Subdivision Certificate.

• On 11 April 2016, Sydney Business Park, on behalf of Applicant, paid the applicable SIC contribution. Accordingly, as per clause 5(3) of the SIC Determination, no additional State infrastructure contributions are required.

• The Department has recommended a condition of consent to ensure all contributions applicable under Council’s Contribution Plan to the sum of $ 8,081,771 is paid prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for the proposed development.

The Department has recommended a condition requiring the Applicant to pay the section 94 contributions applicable under Council’s Contribution Plan prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Waste • The EIS includes an assessment of the anticipated waste streams

associated with the construction and operational phases of the development. The assessment concluded: − construction waste would consist of spoil, concrete, general

construction waste and non-putrescible waste; and − operational waste would consist of packaging waste and general

putrescible waste. • The application also includes a Waste Management Plan which proposes

measures to manage, monitor and reduce waste over the life of the development.

• The Department’s assessment concludes the Waste Management Plan provides an adequate assessment of the waste streams generated on-site. The Department is satisfied the Waste Management Plan has been prepared in accordance with the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2014-2021 and includes appropriate measures to manage waste over the life of the development.

• The Department has recommended conditions to ensure all waste is appropriately classified and managed in accordance with the approved Waste Management Plan.

The Department has recommended conditions of consent requiring the Applicant to ensure: • construction and operational waste

is classified in accordance with the EPA’s Waste Classification Guidelines;

• waste is managed in accordance with the approved Waste Management Plan; and

• waste is collected between 6 am and 6 pm Monday to Saturday, and 10 am and 4 pm on Sunday and public holidays.

6. CONCLUSION The Department has assessed the proposed development against the State Priorities for NSW, the Premier’s 12 key priorities and A Plan for Growing Sydney and has concluded the application will: • assist in the transformation of Western Sydney by providing growth and investment in an identified

industrial precinct in the North West Growth Centre with high levels of access to the regional road network, public transport and cycle infrastructure;

• provide additional employment opportunities within close proximity to existing residential developments in Western Sydney; and

• provide a high quality development that will stimulate economic activity and create new jobs within the Marsden Park strategic centre.


\KEA Mutti-Function Logistics Unit, Sydney Busrness ParkssD 6954

E nvi ron me ntal Assessment Re port

The Department has also assessed the development application against the provisions of section 79C of the

EP&A Act and the relevant State environmental planning policies.

The subject site is located within the MPIP which been strategically identified to accommodate employmentgenerating uses in the North West Growth Centre. The proposed de constructionjäOs anO tOS full-time operational jobs within close proximity to exi ntial land inWestern Sydney. ln addition, the proposed use will capitalise on the s to existing

State and nationalfreight routes.

The proposed development will result in the construction of a high quality warehouse building consistent with

the planning objectives and design principles outlined in the Growth Centre SEPP and DCP.

The Department has concluded the proposal is in the public interest and recommends approval subject to

the recommended conditions of consent.

7. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended the Executive Director, Keys Sites and lndustry Assessments:

o consider the findings and recommendations of this report;o GorìSider the Applicant's written request seeking to justify the departure of_the height standard in

clause 4.9(2) of Appendix 5 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth

Centres) 2006;o be satisfied of the matters in clause a.6(a) of Appendix 5 of the State Environmental Planning Policy

(Sydney Region Growth Centres) 20061o vary that height standard;. approve the development application under Section 89E of hhe Environmental Planning and

.Assessment Act 1979; ando sign the attached development consent (refer Appendix A).

Prepared by:Thomas Piovesan

Plannerlndustry Assessments

Checked by:Kate MacDonald

Team Leaderlndustry Assessments

Ghris RitchieDirectorlndustry Assessments

\ls f t6 Anthea zlsløExecutive DirectorKey Sites and lndustry Assessments

NSW GovernmentDepartment of Planning and Environment 34

APPENDIX A CONDITIONS OF CONSENT

The Instrument of Consent can be viewed on the Department’s website at the link below.

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6954



APPENDIX B CONSIDERATIONS UNDER SECTION 79C OF THE EP&A ACT

Section 79C of the EP&A Act requires that the consent authority, when determining a development application, must take into consideration the following matters:

(a) the provisions of: (i) any environmental planning instrument, and

The Department has considered the relevant Environmental Planning Instruments with respect to the proposal.

(ii) any proposed instrument that is or has been the subject of public consultation under this Act and that has been notified to the consent authority (unless the Director-General has notified the consent authority that the making of the proposed instrument has been deferred indefinitely or has not been approved), and

N/A

(iii) any development control plan, and Under clause 11 of the SRD SEPP, development control plans do not apply to State significant development. The Department has assessed the proposal against the provisions of Blacktown City Council’s Growth Centre Precincts DCP 2014.

(iiia) any planning agreement that has been entered into under Section 93F, or any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into under section 93F, and

The Applicant has not entered into any planning agreement under Section 93F

(iv) the regulations (to the extent that they prescribe matters for the purposes of this paragraph), and

The Department has undertaken its assessment of the proposed development in accordance all relevant matters as prescribed by the regulations, the findings of which are contained within this report.

(v) any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979) that apply to the land to which the development application relates,

The site is not located within the coastal zone.

(b) the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality,

The Department’s assessment of the likely environmental impacts of the development can be found in Section 5 of this report.

(c) the suitability of the site for the development, The site is located in the strategic center of Marsden Park, near the M7 motorway which has direct access to Kingsford-Smith Airport, Port Botany and the national highway network with potential rail and freight options. The site is zoned for industrial purposes and is permissible with development consent and is ideally located near key roads including Richmond Road and the M7 Motorway. A small part of the proposed warehouse building and hardstand is partly prohibited as it encroaches onto the SP2 zone. Section 89E(3) of the EP & A Act specifies development consent may be granted for a State significant development despite it being partly prohibited under an EPI. The Department considers the site is suitable for the proposed development.

(d) any submissions made in accordance with this Act or the regulations,

The Department has assessed the development application having regard to the all issues raised in the submissions in Section 5 of this report.

(e) the public interest. The socio-economic benefits generated from the proposed development include the generation of approximately 170 jobs during construction and 165 full-time equivalent jobs during operation. The recommended conditions of consent impose a range of controls, which the Department considers will mitigate any potential environmental impacts of the proposed development. On this basis, the Department considers the proposed development is in the public interest.


http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Dact%20AND%20Year%3D1979%20AND%20no%3D13&nohits=y

APPENDIX C CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 The aims of the State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 (SRD SEPP) are to identify State significant development and State significant infrastructure and provide the necessary functions in determining development applications. The development triggers the criteria in clause 12, Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 (SRD SEPP) as it involves the construction and operation of a warehouse and distribution centre with a CIV in excess of $50 million. Therefore, the development is considered State significant development and the Minister for Planning is the consent authority. State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) aims to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State by improving regulatory certainty and efficiency, identifying matters to be considered in the assessment of development adjacent to particular types of infrastructure, and providing consultation with relevant public authorities during the assessment process. Clause 45 of the ISEPP applies to development in the vicinity of electricity easements and therefore must be referred to the relevant electricity supplier for comment prior to determination. The Department referred the application to TransGrid, who raised no objection to the application subject to the inclusion of standard conditions. These conditions have been included in the conditions of consent. The Department has concluded the development complies with the requirements of clause 45 of the ISEPP. The proposal is classified as a traffic generating development under clause 104 the ISEPP and therefore must be referred to RMS for comment. The Department referred the application to RMS and TfNSW who raised no objection to the development subject the inclusion of standard conditions of consent. These conditions have been included in the recommended conditions of consent. The Department has concluded the development complies with the requirements of clause 104 of the ISEPP. State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 The site is zoned IN1 - General Industrial, SP2 – Infrastructure and B7 – Business Park in State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 (Growth Centres SEPP). Warehouse and distribution centres with ancillary office facilities, road and drainage infrastructure works are permissible with consent within the IN1 General Industrial zone. However, warehousing and distribution uses are prohibited within the SP2 zone. Section 89E(3) of the EP & A Act specifies development consent may be granted for a State significant development despite it being partly prohibited under an environmental planning instrument (EPI). As a small component of the proposed warehouse building and hardstand encroach onto the SP2 zone, the proposed development is partly prohibited and development consent may be granted to the SSD application. A portion of the proposed development is inconsistent with the zoning provisions and height limits identified in the SEPP. An assessment of the proposed variations to the zoning and height limits is provided in Section 5.1 of this report, which concludes the environmental impacts of these variations are acceptable and consistent with the objectives of the SEPP. The Department has undertaken an assessment of the development against the residual provisions of the SEPP (see Table 8) and has concluded the proposed development complies with the residual requirements of the Growth Centres SEPP.

Table 8: Assessment of Compliance with the Growth Centres SEPP Principal Development Standard

Comment Compliance

Clause 4.1 - Minimum lot size for IN1 zoned land

The minimum lot size for land zoned IN1 – General Industrial is 2,000 m2.The subject site is 12.5 hectares (ha) in area which satisfies the minimum lot size for development in the IN1 General Industrial zone.

Clause 4.4 Maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

The maximum FSR permitted on land zoned IN1 – General Industrial is 0.7:1. The proposed development facility achieves a FSR of 0.56:1 which satisfies the FSR control in the IN1 zone.

Native vegetation and riparian areas

DA 15-1088 determined by Blacktown City Council encompasses the assessment of bulk earthworks and the need for tree and vegetation removal. The subject site does not contain identified native vegetation or riparian protection areas. As such these provisions do not apply to the proposed development.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) aims to provide a State wide approach to the remediation of contaminated land. In particular, SEPP 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land to reduce the risk of harm to human health and the environment by specifying: • under what circumstances consent is required; • the relevant considerations for consent to carry out remediation work; and • that remediation works undertaken meet certain standards and notification requirements.

The potential for site contamination on the subject land was assessed by the Applicant and it was determined that the land is not contaminated and is suitable for the intended industrial use subject to the recommendations in their technical reports. The Department reviewed the assessment and considers the development would be conducted consistently with the aims, objectives and provisions of SEPP 55. The Department has recommended a condition of consent requiring the Applicant to provide the Secretary with a copy of the site validation report and certificate prior to the commencement of construction. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64) aims to ensure that any signage is visible from a public place is compatible with the amenity and visual character of the area, is suitably located and is of high quality. As the proposed development does not propose the installation of advertising signage the provisions of SEPP 64 do not apply.


APPENDIX D COMPLIANCE WITH THE GROWTH CENTRES DCP

Clause 11 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 states that DCPs do not apply to SSD. Notwithstanding, the Department has undertaken an assessment of the proposal against the relevant provisions of the Blacktown Growth Centres DCP 2015 at Table 9 below.

Table 9: Compliance with relevant controls under the Blacktown Growth Centres DCP. Control Control from BCC DCP IKEA Proposal Department Comment

Part 6 – Employment Lands Subdivision and Development Controls

Lot Subdivision N/A The proposal does not propose any subdivision works.

N/A

6.2 - Landscape Design

Streetscape and allotment landscaping is required to ensure development is screened and provides a positive contribution to the streetscape, and suitable amenity is provided for employees.

The proposal involves up to 7,000 m2 of landscaping along the perimeter of the site, adjacent to the site office and within the car park. The landscaping generally incorporates the preferred species at Appendix D of the DCP.

The Department has concluded the landscape plan will ensure the development provides a positive streetscape outcome, and the development is softened from significant vantage points within the visual catchment. The proposed landscape treatments will also provide a high degree of amenity and shade for future building occupants. As such the proposed development complies with the landscape design provisions of the DCP.

6.3 - Landscape Design - Communal Areas

1% of total site area for development on IN1 General Industrial Land to be provided as a communal area.

The development would provide an outdoor staff area 337 m2 in area adjacent to the canteen/lunch area and incorporates shade and landscaping.

The size of the proposed outdoor staff area does not comply with the minimum requirements of the DCP. The Department has assessed the proposed outdoor staff area and considers the proposed design provides a high degree of amenity and is large enough to accommodate the maximum number of employees on-site (up to 100 employees per shift) in any shift (3.37 m2 of open space per staff member).

6.4 - Built Form and Setbacks

7.5m setback from road frontages from South Street and internal estate roads. External materials and finishes are of high quality and durability, low maintenance and sustainable. Entrances are to be clearly visible and address the primary street frontage and ancillary structures are integrated into the building design.

The proposed setbacks exceed the minimum requirements of the DCP (a minimum setback of 18 m is provided to South Street and the internal estate roads): External materials comprise pre-cast concrete panels and Colourbond metal cladding. The site entry and gatehouse are clearly visible from the primary street frontage (estate Road 5). The gatehouse is comprised of precast concrete panels and grey and light grey metal cladding consistent with the design of the proposed

The Department has concluded: - the proposed

development exceeds the minimum setback requirements of the DCP;

- the pre-cast concrete panels and Colourbond metal cladding will provide a high quality finish with minimal maintenance requirements; and

- the gatehouse will be visible from Road 5 and will be comprised of similar materials to the main warehouse building.


warehouse building. 6.5 - ESD Controls Controls requiring

developments to incorporate energy, water and waste minimisation features and technologies.

The proposal incorporates a range of ESD measures including: - an extensive photovoltaic

system on the roof of the warehouse;

- a Building Management System to monitor and minimise energy and resource use;

- LED light fittings; - water harvesting and re-

use system for potable uses;

- AAA rated water fixtures; - translucent roof sheeting; - drip irrigation for

landscaping; and - an Operational Waste

Minimisation and Management Systems.

The Department has assessed the ESD measures proposed as part of the proposal and considers they comply with the ESD controls of the DCP and would provide an acceptable ESD outcome.

6.6 - Fencing, Signage and Lighting

Acceptable outcomes include palisade fencing within the setback, PVC coated chain wire fencing along the site. Signage is not to occupy more than 10% of any façade or building.

Palisade fencing is proposed at the main site entry. PVC coated chain wire fencing will be installed along all other boundaries. The application seeks consent to install one building identification sign on the northern, southern and eastern elevations of the proposed warehouse building. Each sign would be 8.51 m x 1.52 m. This represents 0.6 % of the building façade on the northern and southern elevations and 0.2 % on the eastern elevation.

The Department has concluded the proposed fencing and signage complies with the requirements of the DCP.

6.7 - Access and Parking

Vehicles must enter and exit a site in a safe manner, and development must minimise the number of vehicular access points and provide off-street manoeuvring facilities. Driveway crossovers for heavy vehicles should be a minimum of 9 m when measured from the kerb alignment. Car parking should comply with the following requirements: - 1 space/ 75m² of

GFA up to 7,500m²; - 1 space/ 200m² for

GFA over 7,500m²; - 1 space / 40m² for

ancillary office GFA; and

- 2% of parking spaces to be provided for accessible parking.

The swept paths provided in the Traffic Impact Assessment demonstrate all vehicles can enter and exit the site in a forward direction. The swept paths demonstrate the internal circulation road is wide enough to enable vehicles to safely circulate within the site. One vehicle crossover is provided, with the total width of the crossover being 13 m. The application seeks approval to provide 262 car parking spaces.

The Department is satisfied the proposed development has been designed to enable safe vehicle access to and within the site. The proposed development incorporates a suitable number of car parking spaces to service the peak parking demands. The Department is satisfied the proposed development is consistent with the access and parking requirements of the DCP.


6.9 - Waste Management

Requires a Waste Management Plan to be prepared.

A Waste Management Plan was submitted with the EIS.

The Department is satisfied the Waste Management Plan has been prepared in accordance with the NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2014-2021 and includes appropriate measures to manage waste over the life of the development.

Schedule 3 – Marsden Park Industrial Precinct 2 - Subdivision, Planning and Design

Development to be generally in accordance with the Indicative Layout Plan (ILP).

The road works approved under DA 15-1088 necessitate a change to the alignment of estate Road 5. The layout of the development pad approved under DA 15-1088 necessitates a change to the alignment of estate Road 4.

Section 1.7.2 of the DCP allows variations to the ILP where a variation is considered minor and the proposal remains generally consistent with the ILP. The Department has assessed the proposed variation to the ILP and has concluded the variation is acceptable on the basis it would: - allow a the logical

development of land consistent with the subdivision layout approved under DA 15-1088;

- continue to maintain the north/south road connections within the MPIP;

- maintain the same number of east/west connections albeit with altered road interface locations; and

- be consistent with the character and vision of the MPIP.

5.1.1 - Street Types Local industrial roads to achieve a minimum carriageway of 13.5 m, with 5.25 m verges.

The proposal seeks to construct the surface of estate Road 5. Road 5 has a 15.5 m wide carriageway with 4.25 m verges.

The Department has assessed the proposed treatments to Road 5 and is satisfied the proposed design complies with the provisions of the DCP.

5.1.4 - ESD Provides additional ESD measures for development in the MPIP.

The proposal incorporates a range of ESD measures including: - an extensive photovoltaic

system on the roof of the warehouse;

- a Building Management System to monitor and minimise energy and resource use;

- LED light fittings; - water harvesting and re-

use system for potable uses;

- AAA rated water fixtures; - translucent roof sheeting; - drip irrigation for

landscaping; and - an Operational Waste

Minimisation and

The Department has assessed the ESD measures proposed as part of the proposal and considers they comply with the ESD controls of the DCP and would provide an acceptable ESD outcome.


Management Systems 5.1.5 - Landscape Design

Each site shall have a landscape design prepared to provide a high level of amenity for staff and visitors and outdoor areas should be screened from potential harmful uses on site.

The development would provide an outdoor staff area 337 m2 in area adjacent to the canteen/lunch area and incorporates shade and landscaping.

The landscape treatments have been designed to integrate with the building design and provide a suitable interface with estate Roads 4 and 5. The proposed shade structures will provide a high level of amenity for future building occupants.


APPENDIX E ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The Environmental Impact Statement and associated documentation is located on the Department’s website at:



APPENDIX F SUBMISSIONS

Submissions are located on the Department’s website at:




APPENDIX G RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

The Response to Submissions is located on the Department’s website at:




state significant development assessment ikea multi

Documents